PNHP

Personal savings must supplement Medicare

Personal savings must supplement Medicare

Employee Benefit Research Institute
Issue Brief
February 2003
Retiree Health Benefits: Savings Needed to Fund Health Care in Retirement
by Paul Fronstin and Dallas Salisbury

An individual with access to employment-based health benefits in retirement to supplement Medicare will have needed to save a present value of between $37,000-$750,000 to retire at age 65 in 2003. The range is determined by various assumptions regarding age at time of death, premium levels, annual changes to premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses. An individual without access to employment-based health benefits who instead purchases Medigap coverage will have needed to save between $47,000-$1,458,000, to retire at age 65 in 2003. Estimates also are provided for early retirees. The illustrations presented from the model used in this report may underestimate health care expenses in retirement. Expenses for long-term care are not included in this discussion.

This Issue Brief has illustrated the amounts of money a person may need to save by his or her date of retirement in order to pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs in retirement. The estimates vary with assumptions on insurance premium levels, growth of insurance premiums over time, estimated age at time of death, rates of return on investments, out-of-pocket expenses, and retirement age. These are important factors in determining savings needs, and, just as important, they are uncertain factors.

http://www.ebri.org/pdfs/0203ib.pdf

Comment: Because there are so many variables, this study shows that the amount of supplemental savings needed to fund health care in retirement can be as high as $5,343,000. Although that amount is improbable for most of us, our potential exposure is nonetheless significant. Medicare pays only about one-half of health care costs. Medigap coverage is overpriced and provides only meager benefits. And now employment-based health benefit programs are diminishing in numbers and in the amount of coverage provided. All of this means that the exposure to financial risk of health care costs in retirement is increasing dramatically and is highly unpredictable for most of us.

Exposure to unpredictable major financial risk is reduced by pooling that risk. That is what insurance is all about. At our level of current spending, $1.66 trillion, we have enough to fund a universal pool that would cover comprehensive services for everyone. Distributing that risk to individuals makes no sense since it exposes those with the greatest health care needs to financial ruin.

Shall we adopt a rational approach and establish a comprehensive, universal health care risk pool, or shall we each set aside an extra $5 million in retirement savings to cover our worst case scenario?

Medicaid's future is bleak

California HealthCare Foundation
Health Currents
February 22, 2003

In Time of Need, Many to Lose Medicaid Coverage
by Robert Rosenblatt

If misery loves company, then Governor Gray Davis has a front-row seat in a packed house. Each of the nation’s 50 governors is singing the blues about fiscal woes. And all of them are trying to balance their books by taking a bite out of Medicaid, the massive health program for the poor.

At least a million people in just 11 states, including California, are going to lose their benefits, according to a recent study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington research group. That figure could grow by several million more when all of the states have completed cuts needed to balance their budgets.

The conventional view is that recessions come and go and people go on and off the Medicaid rolls. But there is something much more ominous at work here: a combination of factors that could menace the future of Medicaid, which has become the workhorse of the national health care system, delivering services to 47 million low-income people.

It is even bigger than Medicare, which serves 40 million people (35 million over age 65 and 5 million disabled Americans). Rich or poor, they qualify for benefits because of their age or because they have been certified by the Social Security Administration as being disabled. But Medicaid eligibility is strictly determined by income and assets-it is only for those deemed poor enough to meet the rules.

Medicaid is the largest single insurer for children under 18, pays for a third of all births in the United States, and pays for more than 40 percent of the cost of nursing home care. It offers a comprehensive package of benefits: hospital care, doctor services, laboratory tests, and x-rays. States have the option of offering additional services and California provides dental care and eyeglasses under the Medi-Cal program.

Medicaid is a joint effort, with the federal government paying from 50 percent to 77 percent of the total tab, depending on how poor the state is. Last year’s bill was $130 billion from Washington and $94 billion from the states. With prescription drugs leading the way, Medicaid has become the fastest growing social program, with spending up 10.8 percent in 2001, the fastest rate of growth since 1993. At the same time, enrollment rose 8.5 percent, reflecting the fact that more people were drawn into poverty during the recession.

There is no relief in sight because of the worsening fiscal situation for state governments. The federal government can simply print money and run unlimited deficits, but states are mandated by law to balance their budgets.

Last year, total revenues of the 50 states declined for the first time since anyone began keeping accurate records. But this did not just happen because of the plunge in revenue from capital gains taxes on the sale of stock in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble.

On a more basic level, the states’ tax systems, with their heavy dependence on sales tax revenues, are outmoded. They were designed for the manufacturing economy of the 1950s. But the volume of goods on which sales taxes can be levied is growing at a comparatively slow pace. Instead, “Services are growing and we don’t tax them,” Raymond Sheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, said at a recent briefing on the Medicaid crisis. And then there is the Internet, where growing volumes of commerce escape taxes entirely. Nobody knows for sure about the revenue loss, but Sheppach offers a guess that $10 billion to $20 billion a year in potential revenue is escaping untouched through the Internet.

State pension obligations, meanwhile, are taking up a bigger share of the budget, further squeezing Medicaid, which, even in the best of times, has little support among middle class voters. During the fat years of the stock market boom, state governments didn’t have to send much money to the pension funds because the market was taking care of things. Between 1993 and 2000, pension payments by the 50 states rose from $52 billion to $100 billion. However, state earnings on stock and bond investments, which soared from $74 billion to $232 billion, dwarfed these obligations.

The stream of cash has dried up and may never return. In 2001, investment earnings plunged to $53.6 billion. State receipts, including contributions by workers and governments, along with earnings from stocks and bonds, totaled $118 billion, barely enough to cover the pension payments of $111 billion. The states will be hard pressed to meet their pension obligation to retired public workers and Medicaid will certainly be a prime target.

In the first two years of recent budget cuts, the states began trimming payments to providers, the doctors and hospitals and nursing homes that deal with Medicaid patients. But they can’t do that anymore. If they cut too deeply, there will be no doctors left who accept Medicaid patients.

So California and other states now plan to trim the Medicaid rolls by tightening income eligibility standards and making it harder for people to qualify for benefits. Lots of health care that is now routine will become exceptional.

But there are limits to what the states can do. Women without health insurance will still give birth. The nursing homes will still be filled with hundreds of thousands of Alzheimer’s patients who have exhausted all their savings and now rely on Medicaid to pay the bills. And millions of poor children will still need their immunization shots and their bones mended when they get hurt in schoolyard accidents.

Without help from Washington, and with a budget crunch that will persist for years, the states are likely to keep looking for additional ways to trim Medicaid benefits. It will be painful.

The process is called “going back to the trash can,” according to Velvet Miller, a former deputy commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services. Miller added, “These are ideas that you absolutely threw out [because] they were too harmful-now you have to revisit [them] again and again.”

http://www.chcf.org/healthcurrents/

Comment: The clear message is that underfunding of Medicaid is here to stay. Health care for low-income individuals will be doled out from the “trash can.”

The solution is obvious. Fund health care for low-income individuals at the same level as care is funded for the rest of us. Eliminate the profound inequities inherent in a “poverty program,” inequities that are now also pervading our system of benefit-rich health plans for the wealthy, and deficient, Spartan plans for those with moderate income. Even the generous plans negotiated by unions are being paid for by dramatic reductions in the disposable income component of the paychecks of union members, or even by failure to provide inflationary increases required to fund the most basic needs. A disproportionate share of global health care funding is now being shifted to union members.

Health care spending for 2003 is $5775 per capita (CMS). Pooled together, we are spending $1.66 trillion. By eliminating the roughly $200 billion in excess administrative waste, we would have more than enough funds to pay for truly comprehensive health care services for absolutely everyone. And we could free up another $250 billion by reducing in half the current inappropriate utilization of our resources, a not unrealistic prospect if we had a single, integrated method of funding care. That would provide a nice buffer for new technological advances (worth funding as long as they provide value in health care).

Or shall we, instead, follow our current course and send the poor to the “trash can,” and start sending moderate-income individuals to the “thrift store” of health care?

Medicaid’s future is bleak

California HealthCare Foundation
Health Currents
February 22, 2003

In Time of Need, Many to Lose Medicaid Coverage
by Robert Rosenblatt

If misery loves company, then Governor Gray Davis has a front-row seat in a packed house. Each of the nation’s 50 governors is singing the blues about fiscal woes. And all of them are trying to balance their books by taking a bite out of Medicaid, the massive health program for the poor.

At least a million people in just 11 states, including California, are going to lose their benefits, according to a recent study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington research group. That figure could grow by several million more when all of the states have completed cuts needed to balance their budgets.

The conventional view is that recessions come and go and people go on and off the Medicaid rolls. But there is something much more ominous at work here: a combination of factors that could menace the future of Medicaid, which has become the workhorse of the national health care system, delivering services to 47 million low-income people.

It is even bigger than Medicare, which serves 40 million people (35 million over age 65 and 5 million disabled Americans). Rich or poor, they qualify for benefits because of their age or because they have been certified by the Social Security Administration as being disabled. But Medicaid eligibility is strictly determined by income and assets-it is only for those deemed poor enough to meet the rules.

Medicaid is the largest single insurer for children under 18, pays for a third of all births in the United States, and pays for more than 40 percent of the cost of nursing home care. It offers a comprehensive package of benefits: hospital care, doctor services, laboratory tests, and x-rays. States have the option of offering additional services and California provides dental care and eyeglasses under the Medi-Cal program.

Medicaid is a joint effort, with the federal government paying from 50 percent to 77 percent of the total tab, depending on how poor the state is. Last year’s bill was $130 billion from Washington and $94 billion from the states. With prescription drugs leading the way, Medicaid has become the fastest growing social program, with spending up 10.8 percent in 2001, the fastest rate of growth since 1993. At the same time, enrollment rose 8.5 percent, reflecting the fact that more people were drawn into poverty during the recession.

There is no relief in sight because of the worsening fiscal situation for state governments. The federal government can simply print money and run unlimited deficits, but states are mandated by law to balance their budgets.

Last year, total revenues of the 50 states declined for the first time since anyone began keeping accurate records. But this did not just happen because of the plunge in revenue from capital gains taxes on the sale of stock in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble.

On a more basic level, the states’ tax systems, with their heavy dependence on sales tax revenues, are outmoded. They were designed for the manufacturing economy of the 1950s. But the volume of goods on which sales taxes can be levied is growing at a comparatively slow pace. Instead, “Services are growing and we don’t tax them,” Raymond Sheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, said at a recent briefing on the Medicaid crisis. And then there is the Internet, where growing volumes of commerce escape taxes entirely. Nobody knows for sure about the revenue loss, but Sheppach offers a guess that $10 billion to $20 billion a year in potential revenue is escaping untouched through the Internet.

State pension obligations, meanwhile, are taking up a bigger share of the budget, further squeezing Medicaid, which, even in the best of times, has little support among middle class voters. During the fat years of the stock market boom, state governments didn’t have to send much money to the pension funds because the market was taking care of things. Between 1993 and 2000, pension payments by the 50 states rose from $52 billion to $100 billion. However, state earnings on stock and bond investments, which soared from $74 billion to $232 billion, dwarfed these obligations.

The stream of cash has dried up and may never return. In 2001, investment earnings plunged to $53.6 billion. State receipts, including contributions by workers and governments, along with earnings from stocks and bonds, totaled $118 billion, barely enough to cover the pension payments of $111 billion. The states will be hard pressed to meet their pension obligation to retired public workers and Medicaid will certainly be a prime target.

In the first two years of recent budget cuts, the states began trimming payments to providers, the doctors and hospitals and nursing homes that deal with Medicaid patients. But they can’t do that anymore. If they cut too deeply, there will be no doctors left who accept Medicaid patients.

So California and other states now plan to trim the Medicaid rolls by tightening income eligibility standards and making it harder for people to qualify for benefits. Lots of health care that is now routine will become exceptional.

But there are limits to what the states can do. Women without health insurance will still give birth. The nursing homes will still be filled with hundreds of thousands of Alzheimer’s patients who have exhausted all their savings and now rely on Medicaid to pay the bills. And millions of poor children will still need their immunization shots and their bones mended when they get hurt in schoolyard accidents.

Without help from Washington, and with a budget crunch that will persist for years, the states are likely to keep looking for additional ways to trim Medicaid benefits. It will be painful.

The process is called “going back to the trash can,” according to Velvet Miller, a former deputy commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services. Miller added, “These are ideas that you absolutely threw out [because] they were too harmful-now you have to revisit [them] again and again.”

http://www.chcf.org/healthcurrents/

Comment: The clear message is that underfunding of Medicaid is here to stay. Health care for low-income individuals will be doled out from the “trash can.”

The solution is obvious. Fund health care for low-income individuals at the same level as care is funded for the rest of us. Eliminate the profound inequities inherent in a “poverty program,” inequities that are now also pervading our system of benefit-rich health plans for the wealthy, and deficient, Spartan plans for those with moderate income. Even the generous plans negotiated by unions are being paid for by dramatic reductions in the disposable income component of the paychecks of union members, or even by failure to provide inflationary increases required to fund the most basic needs. A disproportionate share of global health care funding is now being shifted to union members.

Health care spending for 2003 is $5775 per capita (CMS). Pooled together, we are spending $1.66 trillion. By eliminating the roughly $200 billion in excess administrative waste, we would have more than enough funds to pay for truly comprehensive health care services for absolutely everyone. And we could free up another $250 billion by reducing in half the current inappropriate utilization of our resources, a not unrealistic prospect if we had a single, integrated method of funding care. That would provide a nice buffer for new technological advances (worth funding as long as they provide value in health care).

Or shall we, instead, follow our current course and send the poor to the “trash can,” and start sending moderate-income individuals to the “thrift store” of health care?

Single payer bill introduced in California

California State Senate
Bill Number: SB 921
February 21, 2003

SB 921, as introduced, Kuehl (Sen. Sheila Kuehl). Single payer health care coverage.

This bill would establish the California Health Care System to be administered by the newly created Health Care Agency under the control of an elected Health Care Commissioner. The bill would make all California residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the California Health Care System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_921_bill_20030221_introduced.html

Comment: Sen. Kuehl’s bill is based on the findings of the California Health Care Options Project which demonstrated that all residents of Californian could have affordable, comprehensive health care coverage merely by eliminating the administrative excesses of the current system and establishing a single, publicly administered payer for health care services.

Sen. John Burton is also introducing a pay-or-play employer mandate which apparently is receiving the support of AFL-CIO and the California Medical Association.

Another measure (AB 30, Richman) would “reduce state funding for county hospitals and safety net providers” and transfer those funds to the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Another proposal (AB 293, Daucher) would allow small businesses to provide insurance to employees working a minimum of 40 hours per week, using an hour of overtime to help pay for health care coverage.

Obviously, the debate in California will be between single payer and an employer mandate. Although the leadership of AFL-CIO and CMA may be attracted to the “politically feasible” employer mandate model, union members and physicians need to take a careful look at both proposals. They will see that the single payer program will not only provide greater benefit for all patients in California, but it will also provide greater benefit for union members and physicians. Union members will have greater health and financial security, and physicians will have freedom and the resources to provide the care that their patients need.

Bipartisan or nonpartisan solutions?

sun-herald.com
02/20/03
Dr. Klein invited to speak in Washington

Dr. David Klein, who volunteers to help destitute AIDS patients and migrant workers in his spare time, will also be volunteering to tell the nation’s leaders how to improve the medical system next week.

Klein was invited to speak to congressional leaders Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington, D.C., at the annual meeting of the Physicians Advisory Board.

To be held at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, the meeting features a series of “round table” discussions with such leaders as U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a medical doctor, and other Republican members of Congress.

“Somehow, I got invited,” Klein said Wednesday. “I’ve been a pretty good member of the (Republican) party.”

… Klein said he will also emphasize the need to address the plight of America’s uninsured during his remarks.

“There’re 45 million uninsured Americans,” he pointed out, adding that all Americans should have access to at least a minimum level of basic health care.

He said he will advocate that the nation move toward a “single-payer” medical system, in which a government insurance program would replace the current system.

Under the current system, Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance and patients themselves pay for their health care.

“We’re moving toward a single-payer system — and that’s my wish,” he said.

http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/022003/tp10ew9.htm?date=022003&story=tp10ew9.htm

Comment: In this day and age, when the term “bipartisan” has come to mean that a token Democrat has joined with the Republican majority, some may say that Dr. Klein is supporting a “bipartisan,” single payer solution to our health care crisis (but with the parties reversed). Maybe it is time to set aside political polarization, and look at our reform options from a unified, nonpartisan perspective.

WTO/Bush prevent poor countries from obtaining generic drugs

by Charlotte Denny in Geneva
Published on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
 
George Bush’s close links with the drugs industry were last night blamed for the failure of talks in Geneva aimed at securing access to cheap medicines for developing countries.

Delegates at the World Trade Organization expressed frustration after the US again rejected a deal that would have loosened global patent rules to enable poor countries to import cheap copies of desperately needed drugs.

“We believe that governments should maintain their distance and should not be directed by pressure groups,” one EU trade official said.

Negotiators said a solution to the deadlock lay in America’s hands. “The pharmaceuticals lobby is running the show in Washington,” one development activist said.

The WTO’s 144 members agreed more than a year ago that countries could override patent rules in the interests of public health and license local producers to copy essential drugs. But they failed to spell out how countries with no manufacturing capacity would gain access to life-saving medicines.

A draft accord on imports was rejected by the US last December after lobbying from drugs firms, which fear that relaxing the rules to allow poor countries to import copycat drugs will help generics manufacturers in India and Brazil to steal their markets.

America’s counter proposal, limiting imports to drugs for a shortlist of diseases including HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis, was rejected by developing countries as too restrictive.

Eduardo Perez Motta, the Mexican ambassador to the WTO, who chairs the drugs talks, admitted the Organization’s reputation had been damaged by the deadlock.

A Brazilian proposal, to let the World Health Organization decide which countries were allowed to import copycat drugs, was not even discussed yesterday.

Last week a South African plan that would have required countries to declare a national emergency also failed to win over the US drug industry.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

###

Balanced coverage of reform that isn't

The Hartford Courant
February 12, 2003
Who’s Shaping The Debate On Health Care Reform?
By Theodore Marmor and Kip Sullivan

The 2003 debate about health care reform, unfortunately, is likely to be as muddled as it was a decade ago, when President Clinton promoted universal health insurance under the banner of managed care and the inflation rate in health insurance premiums was also in double digits.

Now, as then, those with interests in rising health expenditures will try to make sure the American public does not understand the real causes of the recent surge in medical inflation. Their loudest argument is that Americans overuse medical care and that such overuse would only worsen if all Americans were insured.

Overuse does exist, the evidence indicates. But so does worrisome underuse. And overuse cannot explain the latest burst in health insurance prices or the sharp rises in what drugstores and doctors charge. There is no credible evidence that Americans received a lot more medical care in the past few years. But the price of health care has skyrocketed nonetheless. That inflation is because of the market power of insurers, drug manufacturers, hospitals and other suppliers of medical services.

Advocates of medical savings accounts and other high-deductible plans talk of overuse because they think they have an answer to it. With a few exceptions, these advocates avoid discussion of underuse. They know they have no solution for underuse and that their practices will almost surely aggravate it. But that does not dissuade them from disseminating the overuse thesis at the meetings of health insurers and the gatherings of groups like the National Association of Manufacturers.

In that context, a sensible discussion of medical inflation, let alone universal health insurance, is very difficult. It is almost impossible when the news media act like an echo chamber, amplifying the voices of the already heard. Well-financed interest groups have lobbyists who are paid and prodded to comment and who show up regularly in debates that journalists try to “balance.” The trouble is that there are 50 industry spokespeople for every underfinanced representative of ordinary citizens. The news all too often then turns out to be what prominent figures in the medical-commercial complex claim.

No wonder that Americans support the reform principles of universal coverage but express fear at most efforts to act on them.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-marmor0212.artfeb12,0,2104280.sto ry?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Doped

Comment: Forums on reform today are amazing. As Marmor and Sullivan note, much of the discussion is on shifting to “consumer-directed” health care, based on the theory that the primary problem that needs to be addressed is the waste resulting from patients’ incessant demand for unnecessary health care services.

The irony is that the problem of overutilization is not due to patients’ quests to get more. It is due to practice patterns that fail to acknowledge that sometimes no medical intervention is a preferred course to an intervention that, in reality, is not beneficial or may even potentially be detrimental. Unnecessary hysterectomies, arthroscopies, antibiotic usage, body imaging and similar excesses are selected and controlled by the physician to whom the patient has turned for the best advice on health care decisions. These are problems that call for systemic reform that would improve physician behavior (another topic). Placing financial penalties between the patient and health care (consumer-directed care) results in decreased use of all services, including, especially, beneficial services. The most serious impact of this is in the care of patients with major medical needs. Erecting financial barriers will often prevent those with the greatest need to have precisely the services they require. This is perhaps the worst health care “reform” ever devised, the epitome of non-solutions.

The forums on health care still acknowledge that the numbers of uninsured continue to increase, that health care inflation continues to exceed the general rate of inflation, that the level of disparities are unacceptable, and, ironically, that the rate of under-insurance (consumer-directed!) is dramatically increasing to the point of causing a surge of personal bankruptcies for medical costs of both insured and uninsured patients. But then the forums go on to address the shift from the age of managed care to the age of consumerism. Where is the discussion of real solutions to these real problems?

Well, there is some discussion. But much of it is directed to finding compromises with this “consumerist” element that has gained control of the debate. Thus the discussion has shifted to tax credits, health reimbursement arrangements or MSAs, association health plans, and other reforms which may tweak the number of uninsured, but will leave those with the greatest health care needs highly vulnerable to financial risk. It is mind-boggling that those supporting universal access to comprehensive services are considering compromise as if there were something of substance with which to compromise. There isn’t. Consumer-directed proposals have nothing to offer in the way of solutions to the real problems in health care.

Those covering the health care debate must insist on receiving answers to the questions they should be asking about these real problems in health care. I emphatically recommend reading the article, “Soaring health premiums creating more uninsured,” by Nancy McVicar of the Sun-Sentinel in Florida. She addresses the real problems and discusses realistic solutions. Admittedly, she does discuss our approach, but then, is there any other that is better?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxinsure09feb09,0,4782118.st ory?coll=sfla%2Dnews%2Dhealth

New York Times Magazine Slideshow

When Sheila Wessenberg’s breast cancer was diagnosed and she needed a lumpectomy and then a mastectomy, her husband Bob’s insurance covered her care. Then Bob lost his job in December 2001, and they and their two children went from living comfortably on his $102,000-a-year salary to facing bankruptcy. They managed to pay for health insurance out of pocket for six months, until the premiums jumped to $832 a month. After being rejected for Medicaid because they had too many assets, the Wessenbergs joined the ranks of the 41 million uninsured Americans. Sheila, who was forced to quit chemotherapy midtreatment, is tempting the odds.

”We used to have a little left over for nicer things and enough to start saving for a rainy day,” says Bob, a 51-year-old former Lotus programmer who recently found an $11-an-hour job. ”Then we got a rainy month and now we got a rainy year.” Things remain dire, so his wife has turned to panhandling. Read the full story.

Physicians Propose Solution to Rising Health Care Costs and Uninsured

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 3, 2003, 11:00 a.m.
CONTACTS:
Joel Segal, Office of Rep. John Conyers
202-225-5126
joel.segal@mail.house.gov

Physicians Propose Solution to Rising Health Care Costs and Uninsured

Introduce National Health Insurance Bill in Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of the nation’s most prominent physicians and progressive leaders of Congress will hold a press conference briefing Tuesday, February 4, 11am, 2226 Rayburn House Office Building, to unveil a new bill, The United States National Health Insurance Act, a single-payer national health program. The legislation proposes an effective mechanism for controlling skyrocketing health costs while covering all 42 million uninsured Americans. The bill also restores free choice of physician to patients and provides comprehensive prescription drug coverage to seniors, as well as younger people.

“Good news,” says Dr. Quentin Young, convener of the physician panel. “There is now a way to exit the nightmare of a collapsing health system. We no longer have to put up with the outrageous costs that keep millions of Americans from receiving medical care and needed medications. Nor will tens of thousands of families have to declare bankruptcy over medical bills. Universal national health insurance (single payer) takes the resources we have in place and deals with them in an intelligent manner, excluding the tragic hemorrhage of resources into non-health entities.”

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine*, is the spokesperson for the Physicians Working Group on Single-Payer National Health Insurance, an ad-hoc collaboration of the nation’s top physicians. Dr. Angell will present the proposal at the briefing.

Other members of the group include Dr. Gerald Thomson and Dr. Christine Cassel, former Presidents of the American College of Physicians, the second largest medical association in the country; Dr. Rodney Hood and Dr. Gary Dennis, former Presidents of the National Medical Association; Dr. Elinor Christiansen, immediate Past-President of the American Medical Women’s Association; and Dr. Ron Anderson, CEO of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas. (*Affiliations for identification only. A full list of Working Group members is at the end of this release).

Representative John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and ranking minority Member of the House Judiciary Committee will introduce The United States National Health Insurance Act on February 4. A long time advocate of national health insurance, Rep. Conyers closely collaborated with the Physicians Working Group on the bill.

Additionally, nearly 4,000 individual physicians have endorsed the physicians’ proposal including two former Surgeons General (Dr. David Satcher and Dr. Julius Richmond); a Nobel Laureate (Dr. Bernard Lown); the highly respected authors of major textbooks of surgery and family practice (Dr. William Silen and Dr. Robert Rakel, respectively); and a leading organizer of emergency services in NYC on 9/11(Dr. Lewis Goldfrank, Chairman of Emergency Medicine at New York University).

Also joining the physicians and Congressmen to endorse the National Health Insurance Act will be Dr. Maya Rockeymoore, Urban League Director of Health Policy; Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research; and Hillary Shelton, a spokesperson for Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP.

Original Congressional co-sponsors of the NHI bill at press time are: Dennis Kucinich (OH), Luis Guitierrez (IL), Jim McDermott (WA); Bobby Scott (VA); Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands); Barbara Lee (CA); Danny Davis (IL); Major Owens (NY); Jesse Jackson Jr.(IL); Maurice Hinchey (NY); Donald Payne (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI); Alcee Hastings (FL); Chaka Fattah (PA); Ed Towns (NY); John Lewis (GA); BennieThompson (MS); Eleanor Holmes-Norton (delegate for DC), and Raul Grijalva (AZ) (listing in formation).

National Health Insurance Act Press Conference
February 4, 2003 11am
2226 Rayburn House Office Building, Judiciary Committee Room

*Physician Working Group Members

Marcia Angell, MD
Spokesperson
Past Editor
New England Journal of Medicine

Quentin Young, MD
Convener
National Coordinator PNHP
Former President American Public Health Association

Joel Alpert, MD
Former President
American Academy of Pediatrics

Ron Anderson, MD
President and CEO
Parkland Health &Hospital System

Peter Beilenson, MD, MPH
Commissioner
Department of Health, Baltimore

Christine Cassell, MD
Former President
American College of Physicians
Dean, Oregon University School of Medicine

Elinor Christiansen, MD
Past President
American Medical Women’s
Association

Olveen Carrasquillo, MD, MPH
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Columbia School of Medicine
Advisory Committee Member
National Hispanic Medical Assn.
Gary Dennis, MD
Former President
National Medical Association

David Himmelstein, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Co-Founder, Physicians for a National Health Program

Rodney Hood, MD
Past President of the National Medical Association which represents
African-American physicians

Edith Rasell, MD, PhD
Minister for Labor Relations in Community and Economic Development for
the United Church of Christ

Helen Rodriguez-Trias, MD
Past President
American Public Health Association
(recently deceased)

Sindhu Srinivas, MD
Past President
American Medical Student Assn.

Gerald Thomson, MD
Former President
American College of Physicians

Walter Tsou, MD, MPH
Former Commissioner of Health,
Philadelphia

Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School

# # #

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a research and education organization with more than 10,000 members representing every state and specialty. PNHP was founded in 1987 and has physician spokespeople across the country. For contact information, call the national headquarters in Chicago at
(312) 782-6006. Visit us online at pnhp.org.

*The Working Group members hold a number of distinguished positions, which are not limited to those listed above. The members’ positions and affiliations listed here are provided for identification purposes only.

Editor’s note: An interview room will be available immediately following the press conference.

Contact:

Kimberly Soenen
PNHP Media Relations
tel:312-782-6006
fax:312-782-6007
mobile:312-946-0938
kimberlysoenen@pnhp.org
www.pnhp.org

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a physician advocacy organization with 12,000 members who support single-payer health care reform.

PNHP has been working since 1987 for universal health care. The national office is in Chicago.

Balanced coverage of reform that isn’t

The Hartford Courant
February 12, 2003
Who’s Shaping The Debate On Health Care Reform?
By Theodore Marmor and Kip Sullivan

The 2003 debate about health care reform, unfortunately, is likely to be as muddled as it was a decade ago, when President Clinton promoted universal health insurance under the banner of managed care and the inflation rate in health insurance premiums was also in double digits.

Now, as then, those with interests in rising health expenditures will try to make sure the American public does not understand the real causes of the recent surge in medical inflation. Their loudest argument is that Americans overuse medical care and that such overuse would only worsen if all Americans were insured.

Overuse does exist, the evidence indicates. But so does worrisome underuse. And overuse cannot explain the latest burst in health insurance prices or the sharp rises in what drugstores and doctors charge. There is no credible evidence that Americans received a lot more medical care in the past few years. But the price of health care has skyrocketed nonetheless. That inflation is because of the market power of insurers, drug manufacturers, hospitals and other suppliers of medical services.

Advocates of medical savings accounts and other high-deductible plans talk of overuse because they think they have an answer to it. With a few exceptions, these advocates avoid discussion of underuse. They know they have no solution for underuse and that their practices will almost surely aggravate it. But that does not dissuade them from disseminating the overuse thesis at the meetings of health insurers and the gatherings of groups like the National Association of Manufacturers.

In that context, a sensible discussion of medical inflation, let alone universal health insurance, is very difficult. It is almost impossible when the news media act like an echo chamber, amplifying the voices of the already heard. Well-financed interest groups have lobbyists who are paid and prodded to comment and who show up regularly in debates that journalists try to “balance.” The trouble is that there are 50 industry spokespeople for every underfinanced representative of ordinary citizens. The news all too often then turns out to be what prominent figures in the medical-commercial complex claim.

No wonder that Americans support the reform principles of universal coverage but express fear at most efforts to act on them.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-marmor0212.artfeb12,0,2104280.sto ry?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Doped

Comment: Forums on reform today are amazing. As Marmor and Sullivan note, much of the discussion is on shifting to “consumer-directed” health care, based on the theory that the primary problem that needs to be addressed is the waste resulting from patients’ incessant demand for unnecessary health care services.

The irony is that the problem of overutilization is not due to patients’ quests to get more. It is due to practice patterns that fail to acknowledge that sometimes no medical intervention is a preferred course to an intervention that, in reality, is not beneficial or may even potentially be detrimental. Unnecessary hysterectomies, arthroscopies, antibiotic usage, body imaging and similar excesses are selected and controlled by the physician to whom the patient has turned for the best advice on health care decisions. These are problems that call for systemic reform that would improve physician behavior (another topic). Placing financial penalties between the patient and health care (consumer-directed care) results in decreased use of all services, including, especially, beneficial services. The most serious impact of this is in the care of patients with major medical needs. Erecting financial barriers will often prevent those with the greatest need to have precisely the services they require. This is perhaps the worst health care “reform” ever devised, the epitome of non-solutions.

The forums on health care still acknowledge that the numbers of uninsured continue to increase, that health care inflation continues to exceed the general rate of inflation, that the level of disparities are unacceptable, and, ironically, that the rate of under-insurance (consumer-directed!) is dramatically increasing to the point of causing a surge of personal bankruptcies for medical costs of both insured and uninsured patients. But then the forums go on to address the shift from the age of managed care to the age of consumerism. Where is the discussion of real solutions to these real problems?

Well, there is some discussion. But much of it is directed to finding compromises with this “consumerist” element that has gained control of the debate. Thus the discussion has shifted to tax credits, health reimbursement arrangements or MSAs, association health plans, and other reforms which may tweak the number of uninsured, but will leave those with the greatest health care needs highly vulnerable to financial risk. It is mind-boggling that those supporting universal access to comprehensive services are considering compromise as if there were something of substance with which to compromise. There isn’t. Consumer-directed proposals have nothing to offer in the way of solutions to the real problems in health care.

Those covering the health care debate must insist on receiving answers to the questions they should be asking about these real problems in health care. I emphatically recommend reading the article, “Soaring health premiums creating more uninsured,” by Nancy McVicar of the Sun-Sentinel in Florida. She addresses the real problems and discusses realistic solutions. Admittedly, she does discuss our approach, but then, is there any other that is better?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxinsure09feb09,0,4782118.st ory?coll=sfla%2Dnews%2Dhealth

Reducing disparities by providing access

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
February, 2003
Differences in Mortality of Black and White Patients Enrolled in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
By Erwin J. Tan, Li-Yung Lui, Catherine Eng, Ashish K. Jha & Kenneth E. Covinsky

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between race and mortality in frail community-dwelling older people with access to a program providing comprehensive access and coordination of services.

DESIGN: A longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING: Twelve nationwide demonstration sites of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) from 1990 to 1996. PACE provides comprehensive medical and long-term care services for nursing home-eligible older people who live in the community.

PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand two white patients and 859 black patients.

MEASUREMENTS: Patients were followed after enrollment until death or the end of the follow-up period. Time from enrollment to death was measured with adjustment of the Cox proportional hazards model for comorbid conditions, functional status, site, and other demographic characteristics.

RESULTS: Black patients were younger than white patients (mean age 77 vs 80, P < .001) but had worse functional status (mean activity of daily living (ADL) score 6.5 vs 7.2, P < .001) on enrollment. Survival for black and white patients was 88% and 86% at 1 year, 67% and 61% at 3 years, and 51% and 42% at 5 years, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for black patients = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.67-0.89). After adjustment for baseline comorbid conditions, functional status, site, and demographic characteristics, black patients still had a lower mortality rate (HR = 0.77; 95% CI = .65-0.93). The survival advantage for black patients did not emerge until about 1 year after PACE enrollment (HR for first year after enrollment = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.72-1.31; HR after first year = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.54-0.85, P-value for time interaction < .001). During the first year of enrollment, black patients were more likely to improve and less likely to decline in ADL function than white patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In PACE, a system providing access to and coordination of comprehensive medical and long-term care services for frail older people, black patients have a lower mortality rate than white patients. This survival advantage, which emerges approximately 1 year after PACE enrollment, may be related to the comprehensive access and coordination of services provided by the PACE program. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:246-251, 2003. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/abstract.asp?ref=0002-8614&vid=51&iid=2&aid=16&s=

Comment: Impaired access is clearly a major contributor to heath care disparities. The significance of this study is that it demonstrates that providing access to comprehensive services was followed by an elimination of these disparities.

The first step in assuring access is to eliminate financial barriers to care by establishing a universal, comprehensive health insurance program. The PACE program is unique, and undoubtedly many other measures will be required to reduce disparities in other situations. But eliminating disparities is virtually impossible without an equitable system of funding health care.