Reported Eye Care Utilization and Health Insurance Status Among US Adults

By David J. Lee, PhD; Byron L. Lam, MD; Sahel Arora, BS; Kristopher L. Arheart, EdD; Kathryn E. McCollister, PhD; D. Diane Zheng, MS; Sharon L. Christ, MS; Evelyn P. Davila, MPH
Archives of Ophthalmology
March 2009
The association between low eye care utilization rates and lack of, or inconsistent, health insurance coverage, even after adjustment for income and educational attainment, suggests that overall ocular health care access would be enhanced if progress is made toward securing coverage for the 46.6 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance. Our findings have also identified troubling gaps in eye care utilization among adults with health insurance coverage. Adults who reported an interruption in health insurance coverage in the 12 months prior to the interview were less likely to report a visit to an ocular health care provider than were those who were consistently insured. In our analyses, 3.8% or an estimated 7.8 million US community-residing adults annually reported such a coverage gap in the past 12 months.
We also found that adults who reported concurrent private and public health care coverage were generally more likely to report an ocular health care visit in the preceding 12 months than were adults who had private insurance only, even after adjustment for level of visual impairment, sex, and educational attainment. The NHIS (National Health Interview Survey) did not assess whether ocular care was included as part of the participants’ insurance coverage. It is nevertheless possible that public coverage filled in some of the well-known gaps in ocular health care coverage of many of the private health care plans offered in the United States. For example, Medicare and Medicaid typically include basic eye care services, such as annual eye examinations. Our findings point to the need for addressing the coverage limitations for ocular care in private insurance plans as well as addressing the broader need for health insurance for all Americans.
http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/303

And…

Is Universal Vision Care Coverage the Best Way to Get People to See Their Eye Care Providers?

By Steven M. Kymes, PhD, MHA; Kevin D. Frick, PhD
Archives of Ophthalmology
March, 2009
In this issue of Archives, Lee et al present a report on the relationship between insurance coverage and recommended visits to ophthalmologists or optometrists. They find several important predictors of such visits, one of which is health insurance coverage. In their conclusion, they call upon vision care professionals to assume a role as advocates for universal health insurance coverage, in particular vision care insurance, for all Americans. They assert that providing universal vision care coverage would insure that financial resources are no longer a barrier for those seeking access to a vision care provider. However, we must also consider whether this would indeed be the most effective method to achieve the social goal of increased use of vision care services.
It is important to recognize that if we as a society provide universal health insurance coverage, it would not come without a cost.
(The authors then provide a highly dubious analysis that purports to show that “our health care system would pay $435 in annual insurance coverage for each new person who is motivated to seek vision care.”)
There is no doubt that providing preventive vision care services is important, as is providing care for those with chronic eye conditions. But before taking this step, we should ask if the benefit of spending $435 to motivate someone to seek an annual visit to their eye care provider outweighs the cost. Answering the question would involve a rigorous evaluation of the benefits of the ocular examination. What is the probability that an undiagnosed ocular condition will be found? What is the benefit of identifying that condition in reducing future health care costs? What is the benefit of regular examinations of people with chronic eye conditions in adjusting treatment strategies, insuring compliance, and making referrals for specialized care? By asking such questions, we can determine the balance between costs and benefits. The results would help policymakers and physicians to determine if providing insurance coverage would indeed be the best approach to promoting vision care or if other methods of improving access should be considered.
Lee and colleagues have made an important contribution to this growing literature by examining barriers to vision care. However, the principles of scientific inquiry should not be shortchanged simply because we are debating a policy question rather than a biochemical one. The vision care community has an obligation to fully consider alternative solutions and their consequences in seeking ways to remove barriers to vision care.
http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/335

One single word, whether it’s “and” or “or,” can make such a difference in health policy.
This study confirms that what we already know about the importance of insurance in improving access and utilization of health care also applies specifically to eye care. Individuals with insurance have higher rates of access and utilization of eye care than those who are uninsured and those have have interruptions of their insurance coverage.
This study also indicates that those who have public coverage in addition to private coverage have significantly higher utilization rates than those who have private coverage alone. Public coverage seems to help fill in the gaps in private coverage.
The obvious policy conclusion is that everyone should be covered with health insurance that has adequate benefits, including eye care. Quite simple.
Apparently that is not the conclusion of the authors of the commentary on this study that appears in the same issue of Archives of Ophthalmology, a publication of the American Medical Association. To improve access to vision care, they do not suggest removing one of the more important barriers to care by providing everyone with health insurance. Without stating it explicitly, they imply that their estimate of a $435 premium (a straw man estimate) is too high of a price to pay for eye coverage. Instead they recommend the consideration of insurance coverage “or” the consideration of other methods of improving access. There is that all important “or” word, when most members of the policy community would have used “and.”
Just to indicate that this wasn’t simply a slip of words, they reinforce their view by stating that “the vision care community has an obligation to fully consider alternative solutions,” where “alternative” is another “or” word.
This study is a valuable contribution to the health policy literature, indicating, once again, that we must repair our health care financing system so that everyone has affordable access to all necessary health care. It is sad that there are those who continue to use garbage policy pseudo-science to battle the champions of health care justice. And it is especially tragic that they have continued to win.

By David J. Lee, PhD; Byron L. Lam, MD; Sahel Arora, BS; Kristopher L. Arheart, EdD; Kathryn E. McCollister, PhD; D. Diane Zheng, MS; Sharon L. Christ, MS; Evelyn P. Davila, MPH
Archives of Ophthalmology
March 2009

The association between low eye care utilization rates and lack of, or inconsistent, health insurance coverage, even after adjustment for income and educational attainment, suggests that overall ocular health care access would be enhanced if progress is made toward securing coverage for the 46.6 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance. Our findings have also identified troubling gaps in eye care utilization among adults with health insurance coverage. Adults who reported an interruption in health insurance coverage in the 12 months prior to the interview were less likely to report a visit to an ocular health care provider than were those who were consistently insured. In our analyses, 3.8% or an estimated 7.8 million US community-residing adults annually reported such a coverage gap in the past 12 months.

We also found that adults who reported concurrent private and public health care coverage were generally more likely to report an ocular health care visit in the preceding 12 months than were adults who had private insurance only, even after adjustment for level of visual impairment, sex, and educational attainment. The NHIS (National Health Interview Survey) did not assess whether ocular care was included as part of the participants’ insurance coverage. It is nevertheless possible that public coverage filled in some of the well-known gaps in ocular health care coverage of many of the private health care plans offered in the United States. For example, Medicare and Medicaid typically include basic eye care services, such as annual eye examinations. Our findings point to the need for addressing the coverage limitations for ocular care in private insurance plans as well as addressing the broader need for health insurance for all Americans.

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/303

And…

Is Universal Vision Care Coverage the Best Way to Get People to See Their Eye Care Providers?

By Steven M. Kymes, PhD, MHA; Kevin D. Frick, PhD
Archives of Ophthalmology
March, 2009

In this issue of Archives, Lee et al present a report on the relationship between insurance coverage and recommended visits to ophthalmologists or optometrists. They find several important predictors of such visits, one of which is health insurance coverage. In their conclusion, they call upon vision care professionals to assume a role as advocates for universal health insurance coverage, in particular vision care insurance, for all Americans. They assert that providing universal vision care coverage would insure that financial resources are no longer a barrier for those seeking access to a vision care provider. However, we must also consider whether this would indeed be the most effective method to achieve the social goal of increased use of vision care services.

It is important to recognize that if we as a society provide universal health insurance coverage, it would not come without a cost.

(The authors then provide a highly dubious analysis that purports to show that “our health care system would pay $435 in annual insurance coverage for each new person who is motivated to seek vision care.”)

There is no doubt that providing preventive vision care services is important, as is providing care for those with chronic eye conditions. But before taking this step, we should ask if the benefit of spending $435 to motivate someone to seek an annual visit to their eye care provider outweighs the cost. Answering the question would involve a rigorous evaluation of the benefits of the ocular examination. What is the probability that an undiagnosed ocular condition will be found? What is the benefit of identifying that condition in reducing future health care costs? What is the benefit of regular examinations of people with chronic eye conditions in adjusting treatment strategies, insuring compliance, and making referrals for specialized care? By asking such questions, we can determine the balance between costs and benefits. The results would help policymakers and physicians to determine if providing insurance coverage would indeed be the best approach to promoting vision care or if other methods of improving access should be considered.

Lee and colleagues have made an important contribution to this growing literature by examining barriers to vision care. However, the principles of scientific inquiry should not be shortchanged simply because we are debating a policy question rather than a biochemical one. The vision care community has an obligation to fully consider alternative solutions and their consequences in seeking ways to remove barriers to vision care.

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/335

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

One single word, whether it’s “and” or “or,” can make such a difference in health policy.

This study confirms that what we already know about the importance of insurance in improving access and utilization of health care also applies specifically to eye care. Individuals with insurance have higher rates of access and utilization of eye care than those who are uninsured and those have have interruptions of their insurance coverage.

This study also indicates that those who have public coverage in addition to private coverage have significantly higher utilization rates than those who have private coverage alone. Public coverage seems to help fill in the gaps in private coverage.

The obvious policy conclusion is that everyone should be covered with health insurance that has adequate benefits, including eye care. Quite simple.

Apparently that is not the conclusion of the authors of the commentary on this study that appears in the same issue of Archives of Ophthalmology, a publication of the American Medical Association. To improve access to vision care, they do not suggest removing one of the more important barriers to care by providing everyone with health insurance. Without stating it explicitly, they imply that their estimate of a $435 premium (a straw man estimate) is too high of a price to pay for eye coverage. Instead they recommend the consideration of insurance coverage “or” the consideration of other methods of improving access. There is that all important “or” word, when most members of the policy community would have used “and.”

Just to indicate that this wasn’t simply a slip of words, they reinforce their view by stating that “the vision care community has an obligation to fully consider alternative solutions,” where “alternative” is another “or” word.

This study is a valuable contribution to the health policy literature, indicating, once again, that we must repair our health care financing system so that everyone has affordable access to all necessary health care. It is sad that there are those who continue to use garbage policy pseudo-science to battle the champions of health care justice. And it is especially tragic that they have continued to win.

Bill Clinton on Health Care Reform

CNN Larry King Live
March 11, 2009
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent: Tonight, Bill Clinton exclusive on the nightmare that keeps 45 million Americans from seeing a doctor — the health care disaster.
****
GUPTA: All right. Let’s drill down specifically on something you said earlier. When it comes to sort of creating these silos of health care reform — you have sort of single payers and more governmental involvement on one send — one end, free market involvement solely on the other end. Single payer never has really caught traction politically. Is it politically unpalatable or is it a bad idea?
Bill CLINTON: Well, I think it’s more politically unpalatable than it is a bad idea, because single payer is not socialized medicine. Canada has a single payer system and a private health care provider system. Our single payer systems are Medicare and Medicaid.
GUPTA: Sure.
CLINTON: And Medicare is quite popular.
The good thing about single payer is the administrative costs are quite low. We probably waste $200 billion a year between the insurance administrative costs, the doctors and other health care providers’ administrative costs and employers’ administrative costs in health care that we would not waste if we had any other country’s system.
On the other hand, if you look at the experience of Germany, France, Japan — that don’t have pure single payer systems, they have more mixed systems — their costs are actually slightly lower overall than Canada’s. So there’s something to be said for having a mixed system if you can get the administrative costs down, because then the systems have enough competition in them to try to restrain costs and it’s not all up to the political bodies.
In Canada, because it’s all financed through the government, it’s more difficult sometimes for the politicians to say no than for just the regular management of the health care system to cut the costs.
So I think you can have a mixed system. If you look at the French system, which scores very high on every international measure…
GUPTA: Yes.
CLINTON: …it’s mostly publicly financed, but there’s enough private in there that there’s some tension that’s creative and positive.
GUPTA: Do you think there is a degradation quality of care with a single payer system? Is that a concern? Should that be a concern?
CLINTON: Well there’s no evidence of that in Canada that I’m aware of, except for excessive delays, which they always try to come to grips with. The British, you know, do have a completely government-run system, but they allow people who can afford it to get outside the system. And they’ve also started running hospitals almost like charter schools in America, that is, they have these trust hospitals that perform very well and therefore they’re given more control over setting their priorities, specializing and cutting delays.
There are all kinds of different ways to do it. But first, you do have to cover everybody. And then you have to stop people from gaming the system. There’s a lot of gaming going on now in the American system so that we spend more than anybody else and get loss for it.
I think that once you get the universal coverage, I think the health insurers then could play a more positive role than they do now, which is often involved in — you know, they make a lot of money through saying no and sort of the inordinate paperwork burdens that are put on doctors and hospitals and other providers.
GUPTA: What is it about the insurance industry that you just brought up? They tried to scuttle the health care reform plan of ’93. Now they’re saying we also believe in universal health care. A politically tactile question, I guess, are you buying it? Do you think they’re being honest?
CLINTON: I think some of them really do want it. Yes. If you look at their new organization, the person who heads it came out of a progressive background and favored, as a philosophical matter, coverage.
Secondly, I think they now understand that, in terms of the health of America and the well-being of our economy, we can’t go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year — the insurance industry — and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind.
I mean look at all the healthcare problems. The child obesity problem, which is my obsession, is the most glaring manifestation of a system that treats sick people and doesn’t keep people well. And that’s one where, I think, by the way, we can get broad bipartisan support on trying to — to do more on wellness. And that will save money.
I think the insurance industry realizes that they — a lot of the smarter ones realize that they could kill the goose that laid the golden egg here, that America can no longer go on spending more money and getting less for it and having all this money go to them and that they can make a lot of money and do well by making us healthier at a more affordable price.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/11/lkl.01.html

Former President Bill Clinton makes two very important points here. (1) Single payer dramatically reduces administrative waste, and he implies that it would be popular, as is Medicare now. (2) The private insurers “make a lot of money through saying no,” and “we can’t go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year — the insurance industry — and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind.” Single payer is good; private insurers are bad.
In contrast, his comments suggesting that private insurers could play a beneficial role in a system of universal coverage are not supported by the facts.
He says that private plans in other nations provide competition which helps to lower costs below that of Canada. Wrong. First, our experience with the Medicare Advantage plans demonstrates that competing private plans increase costs instead of decreasing them. Second, there are many factors that influence health care spending besides the structure of the financing system.
According to the OECD, “Whatever the role played in a health system, private health insurance has added to total health expenditure.” According to the WHO, “Evidence shows that private sources of health care funding are often regressive and present financial barriers to access. They contribute little to efforts to contain costs and may actually encourage cost inflation.” Spending in the nations cited by President Clinton would be even lower if they had a pure single payer system. (qotd 8/21/07)
As for his optimism for a beneficial role of private insurers in our future, he had to take that one from his wish list. It’s been on all of our wish lists for decades. Isn’t it time to quit wishing, accept the fact that they’re incorrigible, and move on with our own single payer national health program?

CNN Larry King Live
March 11, 2009

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent: Tonight, Bill Clinton exclusive on the nightmare that keeps 45 million Americans from seeing a doctor — the health care disaster.

****

GUPTA: All right. Let’s drill down specifically on something you said earlier. When it comes to sort of creating these silos of health care reform — you have sort of single payers and more governmental involvement on one send — one end, free market involvement solely on the other end. Single payer never has really caught traction politically. Is it politically unpalatable or is it a bad idea?

Bill CLINTON: Well, I think it’s more politically unpalatable than it is a bad idea, because single payer is not socialized medicine. Canada has a single payer system and a private health care provider system. Our single payer systems are Medicare and Medicaid.

GUPTA: Sure.

CLINTON: And Medicare is quite popular.

The good thing about single payer is the administrative costs are quite low. We probably waste $200 billion a year between the insurance administrative costs, the doctors and other health care providers’ administrative costs and employers’ administrative costs in health care that we would not waste if we had any other country’s system.

On the other hand, if you look at the experience of Germany, France, Japan — that don’t have pure single payer systems, they have more mixed systems — their costs are actually slightly lower overall than Canada’s. So there’s something to be said for having a mixed system if you can get the administrative costs down, because then the systems have enough competition in them to try to restrain costs and it’s not all up to the political bodies.

In Canada, because it’s all financed through the government, it’s more difficult sometimes for the politicians to say no than for just the regular management of the health care system to cut the costs.

So I think you can have a mixed system. If you look at the French system, which scores very high on every international measure…

GUPTA: Yes.

CLINTON: …it’s mostly publicly financed, but there’s enough private in there that there’s some tension that’s creative and positive.

GUPTA: Do you think there is a degradation quality of care with a single payer system? Is that a concern? Should that be a concern?

CLINTON: Well there’s no evidence of that in Canada that I’m aware of, except for excessive delays, which they always try to come to grips with. The British, you know, do have a completely government-run system, but they allow people who can afford it to get outside the system. And they’ve also started running hospitals almost like charter schools in America, that is, they have these trust hospitals that perform very well and therefore they’re given more control over setting their priorities, specializing and cutting delays.

There are all kinds of different ways to do it. But first, you do have to cover everybody. And then you have to stop people from gaming the system. There’s a lot of gaming going on now in the American system so that we spend more than anybody else and get loss for it.

I think that once you get the universal coverage, I think the health insurers then could play a more positive role than they do now, which is often involved in — you know, they make a lot of money through saying no and sort of the inordinate paperwork burdens that are put on doctors and hospitals and other providers.

GUPTA: What is it about the insurance industry that you just brought up? They tried to scuttle the health care reform plan of ’93. Now they’re saying we also believe in universal health care. A politically tactile question, I guess, are you buying it? Do you think they’re being honest?

CLINTON: I think some of them really do want it. Yes. If you look at their new organization, the person who heads it came out of a progressive background and favored, as a philosophical matter, coverage.

Secondly, I think they now understand that, in terms of the health of America and the well-being of our economy, we can’t go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year — the insurance industry — and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind.

I mean look at all the healthcare problems. The child obesity problem, which is my obsession, is the most glaring manifestation of a system that treats sick people and doesn’t keep people well. And that’s one where, I think, by the way, we can get broad bipartisan support on trying to — to do more on wellness. And that will save money.

I think the insurance industry realizes that they — a lot of the smarter ones realize that they could kill the goose that laid the golden egg here, that America can no longer go on spending more money and getting less for it and having all this money go to them and that they can make a lot of money and do well by making us healthier at a more affordable price.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/11/lkl.01.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Former President Bill Clinton makes two very important points here. (1) Single payer dramatically reduces administrative waste, and he implies that it would be popular, as is Medicare now. (2) The private insurers “make a lot of money through saying no,” and “we can’t go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year — the insurance industry — and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind.” Single payer is good; private insurers are bad.

In contrast, his comments suggesting that private insurers could play a beneficial role in a system of universal coverage are not supported by the facts.

He says that private plans in other nations provide competition which helps to lower costs below that of Canada. Wrong. First, our experience with the Medicare Advantage plans demonstrates that competing private plans increase costs instead of decreasing them. Second, there are many factors that influence health care spending besides the structure of the financing system.

According to the OECD, “Whatever the role played in a health system, private health insurance has added to total health expenditure.” According to the WHO, “Evidence shows that private sources of health care funding are often regressive and present financial barriers to access. They contribute little to efforts to contain costs and may actually encourage cost inflation.” Spending in the nations cited by President Clinton would be even lower if they had a pure single payer system. (qotd 8/21/07)

As for his optimism for a beneficial role of private insurers in our future, he had to take that one from his wish list. It’s been on all of our wish lists for decades. Isn’t it time to quit wishing, accept the fact that they’re incorrigible, and move on with our own single payer national health program?