Health Care Who Is it Good For?

Fortune 500   Top 10 in Health, Overall Rank, CEO Salary 2015

  1. CVS - 10th
  2. McKesson - 11th
  3. United Health Group - 15th  15 million for CEO salary
  4. Amerisource Bergen - 16th
  5. Express Scripts - 22nd      13 million for CEO salary
  6. Cardinal Health - 26th
  7. Walgreens Boots Alliance - 35th
  8. Johnson and Johnson- 25th
  9. Anthem (was Wellpoint) - 38th   14 million
  10. Aetna - 49th  15 m

CEO Salaries

Health care been very good to insurance company CEOs with salaries at 7 to 30 million. Health CEOS lead all industries in salary 5 of 6 years in one ranking and fall behind finance and telecommunication in other rankings.  
 
Isn't it great to see your health care dollars well spent, or your cable payments diverted?

Others by rank

Pfizer
Humana - 10 million CEO salary
Merck - 25 m
Cigna - 15 m
Rite Aid
Gilead Sciences - 19 m
Abbott- 18 m
Community Health Systems - 26 m
Amgen - 14 m
Tenet Healthcare - 18 m
Baxter International - 15 m
Bristol Myers Squibb - 27 m
DaVita HealthCare Partners - 14 m
Wellcare Health Plans - 5 m
Health Net - 13 million CEO Salary
All of these are higher ranked in the Fortune 500 than Facebook (#242)

Mergers and acquisitions have greatly restrained competition, resulting in only a few options for insurance, drugs, pharmacies, and supplies - which drives up costs and profits and CEO salaries and Fortune 500 Rankings.
 
Most states only have 3 - 5 major health insurance players. And they can do what they want by shaping laws and legislators.

But sometimes there is a clash of the Titans as Express Scripts and Anthem lock horns over who profits most.
 

Recent Posts and References

Innovation Incapacitation - We are so focused on innovation that we cannot even take care of the basics

Safety Net Should Sunset and Front Line Access Must Rise - We need a solid foundation for access, not gaps in access and terminology.

Experimental Innovation or Basic Infrastructure? Wouldn't it be nice if we actually funded infrastructure and basics instead of trying to substitute innovation or other distractions?

For Better or For Worse in Quality - More for fewer and less for more - thus continues the new innovative designs - same as the old designs

Are We Moving Away from Achieving Value in Primary Care? - Quality is over 60% about the patient, situations, relationships and has very little to do with clinical intervention - but this does not prevent serious exaggerations of "so-called value."

Time for Quality in Quality Studies - The Best Studies from the best institutions and journals have led the nation astray in quality studies and we continue down this pathway.

Pressures Mount for ACA Reforms or Revisions - It has taken too long for critical voices to be heard about the consequences of experimentation plus change that is too quick, too costly, and impairs access to care. Compromise may be most specific to small practice and small hospital settings and those that they attempt to serve.

IOM Should Learn About Social Determinants Not Preach Them - Too many IOM studies fail basic research design tests and often for failing to understand important influences of health care outcomes - like social determinants and patient situations and relationships.

The Federal Cause of Shortage Areas and Access Barriers - It is the Federal Design for payment that shapes the breadth, depth, and locations of shortage areas. It is about concentrations of Medicaid and Medicare patients with lowest payment for health access by federal design.

The Real Kerfuffle - How much chaos can family physicians stand? Why do family medicine leaders avoid the evidence regarding MOC? 

Wrong Way Mental Health - Exploitation and insufficient access have been tolerated far too long.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more