Amnesty International USA today issued the following email alert.

To take action, go to the AI-USA online Action Center: http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&template=x.ascx&action=12462

Health Care is a Human Right — Urge the Senate to Have a Real Debate on Single Payer

We at Amnesty International believe that policymakers have a historic opportunity to reform a broken health care system. During the presidential debates, Barack Obama took a step in the right direction by affirming that health care should be a right. The legislation now emerging from Washington is, however, a long way from fulfilling that vision.

One reason the current draft legislation falls short of the mark is that single-payer advocates, a crucial human rights constituency, have been largely excluded from the reform process. While the human right to health care does not mandate any particular type of health care system, of the reform proposals being discussed in the U.S. today, the single-payer plans are more universal, equitable and accountable — the three key principles of the human right to health care. Single-payer plans approach health care as an essential service and a public good. A single-payer health care system would pair private delivery with public financing — that is, with private doctors, clinics and hospitals getting all their reimbursement from the government. Medicare, a well-established and popular part of our current health care system, works this way; a single-payer system would institute an improved Medicare for all.

Two of Amnesty International’s ally organizations, the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative and the National Health Law Program, have analyzed current single-payer proposals, and found them to come much closer to fulfilling the human right to health care than the market-based reform plans.

But the powerful Senate Finance Committee, the single most important legislative grouping in the reform process, has yet to hold a public hearing on single-payer. In fact, the committee chair, Sen. Max Baucus, has said that single-payer is “off the table” — a stance he has since acknowledged was mistaken.

Advocates for a human rights-based approach to health care must be included in the reform process. Tell Max Baucus to hold a Finance Committee hearing on single-payer!

Publicly financed and administered health care should be expanded as the strongest vehicle for making health care universally accessible and accountable. Single-payer is a crucial proposal for fulfilling the human right to health care. Without a single-payer seat at the table, we risk that no one will speak up for true universality and a fair, equitable health care system..

Too much of the current debate about health care assumes that we can talk about health care in the same way that we talk about consumer products. But health care is not about markets; it is about the right of every person to live a life of dignity. In health care reform, human rights must come first.

Though things are moving very fast in Congress, it’s not too late to make your voice heard. Tell Max Baucus that single-payer advocates must be heard!

Sincerely,

Sameer Dossani
Demand Dignity Campaign Director
Amnesty International, USA

P.S. You can always get more information on Amnesty International’s Healthcare Is A Human Right project and sign our petition at http://www.amnestyusa.org/healthcare

By Arnold Relman
The New York Review of Books
Volume 56, Number 11 · July 2, 2009

Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America
by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, with a foreword by Victor R. Fuchs
PublicAffairs, 219 pp., $14.95 (paper)

President Obama has placed health care reform high on his domestic agenda. He believes that a better health care system is essential for the nation’s economic recovery, so health reform “will not wait another year.” However, he has made only general proposals for reform, leaving Congress to work out the details of the legislation. The Democratic-led Congress has already passed some limited health legislation and its leaders say that they will put a comprehensive reform bill on the President’s desk before the end of this year.

Despite wide popular support for major reform, there will be powerful opposition. Most Republicans in Congress, allied with a small band of fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats, and most people in the for-profit health care industry will resist significant change. Many others with ideological objections to “big government” pay lip service to reform, but will balk at proposals that threaten private insurance. Compromises will be necessary, so it remains to be seen what legislation emerges and how effectively it addresses the basic problems of the US health system.[1]

The central problem is its expense. Health care in the US is about twice as expensive per capita as in other developed countries–nearly 17 percent of US GDP in 2008–and its costs are rising faster. High costs partly account for another huge health care problem–nearly 50 million people are uninsured, and the number is rapidly increasing. Economists say that the main reason for high costs is the ever-expanding use of expensive kinds of diagnosis and treatment, such as new drugs, diagnostic tests, imaging methods, and surgical procedures. Physicians in most other advanced countries have access to virtually the same resources, but use them less.

This difference is partly explained by a higher proportion of specialists in the US, who rely more than primary care physicians on expensive technical procedures for their livelihood, and in general are much more highly paid than primary care physicians–one reason why primary care doctors are now in short supply. The American College of Physicians attributes much of the high cost of the US health system to its relative excess of well-paid specialists and lack of primary care doctors.

There are also much greater financial incentives in the US to use technology, since health insurers pay doctors and clinical facilities most of what they charge for such services. In most advanced countries with universal coverage, the government determines how medical expenses are reimbursed, and the income of health care providers from technical services is therefore more modest. Also, relatively more practicing physicians in those countries are paid salaries, and relatively more hospitals (where most advanced technology is concentrated) are controlled by government budgets. This limits the availability and use of expensive technology.

Another very important but often overlooked reason for greater health expenditures in the US is that, more than in any other advanced country, large parts of the system are owned by investors. As a result, the entire system behaves like a profit-driven industry, as I described two years ago in my book A Second Opinion.[2] The commercialization of our health system dates back only a few decades, but its consequences are profound. Investors now own about 20 percent of nonpublic general hospitals, almost all specialty hospitals, and most freestanding facilities for ambulatory patients, such as walk-in clinics, imaging centers, and ambulatory surgical centers. These medical care businesses, like other businesses, need profits to satisfy their investors, and for this purpose they use marketing and advertising, directed at physicians and the general public.

To remain competitive, many not-for-profit hospitals promote their bottom line just like their for-profit counterparts, vigorously advertising their facilities and services to the public. No other health care system is as focused on generating income as ours, and in no other country is medical care marketed and advertised so aggressively, as if it were just another commodity in trade. This increases health costs, while hospitals concentrate on the delivery of profitable, rather than effective, services. It also favors those who can pay over those who need medical care but can’t afford it.

The behavior of US physicians has been changed by the commercialization of medical care, and this too has increased costs. US medical practice has traditionally relied on fee-for-service, which has always given it some of the attributes and incentives of a business. However, the American Medical Association (AMA) maintained for many years that medical practice was a profession, not a business. The AMA’s ethical guidelines therefore advised physicians to limit their income to reasonable earnings from the care of patients, and to refrain from advertising and from entering financial arrangements with drug and device manufacturers. Those restrictions were lifted after the US Supreme Court decided in 1975 that lawyers, and by extension members of other professions, including physicians, are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore must be subject to antitrust law (from which they had largely been exempt).[3]

This decision had an enormous effect on the medical profession, but its consequences have received relatively little public attention. Although the courts did not initiate the commercialization of medicine, they certainly accelerated it and gave it legal justification. In 1980, after medical organizations lost some costly antitrust trials, in which they were accused of such offenses as limiting doctor fees or denying staff privileges, the AMA changed its ethical guidelines, declaring medicine to be both a business and a profession. This lowered the AMA’s barriers to the commercialization of medical practice, allowing physicians to participate in any legal profit-making business arrangement that did not harm patients.

Nearly a half-century ago, Stanford economics professor Kenneth Arrow, later a Nobel laureate, convincingly argued that medical care cannot conform to market laws because patients are not ordinary consumers and doctors are not ordinary vendors.[4] He said that sick or injured patients must rely on physicians in ways fundamentally different from the price-driven relation between buyers and sellers in an ordinary market. This argument implied that, contrary to the assumptions of antitrust law, market competition among physicians cannot be expected to lower medical prices. And since physicians influence decisions to use medical services far more than patients do, the volume and types of services provided to patients–and hence total health costs–need to be controlled by forces other than the market, such as professional standards and government regulation. But Arrow’s argument was largely ignored in the rush to exploit health care for commercial purposes that ensued after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

The effects of investor ownership on health costs are perhaps most evident in the US private insurance system, which covers about 170 million people under age sixty-five–most of them through employment-based private plans. The great majority of private health insurers today, such as Aetna and Cigna, are investor-owned businesses. Most of these were established just a few decades ago, when–as a result of the rapid expansion of employment-based insurance–huge amounts of money began to flow into health care, creating profitable opportunities for investors.

Profits and management expenses take at least 10 to 20 percent of the premiums charged by investor-owned plans, including the costs of selecting those they will insure, whereas the overhead costs of Medicare–a government-run insurance plan covering everyone sixty-five and older–are about 3 percent. When private insurance companies provide coverage for Medicare patients (as in the Medicare Advantage plans), they cost the US government about 13 percent more than standard Medicare coverage.

In comparison with public insurance, a much smaller fraction of private insurance premiums goes to the actual provision of care, and the cost of providing acceptable care for those under sixty-five is probably much higher than if the same population were covered by Medicare. The private US health insurance industry has revenues from premiums of at least $500 billion, so its business overhead and profits add many billions to the cost of health care. Furthermore, the overhead costs of physicians and hospitals, whose offices must deal with the red tape of multiple private insurance companies when billing and collecting for services, add substantially to the expense these insurers inflict on the US system.

When considered in the light of what has been said about health costs, the proposals now being debated in Washington seem to be missing the main target. They will expand insurance coverage in the short term, which is certainly needed, but they will create a system even less affordable than at present.

Consider, first, the health proposals made in late February by President Obama in his budget message (most of which were also part of his campaign platform). He stressed the need to cover the uninsured and reduce the costs of health insurance. He suggested that people should not be locked into their jobs just to secure health coverage, that they should have a choice of health plans and physicians, and should be able to keep their employment-based plans if they wished, but should have other options. To reduce costs he urged elimination of high administrative expenses, unnecessary tests and services, and other inefficiencies. He also advocated more use of electronic records and the development of data on the effectiveness of specific medical interventions. He expected that these measures would not only improve the reformed system but also help it to pay for itself and maintain “fiscal sustainability.”

The coverage problem had already been partially addressed through the Recovery Act of 2009, signed by the President on February 17, which provides tax credits for the recently unemployed to help them keep their health insurance. Coverage had been increased further by separate legislation reauthorizing the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which includes funds to insure an additional four million children under Medicaid–mainly children from poor families.

The Recovery Act also provides funds to improve the health care system and control costs. It authorizes $19 billion to support computerizing health records and about $1 billion for preventive public health programs (such as control of smoking and obesity), as well as community clinics and case management. As he said in his budget message, Obama believes that these initiatives will in the long run result in more efficient and less expensive care, although many people would remain uninsured. So beyond the already enacted measures, the President requested a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over ten years for health reform, most of which would expand and improve health insurance coverage.

The President proposed to finance half of his health expenditures over the next ten years through increased taxes on the wealthy, and half through savings from improved medical care. He also proposed to save money by reducing excessive payments to private insurers who cover Medicare beneficiaries (Medicare Advantage plans); by reducing drug prices and encouraging the use of generics; and by curtailing fraudulent billing practices.

These objectives are laudable, but as many knowledgeable authorities–including the Congressional Budget Office–have pointed out, there is very little evidence that the President’s initiatives would actually produce substantial savings. Whatever improvements these measures may make in the quality and efficiency of care–and they could well be significant–they are unlikely, over the next ten years, to generate the $300 billion in savings assumed by the President’s budget. And even if such savings were to be realized, most health economists believe that universal coverage would cost over twice what Obama allocated in his budget, and that does not count the cost of medical inflation.

The President apparently wants to achieve nearly universal coverage now, hoping to deal with the cost problem later. That probably explains why he invited representatives of the health industry to the White House on May 11. According to the White House, the meeting was a “watershed” event that resulted in a pledge from industry officials to reduce costs by $2 trillion over the next decade. But leaders of the American Hospital Association and the private insurance industry told The New York Times a few days earlier that a specific amount of savings had not been promised, and that the savings would be more gradual. This episode is best described as part of the industry’s strategy to appear supportive, more by words than action, hoping thereby to fend off legislation that would seriously threaten its interests. To facilitate passage of health reform, the President solicits the health industry’s support, but he must know this will require making compromises with vested interests. He also must know that health care businesses cannot be much interested in reducing expenditures that are their income.

The President no longer insists that people under sixty-five whose income is too high for Medicaid should have the option of buying public insurance, although that was part of his campaign platform and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says he still favors it. Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, strongly supports this idea. Such a public insurance option is strongly opposed by the private insurance industry and by some influential legislators like Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who see it as unfair competition and the opening wedge of a move toward the ultimate replacement of private plans with a government-operated insurance system. The industry and its allies have so far been emphatic that they will not agree to a reform plan that offers the choice of public insurance.

A compromise has been suggested by Senator Charles Schumer in which the public insurance option is supported entirely by premiums and co-payments and administered by an independent agency enforcing the same rules that regulate the private plans. Whether this, or any other, version of the public option would satisfy industry’s concerns is not clear. The private insurance industry has made clear its willingness to compromise on a proposal that subsidizes expanded coverage and improvements in medical care, provided that the legislation mandates private coverage for all those under sixty-five not already covered by a government program. The private insurance industry might even accept a requirement that private insurers offer insurance to all applicants without increasing premiums to those with preexisting illnesses, provided that insurers are allowed to set rates based on age and other demographic factors. The insurance industry’s conciliatory public position may be concealing what will ultimately be its usual resistance to any policy threatening its current stranglehold on the under-sixty-five health insurance system. It will be interesting to see how these issues are resolved. As the May 11 meeting at the White House suggests, the administration does not want a direct confrontation with vested interests and probably will settle for arrangements the insurance industry suggests.

In seeking a consensus, Obama’s health reform policies do not address the central causes of rising costs, and propose nothing likely to have much effect on them. He does not mention the ways that investor ownership and the fee-for-service payment system provide incentives for increasing costs. Nor do his policies recognize as a major problem the fragmented, entrepreneurial organization of a medical care system that is dominated by specialists and is deficient in primary care doctors. And yet reforms that do not address these problems cannot produce an affordable or sustainable system.

In many respects, Obama’s proposals resemble the widely acclaimed reforms enacted three years ago under Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. That initiative has achieved wider insurance coverage in the state but has not challenged the private insurers or made any changes in the delivery of medical care, which is among the most expensive in the country. Consequently, while federal funds from the Recovery Act may keep the Massachusetts plan alive for the time being, the state is now confronting cost problems that could bankrupt the entire program. Like Obama, Massachusetts lawmakers decided to begin by expanding coverage, apparently hoping to control costs later on.

Five congressional committees, two in the Senate and three in the House, are working on health care proposals, but to judge from the advice they are getting and from comments in the media by members of these committees, the resulting legislation is unlikely to go beyond the expanded coverage and the marginal improvements in the existing medical care delivery system proposed by Obama. Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, chairman of the influential Senate Finance Committee, released a white paper last November outlining a reform plan largely resembling the President’s. There is little evidence in this document of a strong determination to challenge the private insurance plans with a competing public plan, or to make basic changes in the organization and funding of medical practice. Timid legislative tinkering with the current medical care system and a focus on increasing coverage, rather than major reform, are not going to control costs or make much difference in the quality of care.

This is one of the main conclusions of Ezekiel Emanuel’s recent book, Healthcare, Guaranteed. Although its views stand apart from the current consensus, it will get attention from Washington’s policymakers, not least because the author, a physician with clinical training, is the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff. He is also chair of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and the medical adviser to Peter Orszag at the Office of Management and Budget.

Emanuel shares many of the criticisms of the current system that I have put forward here, including the problems of private insurance and fragmented, fee-for-service medical care. However, he says nothing about the role of investors and commercial behavior in creating these problems, and none of his suggested reforms addresses the lack of primary care doctors. Still, to his credit, he proposes comprehensive reforms in all parts of the system, arguing that incremental changes like those advocated by Obama and Baucus will be ineffective.

Emanuel proposes, first, that everyone be issued a government certificate guaranteeing access to a broad range of health care services, which would be provided through certified, competing private health insurance plans. These plans would be paid by a government agency, with premiums adjusted for the degree of risk estimated for each patient. The plans would be required to accept everyone regardless of preexisting medical conditions. They would then organize integrated teams of physicians and other health professionals to provide the guaranteed care. Hospitals, selected by the doctors and their patients, would be reimbursed by the plans. Employment-based insurance would disappear, to be replaced by increased wages for employees. Medicaid would also end and Medicare would be gradually phased out, to be replaced by membership in the new national system. Individuals would be free to buy alternative or supplemental services at their own expense, but these costs would not be tax-deductible.

Emanuel’s proposed system would be funded by a dedicated, VAT-type of consumption tax, the rate to be set by Congress. The amount collected would in effect limit total federal expenditures on health. Costs would also be moderated by a more rational use of expensive technology, based on the recommendations and research findings of a federally supported Institute for Technology Outcomes and Assessment. A National Health Board would oversee the operation of the entire system, monitor and report on the performance of the plans, and determine the risk-adjusted per capita payments to them.

Apart from the question of its political chances, how should this proposal be judged? In my view it has much to commend it, but is seriously flawed by its dependence on competing, for-profit private insurance plans to reorganize and manage the medical care delivery system, and to determine the reimbursement of physicians and hospitals. It recalls the “managed care” era of the 1990s, when, in an effort to control costs and maximize profits, the HMOs restricted access to specialists and hospitals and regulated physicians’ use of technical procedures, causing many patients and physicians to rebel against them. As that experience has shown, insurers should not make decisions about the use of medical resources, whether the insurers are private or public. Such decisions should be left to physicians and their patients–provided, of course, that there is appropriate accountability, and public mechanisms are in place for controlling total expenditures and the prices paid for services.

Emanuel is right in wanting to reform the present insurance system, but he is mistaken in thinking that it should be replaced by regulated competition among private, for-profit insurers. The experience of the last few decades with such insurers–Medicare Advantage plans are a case in point–shows that they add costs without commensurate benefit. Private, investor-owned insurance plans are a failed experiment and should be phased out or marginalized.

The logical alternative would be a universal insurance plan administered by the government and funded by taxes–some sort of “single-payer” arrangement, which would eliminate paying for the profits and administrative expenses of private insurance middlemen. Emanuel admits that a single- payer system would save a lot of money, probably at least $120 billion per year, but he fears single-payer plans, and argues against them. He says that they do little or nothing to improve the quality or efficiency of care, while exposing the system to the risks of government meddling, rationing, and unpredictable financial support.

The obvious response to those criticisms is that single-payer plans concern the method of insurance and not the delivery of medical care. Medicare, for example, is a single-payer system in which medical care is privately delivered, with a minimum of government interference. The medical care delivery system could be reformed and reorganized to control costs and improve quality while still being funded through a single payer plan.

That solution, in fact, is one that I proposed two years ago in A Second Opinion. It would include a single public payer that guaranteed comprehensive health care for all, funded by a progressive tax whose proceeds would be dedicated to medical care. This insurance and funding plan would be combined with a delivery system, overseen by a public agency but managed entirely on a not-for-profit basis by privately organized doctors and hospitals. The delivery of care and the use of health resources would be the responsibility of organized multispecialty groups of salaried physicians and other health professionals, which would include adequate numbers of primary care doctors.

Multispecialty group practice with salaried physicians has many advantages for the delivery of low-cost, high-quality care, in which the different medical services needed by a patient are effectively integrated. Evidence for these advantages, as well as the problems faced by group practice in the current system, are thoroughly discussed in a book edited by Alain C. Enthoven and Laura A. Tollen.[5] Despite the problems, a few large multispecialty groups have managed to thrive–for example, the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser-Permanente, Marshfield, Geisinger, Scott-White, and Lahey. Patients at these groups are covered by a variety of insurance plans, public and private. They receive high-quality care by integrated teams of physicians, primary care doctors, and specialists, who are paid mainly by salaries.

The Mayo Clinic, for example, has been very successful as a large, private, not-for-profit, self-governing organization, in which the participating physicians elect medical leaders who set professional standards, hire and fire staff, and determine salaries. I envision a system that would encourage the development of many smaller community-based group practices of this kind, and would help them survive, with subsidies if needed. These groups would be certified by a new central health agency, which would set guidelines for salaries and administrative policies.

As in Emanuel’s plan, total costs would be limited by the amount of money collected through a health tax, but I favor a progressive, income-related tax rather than a VAT. Deci-sions on the use of available resources would be the responsibility of physicians, who would be helped, but not controlled, by clinical guidelines and assessments of technology. Hospitals and other facilities would be not-for-profit and would be paid through the central health agency, but the choice of these facilities would be a private decision made by doctors and their patients.

Congressman John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a single-payer proposal (HR 676) that would pro- vide universal health care through a Medicare-like public insurance system with private, nonprofit providers. Although his bill now has many cosponsors in the House, it remains held up in committee and is unlikely to be part of any legislation emerging from the 111th Congress. A single-payer system, despite its many advantages over the present insurance system, and despite its growing public acceptance, is clearly “off the table” in current legislative discussions. At the start of the public hearing of the Senate Finance Committee on May 5 and 12, Senator Baucus insisted that he was “open” to all views; but among the twenty-eight invited witnesses, no single-payer advocate was allowed to testify. In fact, Baucus has repeatedly said that the legislative debate would not consider a single-payer option.

Neither my proposal, nor Emanuel’s, nor Conyers’s, nor any other plan that starts with the elimination of private employment-based insurance and depends largely on public funding stands much of a chance of being enacted now. It would be too great a change, and it would threaten insurance companies and other powerful vested interests that influence Congress. The same is true of any major reorganization of medical care that phases out fee-for-service practice in favor of nonprofit multispecialty groups of salaried physicians and dampens the commercial fire that has converted US medical care into an ever-expanding profit-seeking industry.

As bad as they already are, things will have to get still worse before major reform becomes politically possible. The legislation likely to emerge from this Congress will not control–and will probably even exacerbate–the inflation of costs. But sometime in the not-too- distant future, health expenditures will become intolerable and fundamental change will at last be accepted as the only way to avoid disaster. When that time arrives, the opportunity to enact real health reform will finally be at hand.

---

Notes

[1]I briefly summarized my view of the health system’s problems in an earlier commentary on the McCain and Obama campaigns, but an assessment of the legislative remedies now being discussed requires a deeper analysis of what’s wrong with US health care. See “McCain, Obama, and the National Health,” The New York Review, November 6, 2008.

[2]A Second Opinion: Rescuing America’s Health Care: A Plan for Universal Coverage Serving Patients over Profit (PublicAffairs, 2007).

[3]Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).

[4]Kenneth J. Arrow, “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 5 (December 1963).

[5]Toward a 21st Century Health System: The Contributions and Promise of Prepaid Group Practice (Jossey-Bass, 2004).

Obama has been supportive of a public option, but how do you solve the healthcare problem when you fail to deal with its root?

By Bernie Sanders
Opinion
Christian Science Monitor
from the June 16, 2009 edition

Washington – President Obama has indicated he wants a healthcare bill on his desk sometime around October, before we worry about timetables, however, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions.

First, should all Americans be entitled to healthcare in the same way we respond to other basic needs such as education, police, and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality healthcare to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way?

The answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans believe that all of us should have healthcare coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way.

To me, the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of healthcare in our country and move toward a publicly funded, single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach.

Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated, and bureaucratic in the world. But in America, the people who have to navigate that maze are the lucky ones. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home base, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses. That is six times the number who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, our healthcare outcomes lag behind many other nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy, and preventable deaths.

The main reason we get such bad results is that the function of private health insurance companies is not to provide quality healthcare for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30 percent of each healthcare dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the department of Veterans Affairs are administered for far less.

In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary healthcare doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in healthcare bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the past three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the number of physicians.

While healthcare costs are soaring, it should surprise no one that profits of private health insurance companies are more than keeping pace.

From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation’s major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages.

It’s not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion, or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the past five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.

The president has been supportive of a public option – a plan that people could opt into if they are uninsured or don’t like their private coverage. But the situation is extremely fluid. How do you get to the root of a problem when you fail to take on the private health industry?

The time is now for our nation to address the most profound moral and economic issue we face. The time is now for our country to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide cost-effective, comprehensive, quality healthcare to every man, woman, and child in our country. The time is now to take on the powerful special interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and pass a single-payer national healthcare program.

---

Bernie Sanders is an independent senator for Vermont and a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times
June 7, 2009

One in an occasional series on healthcare reform.

Some may find it hard to believe that the U.S. health insurance industry supports making major changes to the nation’s healthcare system.

The industry, after all, scuttled President Clinton’s healthcare overhaul bid with ads featuring “Harry and Louise” fretting about change.

But this time, it turns out, the health insurance industry has good reason to support at least some change: It needs it.

Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously — a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage — is not adopted.

The customer base for private insurance has slipped since 2000, when soaring premiums began driving people out. The recession has accelerated the problem. But even after the economy recovers, the downward spiral is expected to continue for years as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare — and stop buying private insurance.

Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can’t afford it, and enforced with fines.

Such a so-called individual mandate amounts to a huge booster shot for health insurers, which would serve up millions of new customers almost overnight.

“I think that’s why we’ve seen the industry basically trying to play the administration’s game,” said Jane DuBose, an analyst with industry tracking firm HealthLeaders-InterStudy. “They really could be licking their chops over the potential here.”

The industry says its interest in change flows not from narrow self-interest but from broader concerns.

“What’s driving this is we have 47 million people who don’t have access to the system, who get help through emergency rooms, and that results in higher costs and inefficient care,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans. “There’s both a social and economic reason to get everybody in the healthcare system.”

Jay Gellert, chief executive of Woodland Hills-based Health Net, said industry support for certain changes is driven by “a recognition that public frustration with many of the problems in the system [is] increasing pretty significantly. So I think there’s as much of a commitment to this because we’ve seen other industries where they haven’t dealt with issues early enough, like financial services and auto, and that’s not a happy place.”

Still, industry observers say, private insurers need the government’s help to transform some of the nation’s 45 million uninsured residents into paying customers.

Private insurers lost an estimated 9 million customers between 2000 and 2007. In many cases, people lost coverage because they or their employers could no longer afford it as premium increases outpaced wage growth and inflation.

Recession job losses are adding to the toll. Some economists estimate that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate adds 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The industry’s real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.

“The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate,” said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. “That’s got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late ’80s.”

With Democrats in power and public sentiment in favor of change, the industry can’t afford to flatly oppose it, said Julius Hobson, a Washington lobbyist for hospitals and insurers with the law firm Bryan Cave.

“This time, you get the sense something is going to happen,” he said. “So to stand up and just say no is probably not wise, because politically you could get run over.”

For insurers, getting “run over” would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, in which the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan, though widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year, would wreak havoc on the private insurance market.

The best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market — and derail the campaign for a single-payer system — may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm.

“If healthcare goes down this year, you are going to end up with single-payer care much sooner than anyone expected,” he said.

But there is a limit to how much change the industry will abide. It draws the line at proposals, supported by President Obama and others, to offer consumers a public insurance alternative to private coverage.

The idea is that consumers could buy into a government-run health plan, such as or similar to Medicare or the federal employees insurance program.

Proponents say that if consumers are required to buy coverage, it is only fair to give them a public option.

In a recent letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for example, Jerry Flanagan of the Santa Monica-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog wrote that adopting an individual mandate without a public alternative would amount to “a bailout for HMOs — whose greed, waste and indifference to our health have created the current mess.”

The industry fears that the government would force lower fees on hospitals and physicians, enabling a public health insurance plan to offer consumers a better bargain.

That, they say, would make it hard for private companies to compete for customers. Insurers also fear that a public option could easily be converted later into a single-payer healthcare system.

Health insurers don’t see a public plan “as the nose of the camel under the tent; they see it as the front half of the camel under the tent,” said Robert Laszewski, a former insurance company executive and industry consultant.

“They are interested in 45 million new customers,” he said, “but the first thing in everybody’s mind is preserving their right to do business in a way that can be profitable and meet shareholder needs.”

---

lisa.girion@latimes.com

Letter to the Editor
The Washington Post
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The June 6 news story “‘Single-Payer’ Supporters Challenge Democrats” put single- payer health care into the headlines where it belongs. But Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) still won’t put it on the table. It’s viewed as not being politically feasible, even though it’s favored by huge numbers of doctors, nurses and members of the public. Who’s in charge here, lobbyists and special interests, or the public?

A private insurance company’s mission is to make a profit. Profit is best made by insuring the healthy, screening out the sick and denying health care to anyone unfortunate enough to get sick after enrolling. Managing all this wastes a significant portion of every dollar spent on health care.

It is time to demand meaningful health-care reform, and single-payer is the only proposal that can provide medical and dental care for everyone while saving hundreds of billions of dollars.

JERRY M. EARLL
Washington

The writer is a member of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program.

By Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein
The New York Times
Room for Debate
June 18, 2009

There are a variety of bad ways of paying doctors, but no particularly good ones. Fee-for-service health care rewards the overprovision of care; capitation (a set monthly fee per patient) rewards underprovision; and salaries reward just showing up. The minority of physicians (and hospital administrators) who are motivated mostly by money will find a way to game an incentive system rather than do the hard work of providing excellent care.

Even paying doctors based on quality measures (using data from medical records that the doctors themselves create) can be fudged. For example, if you pay doctors more for care of patients with diabetes with extra incentives for controlling blood sugar, some doctors will neglect to properly instruct patients to fast before their morning blood tests, falsely diagnosing them as ill. These false diabetics will appear to have superb outcomes since they weren’t sick to begin with.

At the same time, most of the myriad details of care and small kindnesses that make for good doctoring would inevitably go unrewarded, making their neglect essential to a doctor’s financial success.

The Medicare payment system illustrates the false hope of financial savings or improved quality through manipulating financial incentives. The system, which pays health care providers based on “diagnosis-related group,” altered hospitals’ incentives, rewarding short hospital stays instead of long ones. But hospitals quickly adapted, and while Medicare patients’ length of stay plummeted, costs continued to skyrocket.

Financial incentives are not necessary for cost control, and are expensive to administer. A single payer system like Canada’s — in which individuals choose their doctors and other health care providers, but the providers bill one agency for their services — limits entrepreneurial rewards and penalties, covers everyone, and saves much on bureaucracy and profits.

Many American doctors now support a single payer approach because it would improve health and remove the crushing paperwork burden that private insurers impose. Paperwork consumes 31 percent of U.S. health spending, nearly double that of Canada. Our nation wastes $400 billion annually on insurance overhead and useless bureaucracy, money that single-payer reform could shift to patient care. That’s enough to cover all of the uninsured, and to eliminate copayments and deductibles for everyone else. A single payer system would allow doctors to return to the patient-centered care that motivated us to go to medical school in the first place.

In contrast, the Senate Democrats’ proposal to require the purchase of coverage would leave private insurers in charge, and hence sharply increase costs while leaving millions uninsured, or covered by skimpy policies. In 2007, illness and medical bills contributed to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies; most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class families with private insurance. Copayments, deductibles, and loopholes that let insurers deny claims leave millions of Americans in financial ruin. The individual mandate now popular in Congress would merely force the uninsured to buy defective policies – boosting revenues for insurers but not protecting patients.

Unfortunately, adding a public plan option would not correct these flaws. The bureaucratic savings would be minuscule. Moreover, a public plan would be forced to either emulate the bad behavior of its private insurance competitors, or fail in the marketplace — swamped by private insurers that dumped sick, expensive patients onto the public. This kind of tinkering around the edges of our insurance company-dominated system won’t fix it.

---

Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein are associate professors of medicine at Harvard Medical School, primary care doctors in Cambridge, Mass., and co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/better-medical-care-for-less/