Is Edg Number Same As Medicaid Number: Fill & Download for Free

It’s not.Don’t get me wrong. The stability and economic prospects associated with continental Europe are significant. Tens of thousands of refugees have died in crossing the Mediterranean and the Adriatic since the 1980s. Hundreds of thousands ventured into European Borders monthly during the apex of the Syrian Refugee crisis. Millions of displaced people live within the European continent today. [1] [2] [3]However, this is far from exclusive to Europe.[4] [5] [6] [7]Turkey is hosting over three times the number of Syrian Refugees in Europe all by itself, whilst only Germany makes the top 5 list of refugee host nations. Millions of attempted crossings do suggest that European nations would be the preferred destination for many (if not most) refugees, but claiming that “responsibility” is not falling on Middle Eastern nations is absurd. The nations bordering Syria were far more impacted by Syrian mass displacement than Europe was.[8] A worrying truth as many of these nations lack the capacity to properly integrate and protect refugees. [9] [10] (This is without mentioning that over 6 Syrian million refugees are displaced within Syria).An estimated 300,000 Palestinian refugees and nearly 10,000 others who sought protection (mainly from Iraq) lived in Lebanon prior to the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011. With the waves of Syrian arrivals, Lebanon now has more refugees per capita than any other country in the world. This influx of refugees (Lebanon officially refers to them as “displaced persons” and generally does not accord them rights beyond those of other foreigners) has put a definite strain on the Lebanese economy. However, Lebanon was already facing multiple economic contractions before the start of the Syrian refugee crisis.Families rely on informal labor methods to survive and an estimated 180,000 Syrian children are in the labor market rather than school. Overall, fewer than half of the 631,000 school-age refugee children in Lebanon are in formal education, according to Human Rights Watch, in large part because of lack of funding for classrooms and teachers and inaccessibility to schools due to lack of transportation.The VASyR2018 report found that more than half of Syrian refugees are “unable to meet the survival needs of food, health, and shelter.” Sixty-nine percent live below the poverty line, while 82 percent had borrowed money in the three months prior to the survey, demonstrating a consistent lack of resources for everyday needs.Thankfully, this is a problem that America, with a developed economy and various means of enabling migrant integration, does not share. Despite the best efforts of the current Administration to suggest otherwise.[11]White House officials opposed to refugee resettlement rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), according to the Times, because it does not support their argument that resettlement is an unreasonable fiscal burden. Indeed, the 55-page draft shows the opposite, finding that refugees brought in $63 billion more revenue to federal, state, and local governments than they cost over the 2005-14 period surveyed. In place of this analysis, HHS submitted to the White House a three-page document that looked only at HHS expenditures on refugees (such as Medicaid), ignoring taxes paid by refugees and other receipts ….Since almost all resettled refugees arrive in the United States with nothing, it is not surprising that in their first years here, they rely more heavily than U.S. citizens on public benefits. But our research at MPI shows that refugees integrate successfully, and that as their years of U.S. residence increase, their public benefits usage declines and income levels rise, approaching parity with the U.S.-born population. In fact, refugee men are more likely to work than U.S-born men, while refugee women work at the same rate as their U.S.-born counterparts.The economic self-sufficiency that is the core goal of the U.S. refugee resettlement program is thus being met, as both the MPI and HHS reports attest. Refugees are not the fiscal burden that some in the White House suggest. [9]The refugee population that resides in Europe is significant, but it is only a fraction of the global(and regional) total. It is poorer, less stable nations that have borne the brunt of refugee inflow thus far.Sources[1]It's 34,361 and rising: how the List tallies Europe's migrant bodycount[2] Migration to Europe in charts[3]Number Of Migrant Deaths In Mediterranean Fell In 2018[4] Latest statistics and graphics on refugee and migrant children[5] By the Numbers: Syrian Refugees Around the World[6]The State of Refugee Integration in Germany in 2019[7] Refugee Statistics | USA for UNHCR[8] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf[9] A Fragile Situation: Will the Syrian Refugee Swell Push Lebanon Over the Edge?[10]Turkey’s Syrian refugees—the welcome fades[11] Why Hide the Facts About Refugee Costs and Benefits?[12] Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees

I'd be afraid to run the math .... but I think the savings could be as high as $1 trillion per year - possibly more - a lot more.I'm actually working this into a larger piece for publication - but here's the teaser/trailer:Lost in the debate of single payer is what we're already doing with Medicare. In fact - Medicare is basically single payer for age 65 and older - and by extension, single payer in the U.S. is sometimes referred to as "Medicare for all."The advantage that a single payer system has is economy of scale - across three axis:Universal coverage = largest divisible poolLowest possible administrative costsLargest possible discount pricing (based on highest possible volume)1: Universal coverage:As I've argued before - take any procedure - say one that costs $10,000. Forgetting for a minute HOW this is paid for - here's the math for the polar extremes:$10,000 / 1 = $10,000 (= direct cost to 1 individual)$10,000 / 311,000,000 = 0.00003215434 cents (= universal coverage)The U.S. system is clearly somewhere in the middle - but the problem we have today is that we've been trending toward the first example (and away from the second) for decades. That's how we now have about 48 million uninsured (< age 65) and another 36 million "underinsured." [1] That is a staggering number - relative to the non-elderly population. Especially when you consider that every other industrialized country starts with universal coverage. We are the only country that doesn't have universal coverage which (I'm fond of arguing) is not the same as "single payer," although many try to lump the two together in favor of a political agenda.So - independent of actual cost - the fiscally prudent thing to do is to argue in favor of turning a $10,000 cost into fractions of a penny. That's the effect of universal coverage.2 & 3: Single PayerUniversal coverage is also the basis for step 2 - single payer. You can have universal coverage without being single payer (Germany is a great example), but single payer is (by default) universal coverage.The effect of single payer (ie: the Government) isn't that they run the delivery of healthcare - or even that they run the administrative side of healthcare delivery. They don't do that today. Again, using Medicare as an example, they outsource the administrative side of Medicare (ie: "claims processing" etc) for Medicare to the private payer industry. Those contracts would remain intact - and we'd simply scale that to include the private side. That wouldn't be that difficult, because guess what - those same private payers? They handle all the administrative side of private insurance right along side handling Medicare and Medicaid. So the payer "landscape" would shrink (from hundreds of separate companies - to those big enough to handle all 3 combined). THAT is the administrative effiiciency we can only dream of because today, we have hundreds of companies (from giants - to small ones) that underwrite (and then outsource the admin function) that all need to make a profit. That's the admin side.So - to this point - we've taken a $10,000 procedure down to a fraction of a cent - and we've pushed that through a small number of commercial payers to handle the administrative side.But here's where we get to the 3rd and final leg - cost. Today our National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) is about $3.2 trillion per year (in 2010 [2]). But what are the big 3 categories of spending that we should really focus in on? Here's that chart:10 different categories combined account for 39% of our NHE. Go ahead - knock yourself out chasing big $'s there. It won't happen.The top 3 categories = 61% of out total NHE! Here's where we can find some really BIG $'s - and need to focus all of our collective energies. We also KNOW there's a TON of money here - principally because of 2 reasons:1) Lack of universal coverage2) Lack of bargaining power in a highly fractured, diffused marketBut how can we be sure there's a TON of money there? Let's compare a "basket" of 6 costs to some other countries:Since I'm obligated to get out the calculator in defense of my $1 trillion saving figure - perhaps this is a good time to do just that.Let's just take that last category - birth deliveries - and let's (for a second) say that under a single payer system, the new price was lowered to equal what Switzerland (the second highest) charges for theirs. Here's how that plays out for a single procedure:Almost $28 billion/yr - on one procedure.We could magnify this basket to the top 100 procedure and drug costs - and there would be some narrowing of the difference - maybe - but the savings are there and very real.In a nutshell - we don't come close to ANY OTHER COUNTRY in terms of costs.Now - in fairness - one of the biggest reasons we don't compare - is because the prices we're comparing - aren't Medicare/Medicaid prices - they're commercial pricing. Which brings us full circle. The two reasons our "commercial pricing" is so high?We cost-shift the negative margin of Medicare/Medicaid pricing back over to commercial pricingUnlike other countries (all with universal coverage), our government can't "negotiate" volume discounts on drugs - which itself is a full 10% of our total NHE.The proof of #1 came earlier this year in a consulting analysis by L.E.K. Consulting. I wrote about the study in reference to hospital pricing here:Why Pricing Transparency Won't Affect Hospital PricingThe chart that L.E.K. created helps to visualize that cost-shift:In effect, Medicare, Medicaid and "the uninsured" are all NEGATIVE MARGIN on the largest single category of NHE - Hospital costs (31%).Which brings us to Obamacare. The only effect that Obamacare is likely to have (assuming it's even given a chance to work) is not on cost - but on the uninsured. Here are the two charts that highlight the estimated effect of Obamacare through 2022:The bad news for the ACA is threefold:We don't SOLVE the "uninsured problem"We don't have any positive effect on NHEWe haven't even begun to talk about the 3 biggest categories of NHE!Now, is this argument accurate with scientific precision? No. Does it need to be? No. This is the system we have created - and it will not be easy to change for the reason that Governor Rick Scott gave last year (Top Ten Healthcare Quotes for 2012):“How many businesses do you know that want to cut their revenue in half? That’s why the healthcare system won’t change the healthcare system.” Rick Scott - Governor of FloridaAll of which is why I continually refer to Obamacare as "legislation" around the edge of healthcare - not at the core. The core is pricing. The core are the top 3 categories of our NHE.While we argue, fuss and fight over websites and number of enrollees - Rome is burning. We are literally rearranging deck chairs - and we will not have an impact on the one chart that represents our global embarrassment and national crisis - this one:NB: In an effort to pre-empt a lengthy debate on "life expectancy," please just disregard the comparison to life expectancy. That alone is a book worthy topic. For the purpose of this question - and this answer - please just focus on per capita spending - relative to the rest of the industrialized planet.For those who wish to argue the comparison using life expectancy - I would suggest you simply broaden the lens to include other key metrics. Two that come to mind are infant mortality and medical errors. We have consistently ranked low on infant mortality and medical errors are now the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. (behind Heart Disease and Cancer). The system we have isn't just the most expensive on planet earth - it's NOT producing results that remotely qualify it as worthy of the huge cost!==========================[1] Commonwealth Fund: Large Shares of Adults Are Uninsured or Underinsured[2] The Hidden Cost of U.S. Healthcare - Deloitte - 2010

I can think of a few reasons — but certainly one possibility is the asymmetry of the knowledge between doctor and patient.Doctor’s are often aware of cutting edge (and expensive) diagnostics that may not be available as a covered diagnostic service to Medicaid patients.As it is, many MD’s simply don’t take Medicaid patients at all — and those that do can easily limit the number of Medicaid patients they see to avoid either negative or lower margin revenue.The bad things [in] the U.S. health care system are that our financing of health care is really a moral morass in the sense that it signals to the doctors that human beings have different values depending on their income status. For example, In New Jersey, the Medicaid program pays a pediatrician $30 to see a poor child on Medicaid. But the same legislators, through their commercial insurance, pay the same pediatrician $100 to $120 to see their child. How do physicians react to it? If you phone around practices in Princeton, Plainsboro, Hamilton — none of them would see Medicaid kids. Uwe Reinhardt (1937–2017) Economics Professor at PrincetonThis isn’t meant to be an indictment against doctors as much as an indictment of our whole healthcare system which has been tiered for one reason — and one reason only. As the delivery mechanism for tiered pricing which is how capitalism often maximizes revenue and profits.'Single-Payer' Healthcare Isn't Necessary -- But Single Pricing IsThe greatest trick the devil ever played was brainwashing Americans into believing that healthcare — like other products/services — can be a “consumer choice.” The only real choice we have is how much coverage we can afford — and the biggest bang for our buck is through heavily subsidized employer coverage.