PNHP

RNs Praise Courageous Vote by Senate Committee On Badly Flawed Healthcare Bill

RNs Praise Courageous Vote by Senate Committee On Badly Flawed Healthcare Bill

For Immediate Release
January 28, 2008

Contact:
Donna Gerber, 916-919-1226
Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246, 415-559-8991

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee today offered praise to the Senate Health Committee for resisting enormous pressure to pass a badly flawed healthcare bill and pledged to work with legislators, community groups, and labor for genuine healthcare reform that avoids the serious shortcomings of AB x 1.

In a statement following the vote, CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro congratulated the committee “for its thorough, deliberative process and for taking a principled courageous stand despite the enormous pressure brought to bear by those who were pushing for hurried passage for a bad bill.”

“AB x 1 was rejected not because Californians and the legislature like the status quo or do not yearn for fixing our broken healthcare system. The bill collapsed because it was fundamentally flawed on its merits on access, quality, and cost,” DeMoro said.

Among CNA/NNOC’s key concerns, said DeMoro, were the mandate forcing individuals to purchase insurance with no controls on costs or a minimum standard for benefits or quality, the failure to provide meaningful protection to families facing a huge spike in out-of-pocket costs, and the danger that the low employer mandate would encourage employers to drop current coverage.

Additionally, DeMoro noted the serious underfunding of the proposal, including s tobacco tax and “the absurd premise of basing a health bill on essentially encouraging individuals to smoke.”

DeMoro made note of several of the comments by committee members during discussion on the bill today, including committee chair Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s comment that not voting for this bill “does not mean we prefer the status quo, any more than Gov. Schwarzenegger was saying he preferred the status quo when he vetoed SB 840,” a single-payer, Medicare-for-all style bill.

She also praised the comments of Sen. Leland Yee who noted, “the only way we can get true health care reform is with a single-payer process” that “is fair and makes sure everyone is covered.”

“We look forward to working with Sen. Kuehl, Sen. Yee, and everyone who is dedicated, along with us, to a genuine, comprehensive reform, such as Sen. Kuehl’s SB 840. In the interim, there is a short term alternative. Adopt AB x 1’s fee on hospitals reimbursed through higher Medi-Cal payments to hospitals proposed in the bill, and use the resulting federal money to expand coverage for children,” DeMoro said.

Following are 10 reasons CNA/NNOC opposed AB x 1:

1. Forced individuals to buy insurance policies without knowing the cost or what coverage they will receive.

2. No meaningful cost controls on rising premiums, co-pays, or deductibles.

3. Failed to identify minimum coverage, likely to be cheap HMO plans without dental, vision, mental health, long term care and other essentials which will cost extra.

4. Gaping holes in supposed affordability protections. No cap on premiums or out-of-pocket costs for middle-income families. Low-income employees ineligible for public subsidies if they opt out of employer coverage offer which could be a gym club membership or health savings account.

5. Harsh penalties for individuals who fail to buy insurance, including garnishing wages or mortgage liens, but no penalties for employers who don’t comply.

6. Incentives for employers who now provide benefits to cancel coverage to pay cheaper fee or shift more costs to workers. Encouraged large employers like Wal-Mart to dump lowest wage employees into the public pool.

7. Sunset of hospital fees and tax credits and a two-thirds vote for increasing employer mandate. No similar protections for individuals who would bear the burden of future increases in costs.

8. Tied funding to tobacco tax, so anti-smoking programs would continually undermine the plan’s funding base.

9. Jeopardized public safety net hospitals. Gives higher reimbursements to private hospitals while shifting $1 billion from counties to pay for the plan.

10. Could bankrupt California. The Legislative Analyst Office projected likely shortfall of $3.9 billion. Figure far greater if the costs of state-subsidized premiums are higher, the number of uninsured matches federal numbers not the proponents’ estimates, and if the impending recession pushes more Californians into the pool.

Ten Lessons for the Candidates from the California Healthcare Fiasco

Rose Ann DeMoro
The Huffington Post
Posted January 29, 2008 | 02:53 PM (EST)

Before the leading Democratic candidates come to California for the upcoming super Tuesday primary February 5 and spend a lot of time talking about their health plans, they might want to cast a look at the demise of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s much ballyhooed healthcare bill.

Despite a year of fawning praise by a number of media and supposed policy experts and intense lobbying for the bill by some of the state and nation’s most powerful political players and vested interests, the bill collapsed Monday in the Senate Health Committee, gaining just one vote from the 11 committee members.

For months the Schwarzenegger bill, which landed him on talk shows and the covers of national magazines, was marketed as the model for national reform.

As was before it, the Mitt Romney-inspired Massachusetts law, now careening with $400 million in red ink and 60,000 people, so far, who have been exempted from its punitive, mandatory insurance plans.

Proponents of the California bill promised that they had learned from the Massachusetts debacle and fixed its myriad flaws as they crafted revised version after revised version in closed door meetings. One thing they may have learned — roses don’t grow in the dark.

What does this mean for the three Democrats running for their party’s top prize or other legislators contemplating similar bills? A few reminders, and several huge potholes and pitfalls to avoid:

1. It’s not the swiftest idea to force people to buy insurance without telling them how much it will cost and what they get in return, and then threaten to seize their wages and their house if they don’t go along.

2. If the leading proponent of the bill doesn’t want the plan either, you might want to send the script back to re-write. During a committee hearing, state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod asked Schwarzenegger’s Secretary of Health Kim Belshe if she’d want the bill’s coverage. After hemming and hawing, Belshe conceded she’d have to defer until she knew what those benefits are.

3. Don’t propose a $14 billion plan in the midst of a $14 billion budget deficit. And when your lead proponent, Schwarzenegger, wants to raise Medi-Cal (Medicaid) reimbursements and benefits in his bill while simultaneously urging the legislature to cut Medi-Cal benefits and reimbursements in his budget, people might think he’s auditioning for a role in a remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde rather than governing.

4. Promoting lung cancer and emphysema to pay for a health bill is not a smooth move. Nor is a bill that relies on a hefty tobacco tax while concurrently advocating smoking cessation programs. Can you say declining revenue stream?

5. Providing corporate welfare by encouraging Wal-Mart and other big employers to dump their low-wage hourly employees into an underfunded public pool is not a slick way to ask for union support.

6. It doesn’t count as “cost controls” when you ask the insurers to tell us how much they are charging. And subsidies or tax credits for premiums don’t make a plan “affordable” when people have to pay extra for co-pays, deductibles, dental, vision, mental health, and long term care.

7. Assuring people choice of provider does not mean they can continue to enjoy the pleasure of being price gouged every time choose an “out of network” doctor or hospital. They already have that privilege.

8. When your main advocate is a governor who has vetoed every healthcare expansion and insurance regulation bill put before him, while accepting tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry, you might have a credibility gap.

9. Don’t pretend the insurance industry is opposed to the bill when seven of the state’s biggest insurance giants are stumping for it.

10. If the bill caps the fees being paid by employers and hospitals, but sets no limit on what individuals and workers will have to pay year in and year out, don’t be surprised if people think their pocket is being picked.

P.S. Californians, like other Americans, do want genuine healthcare reform. This wasn’t it. Let’s try again.

Caps on catastrophic losses

More Hitting Cost Limit on Health Benefits

By Christopher Lee
The Washington Post
January 27, 2008

A small but growing number of American families beset by major medical problems are learning the hard way that simply having health insurance is sometimes not enough.

Those who need organ transplants or who have hemophilia, Gaucher disease or other costly chronic illnesses can easily rack up medical bills that blow through the lifetime benefits cap of $1 million or more that is a standard part of many insurance policies.

That has left some very sick people facing health-care tabs of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, prompting their families to seek help from the government, or to scramble to change jobs or even divorce for no other reason than to qualify for new health insurance.

Statistics on how many people exceed the lifetime caps are hard to come by, but advocates note that the amount of many caps hasn’t changed in decades, or at least has not kept up with health-care inflation and the sky-high cost of lifesaving new therapies, making it more likely that people will reach the limit.

An annual survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that 55 percent of workers with employer-based coverage had a lifetime limit in 2007, including 23 percent with a cap of less than $2 million. That was up from about 50 percent who faced a cap in 2004.

Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said the answer to the problem lies not in raising the caps but in tackling the ever-spiraling cost of new therapies, drugs and medical devices to get more value from every health-care dollar.

“Are we in a position to pay a quarter-million dollars for a course of treatment as a nation, or is there a way that the public and private sectors can work together to shore up the mechanisms that are used to pay for those high-cost treatments?” Ghose asked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/26/AR2008012601058.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Those of us who support single payer national health insurance believe that access to health care should not be impaired by erecting financial barriers to care. Others believe that individuals should be responsible for “modest” costs that enable access to care, such as high-deductible plans (conceding that low-income individuals would need some assistance). But everyone agrees that we should all be protected from catastrophic health care expenses. So why do private health plans place a cap on catastrophic losses, forcing financial ruin on those with the greatest of catastrophic health circumstances?

The reason is that private insurers must make every effort to limit the exposure of their risk pools to high health care spending lest the premiums they charge would no longer be competitive in the private insurance market. Capping losses is mandated under the rules of market justice. But under the rules of social justice, individuals must be protected from financial hardship, no matter the intensity of their health care needs.

So what is the recommendation of the private insurance industry (AHIP)? The “public and private sectors” should work together. In fact, their proposal specifically calls for segregating the healthy into the private plans and turning those with significant health care needs over to the government. They profit on the healthy while we pay taxes to care for the sick.

Caps for catastrophic losses for private insurers is good business, but it’s terrible health policy. As stated in these messages before, it is long past time to change from a health care financing system that follows the rules of market justice to one that follows the rules of health care justice.

Opinions of New Hampshire Physicians Contrast with Presidential Candidate Plans for Healthcare Reform

New Hampshire Medical Society
For the betterment of public health since 1791

For Immediate Release
December 18, 2007

Contacts:
Dr. Seddon Savage, President, NH Medical Society 603-646-9215, seddon.savage@dartmouth.edu
Dr. Gary Sobelson, 228-0071, gsobelson@comcast.net
Dr. Beth Smith, 229-5200, Elizabeth.r.smith@hitchcock.org
Palmer Jones, Executive Vice President, NHMS, 224-1909, Palmer.Jones@nhms.org

A recent survey of New Hampshire physicians regarding the United States healthcare system suggests that many are ready for change. While physicians have divergent opinions about some of the directions that change should take, there is consensus on many issues that may be surprising. The 514 physicians who responded to the survey, which was sponsored by the NH Medical Society and conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, appear to be demographically representative of New Hampshire physicians. 29% percent of the respondents were primary care physicians and 71% specialists, surgeons or in other types of practice.

Physician opinions, as reflected in the survey, are not entirely resonant with key features of many of the proposals for healthcare reform offered by current Presidential candidates. While the candidate’s plans differ from one another, most would preserve a central role for private insurance companies, maintain a regulated market-based system, make employers or individuals responsible for purchase of health insurance and restrict publicly funded healthcare to specific groups, all features that the survey suggests NH doctors do not widely support.

The survey found that 81% of responding physicians agree healthcare should be “available to all citizens as part of the social contract, a right similar to basic education, police and fire protection,” with 94% of primary care physicians endorsing this view. Two thirds of New Hampshire physicians, including 81% of primary care clinicians, indicated they “would favor a simplified payor system in which public funds, collected through taxes, were used to pay directly for services to meet the basic healthcare needs of all citizens.” Only one third of physicians indicated support for an employer-based system or agreed that “the free market system is the best way to create a high quality, equitable, affordable and accessible healthcare system.” The physicians were split on individual responsibility for purchasing healthcare.

73% of the physicians indicated they do not believe “insurance companies provide important services that add value to the health care system” and 80% disagreed that “competition and profit within the insurance industry drive innovation, quality or efficiency.” 86% indicated that administrative and paperwork burdens interfere with their ability to serve patients well and 77% (93% of primary care physicians) indicated that there should be greater equity in reimbursement of different specialties for time spent in providing care to patients. Despite these challenges however, 88% percent of New Hampshire physicians agree that, “putting aside paperwork and administrative challenges,” they “experience deep satisfaction in the practice of medicine.”

The doctors disagreed with some common cost containment practices: 92% agreed that the current practice of “denying or limiting access to needed care in non-futile situations in order to preserve profits is unethical” and 96% disagreed with statement that “denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions is an appropriate means of controlling costs.” Most agreed, however, that control of healthcare costs must include some limits on availability of services (88%) and that the US healthcare system would benefit from planning of services to match need (93%). Nearly all (97%) agreed “health outcomes are improved when patients receive coordinated care of chronic illness in a primary care medical home.”

Whatever the structure and funding of the healthcare system, however, the survey finds that physicians believe “the health of individuals can be enormously affected by their personal behaviors and choices”(98.6%) and that “psychosocial and socioeconomic factors are important contributors to health status in the United States” (97.7%). The results of the survey are expected to shape advocacy efforts by the New Hampshire medical community related to public health and the healthcare system.

U.S. should have Medicare for all ages

By Robert Gumbiner
Press-Telegram, 1/27/08
Long Beach, CA

There is a somewhat illogical argument being made against expanding Medicare to include all citizens and taxpayers in the U.S., which is that Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke. This argument makes no sense. For one thing, if this were true, how could the federal government keep borrowing from Social Security and Medicare? The fact is, Medicare has the money and the federal government doesn’t.

Another argument used to muddy the waters is that health care costs more than Medicare can afford to pay. The answer to this problem is simple: collect more money. When the cost of living goes up, we expect to pay more for goods and services. Twenty years ago, a house might cost $50,000 or $150,000; that same property now costs $800,000. So why should we expect to pay the same amount of money for Medicare health care that we were paying 20 years ago?

In addition, let’s pay more attention to controlling the costs and better education of the providers in the cost of their procedures. Give the providers, i.e. doctors and hospitals, some responsibilities for cost control.

True, when 80 million baby boomers join the 40 million people currently covered by Medicare, the budget may be stretched thin. But since Medicare will be spreading the risk over 120 million people, in the future it will work. Remember, a lot of those new people are accessing Medicare at 66 years of age and those are winners for the Medicare program because they are healthier than the average. These younger people will be feeding in over the next 20 to 30 years, and using less care initially. Actually, Medicare may work better; it’s the increasing number of people in their late 80s and 90s that we have to worry about.

By the same token, we could expand Medicare to provide health care to everyone, using a simple payroll deduction (from employees) and contribution (from employers). We know that people will agree to pay more if they get more. In the Scandinavian countries people are willing to pay more because they get more social services, including health care coverage. People in this country can understand this simple equation. They would be agreeable to pay another 4 percent payroll deduction if it meant 100 percent coverage and no financials worries.

This is a simple plan that can work, but the public is being led down the garden path by a bunch of unknown, talking heads. The propaganda machines for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are trying their old-fashioned scare techniques on the American public, claiming that Medicare is going broke, so forget about using it to establish national universal health care.

Garbage!

It will just take another three or four percentage points – whatever it costs – out of payroll. People will be delighted to pay it in order to get full coverage.

The biggest opponents to expanding Medicare are the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Insurance companies are parasitical. They get paid for doing nothing. In fact, they create their work. Having managed two insurance companies in addition to a large HMO, I can tell you that it costs at least 15 percent or more to market your product and another 10 percent to run the company, even if you are fully funded and spreading the risk. This means 25 percent to 30 percent of “health care cost” is going directly to the insurance companies and is not contributing anything to health care. Right now, Medicare avoids this added 25 to 30 percent, paying something like 4 to 6 percent, all in, for claims adjustments outsourced to companies like Blue Cross. It is time for insurance companies to get out of the health care business.

We brought the tobacco companies under control for the greater good of the American public; we can do the same with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that shamelessly exploit the American public.

How is it that American pharmaceutical companies can sell their same product for 30 percent, 40 percent or 50 percent less in Canada and Mexico and make money? Doesn’t that mean they are making 30 percent, 40 percent or 50 percent more than they need to make off the American public? It is a crime. It’s ridiculous. Why doesn’t Congress do anything about it?

Robert Gumbiner, M.D., is founder and former CEO of FHP International.

IOM report: Knowing What Works

Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation

The National Academies
Institute of Medicine
January 24, 2008

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T. S. Eliot, The Rock (1934)

Recommendations

Building a Foundation for Knowing What Works in Health Care

Congress should direct the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to designate a single entity (the Program) with authority, overarching responsibility, sustained resources, and adequate capacity to ensure production of credible, unbiased information about what is known and not known about clinical effectiveness. The Program should:

* Set priorities for, fund, and manage systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and related topics.

* Develop a common language and standards for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence and for generating clinical guidelines and recommendations.

* Prepare an annual report to Congress.

The secretary of Health and Human Services should appoint a Clinical Effectiveness Advisory Board to oversee the Program. Its membership should be constituted to minimize bias due to conflict of interest and should include representation of diverse public and private sector expertise and interests.

The Program should develop standards to minimize bias due to conflicts of interest for priority setting, evidence assessment, and recommendations development.

Setting Priorities

The Program should appoint a standing Priority Setting Advisory Committee (PSAC) to identify high priority topics for systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness.

* The priority setting process should be open, transparent, efficient, and timely.

* Priorities should reflect the potential for evidence-based practice to improve health outcomes across the life span, reduce the burden of disease and health disparities, and eliminate undesirable variation.

* Priorities should also consider economic factors, such as the costs of treatment and the economic burden of disease.

* The membership of the PSAC should include a broad mix of expertise and interests and be chosen to minimize committee bias due to conflicts of interest.

Assessing Evidence

The Program should develop evidence-based methodologic standards for systematic reviews, including a common language for characterizing the strength of evidence. The Program should fund reviewers only if they commit to and consistently meet these standards.

* The Program should invest in advancing the scientific methods underlying the conduct of systematic reviews and, when appropriate, update the standards for the reviews it funds.

The Program should assess the capacity of the research workforce to meet the Program’s needs, and, if deemed appropriate, it should expand training opportunities in systematic review and comparative effectiveness research methods.

Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines

Groups developing clinical guidelines or recommendations should use the Program’s standards, document their adherence to the standards, and make this documentation publicly available.

To minimize bias due to conflicts of interest, panels should include a balance of competing interests and diverse stakeholders, publish conflict of interest disclosures, and prohibit voting by members with material conflicts.

Providers, public and private payers, purchasers, accrediting organizations, performance measurement groups, patients, consumers, and others should preferentially use clinical recommendations developed according to the Program standards.

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/34261/50718.aspx

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Our mishmash that we call a health care system has two general characteristics that must be rectified. First, we provide both insufficient and excessive health care services that fall far short of the goals of high quality health care and optimal health care outcomes. Second, we waste an enormous amount of funds on poor quality, ineffective care while failing to spend enough on efficient, high quality services.

John Wennberg, Elliott Fisher and their colleagues have demonstrated the high prevalence of expensive, high-tech excesses that provide no net health care benefit. Barbara Starfield and colleagues have demonstrated that higher quality and less expensive health care is delivered by systems that reinforce their primary care infrastructures. Studies by RAND have demonstrated that those receiving the best care we have to offer are being deprived of important services that they would be receiving in a high performance system. The sad status of our health care system is exemplified by the recent report demonstrating that the United States, of nineteen OECD nations, has the worst rate of amenable mortality.

The Institute of Medicine has produced several reports that should provoke action on our part. One famous report demonstrated that 18,000 U.S. residents die each year merely because they lack health insurance. We dutifully read the report and filed it in the health policy section of our libraries. That number is now 22,000 and growing.

Let’s not do that with this report. It has long been recognized that we need to know what works in health care so that we can establish guidelines for better use of our resources. It is inconceivable that a system operating under the rules of market justice could ever erect the guideposts for such reform. For this to work for all of us, we need to shift toward using the rules of social justice.

Dispensing with the superfluous rhetoric, that simply means that we need our government to use the resources of the Department of Health and Human Services to move forward with the crucial goals described in this Institute of Medicine report.

While we’re at it, let’s provide our administrators with a modern, efficient, integrated method of financing health care that would ease the task of achieving the goals in the report. Let’s enact a single payer national health program.

Report cards won't improve health care

Proposals would apply some of the mistakes made under No Child Left Behind to hospitals and doctors.

By KIP SULLlIVAN
Minneapolis StarTribune
January 7, 2008 – 6:03 PM

If you liked the school report cards required by President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, you’re just going to love the doctor and hospital report cards that will almost certainly be recommended by the two state health care commissions — the Health Care Access Commission and the grandly named Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force — due to report in the next few weeks.

The supreme irony is that these calls for medical report cards will come in the midst of a tremendous backlash against the school report cards required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Teachers, parents and leaders of both political parties are fed up with NCLB school report cards. Those report cards have not been shown to improve the quality of education for all children, but they have driven up education costs, induced teachers to “teach to the tests,” punished schools that serve an above-average number of disadvantaged children, induced some schools to get rid of troubled kids and triggered lawsuits by states and school districts against the federal government.

We can expect similar mayhem from widespread implementation of No Patient Left Behind report cards.

The best-documented example of a medical report card harming patients is the New York state report card on heart surgeons. A 2003 study said the report card led to “major adverse health consequences for sicker patients.” At least three other studies reached similar conclusions about New York’s heart surgery report card.

This illustrates a serious problem with most of the studies on medical and school report cards: They tell you only about what the report cards measure; they tell you nothing about the unintended consequences, including the decline in quality of services rendered to patients and students whose care or education was unmeasured.

The most serious indictment of medical report cards is identical to the most serious indictment of school report cards: Even though they fail to take into account factors outside of the doctor’s or teacher’s control, the report cards are nevertheless used to punish and reward doctors and teachers. To put this another way, even though we don’t know why School A or Clinic A scored poorly on a report card, we’re going to pretend the low grades were the teacher’s or doctor’s fault and punish them financially and with embarrassing publicity. Report cards used in this fashion are a prescription for disaster — for inducing good doctors and teachers to leave their profession, for punishing disadvantaged patients and students, and for wasting precious resources on “solutions” that may even make the problem worse.

My criticism of report cards should not be construed to mean I think our education and health care systems are problem-free. To the contrary, I believe both systems suffer serious problems. But what is the cause of these problems?

Report-card buffs assume defects in doctors and teachers, or clinics and schools, are the main problem. But they have no evidence for this claim. Advocates of medical report cards often state that doctors follow guidelines only half the time, but that claim is simply not supported by scientific evidence. It’s true the research indicates patients do not get the care they need half the time. But the research does not tell us why. The causes of that problem are more likely to be high rates of uninsured people, a serious nurse shortage, crowded emergency rooms, sky-high drug prices, managed care and other factors far beyond the control of clinics and hospitals.

Let’s study the reasons American patients get half the care they need, and let’s continue to do research on report cards. If by some chance it turns out report cards do more good than harm, and if it turns out spending money on them will accomplish more than spending money on other quality-improvement projects, then let’s proceed with widespread implementation of medical report cards. But until then, let’s ignore calls to endorse No Patient Left Behind.

Kip Sullivan is the health systems analyst of the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the author of “The Health Care Mess: How We Got Into It and How We’ll Get Out of It.”

Report cards won’t improve health care

Proposals would apply some of the mistakes made under No Child Left Behind to hospitals and doctors.

By KIP SULLlIVAN
Minneapolis StarTribune
January 7, 2008 – 6:03 PM

If you liked the school report cards required by President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, you’re just going to love the doctor and hospital report cards that will almost certainly be recommended by the two state health care commissions — the Health Care Access Commission and the grandly named Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force — due to report in the next few weeks.

The supreme irony is that these calls for medical report cards will come in the midst of a tremendous backlash against the school report cards required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Teachers, parents and leaders of both political parties are fed up with NCLB school report cards. Those report cards have not been shown to improve the quality of education for all children, but they have driven up education costs, induced teachers to “teach to the tests,” punished schools that serve an above-average number of disadvantaged children, induced some schools to get rid of troubled kids and triggered lawsuits by states and school districts against the federal government.

We can expect similar mayhem from widespread implementation of No Patient Left Behind report cards.

The best-documented example of a medical report card harming patients is the New York state report card on heart surgeons. A 2003 study said the report card led to “major adverse health consequences for sicker patients.” At least three other studies reached similar conclusions about New York’s heart surgery report card.

This illustrates a serious problem with most of the studies on medical and school report cards: They tell you only about what the report cards measure; they tell you nothing about the unintended consequences, including the decline in quality of services rendered to patients and students whose care or education was unmeasured.

The most serious indictment of medical report cards is identical to the most serious indictment of school report cards: Even though they fail to take into account factors outside of the doctor’s or teacher’s control, the report cards are nevertheless used to punish and reward doctors and teachers. To put this another way, even though we don’t know why School A or Clinic A scored poorly on a report card, we’re going to pretend the low grades were the teacher’s or doctor’s fault and punish them financially and with embarrassing publicity. Report cards used in this fashion are a prescription for disaster — for inducing good doctors and teachers to leave their profession, for punishing disadvantaged patients and students, and for wasting precious resources on “solutions” that may even make the problem worse.

My criticism of report cards should not be construed to mean I think our education and health care systems are problem-free. To the contrary, I believe both systems suffer serious problems. But what is the cause of these problems?

Report-card buffs assume defects in doctors and teachers, or clinics and schools, are the main problem. But they have no evidence for this claim. Advocates of medical report cards often state that doctors follow guidelines only half the time, but that claim is simply not supported by scientific evidence. It’s true the research indicates patients do not get the care they need half the time. But the research does not tell us why. The causes of that problem are more likely to be high rates of uninsured people, a serious nurse shortage, crowded emergency rooms, sky-high drug prices, managed care and other factors far beyond the control of clinics and hospitals.

Let’s study the reasons American patients get half the care they need, and let’s continue to do research on report cards. If by some chance it turns out report cards do more good than harm, and if it turns out spending money on them will accomplish more than spending money on other quality-improvement projects, then let’s proceed with widespread implementation of medical report cards. But until then, let’s ignore calls to endorse No Patient Left Behind.

Kip Sullivan is the health systems analyst of the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the author of “The Health Care Mess: How We Got Into It and How We’ll Get Out of It.”

The fantasy numbers of the Schwarzenegger/Nunez proposal

California Legislative Analyst's report on the Health Care Security and Cost Reduction Act, ABX1 1 (Nunez/Schwarzenegger compromise) and the proposed funding initiative

By Elizabeth G. Hill
Legislative Analyst

We then estimated the fiscal impact of HCR (health care reform) using two different assumptions of premiums: $250 per month per person (which is what the proponents have assumed for their estimates) and $300 per month per person because, as we explain later, there are reasons to believe that a $250 premium level may be difficult to achieve. Based on our estimates, we conclude that under the $250 premium scenario, there are sufficient revenues to support the program in the first year of operation (2010-11). However, by the fifth year of the program (2014-15), annual costs exceed revenues by $300 million.

Under the $300 premium assumption, costs exceed revenues by $122 million in the first year of operation and this shortfall increases to $1.5 billion by the fifth year of the program.

… according to the 2007 California Employer Health Benefits Survey, the average monthly premium for individuals with employer coverage was $374. In order to provide premium levels of $250 pmpm, the state will need to either negotiate a much lower rate than the average employer, or set the minimum benefit level substantially below the average employer-provided benefit level.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/hlth/health_reform/health_reform_012208.pdf

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Although this analysis was done for the compromise reform legislation currently under consideration in California (ABX1 1), the general principles apply to all comprehensive proposals that would mandate individuals to purchase private insurance plans.

Let’s look at the real numbers first. The average premium paid in California in 2007 for individuals with employer coverage was about $4500 ($374/month). Keep in mind that this is an average, so premiums were higher for roughly half of the individuals (not adjusted for skew). Those with higher premiums were likely receiving benefits that were more generous, yet still below the level expected for a single payer program. More importantly, also keep in mind that these are premiums for the comparatively healthy workforce without including higher risk individuals. So even $4500 would be a conservative estimate for the level of premiums required for universal coverage.

Those negotiating the policies behind ABX1 1 recognized the difficulty of financing private plans at premiums in that range. So they accepted the fantasy concept that the private insurers could provide us with reasonably comprehensive products at affordable premiums. They selected a premium of $3000 ($250/month), and decided that they would figure out later what they could buy with that once the program is enacted. It appears that they would have to give up one-third of the health care benefits which today’s insured workers are receiving. That’s not acceptable. We’ll use the $4500 estimate, which is still conservative.

Most reform proposals would provide either public programs (Medicaid, SCHIP) or insurance subsidies for individuals with incomes up to 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and sometimes 300% for families. No proposal suggests subsidies for those over 400% FPL. Let’s use 400% as the level at which a person would be expected to fund his/her own coverage under an individual mandate to purchase coverage. Using the 2008 federal poverty guidelines, 400% FPL for an individual is an income of $41,600. A premium of $4500 is 10.8% of income, considered by health policy analysts to be a “high burden” health expense. Add to this out-of-pocket expenses including deductibles, coinsurance, and services and products not covered by the plan, then you have worse-than-high-burden expenses.

And for families? The average employer-sponsored family coverage is now over $12,000, and 400% FPL for a family of four is $84,000. Thus the premium alone, without out-of-pocket costs, is 14.1% of income. And don’t even think about anyone in the family suffering serious illness or injury.

Why do these fools keep insisting that private health plans must be the foundation of any comprehensive reform proposal? They don’t work! Get over it!

Miracle Worker?

By Peter Freyne
7 Days – Vermont’s Independent Voice
Inside Track
1/23/08

Surprise, surprise! Rep. Topper McFaun’s health-care-reform bill — the one the powers-that-be said was absolutely, positively not coming off the committee-room wall — is going to get two days in the spotlight next week, after all!

H.304, the Vermont Hospital Security Plan, would guarantee hospital coverage for all Vermonters while cutting $60 million in annual spending. Pretty radical stuff, eh?

In what some would call a miraculous reversal of political fortune, H.304 will be on the table before the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare and the House Committee on Health Care on the afternoons of January 29 and January 30. “Expert” witnesses are being scheduled, mostly critics with six-figure salaries, we’re told, but supporters of the bill, too.


Dr. Deb Richter | Photo by Peter Freyne

Cool.

Support for the reform legislation has been building outside the Statehouse at public meetings held in small towns around the state in recent months. They’ve been hosted by Barre Republican McFaun and the “Joan of Arc” pushing health-care reform in the Green Mountains, Dr. Deb Richter.

Richter is admired even by those who don’t sing from the same health-care hymnal she does. One is Peter Sterling, executive director of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security Education Fund. That’s the outfit selling the new stopgap Catamount Health Plan to the state’s working uninsured — http://www.catamounthealth.org.

Catamount is the compromise, Jim Douglas-supported plan that offers to sell health insurance to working Vermonters who lack it. Admittedly, Dr. Richter is not a big fan of Catamount; she predicts it will experience a financial collapse within a couple years. But even Sterling concedes, “Beyond a doubt, Deb Richter has done the most in this state to make health-care reform happen. No one can question her credentials and dedication.” Dr. Deb, he said, “is so steadfast in her resolve that people feed off that energy.”

Dr. Deb “does say Catamount is good for some people,” said Sterling, but he admitted, “It just doesn’t solve the big problem, and we know that.”

Richter, who’s been promoting showings of Michael Moore’s illuminating health-care flick Sicko around the state, says that a single-payer health-care system like the rest of the civilized modern world is where we will end up . . . eventually. It’s just a matter of when, eh? And of how long we can prop up the for-profit health-insurance market and hospital CEOs making $750,000?

The big problem, of course, is that health care in our country costs twice as much as in the rest of the civilized world and isn’t as good. Also, people have to shell out $5000 to $10,000 deductibles as well as co-pays. Working people often go without. One can be “covered” by insurance and still be broke.

But, surprise, surprise. H.304 is coming off the committee room wall.

Why is this happening?

“This is happening this week,” Dr. Deb told yours truly, “because of public pressure. People realize this is actually a very decent idea and a pretty good deal for the people of Vermont.”

Richter, a Montpeculiar resident and Cambridge family practioner, calls it a bill “that would do something for everybody and give them peace of mind while actually costing less.”

The Legislative Joint Fiscal Office, she said, ran some numbers and found that, with all of us in the pool together, Vermonters would have to fork out $60 million a year less than what we’re currently spending on hospital bills. H.304 also drew more than 150 regular folks to rally at the Statehouse and lobby lawmakers. They plan to return on February 7.

Richter told “Inside Track” she is “pleasantly surprised,” but “not shocked” that the legislative health-care committees have reversed course and decided to shine some light on H.304 after all.

“The pent-up desire for something like this is overwhelming,” said Richter. “You can feel it everywhere.”

Even “behind the scenes” said the Cambridge physician, “if you talk to hospital executives who aren’t allowed to be in favor of it, you find out they really are, especially at the smaller hospitals.”

This legislation would provide a global budget for the state’s hospitals while guaranteeing every Vermonter’s hospitalization would be covered, said Dr. Richter.

“This would guarantee the hospital CEOs,” she said, that they could pay for the cost of doing business, could pay their staff. “They would not have to worry about chasing the money,” said Dr. Deb.

Interesting.

Topper’s bill, said Richter, would provide “emergency surgery” to a broken health-care system “and help everybody in the bargain.”

But in order to pay for it, “You’ve got to raise a tax,” said Richter, “and that is politically why it’s a challenge, and why they’ve been trying to avoid it like the plague.”

Four or five taxes have been suggested, she said, including a 5.5 percent payroll tax and a $220 annual fee on working folks.

But look at the upside, noted Dr. Richter. “It’s not an increase in spending [it would be a decrease in hospital spending], and everybody gets the security of hospital coverage. So why wouldn’t we do that?” she asked rhetorically.

You know why.

“People advocating for this are not politicians,” said Dr. Deb. “They’re ordinary Vermonters who are hurting and in need of help, and they need help now. They can’t wait until it’s the right time in the political world. They just can’t.”

At the moment, H.304 is not drawing rave reviews from the hospital and insurance execs with the six-figure salaries. Several will testify against the legislation at the hearings next week.

“It’s going to take a while for them to warm up to it,” Dr. Deb said, but, she predicted, “They’ll be begging for it in a few more years. They will!”

But can Vermont really lead the whole nation on health-care reform? Doesn’t it have to be a national program?

“We’ve done it in other areas,” said Dr. Deb, citing the abolition of slavery and welfare reform as two examples.

“New ideas are done at the state level all the time. This isn’t even a new idea. This is how Medicare started,” Richter noted. “They gave everyone over 65 hospital coverage and, ironically enough, they did it because hospitals were having a hard time paying their bills.”

Interesting.

Medical Research Increased Throughout Decade of PharmaCare Reference Pricing

Media Release
The University of British Columbia
Jan. 23, 2008

Ten years after BC PharmaCare implemented spending limits for equivalent prescription drugs — a policy known as reference pricing — investments in British Columbia medical research are as strong as ever and continue to increase, according to a UBC study.

The findings from the UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (CHSPR) demonstrate B.C.-based pharmaceutical R&D grew from $16 million in 1994, the year before B.C. changed its policy on drug coverage, to $50 million in 2005. This news comes one week before a special task force is to report on drug coverage policy in B.C.

“The research disproves claims that pharmaceutical cost-controls impact investment in local research and development initiatives,” says CHSPR’s Steve Morgan, lead author on the study published today in Healthcare Policy. “These potentially surprising results are actually consistent with business fundamentals: firms locate R&D based on the cost and productivity of scientific activity in a given area.”

Beginning in the 1990s, BC PharmaCare — the provincial government drug plan in B.C — refused to pay more for newer brand-name drugs unless manufacturers could prove that such products produced better results than older generic ones.

The UBC researchers studied whether pharmaceutical R&D in B.C. had fallen behind other Canadian provinces as a result of the policy change. On a per capita basis, pharmaceutical R&D grew more rapidly in B.C. than in the rest of Canada, suggesting that reference pricing did not affect R&D investments.

The UBC researchers also reviewed international economic literature and compared both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical R&D data from other provinces. The economic literature showed that the location of R&D is driven by the availability and cost of scientific infrastructure and skilled workforces, and the proximity to pharmaceutical headquarters. The data also demonstrated that B.C.-based biotechnology investment far surpassed most other provinces, putting B.C. among the top centers for biotech research worldwide.

Spending on prescription drugs in Canada topped $21 billion in 2006, or nearly $650 per capita. Prescription drug costs in B.C. are just under $570 per capita, or 12 per cent below the national average. “Reference pricing and other government policies are among the reasons for relatively low spending in B.C.,” added Morgan. “Government estimates suggest that reference pricing has saved approximately $10-million per year since its introduction in the mid 1990s.”

A 2002 study by Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board had shown that global pharmaceutical R&D is highly concentrated in specific countries. In 2000, pharmaceutical companies invested the equivalent of $30 per capita on R&D conducted in Canada, compared to $52 per capita in Germany, $75 per capita in France, $108 per capita in the UK, $118 per capita in the US, $164 per capita in Sweden and $386 per capita in Switzerland.

According to Morgan, “While B.C. can’t change its geographic location relative to dominant pharmaceutical industry centres, it has been wise to control drug spending while simultaneously investing public funds into the scientific infrastructure and personnel necessary to attract world-calibre investment into strategically focussed areas like biotechnology.”

The article is available for free at the journal’s website:
Healthcare Policy / Politiques de Santé: Longwoods Publishing
www.longwoods.com/pages.php?pageid=108&cat=247.

Cost of health initiative up $400m

Number expected to seek coverage exceeds earlier estimate

By Alice Dembner
The Boston Globe
January 24, 2008

Spending on the state’s landmark health insurance initiative would rise by more than $400 million next year, representing one of the largest increases in the $28.2 billion state budget the governor proposed yesterday.

The biggest driver of the cost increase is projected growth in the number of people signing up for state-subsidized insurance, which now far exceeds earlier estimates.

State and federal taxpayers are expected to bear nearly all of the additional cost.

Although the price tag for the initiative is ballooning, the governor yesterday reaffirmed the state’s commitment to ensuring that nearly every resident is covered.

“We have fully-funded healthcare reform,” Governor Deval Patrick said at a news conference. Patrick listed the initiative among several programs started by previous administrations that he supports.

But the long-term cost of the insurance initiative continues to concern pol icy makers and analysts, who are worried that it may become unaffordable.

“These increases are more than anticipated, so we absolutely have to find ways to hold down the rate of growth in future years,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog that has supported the initiative.

This year the state is expected to exceed the initial budget for the health insurance initiative by about $245 million, and next year’s budget would boost spending by another $400 million.

The budget now goes to the Legislature, which last year accepted the governor’s recommendations on funding the health insurance initiative. A final budget is expected to be approved by the end of June.

The state’s top budget official, Leslie Kirwan, said yesterday that projecting costs for the health insurance initiative is difficult because the state is in “uncharted territory.”

“We’re ultimately working with a lot of uncertainty about the number of uninsured that remain out there in the population,” said Kirwan, secretary of administration and finance and chairwoman of the state panel overseeing the health insurance initiative. “Every significant decision we’ve made in healthcare reform” that draws on enrollment projections is based on “our best educated guess.”

The administration is currently working to develop a better way to count the uninsured.

When the law mandating that nearly all Massachusetts residents have health insurance was signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney in April 2006, the state estimated that about 400,000 residents were uninsured.

Census estimates of the uninsured were far higher – about 650,000 – and many independent observers suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Officials had projected that about 140,000 would enroll in the new state-financed insurance plan, called Commonwealth Care, which provides full or partial subsidies.

But by the end of last month, 169,000 people had signed up for Commonwealth Care, and the state is now estimating enrollment will reach 225,000 by June 2009, the close of the next fiscal year.

More than 70,000 have obtained Medicaid coverage since the law passed expanding eligibility, and the cost for covering those additional people, plus rate increases for hospitals, doctors, and others, is projected to grow significantly above this year’s spending.

Those who don’t qualify for subsidies or Medicaid are expected to buy private insurance or remain uninsured. Illegal immigrants are not subject to the insurance mandate or eligible for state insurance, but they can qualify for free care.

When the initiative was approved, the state expected that over time there would be a significant drop in spending on healthcare for the uninsured. The initial funding plan counted on shifting a significant portion of those “free-care” costs to pay for insurance subsidies.

But that shift is not going to happen to any large extent in 2009, according to the proposed budget.

To fund the overall increases, the state is counting on getting about half from the federal government. But officials have just begun negotiations on how much Massachusetts will actually receive.

Patrick said he is optimistic about federal support, but acknowledged that “nothing is certain.”

Separately, the state is counting on $5 million in revenue from businesses that don’t provide insurance for their employees, down from the $24 million included in this year’s budget that has not materialized.

Alice Dembner can be reached at Dembner@globe.com.