By MERTON C. BERNSTEIN
HEALTH CARE
Special to The Kansas City Star
Published on Wed, Jan. 24, 2007

We have reached a national consensus on health insurance — it costs too much and covers too few. Most “reform” proposals, like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and the health insurance industry’s, camouflage their real costs with tax breaks and other subsidies.

But coverage and cost are not two separate problems. Repeated double-digit cost increases caused coverage of millions to disappear. To cover the uncovered, we must — and we can — make better use of the $2 trillion public and private medical-care programs now expend. Banishing unnecessary nonbenefit costs could generate funds to cover everyone.

It is not reform to make individuals insure themselves. An individual mandate would require establishing and maintaining records just to keep track of compliance; enforcement proceedings against every noncomplying individual; processing requests for exemptions; keeping tabs on those not exempted; and repeatedly updating all these steps.

It is not reform to condition subsidies on poverty. Such tests, which also would require repeated updating, would cost tens of billions when applied to millions of people. That helps explain why means-tested Medicaid costs almost 5 percent more to administer than nonmeans-tested Medicare. Nor is it reform to vary millions of individuals’ subsidies based on the inevitable variations in individual income — at great administrative cost.

These nonreforms only increase costs — massively reducing funds for essentials like vaccination. They pepper the much-heralded Massachusetts and Schwarzenegger health-care plan and the health-care-provider proposal, backed by AARP, to extend coverage. Understandably, that proposal omits to say who will pay.

Permitting physician ownership interests in testing laboratories, imaging facilities, hospitals, nursing homes and pharmacies would provide inducements to prescribe what they sell. Rather than assuming that everyone would resist temptation, medical societies and legislation should shut those cookie jars. That would improve care and reduce costs.

Reform will elude us if the public and policy-makers mistake what needs changing. For example, in a 2006 Kaiser Foundation opinion poll, “too many malpractice suits” tied for second as the largest cause of ballooning health-care costs. Yet analyses show that malpractice premiums and litigating costs constitute just 1 percent of medical-care outlays.

If Medicare covered us all, more of the health-care dollar would go for treatment and prevention. Currently, insurers and providers spend huge amounts to match billions of billings with thousands of private plans and many public programs with differing eligibility and benefit criteria.

Medicare for All would save most of those nonbenefit charges. Some object that savings would be slight because providers must maintain records for treatment. Yes, but that recordkeeping does not require clericals to determine what programs, if any, cover claimants, and if so, what is billable and how much is reimbursable.

To tame costs and extend coverage, we must harvest savings where now we sow and reap inefficiently. The Schwarzenegger and Massachusetts gimmicks and the plan shaped by the same people who designed the perplexing and inefficient Part D — health insurers and AARP — plow other fields. Instead of savings, they increase nonbenefit costs. That’s not reform.

Merton C. Bernstein is a Coles Professor of Law Emeritus at Washington University. He was principal consultant to the National Commission on Social Security Reform and is a founding board member of the National Academy of Social Insurance.

(c) 2007 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.kansascity.com

California Nurses Association
National Nurses Organizing Committee
Physicians for a National Health Program

Washington Press Conference Wednesday

Physicians, registered nurses and patients will join together in a Washington press conference Wednesday to respond to President Bushs State of the Union healthcare proposals and to promote legislation for the only healthcare reform that would assure universal coverage, control cost, and end insurance industry interference with care.

WHO: Oliver Fein, MD (PNHP); Deborah Burgher, RN (CNA/NNOC); Reps. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, and Patients.

WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th St. NW, Washington

WHEN: Wednesday, January 24

TIME: 1 p.m.

In addition to commenting on the President’s healthcare initiatives, the physicians and nurses will describe a stepped up campaign on behalf of HR 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act.

HR 676, introduced by U.S. Reps. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich with 78 co-sponsors, is being re-introduced in the new Congress. HR 676 is also supported by 225 labor organizations across the nation. Reps. Conyers and Kucinich will be at the conference to talk about future Congressional efforts.

“There are only two real choices in the present healthcare debate, those commercially-based models which reinforce the insurance industry and fail to provide genuine universal and comprehensive care, and HR 676, a patient-based model which caregivers know is the most effective, humane approach,” said Deborah Burger, RN, president of the 75,000-member California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

“Solutions to the health care crisis based on increasing our reliance on private health insurance companies are bound to fail,” said Dr. Oliver Fein, director of the 14,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program. Insurance companies limit patients’ choice of doctor and hospital, and take money out of patient care and put it into marketing, bill collectors and claims deniers. This situation is morally repugnant. We need a National Health Insurance program. We need HR 676.”

PNHP and CNA/NNOC are co-sponsoring the event.

Contacts:
CNA/NNOC: Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246, 415-559-8991 (cell)
PNHP: Nick Skala, 312-782-6006, 773-220-9268 (cell)

By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
January 22, 2007

President Bush’s Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Mr. Bush’s proposal won’t go anywhere. But it’s still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can’t afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren’t low-income, many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we’re least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.

While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”

Again, wow. No economic analysis I’m aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul’s premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the wealthy; we’re talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What’s driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance — that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.

The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance — admittedly a deeply flawed system — into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out “high risk” applicants — and keeping them uninsured.

I’m somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.

What’s really striking about Mr. Bush’s remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives” to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as “gold plated,” is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush’s speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they’re not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.

Gold-Plated Indifference

By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
January 22, 2007

President Bush’s Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Mr. Bush’s proposal won’t go anywhere. But it’s still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can’t afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren’t low-income, many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we’re least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.

While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”

Again, wow. No economic analysis I’m aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul’s premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the wealthy; we’re talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What’s driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance — that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.

The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance — admittedly a deeply flawed system — into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out “high risk” applicants — and keeping them uninsured.

I’m somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.

What’s really striking about Mr. Bush’s remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives” to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as “gold plated,” is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush’s speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they’re not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.

Saturday, January 6, 2007
Orange County Register

The Register’s editorial, “A healthy dose of free-market forces”[Jan. 2], makes a case for controlling health care spending by reducing government insurance programs and encouraging lower-cost private coverage options that shift more of the spending responsibility to the individual. Such changes theoretically would reduce the “perverse
incentives” to obtain too much care if the individual had to pay for it directly.

The problem with this theory is that most of us need very little care, and the marginal services that we would decline are only a very small fraction of our nation’s total health care bill.

The real reduction in spending would occur with average-income individuals who develop major medical problems and need care.

This reduction would not be the result of informed health care shopping, but it would occur simply because the individuals could not pay the out-of-pocket expenses that would be required by the stripped-down, lower-cost plans.

This is not simply theory, since it has been well documented repeatedly in the health policy literature.

If we follow the Register’s recommendations, hundreds of thousands will suffer needlessly, and tens of thousands will die.

Don McCanne, M.D.
San Juan Capistrano

Register’s editorial: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/editorials/article_1401774.php

WILLIAM CONNOLLY, Columnist
The Evansville Courier & Press
Sunday, January 21, 2007

According to a recent Parade Magazine article by David Wallechinsky, patriotic sentiments notwithstanding, while the United States is still No. 1 in some respects – Nobel prize winners, billionaires and armed forces stationed in other countries – we lag far behind in other categories that more accurately assess social well-being. We lag behind other countries when it comes to health care. Thirty-three countries, including Cuba, have lower infant death rates; 43 have more physicians per capita, including France, Switzerland, Mongolia and Lebanon; and 49 have more hospital beds per capita, including England, Italy and Ireland.

We rank 29th in maternal death rate, 30th in life expectancy for women and 28th for men. All this despite our spending more per capita on health care ($5,700) and as a percentage of gross domestic product (more than 15 percent), higher than any other country.

So why don’t we do better? Perhaps this is a matter of lifestyle. We consume too many calories – we’re No. 1 in obesity. Despite being obsessed with sports, most of the time we are only spectators, not participants. We are inactive at all ages. We have the 15th highest murder rate.

The data also reflect an ailing health-care system, afflicted with confusing, conflicting and inefficient ways of financing care. Most comes from private insurance tied to employment. That system leaves more than 45 million Americans uninsured.

Because the system is composed primarily of the working poor, they end up served by inadequately funded public assistance. They postpone treatment and rely on more expensive emergency care, funded indirectly by the insured. This indirectly increases their costs. As the U.S auto industries have learned, the costs further harm their global competitiveness.

But there is some good news on the horizon. While Washington has provided little leadership, states are beginning to explore alternatives. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently promoted an ambitious plan to provide coverage for all Californians. His goal is commendable because his plan promises universal coverage, requiring all to buy health insurance.

Those who cannot afford it will be provided financial assistance. Insurance companies are required to sell insurance to everyone at the same price. It would enable people to obtain preventive care rather than wait for more expensive emergency care. Since insurers have to provide coverage to everyone, they would not waste resources trying to deny coverage. This would allow for more spending on actual care. Furthermore, insurers would have to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on health care, which is quite the improvement.

The program will, however, result in substantial government intrusion to ensure that people buy insurance. It will also determine who will receive assistance and police insurers, guaranteeing their compliance. All of this seems necessary to keep insurance companies in the game. This may make Schwarzenegger’s proposal more politically appealing to insurance companies that plan to do well in this program. However, this complex interplay of private insurers and government killed the Clinton proposals in the early 1990s.

Why not eliminate the middleman and opt for a single-payer system similar to Medicare, contributed to by everyone, including employers? It would be simpler – and cheaper – for employers and health-care providers.

This is a worthwhile debate. While I believe a single-payer system would be better, Schwarzenegger deserves credit for bringing the issue to the table.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/jan/21/us-should-focus-on-finding-cure-to-health-care/?printer=1/

(c) 2006 The Evansville Courier Co.