« August 2000 | Main | October 2000 »

September 29, 2000

DESPITE ECONOMIC BOOM, NUMBER OF UNINSURED DROPS ONLY 4 PERCENT

42.6 Million Americans Lack Health Coverage, Including 10 Million Children

Despite the longest economic boom in history, the number of Americans without health insurance dipped just 4 percent last year, from 44.3 to 42.6 million, according to data released today by the Census Bureau. While minorities make up 48 percent of the uninsured, 90 percent of the drop was in non-hispanic whites, according to an analysis by Physicians for a National Health Program.

"This discouraging data proves once again that we cannot grow our way out of the health care crisis," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard. "The market is still leaving 42.6 million Americans (nearly one in every six persons) behind, up 5.2 million since 1992."

The 42.6 million uninsured include over 20 million women and 10 million children -- the same number of children uninsured when the Children's Health Insurance Program was enacted.

"The strategies of the last decade to address the problem of the uninsured have failed," said Dr. Quentin Young, National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. "Meanwhile, we're already spending more than twice as much per capita on healthcare as any nation that guarantees universal coverage."

"When I think of the uninsured, I think of my patients who have died because they couldn't get care," said Dr. Deb Richter, a family practitioner in Montpelier, Vermont and President of Physicians for a National Health Program. "A four percent fall in the number of uninsured is a drop in the bucket -- people are still dying and will continue to die until we make health care a right" (1).

In sixteen states, the percentage of uninsured Americans increased in the last year: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. In six states, more than one out of every five persons is uninsured: New Mexico (25.8%), Texas (23.3%), Louisiana (22.5%), Arizona (21.2%), Nevada (20.7%), and California (20.3%)(2). The number of states with less than 10% of the population uninsured has dwindled from eleven in 1992 to just six in 1999.

"Hispanic Americans have the highest rates of uninsurance" noted Dr. Olveen Carrasquillo of Columbia University. "Hispanics are working but employers don't provide coverage -- that hasn't changed."

"Moreover, it's a myth that the majority of Americans have insurance paid for by private employers," continued Dr. Carassquillo. "Excluding workers with insurance paid for by the government or by the employees themselves, fewer than half of Americans (43%) have insurance paid by a private employer.

Private employers pay for an even smaller share of total health spending, just over one-fifth (21.2%)" (3).

"These may be the best of times for the economy, but they are among the worst of times for health care," noted Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard.

"Double digit premium increases are back, medical bills cause half of all bankruptcies, and nobody expects a substantial reduction in the number of uninsured anytime soon. In fact, between premium increases and/or a cooling of the economy, we're likely to see more than 50 million uninsured in the next few years. It's time to reopen debate over comprehensive national health insurance."

######

Notes:

(1) Mortality rates are 20 percent higher in the uninsured. "Health Insurance and Mortality: Evidence from a National Cohort" Franks, Clancy, and Gold, JAMA, August 11, 1993.

(2) If you use the three year moving average, Texas still ranks last in the percentage of its population that lacks coverage (Census Bureau Release).

(3) "Private Employers Role in Providing Health Insurance: A Reappraisal" Carrasquillo et al, New England Journal of Medicine, January 13, 1999.

September 20, 2000

PNHP DATA UPDATE - September 2000

Uninsured and Underinsured
About 20% of poor children lacked health insurance in 1999, about the same percentage as in 1997, despite the enrollment of 2 million children in the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP). The percentage of low-income children with private coverage fell from 47% in 1997 to 42% in 1999, while the percentage with Medicaid/CHIP increased from 29% to 33%, according to a study by the Center for the Study of Health System Change. About 11 million children lacked coverage in 1999 (Center for the Study of Health System Change, 4/00).

The percentage of low-income parents without health insurance rose from 31% in 1997 to 35% in 1999. Researchers attribute the climb to welfare cuts and the lack of employer-sponsored coverage for low-wage workers (Center for the Study of Health System Change, 4/00).

Nearly one million low-income adults in 15 states lost Medicaid coverage between 1996 and 1999, mostly as they moved from welfare to work. In a majority of states, a person working full time for $5.15 per hour exceeds the Medicaid income eligibility requirements. In Louisiana, Virginia, and Texas the Medicaid income limits for a three-person family are $3,168, $4,572, and $4,728 (Families USA 6/20/00).

Hispanics Lack Health Coverage

More than 11.2 million Hispanics are uninsured, including 3.4 million children. Hispanics make up 11.7% of the population but more than 25% of the uninsured. One-third of Hispanics have no health insurance coverage, twice the national average. Only 43% of Hispanics have employer-sponsored health insurance, compared to 63% of Americans overall. 9 million uninsured Hispanics are in working families. Among those who are uninsured, 43% reported they went without needed care and 67% reported problems with medical bills. (Working Without Benefits: The Health Insurance Crisis Confronting Hispanic Americans, Commonwealth Fund, 2/00).

Uninsured Hispanic children with asthma are six times more likely to forego standard medical treatment than non-Hispanics; diabetes-related end-stage renal disease is up to six times more prevalent among Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites; uninsured Hispanic women with breast cancer are twice as likely to be diagnosed at a late stage compared to non-Hispanics; and uninsured Hispanic men with prostate cancer are four times more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage than non-Hispanic men (Latino Community at Great Risk, White Paper of the ACP-ASIM, 3/00)

The percent of low-income adults who are uninsured varies by state from 21% in Minnesota to 50% in Texas. One-fourth of low-income adults aged 55-64 are uninsured. (Urban Institute, 5/18/00).

Currently-insured persons of any race who have experienced a recent gap in coverage are two to three times more likely go without needed care and to have problems paying medical bills than those with continuous coverage. Rates of access/cost problems among those with gaps in coverage are nearly as high as those of the long-term uninsured (Schoen and DesRoches, Uninsured and Unstably Insured: The Importance of Continuous Insurance Coverage," Health Services Research, 4/00)

108 million Americans, 26 million of whom are children, lack dental coverage, according to a report released by U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher. Tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease; more than 33% of low-income children have at least one untreated decayed tooth compared to 17% of children above the poverty line. Tooth decay goes untreated among nearly half of all poor African Americans and Latinos. Some 100 million people lack access to fluoridated water (Los Angeles Times, 5/26/00).

The uninsured are two to three times less likely to seek medical care when they experience serious symptoms than people who have insurance. Researchers asked people about their response to 15 serious health problems, such as a mass in the breast, blurred vision, and chest pain. The appearance of serious symptoms prompted 45% of people with insurance to seek medical treatment, compared to 24% of the uninsured. The uninsured were also more likely to think about getting care but not follow through; 33% compared to 13% of people with insurance. (Archives of Internal Medicine, 5/7/00).

30% of Americans aged 55 to 64 rate their health as "fair" or "poor." Of these, more than half (53%) say they cannot pay their medical bills, 20% are uninsured, 40% rate their insurance as fair or poor, and 40% say they went without needed care in the last year (Commonwealth Fund, "Risks for Midlife Americans," 1/27/00).

Seniors Lack Prescription Drug Coverage

31% of Medicare beneficiaries lack prescription drug coverage, and most of those with private coverage face growing restrictions on benefits. Three of four Medicare HMOs cap drug benefits at or below $1,000 a year, while 1/3 limit benefits to $500 or less. Medigap policies with drug coverage are costly and often cover only 50% of drug costs up to $2,500 (or occasionally 50% up to $6,000).

Beneficiaries without drug coverage average five fewer prescriptions per year than those who have coverage. The disparity is even greater among seniors in poor health who lack coverage - they report filling 11 fewer prescriptions per year than their insured counterparts. Less than half of all Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below the federal poverty level are covered by Medicaid, which covers prescription drugs ("Medicare and Prescription Drugs," Kaiser Family Foundation, 3/00).

In the past six years, prices of the 50 drugs used most frequently by the elderly rose an average of 30.5%, double the rate of inflation. In the past year, prices for 16 of the drugs rose at least three times the rate of inflation (Families USA, New York Times, 4/26/00).

10% of Medicare beneficiaries lacking drug coverage report they did not fill a prescription last year because they could not afford it. Seniors without drug coverage buy one-third fewer drugs but pay nearly twice as much out-of-pocket as those with coverage (Familes USA Report, USA Today, 4/26/00).

Increasing risk of out-of-pocket costs is associated with higher subsequent mortality among elderly Americans, according to a study of over 3,700 seniors. Compared with the low-risk group, seniors in the high-risk group had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.4. (Clancy et al, Arch Fam Med, 2000;9:251-257).

Pennsylvania seniors without prescription drug coverage pay an average of 113% more for medications than large purchasers pay, according to Public Citizen. A survey of prices of the 10 most commonly prescribed drugs at 98 pharmacies found that uninsured seniors are paying between 48% (Pepcid) and 231% (Zocor) more for each drug. Public Citizen conducted similar surveys in several other states. See www.citizen.org./congress/drugs/statereports (Public Citizen Press Release, 4/19/00).

Women without drug coverage pay an average of 114% more for the five most commonly prescribed outpatient medications taken by breast cancer patients (Worcester Telegram and Gazette, 4/27/00).

Costs

Health insurance premiums will rise an average of 9.2% in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) next year. Prescription drug co-pays will also double from $5 to $10 for brand-name medications. CalPERS is one of the largest purchasers of health care, with 1.1 million members (Managed Healthcare Market Report, 5/31/00).

Almost half of the 1.3 million Americans who filed for bankruptcy in 1999 did so at least in part because of medical bills. A study by Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren of bankruptcy filings found that nationwide, 326,441 bankruptcies last year were due to illness or injury, while another 267,575 listed "substantial medical bills." The majority of the bankruptcies were among people who had medical coverage. The impact of medical bills falls most heavily on single women and seniors; 71 of every 10,000 single American women filed for bankruptcy last year (Norton’s Bankruptcy Advisor, Washington Post, 2/25/00).

Large employers’ health benefits costs will increase about 12% on average in 2000, and most expect double-digit increases to continue over the next few years, according to a Towers Perrin survey of 228 Fortune 1000 companies (Employee Benefit Plan Review, March 2000). Workers’ share of premiums averaged $145 a month in 1999, up from $122 in 1996, according to the Center for the Study of Health System Change (Physicians Financial News, 5/00)

Single Payer Would Save Money in Maryland

A single-payer system in the state of Maryland could provide health care for all residents and save $345 million on total health care spending in the first year, according to a study by the D.C.-based consulting firm Lewin, Inc. The study also found that a highly regulated "pay or play" system (in which employers either provide their workers with coverage or pay into a state insurance pool) would increase costs by $207 million.

Editors’ note: The pro-business Lewin group probably underestimated the administrative savings from single payer and overestimated the administrative savings (and hence understated the costs) of their "pay or play" model. Data from hospitals in Hawaii, where there are only 3 major insurers, suggest that if you have more than one payer, there are few administrative savings. However, single-payer systems in Canada, the U.K., Sweden and other countries have garnered administrative savings substantially larger than assumed by Lewin. Hence, the estimate by Lewin that single-payer universal coverage would cost $550 million less to implement in the first year than "pay or play" is conservative.

Medicare spending on home health care dropped 45% in the last two years, from $17.5 billion in 1997 to $9.7 billion in 1999, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office. Some hospitals report keeping patients longer or readmitting patients more frequently. Home care agencies are shunning patients with chronic, long-term conditions (stroke, diabetes, blindness) in favor of patients needing just a few weeks of care (New York Times, 4/21/00).

An 18 year-old Oregon cystic fibrosis patient awaiting a lung-liver transplant has been denied coverage by the Oregon Health Plan. The plan covers both transplants separately, but won’t cover the combined procedure because it "appears nowhere on the list." The case has gone to court (Portland Oregonian, 6/13/00).

Medical and Socioeconomic Inequality

The current U.S. poverty level---- $17,050 for a family of four--- is based on a formula created in the 1960’s, when food consumed more of a family’s income than housing and health care. An updated measure of poverty would increase the number of Americans under the poverty line by about 5.5 million people, to 14.8% of the population (Twohey, National Journal, 4/15/00).

Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 49 are nations and 51 are private corporations (Modern Healthcare, 4/24/00).

Middle-aged blacks are four times more likely than whites in the same age group to suffer or die from a stroke, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Middle-aged Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and Alaska natives also are at higher risk of death from stroke (AP, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/1//00).

Blacks are half as likely as whites to undergo surgery for glaucoma, although the disease is four times more prevalent in black Americans, according to a study of Medicare claims data. The gap has narrowed since the late 1980’s, but still persists (Archives of Opthalmology, AP, 2/15/00).

Nearly half of black (43%) and Latino (48%) Medicare recipients report that they are not in good health, compared to about 25% of whites (Healthcare Trends Report, 3/00).

A record 1.7 million people are currently imprisoned in the U.S. The proportion of the population behind bars has doubled since 1985. Black unemployment - currently at a low of 7.9% - would be as high as 9.4% if prisoners weren’t excluded from employment calculations (Wall Street Journal, 2/1/00).

Over 16% of the nation’s inmates are estimated to have mental illness or substance abuse problems (Baltimore Sun, 3/1/00). As we go to press, New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye announced plans to divert up to 10,000 addicted, non-violent criminals into court-supervised drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration (New York Times, 6/23/00).

The infant mortality rate for African-Americans in Iowa is 20 per 1,000 live births, compared to 5.9 per 1,000 for births to white women (Des Moines Register, 6/1/00)

U.S. teen pregnancies have dropped 17% in the past decade, but at 84 per 1,000 girls aged 15-19, the rate is still the second highest in the industrialized world, just behind Russia. The U.S. teen birth rate (54 births per 1,000 girls) also the second highest, after Armenia. Japan and most Western-European countries report birth rates under 10 births per 1,000 girls. Many of the countries with low pregnancy and birth rates provide more sex education and offer free contraceptives, according to researchers at the Alan Guttmacher Institute (2/24/00).

The U.S. ranks 24th in disability-adjusted life expectancy at birth, according to the World Health Organization. Japan ranks first (74.5 years), followed by Australia (73.2), France (73.1) and Sweden (73.0). The U.S., which spends the most on health, ranked poorly (70 years) because "the bottom 2.5% of Americans have healthy life expectancies characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa in the 1950’s." War-torn Sierra Leone was at the bottom, with only 25.9 years of healthy life expectancy. The full report is on-line at www.who.org. (Chicago Tribune, 6/5/00).

Pharmaceuticals, Inc

Drug companies have contributed $38.3 million to Congressional campaigns in the last decade, with an increasing share (about 2/3) going to Republicans. (See chart next page.) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) received $169,000 from drug companies this year (more than any other Senator), including a $14,000 donation and the use of a company airplane from Schering-Plough. The giant drug manufacturer is seeking patent extension for its allergy drug, Claritin. Two other Senators favoring patent extension - Republican John Ashcroft (R-MO) and Democrat Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) - have received recent $50,000 donations from Schering-Plough (Center for Responsive Politics, 6/00).

Drug companies spent an all-time high of $83.6 million on lobbying last year, employing 297 lobbyists, or "one for every two members of Congress." In 1997 and 1998 their lobbying exceeded $70 million each year ("Prescription Drugs," www.opensecrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics).

They’re not citizens, and they’re not for better Medicare.
Citizens for Better Medicare (CBM), a drug company front group anchored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry’s lobbying group, is working overtime to defeat a Medicare prescription drug plan. Their campaign includes over $65 million in TV, radio, and print ads, a massive direct mail campaign, computer-generated telephone push-polls (which make the recipient think they are voting by pushing buttons on their phone when actually the purpose is to influence their opinion), telephoning seniors to urge them to oppose "big government" and then patching them through to their Congressperson, and phone cards for grandchildren to call their grandparents to ask them to fight "price controls." The campaign, directed by Tim Ryan, former marketing director for PhRMA, is primarily targeting the U.S.- Canadian border states, where seniors have been taking trips to Canada to buy cheaper medications. (Public Citizen, 6/00).

The CEO’s of the top 10 drug companies averaged $20 million in annual compensation in 1998, including stock options. Together they hold $1 billion in stock options (Public Citizen Press Release, 4/19/00).

Drug companies are overcharging Medicare and Medicaid at least $1 billion a year for cancer, AIDS, and other drugs that are administered by physicians. Companies report artificially inflated wholesale prices---which the Health Care Financing Administration uses to set reimbursement rates---and then sell the drugs to physicians at deep discounts. Companies being investigated include Bayer AG, Abbott Laboratories, SmithKline Beecham, Glaxo Wellcome, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Wall Street Journal, 5/10/00).

Medicaid would have saved $27.8 million (34%) on two popular medications if the government received the same discounts as HMOs, as required by federal law. The drug companies claim that HMOs are "repackagers" that sell the medications under their own brand names, hence exempt from the federal law (AP, 2/28/00).

Two U.S. and two German drug companies have agreed to plead guilty and pay $33 million in fines for conspiring to limit vitamin supplies and fix prices worldwide. New York-based Nepera Inc. was fined $4 million and two of its executives were sentenced to prison terms; Reilly Industries of Indianapolis was fined $2 million; and Degussa-Huls was fined $13 million in a niacin (vitamin B3) price-fixing scheme. Merck KgaA was fined $14 million for price fixing vitamin C. Hoffman-LaRoche and BASF AG were previously fined $725 million in the conspiracy (New York Times, 5/6/00).

This is competition? Schering-Plough and Merck are teaming up to extend the patent life of their most profitable medications. The patent rights for Schering-Plough’s Claritin will expire in two years, but the patent on Merck’s asthma drug Singulair does not expire until 2010. The companies have announced that they plan to combine the drugs into one medication, effectively making Claritin off limits to generic manufacturers for another eight years. Similarly, they plan to combine Merck’s cholesterol-reducing drug Zocor with Schering-Plough’s experimental exe- timibe, another cholesterol medication (AP, 5/24/00). In another move to extend a profitable patent, Pharmacia is seeking FDA approval for a combination of its glaucoma drug Xalatan (patent expires in 2011) and the generic, timolol (New York Times, 4/23/00).

Some Medications Are "Unsafe at Any Speed"

The FDA pulled Parke-Davis’ Rezulin off the market in March after it was linked to at least 90 cases of liver failure, including 63 deaths and seven organ transplants. Critics charge that Rezulin should never have received "fast-track" approval; at least two FDA scientists raised warnings about the drug prior to approval (Los Angeles Times, 3/23/00).

Janssen’s heartburn drug Propulsid has been linked to 80 deaths, including 19 in children, and hundreds of heart rhythm abnormalities, since being approved in 1993. The company is "voluntarily" pulling the drug off the market but not for several months (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/27/00).

American Home Products is under investigation for allegedly hiding heart valve problems caused by its diet drug Redux, the "fen" in the fen-phen weight loss combination. The drug was pulled from the market in 1997; a $3.75 billlion class action suit is pending settlement in Philadelphia (Wall Street Journal, 5/16/00).

Several other medications, all approved since 1997, have been removed from the market in the last 30 months. They include: Raxar (grepafloxacin) for causing heart arrhythmias; Duract (bromfenact) for causing liver toxicity; Posicor (mibefradil) for causing heart arrhythmias; and Trovan (trovafloxin) for liver toxicity (Public Citizen, 6/00).

Sparky’s not safe either: The FDA has received reports that 1,000 dogs have died and another 7,000 had bad reactions to Pfizer’s doggy arthritis drug Rimadyl. One consumer group has started the Be Aware of Rimadyl’s Known Side-effects (BARKS) campaign. Pet drugs are a $3 billion business worldwide (American Healthline, 3/13/00).

Public Research, Private Profits

The best-selling glaucoma drug Xalatan was developed by a Columbia University researcher, Dr. Laszlo Bito, with $4 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health. Pharmacia bought the rights to Xalatan for $150,000. Today, the key ingredient for Xalatan, latanaprost, is made at a laboratory in Hungary at a total cost of about $5 million per year. Xalatan generated $507 million in sales for Pharamacia last year, and sales are projected to increase to $750 million by 2002. Pharmacia spent 40% of its revenues on marketing and administration last year, more than twice what it spent on research. Pharmacia and Monsanto merged last year.

A 1995 study by MIT found that, of the 14 new drugs the industry identified as the most medically significant in the preceding 25 years, 11 had their roots in studies paid for by the government. A 1997 study commissioned by the National Science Foundation determined that of the most significant scientific research papers cited in medicine patents, one-half were paid for with U.S. public funds and only 17% were funded by industry (the rest were funded by foreign sources) (New York Times, 4/23/00).

Drug Marketing and Doctors

Drug companies spend more than twice as much on "marketing and administration" as they do on research and development ($26.4 billion last year). At Pfizer, for example, overhead and marketing make up 39% of expenses, compared with 17% for R&D. (WSJ, 7/6/00). Drug companies spend between $8,000 and $13,000 per physician in promotions annually. Physicians who have regular interactions with sales representatives are more likely to have "non-rational" prescribing habits, according to a review of 29 recent studies. Physicians interact with drug sales representatives an average of four times per month (Wynia, JAMA, 1/19/00).

In 1999 the industry spent more than $6.2 billion to detail products to physicians (American Medical News, 4/10/00) Drug manufacturers spent $1.9 billion in direct-to-consumer advertising last year, and a total of $6.1 billion on advertising and marketing (excluding sales representatives’ salaries). They employ 70,000 U.S. salespeople at a cost of an additional $7 billion a year. (Congress Daily, 4/10/00, Wall Street Journal, 7/6/00)

The new editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Jeffrey Drazen, M.D. was cited by the FDA last year for making "false and misleading" statements about the asthma drug, levalbuterol. Drazen received $7,000 from the drug’s maker, and has ties to another 20 drug firms (USA Today, 5/31/00). "Academic researchers should be able to own substantial stock in a company or accept sizeable consultant fees and still accept research support," according to Drazen. (California Healthline, 5/26/00).

The New England Journal of Medicine apologized for violating its own financial conflict-of-interest policies nine times since 1997 in "choosing experts to review drug therapies." For example, the journal published a favorable review of hair-loss treatments by Dr. Vera Price, who received $1.7 million in research funding between 1994 and 1999 from Merck and Pharmacia Upjohn. One of the articles cited was by new editor Dr. Jeffrey Drazen. (Los Angeles Times, 2/24/00).

Corporate Money and Care

Group and staff-model HMOs had only 10.2% of total HMO enrollment last year, down from 40.2% in 1990. For-profit HMOs’ share of total HMO enrollment grew from 12% in 1981 to 64.2% in 1999 (Healthcare Trends Report, January 2000).

Administrative costs at HMO’s averaged 16.4% in the third quarter of 1999. Put another way, the "loss ratio" was 83.6% (American Medical News, 2/21/00).39% of physicians say they "sometimes" exaggerate a patient’s illness to avoid early hospital discharge, list inaccurate diagnoses on bills or report non-existent symptoms, according to a survey of 720 physicians. 29% of physicians report that gaming the system is necessary to provide high quality care. Transplant physican Dr. John Fung at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center said "we do it because we think it is right. We do it for the patients." (Wynia et al, JAMA, 4/11/00; ABC News.com)

CEO Pay Tops $40 Million at HMOs

HMO executives at 17 for-profit HMOs received $42 million in pay and $87 million in stock options last year. Executive pay was up 14% despite a 15% decline in average stock price at the 17 firms. The most highly paid HMO executive last year was Cigna’s Chairman Wilson Taylor, who received $7.5 million in compensation, excluding stock options. William McGuire, M.D., CEO of United Healthcare, was second highest paid with $4.8 million in compensation in 1999, followed by Edward Hanway (Cigna, $3.9 million), Greg Wolf (Humana, $3.7 million), and Leonard Schaeffer (Wellpoint, $3.3 million) (Managed Healthcare Market Report, 5/15/00).

Aetna’s former CEO, Richard Huber, received $3.6 million in severance pay, plus an office and an assistant for 88 weeks. Huber was forced to resign in February after the firm’s stock dived 50%. Aetna’s new CEO is William Donaldson, the former chair of the New York Stock Exchange. Aetna plans to split into two companies, one to focus on its health insurance business, the other on financial services and international insurance (Hartford Courant, 3/13/00).

Leonard Abramson, former CEO of U.S. Healthcare, resigned from Aetna’s Board of Directors in June. Abramson has been receiving $3 million a year from Aetna as part of Aetna’s 1996 purchase of U.S. Healthcare, a deal that paid Abramson $967 million and the company jet. Last year, Aetna also paid a communications firm owned by Abramson’s daughter $7 million in fees and his son-in-law $150,000 for unspecified reasons (New York Times, 2/26/00, Wall Street Journal, 3/23/00, Wall Street Journal, 6/7/00).

Oxford is paying four departing executives more than $7 million in payments and loan forgiveness (Hartford Courant, 3/21/00).

The for-profit dialysis firm Fresenius, formerly National Medical Care (NMC), was fined $385 million in civil penalties and $101 million in criminal penalties for Medicare fraud. The fines were the largest in a five-year anti-fraud campaign involving health care companies that has recovered more than $2 billion for the Medicare Trust Fund. The largest previous settlements were $379 million from psychiatric hospital chain National Medical Enterprises (now Tenet); $325 million from a laboratory unit of SmithKline Beecham; and $255 million from First American Health Care, a laboratory business based in Georgia.

NMC pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to defraud Medicare in three units —LifeChem Inc. Labs, NMC Homecare, and NMC Medical Products. The units were accused of billing for disputed intravenous feeding of dialysis patients and unnecessary blood tests, and violating anti-kickback laws by providing payments, yacht trips, and bear-hunting excursions in Alaska to attract potential customers for its blood-testing business. Three former Fresenius officials have been indicted in federal court in Boston. Two others have pled guilty and await sentencing (Washington Post, New York Times, 1/20/00)

A study of the nation’s 3,000 kidney dialysis centers revealed "major shortcomings," according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Medicare has issued warnings against 481 facilities, but only kicked three centers out of the program in the past seven years. More than 40% of centers have not been inspected for three years or more, and quality lapses threaten patient care, including medication overdoses and exposure to disinfectants or viruses from reused equipment (USA Today, 6/26/00 and GAO).

Pediatric Guidelines Unsafe

The pediatric inpatient guidelines sold by Milliman and Robertson are "dangerous," according to Dr. Thomas Cleary, head of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Texas-Houston Medical School. "Kids might die because of these guidelines," Cleary recalls saying when he was shown the guidelines in 1998. That didn’t stop the company from listing him as a "contributing author," and attempting to portray the guidelines as the result of medical school research. Cleary and Dr. William Riley, a pediatric endocrinologist, are suing the firm and a colleague for using their names. Riley is especially outraged that the guidelines recommend that children with diabetic coma be released after one day - a recommendation "so clearly outside of any reasonable approach to the standard of care as to be wholly reckless." Cleary told the New York Times that there is at least one risky recommendation on each page of the 400-page document, published in December 1998 under the euphemistic title "Pediatric Health Status Improvement and Management" (New York Times, 3/14/00).

For several years, Cigna omitted information about smoking hazards in its quarterly publication "Well-Being" sent to employees at Philip Morris’ tobacco and beer operations. Cigna agreed to "remove or edit pieces Philip Morris found objectionable," such as advice that asthmatics should avoid smoke. The practice was uncovered during a lawsuit filed in Minnesota against cigarette makers (Wall Street Journal, 2/4/00).

Aetna issued a formal apology for "selling policies in the 1850’s that reimbursed slave owners for financial losses when their slaves died," noting that "slave policies were legal before slavery was abolished." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/10/00).

Actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed five years ago in a horseback riding accident, urged medical school graduates in New Jersey to beware the current "profit-driven" and "corrupt" health system. "The people you’ll work for - hospitals, HMOs and insurance companies - are big on doing the least for patients, whereas you’ve studied to do the most." Reeve urged the UMDNJ- New Jersey Medical School graduates to "never forget the compassion, caring, and generosity of spirit that made [them] want to be doctors." (Bergen Record, 5/22/00).

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in June that patients cannot sue HMOs for giving doctors financial incentives to ration care, even if such incentives result in mistreatment. However, they left open the possibility that health plans may be liable for not disclosing such arrangements, according to attorneys active in lawsuits against HMOs.

Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court that "no HMO organization could survive without some incentive connecting physician reward with treatment rationing." "Since the provision of profit is what makes the HMO a proprietary organization," allowing federal lawsuits on the basis of financial incentives "would be nothing less than elimination of the for-profit HMO" (The case is Pegram vs. Herdrich, 98-1949, www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/; New York Times, 6/13/00).

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in New York, Maine, New Mexico and Wisconsin are converting to for-profit status. Indiana’s Anthem, a giant for-profit insurer, bought the Maine Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan for $100 million. Anthem has also purchased or merged with Blues plans in Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire (Consumers Union Update, 5/31/00).

Kaiser says it will end its policy of forcing its San Diego-area psychiatrists to prescribe medication for patients they haven’t seen. Kaiser psychiatrists were expected to prescribe medications based upon the recommendations of social workers. Dr. Thomas Jensen was fired by the HMO for refusing to comply and took Kaiser to court. Kaiser officials defended the policy, saying that "it allowed Kaiser’s psychiatrists to see more patients by eliminating a potentially duplicative initial interview" (Physicians Financial News, 5/00, Los Angeles Times, 4/12/00).

Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Inc.

Columbia/HCA Healthcare will pay the federal government $745 million to partially settle charges that the company "systematically defrauded" Medicare. Some of the company’s practices included "upcoding," improperly bundling unnecessary tests with simple blood tests, reporting marketing expenses as "community education," and billing for home care services for ineligible patients. The settlement is the largest ever obtained by the Justice Department. Criminal charges against Columbia for defrauding Medicare and engaging in illegal financial relationships with doctors are still pending and the company could face hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fines (Wall Street Journal, 5/19/00). A week after it was ordered to repay the government $745 million, the company announced that it is changing its name to "HCA - The Healthcare Co." The Nashville-based company owns 200 hospitals and 80 outpatient surgery centers in 24 states (New York Times, 5/26/00).

Jay Jarrell, former president of Columbia/HCA’s southwest division, was sentenced to 33 months in jail and fined $10,000 for his role in defrauding Medicare. Jarrell and former Columbia executive Robert Whiteside were convicted last July of six counts of conspiracy and defrauding Medicare (AP, 12/23/99).

Three former executives of the Allegheny Health, Education, and Research Foundation were charged with liquidating $52 million in charitable endowments. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/16/00).

Allegheny Health Systems, which went bankrupt and was sold to Tenet, was not the only struggling hospital in Pennsylvania. About 60% of Philadelphia-area hospitals lost money in 1999, according to a report by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Commission. Increases in uncompensated care and low occupancy rates were cited as some of the reasons (Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/9/00).

Beverly Enterprises, the nation’s largest nursing home chain, agreed to pay a $170 million civil settlement, a $5 million criminal fine, and sell 10 of its nursing homes to settle Medicare fraud charges. The company’s California subsidiary, Beverly-California, pled guilty to criminal fraud. Beverly is required to sell 10 homes that engaged in false billing practices or face Medicare exclusion for those homes. The company has 550 remaining facilities. Investigators accused Beverly of bilking the government of $460 million between 1992 and 1998 by exaggerating nursing costs and submitting phony documents. A Justice Department official commented that some long-term care firms have "incorporated defrauding Medicare as part of their business strategy." (Washington Post, 2/4/00)

One in ten nursing homes are in bankruptcy. Maryland-based Integrated Health Services, one of the nation’s largest nursing home companies with 400 homes and 45,000 patients, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. The company reported assets of $3.6 billion and debts of $4.1 billion, which analysts attributed to an overly aggressive acquisition strategy and the Balanced Budget Act cuts. The firm is also the subject of a Medicare fraud investigation (Baltimore Sun, 2/3/00).

Vencor, Inc. owes the government $1.3 billion as a result of Medicare fraud (including the triple damages provided by law). It’s unclear how much the agency can recoup as the company is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Washington Post, 3/14/00).

Also in bankruptcy are Sun Healthcare Group and Mariner Post-Acute Network. The four large bankruptcies account for collective liabilities of $10.6 billion (Modern Healthcare, 3/20/00).

Medicare HMOs

HHS investigators uncovered $4.7 million in "questionable administrative costs" at nine Medicare HMOs. One insurer charged Medicare for $249,283 on food, gifts, and alcohol; four HMOs billed Medicare $106,490 for sporting events and theater tickets (including $25,057 to lease a luxury box at a sports arena); another HMO spent $37,303 on wine, flowers, and other gifts.

Administrative costs are as high as 32% of premiums at Medicare HMOs, according to an HHS study of 232 Medicare HMOs. The HHS report recommends a 15% cap on administrative spending (USA Today, 2/4/00).

Medicare HMOs Drop 1.6 Million Seniors Since 1998

Medicare HMOs are dumping coverage for another 935,000 seniors, in addition to the 730,000 seniors they dropped in the previous two years. Aetna announced it will end coverage for 355,000 seniors in 11 states next year. Cigna is cutting coverage for 104,000 seniors in its HMOs. Other major HMOs dropping seniors include Foundation Health Systems, Oxford Health Plans, Sierra Health Systems, and Pacificare. In the last two years, Medicare HMOs have pulled out of 400 counties in 33 states, discontinuing coverage for 1 of every 9 beneficiaries in HMOs. About 6.2 million seniors, or 16%, are in HMOs (New York Times, 6/3/00, 7/25/00, Washington Post, 6/29/00).

Kaiser announced its D.C. plan will not accept any more senior enrollees after August 8. Kaiser does not want to be "flooded" by the 50,000 seniors whose coverage is being discontinued at the end of the year by three area HMOs (Washington Post, 7/8/800).HMOs overbilled Medicare for $4.2 million in premiums for patients who are dead, according to a report by HHS. About $1.2 million of the overpayments have been recovered (AP, 3/2/00).

Humana agreed to pay Medicare $14.5 million to settle charges of overbilling between 1990 and 1998. The government accused Humana of falsely classifying thousands of seniors, mostly from south Florida, as eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid to collect extra payments (Wall Street Journal, 6/7/00).

Presidential Candidates’ Health Proposals

Governor George W. Bush’s health care proposals include: converting Medicare into an HMO voucher program; promoting medical savings accounts; a $2,750 tax deduction for caring for an elderly dependent at home; 100% tax-deductibility of long-term care insurance; partial prescription drug coverage for seniors (see below); tax credits up to $1,000 for a low-income individual, or $2,000 for a low-income family, to buy insurance.

According to Jonathon Gruber, an economist at MIT, even generous tax-credits costing $13 billion a year would only reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 4 million, leaving 40 million Americans uninsured. Vouchers would increase Medicare’s costs (as Medicare HMOs have done) and leave tens of millions of seniors without secure coverage; 1.6 million seniors (out of a total of 6.2 million who enrolled) have been dumped by Medicare HMOs in the last three years. Benefits have plummeted and premiums have increased dramatically for the remaining enrollees.

Vice President Al Gore’s proposals include: expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to children up to 250% of poverty; allowing parents of uninsured families to buy into CHIP or Medicaid with a 25% tax credit; and partial prescription drug coverage for some seniors (see below).

Gore’s proposals would expand access modestly but leave tens of millions of Americans (including children and seniors) uninsured and underinsured. Most of his proposed new government spending would be funneled through private insurance.

Ralph Nader’s proposals include: not-for-profit single-payer national health insurance including medication coverage, eliminating price-gouging by pharmaceutical companies, and strengthening health and safety regulations at work and for medications and other consumer products. Nader also supports increasing NIH research into cancer and other diseases.

Nader’s proposals would put the U.S. in the ranks of other industrialized countries that assure health care.

Medicare Prescription Drug Proposals

As we go to press, Congress is still divided on prescription drug coverage for Medicare. None of the proposals so far would provide full coverage to all seniors, or take advantage of Medicare’s buying power to command discounts. In the U.K, 92% of seniors report having no out-of-pocket drug costs and 7% of seniors spend less than $50 a month on medications (see chart, page 15).

The Republican plan would give Medicare enrollees the option of purchasing private drug coverage - despite the fact that insurance companies say they won’t sell it because "those most likely to have high drug expenses would be most likely to buy it," according to Chip Kahn of the Health Insurance Association of America. Republicans say they would also direct the U.S. trade representative to negotiate with other countries to "eliminate price controls" on drugs in Canada and Europe. The Republican plan would also pay insurers a subsidy of 30% of their total drug costs – making insurers and the drug industry the major beneficiaries of the plan (New York Times, 6/12/00).

The Democrats’ drug proposals would give Medicare enrollees the option of purchasing drug coverage (at premiums starting at $25 per month and going up to $50 per month). This coverage would be administered by Medicare and have defined benefits. The benefits would include a 50% co-pay and have a cap of $4,000 to $6,000, above which no cost-sharing would be required (Families USA, 7/00) Unfortunately, millions of seniors would continue to lack adequate coverage.

Legislative Update

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) introduced a bill making states eligible for nearly $4 million in grants to assist them in developing plans for universal coverage. States with approved plans would also receive federal Medicare and Medicaid waivers and one-time implementation grants of $10 million plus $3 per capita (States’ Right to Innovate in Health Care Act of 2000, HR-4412, see www.thomas.loc for details).

Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) introduced legislation promoting a state-by-state approach to universal coverage (S. 2888). States would have a maximum of five years to design and implement their plans (including possible single-payer programs as well as Medicaid expansions or other failed solutions). States could receive matching federal funds for up to five years. The bill would limit cost sharing by family income, with families under 150% of poverty limited to paying 0.5% of family income for health care, and middle and upper-income family cost-sharing capped at 5% and 7% of family income, respectively. The bill lacks restrictions on for-profit delivery systems (Wellstone Press Release, 7/19/00, see www.thomas.loc).

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced legislation in May to create a United States Health Service (HR-3000). "The USHS would be owned and controlled by the public and administered primarily at the local level." Lee picked up the struggle from her predecessor, Rep. Ron Dellums. (Legislation is available on the www.thomas.loc web site).

Eighteen states have bills pending to mandate drug discounts. Maine passed a law in May that allows the state to negotiate drug prices on behalf of more than 300,000 residents and to impose price limits starting in July, 2003 if negotiations with manufacturers fail to significantly reduce prices (AP, 5/12/00).

Massachusetts passed similar, though weaker, legislation last year to allow the state to negotiate discounted prices for the uninsured, state employees, and Medicaid recipients (Wall Street Journal, 12/13/99).

California started a program in February giving people on Medicare access to the same discounts as the state gets for its Medicaid patients (LA Times, 2/14/00).

The Governors of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont announced plans to create a regional pool for drug purchases for the estimated 30% of the tristate population that lacks drug coverage (Bangor Daily News, 7/18/00).

Public Opinion

It’s old, but we hadn’t seen it! A 1998 survey by Zogby, the Republican polling firm, found that 51% of Americans would favor a "government-run health care plan that covers everyone in the same way, like the system used in Canada. It would be paid for through taxes and cover all necessary medical costs." Despite the negative descriptors, e.g. "government-run," "covers everyone in the same way," "taxes," only 38% were opposed (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, 2/17/00).

Public hostility to HMOs grew for the fifth straight year, according to a Harris Poll. The phone survey of 1,000 adults found that 59% believe that HMOs compromise the quality of medical care, up from 39% in 1995 (Harris Poll press release, 7/19/00).

International Update

Health care costs are 14% of GDP in the U.S., or $4,270 per person in 1998, compared to an average of 8% of GDP, or $2,000 per person, among the 23 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The U.S. ranks in the bottom half of OECD countries in life expectancy and infant mortality (Anderson et al, Health Affairs, 5/00).

The Alberta legislature passed a controversial bill (Bill 11) in May allowing the province to contract with private, for-profit facilities for outpatient surgery. The bill passed despite repeated public protests and national opposition. Canada’s Health Minister Allan Rock said "Bill 11 is not the direction in which we should be heading to strengthen our publicly-funded healthcare system. We have grave reservations about investing public funds in private, for-profit facilities" (Allan Rock press release, 5/11/00).

While budget cuts have affected public perceptions of the Canadian health system, three recent articles on hospital and surgical care find that the system held up and even improved in some areas during the mid-1990’s.

In Manitoba, median waiting times for most procedures remained stable or fell between 1991 and 1996. However, cataract surgeons who operate in both public and private facilities had much longer waits than surgeons without private practices, suggesting that some surgeons may prolong waits for public patients in order to increase their private practices ("Waiting times for Surgical Procedures," DeCoster et al, Medicare Care, 1999;37:187-205).

A study of the 1992 budget cuts on Manitoba’s teaching hospitals revealed that few beds were closed, and spending per case actually rose. In addition, when expenditures on new hospital programs and expansions were accounted for, the hospitals’ budgets fell less than 1% between 1991/92 and 1993/94. During the period studied, "the provincial hemodialysis program was expanded, a new Psychiatric Health Center was opened, pediatrics was consolidated at one teaching hospital, and the eye surgery program was consolidated at one center, with an expansion in cataract surgery. Each of these involved additional program funding to specific hospitals" ("The Unintended and Unexpected Impact of Downsizing: Costly Hospitals become More Costly" Shanahan et al., Medicare Care, 1999;37:123-134).

A study of hospital bed closures in Winnipeg since 1992-1993 found that about the same number of patients were cared for in 1995/96 as in 1991/92. However, there was a large increase in the number of high-profile surgical procedures, such as angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, and cataract surgery. Mortality and readmission rates did not increase, and there was a decrease in waiting time for nursing home placement ("Monitoring the Impact of Hospital Downsizing on Access to Care and Quality of Care," Brownell et al., Medicare Care, 1999;37:135-150).

India is considered one of the next big export markets for managed care. Legislation opening the insurance market to competition and allowing foreign investors to hold up to 26% ownership passed recently after several years of discussion. (Employee Benefit Review Plan, 3/00).

Articles of Note:

Angell M. "The Pharmaceutical Industry - To Whom is it Accountable?" NEJM, June 22, 2000.

Gerth J, Stolberg SG, "Medicine Merchants: Drug Companies Profit from Research Supported by Taxpayers" New York Times, April 23, 2000.

Gaffney D, Pollack A, Price D, and Shaoul Jean. "The Politics of the Private Finance Initiative and the New NHS" BMJ 24 July, 1999, 249-253.

Marmor T and Sullivan K, "Canada’s Burning: Media Myths about Universal Coverage," Washington Monthly July/August 2000. pgs 15-20.

Powell Ian. "Intellectual Origins and Principles of the Internal Market in New Zealand," New Zealand Medical Journal, 24 March, 2000, 101-104. Enthoven’s pro-market ideology hits New Zealand.

Turshen M. Book review of Disinvesting in Health: The World Bank’s Prescription for Health Mohan Rao, editor. Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol 20, No. 4, 242-243. A collection of articles on the devastating impact of health privatization in India.

Waitzkin H. "How the U.S. Exports Managed Care to Other Countries" Monthly Review, May, 2000.

New Books:

Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor. Ed. Kim, Millen, Irwin, and Gershman. Common Courage Press, 608 pages, $29.95, paper (207) 525-0900.

Understanding Health Policy: A Clinical Approach. Second edition. T. Bodenheimer and K. Grumbach. Appleton and Lange, $34.95 paper (800) 423-1359.

The Second Sickness: Contradictions of Capitalist Healthcare. Revised and Updated Edition, January, 2000. Howard Waitzkin. Rowman & Littlefield, $25.95 paper, $69.00 hardback (800) 273-5720.

National Health Reform American Style: Lessons from the Past Norbert Goldfield, ACPE, $34 (813) 287-2000.

Clear Answers: The Economics and Politics of For-Profit Medicine (in Canada). Kevin Taft and Gillian Steward. The University of Alberta Press, Duval House Publishing, Parkland Institute, 128 pages, $9.95 paper (780) 492-8558.

September 01, 2000

Europe's Cheaper Rx for Health

As the U.S. presidential candidates debate reforming Medicare, similar systems in France and Italy top a U.N. survey. Apart from their cost, their most important difference is offering citizens freedom from uncertainty.

By John-Thor Dahlburg, Richard Boudreaux, LA Times Staff Writers

CLERMONT-FERRAND, France--When Mathis Pascouret recently entered the world, something was dangerously wrong. His mother had unwittingly passed on to him potentially lethal bacteria while he was in the womb, and he was near death.

With a fever of 102 and his heart, lungs and stomach malfunctioning, the gasping newborn was whisked by ambulance to a state-run hospital here in central France. In the new neonatal emergency care unit at Hotel-Dieu Hospital, Dr. Jacqueline Gaulme and others toiled to save the infant's life.

Nine days later, Mathis opened his eyes for the first time, and he is now expected to live.

"We should go down on our knees," said his mother, Estella Pascouret, 29, "and thank the doctors and the hospital."

For Americans, the real marvel in this story might not seem so much medical as financial. Mathis' treatment costs an estimated 8,000 francs, or more than $1,000, a day. But his parents pay nothing.

"Eight thousand francs--it's what I earn in a month," said father Thierry, 38, who makes tires for motorcycles.

Since World War II, the French have deemed their health a national resource too priceless to leave to market forces alone and have instituted a state-run health insurance system that covers everyone. As Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush make Medicare reform a leading issue of their presidential race--they exchanged several pointed remarks at this week's debate--the health care choices in France and elsewhere in Western Europe offer a stark contrast to those in America.

The most important difference is freedom from uncertainty. Despite flaws such as high taxes or slow-moving bureaucracies, government involvement in Europe gives the ordinary citizen an enormous sense of security. In many countries on this side of the Atlantic, people never have to worry about being deprived of essential health services--or prescription drugs, a hot-button issue in the U.S.--because they can't afford them.

What's more, unlike customers of many U.S. health maintenance organizations and health insurers, Europeans such as Estella and Thierry Pascouret can be sure they won't be ruined financially because their health plan is unwilling to cover a particular treatment or pays only a part of the cost.

This year, a 191-country survey by the World Health Organization ranked France's health care system the most effective in the world, with Italy the runner-up. Those ratings are disputed, even in the winning countries, but the survey's bottom line is this: The French and Italians spend far less than U.S. citizens on health care, and they live longer.

The United States--which lays out a bigger share of its income on health than any other country, at 14% of all generated wealth--ranked 37th in the WHO survey, barely edging out No. 39 Cuba.

"I make my students watch episodes of 'ER,' " said Dr. Andre Labbe, professor of pediatrics and respiratory diseases at the University of Auvergne medical school in Clermont-Ferrand. "They're always stunned by what they see. On the last program, there was someone diagnosed with lung cancer who told the doctors: 'Don't bother to treat me. I can't afford it.'

"That," Labbe said, "is unimaginable in France."While admiring the expertise of their U.S. counterparts, European health professionals can be scathing about what they call America's money-driven method of dispensing health care. In France, the government doesn't hesitate to throw its weight around to keep costs down by pressuring physicians, nurses and other care providers.

"The state fixes the level of contribution, reimbursement, the cost of drugs and prostheses--in fact, it fixes just about everything. In terms of the state's mentality, the French system is a lot closer to [Soviet] Russia than to your system," said Dr. Pierre Fender, a Paris-based official in the social security system.

A doctor's house call in France is supposed to cost the equivalent of only $14.28, not including transportation, and a night in a private room in a medical clinic costs $73. Social security, funded mainly out of payroll deductions, reimburses 65% of minor expenses and 100% of major ones.

Italy, which finances its state-run National Health Service entirely from general taxation, keeps an even tighter lid on medical costs. As a result, total public and private outlays on health care and insurance come to $1,857 for each French man or woman and $1,357 for each Italian--a fraction of the $4,178 spent by or for the average American in 1998.

Even when an ill person can pay nothing at all, the health networks in these countries are supposed to react with competence and compassion.

France's social security program was first restricted to the gainfully employed and retirees, but a 1998 law extended it to everyone on French soil.

"It's a fact that when you need care in France, you go into a clinic or a hospital, and they'll take care of you--take your blood pressure and try to see what's wrong. They don't ask for your credit card," said Dr. Christian Pradeyrol, president and general director of a 250-bed private clinic in Aurillac, a town in Auvergne.

While millions of Americans worry about whether they can afford health care for themselves and their families, the French and Italians swear by a social contract that makes accessible treatment as much their birthright as being able to speak their minds or vote.

Although the notion that the state should be deeply involved in something as personal as health might be anathema to many Americans, such involvement is a long and welcome tradition in Europe.

Italy Pioneering a Home Care System
While the United States has few doctors who would even consider making house calls, and Congress has cut government payments for home health care generally in recent years, Italy has been pioneering a publicly supported system of free home care.

"Go to the patient. Don't wait for the patient to come to you," were the marching orders to doctors from Dr. Rosi Bindi, who stepped down as Italy's health minister after overhauling the National Health Service to make it more responsive.

In practice, this means that Dino Coltelli, 88, who hated being hospitalized so much that he screamed at everyone around him and often escaped, can now rest easy while doctors and nurses come to his home in Imola in northern Italy. Diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, he has been treated during the weekly house calls for pneumonia, a urinary tract infection and a nervous disorder.

"Without this care, he'd be back in the hospital at least once a month," said Dr. Fabio Suzzi, who sees Coltelli and eight to 10 other patients at home each week, earning a $75 bonus for each visit on top of his $4,000 monthly state salary.

The home care program, organized in 17 of Italy's 20 regions, is an acknowledgment that the country's most reliable giver of informal care--the family--needs some help.

As Italians have fewer offspring, become more mobile and live longer, the tradition of large extended families nursing their ailing elders has come under strain, forcing many senior citizens to face their last years alone.

Liliana Coltelli, 78, cannot care for her husband by herself, and the couple have no children.

Doctors in Imola and the surrounding Emilia-Romagna region, home to 4 million people, treat more than 15,000 patients at home, including 40% of all those with cancer. Regional officials say the home care program has cut hospital costs by $180 million in three years.

Retired people in the region lobbied hard for home care, fought for a role in monitoring the program and are pushing to double the number of senior citizens served.

"If you're treated at home, you keep some control over your own life, your own dignity," said Germano Casanova, secretary of the regional Pensioners Union. "If you enter a nursing home, that's all finished. Not one elderly person in 100 ever walks out of a nursing home."

Indisputably, many French and Italians would be the first to admit that their health care systems are far from perfect. Among the prevalent gripes: a surfeit of red tape, excessively high taxes or payroll deductions to underwrite the systems, delays and inequalities despite avowed noble goals, and the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.

This summer, when personnel from France's state-run hospitals took their usual vacations, some patients being admitted to emergency wards had to wait as much as 10 hours on stretchers before being examined.

Martine Aubry, who until this week held the ministerial portfolio for health, complains that "in big towns, it's hard to find a pediatrician onFridays after 5 p.m." To make sure that not all doctors vanish at night and on weekends, Aubry has asked prefects--the national government's representatives throughout France--to force all physicians to take part in an on-call rotation for emergencies.

Chafing under official pressure, some French doctors claim that politicians on both the left and the right have cooperated since the mid-1990s to craft an ever-tightening straitjacket of regulations and price ceilings that are now suffocating private practitioners and clinics.

"The state has got a noose around our neck, and we're one twist away from asphyxiation," protested Pradeyrol, 55, an anesthesiologist.

This summer, a plan backed by Aubry to hold down rising health costs, in part by cutting office visit fees paid to specialists such as cardiologists, radiologists, neurologists and gynecologists, sparked numerous protests, with 100 angry doctors occupying the Eiffel Tower one morning.

Prompt Service a Goal Often Unmet
Italy's tax-financed system falls short of its goal to provide prompt service, from dental checkups to knee surgery, to all. For every tax dollar the state spends, Italians shell out 38 cents of their own for some kinds of specialized care that are more prompt or reliable.

Franco Bornini, a taxi driver in the northern city of Bologna, found that the waiting list to get free physiotherapy for his dislocated right shoulder was six months long. The injury has partly disabled him, reducing the hours that he can work. So he has resorted to a private therapist at $15 a week over 10 weeks--a financial burden, because he, like most Italians, doesn't have private health insurance.

But the public system offers better care to the neediest--expectant mothers, the elderly and people with life-threatening ailments.

Some of this care borders on luxury. Patients who undergo heart surgery are entitled to two weeks at a rehab center near Lake Garda or Lake Como, prime vacation spots in northern Italy. They receive three hours of physiotherapy in the morning and relax in the afternoon, with the state paying the tab.

Nobody is supposed to fall through the cracks, even foreigners living in Italy illegally.

In Bologna, a publicly funded health center with Arabic and Chinese translators on staff has catered exclusively to immigrant women and their children for the past nine years. The center doesn't even ask to see patients' identify papers. Dr. Giovanna Caccialupa, the director, has rebuffed so many police inquiries about her patients that the police have stopped coming around--even during periodic official sweeps to drive illegal immigrants out.

"We're treated like anyone else," said an immigrant Moroccan mother waiting her turn at the clinic.

This sense of inclusion and security is more than what many immigrants feel in the United States, especially those who are in the country illegally.

Many of the latter say they are afraid to avail themselves of the health care system for fear that information about them will be reported to the police and that they will be deported. In three-quarters of Italy's regions, health officials have set up 138 public health clinics, nearly all in the past five years, especially for immigrants.

Statistics point to a clear impact on Italy's overall health. In part because of intensive efforts to provide prenatal and postnatal care to all mothers, the country's infant mortality rate has fallen to 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. The U.S. figure is 7.2 deaths.

"We in the United States do worse than our European counterparts in the area of prenatal care, both for immigrants and minorities," said Dr. Christopher Murray, an American who heads WHO's health policy program.

French System Tries Reconciling Aims
In France, 30 chronic and especially costly medical conditions, from Alzheimer's disease and AIDS to diabetes and psychiatric ailments, are fully covered by a hybrid health care system that tries to reconcile a patient's right to choose a doctor with a pledge of universal coverage.

Moreover, operations or other medical procedures costing more than about 600 francs ($77) are paid for.

"Six hundred francs--that's the cost of a wrist fracture," remarked orthopedic surgeon Pierre Deguillaume.

When interviewed, the perspiring Deguillaume was at work in an operating theater at the Aurillac clinic, removing a stainless steel brace from around the backbone of an anesthetized 25-year-old pharmacy clerk. The operation took two hours, plus Deguillaume had to make an earlier run to a local hardware store. The brace was U.S.-made, and he needed a non-metric wrench to undo the nuts and bolts.

"There is no cost for any of this to my patient. Everything is picked up by social organizations," Deguillaume said.

For chronically unwell patients who face lifelong expenses, the certainties of such a health system bring enormous comfort.

Take French retiree Roger Martin, 75, whose failing kidneys can no longer purify his blood. Once every two days, the retired electrician and TV repairman who used to have a shop in the town of Montlucon in the heart of France is picked up by a taxi and driven 40 miles for a four-hour dialysis session.

Each treatment costs the equivalent of $267, not including $130 for round-trip taxi fare. Martin pays nothing. For 55 years, he made mandatory contributions to the social security system, or la Secu, as the French call it. The health program now pays for his dialysis sessions, including cab fare.

"I know there are problems over there with hospitalization and the costs," Martin said as he rested on a bed after a dialysis session. "But when we come here, they take us in their arms and care for us. There is always a smile."

In the United States, both leading presidential candidates have come up with proposals to change Medicare, which pays for many of the health care costs of 39 million elderly and disabled Americans. While both candidates propose increasing prescription drug coverage, only Gore would have the government pay a major part of the cost of the coverage. About 13 million elderly and disabled Americans have no coverage at all for prescriptions.

A Uniform Approach to Prescription Drugs

Italy's National Health Service gives full coverage for about 3,000 prescription drugs, including the big-ticket categories: blood-pressure medicines, chemotherapy, drugs for diabetes and HIV/AIDS, plus a full range of antibiotics. Patients have to pay 50% of the cost of a second category of 38 drugs for such ailments as stomach disorders, aching joints and kidney stones.

In the United States, there is no uniform system of insurance for prescription drugs. While most people younger than 65 who have health insurance pay only a $10 to $20 co-payment for most prescriptions, 13 million elderly and disabled people and 44 million people younger than 65 have no insurance at all. For those who are uninsured, a common ulcer drug such as Prilosec if bought in Los Angeles costs as much as $133 for a one-month supply, according to a 1999 study by a California member of Congress. Prices, however, vary by region, as do insurance plans.

In France, the totally infirm older than 60 are entitled to medical care in nursing homes at state expense, while conditions classified as recurring and costly are fully covered for young and old alike. Drugs for such ailments are fully paid for by social security. For others, the reimbursement rate is 65%.

To reduce even further the chance that disease might have financial repercussions, almost nine French people in 10 buy private health insurance to cover minor expenses that aren't taken care of by social security. But the bulk of the country's doctor and hospital bill--75.5%--is paid by la Secu.

Andre Calsac, 75, a former notary in the Champagne region of eastern France, is in his fourth week of chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer of the lymph glands. His treatment is fully financed by social security--including the pain-dulling morphine he is given each day.

"It's all in the hands of the health insurance and the doctors," Calsac said. "I don't have to do anything."

* * *

Dahlburg reported from Clermont-Ferrand and Boudreaux from Emilia-Romagna. Times staff writer Alissa J. Rubin in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times

Placebo Politics

The American Prospect vol. 11 no. 23, November 6, 2000.

Marcia Angell

Health care is back on the political front burner. Not that anyone is talking about a major overhaul, like the ill-fated Clinton plan that banished the issue from polite political discourse for nearly six years. Instead, both George W. Bush and Al Gore are targeting isolated pieces of the health care system: prescription drug benefits for seniors, coverage for the uninsured, and a bill of rights for enrollees in managed care plans. This is the kind of incrementalism now blessed by conventional wisdom--a fix here, a fix there, and eventually it will all add up to universal, affordable coverage.

The resurrection of health care as a political issue reflects three developments. First, after a few years of slowed inflation in the mid-1990s, health insurance premiums are again rising rapidly, partly due to soaring prescription drug costs. Second, despite our booming economy, more than 40 million people are still uninsured (although the number dropped slightly last year). Third--and most important politically--two demographic groups with high voter turnouts are demanding that something be done: Medicare beneficiaries hurting from escalating drug costs and middle-class employees fed up with the tricks of managed care--truncated hospital stays, limited choice of doctors, shrinking benefit packages, seemingly arbitrary denials of coverage, and increasing deductibles and co-payments. All of this is enough to get the attention of Bush and Gore, despite the hazards of being drawn into debate about a subject as mind-numbing and eye-glazing as the American health care system.

But comprehensive reform is thought to be out of the question, given the general belief that the Clinton plan failed because it was too sweeping. (I happen to disagree with this view; see Theda Skocpol's Boomerang for the full story.) Most have drawn the lesson--repeated like a mantra--that only incremental reforms have any chance of (a) being enacted and (b) working. Thus, the few reforms since the Clinton debacle have merely nibbled at the edges. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, for example, permits employees who leave their jobs to continue their health insurance, but is silent on how they can afford the stratospheric premiums that may be charged. Similarly, legislation mandating at least 24-hour hospital stays for childbirth doesn't speak to the general problem of ever-shorter hospital stays. It is in this spirit that Gore and Bush are gingerly attempting to address a few of the more glaring inadequacies of our health care system.

I am extremely skeptical that the sort of incrementalism embodied in the Bush and Gore proposals can work, even though they are targeting bigger pieces of the system than the earlier reforms. In fact, precisely because they are more ambitious yet still piecemeal, they would likely backfire. They would exacerbate the fragmentation, make the system even less efficient, and depress access to affordable, high-quality care. That is particularly true of Bush's proposals, which, in addition to being confused, rely far more on the private sector than Gore's. To understand this paradox, it is necessary to review some salient features of the American health care system.

An Unhealthy System

There is more than enough money in the system now to give Americans all the health care they need or could reasonably want--if it were distributed differently. We spend over $4,000 per capita on personal health care, about twice as much as Canada and the European countries (which cover all their citizens), and the gap is growing. Why is our system such a money sink? Not because our population is older or sicker. All the Western countries have aging populations vulnerable to nearly the same illnesses at roughly the same rates, and ours is actually younger than most. Nor is the reason that we get better outcomes. By all the usual measures of health--life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood immunization rate--we do worse than most Western countries. The only plausible explanation is how health care is financed and delivered. The American health care system is staggeringly wasteful and inflationary.

The United States is unique in treating health care as a market commodity distributed according to the ability to pay instead of as a social good distributed according to medical need. The fact that the system targets market transactions, not medical need, is highly inefficient because it requires constant tinkering to deal with the inevitable result: People who cannot pay still get sick and need to be taken care of.

Although health care is treated like a commodity, it is not traded in anything like a classical market. For one thing, it is largely paid for by third parties, not consumers themselves. Government foots about half the bill for personal health care, and employers about a third. Furthermore, health care is not a discretionary desire, like VCRs and computers. Someone with a brain tumor, for example, is not disposed to shop around for a low-priced neurosurgeon or to postpone the purchase until the kids graduate from college. Patients are dependent on their doctors' judgments as to whether and when they need care and what kind they need. The health care business, then, is highly protected from the usual market constraints, and the tug of war between doctors and insurers adds more inefficiency than it constrains costs.

Of course, third parties (mainly government) also pay for health care in other Western countries, but these countries do not pretend to have markets. Most have an overall ("global") health budget and highly coordinated systems of providing universal care financed through a single payer. The United States has no global budget and no coordination among the parts of the system. Instead, we have a nonsystem, a chaotic hodgepodge of payers, insurers, and providers that function independently and usually at cross-purposes.

For example, insurers and managed care plans compete primarily by developing strategies to attract young and healthy enrollees and to avoid those with chronic illnesses (shunting them off to someone else). They also limit coverage of the high-risk enrollees they do insure, and resist claims so that patients themselves pay as much of the bill as possible. But while such cost-shifting may lower medical costs for each business, it adds to administrative and marketing expenses and greatly increases the costs of the system as a whole. Not surprisingly, the United States has by far the highest overhead costs in the world, in addition to having the only health care system based on dodging sick people.

Despite managed care, the providers in this market--doctors and hospitals--are still largely paid on a piecework basis, that is, fee for service. Other countries do likewise, but we are distinguished by our skewing of fees to favor high-technology services delivered by highly paid specialists. As a result, we still have a surfeit of specialists doing too many expensive tests and procedures, and too few doctors spending time talking with patients.

The Clinton Plan and Its Aftermath

The Clinton plan was billed as a way to control health care inflation while achieving universal access. At the time, it was not so much the public as the third-party payers who were asking for relief. Employers claimed they could no longer afford the escalating costs of health benefits for their workers, and government saw health costs as a budget breaker. After the demise of the Clinton plan, employers turned to managed care to control costs, and it was then that the unbridled ascendancy of market ideology in health care began in earnest. The watchword was "Let the market work." Sure enough, health care became dominated by investor-owned managed care companies, and the market did indeed work--but not in the way most people hoped.

Managed care (of which HMOs are one form) reverses the financial incentives of fee-for-service medicine. Instead of doctors being paid on a piecework basis and thus being tempted to run up costs, managed care companies are paid a set premium for each enrollee. Note that enrollees and doctors are pretty much left out of the loop. The deal is not between them, but between employers, presumably acting as proxies for their workers, and the managed care plans for which the doctors work. But particularly in high-turnover industries, how much does your boss really care about your health? Employers have every incentive to enroll their employees in the cheapest plans consistent with reasonably good employee relations (which will matter less if unemployment rises). And managed care companies have every incentive to reduce medical services so they can keep more of the premiums as profits. Unfortunately, the surest ways to reduce services are to avoid enrolling the sick, to limit coverage, and to deny claims. Managed care under for-profit auspices contrasts radically with the original model of prepaid group health, which was nonprofit, inclusive, preventive, and physician-run.

For a few years in the mid-1990s, managed care seemed to work. That is, inflation in employers' health care costs was greatly slowed. (It was a somewhat different matter for employees, who found themselves picking up costs for more bits and pieces of their medical care.) But even though managed care worked, it did so with extraordinary inefficiency. Managed care companies regularly skim off a substantial amount of their premiums, somewhere between 10 and 30 percent, for administrative costs, marketing, and profits. Some of the rest is diverted to other businesses only indirectly related to health care that have entered the increasingly entrepreneurial health care market. These include brokers to cut deals, physician-management companies, companies to coordinate the care of specific illnesses, billing agencies, marketing consultants, information-management firms, and on and on. They, too, skim off their overhead costs and profits. Ultimately, only about half of the health care dollar makes its way to the doctors and hospitals that actually provide care, and they, too, have high overhead costs as a result of having to deal with multiple payers with different rules. (It is hard to understand how anyone familiar with the health care system can still believe in the myth of the greater efficiency of the private sector.)

Medicare is by far the most efficient and popular part of our health care system (with overhead costs of about 2 percent). Nevertheless, its costs are rising at an unsustainable rate because of the aging of the population and problems that stem in part from the fact that the program is embedded in the larger profit-driven system. In addition, doctors are paid fee for service, and despite some efforts to correct the problem, the fee schedule still preferentially rewards high-technology care delivered by specialists.

The Incremental Reforms of Bush and Gore

An open-ended and pluralistic health care system like ours may seem best tinkered with bit by bit. Since the whole thing is virtually impossible to grasp at once, why not just target whatever sticks out as most in need of fixing? But despite the seeming incoherence of our system, everything is still connected to everything else. Any piecemeal reforms can be offset by changes in other parts of the system as players move to protect their profits. Consider the reforms on the table.

Prescription Drug Benefits. Both Bush and Gore have offered incremental proposals to help Medicare beneficiaries with drug costs and also to mollify younger voters who worry that the program will be gutted by the time they are 65. The fact that Medicare does not cover outpatient drugs is an anachronism; when the program was crafted in 1965, drugs were cheap and there weren't as many. Now seniors are vulnerable to the rapidly escalating prices of the growing number of effective drugs on the market. Bush and Gore would have Medicare directly pay for all out-of-pocket drug costs above a certain level ($6,000 for Bush and $4,000 for Gore) and also for the drug costs of low-income seniors (Bush would begin with four-year block grants to the states for this purpose). Both candidates would pay for their proposals with a portion of the budget surplus plus increased premiums for beneficiaries, but not with an increase in the payroll tax that provides most of the funding for Medicare.

But here the similarities end. Bush would rely heavily on funneling subsidies through private insurers and managed care companies. He would encourage health plans to compete for seniors on the basis of price and choice of benefits, which would include the option of drug coverage. Medicare would pay at least 25 percent of the premiums for drug coverage, which would be set by the market, as would deductibles and co-payments. (Bush would add a drug benefit to the traditional Medicare program, but he is vague about who would be eligible for that or what the terms would be.) In contrast, Gore would rely on expanding federal programs or creating new ones. He would offer an optional drug benefit within the Medicare program for a premium starting at $25 per month. Under this benefit, seniors would receive 50 percent of their drug costs up to a ceiling of a few thousand dollars.

It is hard to take Bush's proposal seriously. He seems blissfully unaware that the private sector that he counts on so heavily is causing many of the problems he is ostensibly trying to solve. For starters, look at the record of the managed care industry in dealing with seniors. Because managed care was thought to be the way to control costs, the government tried (largely unsuccessfully) to encourage Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in HMOs. It originally set premiums at 95 percent of the average Medicare costs in a given region, and invited HMOs to compete for enrollees. That was in fact a substantial overpayment because HMOs enrolled younger and healthier seniors, whose costs were low. In addition, many beneficiaries would enroll in HMOs while they were relatively healthy (HMOs attracted them with broader benefit packages), then return to the traditional system if they became seriously ill and needed expensive care. This revolving door approach not only enabled beneficiaries to enjoy the best of both the managed care and fee-for-service worlds, but it also doubly rewarded the HMOs: First, they were assured of not having to care for their share of sick patients, and second, their premiums were pegged to the average cost of the fee-for-service system, which was driven up by sick people leaving HMOs. By the mid-1990s, it became clear that Medicare spent about 12 percent more for beneficiaries in HMOs than if the same people had been in the traditional program.

In 1997 the reimbursement formula was changed to make premiums better reflect the actual health status of enrollees, although as reported recently by the General Accounting Office and the Health and Human Services inspector general, health plans are still being overpaid for their Medicare enrollees. Nevertheless, with their profits curbed somewhat, many of these companies are deciding to get out of the Medicare business. Nearly two million seniors have been told to find other health plans or go back to the traditional Medicare program. In view of the record, how does Bush propose to get managed care companies to re-enter this market? There is only one answer--offer them more money (the 25 percent subsidy for drug benefits would not be enough). But since they are already being overpaid, that is supremely irrational.

Because Bush's proposals are so foolish, it is tempting to think that Gore's are entirely sensible, but that is not the case. Like Bush, Gore has not addressed a crucial issue in his drug proposals--the drug prices themselves. He blusters a little about drug prices in his campaign speeches, but offers nothing specific. Since neither candidate has said a word about any sort of price controls, apparently both of them would permit drug companies to continue setting their own prices. Yet to offer government subsidies of drug purchases without price controls is to guarantee that already-exorbitant drug prices will rise still higher. The drug companies do not need this windfall. As discussed by Merrill Goozner in the September 11 issue of TAP ["The Price Isn't Right"], the pharmaceutical industry is by far the most profitable in the United States (with one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington). It also already enjoys massive government subsidies, including research funded by the National Institutes of Health to develop drugs and patents to ensure noncompetition. Unlike Bush's plan, Gore's at least holds the potential for price controls since it would give Medicare such concentrated buying power that it could bargain for lower prices. That is why the pharmaceutical industry opposes the plan so vehemently.

Coverage for the Uninsured. Bush's proposal for covering the uninsured would provide tax credits of up to $2,000 per family to purchase private insurance (which would be paid in cash if the family does not pay that much income tax). But $2,000 would constitute less than half the cost of insurance for a family of four, and poor people could not afford to participate. Gore's approach to covering the uninsured is to make sure all eligible children are enrolled in Medicaid or the new state-run Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for uninsured children. Eventually he would expand CHIP to cover the parents of children enrolled in it. Gore also favors permitting adults between ages 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare and giving them a tax credit on part of the premium.

Gore's reliance on CHIP underscores one of the most distressing aspects of our byzantine system: Even those who are eligible for coverage often don't get it. A recent survey showed that most parents of children who may qualify for Medicaid or CHIP are not even aware of it. The states have been so desultory in enrolling children in CHIP that most eligible children are not participating, and 40 states are now facing the prospect of returning the $1.9 billion in federal funds they received for the program. (Needless to say, they're objecting.) New York is dropping many of the children it did enroll because they should have been on Medicaid instead.

Patients' Rights. Legislation to protect patients' rights in managed care plans is the best example of the sort of incrementalism that is likely to be futile. Both Bush and Gore favor some sort of patients' rights bill to restore to patients and doctors control over medical decisions--control that has increasingly been assumed by employers and health plans. A Democrat-backed bill has been approved by the House, and a Republican-backed version by the Senate. They provide for appeals mechanisms when services are denied, for treatment in hospital emergency departments when patients plausibly believe it is warranted, and for doctors and patients to make decisions about referrals. The Republican bill excludes many health plans. Gore would allow malpractice lawsuits against HMOs. Bush would not.

But to the extent that such bills have teeth, they will add to the costs of health plans, which will simply pass those expenses along to employers by raising their premiums. Employers, however, are not required by law to offer any health care benefits at all. So instead of paying higher premiums, they might drop coverage altogether--or limit it sharply by capping their contributions. Employees, for their part, might just drop health insurance if most costs are shifted to them. So patients' rights legislation could swell the ranks of the underinsured and uninsured. At bottom, it is impossible to regulate health care in an employment-based system if employers can opt out.

A Different Incrementalism

Contrary to conventional wisdom, incremental changes of the sort proposed by both Bush and Gore will not work. What needs to be changed is the system itself. Like every other advanced country, we need a single-payer or consolidated-payer system to prevent both the widespread underinsurance and the cost-shifting.

Given the need to address the system as a whole and the uncertainties in doing so, a different brand of incrementalism could work: whole-scale reform gradually applied piecemeal. Suppose we decided that the best system would be to extend Medicare to everyone (essentially a Canadian-style system with twice the money). It could be done incrementally, at first including only the 55-65 age group. The benefit package could be made medically appropriate for various age groups, and the fee schedules could be changed to lessen the overuse of technology. After some experience, Medicare might later be extended down another decade to the 45-55 age group, and so on.

Another reasonable incremental approach would be to permit individual states to experiment with methods of achieving universal, affordable coverage. The "laboratory of the states" would essentially compete to demonstrate the best road to that goal. Democratic Representative John F. Tierney of Massachusetts has introduced a bill (HR 4412: States Right to Innovate in Health Care Act of 2000) that would authorize such demonstration projects. The bill would provide for up to 10 states to develop and implement their own plans for comprehensive health care. Those states would receive direct grants for developing their plans, and if a plan is approved, they would receive all federal funds that would otherwise flow into the state (including Medicare and Medicaid payments). They would also be granted waivers of federal statutory and administrative barriers. That seems to me to be an excellent start toward a promising kind of incremental approach: The overhaul is complete, but only within one region of the country.

Many questions would need to be answered. Should employers be among multiple payers contributing to a single pool? Or should they no longer be involved in health care at all? What should be the role, if any, of investor-owned health care businesses? How would hospitals and doctors be paid? Different states would devise different solutions. Eventually, our federal government might apply minimum national standards, as Canada's federal government did.

The public is alienated by a wasteful, profit-driven system that offers too little care for too much money, is much too hard to navigate, and leaves millions uninsured. To deal with the problems will require fundamental reform, which can be implemented gradually by age groups or by states. But it must be "sweeping" if it is to work. That may mean taking on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries directly--no small task. But if we are to have universal and affordable health care, that is what needs to be done. The money is already there. ¤


URL: http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-23/angell-m.html

Serious Flaws Seen in New Health Care Proposal

California Nurses Association Says ‘Half-Baked' Industry-Sponsored Plan Leaves Far Too Many Uninsured Without Access to Care

The California Nurses Association today November 22 a new health care industry-sponsored plan to expand health coverage has serious flaws that would do little to resolve the continuing crisis faced by tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

Released today by the Health Insurance Association of America, the American Hospital Association, and Families USA, the proposal combines expansion of Medicaid, state programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and employer tax credits.

"It is essential that we reopen the dialogue about this national disgrace – the 44 million people uninsured and another 100 million underinsured in our nation," said Kay McVay, RN, president of the California Nurses Association.

"But this half-baked plan won't get us to universal health coverage. It veers far off course by linking a sound program, Medicaid, to flawed plans like CHIP and the highly risky use of tax credits." CNA is the largest organization of registered nurses in California with 32,000 members.

CHIP uses federal grants to provide additional coverage to uninsured children. But in California where it is called Healthy Families the program "has been so ineffective that the state had to return over $500 million to the federal government," noted CNA legislative advocate Sara Nichols. Many other states have had similar problems.

"Expanding eligibility would simply force U.S. taxpayers to further subsidize a wasteful, inefficient private health care system that has proved itself to be unable to provide care for the uninsured," said McVay.

Offering tax credits to businesses that pay all or part of health premiums for employees could actually "add to the rolls of the uninsured," said Nichols. She warned that many employers who now offer full benefits may decide to drop those programs in favor of credits for partial health coverage payments or just to eliminate health plans entirely. Additionally, Nichols cited a Kaiser Family Foundation study showing it costs three to four times as much to cover a newly insured person through tax credits than through expansion of existing programs.

The two main industry groups behind the plan, McVay charged, "recognize the growing public demand for meaningful health care reform. This initiative, however, is primarily intended to forestall the movement for universal coverage."