PNHP immediate past president Dr. Adam Gaffney appeared on “All In” on MSNBC on August 12, 2021. Dr. Gaffney pushed back against a proposal to charge unvaccinated Americans higher health insurance premiums. He argued that more expansive access to vaccines (and access to medical care in general, under Medicare for All), coupled with occupational mandates, would be more effective.
The Rice Family Health Reform Legacy
Health Insurance Systems: An International Comparison, Academic Press, 2021, by Thomas Rice
Chapter 16, Some Insights
Health outcomes: How much a country invests in its health care system does not have a strong influence on the outcome measures examined here. That is further exemplified by the fact that the United States spends by far the most, but performed among the worst in avoidable mortality, and was the poorest in measures of safe care.
Satisfaction: The most glaring finding regards the US system, which was far more unpopular than any of the others. There are many likely reasons for this. One centers on the economic insecurity people face not only by the lack of comprehensive benefits, but also by the prospect of being without coverage if they lose their jobs.
A second reason for the US system’s unpopularity is likely to be its expense, which requires not only considerable patient cost sharing but also high premiums from employers and employees, and considerable taxes to support Medicare and Medicaid.
A third and more general reason is that the American people do not share a common view on issues such as health care being a right.
Final thoughts: There is little agreement about what aspects of health insurance systems are the highest priority for reform. Different researchers reach entirely different conclusions about what are the overall best health care systems. Nine of the ten countries have, at least broadly speaking, reached similar conclusions about the necessary and desirable underpinnings of their health insurance systems. These include (1) building systems based on the ethic of affordable, equitable access to care, (2) having a single, publicly mandated insurance system to promote fairness and efficiency, (3) using government for health care planning activities involving the supply of resources and constraining prices, and (4) employing economic tools to determine covered benefits and prices, especially for pharmaceutical products. There is a great deal of variety in how each country implements each of these; nevertheless, it would be hard to deny that there is strong international agreement in such critical areas. The United States is a notable exception.
Dorothy Rice, Pioneering Economist Who Made Case for Medicare, Dies at 94, The New York Times, March 4, 2017
Dorothy Rice, a pioneering government economist and statistician whose research about the need of the aged for health insurance helped make the case for the passage of Medicare in 1965, died on Feb. 25 in Oakland, Calif. She was 94.
Health Law Kickoff May Be More Challenging Than Medicare’s Start, capradio, September 30, 2013
Dorothy Rice says California’s implementation of the law (Affordable Care Act) may go more smoothly, because of the state’s rigorous efforts. But she hopes eventually the national health care system will look more like Medicare.
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Years ago, our California chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program had the honor of a visit from a most distinguished guest: Dorothy Rice, who had laid the foundations leading to the Medicare program. She really admired what we were doing. We hit it off so well that she had us over to her home for a garden party where we celebrated the prospect of providing Medicare to everyone. As documented above, she hoped that we would have a national health care system that looked like Medicare.
Dorothy’s son, Tom, a respected UCLA health policy professor, recently published a book seeking policy insights from the United States and several other countries. Although many of the lessons drawn would logically lead to advocacy for a single payer Medicare for All system, Tom maintains that all successful systems have lessons for us. He does not recommend single payer; he sees building on the ACA.
We do have one lesson for Tom: Listen to your Mom. She understood the need for Medicare, and, more recently, the need for Medicare for All. We are pleased that you have provided us with the policy science that supports Medicare for All. We invite you to avidly echo your mother’s advocacy for health justice for all via single payer.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
U.S. Health System Implosion / Tipping Point
U.S. longevity down to 78.5 years, other nations 81-84.
U.S. pervasive race disparities in private insurance and health.
U.S. health spending twice the wealthy country average.
U.S. uninsured = 33 million pre-COVID; underinsured = 1/3 of insured.
U.S. healthcare access & outcomes the worst among wealthy countries.
U.S. financial barriers to care for sick high in Medicare Advantage.
U.S. medical debt skyrocketing, impoverishing and imperiling lives.
U.S. insurer profits skyrocketing for years and during COVID.
U.S. ambulance services separate, costly, & unreliable.
U.S. doctors burning out from billing-laden EHR.
Comment:
By Jim Kahn, M.D., M.P.H.
Our “system” is no system.
Thousands of health plans, summing to premature death and massive profits.
By no useful metric is it succeeding.
Unbridled corporate greed prevails.
It’s imploding in front of us.
Is it sustainable?
It can’t be.
When is the tipping point?
To a simple, logical, efficient & generous, equitable, humane solution.
Single payer.
Now.
(thanks to Eli Marx-Kahn for input)
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
U.S. Health System a Pitiful Last Among Wealthy Nations
Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly; Health Care in the U.S. Compared to Other High-Income Countries, The Commonwealth Fund, August 4, 2021, by Eric C. Schneider et al.
Issue: No two countries are alike when it comes to organizing and delivering health care for their people, creating an opportunity to learn about alternative approaches.
Goal: To compare the performance of health care systems of 11 high-income countries.
Methods: Analysis of 71 performance measures across five domains — access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes — drawn from Commonwealth Fund international surveys conducted in each country and administrative data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organization.
Key Findings: The top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.
Conclusion: Four features distinguish top performing countries from the United States: 1) they provide for universal coverage and remove cost barriers; 2) they invest in primary care systems to ensure that high-value services are equitably available in all communities to all people; 3) they reduce administrative burdens that divert time, efforts, and spending from health improvement efforts; and 4) they invest in social services, especially for children and working-age adults.
Comment:
By Isabel Ostrer, M.D.
The Commonwealth Fund compared health systems in 11 high-income countries to identify what policies and practices are associated with better performance. The countries were Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The overall health care system ranking is striking: the U.S. ranks last in every domain except care process. (This includes preventive care, e.g., rates of mammography and influenza vaccination.)
In access to care, which includes affordability and timeliness, we’re last because individuals here are most likely to experience insurance denials, high out of pocket costs, difficulty paying medical bills, and delays in seeing a provider.
To add insult to injury, health care spending in the U.S is uniquely high. In 2019, the U.S. spent 16.8% of its GDP on health care. The next highest spender, Germany, clocked in at 11.7% .
What do we get for all this spending? The U.S. is dead last in health care outcomes. We have the highest infant mortality rate, the highest rate of maternal mortality, and the highest rate of preventable mortality.
So what can we learn from our peer countries? For starters, they all have universal health coverage and no cost barriers. The U.S. has 30 million uninsured … and 40 million underinsured.
The evidence speaks loudly. Sinking more money into a multi-payer health care system serves only to inflate U.S. health care costs without improving access or outcomes. A truly patient-centered system is one that provides universal coverage and shields patients from unnecessary cost-sharing.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
Why Antitrust Enforcement Can Only Go So Far in Health Care
Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, The White House, July 9, 2021
Stop Playing Health Care Antitrust Whack-A-Mole, Bill of Health, May 17, 2021, by Jaime S. King
The Sleeper Health Cost Policy, KFF, July 22, 2021, by Drew Altman
Comment:
By Allison K. Hoffman, J.D. and Hannah Leibson
In early July, the Biden Administration issued this high-level executive order focused on promoting competition in the American economy. The order urged the FTC and DOJ to significantly ramp up antitrust enforcement to prohibit future mergers and divest existing anti-competitive arrangements.
The order states in part, “whereas decades of industry consolidation have often led to excessive market concentration, this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions” in violation of the antitrust laws.
The problem is that it’s likely too little too late for health care.  For the past few decades, health care consolidation has been on the rise.
Jaime S. King points out that the rate of consolidation has increased so dramatically that up to 95 percent of metropolitan areas have highly concentrated hospital markets. Private equity investment has driven much of this trend.
As Drew Altman explains, consolidation is negatively impacting quality of care and significantly driving up health care costs for consumers—as much as 50 percent in some hospital systems. When one or two large hospital systems are running the show in a city or region, insurers don’t have any leverage to negotiate lower prices. Consumers have no choice but to pay the higher prices or travel far distances to seek care.
Things like choices of insurance plans or transparency, both mentioned in the Biden Executive Order, will not solve these structural problems on their own. In the months ahead, the impact of COVID-19 will likely accelerate consolidation in many economically disadvantaged regions where hospitals are already deep in the red.
Amped up antitrust enforcement will only go so far in health care, especially considering thin government resources. It could prevent further consolidation. More aggressively, the administration could review merged entities and unravel those that have proven anticompetitive.
All of these measures could be beneficial, but ultimately, comprehensive price regulation is the only way to control the rising health care costs associated with provider consolidation. As Altman highlights, drugs comprise just 10% of health care spending while hospitals represent a whopping 34%. More and more, physician groups are also merging or are affiliating with hospitals and will benefit from their hefty negotiating power to command higher prices.
One option is a federal all-payer system to set price caps or limits on total hospital spending. It could eliminate the large gap between Medicare rates and those commercial insurers are forced to accept in highly consolidated hospital markets. Medicare for All is another means to set rates federally, in one fell swoop, and it would also eliminate the administrative costs associated with having many different payors.
Another option is rate setting at the state level, but this approach would be more difficult to enact and less coordinated. The state of Maryland already has such a model in place, and has seen positive outcomes since it was launched by CMS as a pilot program in 2014. From 2014 to 2019, Medicare spending in Maryland fell 2.8 percent and the state has seen a 4.1 percent decrease in total health care costs. Alongside these cost savings, quality benchmarks across several dimensions have surpassed expectations. This model could inform policy design at the federal level, just as Massachusetts’s reform informed the design of the Affordable Care Act.
Antitrust enforcement is but one piece of the puzzle of controlling health care price inflation, and, unless the FTC and DOJ aggressively unwind the consolidation of the past decades, it is only a very small piece.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
What is it like to live under a single-payer medical system?
If the policy is right & the politics are wrong, change the politics!
Newsletter Opinion, The New York Times, August 3, 2021, by Paul Krugman
When you’re a wonk trying to be a pundit — or for that matter any kind of technocrat who wants to have real-world influence — it’s usually not helpful to push for policies that you believe would be right in principle but have no political chance of becoming reality.
The prime example for me has been health insurance. If our goal is to make sure that everyone has adequate, affordable health care, why not just pay for everyone’s care? On policy grounds, I’ve never disagreed with the proposition that we should have Medicare for all; there’s even a pretty good case for direct provision of medical care along the lines of Britain’s National Health Service. Why bother with a Rube Goldberg device like Obamacare, which uses regulations and subsidies to nudge private insurers into covering most people?
But the politics are impossible, and not just because of special interests: You’d have to persuade the 170 million Americans with private insurance to accept something completely different. Even though most of them would probably be better off, that’s too heavy a lift. So incremental reform, possibly evolving over time into single-payer, is how it’s going to have to be.
Virchow at 200 and Lown at 100 — Physicians as Activists, New England Journal of Medicine, July 22, 2021, by Salvatore Mangione, M.D., and Mark L. Tykocinski, M.D.
Current Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wrote in 2019 about the need for physicians to be guardians of integrity: “People will accuse us of being political, but if people accuse you of being political because you’re standing up for people who can’t stand up for themselves, then you should do it anyway, because that is at the heart of our profession.”
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Anyone who has studied the subject realizes that a well-designed single payer system would provide equitable, high quality health care for everyone at a price that each of us could afford, paid for with progressive taxes. In principle, the concept is the moral imperative, but it does not mesh with the politics.
So what do we do? Like Paul Krugman, who represents the intellectuals who do understand, do we say that it is too heavy a lift? And then do we move on to insufficient and unsatisfactory tinkering? No, that is not right. The only right course is the one that accomplishes our goal of health care justice for all.
If the policy is right and the politics are wrong, you change the politics, not the policy. That would move us into the realm of politics, but, as Vivek Murthy said, since we’ll be standing up for people who can’t stand up for themselves, we should do it anyway. It’s simply the right thing to do.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
Health care is a human right
By Judith L. Albert, M.D.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Letters, August 4, 2021
I read with interest your recent opinion piece (July 11, “Unhealthy and unequal”). The author profiled in your piece, Brian Alexander, captured the essence of the failed health care “system” by describing health care as “first of all, not a system, but a haphazard labyrinth of chance.” I am in complete agreement that what we have is not a system, but not due to chance.
Actually, our health care insurance is working exactly as planned: private, for-profit health insurance companies collect premiums and make a profit by denying care to their subscribers. Americans bought the lie that health care could be governed by the market, but marketplaces are designed to ration goods, in this case medical care, based on the ability to pay. Nonprofit hospitals are constrained by these market forces: If their patients have comprehensive insurance coverage to pay for care, then the hospital does well.
Hospitals can invest their “excess revenue” in fancy buildings and equipment to attract more wealthy patients. If jobs, and therefore health insurance, leave a community, as in so many rural and rust belt areas, then community hospitals must provide care for free or for the lower reimbursement rates paid by Medicare and Medicaid, an unsustainable proposition that leads to insolvency.
Enough of the “stop-gap” reforms! What we need to establish is Medicare for All, a publicly funded, privately delivered actual health care system, as is proposed in the current House Bill 1976. Because health care is a human right.
Dental Care Access for the Elderly: A Gaping Shortfall
Medicare and Dental Coverage, KFF, July 28, 2021, by Meredith Freed, et al.
Key Findings:
- Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries (47%), or 24 million people, do not have dental coverage, as of 2019.
- Â Almost half of all Medicare beneficiaries did not have a dental visit within the past year (47%), with higher rates among those who are Black (68%) or Hispanic (61%), have low incomes (73%), or who are in fair or poor health (63%), as of 2018.
- Average out-of-pocket spending on dental services among Medicare beneficiaries who had any dental service was $874 in 2018. One in five Medicare beneficiaries (20%) who used dental services spent more than $1,000 out-of-pocket on dental care.
Comment:
By Isabel Ostrer, M.D.
The Medicare website explicitly reads, “Medicare doesn’t cover most dental care, dental procedures, or supplies, like cleanings, fillings, tooth extractions, dentures, dental plates, or other dental devices,” so it’s no wonder that a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that 24 million Medicare beneficiaries lacked dental coverage in 2019. These disparities in access to dental care are even greater for non-white and low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
As Dr. Sanjeev Sriram said during a rally on July 30th marking the 56th anniversary of the Medicare program, “Your eyes, your ears, and your teeth are connected to your body… These things are not luxury items. Your teeth are not luxury items.” Why, then, in the richest country in the world, do we separate dental care from health care?
The simple answer boils down to an historical anomaly: dentistry has its roots in the barber profession – until the 1800s barbers routinely pulled painful teeth after they finished trimming a patron’s hair – and was consequently shunned by the medical profession. When the first medical schools were created dentistry was not recognized. Subsequently, when Medicare was enacted in 1965 dental services were not covered.
This history ignores that oral health is intimately tied to overall health and well-being. Dental pain is a leading reason for emergency department visits. Poor oral health is associated with numerous medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease and rheumatoid arthritis.
As Congress works towards passing a trillion dollar infrastructure bill that includes Medicare reform, adding vision, hearing, and dental benefits should be a top priority. But while we’re at it, we should push for sweeping health reform. Medicare for All would ensure that all Americans – not just seniors – have access to comprehensive benefits including dental coverage.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
Physicians are unsuited as bill collectors
The Increasing Role of Physician Practices as Bill Collectors Destined for Failure, JAMA, July 30, 2021, by A. Jay Holmgren, et al.
Through increasing deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments, the privately insured population in the US is responsible for a larger share of health care out-of-pocket costs. Although many studies have examined the effects on patients, the implications for physicians have received less attention. The increase in cost sharing is forcing many physicians and health systems to take on the role of bill collectors. It is a task for which physician practices are unsuited. The result is a system with substantial administrative burden, frustrated patients struggling with confusing bills, and physicians receiving less compensation.
Moving away from deductibles and toward fixed-dollar co-payments as a cost-sharing mechanism could simplify the billing experience for patients and the collection process for physicians while retaining the ability of payers to steer patients to lower-cost care with financial incentives.
Conclusion: The growth of cost sharing and HDHPs has resulted in patients’ taking on more of the cost of their own care and in physicians’ holding the risk and responsibility of collecting large dollar amounts. Physician offices are poorly suited to the task, exacerbating a complex and confusing system for patients and clinicians alike. New private firms have developed products to simplify, consolidate, and improve billing. However, these private-sector solutions may help ameliorate the problem but will not solve it. Only larger shifts in how out-of-pocket costs are envisioned will meaningfully address the burden of high out-of-pocket spending on both patients and physicians.
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
This JAMA Viewpoint article explains the burden of out-of-pocket cost sharing on both the patient and the physician – financial barriers for the patient, and a costly administrative burden for the physician.
Cost sharing can interfere with the delivery of care. High cost sharing may cause individuals to forgo beneficial health care. Even modest cost sharing can cause individuals with limited resources to forgo essential care. Also cost sharing has been a significant contributor to the expansion of medical debt with its associated bankruptcies. Cost sharing is detrimental to the goal of health care justice for all.
The purported reason is that the financial disincentives of cost sharing steer patients to lower-cost care. But do patients really shop cost-sharing prices? And would any modest differences have a significant impact on the total cost of care?
If we are trying to control health care spending, wouldn’t it be much more effective and efficient to institute administered pricing with a public plan? We should be able to get pricing right when the public administrators take into consideration both the legitimate costs and fair compensation for physicians, and the interests of the potential patients subjected to progressive taxes.
The authors acknowledge that physician offices are “poorly suited” to the task of collecting cost sharing payments, but the solution is not more of the same by moving from deductibles to co-payments. The solution is to dispense with patient cost sharing and move to universal, first dollar coverage, which would also eliminate the scourge of medical debt and save lives.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.
Medicare for All Explained Podcast: Episode 61
Interview with Miryam Weisberg
August 1, 2021
Tricare enrollee Miryam Weisberg describes the barriers she’s faced trying to access care through the program for members of the military, retirees, and their families. For example, she was told, “even though [Tricare] walks like insurance and quacks like insurance, they say it’s not insurance, so rules that are meant to govern insurance don’t apply to it.”
Additional episodes will be uploaded twice monthly. Subscribe in iTunes, or access a complete archive of the podcast, below.
For its 56th birthday, let’s improve Medicare
By George Bohmfalk, M.D.
Aspen (Colo.) Daily News, July 31, 2021
On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed Medicare into law. Less than a year later, the vast majority of Americans over 65 were enrolled. Today Medicare is our most popular and efficient health insurance program.
Medicare has substantially improved older Americans’ health and decreased their rate of poverty, but it has several shortcomings that could be addressed in the huge budget reconciliation bill being formulated in Congress. While a full-on transition to Medicare for All would be the preferred solution, we should incorporate these incremental improvements as soon as possible.
Medicare doesn’t cover vision, hearing or dental care, each of which substantially affects other health issues, like arthritis and heart disease. Many Medicare enrollees who need hearing aids can’t afford them. In a recent year, most who had difficulty eating because their teeth hadn’t seen a dentist, and nearly half with vision problems hadn’t had an eye exam. To improve overall health and quality of life, Medicare should include vision, hearing and dental care.
Traditional Medicare pays only 80% of many charges and has no limit on out-of-pocket expenses. This is a huge economic burden for over half of Medicare enrollees, who live on less than $30,000 a year. With the average enrollee annually spending nearly $6,000 on out-of-pocket costs, medical debt and bankruptcy are ever-constant threats. Congress should place a reasonable cap on annual out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare is now available only to people over 65 and some with disabilities. A recent Stanford University study showed that, of people with cancer, those over 65 did better than patients in their early 60s. One might expect the younger group would fare better, but the factor benefitting the older group was having better access to health care, through Medicare. Lowering the eligibility age to 60 would extend the reliability and better outcomes of Medicare coverage to 23 million more Americans. Given the bipartisan support for doing so, Congress should lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60.
On average, Americans pay over twice as much for medications as do people in other countries. Medicare could save hundreds of billions of dollars by negotiating drug prices, which a previous Congress banned it from doing. As these savings could be used to pay for the other improvements, Congress should allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
The above improvements would extend beyond individual beneficiaries. The COVID-19 pandemic has both illuminated and aggravated unconscionable racial and ethnic health care inequities affecting millions of Americans. These improvements to Medicare would not erase any inequities, but they would substantially mitigate many of them. Businesses would also benefit, as they would no longer bear as large a burden of their employees’ health care costs.
Over 150 members of Congress signed a letter to President Biden requesting that the American Families Plan include these improvements to Medicare. If your representative is among them, please thank them. If not, ask them and your senators to support these improvements as a bill is developed.
Happy and healthy 56th birthday, Medicare! Short of expanding Medicare to cover everyone, there is no better way to celebrate it than to enhance the physical, emotional and financial health of older Americans by improving and expanding Medicare coverage.
Dr. Bohmfalk is a retired neurosurgeon in Carbondale and a member of Physicians for a National Health Program.