pnhpf3a

Rough sailing ahead for health care reform, but it’s not our only option

By Dr. Philip Caper
Bangor Daily News, May 16, 2013

You know another storm is brewing when Washington politicians start looking for somebody else to blame for problems they themselves created.

That’s what happened recently at a Senate budget hearing when Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unloaded on Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s health and human services secretary. He berated her for failing to adequately educate the public or competently implement the 2,000-plus page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. During the hearing, Baucus worried aloud about “a huge train wreck coming down” if the Obama administration didn’t clean up its act. Other Democrats soon piled on.

Aside from being known as one of the most prolific producers of lobbyists from among his staffers in the Senate, Baucus is probably best known as one of Obamacare’s prime architects.

Baucus is right to worry that the law may in fact run into extreme turbulence. It is far too complex. It has too many moving and interdependent parts to be smoothly implemented by anybody, no matter how talented or highly motivated, and it is too controversial.

There are a lot of people in and out of Congress — about 50 percent of Americans, according to the latest polls — who do not want to see the law implemented and will find ways to sabotage it. The law itself provides no shortage of opportunities to do so.

First, there is the challenge of setting up the health insurance exchanges in every state, when almost half the states, including Maine, have indicated no interest in doing it themselves. In those states, that job will fall on the federal government.

Then there is the law’s expansion and standardization of Medicaid — optional for each state, since the Supreme Court last year found making it mandatory to be unconstitutional. A large number of Republican governors, including Maine’s, have so far shown little interest in expanding that program.

The law also intends to expand the federal Community Health Center program. Republicans and others opposed to an expansion of government can be relied on to resist funding that program every chance they get. They will also resist expanding funding for the law’s subsidies for the purchase of private insurance.

In addition, the complexity of the law has created a huge number of unknowns. Each unknown creates plenty of opportunities for mischief in the future. Some examples: How many healthy young people will sign up for the exchanges (thus keeping premiums down for others) instead of simply paying or dodging the tax penalties? How many businesses will choose not to hire that 50th employee to avoid the mandatory coverage provisions of the law?

It now appears that federal subsidies in the exchanges may apply only to employees, and not dependents. How will this affect employees’ willingness to sign up for increasingly expensive family health insurance coverage? How will mid-year changes in employment or income affect the operation of the program and those covered by it? How will labor mobility be affected by this new system, and how will that affect the general economy?

There are lots more unknowns, but you get the idea. Complexity, not implementation, is the underlying pathology of Obamacare. Congress, not the administration, bears the brunt of the responsibility for that.

Mr. Baucus surely knew about this at the time of the law’s passage. After his own constituents in Libby, Mont., became uninsurable by private insurance due to industrial pollution with carcinogens and were unable to get the courts to hold the polluters responsible, Baucus came to the rescue. He simply tucked a little provision into the massive health reform bill making affected Montanans eligible for — you guessed it — Medicare.

No health insurance exchanges for these hardworking folks. Nothing but the best for Libby. By taking the simple, direct and most efficient route to expanding health-care coverage, Mr. Baucus did the right thing by his constituents. But Baucus made sure that everybody else had to settle for Obamacare.

It has been observed that “Americans will always do the right thing, once they’ve exhausted all alternatives.” I’m not holding my breath waiting for Congress to revisit health care reform anytime soon. But there is a lot we can do here in Maine to make health care a human right. Under the new law’s provisions we, like Vermont, can begin to move down a path to universal coverage in our state starting in 2017.

In some ways, we’re not as lucky as Vermont. Unlike Vermont, we have a large for-profit insurance presence in Maine. That means there’s a lot of money at stake. There will therefore be a lot of resistance.

But unlike Vermont, in addition to our ability to replace politicians who fail to act in the interests of the majority, we can use the initiative and referendum processes to express the people’s will directly.

It won’t be easy. But all we need is for most of us to have a common understanding of what to do and the will to do it. Are we up for it?

Physician Philip Caper of Brooklin is a founding board member of Maine AllCare, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group committed to making health care in Maine universal, accessible and affordable for all. He can be reached at pcpcaper21@gmail.com.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/16/health/rough-sailing-ahead-for-health-care-reform-but-its-not-our-only-option/

Redistributive function of Canada's single payer

Publicly Financed Health Care in Canada: Who Pays and Who Benefits Over a Lifetime?

Canadian Institute for Health Information, May 2013

Conclusion

All Canadian taxpayers contribute to publicly financed health care, regardless of their use of the system. Publicly funded health care services are available to all on the basis of need, regardless of ability to pay. When we look at the relationship over a lifetime, only the most affluent (the top 20%) contribute significantly more to health care than they receive. For other income groups, the value received from publicly funded health care is approximately the same as or more than the value of taxes paid to fund those services. The redistributive effect of publicly funded health care in Canada is a 16% reduction in the income gap between the highest- and lowest-income groups. Without the publicly financed health system, the lowest-income Canadians would be at risk of going without needed health care or of being impoverished by paying for it.

https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productFamily.htm?locale=en&pf=PFC2192

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This report from Canada demonstrates one of the more important functions of a well designed single payer system. To ensure access while preventing impoverishment, financing must be redistributive, because health care costs are unaffordable for moderate and low income individuals and families. Not only does the redistributive financing ensure universal access, it also ameliorates, to a limited extent, the impact of the worsening Gini coefficient (measure of income inequality).

Oregon's single-payer activists keep dream of universal health care alive

A separate measure, giving state sponsorship of a comprehensive study on universal healthcare financing, makes its way through the Committee on Ways & Means

By Christopher David Gray
The Lund Report, May 15, 2013

SALEM, Ore. — Wes Brain was uninsured last winter when a tonsillectomy showed signs of throat cancer. He qualified for the high-risk Oregon Medical Insurance Pool, which the state has administered through Regence BlueCross BlueShield.

But gaining access to that insurance soon proved a big obstacle for the Ashland resident, when Regence erroneously told him he hadn’t submitted his driver’s license.

“Denial and delay, denial and delay are the way these insurance companies work. They make money this way,” Brain vented to the House Health Committee on Tuesday. He had previously lost his daughter after a nine-year struggle with leukemia while contending with insurance companies over access to necessary health care services.

Eventually, his policy was approved. He paid $2,400 — three month’s premium. His doctor ordered a PET scan for March 1. But then Regence came back and told him no, he’d have to wait until March 1 to even begin authorization.

His clock was ticking. His throat cancer could be spreading.

He enlisted his local Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, to help him. He got the state Insurance Division on his case.

They came through. He received his PET scan, and spent four days at Oregon Health & Science University, receiving additional tonsil surgery. “They cut the hell out of me,” said Brain, who’s now cancer-free.

“There is no way that Regence should have delayed my care at all,” Brain added. “That’s how they do business. They kill people doing it. Let’s get them the hell out of it, and let’s pass this bill.”

Buckley and 23 other Democrats have signed on to support House Bill 2922, which would throw out the private health insurance industry and set up a single-payer health insurance system administered by the Oregon Health Authority.

The bill has no chance of passage this session, but House Health Committee Chairman Rep. Mitch Greenlick allowed fellow Portland Democrat and chief sponsor Rep. Michael Dembrow to lead single-payer health care advocates in an informational public hearing.

Brain and other activists aired their support for a privately delivered, government-sponsored health system that would revolutionize Oregon health care and make it similar to health systems in Japan, Europe, Canada and the rest of the developed world.

HB 2922 closely parallels House Bill 3510 from the 2011 session, but at 76 pages, it’s 30 percent longer than the previous measure, repealing newly acted reforms such as Cover Oregon, which offers subsidized private insurance for people with moderate incomes.

No Republicans have yet come on board as supporters, but the single-payer bill has twice as many sponsors this session from Democrats across the state, including rural districts as well as Portland and Eugene. Two of the state’s largest unions – the Oregon Nurses Association and the Oregon Education Association – have also thrown their support behind the measure.

Study Bill Moves Forward

Dembrow has also sponsored House Bill 3260, which had a budget hearing on Tuesday. That bill, which passed unanimously earlier this session from the House Health Committee, would solicit $250,000 to $600,000 in private funds to comprehensively study how best to implement universal health care in Oregon.

The study will look at several different options, including single-payer, a public option and the basic health plan envisioned for low-income people who wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid by the Affordable Care Act.

Chunhuei Chi, a professor at Oregon State University’s College of Public Health and Human Sciences, told The Lund Report the study would aim for transparency, be replicable and available for peer review. The Oregon Health Authority could either choose Oregon State or another entity to conduct the study.

Previously, Health Care for All Oregon, which supports the single-payer bill, had considered asking the Northwest Health Foundation to conduct such a study. But according to Dembrow, a state-sanctioned study would lend more credibility.

Earlier, he told The Lund Report that while he expects single payer the best route to universal health care, he believes the underlying bill is written well enough to turn into the best solution for Oregon, and he will support its recommendations.

“This is exactly the way it’s done,” said Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Portland, who favors doing such a study but has not come out in support of the single-payer option. “I like that you’ve laid out a menu of options, and that it doesn’t make a predetermined decision,” she added, calling the study outcome-based rather than motivated by political ideology.

Contrasting Systems

Alan Journet, a retired professor and dual British-U.S. citizen, pointed out that in Great Britain, socialized medicine is so popular even Conservative icon, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was a big supporter.

While living in the U.S., he came down with cancer and was given two months to live, absent treatment. “Thanks to insurance, I didn’t have to worry much about the cost of treatment, but I did constantly have to worry about the insurance company approving doctor-recommended treatment,” Journet said.

Journet said he felt lucky — his insurance company approved his treatment, unlike his sister-in-law who fell ill earlier.

“Her insurance company denied treatment, and she died,” Journet said. “We often hear the complaint that we should fear government functionaries making decisions on treatment, as though we are better served having insurance company functionaries make such decisions, employees whose income encourages denying treatment and generating a sizable profit.”

Dembrow said his passion for single-payer health care started following the birth of his two children. His daughter, who was born in France, received exemplary care, including house calls from physicians for just a small co-payment and a tax taken out of the family paychecks.

His son, on the other hand, was born in Indiana. At the time, insurance companies weren’t required to cover infants for the first 30 days of their life. His son had a digestive abnormality called pyloric stenosis that required surgery. A graduate student at the time, Dembrow and his wife had to deplete their savings to pay for the care.

“The contrast of those experiences have committed me to try to do things differently in this country,” Dembrow said.

Dembrow praised the reform efforts of Gov. Kitzhaber to deliver health care for the poor through coordinated care organizations and also lauded many of the aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including the expanded Oregon Health Plan and the insurance exchange. Yet, he said these reforms fall far short of an equitable universal health care system.

“We’ll continue to have jobs kept temporary or part-time for no good reason other than to keep workers from being eligible for coverage,” he said. “Our system will still rely on private insurance companies who charge high administrative fees, create administrative burdens for doctors and other health care professionals, and whose primary interest is their own profits. … At best what we’re going to continue to have an expensive, complicated patchwork system.”

http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/single_payer_activists_keep_dream_of_universal_healthcare_alive

CBO now estimates 31 million will remain uninsured

CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

Congressional Budget Office, May 14, 2013

Proposed regulations recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Treasury expanded the number of people who will be exempt from paying a penalty for being uninsured relative to our previous expectations. CBO and JCT now expect that, as a result of those regulations, between 500,000 and 1 million fewer people will obtain health insurance coverage each year. In our current projections for 2023, the ACA reduces the number of people without health insurance by 25 million, leaving 31 million uninsured (compared with 30 million in our February estimate).
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

After the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented ten years from now, the number of people who will remain uninsured is estimated to be 31 million. Since there will be a net gain of 25 million with insurance, that means that Obamacare – a plan to cover everyone – will have been only 45 percent effective in the goal of reducing the net number of uninsured. Pretty lousy.

This result on the uninsured will put us just about where we were when the Clintons began their effort to achieve universal coverage. It was a crisis then, and it will still be a crisis after we’ve expended far too much money and time on this terribly flawed effort.

Forget repeal, REPLACE!

Psychiatrists Waste Millions of Hours Obtaining Prior Auths

Health Insurers Require Time Consuming Prior Auths for Emergent Psych Admissions

By J. Wesley Boyd, M.D., Ph.D.
Psychology Today, Almost Addicted blog, May 14, 2013

My colleagues and I recently tabulated how long psychiatric patients who were deemed in need of inpatient admission — overwhelmingly because of suicidal thoughts or plans — stayed in the emergency department prior to being hospitalized, as well as the amount of time that the emergency department psychiatrists spent obtaining authorization from the patient’s insurer.

We found both lengthy waits for severely ill psychiatric patients in need of immediate hospitalization as well as time consuming prior authorizations required by insurance companies and published our findings in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

In our study psychiatric personnel spent, on average, 38 minutes on the telephone getting authorization. In 10% of cases it took more than one hour to obtain insurance authorization; in one case authorization took five hours of psychiatrist time. On top of the time required to obtain authorization, psychiatric patients who need admissions wait a long time for inpatient beds to open up. The total time that patients remained in the ER in our study averaged 8.5 hours.

Our data don’t include a handful of patients who boarded in the ED over the weekend while waiting for an inpatient bed to become available for them and also excluded uninsured patients and those with Medicare, which doesn’t require prior authorization.

A much larger study published just before ours found even longer wait times — more than 11 hours while awaiting placement into an inpatient facility.

Out of 53 requests, we had only one prior authorization request denied, so basically the process of calling the insurance company, relaying patient information, and obtaining her authorization to pay for admission, is a needless, time consuming process given that the end result — namely, the insurance company saying they will in fact pay for the admission — is a foregone conclusion provided I jump through the proper hoops.

Imagine if women in labor required this kind of authorization or if children with ruptured appendices did? There would be a public outcry and the practice would end immediately.

Given that there are approximately 2.5 million inpatient psychiatric admissions annually in the US, if two-thirds of them require some form of prior authorization (which is likely an underestimate), then roughly a million hours of time annually is wasted by psychiatric clinicians obtaining these authorizations. Add to that the many day hospital admission and psychiatric medication requests that also require prior authorization from insurance companies, and the total number of psychiatric clinician hours spent on the phone asking for authorization of service is staggering.

Just today, for example, I spent 25 minutes on the phone obtaining authorization for a psychiatric medication I prescribed for a 50-ish-year-old professional male. Knowing the call would take a chunk of time, I thought about not making the call and just having him pay out of pocket for the medication instead of taking my time to make the call, but I just couldn’t bring myself to concede defeat to his insurance company so, ultimately, I made the call.

This is a travesty. It is demoralizing to psychiatric clinicians. For me to have to calculate whether my time is worth it for an insurer to pay for medications it is supposed to pay for is pathetic.

It also testifies to the fact that psychiatric patients are singled out for this kind of scrutiny because they are vulnerable and often unwilling to publicly advocate for themselves, the way that pregnant or pediatric patients and their allies might. I’d wager that insurance companies hope to profit off this vulnerability, given that overworked clinicians might opt to, if they are on the fence about how to proceed, do something other than admitting their patients given the hassle of seeking authorization. My co-authors and I call this “rationing this by hassle factor.”

The humanity of societies is judged by how well they take care of their most vulnerable, and we undoubtedly need to do better. Health insurance needs to provide real coverage and assurance to those in need, not set up roadblocks to needed care that deter clinicians from seeking care when it is life-saving.

If we had a health care system that was not profit driven — an improved Medicare for all would be ideal — then I’d wager such impediments to urgent care would not be present and patients could receive the care they need without unnecessary hurdles for healthcare clinicians to jump through, set up only to generate greater profit for insurers.

References:
Amy Funkenstein, MD, Monica Malowney, BA, J. Wesley Boyd, MD, PhD. Insurance Prior Authorization Approval Does Not Substantially Lengthen the Emergency Department Length of Stay for Patients With Psychiatric Conditions. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 61, Issue 5, May 2013: 596–597

J. Wesley Boyd is on faculty at Harvard Medical School and is an Attending Psychiatrist at Cambridge Health Alliance and Children’s Hospital Boston.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/almost-addicted/201305/psychiatrists-waste-millions-hours-obtaining-prior-auths

Can we talk about the ACA train wreck?

GOP Candidates' Top Campaign Issue Will Be Obamacare 'Train Wreck'

By Wendell Potter
The Huffington Post, May 6, 2013

Will the implementation of some of the most important provisions of ObamaCare this fall and next year result in the “train wreck” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) predicted a few days ago?

No. But you can be certain that there will be no shortage of political candidates and high-powered political spin doctors who will be working relentlessly between now and the 2014 midterms to convince us that it will be.

If the Democrats and consumer advocates who support ObamaCare are not at work developing their own strategies to counter the coming barrage of misleading spin, the GOP will have an excellent chance of controlling Capitol Hill after the next elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/gop-candidates-top-campai_b_3222876.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Of those who are serious about health care reform, some want to abandon the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and immediately enact single payer, and others want to abandon the single payer cause and move full steam ahead with implementation of the ACA. But should we really abandon either approach?

It is clear that ACA alone will be grossly deficient. Thirty million people will remain uninsured, inadequate low actuarial value plans will become the new standard, and wasteful spending will continue because of the highly flawed, administratively complex model of ACA. So single payer should not be abandoned since it is an imperative if we want to have affordable health care for everyone.

Why shouldn’t we abandon ACA? Because, quite simply, it is all that we have right now, and it will provide some limited relief for millions of people. If we were to abandon ACA now, mobilizing a social movement and then enacting and implementing single payer would still take many years – too long for those who would receive some benefit from ACA now.

So we should do both. Let the ACA enthusiasts continue with the implementation, while single payer forces step up the social movement for health care justice though advocacy for an improved Medicare for everyone.

So where is the train wreck? There isn’t any. But Wendell Potter is right. The opponents of reform will latch onto every ACA implementation glitch, real or imagined, and onto the criticisms which will inevitably follow. They will attempt to frame the implementation as a debacle, and run with that in their effort to use election politics to advance their anti-government agenda.

This complicates the message for the single payer camp. We need to educate people as to why ACA will fall intolerably short of reform goals, but we do not want that to become part of the Repeal ACA message. The opponents initially supported Repeal and Replace, but they have largely abandoned Replace, concentrating on Repeal. So how do we counter the Repeal message?

We need to emphasize the positive message of single payer – truly affordable health care for everyone. We can add that we don’t need to repeal ACA since it can help some during the transition to single payer. But our action message should be Replace – letting the public know that we really do have a much better program that will work for everyone, whereas the opponents do not.

So perhaps a unifying message for the supporters of health care justice should be:

Forget Repeal, REPLACE!

Economist to speak in Charlotte about single payer health plan

By Karen Garloch
The Charlotte Observer, May 13, 2013

Dr. Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, will be in Charlotte May 23 to make the case for single payer, universal health care in the United States.

He won’t argue for that approach because health care is a human right – even though that’s what he believes.

Instead, he’ll make the case that it’s the only plan that makes economic sense.

To those who think we can’t afford it, Friedman responds: “What we can’t afford is the current system. The only thing we can afford in the long run is a universal, single payer system. That’s the only thing that will bring down the cost.”

Friedman’s talk is sponsored by Health Care Justice, a local chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

His analysis centers on the nation’s health insurance system, where competition among private payers leads to administrative redundancy that increases costs without improving anyone’s health.

In the early 1970s, when there was little competition and most people got private insurance from one organization (Blue Cross), U.S. health care spending amounted to about 7.5 percent of the gross national product, he said. Today, with dozens of competing insurers, health care costs have risen to nearly 18 percent of GDP.

Eighty percent of that difference “can be explained by rising administrative costs,” Friedman said.

The average U.S. doctor spends 22 hours a week interacting with insurance representatives, and the largest occupation in health care is billing clerks, he said.

Many economists believe competition is good. Offer the best product at the best price, and you’ll sell more. But health care is different, Friedman said.

“Health insurers don’t try to sell more product. They try to sell less … When you get sick, and they pay for an X-ray or chemotherapy, that’s a cost to them … I’m not saying they’re evil, but the incentive is in the direction of making life difficult for people who get sick.”

A single payer system would get rid of duplicate billing operations and the incentive to cherry pick patients.

Even though the Affordable Care Act, the law championed by the Obama administration, will expand insurance coverage, it won’t cover everyone, and it won’t contain costs, Friedman said.

In five or 10 years, he predicted, health costs will be even higher. Private employers and state and local governments will again feel squeezed and demand a solution.

Despite gridlock in Washington, Friedman is optimistic that single payer, universal health care will one day be law in the United States, as it is in so many other nations.

When asked why, he referred to a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill: “Americans will always do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives.”

More Information:
Free talk: “Sustainable Quality Health Care for North Carolina: Single Payer is not an Answer – it is the Answer”
Speaker: Dr. Gerald Friedman, professor of economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
When: May 23, 7 p.m.
Where: Midwood International and Cultural Center, 1817 Central Ave.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/13/4039209/economist-to-speak-in-charlotte.html#storylink=cpy

Why Hospital Charges Vary So Much

By Caroline Poplin, M.D.
The New York Times, May 13, 2013

Re “Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, U.S. Data Shows” (front page, May 8):

No one should be surprised that hospital charges vary wildly, even within the same city. Prices likely vary within the same hospital, depending on who is paying. This is pure capitalism in a setting where sellers have market power: the seller maximizes profit by charging each buyer as much as he can pay, whatever the service actually costs.

Making these sticker prices public will change nothing; most people will have to go to the hospital in the network, the one that gave their insurer a “discount” that still guarantees the hospital a healthy profit. We all pay in premiums.

Price competition among hospitals is problematic, because it is hard to compare “products”: people prefer a hospital recommended by a trusted doctor. The solution is Medicare for all: hospitals compete fiercely on quality, we save a ton of money, and the hospitals with the best quality and the lowest costs profit.

Dr. Caroline Poplin is a primary-care physician and a lawyer. She resides in Bethesda, Md.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/why-hospital-charges-vary-so-much.html?_r=0

Open letter to Gov. Haslam: Don’t abandon the vulnerable

By Diana Reed, M.D.

The following letter was sent to Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee on May 10.

Dear Governor Haslam:

I am a concerned citizen, a retired disabled doctor, a Tennessee resident and a woman who has devoted her life to health care as a neurologist in Columbia and at Vanderbilt before a work related injury left me disabled and uninsured.

What a slap in the face! Eventually I was able to get on Medicare and my husband who had a heart attack in 2005 was also uninsurable until the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan became available. When that program ends, if you do not participate in the Medicaid expansion or the health exchanges, he may end up uninsured again, and if he has an illness or injury, we may end up in bankruptcy for a second time due to medical bills.

My husband’s best friend just died in January because he stayed home during his heart attack, rather than burden his family with medical bills he couldn’t afford because although he worked full time, he had no health insurance. The last three weeks of his life spent in Intensive Care Unit, cost his children what little inheritance they would have received from his estate.

Since my career in medicine was cut short, I wrote a book, “The Other End of the Stethoscope The Physicians’ Perspective on the Health Care Crisis.” The book explains why we are losing so many physicians in practice today, and how the health care crisis affects physician’s morale and bottom line. It explains where the money really goes as we spend twice as much as other countries and leave 46 million out, and why we rank 37th in over all health quality.

With the recent release of information on hospital charges, it is interesting to note that hospitals, like doctors almost never get paid what they charge, and due to antitrust laws, are not able to compare or discuss charges with their colleagues in similar practice situations or regions.

It really doesn’t matter what any of them charge, and of the uninsured, very few will pay anything toward their hospital bills. CMS and private insurers dictate what they will pay, and the only choice hospitals and doctors have is whether to be a provider.

As a physician, I had hundreds of thousands in unpaid accounts receivable that were never collected, yet, unlike hospitals I was not allowed to deduct that from my taxable income. I did provide health insurance to my three employees, but after they had some health issues, my rates tripled, along with the medical malpractice insurance.

With no control over my income or overhead, private practice in Tennessee became unsustainable and I, like most doctors today, was forced out of small business and into employment. The three jobs of my office manager, receptionist and nurse I supported were lost, along with my independence and love of medicine.

If someone collapsed on your doorstep, would you let them die there because they have no health insurance? Because as governor, that is exactly what you are doing. The poor and disabled, the most vulnerable of the people you represent, are being let down by the policies you espouse.

Contrary to what you might believe, it is tough out there, and hard working people are suffering while you seem to be most concerned with protecting the richest Tennesseans and their pocketbooks.

You seem to believe that the poor will make wasted trips to their doctors and drive up costs if they don’t have skin in the game by paying co-pays and deductibles they can’t afford, by definition of being poor. Isn’t their life skin enough?

The real cost savings will come when the poor can get to primary care, preventative health screening, medications for high blood pressure and diabetes, mental health care and health education rather than showing up in the ER with end stage catastrophic and chronic conditions that leave them disabled or dead, and costing us all much more in the long run.

Economically, the PPACA and the Medicaid expansion are a win-win for Tennessee, and I urge you to reconsider your political posturing and work to the benefit of all Tennesseans. You and your Republican colleagues are not hurting President Obama, whose agenda and health care plan was overwhelmingly approved as evidenced in the last election. You are not helping to make America strong, you are really hurting the Republican party and it will show in the next elections. People are sick of obstructionism.

Mainstream Americans are not a selfish, money-worshipping group that have no compassion for the poor or disabled. They know that we are all one people on one earth; that the Bible tells us we must help our brothers, especially the least of us, if we are to live by God’s word and we will all benefit. You need to come out of your ivory tower, and see how the majority of people in Tennessee are struggling, starving, and dying.

I would like to meet with you face to face, if possible, to discuss the health care crisis further, and as a Tennessee Volunteer, I would be happy to work with you toward a goal of compassionate care for all Tennesseans. Thank you for your consideration.

Dr. Diana Reed resides in Spring Hill, Tenn.

Keep people out of Medicaid to avoid fraud?

Healthcare puts Jerry Brown, Capitol Democrats on different sides

By Anthony York and Chris Megerian
Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2013

With California’s deficit wiped out and its economy starting to hum, this was to be a year when Gov. Jerry Brown was free of the budget logjams that have paralyzed the Capitol.

But instead, the governor has a fight on his hands — with his fellow Democrats. He is on a collision course with them over how to reshape the state’s sprawling, complicated healthcare system to conform with President Obama’s national overhaul.

The sticking points in extending public healthcare to more Californians include how many to add to state insurance rolls, how much to pay doctors and hospitals, and how much money to give counties for their care of the indigent.

The Democrats who control the Legislature — with a veto-proof supermajority — want to make it easier to obtain public insurance than Brown does and send more money to the doctors, hospitals and counties than the governor wants to part with.

The major bill that would expand public insurance under Medi-Cal is from Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles). The measure would make it easier for Californians to enroll in the program by allowing people to sign up online and eliminating requirements that recipients file semiannual financial reports to prove they are still eligible.

Administration officials have said the governor opposes those changes out of concern that the easier enrollment process could lead to fraud.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-brown-healthcare-20130511,0,6700749.story

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Isn’t the idea of the Affordable Care Act to get as many people covered as is possible, considering the administrative complexities of this highly flawed model of reform? So what does California Governor Jerry Brown recommend? Do not make enrollment easier since it might lead to fraud!

Enrollment fraud could not possibly occur under a single payer system since it automatically enrolls everyone. We need a change in attitude. A single payer system would start us thinking in the right way about how to cover everyone and still pay for it.

Caregiving As Humankind's Shared Project

By Andrew D. Coates, M.D., F.A.C.P.
WAMC Northeast Public Radio, May 13, 2013

In two recent essays Dr. Arthur Kleinman, the eminent Harvard anthropologist and psychiatrist, writes in the world’s leading medical journals about caregiving as a moral experience.

One essay appeared last November in The Lancet. A few weeks ago The New England Journal of Medicine published another article by Dr. Kleinman with a similar theme but a slightly different emphasis.

“Consider how central caregiving is to what it means to be human,” Dr. Kleinman writes. “Caregiving is an indelible part of relations between partners, the raising of children, and response to the infirmities of aged parents and grandparents. It is, of course, the very definition of how families and friendship networks cope with sickness or disability among their own.”

He goes on to say there’s “an ancient lineage to caregiving across historical periods and societies,” and in today’s world “[n]ursing, medicine, and the allied health disciplines justify their status as healing professions by underlining their professional commitment to caregiving.”

Dr. Kleinman’s words in these essays have delivered for me, a physician, the kind of a jolt you get if you pull off your clothes on a hot June day and jump into a Catskill mountain pond. A systemic shock, then the deep breaths that bring a liberating awareness of the world around us.

Kleinman has drawn a bright line around the sphere of caregiving. He reminds us that our relationships with those we care for give our lives meaning. He then extends this truth to the caregiving professions.

The shock and awareness come refreshingly thanks to Kleinman’s gentle assertion that market forces and money interests — profit-seeking — serve only to poison and undermine the very relationships that are most defining of our humanity and our profession.

Kleinman writes: “Everyone who has been in love or built a family knows that there are things, essential things, that money can’t buy.

“Patients with serious illness and their network of caregivers know this too, because those things that really matter to us are threatened and must be defended.”

He then says many clinicians “reflecting on what is at stake in health care not only for patients but for themselves, know the same thing: the market has an important role in health-care financing and health systems reform, but it should not reach into those quintessentials of caregiving that speak to what is most deeply human in medicine and in living.”

To briefly digress, I so admire Dr. Kleinman’s courage. It is not easy to explain the experience of becoming a physician, let alone the ongoing work we do to be the best we can be for our patients and our fellow caregivers. Kleinman locates our profession within a continuity of sharing, self-sacrifice and humanity — a profession with profound rewards on the most basic and human level, rewards not measurable with money.

He introduces, courageously, a deeply personal element. He offers reflections on the personal role of caregiving for his wife, who developed early Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Kleinman alludes to the corrosive, corrupting external pressures of what he calls “the market model” and “the clarion call of efficiency” weighing upon doctors and nurses and family members. Yet, from the standpoint of personal responsibility, he doesn’t let any of us off the hook. He challenges all of us to insist that health policies and programs place caregiving at their core.

If we don’t demand this, Kleinman writes, “all of us are demeaned and the profession of medicine and the processes of health care are transmuted into something that is hollowed of its humanity and moral value.”

Dr. Kleinman’s honesty brings a liberating awareness. He invites us to face our contemporary crisis in health care with sober senses. Every effort to turn caregiving into a marketplace transaction does indeed demean us – not just we doctors and our patients, but all of us.

As distressing as the idea is that money interests threaten to steal humanity from our professional efforts at caregiving, Kleinman encouragingly notes that among many clinicians the passion for caregiving is still very much alive. This is true in my experience too. The urgent task, however, is to elevate that passion – through medical education and other means – to a new level in the face of challenging, market-oriented headwinds.

In my view, the first step toward protecting the sphere of caregiving from the corrupting influence of money would be to enact a national health program, publicly financed, truly universal, and stripped of the corporate profiteering that afflicts us today. It’s an achievable goal, as other nations have shown us. And it will bring us closer to what Dr. Kleinman calls “enact[ing] care as humankind’s shared project.”

Dr. Andrew Coates practices internal medicine in upstate New York. He is president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

You can listen to Dr. Coates’ radio broadcast here: http://www.wamc.org/post/andrew-coates-caregiving-humankinds-shared-project

Private insurers' Medicare Advantage plans cost Medicare an extra $34.1 billion in 2012

Instead of being more efficient, private insurers have cost Medicare almost $300 billion more over the life of the program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 10, 2013

Contact: Mark Almberg, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org

A study published online today finds that the private insurance companies that participate in Medicare under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors have cost the publicly funded program for the elderly and disabled an extra $282.6 billion since 1985, most of it over the past eight years. In 2012 alone, private insurers were overpaid $34.1 billion.

That’s wasted money that should have been spent on improving patient care, shoring up Medicare’s trust fund or reducing the federal deficit, the researchers say.

The findings appear in an article published in the International Journal of Health Services by Drs. Ida Hellander, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein titled “Medicare overpayments to private plans, 1985-2012: Shifting seniors to private plans has already cost Medicare US$282.6 billion.”

Hellander is policy director at Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a nonprofit research and advocacy group. Woolhandler and Himmelstein are professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health, visiting professors at Harvard Medical School and co-founders of PNHP.

Medicare has contracted with private insurance plans – previously referred to as Medicare HMOs and now called Medicare Advantage plans – since 1985. Such plans, most of them for-profit, currently cover about 27 percent of Medicare enrollees and have been growing at a fast clip. UnitedHealth and Humana are among the largest players in this market, and together operate about one-third of such plans.

Medicare pays these privately run plans a set “premium” per enrollee for hospital and physician services (averaging $10,123 in 2012) based on a prediction of how costly the enrollee’s care will be.

The authors find that private insurers have four strategies that make them more costly than the traditional Medicare program.

1.    Private plans cherry-pick healthier beneficiaries who cost less to care for, guaranteeing large profits. Although private plans must accept all seniors who choose to enroll, they cherry-pick by selectively recruiting the healthiest seniors through advertising, office location, etc. They also induce sicker ones to disenroll by making expensive care inconvenient.
2.    They recruit otherwise healthy seniors with very mild (and inexpensive) cases of sometimes serious conditions – automatically triggering higher premiums for these beneficiaries from the risk-adjustment scheme implemented in 2004, but escaping payments for expensive care. For instance, many seniors have very mild cases of arthritis, heart failure and bronchitis that require little or no treatment.
3.    They enroll patients who get most of their care free at the Veteran’s Administration.
4.    They heavily lobby Congress to raise their reimbursement. The insurance industry successfully induced Congress and the Bush administration to add bonus payments to Medicare Advantage premiums beginning in 2003.

Since the study was completed, the industry has again successfully lobbied the administration to raise payments to Medicare Advantage plans, reversing a planned cut of 2.2 percent in reimbursement rates and instead obtaining a 3.3 percent increase. Stock prices of private insurers soared over the announcement.

“We’ve long known that Medicare has been paying private insurers more than if their enrollees had stayed in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, but no one had added up the total extra cost to the taxpayer since contracting with private insurers began 27 years ago,” said Dr. Ida Hellander, lead author of the study. “Nor has anyone systematically examined the many ways that private insurers have gamed the system to maximize their bottom line at taxpayers’ expense.”

“In 2012 alone, private insurers are being overpaid $34.1 billion, or $2,526 per Medicare Advantage enrollee,” Hellander said.

Co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said: “It’s clear that having Medicare Advantage programs compete with Medicare doesn’t save us money. In fact the opposite is the case. The private plans only add waste, and the aggregate waste is staggering – enough to be a significant drag on the economy.

“It’s time we look to proven, cost-effective ways of providing high-quality care to Medicare’s beneficiaries and to the entire population,” Woolhandler said. “That means taking a fresh look at the single-payer model of reform.”

###

“Medicare overpayments to private plans, 1985-2012: Shifting seniors to private plans has already cost Medicare US$282.6 billion.” Ida Hellander, M.D., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., David U. Himmelstein, M.D. International Journal of Health Services, May 10, 2013 (online first), Vol. 43, No. 2. DOI: 10.2190/HS.43.2.g

Physicians for a National Health Program (https://pnhp.org) is a nonprofit educational and research organization of more than 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance.

pnhpf3a

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Footer