Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Lesser Politicized Cost-Controlling Measures of the Affordable Care Act



Running Head:  COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                           1










Lesser Politicized Cost-Controlling Measures of the Affordable Care Act

Robin Persun

Excelsior College





























COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     2




Abstract


The Affordable Care Act was passed into law in 2009 by President Obama.  How providers

deliver healthcare,  as well as how patients receive healthcare,  is about to change. 

Reimbursement will now be based on best practices and patient outcomes; quality of care instead

of quantity of services ordered.  Providers across the continuum will now be mandated to work

together in the patient’s best interest, while at the same time, cutting costs.  Fortunately, the bill

was passed with enough flexibility so that multiple tests of change and pilots can explore what

changes improve care while also reducing costs.  Health insurance exchanges, medical home

pilots, paying for performance, reducing medical fraud and waste, and the use of electronic

medical records are just some of these tests of change.


Keywords:  healthcare reform, Affordable Care Act, best practices, patient-centered


















COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     3


Lesser Politicized Cost-Controlling Measures of the Affordable Care Act                                 

Many experts in the health care field agree that our current delivery model is inefficient

and costly. "The United States spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare,

yet we rank 37th in overall quality" (Paradis, Wood, & Cramer, 2009, p. 282).  This

nation is poised to embark on the biggest change in the way we not only deliver care, but also

how providers are reimbursed. As we move our healthcare delivery model away from paying for
quantity of procedures, tests, and pills and toward a model that pays for performance and patient
outcomes, the cost curve should bend. Because of the negativity surrounding the passage of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), most of the more promising cost-controlling measures have not
yet been fully discussed or appreciated.
            Health insurance exchanges are at the core of this discussion.  An exchange is nothing more than an electronic marketplace where people and small businesses can visit to compare and choose the private insurance plan that works best for them (Sperling, 2012, p. 17).  Information about health care reform and the exchanges is located on the federal website www.healthcare.gov.  Kingsdale (2012), who collaborated on the health insurance exchange project in Massachusetts, states that increased competition and price transparency should help curb health care costs (p. 98).  Concerns surrounding the exchanges range from consumer fear of the federal government’s overreach and the possibility of the government mandating health care decisions.  In many arenas, patients and private insurance companies already participate in this type of marketplace.  The Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and the Medicare Advantage Program are two such exchanges.  All plans must meet basic requirements to be listed on the website.  Consumers can navigate the site to research  plan options, compare costs,
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     4

and purchase whatever plan they desire.  At present, each State has the option to develop their own exchange with the financial assistance of the federal government. If a State chooses to opt out, the federal government will create the exchange for that State (Kingsdale, 2012, p. 100).                  The way that this Country pays for health care services is about to change as well.  This, by far, will be the biggest challenge and will need to be changed slowly over time.  Currently, there are several pilot studies tackling multiple facets surrounding reimbursement methods.  Bundling of acute and post-acute services is one such option.  At present, insurance companies pay for, and providers are rewarded for, the quantity of pills, tests, and procedures ordered.  This system lacks the impetus needed to change the way that providers think about health care delivery and Americans think and act about their own health and at risk behaviors.  Seventy-eight percent of all money spent on health care surrounds treatment of a few chronic medical conditions (Paradis et al., 2009, p. 282).  Bundling of services reimburses providers for a certain period of time, usually 30 days after discharge, for all costs associated with a chronic medical condition or surgery (DeJong, 2010, p. 660).  This model includes reimbursement for all costs provided by all providers taking care of the patient during that period of time.  Obvious benefits of this model include a better coordination of patient care and cost savings.  According to DeJong (2010), it also allows the providers to use their own innovation and creativity to cut costs and improve care (p. 661).  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2019, bundling of services could save $18.6 billion in Medicare costs alone (Boyce, n.d., p. 974).  Input from physicians, case managers, dieticians, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, nurses, and hospitals is essential for this model to succeed.  Everyone will need to
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     5 

work together with clearly defined and flexible goals to keep costs down while, at the same time, enhancing patient progress.  The current Medicare system uses a similar method of reimbursement – the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) model.  This reimbursement model is problematic as it's never been updated to include other provider roles.  Using a hypothetical case of bypass surgery for a diabetic patient, the current fee for service model would divide payments as follows:  hospital - $47,500.00, surgeon - $15,000.00 for the surgery; hospital - $12,000.00, physician - $2,000.00 for complications related to diabetes; and hospital - $25,000.00 for an expected readmission to the hospital after discharge.  This totals $101,500.00.  Under one pilot program, the Prometheus Model, the reimbursement rate would be $89,300.00.  This amount would be broken down to $61,000.00 for the physician, $13,000.00 for the hospital, and an extra $15,300.00 for potentially avoidable costs (Boyce, n.d., p. 974).  Working together as a team, the providers could reduce costs by consulting with each other, working toward and meeting the patient’s individual goals, and preventing complications that would result in a readmission to the hospital.  Per Boyce (n.d.), physicians fear they would always be at risk for losing money due to negative outcomes (p. 974).  There would also be an increased cost to some facilities which do not have a robust case management program.                                                                                       Another pilot program that has been explored since the 1990’s is the Medical Home concept.  A medical home also relies heavily on a coordinated approach to management of patients with chronic and complex health issues.  Again, a team approach is important.  A primary provider (physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner) leads a team that could include a pharmacist, a dietician, a physical therapist, a nurse and ancillary staff.  Increasing
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     6

access and having a personalized approach to every patient on that team’s much smaller panel will enable the patient to learn more about their disease process, potential complications, treatments, medications and self-care needs (Wood, 2012, p. 21).   Key concepts are to reduce hospital readmissions and emergency room (ER) visits.  It is estimated that if all Americans had access to a medical home, our nation could save $37 billion annually (Wood, 2012, p. 20).  In 2009 and 2010, Wood (2012) states that Qliance, a Seattle based company, saved money by reducing their ER visits by 65% and hospital length of stays by 43% (p. 21).  MeritCare Health System and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota collaborated on another medical home pilot in 2005 (Fields, Leshen & Patel, 2010, p.819).  The authors (2010) noted that the collaborative team successfully implemented a rural program that reduced their ER visits by 24% and their hospital lengths of stay by 6% resulting in a savings of $530.00 per patient per year (p. 823).  Concerns include access to a primary care provider and the patient's desire to comply with treatment choices and at risk behaviors.                                                                                                            Payments based on performance, patient outcomes, and best practices are going to be another big challenge for our medical reimbursement system.  Currently, the Center for Medicare Services is implementing parts of the program based on a barrage of reportable preventable measures.  Patient readmission rates are reportable and available for public scrutiny for a few chronic conditions which include myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and pneumonia.  If a patient is readmitted to the hospital for complications surrounding any of these conditions, that hospital and possibly the discharging physician could be monetarily penalized.  This, in itself, should be a motivating factor for making sure patients have a coordinated team approach
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     7

before discharge.  All patient needs should be considered.  More thorough education about medications, treatments, and self-care should be addressed with the patient and evaluated before and after discharge.  Access to follow-up appointments must be monitored.  Tests of change should be implemented to see what works best for providers and patients.  When a patient’s length of stay is increased due to a preventable condition, reimbursement for treatment surrounding those complications may be reduced or eliminated.  Examples of preventable complications could include patient falls; infections caused by poor technique during central line or Foley catheter insertion; C. difficile infections; or retained foreign body after a surgery.  It is estimated that “readmissions drive up healthcare costs by as much as $4.5 billion to $11 billion” (Healthcare Financial Management Association, 2011, pg. 1).                                      Reducing medical waste is also an area that needs to be addressed.  Because our current system is based on quantity or fee for services, providers tend to order and charge for more of each.  According to M. Pickett (2012), waste in primary care is a real problem resulting in about $7 billion annually.  In 2009, a study conducted by Mount Sinai researchers found the following areas of concern:  prescribing brand name cholesterol medication instead of generics; ordering an annual CBC for every patient on their panel; repeat x-rays, CT scans or MRIs for patients complaining of chronic back pain; unnecessary antibiotic use for children with non-bacterial sore throats, and annual repeats of echocardiograms, urine tests and PAP smears (“Waste in primary care”).  One concern is that the ACA will mandate limits or ration these tests, taking the doctor and patient out of the decision making process.  In this study, it was only the unnecessary routine testing that was challenged.  The study states that defensive medicine and fear of litigation are
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     8

the largest motivating factors for overuse of routine testing (Picket, 2012, “Waste in primary care”).                                                                                                                                                          The ACA mandates that a medical loss ratio (MLR) of at least 80% applies.  Basically, this means that 80% of insurance premiums a patient pays must be used to pay for patient-related expenses – as opposed to administrative costs of the insurer (Demers, 2011, p. 8).  In 2012, many insurance carriers were mandated to issue refunds to their patients based on that MLR.      Customer satisfaction is another reportable measure in the new system.  Areas of concern include staff communication with patients about their care, environment of care (noise level and cleanliness), pain control, and quality of discharge instructions (Rau, 2012, para. 4).              Best practices and patient outcomes are also reportable.  These are referred to as core measures and clinical guidelines; both are based on studies that have been conducted and evaluated for best results.  Currently, measures for patients diagnosed with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, community acquired pneumonia, immunizations, sepsis, stroke, and pre- and post-operative guidelines for prevention of complications are being monitored.   Targets for best practices are outlined and tracked.  In October, 2012, “Medicare estimates about $850 million will be reallocated among hospitals under the program” (Rau, 2012, para. 2) based on the hospital’s ability to meet time and parameter goals.                                    Best practices will be monitored by a panel of health care experts.  The panel will review studies and assist in determining what medical treatments work best for certain conditions.  They can make recommendations to Congress, but cannot change or create policy. One area experts are evaluating is the use of coronary stents.  Per N. Bakalar (2012), the cost to place one
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                     9

stent is between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00.  More than one million stents are placed annually.  The researchers reviewed eight randomized studies comparing stent placement and use of more conventional cardiac medications.  The studies determined that no better outcomes were realized for those patients; both stents and medication use had about the same percentage of angina after treatment.  About 50% of those patients had a stent placed without trying medical management first.  The providers and the hospitals are making more money with stent placement without realizing any better patient outcomes (Bakalar, 2012, “No Extra Benefits are Seen”).                                  The last area of cost savings to explore is fraud prevention.  From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012), the ACA has advanced techniques for monitoring providers for billable services.  A new team, commonly referred to as HEAT (Health Care Prevention and Enforcement Action Team), has been implemented.  This team monitors for illegal billing practices, duplicate billing and false provider codes.  In 2011, the team discovered $530,000.00 in false billing in just two stings.  In 2012, the HEAT team uncovered another $452,000.00 in false billing.  They have created state-of-the-art anti-fraud detection software that assists them by reporting suspicious and irregular billing practices.                                                                             The government also implemented a new durable medical equipment (DME) competitive bidding  process that is anticipated to save $42.8 billion over the next 10 years (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012, “Summary of Fraud Prevention”).  In the current reimbursement model, a DME company continues to bill patients long after the retail cost of the equipment has been collected.  Under the ACA, patients will now "rent" a wheelchair or hospital bed.  After the base cost of the equipment is recouped, the DME company will officially transfer ownership of the equipment to the patient. 
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                   10

            So, “What will the most crucial part of health care reform be? What will tie all of the above facets together?”  The use of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) comes to the forefront of this conversation.  Once this nation has moved to an entirely electronic medical record that communicates across the continuum, providers should be able to reduce their costs by increasing efficiency, cutting down on medical errors related to legibility and the human factor, reducing duplication of tests and procedures, tracking preventative care and better patient outcomes, and increasing regulatory compliance.   Everyone from the hospital, to the nursing home, to the provider, to the patient will know what kind of procedures and tests work better.  Of course, there will always be exceptions to what works for an individual and what doesn’t, but at least treatment goals will be based on real reportable evidence.   The biggest concern surrounding EMR is the initial expense of finding and implementing a system that works across all continuums without compromising patient privacy.  Per Dell Services (2010), a net cost savings of $80 billion annually should be realized and is projected to climb to $2 trillion annually once all providers switch to an EMR (“Economic/Financial").                                                                     What is clear is that this nation is embarking on the biggest change in the way health care is envisioned for all Americans, not just the ones who can afford it.  Change is a challenge, but can be rewarding for everyone involved.   Moving forward, basing our health care delivery model on one that takes patient outcomes and best practices into account as well as controlling the costs involved, is a step in the right direction.  The most appropriate reason for changing the way we deliver health care in America is the approach that all treatments should have all patient’s best interests in mind.  Customer satisfaction, best practices and patient outcomes are of the upmost importance.  Many of these measures are reportable and viewable by the public. 
COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                   11

Soon, patients will be able to choose their providers and places they receive their care based on these numbers and what is ultimately more important to them.  In the end, providers will be rewarded for better patient outcomes and held accountable for errors.  Patients will be rewarded by having more control over their health care decisions and will be held accountable for their own actions and at risk behaviors.  The Electronic Medical Record will, by far, be the most important part of real health care reform.  What works well and what doesn’t work well will guide where health care goes in the future.  Change will come.  Innovation and flexibility will be needed. Challenges will be met and surpassed.  The patient will come to the forefront of actions.  This is the way it should be: This is the future that should be embraced.  All providers will work as a team to improve patient outcomes, discover best practices, cut costs, improve efficiency, and reduce waste and abuse.







COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                   12


References

Bakalar, N. (2012, February 27). No extra benefits are seen in stents for coronary artery disease. The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/health/stents-show-no-extra-benefits-for-coronary-artery-disease.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Boyce, B. (n.d.). Practice applications: Paradigm shift in health care reimbursement: A look at ACOs and bundled service payments. Journal Of The Academy Of Nutrition And Dietetics, 112(7), 974-979. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.05.015
Fields, D., Leshen, E., & Patel, K. (2010). Analysis & commentary, driving quality gains and cost savings through adoption of medical homes. Health Affairs, 29(5), 819-826. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0009
Healthcare Financial Management Association. (2011, December). Hospital perspectives on reducing and preventing readmissions. Healthcare Financial Management, 65(12), 1-6.  Retrieved from Business Source Complete Database
Kingsdale, J. (2012). Benefits and challenges of health insurance exchanges. Journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association, 66(4), 96-100.  Retrieved from Business Source Complete Database
Paradis, M. W., Wood, J., & Cramer, M. (2009). A policy analysis of health care reform: Implications for nurses. Nursing Economic$, 27(5), 281-287.  Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database
Pickett, M. (2012). Medical waste: Identifying and reducing unnecessary care. Retrieved from insureme.com: http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/wasteful-health-care-spending












COST-CONTROLLING MEASURES OF THE ACA                                                                   13

Rau, J. (2012, October 1). Medicare’s pay for performance effort begins; Targeting quality and readmissions. [Web log post] Retrieved from Kaiser Health News: http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/10/medicares-pay-for-performance-effort-begins-targeting-quality-and-readmissions/
Sperling, K. L. (2012, 1st Quarter). Health care exchanges: The new paradigm for employer-based health coverage.  Benefits Quarterly, 28(1), 17-21.  Retrieved from Business Source Complete Database
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). New tools to fight fraud, strengthen federal and private health programs, and protect consumer and taxpayer dollars. Retrieved from  Healthcare.gov:  http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/medicare-fraud02142012a.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012).  The health care law and you.  Retrieved from                Healthcare.gov:  http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html
Wood, S. M. (2012, 3rd Quarter). The medical home bends cost curve. Benefits Quarterly, 28(3), 20-24. Retrieved from Business Cource Complete Database








Saturday, August 11, 2012

My Vision for Changing the Nation

These are just some of my ideas.  I realize some may be simplistic and unrealistic in today's society.   I am convinced we could get there, but we have to start to make these changes.  We need the conviction as the People to ensure our future by taking a first step.


Campaign Finance Reform

Starting with the next 4 year election cycle, there would be no more money in politics.   That would
include personal or private money.  Voting and raising money would no longer be considered
Freedom of Speech.  If need be, a Constitutional Amendment would be passed.

Any money donated or raised by any candidates or organizations would go into a fund that would
set up local and statewide election funds to cover the costs of websites or booklets to be
distributed.  Individuals and Corporations could still donate money, but full disclosure would be
necessary.  And the money just goes into one fund for all candidates, no party divisions.  If
politics and the system is so important to you as an individual, your vote should be enough.  And if
you just want to help fund the election process, you can still contribute to the fund.

Each candidate would have his own web page and page(s) in a candidate booklet.  On this web page
or booklet, it would list the candidates background, what he/she stands on all issues - personal,
social or political.  It would also list all personal issues, volunteer or work-related background.  If this
person had been a member of Congress, it would list how they've voted on all prior bills while in
that office.  If they have plans for how they would run the Country and represent the people, they
could describe some of those important plans and their visions here as well.

There would also be a paid fact-checker position to verify the content was accurate.  Any
questionable accuracy would be excluded until proven.

All registered voters would have access to the websites.  If voters don't have access to the internet,
booklets would be mailed as is the case now.  There would be a deadline for printing so that
citizens would have time to review all candidate information.

The only ads allowed would be ads funded through the election fund itself.  Ads would only be able
to state the names of the candidates, the position they were running for and the web site address
and  booklet mailing dates.  The ads would have to list all candidates running.

To cut down on the possibility of voter fraud, a National ID system would be set up.  This would
benefit all Federal and State programs.  It would be tied into multiple Government systems so
that anyone who applies for any government or private programs where an ID is required would be
entered into the database.

Also, our representatives would no longer spend as much time in Washington.  They would be in
their district offices at least 90% of their time.  They would only go to Washington for special business with Congress or the President.  All other business would be done through
teleconferencing.  This way the representatives would be more accessible and in touch with their
constituents.  It would also limit access to lobbyists.  The lobbyists would now need to spend their
own money sending their lobbyists out into the field.   Strict disclosure laws would apply so that all
constituents would know which lobbyists visited the representatives and what they did to influence them.

Congressman would no longer have lifetime benefits when their terms are over.  They would be put on COBRA until they become gainfully employed again and responsible for their own Healthcare benefits.


Financial Reform

All banking institutions would be required to continue to disclose the items that have
been included in the Consumer Protection laws recently enacted.  As they try to find loopholes
around the current regulations by making new rules and charging other fees, then they will need to
disclose those changes as well.  These changes would not be allowed to be buried in their annual
disclosures.  Anything new would need to be in a new mailing to all current customers.

Banks could not block consumers from removing their money from their institutions.

If current or future Administrations want to change consumer protection laws, legislation would
need to be passed in Congress.  There would no longer be options to defund regulations passed.
Again if we have to pass a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.

Any contract signed by an institution and an individual would need to follow the basic rules set out
by the Truth and Lending Act.  All contracts must be written at the Federal age level for reading,    the 6th grade level.  The contract would also need to fairly basic and short.  It would include basic terms like interest rate, pay off terms, fees and penalties charged, collateral held, contact information and any special State laws pertaining to the contract.

Below is a copy of the new suggestion from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.  It’s very
short and sweet.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/static/cc/kbyo_cc.pdf

Wall Street Reform would occur.  No longer can Wall Street have unlimited power to do with our money whatever they want.  There would be strict regulations for gaming and hedge betting.


Social Security Reform

Someone who is intimately involved with the Administration of this program must be in charge
of this reform.  It could even be more than 1 person or a group of people, promoted temporarily
from within the Administration.

They would be tasked with comparing the money taken into the program and the money paid out.

They would also be tasked with long term solvency - at least 25 years out so they could look at the
projection of the generational age groups of Americans paying into and collecting SS benefits.

Once a formula is set up, most of the group would go back to their regular jobs - 1 post would
remain in charge of the program to keep an eye on the changes over the years.  They would
continue to monitor change on a yearly basis.

This program should be strictly set up for solvency.  $1 in = $1 out.  Any money made off of 
investments made using this money would be excess to be invested for a better return.


Retirement Plans

All companies would set up some kind of pension plan for their employees.  Neither the company,
nor the individual would be required to contribute to these plans.  Individuals would be
encouraged to contribute to their plans to supplement their social security income.

When an employee leaves a job and goes to work for another company, they could roll over their
retirement plan to the new job without penalties.  All employees could move their retirement
money around without penalties.

If the company has record profits, they should be able to raise wages or contribute a small amount
to each employee's plans.  They could tie performance or longevity into these contributions.  Rules  would have to be defined in this arena.


Medicare Reform

Again, someone who is intimately involved in the current workings of Medicare would need to be
involved.

The person(s) on the temporary committee would need to look at money taken in and paid out and
compare that over time depending on the generational cross section at the time to assist with projections for solvency of the program.

For now, policy should look at the system as the Health Care Reform Act does – switching from a
System that is corrupt and based on the number of tests or pills prescribed to a system that is
based on pay for performance and outcome measures.  The goal would be to control the cost curve
by focusing on health and prevention.


Government Reform

We would finally be required to make up our minds.  Let's let the Federal Government do what
the Constitution allows.  Whatever is vague as far as the Federal Government's role in society, we'd
need to figure out.  If we'd like to expand the Federal Government's role, then we'd need to pass
a Constitutional Amendment.  If not, then the State and Local Government would have to step up.
The State and Local Government would need to figure out how to fill those gaps with their
own tax base.  The States either want the Federal Government's help or they do not.

Let's decide whether State passed laws supersede Federal law or not.  We can't have it both ways.
Then let's allow democracy to work.  If the State wants to pass a law for their State and we've
decided that that is the right of the State, then so be it.  If a majority votes, the law passes and the
Federal Government must stay out of that issue.  The citizens of each State would be able to add
those items back to the ballots at a later time if so desired.  The majority should rule on these issues.

No longer would profit be allowed on certain Federal Issues.   Our Federal tax dollars would pay for
benefits as they benefit the masses.  This includes:

        Police and Fire Protection
        Prisons
        Defense Contracting
        Healthcare
        Public School Systems - Primary, Secondary or 2 year College Level

These issues are all under the role of the Federal Government, taking care of the welfare of the
masses.  No middlemen.  No one should be making profit on the basic needs and rights of
the citizens.  Our tax dollars would pay for these items.  Any item paid for by the Federal
Government by our Federal tax dollars would be regulated by the Federal Government.


All Police, Fire and EMS Protection would be paid for out of Federal Tax dollars.  Private companies
could still compete for business but bidding processes would apply.


Prisons and Defense Contracting would no longer be for profit.  Corruptions runs amok in this
model.  Prisons would be for violent or repeat offenders, not nuisances.  Other penalties and
punishments would be reserved for nonviolent offenders.

Defense money would be ultimately used to protect our troops and provide better benefits for
those who choose to be part of the military.


Equal opportunity for an  education would be a right for all Citizens.  Our Federal tax dollars would
fund education for all citizens - including through 2 year post-secondary education if so desired.

Private Schools  or Charter Schools would still be options.  They just could not be subsidized by
the citizens.

School Reform would be changed to a Merit-based system.  Suboptimal teachers would no longer
be protected.  Labor and Management would need to work together to make the system a better
working system for the students based on outcomes.
Unions would still be able to  negotiate working conditions and labor practices.  Striking and
lockouts would no longer be options.


All Government agencies would also need to clean their own houses so to speak.  They would need
to present their annual budgets to Congress and streamline all practices, get rid of ineffective
policies and regulations, waste and abuse.  Agencies can either be merged or separated if they
visions and purposes don't match.


Tax Code Reform

No more deductions or loopholes for any personal Federal Taxes.

Progressive rates would apply based on gross income.  All income would be classified and taxed the
same to include wages, non-wage income, capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc..

Income:

$0 -$250,000.00                                      10%
$250,000.00 - $5,000,000.00               15% on income greater than $250,000.00
$5,000,000.00 and above                     20% on income greater than $5,000,000.00


Local officials would poll the People in their districts about what programs are important to
them and what programs have shown improved outcomes.  They would break their budgets down
and show where all revenues and expenditure are going - line by line.

All Local officials would go to their State Legislature to justify their local tax based revenues and
expenses to reconcile their budgets.  The Legislature would then present their budgets to their State
Governor.  The Governor then would take the People's State budgets to the Capital for presentation
to Congress.  Congress would then present the programs that the People feel are paramount to their
own States.  Each year this would happen to insure that the People's tax dollars are spent on what is
necessary and important to them.  Majority and Democracy would rule.

Any other State and Local programs would then need to be supported financially by the State and
Local tax revenues.  No exceptions.  Private and Not for Profits could then petition the People to
support these other items.

Again, all these budget line items would need to be balanced.  If the programs we choose to offer to
our citizens cost more than we're taking in as tax revenues, taxes would then need to be increased
or programs would need to be cut.  These decisions would be made by the People of the US.
Lobbyists for their causes would need to petition and prove to the People that their needs and
desires are the same as the Peoples'.


Unemployment and Welfare Reform

We would still have a robust safety net program for our citizens, but everyone on those ranks would
need to work for their paycheck in one way or another.

Everyone can do something for their Country.  All citizens graduating from high school or a 2-4
year College degree would need to do 2 years of service for their Country - this could include the
Military, the Peace Corps, the Jobs Corps or obtaining a job with their Local, State or Federal
Government.

While looking for a job, the unemployed citizens and welfare recipients would go to work
in their communities doing jobs that would benefit the good of all citizens or their local community.


Immigration Reform

Anyone in this Country legally or illegally at this minute would be allowed to stay to work on
their citizenship.  Strict rules would apply.

Again, everyone would need some type of National ID or visa - whether it's a student or work visa.

At that point, everyone would need to work toward citizenship who wants to stay.  They
would need to pay taxes on their income - payroll, Federal, State and Local taxes.

They would need to learn to read and write English.  They would need to get their GED and work
through the testing process to be a citizen.  If they drive, they'd need to pass the driver's test
and keep their license up to date.  Their children would have to be registered in schools.
They would have to be contributing members of society to stay.

They would have 5 years to accomplish these goals.   At the end of that time, if they weren't finished
with all steps, they would be deported or pay a penalty based on how far they had gotten in the
process.

Anyone who has committed violent crimes or felonies would immediately be deported and not
allowed back in.

Any children already here would be allowed to enroll in college.  They would be allowed to attain
loans based on ability to repay.  They would have 10 years to prove that they wanted to stay here
and be contributing members of our society - working and paying taxes.  If not, they too, would be
deported.


Business Reform

Minimum wage would increase to 12.00/hour and keep up with inflation and the cost of living.
People need a livable working wage to be able to contribute to society.

This would also decrease the number of citizens on the welfare and food stamps ranks.

Health Care Insurance responsibility would be taken away from Employer-based system.
Healthcare coverage would be a right of all Americans.  The Exchange System would still go forward
as would the rest of the Healthcare Affordable Act.  Changes would be make, again based on
outcomes and the costs of the system.  Pilot studies would still move forward to see what is working
and what isn't.

Insurance companies could still enroll in the Exchanges with regulations for what type of plans could
be offered.  The Individual Mandate would still apply.  Individuals would be able to choose from
Private insurance companies and a Federal Government Public Option.

Employers would be rewarded for keeping jobs in the US.  Their tax rate would be 10%.

Employers who send jobs out of the US would be penalized by paying a Tax rate of 35%.  This rate
would be increased if these companies continue to make huge record profits by outsourcing.

No further Federal Government tax subsidies for business would occur on a regular basis.
Tax subsidies would be saved for stimulus in time of need only - when the economy is sluggish and
only for a temporary time period.

Tax subsidies for new and innovative ideas (ie) green energy would be offered to the People, not the
companies.  If someone wants to put solar panels on their house, the subsidy to get the programs
tarted would be for the People, not the Corporation, to make a profit.   They are a business, the risk
of their vision lies with them to survive.





Great change takes Great Minds, Innovation  and Courage.  This Country has forgotten this concept.
Instead, the model we've been using has been based on Money, Corruption and Coercion.
We do not have a Capitalistic Society, we live in an Oligarchy.  This has to change
to a model of working together, taking care of each other and having Personal Responsibility and
Accountability with a Federal Government that protects those with less power, money, influence
and know how to work within the system by Regulation.

I realize that there will be a lot of people who disagree with these concepts - that's why being an American is awesome.  We can all have our own opinions and express them.  Other's have the same right to express their beliefs as well.