PNHP

Herzlinger and McCanne on "choice" in candidates' proposals

Herzlinger and McCanne on "choice" in candidates' proposals

Who will fix America's broken health care system?

The Real News Network
May 8, 2008

Prof. Regina E. Herzlinger is the Nancy R. McPherson Professor of Business Administration Chair at the Harvard Business School. She is the author of bestselling books “Who Killed Health Care?” and “Consumer-Driven Health Care: Implications for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers”.

Dr. Don McCanne is a Senior Health Policy Fellow with Physicians for a National Health Program, a widely recognized organization that represents over 15,000 doctors across the US that advocate for a single-payer national health insurance plan.

Transcript

VOICEOVER: Professor Regina Herzlinger of the Harvard School of Business and Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program each evaluated the health care platforms of all three candidates.

PROF. REGINA HERZLINGER, HARVARD SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: I like all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering. All three of them offer choice to the American consumer, although Senator McCain has put that much more front and center. Choice is very important. It is very important not to be at the mercy of a single payer, whether that single payer for your health insurance is your employer or your government, because they may not give you what you want.

DR. DON MCCANNE, PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM: The three proposals of the presidential candidates all fall short of what we think needs to be done. They all build on the private health insurance model. That’s a highly defective model, which is wasting a tremendous amount of resources and failing to provide the coverage that we need. Private plans compete based on the premium they charge. What we really want is competition between health care providers, physicians and hospitals competing based on quality. And that requires that patients have freedom to choose their doctors. Private plans take away that freedom.

VOICEOVER: Both experts took a look at how close Obama and Clinton’s proposals will get to achieving universal coverage.

MCCANNE: The Clinton model mandates individuals to purchase health insurance, whereas Obama does not. He says that we need to make plans affordable so people can purchase them. Neither approach is going to get everyone insured. Obama’s approach is flawed because the private health plans are not going to be able to have enough benefits if they’re going to have affordable premiums. So people will still go without health care in his model. In Hillary Clinton’s model, the plans will not be affordable. So requiring individuals to purchase a plan they can’t pay for is unrealistic. The flaw of their proposal is that the private health insurance plan has become an obsolete model of financing health care.

The Real News video (3 minutes):
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1457&thisview=item&renewx=2008-05-08+09%3A36%3A45

Same video also accessible at:
https://pnhp.org/news/2008/may/video_who_will_fix_.php

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Anyone following the national dialogue on reform is certainly aware of the rhetoric over “choice.” Those supporting reform that builds on private health plans use “choice” to mean choice of health plans. Those supporting a publicly financed and publicly administered national health program use “choice” to mean choice of physicians and hospitals and other health care professionals and institutions.

People do like to have choice. The three remaining presidential candidates understand that and tout the choice that their heath care proposals offer. Of course, that is only the choice of health plans, a choice that usually takes away your freedom to choose your health care professionals. But they never mention this latter point since they would be admitting to a serious flaw in their proposals. Even libertarians should be concerned about loss of freedom to choose your own health care.

One irony here is that Regina Herzlinger, who has been referred to as the Godmother of consumer-driven health care and who is an outspoken opponent of single payer, states that she likes “all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering.” You would think that the Democratic candidates would support a progressive model of reform. Instead, they are supporting a neoliberal model based on the conservative framing of private market health plans.

When you fully understand Herzlinger’s concepts of reform, you recognize what a disaster they would be for access, equity and affordability. You really must ask yourself why she likes the proposals of Senators Obama and Clinton. When you figure that out, speak up!

Single-Payer Healthcare: a Reality for California?

Voices From the Nursing School

By Julie Illi Laird
Synapse, UCSF Student Paper

As a nurse, I have seen countless examples of the devastating outcomes that result when people do not have access to care due to lack of insurance. Just last week, I visited a 35-year-old cancer patient to help her manage oxygen treatments at home. She had beaten breast cancer at age 25. However, she was a restaurant worker and did not have health insurance; consequently, once she started working again, she no longer qualified for MediCal and could no longer see a doctor to be screened for recurrence. Sadly, when the cancer did come back it was not detected until she went to the ER one night when she could no longer breathe. Cancer metastases cover most of both her lungs. As she can no longer work, she is once again eligible for MediCal. Unfortunately, this coverage has come too late to save her life. I wish this story was an isolated event, but the fact is 18,000 people die in the U.S. every year solely because they do not have health insurance. A single-payer system would not only give access to care to the millions of currently uninsured, it would also create a better environment for all healthcare workers to practice in.

The reality of a single-payer system for California may not be as far away as you think. Senate bill 840 — a proposal for single-payer healthcare in California — was passed on the floor of both the Senate and the Assembly last year (only to be later vetoed by the governor). It will be re-introduced in the upcoming months. State Senator Sheila Kuehl, author of SB840, explains the rationale behind the bill: “SB 840 would replace insurance companies with a statewide trust fund that collects premiums paid by employers and individuals. The creation of a single state fund reduces the administrative portion of California’s healthcare costs from nearly 30 percent to under 10 percent. With everyone in one pool, which spreads the risk as widely as possible, no one would be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. Individuals would be free to change jobs, start a business, go to school or start a family without losing coverage or doctors they trust.”

SB 840 is good for the practice of healthcare, as well. Under this new system, decision-making would be returned to physicians and advanced practice nurses as treatment options would no longer be determined by what is covered by each individual’s insurance plan. SB 840 would end uncompensated medical care by ensuring that everyone has a payer. Paperwork would be infinitely streamlined and medical offices would no longer need teams of administrators to argue for authorization and bill dozens of different insurance companies every month. Practices will be able to refocus their staffing on nurses and other providers, which will increase the quality of care and decrease medical errors. Continuity of care will improve as patients are no longer forced to change medical groups when they switch jobs or their employers switch plans. This will lead to more meaningful, long-term relationships between providers and patients — improving quality of care and patient safety.

In the face of a rapidly deteriorating healthcare system, the term “universal healthcare” has taken on a new popularity in 2008. Many of current proposals, however, are simply mandates for universal coverage rather than universal care. Mandating insurance provides neither a guarantee of affordable insurability, nor actual medical services, nor does it resolve the problems of the tremendously expensive administrative overhead and system inefficiencies of the private insurance-based system. While insurance mandates make perfect political sense, they are complete economic non-sense. The only truly comprehensive, economically feasible method for providing universal care is the establishment of a single-payer system.

The advantages of a single-payer healthcare system for California are clear. Increasing numbers of UCSF students not only agree, but also are doing something about it! In a tradition that started in January 2006, almost 400 health professional students from across the state converged in Sacramento on January 28 to call on state legislators to support SB 840. Participants conducted legislative visits with 38 (out of 40) Senators and 65 (out of 80) Assebly members securing at least four new co-authorships, two new yes votes, and numerous pledges for continued support of SB 840. Preceding the legislative visits, a raucous rally was held on the Capitol steps. In a sea of white coats and rally signs, keynote speaker Sheila Kuehl announced, “That our newest generation of [healthcare providers] is exhibiting such a strong commitment to universal health care means it is only a matter of time until it becomes a reality. They are acting to protect not only their future patients, but also their own ability to practice good medicine. [Legislators] must listen.” And, so should you. To learn more about the issue and how you can get involved, visit the UCSF student run website “Nursing Students for Universal Healthcare” at http://ns4universalhealthcare.blogspot.com/

Julie Illi Laird is a MEPN student, UCSF School of Nursing.

Rising insurance costs may force MDs to quit

By Saul Friedman
Gray Matters
Newsday.com
2:03 PM EDT, May 9, 2008

Let’s hear it for doctors!

I know, everyone has a doctor story, including me. But most of today’s doctors are besieged, working under great pressure from insurance companies and the corporations that own or finance their practices. They are trying to keep up with the latest devices, drugs and developments in their fields, and dealing with sick patients who can’t afford all the medical care they should get.

Also, they don’t make huge amounts of money (average is $200,000). And added to that is the threat, peculiar to New York State that, beginning July 1, every doctor must cough up an average of $50,000 over the next five years to replenish the medical malpractice insurance fund, then face steep increases in malpractice insurance. On this, more later.

These are among the reasons why a new survey of 2,193 doctors by the University of Indiana School of Medicine, published April 1 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that 59 percent support legislation that would establish a national health insurance program; 32 percent are opposed. Authors of the study said the sample was representative of the nation’s 800,000 physicians.

The findings reflected a sharp increase over a 2002 National Institutes of Health survey of physicians that found 49 percent favored a national health insurance program and 40 percent were opposed. Dr. Ronald T. Ackerman, co-director of the latest study, said support for national health insurance has increased across all specialties.

Support was particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), emergency physicians (69), pediatricians (65), internists (64), and family physicians (60). Fifty-five percent of general surgeons supported national health insurance, but that was double the percentage of 2002.

“Across the board,” Ackerman said, “more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care.” Indeed, ask your own doctor. Virtually all of mine tell me they favor national health insurance.

In December the 124,000-member American College of Physicians went further and endorsed a single-payer national health insurance program, like “Medicare for all.”

And even the once-stodgy American Medical Association is lobbying hard for a stronger, better-financed Medicare program.

We are not talking “socialized medicine,” where doctors work for the government. The excellent Veterans Administration hospitals, where doctors, nurses and lab people work for the V.A., come close to the socialist model (as do military doctors and those on the White House and congressional payrolls). But “socialized medicine,” says Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, “is the bogeyman that just won’t die.” And it’s been “hurled at every national health plan … even Medicare.”

But as every beneficiary knows, doctors and hospitals that accept Medicare work for themselves and are paid by a public insurance system that has worked well for more than 40 years, despite efforts by this administration and its allies to starve it to death and turn it over to private insurers. If Medicare becomes the single-payer model for an American national health insurance program, doctors and patients will get the program that most of them have told pollsters they favor.

As usual, the Congress lags far behind the public. Until that changes, doctors as well as patients will live in limbo, beset by the problems of private for-profit insurance. In New York, many physicians could be driven out of their practices, according to my friend Dr. Christopher J. Beatty, a general surgeon, in East Setauket and Port Jefferson, who has been practicing for 33 years.

He asks that I warn patients that “come July 1, their doctors may be gone.” The reason: Eric Dinallo, the state superintendent of insurance, says he’s required by law to replenish the shortfall in the reserves of the state’s malpractice insurance fund. To do so, Dinallo warns, would mean a surcharge for every doctor of about $50,000, to be followed by sharp raises of 15 to 25 percent in malpractice insurance premiums.

“In my case,” Beatty wrote, “my already outrageous malpractice premium of $100,000 will go to $125,000 and adding $50,000 on top of that, you have a quarterly payment due on July 1 of $81,250. That is about half my yearly salary.” Beatty is a salaried employee of a surgical group, which may be forced by such expenses to lay off surgeons. “I did five major operations last week and assisted on five others,” he said. “Who will replace me?”

There have been similar cries of alarms among other New York doctors. And dozens of physicians have left the state or are reported preparing to leave. Dinallo has said he will impose the surcharge unless the legislature acts to relieve the crisis. Beatty and his colleagues are urging lawmakers to pass malpractice reform, which had been favored by Eliot Spitzer. But it is strongly opposed by trial lawyers, of which Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is one.

Critics of reform minimize the effects of malpractice claims on the crisis and oppose reforms that would put a cap on judgments. Rather, they blame the crisis on mismanagement of the fund, which Beatty says was raided to pay for other state programs.

Medicare for all may not end malpractice or the need for such insurance, although such cases have been rare in my experience with Medicare. (Medicare has refused to pay for a hospital’s errors.) But perhaps taking the profit motive and greed out of health care could help doctors as well as patients.

Copyright (c) 2008, Newsday Inc.

Herzlinger and McCanne on “choice” in candidates’ proposals

Who will fix America’s broken health care system?

The Real News Network
May 8, 2008

Prof. Regina E. Herzlinger is the Nancy R. McPherson Professor of Business Administration Chair at the Harvard Business School. She is the author of bestselling books “Who Killed Health Care?” and “Consumer-Driven Health Care: Implications for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers”.

Dr. Don McCanne is a Senior Health Policy Fellow with Physicians for a National Health Program, a widely recognized organization that represents over 15,000 doctors across the US that advocate for a single-payer national health insurance plan.

Transcript

VOICEOVER: Professor Regina Herzlinger of the Harvard School of Business and Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program each evaluated the health care platforms of all three candidates.

PROF. REGINA HERZLINGER, HARVARD SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: I like all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering. All three of them offer choice to the American consumer, although Senator McCain has put that much more front and center. Choice is very important. It is very important not to be at the mercy of a single payer, whether that single payer for your health insurance is your employer or your government, because they may not give you what you want.

DR. DON MCCANNE, PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM: The three proposals of the presidential candidates all fall short of what we think needs to be done. They all build on the private health insurance model. That’s a highly defective model, which is wasting a tremendous amount of resources and failing to provide the coverage that we need. Private plans compete based on the premium they charge. What we really want is competition between health care providers, physicians and hospitals competing based on quality. And that requires that patients have freedom to choose their doctors. Private plans take away that freedom.

VOICEOVER: Both experts took a look at how close Obama and Clinton’s proposals will get to achieving universal coverage.

MCCANNE: The Clinton model mandates individuals to purchase health insurance, whereas Obama does not. He says that we need to make plans affordable so people can purchase them. Neither approach is going to get everyone insured. Obama’s approach is flawed because the private health plans are not going to be able to have enough benefits if they’re going to have affordable premiums. So people will still go without health care in his model. In Hillary Clinton’s model, the plans will not be affordable. So requiring individuals to purchase a plan they can’t pay for is unrealistic. The flaw of their proposal is that the private health insurance plan has become an obsolete model of financing health care.

The Real News video (3 minutes):
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1457&thisview=item&renewx=2008-05-08+09%3A36%3A45

Same video also accessible at:
https://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/may/video_who_will_fix_.php

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Anyone following the national dialogue on reform is certainly aware of the rhetoric over “choice.” Those supporting reform that builds on private health plans use “choice” to mean choice of health plans. Those supporting a publicly financed and publicly administered national health program use “choice” to mean choice of physicians and hospitals and other health care professionals and institutions.

People do like to have choice. The three remaining presidential candidates understand that and tout the choice that their heath care proposals offer. Of course, that is only the choice of health plans, a choice that usually takes away your freedom to choose your health care professionals. But they never mention this latter point since they would be admitting to a serious flaw in their proposals. Even libertarians should be concerned about loss of freedom to choose your own health care.

One irony here is that Regina Herzlinger, who has been referred to as the Godmother of consumer-driven health care and who is an outspoken opponent of single payer, states that she likes “all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering.” You would think that the Democratic candidates would support a progressive model of reform. Instead, they are supporting a neoliberal model based on the conservative framing of private market health plans.

When you fully understand Herzlinger’s concepts of reform, you recognize what a disaster they would be for access, equity and affordability. You really must ask yourself why she likes the proposals of Senators Obama and Clinton. When you figure that out, speak up!

AHIP on Medigap's Impact On Medicare Costs

Taking A Fresh Look At Medigap's Impact On Medicare Costs

New Health Affairs Study Shows That Medigap Coverage May Have A Much Smaller Impact on Medicare Spending Than Previously Estimated.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
Policy Brief

Previous studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have reported that Medigap policyholders incur as much as 25 percent more Medicare expenditures than beneficiaries with FFS-only coverage. Thus CBO periodically estimates that restrictions on Medigap’s first-dollar coverage would significantly reduce Medicare outlays.

A recent report from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) presents new information that explains why past conclusions on this topic should be reconsidered.

Besides controlling for age, gender, and geography as done in prior analyses, the AHIP study broke new ground by analyzing two new factors that turned out to be critical: 1) use of services provided through the Veterans Administration (VA) or at military facilities, and 2) Medicare beneficiaries’ diagnoses (in lieu of self-reported health status or health conditions).

Key Findings

* Nearly half of the increase in Medicare spending that prior studies have reported among beneficiaries with Medigap disappeared when AHIP controlled for use of services received through the VA or at military facilities.

* Detailed analyses of beneficiaries’ health status based on actual diagnosis rather than on the self-reported data used in previous studies found that beneficiaries with Medigap are more likely than those with FFS-only coverage to have high-cost chronic conditions. Therefore, much of the difference in health costs between the two groups may stem from differences in health status rather than differences in insurance coverage.

In short, these results call into question past assumptions about the impact of Medigap coverage on Medicare claims costs. Before taking any action that would affect the Medigap program, policymakers should demand a thorough reexamination of previous research on the health status, service use, and health spending among Medigap policyholders.

http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MedigapFreshLook2008.pdf#http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MedigapFreshLook2008.pdf

Health Affairs: “Medigap Coverage And Medicare Spending: A Second Look”
by Jeff Lemieux, Teresa Chovan and Karen Heath (AHIP staff)
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/469

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Medigap plans are standardized supplemental private insurance plans that fill in some of the gaps in Medicare coverage. Medigap plans, as a group, have amongst the lowest medical loss ratios of all private insurance plans; that is, they pay out the least for health care benefits. Thus the plans are very lucrative for the private insurers, but they are amongst the worst values in private health care coverage.

Previous studies have indicated that individuals with Medigap coverage use more health care services than those covered by Medicare alone. The theory is that patients insulated from out-of-pocket costs will use less discretion in accessing health care, resulting in greater use of health care resources. In fact this does occur to a limited extent, but the recent work by John Nyman and others on the moral hazard theory demonstrates that much of that health care is beneficial (welfare gain rather than a welfare loss). It is particularly important to understand whether those with Medigap coverage actually do have greater health care needs that would result in greater use of services.

This study done by AHIP staff members demonstrates that when the numbers are corrected for those using the VA and military systems and corrected for health status, then much of increased spending for Medigap patients is very appropriate.

This result is quite convenient for the insurance industry. Those supporting an increase in cost-sensitivity for patients (consumer-directed health care) have been advocating for paring back the financial insulation that Medigap policies provide. Obviously the insurance industry does not want to reduce their market for these highly profitable products, and so they are able to use this study to counter this argument.

The result of this study also is quite convenient for those of us who support reasonably comprehensive health care for everyone. The Medigap plans do improve access to health care.

However, our conclusion is the opposite of AHIP’s. AHIP members would continue to market these lucrative plans even though they represent a terrible value for the patient/consumer. In sharp contrast, we would fold the very modest benefits of the Medigap plans into the traditional Medicare program. Based on the results of this study and on newer theories of moral hazard, the increase in Medicare spending would likely be mostly (if not completely) offset by the savings gained by the elimination of the profound administrative waste of the Medigap plans.

Pariah Diplomacy

by JOEL ALBERS
Southside Pride

Proposed solutions to the health care crisis have reached a crossroads, with essentially two paths that Minnesota and the U.S. can follow. One path views health care as a market commodity, in which health care is for sale. Patients are also consumers who must shop around, compare prices and quality of care, and buy insurance. That is if you can afford it. If you cannot, you are uninsured. And therein lies the crisis.

The other path views health care as a public good: government-funded through taxes, like education, social security, Medicare and roads. With everybody in one big pool (creating economies and efficiencies of scale), represented by a single-payer, health care would be universal, comprehensive, a human right, based on need, and free at the household level. As in the rest of the world, cost is essentially out of the picture.

In this legislative session, like in others before it, the Minnesota Senate and House have each passed major health care bills based on the market commodity model described above. The bills are now in conference committee where their differences will be worked out. The House bill, HF 3391, is sponsored by Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-Duluth) and the Senate bill, SF 3099, is sponsored by Senator Linda Berglin (DFL-Mpls). As may be expected, these bills were fully backed by HMO health insurers and big business.

The Minnesota Health Plan, bill SF 2324, (a Single-Payer bill–a government-funded approach, and, according to surveys, backed by most Minnesotans), was scuttled shortly after the legislative session began, only passing through one committee. Year after year this scenario is replayed resulting in a worsening of the health care crisis.

What’s behind this contradictory trend in which insurance companies and big business circumvent democracy, and what can be done about it? A major factor is rigged, handpicked Task Forces, currently, the “Health Care Transformation Task Force,” whose recommendations became the basis for the aforementioned Huntley and Berglin bills.

Here’s the mechanism of how it works. The so-called Health Care Transformation Task Force was intentionally created by the 2007 Legislature and signed by Governor Pawlenty last May. This allowed the governor to appoint (handpick) all members of the Task Force, including its co-chairs, Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-Duluth) and Human Services Commissioner Cal Ludeman who also serves as the chair of Governor Pawlenty’s Health Cabinet (also handpicked). Rep. Huntley, in turn became a chief author of the aforementioned bill.

Examining the composition of the 13-member Health Care Transformation Task Force reveals most members represent, not you and me, but corporate health insurance companies and big business: Medica HMO, Park Nicollet, Mayo Clinic, Definity (HSA, Health Savings Accounts), Minute Clinic, General Mills and the Carlson Companies. Only two Task Force members are health care practitioners, both physicians, yet with potential business conflicts of interest; one is former medical director of HealthPartners HMO; the other is a fellow for the Center for the American Experiment (conservative “free market” think tank).

The two remaining Task Force members appear to be more community-based, representing the Citizens League and a major labor union, yet are far from it. In fact, last year the Citizens League convened its own 26 member “Citizens League Medical Facilities Study Committee” charged with examining the expansion of medical facilities such as hospitals in Minnesota. Again, very few citizens or health practitioners. As for the labor union representative from AFSCME Council 6, he sat on the 1992 Minnesota Health Care Commission, and helped it pave the way for the takeover of Minnesota health care by “managed care” HMOs, a market-based approach that called for universal coverage in Minnesota by July 1, 1997.

Previous commissions similarly handpicked and unrepresentative of Minnesotans include: the MN Medical Association Health Care Task Force of 2005, the MN Mental Health Action Group of 2005, the MN Citizens Forum on Health Care Costs (also known as the Pawlenty-Durenberger Commission) 2004, and the MN Health Care Access Commission of 1989.

It would be naive to think these Task Forces are simply oblivious of the gold standard solution to the health care crisis: the Single-Payer, government-funded approach. Many of us have explicitly presented the evidence, including exhaustive studies, public surveys and focus groups in Minnesota, nationally, and internationally. The data are quickly dismissed.

So what can we do to reverse this disturbing state-of-affairs in which rigged Task Forces and Commissions essentially undermine democracy?

A more democratic participatory alternative would be to hold open public hearings. Although this occurred in 2004, the hearings lacked openness with permission to speak only about the problem, not the solution, and with major time limits to testimony.

Another solution is to demand that the composition of Task Forces represent Minnesotans, including people of color, community-based health care reform organizations, and especially health care practitioners and patients. And most importantly, the prohibition of business or financial conflict of interest, as is clearly the case with all previous Minnesota Health Care Commissions, since 1989.

Our community-based organization, Universal Health Care Action Network of Minnesota, is responding by coordinating the formation of a Multidisciplinary Health Practitioner Work Group. The task will be to counter the usual ” official” Minnesota Health Care Commissions by drafting public policy statements, which advance a progressive framework for fundamental health care reform.

Similarly, communities can form their own parallel “Peoples Health Care Commission.”

And finally, when our elected or appointed officials are unaccountable to the public, the public has a right to hold demonstrations, pickets and other important and respected forms of protest, such as civil disobedience. As was said during the civil rights movement (and the right to health care has indeed been called the civil rights issue of the 21st century), “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”.

Joel Albers is a member of the Universal Health Care Action Network of MN, a grassroots health care reform resource center and action network.

Video: Who will fix America's broken health care system?

Dr. Don McCanne: All candidates' flaw is they support private health insurance, an obsolete model

The Real News Network
Thursday May 8th, 2008

More than 47 million Americans are uninsured, and the New York Times reports that even those who are insured are facing more out-of-pocket expenses for health care. Health-related costs eat up a fifth of American household spending.

All three presidential hopefuls claim to offer the solution.

Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama would increase government regulation of health insurance to improve quality. Clinton would mandate coverage, while Obama would not, arguing that he would instead make health care affordable for the average consumer, thereby improving uptake. Senator McCain would decrease government oversight. He says that insurers will raise the quality of their benefits and lower costs in order to appear attractive to buyers. He offers tax rebates to individuals to offset partial health care costs.

Author Regina Herzlinger and PNHP Senior Health Policy Fellow Don McCanne each take a look at how effective the proposals will be in increasing quality of health care and the number of insured.

Prof. Regina E. Herzlinger is the Nancy R. McPherson Professor of Business Administration Chair at the Harvard Business School. She is the author of bestselling books “Who Killed Health Care?” and “Consumer-Driven Health Care: Implications for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers”.

Dr. Don McCanne is a Senior Health Policy Fellow with Physicians for a National Health Program, a widely recognized organization that represents over 15,000 doctors across the US that advocate for a single-payer national health insurance plan.

Transcript:

VOICEOVER: More than 47 million Americans live without health coverage. With the economy in a downturn, even those who are covered are spending more on health care these days. According to The New York Times, health care eats up almost one-fifth of American household spending. All three presidential hopefuls are touting the merits of their health care plans and rejecting the others.

(CLIPS BEGIN)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (D): My plan will cover everyone, and it will be affordable. Senator Obama’s plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (D): She would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care. If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they’ve done in Massachusetts.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (R): They urge universal coverage with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea.

(CLIPS END)

Professor Regina Herzlinger of the Harvard School of Business and Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program each evaluated the health care platforms of all three candidates.

PROF. REGINA HERZLINGER, HARVARD SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: I like all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering. All three of them offer choice to the American consumer, although Senator McCain has put that much more front and center. Choice is very important. It is very important not to be at the mercy of a single payer, whether that single payer for your health insurance is your employer or your government, because they may not give you what you want.

DR. DON MCCANNE, PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM: The three proposals of the presidential candidates all fall short of what we think needs to be done. They all build on the private health insurance model. That’s a highly defective model, which is wasting a tremendous amount of resources and failing to provide the coverage that we need. Private plans compete based on the premium they charge. What we really want is competition between health care providers, physicians and hospitals competing based on quality. And that requires that patients have freedom to choose their doctors. Private plans take away that freedom.

VOICEOVER: Both experts took a look at how close Obama and Clinton’s proposals will get to achieving universal coverage.

MCCANNE: The Clinton model mandates individuals to purchase health insurance, whereas Obama does not. He says that we need to make plans affordable so people can purchase them. Neither approach is going to get everyone insured. Obama’s approach is flawed because the private health plans are not going to be able to have enough benefits if they’re going to have affordable premiums. So people will still go without health care in his model. In Hillary Clinton’s model, the plans will not be affordable. So requiring individuals to purchase a plan they can’t pay for is unrealistic. The flaw of their proposal is that the private health insurance plan has become an obsolete model of financing health care.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

AHIP on Medigap’s Impact On Medicare Costs

Taking A Fresh Look At Medigap’s Impact On Medicare Costs

New Health Affairs Study Shows That Medigap Coverage May Have A Much Smaller Impact on Medicare Spending Than Previously Estimated.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
Policy Brief

Previous studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have reported that Medigap policyholders incur as much as 25 percent more Medicare expenditures than beneficiaries with FFS-only coverage. Thus CBO periodically estimates that restrictions on Medigap’s first-dollar coverage would significantly reduce Medicare outlays.

A recent report from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) presents new information that explains why past conclusions on this topic should be reconsidered.

Besides controlling for age, gender, and geography as done in prior analyses, the AHIP study broke new ground by analyzing two new factors that turned out to be critical: 1) use of services provided through the Veterans Administration (VA) or at military facilities, and 2) Medicare beneficiaries’ diagnoses (in lieu of self-reported health status or health conditions).

Key Findings

* Nearly half of the increase in Medicare spending that prior studies have reported among beneficiaries with Medigap disappeared when AHIP controlled for use of services received through the VA or at military facilities.

* Detailed analyses of beneficiaries’ health status based on actual diagnosis rather than on the self-reported data used in previous studies found that beneficiaries with Medigap are more likely than those with FFS-only coverage to have high-cost chronic conditions. Therefore, much of the difference in health costs between the two groups may stem from differences in health status rather than differences in insurance coverage.

In short, these results call into question past assumptions about the impact of Medigap coverage on Medicare claims costs. Before taking any action that would affect the Medigap program, policymakers should demand a thorough reexamination of previous research on the health status, service use, and health spending among Medigap policyholders.

http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MedigapFreshLook2008.pdf#http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/MedigapFreshLook2008.pdf

Health Affairs: “Medigap Coverage And Medicare Spending: A Second Look”
by Jeff Lemieux, Teresa Chovan and Karen Heath (AHIP staff)
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/469

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Medigap plans are standardized supplemental private insurance plans that fill in some of the gaps in Medicare coverage. Medigap plans, as a group, have amongst the lowest medical loss ratios of all private insurance plans; that is, they pay out the least for health care benefits. Thus the plans are very lucrative for the private insurers, but they are amongst the worst values in private health care coverage.

Previous studies have indicated that individuals with Medigap coverage use more health care services than those covered by Medicare alone. The theory is that patients insulated from out-of-pocket costs will use less discretion in accessing health care, resulting in greater use of health care resources. In fact this does occur to a limited extent, but the recent work by John Nyman and others on the moral hazard theory demonstrates that much of that health care is beneficial (welfare gain rather than a welfare loss). It is particularly important to understand whether those with Medigap coverage actually do have greater health care needs that would result in greater use of services.

This study done by AHIP staff members demonstrates that when the numbers are corrected for those using the VA and military systems and corrected for health status, then much of increased spending for Medigap patients is very appropriate.

This result is quite convenient for the insurance industry. Those supporting an increase in cost-sensitivity for patients (consumer-directed health care) have been advocating for paring back the financial insulation that Medigap policies provide. Obviously the insurance industry does not want to reduce their market for these highly profitable products, and so they are able to use this study to counter this argument.

The result of this study also is quite convenient for those of us who support reasonably comprehensive health care for everyone. The Medigap plans do improve access to health care.

However, our conclusion is the opposite of AHIP’s. AHIP members would continue to market these lucrative plans even though they represent a terrible value for the patient/consumer. In sharp contrast, we would fold the very modest benefits of the Medigap plans into the traditional Medicare program. Based on the results of this study and on newer theories of moral hazard, the increase in Medicare spending would likely be mostly (if not completely) offset by the savings gained by the elimination of the profound administrative waste of the Medigap plans.

Video: Who will fix America’s broken health care system?

Dr. Don McCanne: All candidates’ flaw is they support private health insurance, an obsolete model

The Real News Network
Thursday May 8th, 2008

More than 47 million Americans are uninsured, and the New York Times reports that even those who are insured are facing more out-of-pocket expenses for health care. Health-related costs eat up a fifth of American household spending.

All three presidential hopefuls claim to offer the solution.

Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama would increase government regulation of health insurance to improve quality. Clinton would mandate coverage, while Obama would not, arguing that he would instead make health care affordable for the average consumer, thereby improving uptake. Senator McCain would decrease government oversight. He says that insurers will raise the quality of their benefits and lower costs in order to appear attractive to buyers. He offers tax rebates to individuals to offset partial health care costs.

Author Regina Herzlinger and PNHP Senior Health Policy Fellow Don McCanne each take a look at how effective the proposals will be in increasing quality of health care and the number of insured.

Prof. Regina E. Herzlinger is the Nancy R. McPherson Professor of Business Administration Chair at the Harvard Business School. She is the author of bestselling books “Who Killed Health Care?” and “Consumer-Driven Health Care: Implications for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers”.

Dr. Don McCanne is a Senior Health Policy Fellow with Physicians for a National Health Program, a widely recognized organization that represents over 15,000 doctors across the US that advocate for a single-payer national health insurance plan.

Transcript:

VOICEOVER: More than 47 million Americans live without health coverage. With the economy in a downturn, even those who are covered are spending more on health care these days. According to The New York Times, health care eats up almost one-fifth of American household spending. All three presidential hopefuls are touting the merits of their health care plans and rejecting the others.

(CLIPS BEGIN)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (D): My plan will cover everyone, and it will be affordable. Senator Obama’s plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (D): She would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care. If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they’ve done in Massachusetts.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (R): They urge universal coverage with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea.

(CLIPS END)

Professor Regina Herzlinger of the Harvard School of Business and Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program each evaluated the health care platforms of all three candidates.

PROF. REGINA HERZLINGER, HARVARD SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: I like all three platforms that the presidential candidates are offering. All three of them offer choice to the American consumer, although Senator McCain has put that much more front and center. Choice is very important. It is very important not to be at the mercy of a single payer, whether that single payer for your health insurance is your employer or your government, because they may not give you what you want.

DR. DON MCCANNE, PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM: The three proposals of the presidential candidates all fall short of what we think needs to be done. They all build on the private health insurance model. That’s a highly defective model, which is wasting a tremendous amount of resources and failing to provide the coverage that we need. Private plans compete based on the premium they charge. What we really want is competition between health care providers, physicians and hospitals competing based on quality. And that requires that patients have freedom to choose their doctors. Private plans take away that freedom.

VOICEOVER: Both experts took a look at how close Obama and Clinton’s proposals will get to achieving universal coverage.

MCCANNE: The Clinton model mandates individuals to purchase health insurance, whereas Obama does not. He says that we need to make plans affordable so people can purchase them. Neither approach is going to get everyone insured. Obama’s approach is flawed because the private health plans are not going to be able to have enough benefits if they’re going to have affordable premiums. So people will still go without health care in his model. In Hillary Clinton’s model, the plans will not be affordable. So requiring individuals to purchase a plan they can’t pay for is unrealistic. The flaw of their proposal is that the private health insurance plan has become an obsolete model of financing health care.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Millennials support a government health insurance plan

The Progressive Generation: How Young Adults Think About the Economy

By David Madland, Amanda Logan
Center for American Progress
May 6, 2008

Young adults today–often known as the Millennial Generation–have decidedly progressive views on economic issues, possibly more so than any previous generation. According to the results of our first-of-a-kind analysis of Millennials’ views on the economy, a majority of 18- to 29-year-olds (our definition of this generation) believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that increased investments in healthcare, education, and other areas are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth.

Our analysis also shows that Millennials mostly reject the conservative viewpoint that government is the problem, and that free markets always produce the best results for society. Indeed, Millennials’ views are more progressive than those of other age groups today, and are more progressive than previous generations when they were younger. This is especially true when compared to the conservative views of Generation X–men and women who are now in their 30s and early 40s.

* Millennials are more likely to support universal health coverage than any age group in the 30 previous years the question has been asked, with 57 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds saying that health insurance should come from a government insurance plan.

* Eighty-seven percent of Millennials think the government should spend more money on health care even if a tax increase is required to pay for it, the highest level of support in the question’s 20-year history.

Millennials are already the largest generation in size, weighing in today at between 80 and 95 million people, depending on exactly how the generations are defined. This exceeds the number of baby boomers.

What’s more, Millennials are a large, politically active generation that cares deeply about economic issues. Studies have found that they are, for example, more likely to express interest in politics and elections, care a good deal who wins, try to influence others’ votes, and attend political meetings.

Research suggests that the political opinions and voting patterns of young adults are likely to carry forward throughout their lives. Political attachments attitudes formed in early adulthood often continue to be held later in life.

This study did not attempt to pinpoint the source of progressive opinions of Millennials, but our research points to a number of possible reasons why in time they may well become known in the future as the Progressive Generation. Young adults today face more significant economic challenges than have other recent generations, among them lower rates of healthcare coverage, worsening job prospects, and higher levels of student loan debt–all legacies of the conservative policies that have dominated in recent years.

The upshot: This Progressive Generation could well be poised to transform the American political landscape in 2008 and beyond due to their embrace of decidedly progressive positions on economic issues and the role of government in economy.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/progressive_generation.html

Full report:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/pdf/progressive_generation.pdf

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

The bad news is that Millennials face “lower rates of healthcare coverage, worsening job prospects, and higher levels of student loan debt.” The good news is that they now “reject the conservative viewpoint that government is the problem, and that free markets always produce the best results for society.”

The Millennials recognize that free market dynamics should be relegated to the role where they work well. More importantly, the Millennials clearly understand that working together, through our public institutions, we can use our great resources to make this nation a far better place for everyone.

There really is hope for the future.

Pushing the Single-Payer Solution

By Amy Goodman
Alternet
April 24, 2008

It’s time for the candidates to stop dancing around real health-care reform and get behind a single-payer system.

As the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race continues to focus on lapel pins and pastors, America is ailing. As I travel around the country, I find people are angry and motivated. Like Dr. Rocky White, a physician from a conservative, evangelical background who practices in rural Alamosa, Colo. A tall, gray-haired Westerner in black jeans, a crisp white shirt and a bolo tie, Dr. White is a leading advocate for single-payer health care. He wasn’t always.

He told me in a recent interview: “Here I am, a Republican, thinking about nationalizing health care. It just went against the grain of everything that I stood for. But you have to remember: I didn’t come to those conclusions with lofty ideals of social justice.”

In the early 1990s, his medical group started falling apart. White, a keen student of economics and the business of medicine, determined that it wasn’t just his practice but the system that was broken.

“You’re seeing an ever-increasing number of people starting to support a national health program. In fact, 59 percent of practicing physicians today believe that we need to have a national health program. I mean, that’s unheard of, even 10 years ago. It’s amazing to see a new generation of physicians coming up who are disgusted with our current health-care system. You know, we’re trained to be advocates of patients, we’re trained to save lives, we’re trained to practice medicine. And instead, what we’re doing is we’re practicing Wall Street economics.”

Single-payer is not to be confused with universal coverage, which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both support. In fact, in a recent debate, when Clinton raised the issue of single-payer, the audience interrupted with applause. She immediately countered, “I know a lot of people favor [it], but for many reasons [it] is difficult to achieve.”

Why? One of the most powerful industries in the country opposes it — the insurance industry. Under universal coverage, insurance profits are preserved. Under single-payer, they are not. Dr. Rocky White, who now sits on the board of the nonprofit Health Care for All Colorado, has switched his political affiliation. He also has updated and reissued Dr. Robert LeBow’s book on single-payer called Health Care Meltdown: Confronting the Myths and Fixing Our Failing System.

He described possible solutions: “There are a lot of different types of single-payer systems — you could have purely socialized medicine. That’s kind of like what England has. The government owns the hospitals, the government owns the clinics, the government finances all the health care, and all the doctors work for the government. That is truly socialized medicine, as opposed to the Canadian system, where the financing comes through their Medicare program, but all the doctors are in private practice.”

The economics are complex, but this plain-spoken country doctor explains it clearly:

“You know, this industry is a $2-trillion industry, and the profits in the for-profit insurance industry are so huge and it’s so deeply entrenched into Wall Street … but until we move to a single-payer system and get rid of the profit motive in financing of health care, we will not be able to fix the problems that we have.”

What would it take? Dr. White has spent his life dealing with the high winds on the high plains, from Nebraska to Colorado, and describes the challenge the country faces in familiar terms:

“I think that our current presidential candidates understand that ideally single-payer would be the best, but they don’t have the political will to move that forward. Their job is to feel which way the wind is blowing. Our job is to turn that wind.”

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Dr. Rocky White is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, headquartered in Chicago, www.pnhp.org.

Labor, Faith, Seniors, Consumer Groups Rally at New York State Capitol in Support of Single Payer Universal Health Care

News Release: Single Payer rally at the state Capitol

Studies Show Single Payer would cut health care costs will giving consumers choice of doctors and hospitals

Capital District Alliance for Universal Healthcare
New Yorkers for Single Payer Universal Healthcare
Hunger Action Network of New York State

Media Release

For Release: May 6, 2008
For More Information: Dr. Richard Propp, 518-482-0420
Mark Dunlea 518 434-7371 xt 1#

Single payer universal health care advocates rallied today at the State Capitol in support of action at both the national and state level.

Representatives of unions, nurses, doctors, seniors, consumer and faith groups urged the state legislature to pass a resolution urging Congress to pass HR 676, known as Medicare for All. As. Felix Ortiz sponsors the Assembly resolution. HR 676 has 90 cosponsors, including NY Congressional representatives Engel, Hinchey, Maloney, McNulty, Nader, Owens, Rangel, Serrano, Towns, Weiner and Velazquez.

The groups are also urging the state to adopt a single payer system as soon as possible. Single payer legislation (A7354 Gottfried / S3107 Schneiderman) is pending in both the Assembly and Senate. A majority of Assembly members (85) are co-sponsors of the single payer bill.

Speakers included Rabbi Donald Cashman, B’nai Sholom Reform Congregation of Albany; Priscilla Bassett, Pres. Sullivan County Senior Legislative Action Committee and V-P StateWide Senior Action Council; Deborah Elliott, MBA, RN, Deputy Executive Officer of the NYS Nurses Association; Mike Keenan, President, Troy Area Labor Council; Matt Funiciello, owner of Rock Hill Bakehouse; Rebecca Elgie of the Tompkins Health Care Task Force; Cheryl Gelder-Kogan of Capital District Alliance for Universal Health Care (CDAUH); Mary Wojtyk, student at Albany Medical College, Patti Young, a nurse and a concerned health care consumer and musician Ruth Pelham. The rally was sponsored by CDAUH, New Yorkers for Single Payer Universal Health Care and The Hunger Action Network of New York State

“The cost and coverage of health insurance has become problematic for many working Americans and a major stumbling block in settling union contract negotiations. HR 676 would save billions of dollars annually by eliminating high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs. The transition to single-payer national health care would apply these savings to expanded and improved coverage for all. That is why the 2007 annual meeting of the Capital District Area Labor Federation unanimously endorsed HR676, and the National AFL-CIO is supporting a universal health care system based upon the successful Medicare program for seniors.” stated Mike Keenan, President, Troy Area Labor Council and a Vice President of the Capital District Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

The Troy Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO represents 10,000 union members and their families in Rensselaer County. The Capital District Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO represents 100,000 union members throughout the Capital District Region.

The State Legislature last year appropriated funds for the state to study how it could most cost-effectively provide health care to all New Yorkers. The legislature required that one of the systems to be studied be a single payer system. Most doctors now support a single payer system as to most health care advocacy groups. Advocates are concerned however that the organization hired by the state to do the studies, Urban Institute, has repeatedly spoken out against single payer health care. Every other state that has done the study process so far has concluded the a single payer system would do the best job of providing quality health care to all residents while controlling costs and maximizing freedom of choice for consumers.

The groups are particularly critical of the role of private health insurance in the American health care system. As much as a third of every health care dollar going through private health insurance goes to pay for their overhead, profits, marketing costs and excessive CEO salaries. Doctors on average have to hire 2.5 staff people just to deal with the conflicting paperwork, rules and bureaucracy of private health insurance. No other industrial country allows private health insurance to play a dominant role in the health care system. The groups oppose mandates for consumers to purchase private health insurance such as the Massachusetts plan.

“New York nurses pick up the pieces of our broken healthcare system every day. We see uninsured New Yorkers who rely on the emergency room as their main source of health care, as well as those who delay necessary treatment until they are so sick they must be hospitalized. The sad truth is that todayĆ¢ā‚¬ā„¢s for-profit, private healthcare insurers have failed, and a universal, single-payer healthcare system is the only true solution.,” said Deborah Elliott, MBA, RN, Deputy Executive Officer of the NYS Nurses Association.

A recent national survey shows a solid majority of doctors, almost 60 percent, supporting government legislation to establish national health insurance (NHI) — a 10 percent increase in support since 2002. (32% oppose it, 9% are neutral) Support for NHI is particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent) and family physicians (60 percent). The survey of 2,193 doctors was done by Indiana University.

Matt Funiciello, owner of Rock Hill Bakehouse in Moreau, NY said, “Access to health care is a necessity, not a luxury and we, as a country, are failing miserably at providing an affordable option for the American worker who simply cannot afford to pay the exorbitant amounts charged by the HMO’s. We are already spending $7100 per person on health care (twice what other industrialized nations pay), yet we somehow manage to leave more than 40 million people without coverage and another 70 million “underinsured”. Its time for us all to do the math. We ALREADY pay out far more than enough in premiums and subsidies and taxes to fully fund adequate coverage for every American right now! It is simply being denied to us by the powers that be and the corporate interests that get them re-elected. I can only ask that those on the Hill stop worrying about their campaign coffers for a minute and do what’s right for America. From doctors to workers to teachers to unions to business groups everywhere, single payer health care is a rational answer to the health care crisis.”

“As I travel across the state I hear that people don’t want to lose what they have that they want CHOICE, however, the choice they want is not a choice of many different insurance plans which is what they are being offered but the freedom to choose WHO will deliver their health CARE or WHAT facility best fits their particular need . A Single payer plan which allows access to any doctor or facility will provide us with MORE CHOICE than we currently have and WE will be making the decision not the insurance co,” added Rebecca Elgie of the Tompkins Co. Health Care Task Force.

Among the hundreds of groups in NY supporting HR 676 include the Physicians for a National Health Program, New York State Nurses Association, NYS Academy of Family Physicians, Healthcare Now, Tompkins County Health Care Task Force, Hunger Action Network of NYS, Healthcare Work Group (Otsego, Delaware & Chenango Counties). Presbyterian Church USA. United Auto Workers, Albany Central Federation of Labor, AFSMCE District Council 37, Professional Staff Congress-CUNY, CWA Local 1180, United University Professions (Local 2190 AFT); Latinos for National Health Insurance.

Single Payer is defined as financing health care expenditures for the entire population through a single source, presumably the government, with funds collected through progressive taxation of citizens and businesses

“The US spends more than twice as much on health care as the average of other developed nations, all of which boast universal coverage. Yet close to 50 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever, and most others are underinsured, in the sense that they lack adequate coverage for all contingencies (e.g., long-term care and prescription drug costs). Why is the U. S. so different? The short answer is that we alone treat health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need,” said Mark Dunlea, Executive Director of Hunger Action Network of NYS.

While the United States has very skilled health providers, our health care system performs poorly, with its overall quality only ranked 37th by the World Health Organization. US spending on health care is now over 2.1 trillion dollars — nearly $7,000 per person. This is more the double the world average of $2,571. This amounts to a whopping 15.5% of our GNP on health care — far more than any other country — which puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace.

“A prime benefit of a national single payer system is that it would save several hundred billion dollars annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services. Doctors and hospitals would be freed from the burdens and expenses of paperwork created by having to deal with multiple insurers with different rules – often rules designed to avoid payment,” added Dunlea.

A recent study of a single payer system for California showed that it would save $38 billion annually. The legislature passed a single payer system but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Public opinion polls have consistently shown strong public support for a universal health care system. For instance, a March 2007 poll by CBS/ NY Times found that 64 percent of the respondents said the government should guarantee health insurance for all; 27 percent said it should not. An overwhelming majority in the poll said the health care system needed fundamental change or total reorganization.