PNHP

Medicare for all? Q&A with Ohio’s leading single-payer physician advocate

Medicare for all? Q&A with Ohio’s leading single-payer physician advocate

By Brandon Glenn
MedCity News, 5.31.11

Close observers of the U.S. health reform debate in recent years know that the proceedings have illustrated why Barack Obama can hardly be called a liberal or a progressive.

That’s because the president showed no willingness to advocate for most liberals’ top choice for reorganizing the U.S. health system — a Medicare-for-all, single-payer plan in which a single government agency handles healthcare financing while doctors largely remain private-sector workers.

So that’s why single-payer advocates are lucky to have Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), a 17,000-member organization that advocates for single-payer. “Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services … [and] patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital,” the group states.

In Ohio, PNHP’s top official is Dr. Johnathan Ross, a Toledo internist who practices and teaches at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center. Ross, who holds a medical degree from Cornell University and a master’s in health policy from the University of Michigan, is a past president of PNHP, having served a one-year term in 2000.

The Paul Krugman look-alike is also somewhat Krugman-like in his writing: He’s penned several editorials for the Toledo Blade and Cleveland’s The Plain Dealer.

PNHP cites a litany of statistics (apparently from its own research, some of which is more than a decade old) to support its case: 31 percent of U.S. health spending goes not to patient care but administrative costs; the U.S. health system is already 60 percent publicly financed with 20 percent paid for by businesses and 20 percent from out-of-pocket costs; and for-profit, investor-owned hospitals score lower in quality but higher in cost on average than their nonprofit counterparts.

Ross spoke with MedCity News about why he believes a health system based on profit will never provide the high quality and low cost the U.S. needs, what he sees as the major weaknesses of Obama’s health reform, and how his up-close experience with an HMO led him to support single-payer.

Q: Talk a little about how your own thinking evolved to support a single-payer health system. Did you previously believe in the structure of the current U.S. system? What caused you to change your mind?
A: For about 10 years from the mid-1980s onward, my employer, Mercy Health Partners, started and ran a nonprofit HMO. I was asked to be the medical director for the health plan. It was this experience that changed my thinking completely.

I saw up-close the dirty underbelly of the insurance industry. I saw all the shady things health insurers needed to do to stay in business. Essentially, the way to make money in the health insurance business is to avoid sick people who will be costly to insure. Since 5 percent of the patients generate 50 percent of the healthcare costs, it is essential to avoid insuring these sick people if you want to stay profitable. When you see what it takes to be successful as a health insurer, you realize it has nothing to do with high-quality patient care. Our nonprofit HMO had to do the sleazy risk-rating, denials of coverage and limitations on specialist care just like the for-profit insurers if we wanted to stay in business. It was a race to the bottom.

Q: Why do you believe that a profit-based health system can’t solve the problems of access, cost and quality?
A: As long as the profit motive is there, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the healthcare equipment makers, etc. will be seeking profits rather than better health for the American public. Why would any of these industries want us to be healthy? The drugmakers and equipment makers only make money when we are sick and need to take their medications and use their equipment. The insurers design their premiums to keep a nice percentage of whatever we spend on healthcare. The more we spend, the more they make. Why would they have any interest in controlling the long-term costs of healthcare in this country when they get to keep a percentage of whatever we spend? The unhealthier we are, the more we spend and more they make.

A healthcare system should be designed to improve the health of the public, not to improve the health of corporate bottom lines. When you’re designing something, you should begin with the end in mind. If we’re designing a health system, is the end we want a fabulously profitable medical-industrial complex, or is it a fabulously healthy country?

Q: Are you generally supportive of the federal health reform law that passed last year? What do you see as its greatest strength and weakness?
A: It’s very hard for me as a single-payer advocate to be completely supportive of the Affordable Care Act, though there are many good things in it. The positives include lots of money for public health, primary care and improving our data systems with electronic health records.

As for the weaknesses, if you had a house with a crumbling foundation, would you put a third floor on it anyway? That’s what the ACA does. It takes our crumbling foundation of a private health insurance system, which leaves people about as covered as an open-back hospital gown, and adds more of the same — more Medicaid and private insurance without doing anything to reduce the system’s complexity. One of the fundamental flaws of our system is that it is way too complicated. We spend 30 percent of our health dollars on administration and chasing the money because our financing is incredibly complex. We have hundreds of different insurance companies with hundreds of different rules, so the problem with the ACA is it leaves all that complexity in place. Until we simplify the financing, we can’t simplify the system.

Q: I imagine lots of doctors oppose single-payer (whether they admit it or not) because they think it’ll lead to a reduction in their salaries. Do you find that to be true? What’s your response to that complaint?
A: We have good research on how doctors feel about national health insurance. In general, 60 percent of primary care doctors support it. Specialists are less likely to support it, but in a few specialties, such as psychiatry and general surgeons, more than half favor it. Of course, there are some physicians who are very much opposed, like the American Medical Association, but that’ll be true with any reform effort. Even though they complain of being prisoners of the insurance industry, they do not want to give up their golden handcuffs. Many doctors who were opposed to single-payer reform in the past come up to me and say, ‘I’ve been studying this and now I think you’re right. We need an improved Medicare-for-all.’ How could PNHP grow to 17,000 members otherwise? Several of the large physician groups, including the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out and said that Medicare-for-all is a reasonable option.

In truth, physician incomes should go up. Everyone will be covered so there will be no bad debt as there is now for patients with no or lousy insurance. Malpractice premiums will fall since about half of our premiums go to cover the care of the injured patient. Given everyone will be covered, these costs will not need to be part of our premiums. We would believe that primary care incomes should grow some and the differential between primary care and specialist incomes should narrow somewhat, but overall in our budget calculations we hold caregiver incomes stable.

Single-payer administrative simplicity saves enough money by reducing administrative costs that we can cover everyone comprehensively, with no co-pays or deductibles, give complete choice of hospital and doctor, and still spend no more than we do now. It will free us from the grip of the insurers and
the need to do a wallet biopsy looking for the green before we see the patient. We can just be good doctors again.

http://www.medcitynews.com/2011/05/medicare-for-all-qa-with-ohios-leading-single-payer-physician-advocate/

Des Moines Register: VA health system for everyone?

Why don’t we expand VA health system?

Editorial
DesMoinesRegister.com, May 29, 2011

The Register recently editorialized that it doesn’t make sense to operate a multi-billion VA health care system that runs parallel to the nation’s vast private health care system of hospitals and clinics. It serves only one segment of the population. A better option would be providing veterans health insurance, similar to Medicare for seniors. Then they would be allowed to go to any hospital or clinic, rather than having to travel long distances for care. The thousands of health care workers currently employed by the government could work in the private sector and treat more Americans.

On the opposite page (excerpt and link below), Donald Cooper, director of VA Central Iowa Health Care System, takes issue with that idea. He suggests instead that Americans should learn from the VA. It certainly does have a record of providing good care. For example, it does a better job preventing hospital-acquired infections than private hospitals. A “connected” system of facilities allows for easy access to comprehensive medical records, which can prevent unnecessary tests and medical errors.

He makes good points. And he got us thinking: Maybe the VA shouldn’t be dismantled. Maybe it should be available to everyone. What if the VA’s hospitals and clinics became THE health care system in this country?

After all, a single system would make more sense than the hodgepodge of thousands of private and public hospitals, clinics and insurer plans. The VA is wildly popular with politicians of both political parties. The program pays a fraction of what private insurance companies pay for prescription drugs, and the VA provides not only hospital care but also nursing home care. It’s comprehensive.

Perhaps it should be expanded.

Of course once some politicians figure out that is “socialized” medicine, the idea would go over like a lead balloon. The VA is truly socialized health care. The workers are employed by the government. The buildings are owned by Uncle Sam. The entire operation and all the care is funded with tax money.

This newspaper has supported a taxpayer-financed system of health insurance. Pool tax money to provide everyone with government insurance that helps pay for services offered by private hospitals, clinics and doctors. That’s what some other countries do.

We never have argued the government should also own facilities and employ workers who provide care.

But Cooper — as well as the experts and studies he refers to — certainly should give all of us something to think about. They agree “consistent, safe, high quality care requires a reliable delivery system that sets high standards of clinical practice, monitors clinical performance indicators, and employs systematic use of process improvement tools and practices.” That “best care comes from systems just like VA health care.”

What about the rest of us?

We’ll take it.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110531/OPINION03/105310334/Why-don-t-we-expand-VA-health-system-

And…

VA offers lessons for U.S. health care

By Donald C. Cooper, Director of VA Central Iowa Health Care System
DesMoinesRegister.com, May 29, 2011

As your (prior May 9) article infers, it is widely recognized that our nation is facing a growing health care crisis with a fragmented delivery system, escalating costs, and highly variable quality and financing systems that create an excessive administrative burden and incentives for overutilization of diagnostic procedures and specialized care.

Health care leaders have consistently observed that the best care requires an integrated health care system, one that treats the whole patient and coordinates care across the full continuum of services from primary care to acute specialized care, from post-surgery rehabilitation to nursing home and end-of-life care. We know that the best care comes from comprehensive integrated delivery systems – systems just like VA health care.

Health care experts also agree that consistent, safe, high quality care requires a reliable delivery system that sets high standards of clinical practice, monitors clinical performance indicators, and employs systematic use of process improvement tools and practices. The evidence shows that consistent, high quality care comes from the rigorous application of evidence-based medicine supported by a comprehensive, easily accessible, electronic patient health record. We know that the best care comes from systems just like VA health care, an integrated health system with an award winning lifetime electronic patient record that improves patient safety, enhances coordination of care, and supports consistent application of clinical guidelines and monitoring of quality indicators across 153 medical centers and over 800 community based clinics across the country.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110531/OPINION01/105310331/1036/opinion01/VA-offers-lessons-U-S-health-care

Wow! The Des Moines Register previously has supported single payer reform, but now they seem to be broadening their position by supporting a publicly owned and operated national health service – socialized medicine! Not only should everyone be covered by a universal, taxpayer-financed risk pool, but that pool should be used to pay for integrated health care – a system “just like VA health care.”

Currently there is considerable interest in integrated health care systems. The concept of accountable care organization (ACO) has been advanced as a model for integrating health care delivery. Unfortunately, ACO was narrowly defined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which led to a proposed set of rules that have been largely rejected by the health care community. This stumbling block should not prevent us from moving forward with efforts to establish integrated health care that is designed specifically to benefit patients, much like the VA health care system.

H.R. 676, single payer legislation sponsored by John Conyers, calls for conversion of for-profit institutions of the health care delivery system into non-profit, eliminating passive investors, while being run by boards representing the public interest. The VA system would remain independent for the first ten years, at which time merging it with the single payer system would be considered. Could H.R. 676 be an incremental step towards a national health service?

Unfortunately, ACA has left our health care system highly fragmented. The first attempt to form integrated health systems through the ACO model has demonstrated that organizing within such a fragmented system is about like herding cats. Obviously a properly designed single payer system would provide the guidance and incentives to encourage patient-oriented integrated systems. What the VA system has shown us is that government ownership can much more readily facilitate health system integration. It’s already been done – by the government!

The nation most often cited for an example of a national health service is the United Kingdom. For less than half of what we are spending ($3129 vs. $7538 per capita, PPP adjusted), they have achieved most of the goals of a high-performance system that have remained elusive in the United States. Just imagine what an integrated national health service in the United States would be like at our current level of spending.

As the editorial board of the Des Moines Register says, “We’ll take it.” Anyway, it’s definitely something worth thinking about.

Health Insurers Have Had Their Chance

By Wendell Potter
The Huffington Post, 05/31/11

Of the many supporters of a single-payer health care system in the United States, some of the most ardent are small business owners who have struggled to continue offering coverage to their workers.

Among them are David Steil, a small business owner and former Republican — yes, Republican — state legislator in Pennsylvania who earlier this year became president of the advocacy group Health Care 4 All PA.

Another supporter is Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who last Thursday signed a bill that sets the stage for the country’s first single-payer plan. If all goes as Shumlin and the bill’s many backers hope, all 620,000 Vermonters will eventually be enrolled in a state-run plan to replace Blue Cross, CIGNA and other private insurers whose business practices have contributed to the number of Vermonters without coverage — approximately 60,000 and growing.

Both men told me last week that their feelings were shaped by their backgrounds. Their experiences as businessmen convinced them that a health care system controlled by private insurers cannot be sustained, regardless of attempts to force those insurers to provide affordable access to care for all Americans. They are both skeptical that the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act will provide the fix the country needs, even with the new regulations and consumer protections.

Steil, president and owner of a small manufacturing company in Bucks County, Pa., told me he grew increasingly frustrated about having no leverage in dealing with private insurers, which demanded double-digit premiums increases every year.

Shumlin, who along with his brother took over the management several years ago of a travel business their parents founded, echoed the same frustration. Shumlin, who also served as a legislator, shared another frustration with Steil: not being able to help political constituents, many of them farmers and small business owners, who called begging for help in finding coverage.

“During my 16 years in the legislature, my staff and I were frustrated time and again trying to help people who had lost their coverage and couldn’t find a single insurer willing to offer them a policy, usually because of a preexisting condition of some kind,” Steil said. “We could deal with almost everything else, but this was one thing we could not solve. There simply was no solution.”

I know exactly what he means. I have spoken to hundreds of groups about the health insurance industry over the past two years, and invariably at least one person — and sometimes several — will grab me afterwards to ask for my advice on obtaining coverage. They assume that someone who spent two decades as an insurance company executive ought to be able to help them out.

Unfortunately, I have no better answers than Steil or Shumlin had for those constituents. If you’ve been sick in the past, or have a spouse or child who has been treated for one of hundreds of conditions insurers consider “preexisting,” about the only way you can get coverage is to convince an employer that still offers health care benefits to hire you. Good luck pulling that off in this economy.

And if you would much rather work for a small employer or become your own boss, be prepared to remain in the ranks of the uninsured.

The number of employers of any size still offering coverage dropped from 69 percent to 60 percent between 2000 and 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The decline has been much steeper among small businesses with 10 or fewer workers. In 2009, far fewer than half of them were still offering coverage.

The Affordable Care Act, which provides tax breaks to small employers if they offer coverage and subsidize premiums for their workers, might at least slow that trend. Some of the big insurance companies have reported a recent uptick in the number of small businesses offering coverage — many for the first time — as a result of those tax breaks.

But even with financial help from the government, most small companies are still finding it difficult to pay what insurance firms are demanding. Another Kaiser Family Foundation study found that health insurance premiums employers paid for their workers in 2010 stood at $13,770 for family coverage — more than double what they paid just 10 years earlier.

In a Crain’s magazine survey of 300 small businesses in Michigan earlier this month, 24 percent said they had considered cancelling their group policies in 2011, primarily because of rising premiums. Several employers in Michigan did drop coverage.

Of those that decided to offer benefits for at least another year, a growing percentage are making employees pay a heftier share of the premium, and they’re shifting them into plans with higher deductibles. A survey this month by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found that 17 percent of employers offered high-deductible plans, up from 13 percent last year. PwC says that if the trend continues — and why wouldn’t it? — high deductible plans will be the most common type of coverage by 2014.

Low income individuals and families will become eligible that year for subsidies from the federal government to help them pay their premiums. But even so, Steil and Shumlin don’t believe the current system, dominated by private insurers, is sustainable in the long haul. You can’t keep shifting more of the cost of both coverage and care to people–and also make them pay increasing amounts of tax dollars in subsidies that will go straight to private insurers–and not expect people to eventually stage a rebellion.

Private insurers, say Steil and Shumlin, have had their chance to control costs and expand access and have failed miserably. It is time, they believe, to replace them with a single payer — the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/health-insurers-have-had_b_868946.html

My Turn: Fertile ground for a single-payer bill

By Ellen Oxfeld
Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, May. 27, 2011

Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the new health care bill into law Thursday. Many people may wonder how we came to this point. Why is it that Vermont is the first state to pass legislation that acknowledges that health care is a public good, and that the best route toward universal access and cost control is to create a health care system that is publicly funded? There are still many more steps to go be fore we reach this goal.

One thing that makes Vermont different is that the campaign for single payer in this state has been broad-based and involved multiple organizations and thousands of individuals at the grassroots level over almost two decades.

The Vermont Workers Center (VWC) is one of the groups that has done a superb job of organizing people from 2008 onward — focusing on health care as a human right. Their organizing built upon the earlier and still continuing efforts of many other individuals and groups — creating unparalleled energy around this issue.

In 2009, for instance, public meetings were held all over the state on health care and for single payer. Many were part of the VWC campaign. Other meetings were organized by independent groups including religious and community groups. Sen. Bernie Sanders also held many health care related events around the state.

These 2009 meetings followed on the heels of a 2008 campaign for H.304 — a single-payer bill for hospitals. Hundreds of people traveled to the Statehouse for several large events to advocate for H.304 in the winter of 2008, organized by Vermont Health Care for All (VTHCA). Additionally, Dr. Deb Richter of VTHCA traveled the state and spoke at more than 400 forums between 2000 and the present, introducing the concept of single payer to numerous citizen groups.

In 2005, former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, in coordination with Richard Davis of Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health organized for single payer on Town Meeting Day, and succeeded in getting many towns to vote in support of the concept.

Large statewide demonstrations for single payer have been organized by VTHCA (1,200 people at the Statehouse in 2002) and the VWC (over a 1,000 people coming to their May Day rallies in 2009, ’10 and ’11). Smaller demonstrations for single payer also occurred almost every year at the Statehouse, and in other venues — such as a 2009 rally of several hundred people at the Obama administration’s regional health care summit in Burlington.

Unions and even business groups have also organized around the concept: several groups come to mind here including the AFL-CIO and other unions, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, and even the League of Women Voters.

Because so many groups have been involved, and so many citizens have weighed in on the issue, this state was fertile ground for lawmakers and candidates who advocated for single payer. Not all of them won, but they helped make the issue prominent. I don’t have space to list everyone here, but Anthony Pollina and Rivers come to mind. And, of course, Shumlin made single payer prominent in his campaign and won, and Sanders has long advocated for single payer and helped legitimize the reasons for it to a broad public. We should also not forget that it was Peter Shumlin, as Senate president pro-tem, who first contacted William Hsiao in December 2009 for the express purpose of inviting him to testify in the upcoming legislative session.

All of these efforts, and probably many more than space allows me to include, made for an ideal scenario in advancing the cause of single payer in the legislative agenda. Because Vermont is a state where citizens really get involved in issues, it is still possible to see legislation pass that advances the common good.

Ellen Oxfeld lives in Middlebury.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110527/OPINION02/105270314/My-Turn-Fertile-ground-single-payer-bill

Health care reform: Supporters celebrate historic signing

By Thatcher Moats
Rutland (Vt.) Herald, May 27, 2011

MONTPELIER — Amid a boisterous crowd of health care activists, lawmakers, lobbyists and administration officials, Gov. Peter Shumlin on Thursday signed into law the health care reform bill the Legislature passed earlier this month.

“We gather here today to launch the first single-payer health care system in America,” Shumlin told the crowd of roughly 200 people who gathered on the Statehouse steps for the signing ceremony.

The health care bill was the signature piece of legislation to pass through the Statehouse this year and is the latest step in what for some activists and lawmakers has been a decades-long battle to reform the health care system.

Dr. Deb Richter of Montpelier has been fighting to create a single-payer system for 22 years and since moving to Vermont in 1999 has given about 500 lectures in Vermont on the topic.

“I must say, on a personal note, this is probably one of the best days of my life,” Richter told the crowd. For Richter and others, Thursday was a time to celebrate, but they also acknowledged much of the work is yet to come and the fight is not over.

The health care bill establishes the Green Mountain Care Board, which will work to establish a health care system in Vermont that supporters contend will be less expensive for the state and for businesses and will provide coverage for all Vermonters.

It also begins to create a health benefits exchange that is required under federal law and has been described as a consumer-friendly clearinghouse for health insurance products.

But most of the work to create new ways to deliver and pay for health care has yet to be done and it could be 2017 before the state can get a federal waiver to enact a new system.

“We will hear this is an impossible goal, but all along people have said that it was impossible to get this far,” Richter said. “But here we are, and now the real work begins. We have a long road ahead of us to get this bill in place. Let’s get started — but after the party.”

Shumlin gave Richter the pen he used to sign the bill.

The signing of the law was repeatedly called “historic” on Thursday and there were shouts of “amen” and “yes” from the crowd in response to the words from the nine people who gave speeches, which in some cases took the form of impassioned rallying cries.

But opponents of the bill worry the legislation will be historic for the wrong reasons.

“We believe it’s going to be the most significant tax increase in Vermont history in order to pay for it, and they haven’t answered any of the basic questions,” said Darcie Johnston, the founder of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, a group that formed last February to oppose the trajectory of health care reform.

Throughout the legislative session, opponents attacked the lack of information about what the benefits package will look like, how much the new system will cost and how it will be financed.

Advocates of the bill say it creates a process to answer those questions.

But Rep. Patti Komline, a Republican from Dorset, said the Shumlin administration and many lawmakers have been trying to have it both ways depending on what’s “politically expedient”: They tout the bill as historic and monumental but when pressed for details downplay it as a planning document.

They say “it’s a first step in providing single-payer, government-run health care and it’s historic,” Komline said, “and then when people ask how much is it going to cost … what the level of care is going to be, the strategy shifts to say, ‘Well, this bill really is just fact finding, we’re going to get that information.’”

House Speaker Shap Smith said opponents of the bill — from a different perspective — are guilty of the same thing, demonizing the bill when all the information isn’t available.

Opponents are also critical of the fact that details about the cost and the financing of a new health care system are not scheduled to be released until after the 2012 election, and Johnson said her top goal will be to get the state officials to release the information by September 2012.

The health care bill was signed into law Thursday, but government employees have already begun the legwork of starting to figure out how to create a new health care system for the state.

Earlier this month, about 60 government employees from numerous state agencies — including the Agency of Human Services, the Department of Taxes, the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Labor — attended a day-long retreat to begin that effort.

“Core teams” of state employees will gather information for the Legislature and the Green Mountain Care Board that will be formed in the coming months, said Anya Rader Wallack, a special assistant to Shumlin for health care.

In addition to technical work, there’s also a lot of political work ahead to fight the opponents of reform, state officials reminded the crowd at the Statehouse.

“This is the beginning,” Smith said. “This is not the end. We have hard work to do. There are definitely people who want to see this fail. We cannot let that happen. We need to work together to show the way for the entire country. We can do it. Vermont has done it in the past, we can do it again.”

Also speaking at the event were Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell; Rep. Mark Larson, who chairs the House Health Care Committee; Sen. Claire Ayer, who chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee; Jennifer Schneider, a Burlington resident who shared her personal difficulties with the health care system; Julie Lineberger, chairwoman of the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility; and Cassandra Gekas, a health care advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

Many of the speakers thanked leaders in the Senate and the House, as well as Shumlin — who placed health care reform at the top of his campaign platform — and the grassroots activists who helped pass the bill.

Walter Carpenter, a 55-year-old Montpelier resident, used words like “jubilation” and “elation” to describe what he was feeling at the signing ceremony.

Carpenter said he battled a liver disease and at the same time had to battle insurance companies to cover his care. Then he lost his job and his health insurance and had to haggle over the price of a crucial treatment.

“I had to bargain for my life,” he said.

Carpenter believes these kinds of problems will be diminished for Vermonters with a new system that covers everyone and does not have insurance tied to employment.

“So this was also a personal victory,” Carpenter said.

Vermont moving toward single-payer health care

By Zach Howard
Reuters, Thu May 26, 2011

(Reuters) – Vermont became the first state to lay the groundwork for single-payer health care on Thursday when its governor signed an ambitious bill aimed at establishing universal insurance coverage for all residents.

“This law recognizes an economic and fiscal imperative,” Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin said as he signed the bill into law at the State House.

“We must control the growth in health care costs that are putting families at economic risk and making it harder for small employers to do business.”

Legislators say the plan, approved by the Democratic controlled House and Senate this spring, aims to extend coverage to all 620,000 residents while containing soaring health care costs.

A key component establishes a state health benefits exchange, as mandated by new federal health care laws, that will offer coverage from private insurers, state-sponsored and multi-state plans. It also will include tax credits to make premiums affordable for uninsured Vermonters.

The exchange, called Green Mountain Care and managed by a five-member board, will set reimbursement rates for health care providers and streamline administration into a single, unified system.

Residents and small employers will be able to compare rates from the various plans and enroll for coverage of their choosing.

As designed, the goal is an eventual state-funded and operated single-payer system.

But its sponsors say that outcome is far from certain. The plan will be phased in over several years, with an evolving financial structure that mandates a number of conditions.

Among the criteria are adoption of a financing plan by 2014; ensuring the new system costs less than the current fee-for-service one; and obtaining federal permission via a waiver to allow Vermont to proceed with the single-payer option, in around 2017.

Advocates of change say the existing fee-for-service care has a financial incentive to deliver more care, such as tests, with little attention to quality or better outcomes.

The single-payer concept was omitted from the federal health care overhaul championed by President Barack Obama, in part due to Republican criticism it meant excessive government control.

Progressives in Vermont, including Shumlin and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent, have worked for years to modify the state’s health care system.

Shumlin said he recognized “people have legitimate questions” about how a single-payer plan would be financed and operated.

“We will answer those questions before the legislature takes the next step … We’ll be getting input from all Vermonters moving forward, which is essential.”

If the state secures one key federal waiver related to exchanges, Green Mountain Care could begin as early as 2014. Another waiver needed to implement the single-payer component under federal law would not be available until 2017.

Vermont’s plan calls for the board to consider the likely costs of coverage, factor in potential savings from reforms and recommended sources of revenue. It is charged with delivering a financing plan to legislators by 2013.

If that plan’s single-payer component is adopted, lawmakers would approve a budget annually.

Single-payer proponents say the present system is too expensive and excludes too many residents. Vermont has around 47,000 uninsured and 150,000 underinsured residents.

But critics are wary of what a new program will cost and which taxes would help finance it. It is not yet clear whether it would involve increases such as a higher payroll tax.

The state’s health care spending runs about $5 billion annually, with costs rising between 6.5 percent and 8.5 percent in recent years.

Some experts say a revised system would save an estimated $580 million annually, and $1.9 billion by 2019, while creating several thousand jobs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/us-vermont-health-idUSTRE74P89420110526

Why Won't Corporate America Support Single Payer Medicare-for-All?

By Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer
Healthcare-NOW!, May 16, 2011   On the surface, it appears to be a no-brainer. Healthcare costs in the U. S. are twice as high as any other industrialized country. Most large corporations still pay a big chunk of their employees’ health care insurance premiums. Some are obligated by union contracts to pay an even larger percentage and to provide coverage for retirees. Many operate profitably in countries with national health care systems where they pay far less towards healthcare costs than they do in the U.S. So, from a straight bottom line business perspective, corporations should be leading the fight to replace our dysfunctional, overpriced, for-profit private insurance system with a single-payer, Medicare-for-All model. Yet more than 20 years after the crisis of escalating health insurance premiums first hit the corporate radar screens, not a single major U. S. corporation has come forward to advocate for replacing employment-based health insurance with a comprehensive national healthcare system. What gives? Well, I can’t claim any deep psychological insights into the corporate mind-set but I did negotiate with a wide array of corporations in my 20-odd years as a union official. In fact, in 2005, my union negotiated a national agreement with the oil industry that established a joint “Health Care Strategic Committee” meant to address the “undue burden” that the “upward spiral of healthcare costs has placed on employees and employers alike.” The purpose of the committee was to, “[E]xamine, explore and seek means, both internal and external, to address this rapid rise in health care costs. Further, the Committee will endeavor to influence the national debate around health care issues through positive participation in public and governmental forums.” Now many of us were hopeful that this might produce some results. Lots of these companies were based in countries that had national healthcare (British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, etc.). All of them did business in countries where the right to healthcare is a birthright. But it was all in vain. The union practically had to tie them to their chairs to get them to listen to a presentation on single-payer from highly-credentialed experts. After two sessions, the whole thing dissolved into acrimony. They were only interested in one thing: shifting their healthcare costs onto the backs of their employees. I think there are a number of factors that contribute to this mindset: It’s about power. Corporations like having healthcare linked to employment. They like having people held captive in jobs they hate for fear they they’ll lose their health coverage. They like it that, when you go on strike, you generally lose your health insurance. They like to control who they will cover, how much they will pay and what benefits are offered. They like the ability to change anything at any time for any reason whatsoever. They already have a plan to reduce healthcare costs. Thirty years ago, most employees of large corporations were covered by defined benefit pension plans that paid a guaranteed retirement benefit for as long as the person or their spouse lived. Today, the lucky ones have a 401 (k) plan that they pay into that has no guaranteed pay out. In effect, most large corporations have transferred all of the risks of providing retirement coverage onto their employees. This is their same plan for health insurance. All of the talk about “employee-directed health coverage” is about transferring risk from the corporation to the employee, Ultimately, they would like to replace any guarantee of health coverage with a voucher system where workers purchase their own coverage from an unregulated market. They don’t like slippery slopes. Large corporations almost always religiously resist any attempt to regulate or control their behavior. These people would probably fight a regulation requiring them to help old people cross the street by claiming that it will create a new entitlement mentality that will undermine the free market. Much of the politics of the last 30 years has been about corporations trying to free themselves from any national or social constraints on their mobility or freedom to do just about anything. They’re not going to easily concede that the time has come to establish a new social right in the heartland of capitalism.

They practice class solidarity. Unlike the poor benighted U. S. working class (was it Jay Gould who boasted, “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”?), large corporations actually believe in class solidarity. Health industry executives serve on other corporate boards and other executives serve on their boards. The banking and financial sectors establish all kinds of interlocking relationships between various large corporations. They belong to the same country clubs and their kids go to school together. They know that the threat to put the voracious health insurance industry out of business is a threat to profiteers everywhere. They are their own worst enemies. In the darkest days of the depression, President Roosevelt’s New Deal saved the capitalist system from itself by ushering in a new era of regulation and transparency. Almost without exception, corporate interests fought him every inch of the way. In fact, he had to link up with a vast popular movement against the “malefactors of great wealth” in order to create the conditions that stabilized the economy and then allowed corporations to thrive in one of the most prosperous eras in world history. Once we win single-payer, many large corporations will become big supporters. But we’ll have to drag them kicking and screaming to that moment. This is not to say that we should stop demanding that corporate America add their voice to the fight for healthcare for all. Nor does it mean that all employers will act with the same obstinate resistance that large corporations do. In particular, small businesses are led by flesh and blood human beings with healthcare needs of their own and relationships to their employees and the communities they do business in. They can be a powerful constituency for single payer and there are some successful organizing models out there that we should embrace. Likewise, public employers should be a natural supporter of single payer. They don’t have the profit-driven reasons to maintain support for a wasteful system of private insurance. They could save trillions if they were relieved of obligations to provide continuing private insurance coverage for retired and active employees. The entire federal budget deficit would disappear if we paid the same amount in per capita healthcare costs as any other industrialized nation where healthcare is a right. You need only to compare the vicious, “low road”, blame-the-workers approach to budget cutting in states like Wisconsin and Ohio (whose current political leaders are financed, I might add, by some of the most despicable corporate interests) with the “high road”, we’re-all-in-this-together, solve healthcare first approach in places like Vermont to see the potential for our movement to have public employers on our side on this issue. But, in my opinion, the only thing that will move most large corporations is a powerful grassroots anti-corporate movement that will hold their feet to the fire. We’d be better served spending our time building that movement than clinging to a naive hope that somehow corporations are going to come to our rescue out of their own self-interest. http://www.healthcare-now.org/why-won%E2%80%99t-corporate-america-support-single-payer-medicare-for-all/

]] >

Changing physicians' politics

As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics

By Gardiner Harris
The New York Times, May 30, 2011

Doctors were once overwhelmingly male and usually owned their own practices.

But doctors are changing. They are abandoning their own practices and taking salaried jobs in hospitals, particularly in the North, but increasingly in the South as well. Half of all younger doctors are women, and that share is likely to grow.

There are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening from Maine as well as South Dakota, Arizona and Oregon, according to doctors’ advocates in those and other states.

Because so many doctors are no longer in business for themselves, many of the issues that were once priorities for doctors’ groups, like insurance reimbursement, have been displaced by public health and safety concerns, including mandatory seat belt use and chemicals in baby products.

“It was a comfortable fit 30 years ago representing physicians and being an active Republican,” said Gordon H. Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Association. “The fit is considerably less comfortable today.”

But doctors in Maine have abandoned the ownership of practices en masse, and their politics and points of view have shifted dramatically. The Maine doctors’ group once opposed health insurance mandates because they increase costs to employers, but it now supports them, despite Republican opposition, because they help patients.

Dr. Nancy Cummings, a 51-year-old orthopedic surgeon in Farmington… went to work for a hospital, sees health care as a universal right and believes profit-making businesses should have no role in either insuring people or providing their care. She said she was involved with the Maine Medical Association, for the most part, to increase patients’ access to care.

Dr. Lee Thibodeau, 59, a neurosurgeon from Portland, still calls himself a conservative but says he has changed, too. He used to pay nearly $85,000 a year for malpractice insurance and was among the most politically active doctors in the state on the issue of liability. Then, in 2006, he sold his practice, took a job with a local health care system, stopped paying the insurance premiums and ended his advocacy on the issue.

“It’s not my priority anymore,” Dr. Thibodeau said. “I think Gordon and I are now fighting for all of the same things, and that’s to optimize the patient experience.”

Dr. Cecil B. Wilson, the president of the A.M.A., said that changes in doctors’ practice-ownership status do not necessarily lead to changes in their politics. And some leaders of state medical associations predicted that the changes would be fleeting.

Dr. Kevin S. Flanigan, a former president of the Maine Medical Association, described himself as “very conservative” and said he was fighting to bring the group “back to where I think it belongs.” Dr. Flanigan was recently forced to close his own practice, and he now works for a company with hundreds of urgent-care centers. He said that in his experience, conservatives prefer owning their own businesses.

“People who are conservative by nature are not going to go into the profession,” he said, “because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/health/policy/30docs.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

Anecdotes and hearsay are not the same as scientifically conducted surveys, but most of us who have been around for a while have seen the trends described in this article. Many physicians seem to be less concerned about personal involvement in the business of medicine and are seeking out approaches that “optimize the patient experience,” and in so doing are optimizing their own professional practice experiences.

Dr. Kevin Flanigan, a former president of the Maine Medical Association, represents the old guard. He says that conservatives prefer owning their own businesses and “are not going to go into the profession because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.”

AMA President Cecil Wilson doesn’t believe that physicians will change their politics simply because of a change in practice ownership status. That view may be held by the old guard, but those now entering the profession who care more about patients than they do about running a business may well align themselves politically with those who believe in health care justice.

This reminds me of another personal anecdote. When I was interviewed for my application to UCSF by revered pediatrician Moses Grossman, he asked me what I would do if I wasn’t accepted into medical school. I told him that I was confident that I would be accepted somewhere, but, if not, I would most likely become a school teacher. He asked me why I thought he asked that question. I said that I assumed that he wanted to be sure that I had the practical sense to consider other options since realistically many did not make it into medical school. He then said something I’ve never forgotten. He said, “Suppose you told me that instead you would take over your uncle’s fur business… “

The old guard can have their fur business equivalencies, and hopefully they eventually will go the way of that heartless industry. Let’s welcome the new guard who have decided that they would prefer to join our growing ranks of compassionate, humanitarian stewards of the healing arts.

Changing physicians’ politics

As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics

By Gardiner Harris
The New York Times, May 30, 2011

Doctors were once overwhelmingly male and usually owned their own practices.

But doctors are changing. They are abandoning their own practices and taking salaried jobs in hospitals, particularly in the North, but increasingly in the South as well. Half of all younger doctors are women, and that share is likely to grow.

There are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening from Maine as well as South Dakota, Arizona and Oregon, according to doctors’ advocates in those and other states.

Because so many doctors are no longer in business for themselves, many of the issues that were once priorities for doctors’ groups, like insurance reimbursement, have been displaced by public health and safety concerns, including mandatory seat belt use and chemicals in baby products.

“It was a comfortable fit 30 years ago representing physicians and being an active Republican,” said Gordon H. Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Association. “The fit is considerably less comfortable today.”

But doctors in Maine have abandoned the ownership of practices en masse, and their politics and points of view have shifted dramatically. The Maine doctors’ group once opposed health insurance mandates because they increase costs to employers, but it now supports them, despite Republican opposition, because they help patients.

Dr. Nancy Cummings, a 51-year-old orthopedic surgeon in Farmington… went to work for a hospital, sees health care as a universal right and believes profit-making businesses should have no role in either insuring people or providing their care. She said she was involved with the Maine Medical Association, for the most part, to increase patients’ access to care.

Dr. Lee Thibodeau, 59, a neurosurgeon from Portland, still calls himself a conservative but says he has changed, too. He used to pay nearly $85,000 a year for malpractice insurance and was among the most politically active doctors in the state on the issue of liability. Then, in 2006, he sold his practice, took a job with a local health care system, stopped paying the insurance premiums and ended his advocacy on the issue.

“It’s not my priority anymore,” Dr. Thibodeau said. “I think Gordon and I are now fighting for all of the same things, and that’s to optimize the patient experience.”

Dr. Cecil B. Wilson, the president of the A.M.A., said that changes in doctors’ practice-ownership status do not necessarily lead to changes in their politics. And some leaders of state medical associations predicted that the changes would be fleeting.

Dr. Kevin S. Flanigan, a former president of the Maine Medical Association, described himself as “very conservative” and said he was fighting to bring the group “back to where I think it belongs.” Dr. Flanigan was recently forced to close his own practice, and he now works for a company with hundreds of urgent-care centers. He said that in his experience, conservatives prefer owning their own businesses.

“People who are conservative by nature are not going to go into the profession,” he said, “because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/health/policy/30docs.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

Anecdotes and hearsay are not the same as scientifically conducted surveys, but most of us who have been around for a while have seen the trends described in this article. Many physicians seem to be less concerned about personal involvement in the business of medicine and are seeking out approaches that “optimize the patient experience,” and in so doing are optimizing their own professional practice experiences.

Dr. Kevin Flanigan, a former president of the Maine Medical Association, represents the old guard. He says that conservatives prefer owning their own businesses and “are not going to go into the profession because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.”

AMA President Cecil Wilson doesn’t believe that physicians will change their politics simply because of a change in practice ownership status. That view may be held by the old guard, but those now entering the profession who care more about patients than they do about running a business may well align themselves politically with those who believe in health care justice.

This reminds me of another personal anecdote. When I was interviewed for my application to UCSF by revered pediatrician Moses Grossman, he asked me what I would do if I wasn’t accepted into medical school. I told him that I was confident that I would be accepted somewhere, but, if not, I would most likely become a school teacher. He asked me why I thought he asked that question. I said that I assumed that he wanted to be sure that I had the practical sense to consider other options since realistically many did not make it into medical school. He then said something I’ve never forgotten. He said, “Suppose you told me that instead you would take over your uncle’s fur business… ”

The old guard can have their fur business equivalencies, and hopefully they eventually will go the way of that heartless industry. Let’s welcome the new guard who have decided that they would prefer to join our growing ranks of compassionate, humanitarian stewards of the healing arts.

Vermont Lays Out a Path to Single-Payer, But It's a Long Journey

By Jane Norman, CQ HealthBeat Associate Editor
The Commonwealth Fund, May 26, 2011

Last Thursday was a day of celebration for advocates of single-payer health care when Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed into law a measure that’s intended to pave the way for government-run health care in the Green Mountain State.

But it’s a case of delayed gratification. Numerous questions and uncertainties surround implementation, the costs have not been determined, and the law is unlikely to go into effect until sometime six years or more down the road.

In remarks at the Statehouse in Montpelier, Shumlin, a Democrat, acknowledged that Vermont has a way to go before its proposed system can achieve the cost efficiencies and quality dreamed of by those who advocate a single-payer health care system.

“I realize that people have legitimate questions about how a single-payer will be financed and operated, and we will answer those questions before the legislature takes the next step,” Shumlin said. “We’ll be getting input from all Vermonters moving forward, which is essential to the success of this effort.”

He said that 47,000 state residents are uninsured and another 150,000 have inadequate coverage. The objective is to provide them and the rest of the state’s residents with better health care.
While single-payer advocates were happy with the bill signing and its significance, they said the details of implementation are problematic.

The leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, a prominent single-payer group, praised the Vermont measure and said it’s providing inspiration for the rest of the country. But Garrett Adams, president of the organization, said in a statement that “the actual provisions of the law fall considerably short of the single-payer reform needed to realize those goals.”

One problem is that multiple private insurers would still be allowed to operate in Vermont, denying residents the savings they would see under a true single-payer plan, he said.

Meanwhile, the liberal Web site Firedoglake mounted a petition effort asking the federal Department of Health and Human Services to grant the waivers the state would need from Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare, worker’s compensation laws and more.

The three-part Vermont measure, which its House approved earlier this month, will establish a paid Green Mountain Care Board whose five members — all state employees — will be appointed and in place by October, according to Shumlin’s office. It’s supposed to work with providers to reduce their reliance on fee-for-service payments. The board will also have approval over insurance rate requests and eventually will review hospital budgets.

In addition, the bill authorizes the creation of a health exchange, which is required for the state to set up under the federal health care law by 2014 or the federal government would step in. “The intent of the general assembly is to establish the Vermont health benefit exchange in a manner such that it may become the foundation for Green Mountain Care,” the bill says.

Green Mountain Care is the third element: the single-payer system that would begin in 2017, the earliest date at which current federal health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) allows states to ask for waivers from the overhaul measure to set up their own systems. The Vermont congressional delegation is pushing to move that date to up 2014.

Vermont’s system would not go into effect until its legislature approves a budget and means of financing for it, yet to be determined though new taxes are thought to be likely. A benefits package would have to be approved by the Care Board.

Supporters of the federal health care law saw Vermont’s move as proof that the law has plenty of flexibility to allow states to make their own decisions about how to run their health care systems. “We hope that other states across the country take inspiration from Vermont to implement their own unique pathways to improving health coverage, costs, and quality of care,” said Ron Pollack, head of the advocacy group Families USA.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2011/May/May-31-2011/Vermont-Lays-Out-a-Path-to-Single-Payer.aspx

Vermont has a plan for single-payer health care

Health blog
Consumer Reports, May 26, 2011

Vermont made history today when Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, signed into law a plan to create the nation’s first state-run “single-payer” health system. If fully implemented, every Vermont resident, including those on Medicare and Medicaid, would be entitled to enroll in the state’s own insurance plan, Green Mountain Care. Private insurers would still be allowed to operate in the state.

The goal is to establish a system in which “health care is a right and not a privilege,” Governor Shumlin told National Public Radio. But the new law doesn’t establish the system right away. Instead, it creates a five-member board that is charged with coming up with options to pay for the system, which are to be presented to the legislature for approval by Jan. 15, 2013.

In addition, there’s the hurdle of getting federal approval to allow Vermonters who have coverage through Medicaid or Medicare to enroll in Green Mountain Care. While the federal government has previously allowed states to experiment with their Medicaid programs, which is a joint federal-state initiative, is hasn’t for Medicare, the nation’s health program for seniors and the disabled.

The Vermont law seeks to comply with—and initially build on—the national reform law. That law was passed in March 2010 but its major elements don’t go into effect until January 2014. For example, the Vermont law creates a web-based insurance “exchange” where residents could compare insurance plans and choose among them. The federal reform law requires that such exchanges be set up in all 50 states. In Vermont, though, one of the options in its exchange would be Green Mountain Care.

The Vermont law seeks eventually to supplant other parts of the federal law as well. For example, it envisions that doctors and hospitals will be paid fixed rates set by the new board and lawmakers, similar to how health systems in Canada and Europe work.

Whether the federal government will grant the waivers could depend on politics. The federal reform law allows states to launch alternative systems starting in 2017. And in February, President Obama endorsed legislation that would move that date up to 2014—a concession to states clamoring for more “flexibility” or to opt out of the law altogether. But states would have to meet stringent conditions, such as covering as many as or more people as the federal law and providing as generous a package of benefits. To date, there’s been no movement on the proposal. Rather, in the House, lawmakers have voted to repeal the entire law or restrict its funding.

Most business groups in Vermont have either opposed the law or been non-committal. Under the law, employers can continue providing workers with benefits through private insurers but will be expected to help finance the new system through a tax, as yet unspecified. Many employers nationwide have been looking for ways to lower their rising health care costs.

Long time single-payer advocates praised passage of the Vermont law but were dismayed that it allowed private insurers to continue operating in the state. “Allowing multiple insurers…will deny Vermonters the enormous administrative savings they would otherwise get under a true single payer plan,” Garrett Adams, M.D., president of Physicians for a National Health Program, said in a statement.

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2011/05/vermont-establishes-road-map-for-single-payer-health-care.html