PNHP

Election results: Will California now lead the way to single payer?

Election results: Will California now lead the way to single payer?

How Gov-Elect Gavin Newsom could shape California’s future, issue by issue

Health care: Embrace single payer but maybe settle for less

By Elizabeth Aguilera
CALmatters, November 6, 2018

As the incoming Newsom administration prepares to unveil its legislative priorities, the single-payer health care concept he has touted will generate a lot of talk. But Capitol skeptics say that despite his promises to make it happen, action will be much more difficult—especially given the idea’s federal obstacles and huge costs.

Newsom may be more likely to initially pursue a less ambitious strategy: getting more of the uninsured covered under current government programs.

Except that is not what he promised the California Nurses Association, the powerful union that then endorsed and enthusiastically campaigned for him. The union says it’s not going to take no for an answer, and plans to insist on meetings with the governor-elect about how to move forward as soon as he takes office.

“Given the statements that Newsom made at our convention a year ago, we believe he is fundamentally committed to changing the health care system,” said Stephanie Roberson, director of government relations for the union. “He said that in a room full of nurses. His sentiments were very clear.”

Extending health care to all Californians has been, hands down, Newsom’s signature health issue.

In a January gubernatorial debate, he said: “I’m also very enthusiastic about taking a system that’s fragmented, that’s disjointed, that’s complicated and wasteful, and building a new system. Not on top of it, but replacing the existing system with a single payer financed system of universal quality health care.”

Newsom, the one-time mayor of San Francisco, pledged to create a statewide universal health care program of the sort he backed when he was leading that city. The Healthy San Francisco program, primarily funded from city coffers, provides basic insurance to residents who lack access to health insurance regardless of legal status.

Although it is not a single-payer system, the governor-elect has often cited it to illustrate his commitment to coverage.

The model would not work across the state but it has the right goals and values, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, which advocates for consumers.

“He’s talked about wanting to take concrete tangible steps toward to the goal of affordable health care for all,” said Wright. “He’s talked about the vision of Medicare for all and universal coverage. He’s also been wide-eyed about the barriers to that goal.”

Those challenges will likely keep Newsom from pushing for single-payer out of the gate, said Gerald Kominski, senior fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “He understands the barriers are difficult to overcome,” said Kominski. “I suspect he’ll support ways to reduce the remaining uninsured further.”

As lieutenant governor, Newsom praised a bill that aimed to set up universal health care, but failed. It would have barred private insurers, and set up a state system funded by taxes and required for all residents. It was a tough sell.

Roberson of the nurses union said a new bill in the works will be a fine-tuned version of that bill. “What it’s going to take is political will, to sit in a room and not emerge until we find a way to reach that goal,” she said.

https://calmatters.org…

California Dreamin’? With Newsom’s Win, Single-Payer Unlikely To Follow Anytime Soon

By Samantha Young
California Healthline, November 6, 2018

Californians on Tuesday elected a governor who campaigned for a complete overhaul of how people get their health coverage — but they shouldn’t hold their breath.

Rather, as Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled legislature take steps to provide more people with health insurance, they’ll likely approach it piecemeal over several years.

Newsom himself is already tempering expectations about California’s move to a single-payer system, saying it will take more than the will of one person to realize.

“I’m not going to hesitate to be bold on this issue, and I also want to set expectations,” Newsom told reporters last week at a campaign stop in Sacramento. “It’s a multiyear process.”

Undaunted, the California Nurses Association said it intends to bring another single-payer bill before the legislature next year and has launched a national campaign to pass single-payer in other states and convince Congress of its merits.

Lawmakers earlier this year directed a council to study the feasibility of a publicly funded health insurance plan, and its findings aren’t due until 2021 — giving the new governor and lawmakers time to punt on the issue.

http://californiahealthline.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Single payer advocate Gavin Newsom has been elected governor of California, and it looks like he will have a supermajority of Democrats in the state legislature. Sounds like the ideal time to move forward with the first state-level single payer system to serve as an example for the nation, much as Saskatchewan did in Canada. Sounds like the ideal time, but is it?

In a personal conversation I had with Lt. Gov. Newsom a few years ago, he indicated to me his strong support for single payer as being the most efficient and effective model of reform, but he also indicated that there were many barriers that had to be negotiated and thus it might not happen on the state level in one piece of legislation, especially since federal cooperation would be mandatory (and that would not be forthcoming right now).

Single payer supporters understandably become nervous when Newsom emphatically endorses single payer but then expresses reservations, indicating, “it’s a multiyear process.” They seem apprehensive that he may be backing off on his promise to support single payer reform. But actually his position has been consistent all along. He wants single payer, but you cannot throw pragmatism to the wind. You can only do what you can do.

Nobody should be pessimistic. In fact, this is the time for optimism. Support for Single Payer Medicare for All has grown throughout the nation. California is in a position to take a leadership role in advancing the cause.

Right now California can move forward with whatever is possible on a state level while at the same time supporting work on a national level over the next two years so that in 2020 we will be ready with definitive federal legislation for a newly elected Congress and administration that is dedicated to enacting and implementing Single Payer Medicare for All. The homework has to be done in advance. We cannot let state hurdles and Fake Medicare for Some interfere with our progress. We’re perfectly situated for a two year plan, and the time to begin instituting it is yesterday.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Atul Gawande: Why Doctors Hate Their Computers

Why Doctors Hate Their Computers

By Atul Gawande
The New Yorker, November 12, 2018

My hospital had, over the years, computerized many records and processes, but the new system would give us one platform for doing almost everything health professionals needed—recording and communicating our medical observations, sending prescriptions to a patient’s pharmacy, ordering tests and scans, viewing results, scheduling surgery, sending insurance bills. With Epic, paper lab-order slips, vital-signs charts, and hospital-ward records would disappear. We’d be greener, faster, better.

But three years later I’ve come to feel that a system that promised to increase my mastery over my work has, instead, increased my work’s mastery over me. I’m not the only one. A 2016 study found that physicians spent about two hours doing computer work for every hour spent face to face with a patient—whatever the brand of medical software. In the examination room, physicians devoted half of their patient time facing the screen to do electronic tasks. And these tasks were spilling over after hours. The University of Wisconsin found that the average workday for its family physicians had grown to eleven and a half hours. The result has been epidemic levels of burnout among clinicians. Forty per cent screen positive for depression, and seven per cent report suicidal thinking—almost double the rate of the general working population.

Something’s gone terribly wrong. Doctors are among the most technology-avid people in society; computerization has simplified tasks in many industries. Yet somehow we’ve reached a point where people in the medical profession actively, viscerally, volubly hate their computers.

Human beings do not only rebel. We also create. We force at least a certain amount of mutation, even when systems resist. Consider that, in recent years, one of the fastest-growing occupations in health care has been medical-scribe work, a field that hardly existed before electronic medical records. Medical scribes are trained assistants who work alongside physicians to take computer-related tasks off their hands. This fix is, admittedly, a little ridiculous. We replaced paper with computers because paper was inefficient. Now computers have become inefficient, so we’re hiring more humans. And it sort of works.

The story of modern medicine is the story of our human struggle with complexity. Technology will, without question, continually increase our ability to make diagnoses, to peer more deeply inside the body and the brain, to offer more treatments. It will help us document it all—but not necessarily to make sense of it all. Technology inevitably produces more noise and new uncertainties.

https://www.newyorker.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Almost no one should be surprised by Atul Gawande’s observations on the physicians’ role in the use of computerized medical records. The trade-offs have been almost unbearable. He discusses the solution of using medical scribes, yet “research has found error rates between twenty-four and fifty per cent in recording key data.”

Although he says that the use of scribes “sort of works,” that really isn’t a satisfactory solution. Does anyone think that Gawande will do much better as he crafts the Bezos/Buffett/Dimon-sponsored solution to the problems with our health care system? At least it seems clear that we should not take a wait-and-see approach before we decide to move forward with Single Payer Medicare for All. We should do that right now.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

The truth about the Veterans Health Administration: It’s great!

Wounds of War: How the VA Delivers Health, Healing, and Hope to the Nation's Veterans

By Suzanne Gordon
Cornell University Press

The publisher’s book description:

U.S. military conflicts abroad have left nine million Americans dependent on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for medical care. Their “wounds of war” are treated by the largest hospital system in the country—one that has come under fire from critics in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and in the nation’s media. The resulting public debate about the future of veterans’ health care has pitted VHA patients and their care-givers against politicians and policy-makers who believe that former military personnel would be better served by private health care providers.

This high stakes controversy led Suzanne Gordon, award-winning health care journalist and author, to seek insight from veterans and their families, VHA staff and administrators, advocates for veterans, and proponents of privatization. Gordon spent five years closely observing the VHA’s treatment of patients suffering from service related injuries, physical and mental.

In Wounds of War, Gordon describes how the VHA – tasked with a challenging patient population – does a better job than private sector institutions offering primary and geriatric care, mental health and home care services, and support for patients nearing the end of life. The VHA, Gordon argues, is an integrated health care system worthy of wider emulation, rather than piece-meal dismantling for the benefit of private contractors. In the unusual culture of solidarity between patients and providers that the VHA has fostered, the author finds a working model for higher quality health care and a much-needed alternative to the practice of for-profit medicine.

Brief excerpts from the book, “Wounds of War”:

In this book I focus on how the VHA accomplishes its multiple missions and functions differently from its private-sector counterparts, whose care delivery is more costly, fragmented, and market-driven. As the largest health care system in the country, the VHA has its share of problems. But overall, as the studies and experiences I will cite convey, the VHA provides high-quality care to a very complicated patient population.

Several years ago, when I was visiting the VA Medical Center in West Haven, Connecticut, where my daughter worked, I joined a meeting with visiting staff from the UK’s National Health Service. The assembled British doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and administrators had just trooped through one of the most prestigious teaching hospitals in the United States, the nearby Yale New Haven medical center. They were clearly grappling with the contradictions of what they had just seen. At a well-endowed institution, patients arrived in the emergency room with no insurance, they were discharged prematurely, medical specialists commanded huge salaries unheard of in their own country, primary care seemed undervalued, inter-professional training was spotty, caregivers of all kinds had no union voice, and coordination of care was, well, not exactly “world class.”

And then the UK delegation toured the veterans’ hospital just a few miles away from Yale New Haven. As they sat with VHA caregivers afterward, asking questions and exchanging information in a government-issue conference room, the same realization sank in: they had finally landed in a system – an actual system in the United States – that worked much like their own back home. One doctor finally asked the question on every visitor’s mind. “Why,” he wondered out loud, “do you have to be a military veteran to get this level of care in America? Why isn’t it available to all Americans?” Why indeed.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu…

Unreliable Sources: How Corporate Funders Influenced Mass Media Coverage of Veterans’ Healthcare

By Suzanne Gordon and Jasper Craven
Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute

Phoenix is where today’s deep disdain of the VA first germinated. In the summer of 2014, evidence emerged that administrators at the VA Phoenix hospital had tampered with scheduling data, leaving veterans to wait months for an appointment. The scandal spurred passage of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, which made it much easier for veterans to seek care in the private sector, and ignited a deeply divisive national debate over the government’s ability to deliver health care.

When the Phoenix scandal broke, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) was a fledgling advocacy group working from the fringes. As the Washington Monthly reported, the group’s staff – led by telegenic veteran Pete Hegseth – brilliantly packaged, framed and fed the Phoenix story to a salivating news media desperate for a scandal in the Obama administration. The most serious charges out of Phoenix – that veterans died because they were unable to access care – were never substantiated. The cover up of wait times was more indicative of the agency’s chronic capacity and funding challenges than anything else – issues that to this day have not been meaningfully addressed.

Today, CVA holds incredible sway in Washington. Numerous CVA officials have entered President Donald Trump’s White House, or his Department of Veterans Affairs. Hegseth is now an anchor on the president’s favorite morning news show, Fox & Friends. And the group has built an incredibly effective organizing and messaging apparatus.

What is left out of most coverage is the voices of veterans who have been helped by the VA, as are studies demonstrating the high quality of VA care or explaining the countless challenges of privatization.

The RAND Corporation has been studying VA care since at least the early aughts, and its findings have consistently given the VA high marks while warning that the private sector is unprepared to deal with the complex needs of veterans.

This year alone, RAND has released two comprehensive studies: one that documented the excellence of VA healthcare; the other which revealed the gross inadequacies of New York state’s private healthcare system to treat veteran patients. Neither report attracted serious media attention.

https://www.veteranspolicy.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Believe it or not, we have several individuals in our government who do not believe in government, but rather claim to believe that the private sector can always do things better. Right now the privatizers are taking advantage of a few problems that exist in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and they are attempting to switch more veterans’ services to the private sector. The media has been complicit in covering only the problems and leaving out the real story of the VHA. Suzanne Gordon’s thoroughly researched and highly credible book – “Wounds of War” – describes the phenomenal accomplishments of the VHA and what that means for our veterans with service-connected health care needs.

“Wounds of War” should be mandatory reading for all legislators and government administrators who really do care about the welfare of our veterans. At the same time, we all need to be aware of the distortion of the perception of the VHA caused by the selective reporting of the supposedly reliable media of only the problems, and nothing about the great care veterans are receiving. The disinformation campaign is so intense that even many of the veterans themselves believe that the VHA is bad everywhere except at the facility where they happen to be. Their view? “Don’t fire anyone here – everyone here is a great, dedicated caregiver, driven by their commitment to veterans. As for everywhere else, heads should roll.”

If a cockroach crawled across Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” would the painting be condemned and sent to a flea market? No? Then why do they want to take comparable action against the VHA?

At the national PNHP meeting in San Diego this weekend, Saturday, November 10, Suzanne Gordon will be conducting a workshop on this topic. If you can’t make it, at least read her book. Even if you do go, read it anyway.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Medicare is best solution for health care

By Johnathon Ross, M.D., M.P.H.
The (Toledo, Ohio) Blade, November 3, 2018

As a physician caring for poor and uninsured patients for decades, I can tell you that good insurance coverage saves lives and saves money. The Medicaid expansion under Obamacare provided fairly comprehensive coverage to 702,000 Ohioans. Republicans, like gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine, persist in their misguided effort to repeal this coverage, including Obamacare’s pre-existing conditions protections. Real lives are being saved. Real suffering, disability, and deaths are being prevented with appropriate care.

But Obamacare didn’t solve our problems. It didn’t attack the fundamental disease of American health care — its financial complexity. Private insurance policies are incomprehensible for patients and physicians alike. Twenty-five million Americans remain uninsured, but we’re all unsure about our coverage. It is the privately insured that have seen co-pays and deductibles soar adding “financial toxicity” to the dangers of treatment. Coverage now mimics those hospital gowns leaving us seriously exposed.

We know Medicare works. It successfully covers the most expensive and complex patients (the chronically ill, elderly, and disabled) that the private insurers would not insure prior to its passage in 1965. (Being old was a pre-existing condition.)

Multiple studies, even those by opponents of Medicare for all, agree that Medicare’s administrative simplicity could save hundreds of billions and allow first-dollar comprehensive coverage for all without cutting the pay of caregivers. Medicare allows complete choice of caregiver and hospital. It would save lives, save money, and take the burden of seeking and purchasing health insurance off of businesses and individuals.

Why should we suffer this private insurance failure when we could improve and expand Medicare to all? The Medicare law already exists. Medicare has been improved by amendment many times. We need the political will. An improved and expanded Medicare would provide liberal benefits and conservative spending. It would end medical bill bankruptcy. It is the logical and effective plan that could replace Obamacare to the benefit of all.

https://www.toledoblade.com…

Proposed Rule for Expanding Health Reimbursement Arrangements

Health Reimbursement Arrangements and Other Account-Based Group Health Plans

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Department of the Treasury
Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services

Published in the Federal Register, October 29, 2018

Summary: This document sets forth proposed rules to expand opportunities for working men and women and their families to access affordable, quality healthcare through proposed changes to regulations under various provisions of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) and other account-based group health plans. (For simplicity, this preamble generally refers only to HRAs, but references to HRAs should also be considered to include other account-based group health plans, unless indicated otherwise.) Specifically, these proposed rules allow integrating HRAs with individual health insurance coverage, if certain conditions are met. The proposed rules also set forth conditions under which certain HRAs would be recognized as limited excepted benefits. Also, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) propose rules regarding premium tax credit (PTC) eligibility for individuals offered coverage under an HRA integrated with individual health insurance coverage. In addition, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposes a clarification to provide plan sponsors with assurance that the individual health insurance coverage the premiums of which are reimbursed by an HRA or a qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangement (QSEHRA) does not become part of an ERISA plan, provided certain conditions are met. Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes rules that would provide a special enrollment period in the individual market for individuals who gain access to an HRA integrated with individual health insurance coverage or who are provided a QSEHRA. The goal of these proposed rules is to expand the flexibility and use of HRAs to provide more Americans with additional options to obtain quality, affordable healthcare. The proposed rules would affect employees and their family members; employers, employee organizations, and other plan sponsors; group health plans; health insurance issuers; and purchasers of individual health insurance coverage.

https://s3.amazonaws.com…

Administration Moves To Incentivize Health Reimbursement Arrangements

By Katie Keith
Health Affairs Blog, October 26, 2018

On October 23, 2018, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury issued a new proposed rule to expand the use of health reimbursement arrangements to fund access to health insurance and health care. The proposed rule was developed in response to President Trump’s executive order from October 2017 that directed the federal government to expand access to short-term, limited-duration insurance, association health plans, and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

In the executive order, President Trump directed the Departments to “increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.” As expected by many health policy watchers, the new rule would reverse prior Departmental guidance by allowing HRAs to be used to fund both premiums and out-of-pocket costs associated with individual health insurance coverage.

The proposed rule would also create a new “excepted benefit HRA” option that employees could use to pay premiums for excepted benefits policies and short-term, limited-duration insurance policies.

From the Implications

The rule could lead the loss of coverage if employers stop offering group health plans in lieu of an HRA, and their employees do not accept the HRA or obtain other coverage. The rule could also affect individuals who currently qualify for and receive marketplace subsidies while working for an employer who does not offer health coverage. Under the proposed rule, the offer of an “affordable” HRA-IIHIC would make an employee ineligible to receive a premium tax credit. As a result, some employees could pay more for coverage under the HRA-IIHIC option than they were paying if they received a premium tax credit through the marketplace. Consumers may also face higher cost-sharing in the individual market relative to what they received through a group health plan, and the HRA-IIHIC option could impose higher administrative and compliance burdens on consumers who must navigate a seemingly new system.

Whether these changes would be good for the individual market risk pool remains to be seen and would depend largely on the risk profile of employees offered the new HRA-IIHIC option. The Departments repeatedly note the concern that expanding access to HRAs could lead to employers offering coverage options to employees in a way that discriminates based on health status. At one point, the Departments state their goal to “prevent large-scale destabilization of the individual market” through the proposed rule.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that employees who enter the individual market through an HRA-IIHIC would be healthier on average, which could lead to a better risk profile for the individual market, and thus lower premiums and an even more stable marketplace. This could be especially true if sicker employees hold on to their group health plans, which might be more comprehensive than individual market coverage.

Overall, the proposed rule comes at a seemingly odd time. In the preamble, the Departments describe the various market reforms and structure of the ACA as “intend[ed] to create a robust and competitive individual market, in part by ensuring that risk pools included both higher risk and lower risk individuals.” Given this, the Departments seem comfortable with incentivizing—or at least opening up the possibility for—employees to receive coverage through the individual market, thereby further expanding that market. They do so even as President Trump and senior political leaders continue to argue, as recently as yesterday, that the ACA and the individual market are deeply flawed and broken with “deteriorating market conditions.”

https://www.healthaffairs.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The Trump administration is now proposing expanding the use of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) with the intent of moving more individuals from employer-sponsored plans and into the individual market, fulfilling the administration’s ideological preference for competition in the private marketplace.

If you are really curious about the details of their proposal, you can read the couple hundred pages of the proposed rule, or the long article by Katie Keith, briefly excerpted above. But understanding this proposal is not the purpose of today’s message. Rather it is to get a glimpse of the bizarre machinations in health care by this administrations.

Without going into any of the boring details, they are greatly increasing the administrative complexity of health care financing through health reimbursement arrangements, employer-sponsored plans, and plans in the individual market – this by an administration that says that it wants to increase choice and competition, giving more freedom to individuals to exercise their choices in the marketplace.

Administrative complexity is one of the worst features of health care financing in the United States, and yet this administration continues to compound the problem, not only increasing the waste, but further disrupting the important insurance function of pooling risk as they continue to increase fragmentation in health care financing.

Right now they are celebrating CMS Administrator Verma Seema’s tweet: “this year’s scariest Halloween costume – a tee shirt emblazoned with ‘Medicare for All.'” She followed up with, “Did I get your attention? Good. Medicare for All isn’t a joke. It’s a multi-trillion dollar drain on the American economy that will bankrupt future generations. It’s government controlled health care that will strip choice away from millions. It’s a bad idea. And it IS scary.”

Seema Verma has the solution to our health care financing problems right in front of her in her own department, and she ridicules it. What’s really scary is leaving these people in charge.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plans (MA-EGWPs)

Continued Enrollment Growth in Employer-Group Medicare Advantage

Mark Farrah Associates, October 31, 2018

As of October 1, 2018, total Medicare Advantage (MA) membership stood at over 21 million, representing approximately 34% of the 63.3 million Americans eligible for Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans can either be acquired individually through direct purchase policies or through employer/group retiree programs, commonly known as Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plans (MA-EGWPs). Since the inception of Medicare Advantage in 2003, Individual MA policies have historically dominated the market as 17.1 million beneficiaries purchased MA plans as of October 1, 2018. However, despite a decrease over the years in the number of private sector employers offering retiree health benefits, membership trends in MA-EGWPs have demonstrated notable enrollment growth, especially within the past two years.

Since December 2017, employer-group Medicare Advantage enrollment has increased by over 443 thousand. In fact, over the past four years, group market enrollment has increased by approximately 1 million members, nearly a 125% increase in enrollment since December 2015. This brief provides insights about the current employer-group Medicare Advantage market and assesses membership trends over the past four years by carrier and state.

https://www.markfarrah.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The continued growth in enrollment in private Medicare Advantage plans should be of concern to those who support Single Payer Medicare for All. The privatized Medicare program would not be suitable for a single payer system for the obvious reason that it would be a multi-payer system using private sector insurance plans.

This report shows that there is even more rapid growth in Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plans (MA-EGWPs) – plans that are used for employer/group retiree programs. Locking retired employees into these plans would make it even more difficult to transition into Single Payer Medicare for All since retirees tend to be quite supportive and defensive of their health benefit programs.

Right now there is an intensive effort taking place to defer, perhaps forever, the enactment of Single Payer Medicare for All through a strategy to create a Medicare for Some by offering the purchase of Medicare as an option (a public option) for those currently not yet qualified for Medicare. It is highly likely that the public option will be private health plans comparable to the Medicare Advantage plans, just as the plans offered in the government exchanges under the Affordable Care Act are private health plans.

In the meantime, the traditional Medicare program is being neglected, likely by design, and, as such, it would be unsuitable for Single Payer Medicare for All without significant improvements. However, as the private Medicare Advantage plans become more pervasive within the system, there is great risk that the traditional Medicare program will be reduced to a Medicaid-style welfare program, if not entirely abandoned.

The more we accept these incremental changes such as the Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plans and the pending Medicare Advantage public option – Medicare for Some – the greater the likelihood that we will never see Single Payer Medicare for All. As a reminder, Single Payer Medicare for All corrects the major deficiencies in health care financing, making health care equitable, accessible, and affordable for everyone, whereas the Public Option Medicare for Some perpetuates our highly dysfunctional, fragmented, inequitable, and often unaffordable health care financing system and merely adds one more option that increases the administrative complexity of our system.

The Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plans may seem relatively benign and perhaps even an incremental benefit, but these creeping programs are locking in stone a privatized system that is not even worthy of the name “Medicare.” The longer we wait, and the more we tolerate creeping incrementalism, the less likely we’ll ever see Single Payer Medicare for All.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

“Medicare for All” eliminates the health care middleman

By Samuel L. Rosenthal, M.D.
The New York Times, Letters, November 1, 2018

To the Editor:

Re “‘Don’t Get Too Excited,’” by Elisabeth Rosenthal and Shefali Luthra (Sunday Review, Oct. 21):

Although almost every major country in the world has medical care that is significantly less expensive than ours and most have medical outcomes that are as good or better than ours, your article is correct in pointing out that very few of these countries have what amounts to “Medicare for all.”

The most common systems involve taxpayer-funded, nonprofit insurance, provided by private companies that are regulated by the government. The insurance companies earn operating costs and salaries for their employees but not large profits. There is no benefit to denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions or conditions that require frequent or extensive medical care. Prices for medical care, medical devices and drugs are usually determined by negotiation and are uniform throughout a country.

By contrast, we have unregulated for-profit medical insurance with a middleman whose “product” we must buy, a product that adds nothing to medical care except unnecessary hassle and enormously increased cost. Medicare for all addresses this problem by eliminating the middleman.

https://www.nytimes.com…

Faux ‘Medicare for All’ gaining traction

Exclusive poll: What voters want from “Medicare for All”

By Sam Baker
Axios, October 31, 2018

When you hear candidates talk about “Medicare for All,” what do you think they are proposing?

52% – Single-payer, universal, government-run
21% – Competitive, optional, government-run
24% – Neither

Which of the following health care options do you prefer?

34% – Single-payer, universal, government-run
33% – Competitive, optional, government-run
30% – Neither

Data: Survey Monkey online poll conducted Oct. 24-26, 2018 among 2,949 U.S. adults. Total margin of error is ±2.5 percentage points.

https://www.axios.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This new poll confirms that the label, “Medicare for All,” no longer refers exclusively to a single payer program that includes everyone, but, for many people, it refers to a competitive, multi-payer market of health plans that includes Medicare as an option (i.e., a public option). In fact, the polling indicates that just as many believe that they would prefer a competitive, multi-payer model of “Medicare for All” as would prefer a true single payer model of “Medicare for All” that actually includes absolutely everyone.

Single payer advocates understand the crucial distinction, though many of the public option advocates do not seem to understand the consequences of their choice. The single payer version of “Medicare for All” corrects the major deficiencies in health care financing, making health care equitable, accessible, and affordable for everyone. The public option version of “Medicare for All” perpetuates our highly dysfunctional, fragmented, inequitable, and often unaffordable health care financing system and merely adds one more option that increases the administrative complexity of our system. The differences are absolutely critical, but they are being glossed over by misuse of the “Medicare for All” label.

It is imperative that we educate the public as to the difference, but the labeling is a problem. “Single payer” is a somewhat wonkish term that often is still not well understood by everyone. In contrast, Medicare is a program that is almost revered, and most individuals can hardly wait until they are eligible to enroll in it. Although we have been using “Improved Medicare for All,” that does not distinguish it from a “Medicare for All” that supposedly has been improved by adding a public option.

Until there is a consensus on precisely how we should proceed, I would suggest in the interim the two following measures:

  1. We should keep the label simple, but to distinguish a bona fide single payer system, I would suggest calling it “Single Payer Medicare for All.”
  2. When others use “Medicare for All” when they mean only adding a public option, always call them on it. Insist that they label their model “Medicare for Some,” explaining that they are proposing Medicare for a few more but not for most of us who would still have to deal with the current dysfunctional system.

At the PNHP annual meeting November 9 & 10 in San Diego there will be a workshop on “Faux single-payer plans and legislative deficiencies,” presented by David Himmelstein and President-elect Adam Gaffney. Maybe we can reach a consensus on our strategy at that time.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

More on RAND report and why pellets from a Skinner box won’t work

Response to Quote of the Day of October 29, 2018: "Payment models are stuck in carrots and sticks"

By Kip Sullivan
October 30, 2018

That was an excellent Quote of the Day, Don.

I want to emphasize the difference between what you and Alfie Kohn (the author of the NY Times essay) said, and what the RAND study authors said. You and Kohn said, “No more tinkering with P4P schemes, they don’t work, they make things worse.” The RAND study authors said, “Let’s keep tinkering, we can make P4P better.”

Here’s Kohn’s conclusion: “By now it should be clear that the trouble doesn’t lie with the type of reward, the schedule on which it’s presented, or any other detail of how it’s done. The problem is the outdated theory of motivation underlying the whole idea of treating people like pets — that is, saying: Do this, and you’ll get that.” In other words, the diagnosis underlying the entire P4P fad was wrong to begin with (it wasn’t merely “outdated”), ergo, the recommended solution — giving doctors little food pellets when they pull on the right lever and taking food pellets away when they fail to pull on the right lever — can’t work.

The RAND study is a useful contribution to the literature on what tended to be called P4P schemes from about 2000 to 2010, and since 2010 is more often called “value-based purchasing” (VBP) (The most important P4P/VBP schemes today are ACOs, medical homes, bundled payment, and the MIPS program.) The RAND study is useful because the authors actually went to the trouble of speaking to doctors — y’know, the people who treat patients who must cope with the useless feedback created by the proliferating VBP schemes imposed upon them by public and private insurers. It’s very rare to see a study that seeks to present the views of the creatures in the Skinner box created by VBP advocates over the last two decades (the Leapfrog Group, MedPAC, the Patient-centered Primary Care Collaborative, what used to be called the Institute of Medicine, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Elliott Fisher, Stephen Shortell, Atul Gawande, Peter Orszag, Ezekiel Emanuel, members of both parties in Congress, etc.) The RAND study tells us that the creatures in the VBP Skinner box are confused and unhappy, and want out.

But the recommendations of the RAND study are ridiculous. They’re ridiculous because RAND has apparently totally ignored the research, accurately summed up by Kohn and Don, to wit, no amount of tinkering can fix a problem that was diagnosed incorrectly. (I say “apparently” because I have read only the summary of the RAND study.) RAND recommends merely:

  • reducing the rate at which Congress, Medicare and the insurance industry gin up more VBP schemes,
  • giving doctors some extra dollars to buy more IT hardware and software from Cerner and Epic so they can, in theory, make more sense of the white noise in the Skinner box, and
  • provide more “understandable performance data.”

These pathetic recommendations reflect profound confusion about (a) the cause of high US health care costs (it’s our high prices caused by administrative waste and galloping consolidation, not excessive volume triggered by the FFS payment method) and (b) the solution (we need a true single-payer system, not Bernie’s bill or any other bill that doubles down on VBP nostrums).

How did the VBP buffs and RAND get so confused about the correct diagnosis of the American health care crisis and the correct response? Who told them per capita US health care costs are double those of the rest of the world because American doctors (and only American doctors) are motivated by greed and, therefore, routinely cave into the FFS incentive to order unnecessary services? Who told them physician “merit” or “efficiency” (their cost and quality) can be measured so accurately that the Masters of the Skinner Box can send doctors precise signals — more food pellets for you, fewer for you — that will accurately tell doctors when they’re being inefficient and when they’re failing to exercise good medical judgement?

Quote of the Day of October 29, 2018 — “Payment models are stuck in carrots and sticks”:
https://www.pnhp.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Yesterday’s Quote of the Day message was too important to let it pass on without further comment. Government legislative and administrative officials and the policy community in both the public and private sector continue to lead us down the wrong pathway to reform. Their value-based purchasing models for health care reform (paying for value instead of volume) are failing because they are based on the incorrect assumption that physicians will repair our health care system if only they are presented with petty rewards or penalties. They completely miss the ethical and professional foundations of the science and art of medicine.

The RAND study is an important contribution because they actually looked at physicians and how they are responding to the current health care payment models. They showed that the models are increasingly complex, that they are changing at an accelerating pace, and that risk aversion is a consequence. The error that RAND makes is that they ignore their important findings and fall in line with the rest of policy community in recommending more of the same.

The article yesterday by Alfie Kohn shows us that the petty rewards or punishments of carrots or sticks, or success or failure of obtaining reward pellets from a Skinner box, “can never create a lasting commitment to an action or a value, and often they have exactly the opposite effect.” Value-based purchasing (MIPS, APMs, ACOs, etc.) reduces health care to a petty reward system that fails on goals of higher quality and lower costs, while creating harm, especially through physician burnout.

Yesterday’s Quote of the Day and today’s comments by Kip Sullivan present two rhetorical versions of the same concept just to be sure that everyone understands it: value-based purchasing is the wrong pathway to reform. Both will be posted on the PNHP website so that they will always be available to help educate others (https://www.pnhp.org/news/quote-of-the-day, Oct. 29 & 30, 2018).

After the midterm election the legislative proposals for Medicare for All will be undergoing refinement. We need to be sure that the architects are not deceived into thinking that the legislation needs updating by adding the flawed concepts of value-based purchasing. We cannot allow the ethics and professionalism of medicine to be replaced with the carrots, sticks, and Skinner box pellets of value-based purchasing.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Doctor’s Tip: Big Pharma needs fixing

By Greg Feinsinger, M.D.
Glenwood Springs (Colo.) Post Independent, October 29, 2018

Following the discovery of antibiotics 90 years ago, the medical field became pill- and procedure-oriented. Initially, the business of medicine was altruistic. For example, in 1955 Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which saved millions of lives and prevented millions of cases of disabling paralysis worldwide. When Dr. Salk was asked who owned the patent, his reply was: “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

In the last twenty-five years, American medicine (hospitals, the pharmaceutical/medical device industry, medical insurance companies, physician specialty societies) has become big business — all about making profits rather than about what’s best for the citizens of this country. Following are some reasons it has become easy — in this environment of greed — to dislike the pharmaceutical industry:

  • They have too much influence on Congress, through campaign contributions and lobbying — for example convincing them to make importing cheaper drugs from Canada illegal, convincing them to forbid Medicare from negotiating for better drug prices for seniors.
  • They have too much influence on medical education and on practicing physicians: Drug reps develop cozy relationships with doctors in their offices and convince them to use their products, even though better and cheaper alternatives often exist. Medical journals contain drug ads. Most speakers at medical conferences have ties to pharmaceutical companies (which they now have to disclose).
  • Pharmaceutical companies charge as much as they can get away with — especially for products that are critical for people with diseases such as M.S.
  • When patents on brand-name products are about to expire, drug companies make minor changes and sell these “new” products at brand-name prices. Or they pay potential generic competitors to delay making lower-priced products.
  • Although game-changing drugs have been developed over the years, most new drugs are “me too” drugs, that offer nothing new — a practice that isn’t allowed in most other developed countries. For example, losartan came out as an ARB drug for hypertension many years ago, but there are now several of these ARB drugs with no real advantage over the original losartan.
  • They market directly to consumers — a practice that is only allowed in the U.S. and New Zealand.
  • They justify over-charging for their products by saying that research and development is expensive — but they pay their CEOs inflated salaries and spend more on marketing than on R and D.

Can you imagine the altruism that Dr. Salk displayed in 1955 happening today? Now we have Goldman Sachs analysts warning biotech firms to stay away from drugs that offer “one shot cures.” They are referring to a new drug that cures hepatitis C, which “has gradually exhausted the available pool of patients.” The analysts suggest sticking to cancer drugs, “where the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.” Drug companies benefit most from chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, which — unless patients with these diseases make dramatic lifestyle changes — require medications for years. (As noted in previous columns, the U.S. doesn’t have a health care system, but rather a disease management system — we wait until diseases occur and then spend trillions trying to manage them. Big Pharma loves this dysfunctional system).

The PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program) developed the following principles for fixing the pharmaceutical industry:

  • “Access to medications should be determined by medical need, not financial means.”
  • “Drugs must be affordable to society.”
  • “Drug development should be geared toward real innovation that maximizes population health.”
  • “The human right to health must take precedence over intellectual property rights (patents).”
  • “The safety and effectiveness of medications must be independently and rigorously evaluated.” (This refers to the pharmaceutical industry having undue influence on the FDA).
  • “Comprehensive and unbiased information on drugs should be available to prescribers and patients.”

Dr. Feinsinger, who retired from Glenwood Medical Associates after 42 years as a family physician, has a nonprofit Center For Prevention and Treatment of Disease Through Nutrition.

https://www.postindependent.com…

Payment models are stuck in carrots and sticks

Effects of Health Care Payment Models on Physician Practice in the United States

By Mark W. Friedberg, et al.
RAND, October 24, 2018

This report, sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA), describes how alternative payment models (APMs) affect physicians, physicians’ practices, and hospital systems in the United States and also provides updated data to the original 2014 study. Payment models discussed are core payment (fee for service, capitation, episode-based and bundled), supplementary payment (shared savings, pay for performance, retainer-based), and combined payment (medical homes and accountable care organizations). The effects of changes since 2014 in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and of new alternative payment models (APMs), such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Quality Payment Program (QPP), are also examined.

Key Findings

Payment models are changing at an accelerating pace

Physician practices, health systems, and consultants find it difficult to keep up with the proliferation of new models, with some calling for a “time out” to allow them to better adapt to current APMs.

Payment models are increasing in complexity

Alternative payment models have become increasingly complex since 2014. Practices that have invested in understanding complex APMs have found opportunities to earn financial awards for their preexisting quality — without materially changing patient care.

Risk aversion is more prominent among physician practices

Risk aversion among physician practices was more prominent. Risk-averse practices sought to avoid downside risk or to off-load downside risk to partners (e.g., hospitals and device manufacturers) when possible.

For full document (96 pages):
https://www.rand.org…

RAND press release:
https://www.rand.org…

***

Science Confirms It: People Are Not Pets

Research on the efficacy of rewards tells us that we can’t bribe others into doing what we want.

By Alfie Kohn
The New York Times, October 27, 2018

The field of social psychology is sometimes accused of doing no more than ratifying common sense, so it’s worth paying attention when its findings are genuinely surprising. Case in point: the discovery that when we are rewarded for doing something, we tend to lose interest in whatever we had to do to get the reward.

This outcome has been confirmed scores of times with all sorts of rewards and tasks, and across cultures, ages and genders. Yet many teachers, parents and bosses persist in using versions of what has been called “sugarcoated control.”

Psychologists often distinguish between intrinsic motivation (wanting to do something for its own sake) and extrinsic motivation (for example, doing something in order to snag a goody). The first is the best predictor of high-quality achievement, and it can actually be undermined by the second. Moreover, when you promise people a reward, they often perform more poorly as a result.

Over the years, researchers have investigated some intriguing questions that stemmed from these basic findings. For instance: What if the reward is really large and luscious? (Answer: It’s apt to do even more damage to intrinsic motivation.) Are rewards destructive because they distract people from the task? (Apparently not, because other distractions don’t have the same negative effects.) Which is worse, giving people a set reward for doing something or making it contingent on how well they do it? (The latter, by a long shot.)

By now it should be clear that the trouble doesn’t lie with the type of reward, the schedule on which it’s presented, or any other detail of how it’s done. The problem is the outdated theory of motivation underlying the whole idea of treating people like pets — that is, saying: Do this, and you’ll get that.

The best that carrots — or sticks — can do is change people’s behavior temporarily. They can never create a lasting commitment to an action or a value, and often they have exactly the opposite effect … contrary to hypothesis.

https://www.nytimes.com…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

There is much more here than a casual glance might imply. The search for value-based payment in health care, as opposed to paying for volume, has led to various payment models such as shared savings, accountable care organizations, bundled payments, pay for performance (P4P), medical homes, and other alternative payment models. How well is that working?

To date, most studies have been quite disappointing. Claims of cost savings are belied when considering the additional provider costs of information technology and human manpower devoted to these models, not to mention the high emotional cost of burnout. This RAND study shows that these models are increasing in complexity, making it difficult for the health delivery system to keep up. Even worse, they are inducing risk aversion. The health care providers are trying to avoid those who most need health care – the opposite of what our health care system should be delivering.

Much of the experimentation in delivery models has been centered around reward or punishment. But, as Alfie Kohn writes, “intrinsic motivation (wanting to do something for its own sake)… is the best predictor of high-quality achievement,” whereas “extrinsic motivation (for example, doing something in order to snag a goody)” can actually undermine intrinsic motivation. It has been observed by others that the personal satisfaction of achievement of patient health care goals is tremendously rewarding, whereas the token rewards based on meager quality measurements are often insulting because of the implication that somehow token payments are a greater motivator than fulfilling Hippocratic traditions. Even more insulting are the token penalties for falling on the wrong side of the bell curve simply as a result of making efforts to care for patients with greater medical or sociological difficulties.

Quoting Alfie Kohn again, “carrots or sticks… can never create a lasting commitment to an action or a value, and often they have exactly the opposite effect … contrary to hypothesis.” The RAND report suggests slowing down and working with these models some more while increasing investment in data management and analysis with the goal of increasing success with alternative payment models. No. These models are making things worse. It’s time to abandon them and get back with taking care of our patients. The payment model we need is an improved version of Medicare that takes care of everyone. Throw out the sticks and carrots.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

SGIM Should Support a Single-Payer National Health Insurance Program

By Danny McCormick, MD, MPH; Oliver Fein, MD; Christopher J. Wong, MD; Scott Goldberg, MD; Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH; David U. Himmelstein, MD
SGIM Forum, Perspective, October 2018

Despite improvements in health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 29 million Americans remain uninsured and millions with coverage are also unable to afford care. Meanwhile, in our healthcare institutions, the drive for profit increasingly trumps clinical imperatives, and even in not-for-profit organizations, mounting bureaucracy drains both funds and joy from patient care. None of the incremental reforms currently being debated would fix these problems. SGIM has supported the goals of universal access to care and health equity, but has never taken a position on how to achieve these goals. The time has come for our organization to endorse and advocate for the only viable way to ensure universal access to comprehensive care at an affordable price—a single payer reform.

Current State of Coverage and Access in the USA

The ACA implemented the largest health insurance expansion since the start-up of Medicare and Medicaid in 1966. Since 2013, 15.5 million Americans have gained coverage, with larger gains among the poor, Hispanics and African Americans, although these groups continue to suffer higher-than-average rates of uninsurance.1 Yet, 9.1% of Americans remain uninsured, and 13.0%—including 16.3% of black and 20.3% of Hispanic people—can’t afford a needed physician visit currently.2

But we have likely seen all the coverage gains achievable under the ACA. Unfortunately, the current administration is seeking to undercut the law, implementing policies that will erode existing coverage levels.3 Even without these setbacks, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that no further increases in coverage would occur through 2026.

SGIM’s Mission, Previous Work, and Role in Medicine

SGIM is an association of the world’s leading academic general internists whose members have expertise in health services and policy research, healthcare administration, clinical care, and ethics. This allows SGIM to play an important role in guiding the public and policy makers on which specific policy options to select to address key policy problems. Through its committees and the Council, SGIM works hard to advance its mission “to achieve health care delivery that is comprehensive…[and] is organized and financed to achieve optimal health outcomes and maximize equity”. SGIM’s stated values include “social responsibility and equity in health and healthcare”. In addition, SGIM’s Health Policy Committee affirms a commitment to “universal health care access”.

SGIM regularly supports specific policies, even controversial ones, by issuing white papers or public statements. As an organization, we have taken strong positions against physicians’ participation in torture and in support of providing care for undocumented immigrants. However, SGIM has yet to advocate clearly on how to achieve universal and equitable access to care. We believe it should now publicly support a single-payer program for the United States.

Why Should SGIM Support a Single-Payer Health Care System?

Merits of Single Payer

A single payer reform would replace the current welter of private and public insurance plans with one public plan covering everyone for all medically necessary care—in essence, an expanded and upgraded version of the traditional Medicare program. The potential health benefits of this approach are substantial. Numerous studies, many from SGIM members, have shown that being uninsured carries mortal consequences. Covering the 29 million Americans who are currently uninsured would likely save many thousands of lives annually, and would reduce the risks borne by many more patients who delay seeking care and skimp on medications to save costs.

The economic case for single-payer reform is also compelling. Private insurers’ overhead averages 12.4% versus 2.2% in traditional Medicare. Reducing insurance overhead to Medicare’s level would save approximately $220 billion this year. Even larger savings would accrue by sharply reducing provider overhead, including the substantial costs of billing and paperwork required to deal with multiple payers. By paying hospitals lump-sum operating budgets rather than forcing them to bill per patient, Scotland and Canada have held hospital administrative costs to approximately 12% of revenues versus 25.3% in the United States.4 Further, a single-payer program could use its bargaining clout to sharply reduce drug prices. Single payer’s savings on bureaucracy and drug profiteering would fully offset the added costs of providing universal, comprehensive first-dollar coverage. Indeed, even critics of single payer estimate that such reform would cut overall health expenditures by $2 trillion over a decade.5

Single Payer and SGIM’s Organizational Objectives

Single payer aligns well with SGIM’s organizational goals. We agree with SGIM’s support of the broad principles of access and equity. However, lacking any plan for how these goals can be realized effectively undermines advocacy efforts. SGIM’s not providing specific recommendations, leaves the impression that it believes that incremental reform is a plausible way to achieve universal coverage. The evidence does not support this belief.

We are also convinced that single payer is the best way to address SGIM’s mission of “improving the work and practice environment for general internists” and reducing
physician burnout. The simplified, uniform billing procedures under a single-payer system would reduce the time and effort physicians currently waste arguing with private, profit-driven insurers and providing documentation that is clinically superfluous but essential to justify payment.

The Moral Argument

Universal access to care is, fundamentally, a moral issue. As scientists, we must be attentive to research evidence, policy details and economic necessities. Ultimately, however, we must be guided by our conscience. Access to health care should not be dependent on one’s age, employer, wealth, or zip code; it is a moral failure that we do not guarantee the clear common good that is health care. A strong body of research in the United States and experience in other nations give clear evidence that a single payer system would dramatically expand access to care, including treatments for millions with chronic illnesses, saving thousands of lives annually. As physicians, we have an obligation to advocate for policies that evidence indicates are in the best interest of the public’s health. In light of this, we believe that advocacy for single payer reform is a professional duty.

Arguments Against SGIM’s Support for Single Payer

Some suggest that advocating single payer reform would commit SGIM to supporting a fringe proposal that would isolate us from the mainstream of political debate. Yet, recent surveys indicate that most Americans favor such reform. Single-payer bills in Congress have gained co-sponsorship from 123 members of the House and 16 in the Senate. All the leading Democratic party contenders for the presidency in 2020 openly call for single payer reform.

Some may also worry that SGIM support for single payer could alienate some current or potential members, or isolate us from other physician groups. Yet, as noted above, SGIM has not shied away from taking stands on other controversial and potentially divisive issues when it was clearly in the interest of the public’s health. Moreover, past polls of SGIM’s membership have found substantial support for “a single, consolidated financing mechanism,” and recent surveys indicate that a majority of physicians—and an even larger proportion of general internists—favor a single payer system.

Others may view an incremental strategy as a more practical route to universal coverage, citing nations such as Switzerland and Germany that have retained multiple insurers while achieving universal coverage. Yet those nations’ insurers are fundamentally different from ours. In Switzerland, for example, only non-profit insurers can offer the tightly regulated mandatory coverage and are required to pay providers identical rates. Transitioning to this or similar models would entail converting our for-profit insurers to heavily-regulated non-profits, a reform that insurers would vehemently oppose. Moreover, both insurance overhead and providers’ administrative costs in multi-payer systems are far higher than under single payer. While the incremental approach may sound appealing, it would sacrifice much of the administrative savings that makes universal coverage under a single payer system affordable and it would still require a head-on confrontation with America’s for-profit insurance giants.

Conclusion

SGIM supports universal access and the elimination of disparities in access to care. The only plausible way to achieve these goals is through adoption of a single payer
national health insurance program. Single payer would cover 100% of Americans, dramatically expand access to care, and improve access to needed treatments for millions with chronic illnesses, saving thousands of lives annually. Popular and political support for single payer is growing. SGIM should provide leadership in advocacy for such reform.

https://www.sgim.org…

References

1. Cohen RA, Zammitti EP, Martinez ME. Health insurance coverage: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov… Published November 2017. Accessed September 1, 2018.

2. BRFSS Web Enabled Analysis Tool. https://nccd.cdc.gov… Accessed September 1, 2018.

3. Collins SR, Gunja MZ, Doty MM, et al. First look at health insurance coverage in 2018 finds ACA gains beginning to reverse. http://www.commonwealthfund.org… Published May 1, 2018. Accessed September 1, 2018.

4. Himmelstein DU, Jun M, Busse R, et al. A comparison of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far. Health Aff (Millwood).
2014;33(9):1586-94.

5. Blahous C. The costs of a national single-payer health care system. https://www.mercatus.org… Published July 2018. Accessed September 1, 2018.

Author Affiliations

Dr. McCormick (danny_mccormick@hms.harvard.edu) is associate professor, Harvard Medical School/Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA.

Dr. Fein (ofein@med.cornell.edu) is professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.

Dr. Wong (cjwong@uw.edu) is associate professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.

Dr. Goldberg (sgoldberg28@gmain.com) is resident physician, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Dr. Woolhandler (swoolha@hunter.cuny.edu) is distinguished professor, City University of New York at Hunter College, New York, NY. and lecturer in medicine, Harvard Medical School/Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA.

Dr. Himmelstein (dhimmels@hunter.cuny.edu) is distinguished professor, City University of New York at Hunter College, New York, NY, and lecturer in medicine, Harvard Medical School/Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA.