PNHP

Medical students' attitudes regarding the uninsured and underinsured

Medical students' attitudes regarding the uninsured and underinsured

Videotaped Patient Stories: Impact on Medical Students' Attitudes Regarding Healthcare for the Uninsured and Underinsured

By Richard Bruno, Allen Andrews, Brian Garvey, Kristin Huntoon, Rajarshi Mazumder, Jaleh Olson, David Sanders, Ilana Weinbaum, Paul Gorman
PLOS ONE, December 12, 2012

The attitudes of medical students toward the current United States healthcare system are not well described in the literature. A graded survey was developed to assess awareness and motivation toward the care of the uninsured and underinsured as well as the impact of a video intervention on these attitudes.

Medical students from nine medical schools were invited to participate and 895 completed the survey. Based on student coordinators’ estimates of their class size, reconciled with AAMC data, the response rate was 22.7%.

Our key findings were: (1) An overwhelming majority of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that everyone should have access to healthcare (96%) and that care should be provided regardless of ability to pay (85%); (2) two thirds of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that they have the personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients (67.4%) and expressed a willingness to forgo a portion of income to provide healthcare to the underserved (66.1%); (3) 72% of respondents agree or strongly agree that publicly funded healthcare should be available to all citizens; (4) these values were strongly correlated with older age and intention to pursue primary care; (5) following a video montage of patient stories, respondents were more likely to indicate a personal desire to be involved in providing care to the underserved.

Ideas for Reform

Many students articulated a need for systemic healthcare reform. Most of those responding were in agreement that there were a number of issues within healthcare that need to be transformed, but they did not agree on any single plan for change. Respondents proposed ideas for reform ranging from changing payment structures, reducing cost of care, incentivizing healthy behaviors, reforming health insurance, to shifting toward a socialized or single payer approach to healthcare.

Physician vs. Government Responsibility

While several respondents stated that physicians across all specialties have a responsibility to care for the underserved, a large number of respondents felt strongly that physicians should choose whether or not to volunteer their time serving the uninsured and should not be obligated to do so. Others took this idea further, stating that physicians already sacrifice a lot and should always be compensated for their services. There seemed to be consensus that although physicians must play a role in caring for the underserved, they should not bear the entire responsibility of doing so. Respondents were split over whether this should be the responsibility of the government or not.

Healthcare as a Right

While a significant group of respondents felt that healthcare should be a right for all people, others felt that certain groups should be excluded or that individuals should have to take responsibility for their own health and payment for their own care. Several people stated specifically that healthcare is a right and that all people should have access regardless of their ability to pay, while others stated that healthcare should not be free for anyone and that everyone should be required to pay something. Other respondents specified that while everyone should have access to a basic level of care, those who can pay more should be able to purchase more or higher quality services. Some students clarified that specific groups, such as those who are not citizens or whose health problems are the result of unhealthy behaviors, should not receive care funded by taxpayer dollars. Several respondents also expressed concern that publicly funded care takes away personal responsibility and that people would likely take advantage of the system.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0051827

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

As the nation implements the provisions of the Affordable Care Act we can look forward to a future wherein, regardless of the structure of financing and the delivery system in health care, the altruistic students of today will demonstrate that we’ll be in good hands. They will make the system, regardless of how flawed, work for the benefit of everyone. Or can we be so assured?

This study does have some limitations. Less than one-fourth of students invited to participate actually responded. Because of the nature of the survey, there may have been a self-selection bias toward more altruistic students. A major feature of the study was to assess views before and after viewing a two minute video montage of patients telling their stories. Intuitively it seems unlikely that such a video could change moral and ethical perceptions developed over a lifetime, though 83 percent who viewed the video, as opposed to 77 percent who did not, expressed that they personally wanted to be involved in providing care to those without access (a “statistically significant” insignificant finding).

The key findings listed in the excerpts above superficially seem to be reassuring in that fairly large percentages of these self-selected students hold certain altruistic views. But what about the others? Do 4 percent of medical students really believe that not everyone should have access to health care? Do 15 percent believe that care should not be provided when there is no ability to pay? Do 33 percent believe that they have no personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients? Are 34 percent unwilling to forgo a portion of income to provide health care to the underserved? Do 28 percent believe that publicly funded health care should not be available to all citizens?

You may be troubled as I was on reading the paragraph above titled “Healthcare is a Right.” It demonstrates that the opponents of solidarity and egalitarianism have been very effective in delivering their message that we are not all in this together, that we are each on our own. Particularly prominent are the observations expressing the view that everyone should be required to pay something, otherwise individuals would abandon personal responsibility and take advantage of the system. This, of course, represents the rhetoric of the advocates of consumer-directed health care (CDHC).

So what is wrong with CDHC? Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein summarized it well in the following paragraph from their article, “Consumer Directed Healthcare: Except for the Healthy and Wealthy It’s Unwise.”

“Behind the rhetoric of consumer responsiveness and personal responsibility, CDHC sets in motion huge resource transfers. The sick and middle-aged pay more, whereas the young and healthy pay less. Women spend more, whereas men spend less. Workers bear more of the burden, whereas employers bear less. The poor skip vital care while the rich enjoy tax-free tummy tucks. And, as in every health reform in memory, bureaucrats and insurance firms walk off with an ever larger share of health dollars.”

https://pnhp.org/PDF_files/CDHC_Unwise.pdf

The question then, are these particular medical students merely passively, naively and uncritically accepting the framing as presented by the CDHC advocates, or do they really believe in a social order that is defined by our individual efforts and rejects moral precepts of social justice? Or is that even a valid dichotomy? The rhetoric of this sector of the nation’s medical students is not very reassuring.

Happy
New Year anyway.

Medical students’ attitudes regarding the uninsured and underinsured

Videotaped Patient Stories: Impact on Medical Students’ Attitudes Regarding Healthcare for the Uninsured and Underinsured

By Richard Bruno, Allen Andrews, Brian Garvey, Kristin Huntoon, Rajarshi Mazumder, Jaleh Olson, David Sanders, Ilana Weinbaum, Paul Gorman
PLOS ONE, December 12, 2012

The attitudes of medical students toward the current United States healthcare system are not well described in the literature. A graded survey was developed to assess awareness and motivation toward the care of the uninsured and underinsured as well as the impact of a video intervention on these attitudes.

Medical students from nine medical schools were invited to participate and 895 completed the survey. Based on student coordinators’ estimates of their class size, reconciled with AAMC data, the response rate was 22.7%.

Our key findings were: (1) An overwhelming majority of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that everyone should have access to healthcare (96%) and that care should be provided regardless of ability to pay (85%); (2) two thirds of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that they have the personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients (67.4%) and expressed a willingness to forgo a portion of income to provide healthcare to the underserved (66.1%); (3) 72% of respondents agree or strongly agree that publicly funded healthcare should be available to all citizens; (4) these values were strongly correlated with older age and intention to pursue primary care; (5) following a video montage of patient stories, respondents were more likely to indicate a personal desire to be involved in providing care to the underserved.

Ideas for Reform

Many students articulated a need for systemic healthcare reform. Most of those responding were in agreement that there were a number of issues within healthcare that need to be transformed, but they did not agree on any single plan for change. Respondents proposed ideas for reform ranging from changing payment structures, reducing cost of care, incentivizing healthy behaviors, reforming health insurance, to shifting toward a socialized or single payer approach to healthcare.

Physician vs. Government Responsibility

While several respondents stated that physicians across all specialties have a responsibility to care for the underserved, a large number of respondents felt strongly that physicians should choose whether or not to volunteer their time serving the uninsured and should not be obligated to do so. Others took this idea further, stating that physicians already sacrifice a lot and should always be compensated for their services. There seemed to be consensus that although physicians must play a role in caring for the underserved, they should not bear the entire responsibility of doing so. Respondents were split over whether this should be the responsibility of the government or not.

Healthcare as a Right

While a significant group of respondents felt that healthcare should be a right for all people, others felt that certain groups should be excluded or that individuals should have to take responsibility for their own health and payment for their own care. Several people stated specifically that healthcare is a right and that all people should have access regardless of their ability to pay, while others stated that healthcare should not be free for anyone and that everyone should be required to pay something. Other respondents specified that while everyone should have access to a basic level of care, those who can pay more should be able to purchase more or higher quality services. Some students clarified that specific groups, such as those who are not citizens or whose health problems are the result of unhealthy behaviors, should not receive care funded by taxpayer dollars. Several respondents also expressed concern that publicly funded care takes away personal responsibility and that people would likely take advantage of the system.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0051827

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

As the nation implements the provisions of the Affordable Care Act we can look forward to a future wherein, regardless of the structure of financing and the delivery system in health care, the altruistic students of today will demonstrate that we’ll be in good hands. They will make the system, regardless of how flawed, work for the benefit of everyone. Or can we be so assured?

This study does have some limitations. Less than one-fourth of students invited to participate actually responded. Because of the nature of the survey, there may have been a self-selection bias toward more altruistic students. A major feature of the study was to assess views before and after viewing a two minute video montage of patients telling their stories. Intuitively it seems unlikely that such a video could change moral and ethical perceptions developed over a lifetime, though 83 percent who viewed the video, as opposed to 77 percent who did not, expressed that they personally wanted to be involved in providing care to those without access (a “statistically significant” insignificant finding).

The key findings listed in the excerpts above superficially seem to be reassuring in that fairly large percentages of these self-selected students hold certain altruistic views. But what about the others? Do 4 percent of medical students really believe that not everyone should have access to health care? Do 15 percent believe that care should not be provided when there is no ability to pay? Do 33 percent believe that they have no personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients? Are 34 percent unwilling to forgo a portion of income to provide health care to the underserved? Do 28 percent believe that publicly funded health care should not be available to all citizens?

You may be troubled as I was on reading the paragraph above titled “Healthcare is a Right.” It demonstrates that the opponents of solidarity and egalitarianism have been very effective in delivering their message that we are not all in this together, that we are each on our own. Particularly prominent are the observations expressing the view that everyone should be required to pay something, otherwise individuals would abandon personal responsibility and take advantage of the system. This, of course, represents the rhetoric of the advocates of consumer-directed health care (CDHC).

So what is wrong with CDHC? Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein summarized it well in the following paragraph from their article, “Consumer Directed Healthcare: Except for the Healthy and Wealthy It’s Unwise.”

“Behind the rhetoric of consumer responsiveness and personal responsibility, CDHC sets in motion huge resource transfers. The sick and middle-aged pay more, whereas the young and healthy pay less. Women spend more, whereas men spend less. Workers bear more of the burden, whereas employers bear less. The poor skip vital care while the rich enjoy tax-free tummy tucks. And, as in every health reform in memory, bureaucrats and insurance firms walk off with an ever larger share of health dollars.”

https://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/CDHC_Unwise.pdf

The question then, are these particular medical students merely passively, naively and uncritically accepting the framing as presented by the CDHC advocates, or do they really believe in a social order that is defined by our individual efforts and rejects moral precepts of social justice? Or is that even a valid dichotomy? The rhetoric of this sector of the nation’s medical students is not very reassuring.

Happy New Year anyway.

Medical students' attitudes regarding the uninsured and underinsured

Videotaped Patient Stories: Impact on Medical Students’ Attitudes Regarding Healthcare for the Uninsured and Underinsured

By Richard Bruno, Allen Andrews, Brian Garvey, Kristin Huntoon, Rajarshi Mazumder, Jaleh Olson, David Sanders, Ilana Weinbaum, Paul Gorman
PLOS ONE, December 12, 2012
The attitudes of medical students toward the current United States healthcare system are not well described in the literature. A graded survey was developed to assess awareness and motivation toward the care of the uninsured and underinsured as well as the impact of a video intervention on these attitudes.
Medical students from nine medical schools were invited to participate and 895 completed the survey. Based on student coordinators’ estimates of their class size, reconciled with AAMC data, the response rate was 22.7%.
Our key findings were: (1) An overwhelming majority of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that everyone should have access to healthcare (96%) and that care should be provided regardless of ability to pay (85%); (2) two thirds of medical students responding agree or strongly agree that they have the personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients (67.4%) and expressed a willingness to forgo a portion of income to provide healthcare to the underserved (66.1%); (3) 72% of respondents agree or strongly agree that publicly funded healthcare should be available to all citizens; (4) these values were strongly correlated with older age and intention to pursue primary care; (5) following a video montage of patient stories, respondents were more likely to indicate a personal desire to be involved in providing care to the underserved.
Ideas for Reform
Many students articulated a need for systemic healthcare reform. Most of those responding were in agreement that there were a number of issues within healthcare that need to be transformed, but they did not agree on any single plan for change. Respondents proposed ideas for reform ranging from changing payment structures, reducing cost of care, incentivizing healthy behaviors, reforming health insurance, to shifting toward a socialized or single payer approach to healthcare.
Physician vs. Government Responsibility
While several respondents stated that physicians across all specialties have a responsibility to care for the underserved, a large number of respondents felt strongly that physicians should choose whether or not to volunteer their time serving the uninsured and should not be obligated to do so. Others took this idea further, stating that physicians already sacrifice a lot and should always be compensated for their services. There seemed to be consensus that although physicians must play a role in caring for the underserved, they should not bear the entire responsibility of doing so. Respondents were split over whether this should be the responsibility of the government or not.
Healthcare as a Right
While a significant group of respondents felt that healthcare should be a right for all people, others felt that certain groups should be excluded or that individuals should have to take responsibility for their own health and payment for their own care. Several people stated specifically that healthcare is a right and that all people should have access regardless of their ability to pay, while others stated that healthcare should not be free for anyone and that everyone should be required to pay something. Other respondents specified that while everyone should have access to a basic level of care, those who can pay more should be able to purchase more or higher quality services. Some students clarified that specific groups, such as those who are not citizens or whose health problems are the result of unhealthy behaviors, should not receive care funded by taxpayer dollars. Several respondents also expressed concern that publicly funded care takes away personal responsibility and that people would likely take advantage of the system.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0051827

As the nation implements the provisions of the Affordable Care Act we can look forward to a future wherein, regardless of the structure of financing and the delivery system in health care, the altruistic students of today will demonstrate that we’ll be in good hands. They will make the system, regardless of how flawed, work for the benefit of everyone. Or can we be so assured?
This study does have some limitations. Less than one-fourth of students invited to participate actually responded. Because of the nature of the survey, there may have been a self-selection bias toward more altruistic students. A major feature of the study was to assess views before and after viewing a two minute video montage of patients telling their stories. Intuitively it seems unlikely that such a video could change moral and ethical perceptions developed over a lifetime, though 83 percent who viewed the video, as opposed to 77 percent who did not, expressed that they personally wanted to be involved in providing care to those without access (a “statistically significant” insignificant finding).
The key findings listed in the excerpts above superficially seem to be reassuring in that fairly large percentages of these self-selected students hold certain altruistic views. But what about the others? Do 4 percent of medical students really believe that not everyone should have access to health care? Do 15 percent believe that care should not be provided when there is no ability to pay? Do 33 percent believe that they have no personal responsibility to volunteer time for underserved patients? Are 34 percent unwilling to forgo a portion of income to provide health care to the underserved? Do 28 percent believe that publicly funded health care should not be available to all citizens?
You may be troubled as I was on reading the paragraph above titled “Healthcare is a Right.” It demonstrates that the opponents of solidarity and egalitarianism have been very effective in delivering their message that we are not all in this together, that we are each on our own. Particularly prominent are the observations expressing the view that everyone should be required to pay something, otherwise individuals would abandon personal responsibility and take advantage of the system. This, of course, represents the rhetoric of the advocates of consumer-directed health care (CDHC).
So what is wrong with CDHC? Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein summarized it well in the following paragraph from their article, “Consumer Directed Healthcare: Except for the Healthy and Wealthy It’s Unwise.”
“Behind the rhetoric of consumer responsiveness and personal responsibility, CDHC sets in motion huge resource transfers. The sick and middle-aged pay more, whereas the young and healthy pay less. Women spend more, whereas men spend less. Workers bear more of the burden, whereas employers bear less. The poor skip vital care while the rich enjoy tax-free tummy tucks. And, as in every health reform in memory, bureaucrats and insurance firms walk off with an ever larger share of health dollars.”
https://pnhp.org/PDF_files/CDHC_Unwise.pdf
The question then, are these particular medical students merely passively, naively and uncritically accepting the framing as presented by the CDHC advocates, or do they really believe in a social order that is defined by our individual efforts and rejects moral precepts of social justice? Or is that even a valid dichotomy? The rhetoric of this sector of the nation’s medical students is not very reassuring.
Happy New Year anyway.

Chronic MaineCare shortfalls — a symptom of a disease we can treat

By Philip Caper, M.D.
Bnagor Daily News, Dec. 27, 2012

About a year ago, facing a budgetary shortfall, the Maine Legislature had a knock-down, drag-out fight over Gov. Paul LePage’s proposal to save $220 million by throwing 65,000 Maine residents off MaineCare.

At that time, I predicted that the Legislature “can look forward to a repeat performance in a year or two unless they have the courage, wisdom and bipartisanship to attack the fundamental flaws in the ways we finance and deliver [all] health care services.” Well, they didn’t. And now they are.

The recently announced “unexpected” cost overrun of more than $100 million attributable mostly to MaineCare will no doubt lead to a repeat of last year’s fight. At the same time, Maine hospitals are clamoring for almost $500 million in past-due MaineCare payments.

The Legislature is now under different management. Maybe the Democrats can succeed where the Republicans failed. But to do so they will have to finally be willing to look at the big picture.

At a national level, Congress and the Obama administration are contemplating cutbacks in Medicare eligibility as one way to reduce federal spending. Such cuts, like those in MaineCare, will simply shift those costs to the private sector.

That shift will only exacerbate existing private-sector health care cost problems. Out-of-control costs have had a dampening effect on employment, depressed wages and discouraged entrepreneurship by creating job lock. They have also encouraged employers to shift whatever costs they can to their workers and to public-sector programs such as MaineCare. Walmart is the poster child for this phenomenon, but it’s hardly alone.

MaineCare cost overruns are only a symptom of larger problems in our health care system as a whole. They cannot be solved in isolation. Trying to do so is a losing strategy.

The Legislature now has an opportunity to revisit a solution they have failed to embrace in the past under both Democratic and Republican leadership — movement toward a single, publicly managed health care system for all the people of Maine.

Such a system would cover everybody, and would be a big step toward eliminating the billions of dollars of health care waste due to fraud, overtreatment, inefficiency and unnecessarily high prices. It could do so for no more than we are now spending.

It would also enable us to control total health care spending in ways far less intrusive than our current system. How is this possible? Here’s an analogy.

If a rancher has a herd of cattle and wants to limit their grazing to a limited amount of land, he can accomplish that in one of two ways. He can either tether each of the cattle to a leash (and hope they don’t find a way to break loose) or he can build a fence that effectively encloses all of them in their pasture. Controlling the entire herd is both more effective and less intrusive than trying to control individuals.

In health care we have tried tethering (mostly through private insurance companies) by restricting the individual actions of both health care givers and patients. It hasn’t worked.

A single, publicly financed and managed health care system will permit us to create a fair, unified, simplified and enforceable budget for all health care in Maine, while at the same time reducing our intrusive management of individuals’ health care decisions. It would give everybody in Maine a stake in seeing to it that the system that includes everyone works well for everyone.

As I’ve written before, Obamacare is in some ways a step in the right direction, but it’s far more complicated than need be and will not be as effective in constraining health care costs as it must be. But it does contain provisions that would permit Maine to set up a program that would provide the tools to manage the competing claims and objectives of different stakeholders. We could simultaneously improve access to care, the quality of care, and restrain the rise in costs for everyone in Maine.

I hope the Legislature takes a serious look at this approach in the coming months as they struggle with their daunting budgetary challenges. It will not be easy. That’s why it hasn’t been done before.

But if we are willing to treat the underlying pathology of our health care system instead of just the symptoms, we will have taken the first step toward fixing it. If not, we will be fighting the same fights next year and the year after.

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/2012/12/27/health/chronic-mainecare-shortfalls-a-symptom-of-a-disease-we-can-treat/print/

Health care challenges in Minnesota tied to access, insurance, says physician advocates

By Andrea Parrott
Twin Cities Daily Planet, Dec. 24, 2012

After daily witnessing situations in which patients suffered or had to make decisions detrimental to their health due to difficulties in accessing health care, Dr. Elizabeth Frost and Dr. Ann Settgast had enough. They felt they had to do something that would allow everyone to have health insurance and so, access to health care. The two decided to found the Minnesota chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

PNHP is a national non-profit organization whose members advocate for single payer health care. The idea of single payer health care is that instead of people paying fees to a private health insurance company, they will pay one fund. Hospitals, doctors, and other health providers would then receive payment from that one fund. Dr. Settgast explained single payer in this way: “Some people use an analogy of ‘Medicare of all’ as a synonym for single payer… It’s an example of a fund where everyone pays into the fund and then that fund pays for health care and private deliverers of health care. So Medicare is like a little micro single payer.”
 
Twin Cities Daily Planet spoke with the doctors, asking them about the state of health care in Minnesota. The edited interview is below.

What are some personal experiences that led you to advocate for a single payer health program?

Dr. Settgast: That’s a great question that could take me like 12 hours to answer. I’m a primary care doctor so I take care of patients on a daily basis. Every single day I see reasons why we need single payer. A recent one would be a woman who I took care of—a Vietnamese woman in her early 60s who came in and I diagnosed her with rheumatoid arthritis, which is terrible—she had terrible swelling of her hand joints. Really deforming joint disease. She was a full-time employee of a company and her husband worked full time as well. Got her to the rheumatologist. Got her on the right drugs. Her joints totally improved. Her pain was eliminated. She was fully functional. Everything was great.

And then, she just didn’t show up for like two or three years. One day she just shows up on my schedule… So I came into the room. She’s a tiny little woman and from the door, I could see her joint was like the size of a golf ball—like hugely swollen. I said, I’ll just change her name, I said “Lynn, what happened? Where have you been?” Since I had seen her, she got laid off from her job and her husband died. And she was only 63 at the time that this happened… She didn’t have access to health care so she just had to stop her drugs, stop seeing her rheumatologist and her joints deteriorated… I didn’t realize, but she had turned 65, so she was back. And it’s disgusting because this woman’s hand is ruined and it’s totally preventable. We see this stuff every single day. And it’s inhumane and it’s disgusting as a physician when all you care about is taking care of sick people to see people not access care.

Dr. Frost: A daily basis there are stories… Yesterday I had a patient who stopped her birth control and now is pregnant. I also today had somebody who had psoriasis… they haven’t had it treated in almost a year now because they don’t have insurance… Again, again, and again, you’re looking at somebody and apologizing for our medical system. “That’s really unfair. I’m sorry that happened to you.” You can’t just keep doing that again and again. You have to find some other outlet to feel like you’re making a difference on a larger level.

What do you see as the main health care policy issues in Minnesota?

Dr. Settgast: We are leading the nation in the number of individuals with high deductible health insurance plans. The idea is that this would somehow promote personal responsibility. You have a high deductible so you’re not going to go to the doctor unless you really need to because you’re going to be spending your own money. But what that says is that you’re relying on people who aren’t doctors to decide whether they need medical care or not—is problematic right there. That’s our job: to say, “No, this is not something serious, you’re OK.” People shouldn’t be relied on to do that at home. But then the other issue that we know, there is actually good data showing that the higher your deductible, the less care you receive. And there’s no way to know that that care isn’t needed. You’re much more likely to see conditions being under-managed or undiagnosed. People just aren’t going to the office when they’re sick…

Dr. Frost: I think a big huge policy thing that’s really going on in Minnesota right now, of course, is the exchanges and figuring out how to set up the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act—that’s huge. That’s going to take up a lot of energy in the next year or two, but I don’t know how much it’s really going to solve the problem.

Dr. Settgast: It’s not going to solve it because all you’re doing is adding this level of administrative complexity when now people can go shopping in this exchange to get their private health insurance. It might help some people to get some policy, but it’s not designing the system so that it will work. It’s adding more complexity to an already chaotic system… You still have these huge billing departments having to bill multiple payers and you’re still having insurance companies take all this money off the top… for functions that have nothing to do with health care. There’s still a huge amount of waste still in the system and we haven’t done anything to change that.

What are some of the main health policy issues that you see facing the nation?

Dr. Frost: I think Minnesota is a little bit ahead of the rest of the nation in the area that we’re talking about… Like we already offer Medicaid to adults without children.

Dr. Settgast: Our Medicaid eligibility rules are much better here… I have a brother in Indiana… if he was here he would qualify for coverage…

Dr. Frost: We’re talking a lot about how health care is paid for when we do single payer… I think Minnesota has some of the largest health care disparities. I know that education is the worst in the nation in terms of disparities… I don’t know how we compare to other states in terms of health care, but I have a feeling it’s not very good. One of the things that really distresses me a lot is especially the Native Americans have terrible, terrible health care statistics… It’s really, really sad and that’s a population I work with a lot.

Dr. Settgast: The problems in the nation are the same as the problems here: uninsurance, underinsurance, people not having access to care. That’s all in all of the states.

Dr. Frost: Of course the biggest problem is the insurance industry… It’s not like the politicians are in charge and they’re guiding the system—no, they need to figure out what the [insurance] industry might accept and then work within those boundaries… Our politicians are controlled pretty much by the industry… The evidence for a single payer system is so ridiculously strong, it’s really amazing that we weren’t able to do more with the Affordable Care Act. It’s really quite astounding—that the Affordable Care Act is such a big deal and it does so little… one of things that was not allowed to be on the table, was not allowed to be discussed at all was the idea that the government would purchase drugs for our elderly… Now there’s like a gazillon Medicare Part D plans. Each one of those little plans doesn’t have the purchasing power to drive down the price of drugs.
Dr. Settgast: We see the patients who don’t take their medicines, or they take them every other day because they have to make them last.

What are some of the main challenges to making changes in health policy?

Dr. Settgast: The health insurers. Because if you look at the polling data, the public supports single payer, physicians support single payer… We know you can cover everyone for less cost and give everyone high quality coverage.

What happens in the U.S. is if I’m the doctor and I see 20 patients in a day and I diagnose them all with the same thing. Let’s say they all have diabetes or uncontrolled sugar. Every patient, depending on their payer, may pay my clinic a different fee because all the payers, the insurance companies, are negotiating with the all the clinics separately… so it’s hugely complicated, which is part of the cost—all these contract negotiations because everybody gets a different deal and so every patient pays differently… It’s so unequal. And then if you’re uninsured and you come in, you have a totally different cost than what the insurance pays in the next room.

Dr. Frost: It’s totally unfair. Because you’re uninsured, you have to pay the full price… if you’re totally uninsured you have to pay the $300 while the insurance pays $200, and Medicaid might pay $175 and Medicare might pay $215…

What progress do you see in addressing health disparities in Minnesota?

Dr. Settgast: I personally think it’s crazy to try and address health disparities without having a system that covers everyone. I mean how can you really expect to decrease disparities if you have whole portions of the population that don’t have any access to the system? You can’t do things on a population level if you’re leaving 10 percent of the people out… I mean obviously having a single payer doesn’t eliminate all health care disparities because a lot of health care disparities isn’t necessarily access to the system, but it’s the first step… I mean, how are they going to stand on equal footing in terms of their diabetes control or their hypertension control if they don’t have a doctor because they don’t have health insurance?

Dr. Frost: I think it’s important to differentiate between health disparities and health care disparities because health disparities are, a lot of them are socially determined. So if you don’t have a grocery store in the area… that will make it a lot harder to eat well… So I think separating those two things are important, but in terms of access to health care, I see again and again and again… somebody gets out of Medicaid and gets a job and loses their insurance so they can’t see you anymore. So once you get back… on your feet, you get back into the system, you can’t treat those diseases that you’ve been treating… So it’s that inequality in the health care system, the injustice in the health care system is what makes me so angry, and it’s because I see it every day.

© 2012 Andrea Parrott

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/12/23/mn-voices-health-care-challenges-minnesota-tied-access-insurance-says-physician-advo

GAO report on USPS Retiree Health Benefits Fund

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Status, Financial Outlook, and Alternative Approaches to Fund Retiree Health Benefits

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office), December 4, 2012

The Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) covered about 49 percent of the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) $94 billion retiree health benefit liability at fiscal year-end 2012. USPS’s deteriorating financial outlook, however, will make it difficult to continue the current prefunding schedule in the short term, and possibly to fully fund the remaining $48 billion unfunded liability over the remaining 44 years of the schedule on which the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) was based.

USPS is intended to be a self-sustaining entity funded almost entirely by postal ratepayers, but its financial losses are challenging its sustainability. GAO has testified that USPS should prefund its retiree health benefit liabilities to the maximum extent that its finances permit, but none of the funding approaches may be viable unless USPS has the ability to make the payments. USPS’s default on its last two required PSRHBF payments and its inability to borrow further make the need for a comprehensive package of actions to achieve sustainable financial viability even more urgent.

USPS agreed that comprehensive reform is necessary to achieve financial sustainability. It also recognized its obligation to provide effective, affordable health benefits to its employees and retirees, but said that it does not have the financial resources to make prefunding payments required by current law.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-112

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

Linking health insurance to employment has contributed greatly to the dysfunction of health care financing within the United States. If it were a good method, you would think that the United States Postal Service would provide an exemplary model for such financing.

This GAO report confirms that none of the proposed funding approaches for the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund may be viable unless USPS has the ability to make the payments. The USPS has responded in writing that “it does not have the financial resources to make prefunding payments required by current law.”

It is long past time to take the employer out of health care coverage and financing decisions. Instead, we should establish our own single universal risk pool funded equitably through the tax system. Employers could get on with the task of managing their own businesses, while our public stewards would take charge of managing more efficiently and more assuredly health care financing for all of us.

GAO report on USPS Retiree Health Benefits Fund

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Status, Financial Outlook, and Alternative Approaches to Fund Retiree Health Benefits

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office), December 4, 2012
The Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) covered about 49 percent of the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) $94 billion retiree health benefit liability at fiscal year-end 2012. USPS’s deteriorating financial outlook, however, will make it difficult to continue the current prefunding schedule in the short term, and possibly to fully fund the remaining $48 billion unfunded liability over the remaining 44 years of the schedule on which the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) was based.
USPS is intended to be a self-sustaining entity funded almost entirely by postal ratepayers, but its financial losses are challenging its sustainability. GAO has testified that USPS should prefund its retiree health benefit liabilities to the maximum extent that its finances permit, but none of the funding approaches may be viable unless USPS has the ability to make the payments. USPS’s default on its last two required PSRHBF payments and its inability to borrow further make the need for a comprehensive package of actions to achieve sustainable financial viability even more urgent.
USPS agreed that comprehensive reform is necessary to achieve financial sustainability. It also recognized its obligation to provide effective, affordable health benefits to its employees and retirees, but said that it does not have the financial resources to make prefunding payments required by current law.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-112

Linking health insurance to employment has contributed greatly to the dysfunction of health care financing within the United States. If it were a good method, you would think that the United States Postal Service would provide an exemplary model for such financing.
This GAO report confirms that none of the proposed funding approaches for the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund may be viable unless USPS has the ability to make the payments. The USPS has responded in writing that “it does not have the financial resources to make prefunding payments required by current law.”
It is long past time to take the employer out of health care coverage and financing decisions. Instead, we should establish our own single universal risk pool funded equitably through the tax system. Employers could get on with the task of managing their own businesses, while our public stewards would take charge of managing more efficiently and more assuredly health care financing for all of us.

New America Foundation implicitly endorses single payer

Social Contract Budgeting: Prescriptions from Economics and History

By Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, University of California – Davis
New America Foundation, December 2012

America has yet to accept the insurance solution that has worked relatively well in other countries: let the government serve as a dominant payer, with mandatory universal coverage and mandated pure community rating. (Note that international experience recommends single-payer insurance, but is indifferent to government provision of health care.) Instead, American state and federal insurance systems embody an unavoidably messy political compromise, one in which the public is forced to buy coverage choosing from a menu of private insurers. As it stands, the government will act as single regulator, not as single payer. This has the political advantage of keeping government budgets from raising taxes to cover insurance, but the disadvantage of perpetuating, and still subsidizing, a costly private insurance industry.

http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lindert_Peter_NAF_SocialContractBudgeting_2012.pdf

And…

New America Foundation

About New America

The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.

With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country’s policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore.

http://newamerica.net/about

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

This statement implicitly supporting single payer is of great importance because of its source. The New America Foundation was established to move beyond partisan politics. “The foundation’s mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last.”

In his article, “Social Contract Budgeting,” UC Davis Professor Peter Lindert discusses four fronts: education, health insurance, pensions, and broad taxes. Although he attempts to move beyond politics, most of us will still reflect on his concepts under the cloud of our own biases. As an example, although some of us are uncomfortable with the concept of a VAT (value added tax, a consumption tax), he discusses a variation in which the VAT can be progressively redistributive.

For those of us who have campaigned so long and so hard for health care justice, Lindert states what we perceive to be the obvious: we need to move beyond politics and “accept the insurance solution that has worked relatively well in other countries,” noting that “international experience recommends single-payer insurance.”

New America Foundation implicitly endorses single payer

Social Contract Budgeting: Prescriptions from Economics and History

By Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, University of California – Davis
New America Foundation, December 2012
America has yet to accept the insurance solution that has worked relatively well in other countries: let the government serve as a dominant payer, with mandatory universal coverage and mandated pure community rating. (Note that international experience recommends single-payer insurance, but is indifferent to government provision of health care.) Instead, American state and federal insurance systems embody an unavoidably messy political compromise, one in which the public is forced to buy coverage choosing from a menu of private insurers. As it stands, the government will act as single regulator, not as single payer. This has the political advantage of keeping government budgets from raising taxes to cover insurance, but the disadvantage of perpetuating, and still subsidizing, a costly private insurance industry.
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lindert_Peter_NAF_SocialContractBudgeting_2012.pdf

And…

New America Foundation
About New America
The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.
With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country’s policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore.
http://newamerica.net/about

This statement implicitly supporting single payer is of great importance because of its source. The New America Foundation was established to move beyond partisan politics. “The foundation’s mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last.”
In his article, “Social Contract Budgeting,” UC Davis Professor Peter Lindert discusses four fronts: education, health insurance, pensions, and broad taxes. Although he attempts to move beyond politics, most of us will still reflect on his concepts under the cloud of our own biases. As an example, although some of us are uncomfortable with the concept of a VAT (value added tax, a consumption tax), he discusses a variation in which the VAT can be progressively redistributive.
For those of us who have campaigned so long and so hard for health care justice, Lindert states what we perceive to be the obvious: we need to move beyond politics and “accept the insurance solution that has worked relatively well in other countries,” noting that “international experience recommends single-payer insurance.”

Bruce Bartlett's Christmas gift to all of us

Though it is not our policy to distribute a Quote of the Day message on Christmas Day, we have to make an exception this year and thank Bruce Bartlett for his Christmas present to PNHP and to all of us who dream of a future with health care justice throughout the nation.

A Conservative Case for the Welfare State

By Bruce Bartlett
The New York Times, December 25, 2012

(Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.)

At the root of much of the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the so-called fiscal cliff is a deep disagreement over the welfare state. Republicans continue to fight a long-running war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other social-welfare programs that most Americans support overwhelmingly and oppose cutting.

Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, but Republican presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower through George H.W. Bush accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state and sought to manage it properly and fund it adequately. When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994 they nevertheless sought to repeal the New Deal and Great Society programs they had always opposed.

Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.

This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state.

One problem with this conservative view is its lack of an empirical foundation. Research by Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, shows clearly that the welfare state is not incompatible with growth while providing a superior quality of life to many of those left to sink or swim in America.

In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn’t, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.

A 2003 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Canada’s single-payer health system had less than a third of the per-capita administrative cost of the United States system, with its many private insurance companies and overlapping government programs.

Americans believe that their health system is the best in the world, but in fact it is not.

The one area where the United States tops all other countries in terms of health is cost. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent more than any other country – 17.4 percent of gross domestic product on health in 2009. By contrast, Britain spent only 9.8 percent of G.D.P. on health.

Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain’s could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else – equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.

This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/#more-158917

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

Thank you, Bruce Bartlett, for perhaps the greatest Christmas gift of all – a rationale for why we all have to join together to provide health care for everyone.

(The 2003 NEJM article cited is that of PNHP co-founders Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, plus Terry Campbell of the Canadian Institute for Health Information.)

Bruce Bartlett’s Christmas gift to all of us

Though it is not our policy to distribute a Quote of the Day message on Christmas Day, we have to make an exception this year and thank Bruce Bartlett for his Christmas present to PNHP and to all of us who dream of a future with health care justice throughout the nation.

A Conservative Case for the Welfare State

By Bruce Bartlett
The New York Times, December 25, 2012

(Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.)

At the root of much of the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the so-called fiscal cliff is a deep disagreement over the welfare state. Republicans continue to fight a long-running war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other social-welfare programs that most Americans support overwhelmingly and oppose cutting.

Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, but Republican presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower through George H.W. Bush accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state and sought to manage it properly and fund it adequately. When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994 they nevertheless sought to repeal the New Deal and Great Society programs they had always opposed.

Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.

This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state.

One problem with this conservative view is its lack of an empirical foundation. Research by Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, shows clearly that the welfare state is not incompatible with growth while providing a superior quality of life to many of those left to sink or swim in America.

In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn’t, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.

A 2003 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Canada’s single-payer health system had less than a third of the per-capita administrative cost of the United States system, with its many private insurance companies and overlapping government programs.

Americans believe that their health system is the best in the world, but in fact it is not.

The one area where the United States tops all other countries in terms of health is cost. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent more than any other country – 17.4 percent of gross domestic product on health in 2009. By contrast, Britain spent only 9.8 percent of G.D.P. on health.

Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain’s could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else – equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.

This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/#more-158917

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

Thank you, Bruce Bartlett, for perhaps the greatest Christmas gift of all – a rationale for why we all have to join together to provide health care for everyone.

(The 2003 NEJM article cited is that of PNHP co-founders Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, plus Terry Campbell of the Canadian Institute for Health Information.)

Rasmussen survey shows split on single payer

40% Favor Single-Payer Health Care System, 44% Oppose

Rasmussen Reports, December 17, 2012

Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters favor a single-payer system, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-four percent (44%) oppose the creation of such a system. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided.

The question asked:

Do you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone?

(Conducted December 10-11, 2012. Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2012/40_favor_single_payer_health_care_system_44_oppose

Comment

By Don McCanne, MD

Rasmussen telephone surveys are noted for results demonstrating right-wing bias. Understanding that, it is interesting that the results of this poll demonstrated a near even split in public support for single payer.

Several surveys from other sources have demonstrated closer to sixty percent support for single payer. Considering the likely bias in this poll, there does not seem to be any significant decline in support for single payer even though the Affordable Care Act is already being implemented.

As people observe how many will be left uninsured and how ineffective the plans will be in protecting personal finances, it can be anticipated that support for single payer will continue to grow until it reaches a threshold where it finally becomes a political imperative.