PNHP

So you think you're insured?

So you think you're insured?

Former Members Sue Blue Cross
By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times
March 28, 2006

The state’s largest health insurer systematically – and illegally – cancels coverage retroactively for people who need expensive care, 10 former Blue Cross members claimed in lawsuits filed Monday.

The suits, filed simultaneously in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, allege that Blue Cross of California and Blue Cross Life & Health operate a “retroactive review department” devoted to finding ways the company can escape its obligations to members who become seriously sick.

“Blue Cross’ conduct is particularly reprehensible because it was part of a repeated corporate practice and not an isolated occurrence,” according to the suits.

Blue Cross, which is owned by Indianapolis-based insurance giant WellPoint Inc., declined to comment on the suits.

The suits involve health policies purchased by individuals, not group or employer-sponsored coverage. To obtain such policies, applicants must fill out a health-history questionnaire.

According to the suits, each patient filled out the application honestly, was accepted for coverage and paid premiums for months before being diagnosed with a serious condition of which the patient was previously unaware.

In each case, the suits allege, Blue Cross didn’t look into the member’s medical history until an expensive claim came in. Then, the plaintiffs contend, Blue Cross extensively scrutinized their records looking for something that had not been disclosed and seized on whatever discrepancies they found to justify revocation of the policy, even if the inconsistencies were inadvertent or irrelevant to the claim.

Yenny Shu of Los Angeles, for instance, says her coverage was canceled after she was diagnosed with breast cancer at 46. In its letter rescinding her coverage, Blue Cross allegedly told her that she failed to disclose her exposure to the hepatitis B virus when she was a child.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bluecross28mar28,1,3086059.story

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

If we had universal national health insurance, prior medical history would never be an issue as to whether an individual would be eligible for health care benefits. Everyone would always have coverage, throughout life.

Instead, our politicians continue to support policies designed to promote and protect the private insurance industry. Does this industry warrant that kind of support? They have failed in delivering crucial, fundamental insurance goals: universal risk pooling and adequate protection against financial loss when faced with medical needs. Tens of millions are left with no health insurance, and many more face major debt in spite of their coverage.

As if failure weren’t enough, today’s message shows us that the administrators of the private insurance plans manifest one more characteristic that should make us decide to dismiss them as stewards of our health care dollars. They are evil people!

(evil… 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful…
The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition)

Cigna's Custom Benefit Builder dismantles coverage

Cigna to allow consumers to customize their health plans
By Jonathan G. Bethely
American Medical News
April 3, 2006

Cigna’s Custom Benefit Builder allows members to personalize various aspects of their coverage, from co-payment and coinsurance levels to deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, to whether the plan includes a health savings account. Once the appropriate selections are made, the Web-based tool then calculates how much the plan will cost and allows the member to enroll in what is essentially a traditional PPO or HMO plan.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/04/03/bisd0403.htm

Cigna’s Custom Benefit Builder:
http://www.cigna.com/health/employer/medical/cbb/basics.html
http://www.cigna.com/health/employer/medical/cbb/cbb_fact_sheet.pdf

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

What a great way to bring down the high cost of health insurance. The healthy family with negligible health care needs can choose the highest deductible ($50,000?), maximum coinsurance (50%?), and maximum out-of-pocket maximum ($250,000?). Cigna could probably offer that at a premium that a family living at 400% of the poverty level could afford. What a wonderful program. Cigna is finally offering a product that has made health insurance affordable.

But what about the future? Suppose the family develops significant medical needs. Although they have an affordable insurance product, health care itself would not be affordable.

Not to worry. Our health insurance innovators can come up with a new product. They can sell you an insurance product that will guarantee you the right to purchase insurance that would actually pay for health care should the need arise. Obviously the premiums would be very low because it would not be providing any coverage at all until a decision were to be made to enact the plan. Instead of health insurance, this plan would be “insurance insurance.”

So why haven’t the insurance innovators come up with this plan? The problem is that the care for the family with needs will have to be funded. There are two options of doing this. One option would be to step up the premium to cover the services required, once the need arises, replacing “insurance insurance” with truly comprehensive insurance. Since these plans would be enacted only by families with significant needs, this concentration of high-risk, high-cost individuals would require premiums that might consume the families’ entire incomes. That won’t work.

The other option would be to adjust the premium for “insurance insurance’ to cover the needs of every family that would eventually develop significant problems. Uh oh! Since these costs have not been covered by the affordable Custom Benefit Builder plan, the premium for “insurance insurance” would have to cover it. How ironic. To make these programs work, the innovators would have to come up with an “insurance insurance” plan that provides no benefits, but has a premium that covers the losses for all high-cost patients. If all Custom Benefit Builder participants were mandated also to purchase “insurance insurance” then the premium would be close to current comprehensive plans. If Custom Benefit Builder participants were allowed to decline “insurance insurance” then the premiums would be even higher for those who do purchase it, plus the family without “insurance insurance” would be bankrupt if faced with significant medical costs.

Of course, all of this is silly. But new insurance innovations that dramatically shift the costs of health care precisely to those in need are much more than silly; they’re tragic!

But at least the Cigna executives would have a good laugh on the way to the bank.

Join David Broder in supporting the Citizens' Health Care Working Group survey

Broder on Politics
Live Discussion with Post Columnist David S. Broder
washingtonpost.com
March 24, 2006

San Juan Capistrano, Calif. (Don McCanne): Do you believe that the report to be produced by the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group (Wyden and Hatch legislation in the MMA) and submitted to the President and Congress will have any impact in moving forward the process of health care reform?

David S. Broder: I would like to think so. The crisis in the health care system is obvious when you look at what it is doing to family budgets, to business’s bottom line and to the budgets of state and local government–let alone the fact that we have millions living uninsured. The need for action is obvious–but so are the difficulties of finding a comprehensive solution. I hope this report will be a spur to action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/16/DI2006031601132.html

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

If you have not already provided your input into the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group survey, you should do so ASAP. Your preferences on health care reform will be included in the report to be submitted to President Bush and to Congress. Several committees in Congress will hold hearings on this report.

If you do not have time to respond now, keep this link to access the site at the very next moment that you do have time to respond. Do not put it off.
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/

Particularly important is the Public Comment Center, especially the Health Care Poll, and What’s Important to You?
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/comment.php

Below are my answers (Don McCanne) to the four questions in What’s Important to You? If you disagree, you should respond to be certain that your views are also represented. If you agree, you should state your views in your own terms since they are more interested in individual responses rather than an orchestrated campaign.

What’s Important to You?

Question: What concerns you most about health care in America today?

Answer: The failure to provide comprehensive, high quality health care services for everyone when we are already spending enough to do so.

Question: Our current way of paying for health care includes payments by individuals, employers, and government. Are there any changes you think should be made to this system?

Answer: We should replace our highly inefficient, fragmented method of funding health care with a single, public system of social insurance.

Question: What trade-offs do you think the American public is willing to make in either benefits or financing to ensure access to affordable, high quality health care?

Answer: Since we are already spending enough, we don’t have to exclude reasonable, beneficial services from coverage. The primary trade-off for a public insurance program is that we would have to be diligent in preventing perverse political attacks on the system.

Question: What is your single most important recommendation to make to improve health care for all Americans?

Answer: Adopt a single-payer system of national health insurance.

Decline in physician charity care

A Growing Hole in the Safety Net: Physician Charity Care Declines Again
By Peter J. Cunningham and Jessica H. May
Center for Studying Health System Change
March 2006

Continuing a decade-long trend, the proportion of U.S. physicians providing charity care dropped to 68 percent in 2004-05 from 76 percent in 1996-97, according to a national study from the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). The ongoing decline in physician charity care is alarming given the increase in the number of uninsured people, particularly during the first half of the decade. Declines in charity care were observed across most major specialties, practice types, practice income levels and geographic regions. Increasing financial pressures and changes in practice arrangements may account in part for the continuing decrease in physician charity care.

http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/826/

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

Grocery stores do not provide free food for those unable to pay. Landlords do not provide free housing for those unable to pay. Department stores do not provide free clothing for those unable to pay. Health insurers do not provide free insurance for those unable to pay. Yet physicians often do provide free health care to those unable to pay. It is one of the reasons why practitioners of the healing arts are held in high esteem.

The decline in physician charity care is very troubling news, but does this mean that there is a decline in physician altruism? Though altruism stems from within, it is molded by externalities. The health care environment is evolving.

Physicians within integrated health systems are offered little opportunity to provide charity care within their systems. Physicians in larger group practices have less influence in decisions over the level of charity care to be provided by their group. The growth in community health centers offers a release valve allowing primary care physicians to rely more heavily on paying patients to meet their ever-increasing overhead expenses. The health care environment has become less conducive to germinating the seeds of altruism.

Changing the health care environment would be more effective than trying to manipulate physician ethics. A national health insurance program would eliminate the need for physician charity care. Need we say more?

J. Gruber on rationing and national health insurance

America’s Health Insurance Plans
2006 National Policy Forum
3/7/2006

Prospects and Implications of Tax Policy for the Health Care Industry Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D., professor of economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; co-editor, Journal of Health Economics; and associate editor, Journal of Public Economics

Carlton Dennis: Just a follow-up question, a different question on rationing. You mentioned that, and earlier speakers talked about universal health care. What’s your view on that? I know at the end of your talk you mentioned that we probably would have to go to some type of rationing.

Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.: There are two questions there. Let me start with the second one, which is: do we need to do rationing? I don’t actually believe we do. Basically, I think what health economists have really concluded is two things which at first seem contradictory but in fact aren’t, which is: first of all – and this conclusion is most associated with the work of my colleague David Cutler at Harvard – first of all, over time, our health care dollars have been effective spent on average. That is, no one wants to have 1950s health care at 1950s prices. The health care we’re buying today is much better than it used to be. And if you use typical values of quality of life years and things like that, on net, we’re better off now than we were, even though we’re spending more. At the same time, I could, today, look back and say, “Of the 15 percent of GDP we spend on health care, I bet we could knock five percent of it out and people would be no less healthy.”

Now, how are those two things consistent? They’re consistent because it’s easy to look backwards. It’s hard to look forward. So it’s consistent because looking backwards, we can say, “Gee, a lot of this stuff we do is wasteful. Let’s get rid of it.” But we don’t know, of the new innovations, which are going to be wasteful and which aren’t. Rationing, putting a cap on, is just as likely to cut out the positive innovations as it is the negative innovations. And that’s the problem. In other words, if we rationed in 1950 and said, “Health care should not be more than five percent of GDP,” we would be much worse off as a country today. Likewise, if we today said, “Health care should not be more than 15 percent of GDP,” I predict we’d be much worse off as a country in 2100. I think we need to find another solution, other ways to try to get at this than rationing because I think rationing is just too blunt an instrument, given the overall positive advances.

Now, that said, universal national health insurance, there are two components to that. One is universal coverage. Universal coverage can be done making all of you happy. You can have universal coverage for the private health insurance industry. That’s what we’re proposing in Massachusetts. There would be a central pool through which private insurers would offer policies. But, we would mandate that everyone in the state be covered. Okay? So that’s universal coverage with the private insurance sector.

National health insurance means wiping you all out. I just personally don’t see that as even worth discussing, for political reasons. As well, I think there are some real economic arguments. At least I think there are economic cases to be made on either side. But the truth is, I just don’t think, politically, we’re just ever going to be in a place where we can seriously consider national health insurance, Canadian-style health insurance. I just don’t think it’s worth our brain cells worrying about it.

Dan Leonard: Thank you for that, by the way.

Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.: Well, I’ve made enough enemies today.

Dan Leonard: Yeah, right.

Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.: I figured I’d make a few friends. [Laughter]

Dan Leonard: Redeeming yourself.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/
030706_ahip_taxpolicy_transcript.pdf

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

On rationing:

In yesterday’s Quote of the Day, Marmor and Mashaw stated, “…social insurance programs have been and can be adjusted over time to meet fiscal, demographic, and technological challenges. They are not dinosaurs from another age, but evolving programs whose core principles can be expressed through a number of adaptations.”

Gruber stated, “I think we need to find another solution, other ways to try to get at this than rationing because I think rationing is just too blunt an instrument, given the overall positive advances.”

In the single payer model, the global budget for health care is adjusted for inflation, demographic changes, and the introduction of reasonable, beneficial technological innovations. One of the more important reasons that we want to continue to support technological innovation is that new technology theoretically promises higher quality at a lower cost, often replacing out-dated and more expensive technology. A major problem is that some of the technology is new, and, instead of replacing old technology, it expands the range of diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities.

This is precisely why we need a monopsonistic, single-payer purchaser of health care. We would be in a position to demand value for new technology. If it increases the health care budget, then we would want to be certain that it is worth the increased spending. Another reason is that a monopsonistic purchaser would be in a position to finally address the “Wennberg variations,” by reducing allocations for non-beneficial excesses in technological services that have been well documented.

In framing the debate on reform, we should walk away from arguments over the “blunt instrument of rationing,” and begin to discuss how we can better spend our health care dollars.

On the politics of national health insurance:

Professor Gruber was certainly an audience pleaser at this national meeting of the private insurance industry. He reassured them that they will continue to thrive, using the stale political-feasibility argument. He may be protecting the insurers’ brain cells by telling them not to worry about it, but we can assure them that they have plenty to worry about. The Quote of the Day two days ago on medical-loss ratios led to this conclusion: “You would think that anyone with a modicum of business sense would believe that keeping (the private insurance industry) in charge is no longer feasible.”

For those interested, previous Quote of the Day messages are posted at https://pnhp.org/news/quote_of_the_day.php

Marmor and Mashaw on social insurance

Understanding Social Insurance: Fairness, Affordability, and the ‘Modernization’ of Social Security and Medicare
By Theodore R. Marmor and Jerry L. Mashaw
Health Affairs
March 21, 2006

In our view, the fate of Social Security and Medicare should be neither stasis because of political gridlock nor transformative change because of anxieties about the future. Both are crucial parts of the U.S. social contract and respond to deeply held notions of fairness and collective responsibility. But they should not be immune to sensible adjustment to reflect changed circumstances. To see why, we need to understand why basic social insurance arrangements have been so remarkably durable both in the United States and elsewhere.

The short answer is, first, that the core features of social insurance arrangements are both economically sensible and socially and politically acceptable. Social insurance is part of the essential social glue that holds an individualistic polity together and that makes the economic risks of a market economy tolerable. Second, however fundamental to the U.S. social fabric, social insurance programs have been and can be adjusted over time to meet fiscal, demographic, and technological challenges. They are not dinosaurs from another age, but evolving programs whose core principles can be expressed through a number of adaptations.

But some mutations are species-altering. In our view, much of the current enthusiasm for “modernizing” Social Security and Medicare has precisely that species-altering ambition. These reforms emphasize not protection against common economic risks in a changing world, but individualized risk bearing through increased responsibility and rewards for personal choice and increased “marketization” of social provision. We do not deny for a moment the value of personal choice, individual responsibility, and market competition. Indeed, supporting a society based on a viable vision of those values is the fundamental function of social insurance. But social insurance programs designed to maximize personal choice and promote market competition will simply not deliver adequate social insurance protections. To see why, we need to explore the basic structure of social insurance and its capacity to face contemporary challenges-that is, its capacity to modernize while continuing to play its fundamental social role.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.25.w114

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

Even if you are already an authority on social insurance, this article is well worth reading. Marmor and Mashaw provide an effective framework on which to have a rational dialogue on social insurance. You will not only be able to explain why we should and how we can preserve the social insurance roles of Social Security and Medicare, but you will also be able to extrapolate the principles and thereby be able to explain why we need a program of social insurance to cover health care for everyone.

Even if you are not a subscriber to Health Affairs, for the next two weeks this article can be downloaded free of charge. You should do so now.

Medical-loss ratios of largest for-profit insurers

Health plans make more, spend less in 2005
By Jonathan G. Bethely
American Medical News
March 6, 2006

If physicians needed any more indication of tightening reimbursement, how about this – not only did profits for the biggest health plans go up last year, but those plans also continued to cut the percentage of revenue they spend on care.

The medical-cost ratio – also called the medical-loss ratio or medical-care ratio – is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. That ratio, simply, is the percentage of dollars the companies spend on health care.

Whereas 10 years ago many plans had medical-cost ratios in the high 80s or 90s, now the highest percentage among large, publicly traded health insurers is Health Net, at 83.9%. Aetna, which had a medical-cost ratio well into the 90s when CEO John Rowe, MD, took over in 2000, recorded a ratio of 76.9% in 2005, Dr. Rowe’s final full year before his retirement. That was the lowest medical-cost ratio for the nation’s largest publicly traded plans.

Medical-loss ratios for 2005 (Source: Company 10-K, year-end filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission):

76.9% – Aetna
82.3% – Cigna
83.9% – Health Net
83.2% – Humana
78.6% – UnitedHealth Group
80.6% – WellPoint

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/03/06/bisd0306.htm

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

Clearly, one-fifth of health insurance premium dollars are not being spent on health care, but are consumed by the insurers. What does not show up in these numbers is the cost of the administrative burden that these insurers place on the health care delivery system. The billing and insurance related functions for physicians and hospitals burn up another 12 percent or so of the premium dollar (Kahn et al, Health Affairs, Nov/Dec 2005). Add these together, and that is about one-third of the premium dollar.

We are very concerned about the continued escalation of health care costs. New technology and pharmaceuticals are adding to the spending on physicians, hospitals, laboratories and other health care services. We fret about these expenditures within the two-thirds of the insurance premium that actually makes it down to the health care system, yet we are ignoring the one-third that is wasted on administrative services that provide no health benefit for the patient.

We are enriching this industry for providing coverage for the healthy workforce and their young, healthy families, and for covering the healthy sub-sector of the individual insurance market. We taxpayers are footing the bill for the population subgroups with greater health care needs.

We certainly are not receiving much value from the insurers – letting them have the easy stuff at a very high cost. Wouldn’t it be more logical to target their waste, rather than slowing spending growth by making health care unaffordable for those who do have needs?

Why do we keep hearing that eliminating this industry isn’t feasible? You would think that anyone with a modicum of business sense would believe that keeping them in charge is no longer feasible.

Kinsley's reform we should try before we go single payer

Before We Go ‘Single Payer’: Insurance Reforms We Should Try
By Michael Kinsley
The Washington Post
March 17, 2006

The small fraction of people involved in auto accidents in any year is responsible for almost all of the cost of auto insurance. You insure against the risk of being in that group.

What’s different about health insurance is the opposite: Much of it isn’t insurance at all but a subsidy. The value of the subsidy is the difference between what the individual pays and what the insurance would cost in the free market. If people were buying health care or insurance with their own money, they might or might not spend too much — whatever “too much” is — but no one else would need to care if they did.

A subsidy has to take from someone and give to someone else. Everybody can’t subsidize everybody. Or, to put it another way, society cannot give the average citizen better health care than the average citizen would choose to buy on his or her own.

There are the makings of a deal here. Better-off or better-insured people could be told, individually or as a group: Give up your health care subsidy and you may opt out of any rationing-type restrictions that the system imposes. And if a few smaller reforms like that don’t work, maybe it will be time for single-payer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601311.html

Comment: By Don McCanne, M.D.

What are the policy issues behind Kinsley’s proposed reforms? The wealthy are already free of rationing-type restrictions since they can purchase whatever care they want. The only real substance in his proposal seems to be that tax policy should not be used to subsidize the purchase of insurance. That would partially address only one flaw in our current system of funding health care: the regressive tax policies of employer-sponsored plans.

We don’t need to rehash here all of the flawed policies of our current system, which Kinsley fails to address, to understand that the $2.1 trillion that we are already spending is more than enough to provide comprehensive health care benefits for everyone.

Aren’t you growing weary of the before-we-go-to-single-payer-let’s-try-(insert-deficient-policy-here) approach to reform?

Health care reform does too little, say activists

Times Argus
Originally published Feb 15, 2006

MONTPELIER ā€” Even as the House Health Care Committee worked inside on a health reform bill that would provide care to more Vermonters, a group of activists stood on the Statehouse steps demanding a more comprehensive approach.

Members of a group dubbed Concerned Vermonters for Universal Health Care complain that the plan being written by the committee falls far short of the goal of ensuring that every resident of the state has access to quality care at an affordable price.

They accused the committee of caving in to Gov. James Douglas, who has advocated a much more modest approach to expanding access and reducing costs, in the hope of enact-ing something this year.

“They’ve crafted a bill that (Douglas) would have no choice but to sign,” said Deb Richter, a physician who supports a taxpayer-financed single payer system similar to how health care is funded and delivered in Canada.

That’s a sentiment shared by many critics of the House’s work this year. Critics believe the House has drafted an initiative similar in approach to the governor’s that will not achieve the priorities that Democrats set out in the elections of 2004.

The bill would expand insurance coverage to some of the people who do not currently have it. But it does not purport to cover everyone and it still may not meet with the governor’s approval because Democrats have made it clear that they will need to tap a tax source to pay for it. Douglas has said he does not believe there’s any need for new taxes to pay for health care.

Democrats respond that his plan, which would require people to take insurance provided by their employers if it’s available, is little different from a tax. It would cost an estimated $45 million to those employers.

Advocates for health care reform say neither the House nor the governor is getting it right. “The House bill may help a few Vermonters. But all Vermonters need help,” read one sign held by the roughly 100 activists who demonstrated outside the Statehouse in a brisk wind on Tuesday.

It is true that the Health Care Committee’s bill would not require people who do not currently have health insurance to buy it. But it was designed to make insurance more affordable by creating a tiered system of premiums based on people’s income. The committee’s goal is to draw people into the insurance system through the subsidized premiums.

The committee also is aiming to improve the care that is delivered by adopting the governor’s chronic care initiative, which coordinates the care given to people suffering from heart disease, diabetes, and other types of ongoing diseases.

The chronic care initiative would be expanded to state employees and people enrolled in public health insurance.

Although critics welcome the initiative, they argue that much more needs to be done if the bill can accurately be described as health care reform.

Dr. Marvin Malek of Barre said a Canadian-style system would be real reform and he and others at the rally urged the Health Care Committee to continue working until they were able to get closer to such an ideal.

“We have to keep letting the Legislature know we can do better,” he said.

Critics challenge health reform plan

By Nancy Remsen
Free Press (Burlington, VT)
Originally Published February 15, 2006

MONTPELIER — Dr. Deborah Richter hoisted a megaphone and addressed a group of 50 supporters of universal health care gathered Tuesday outside the Statehouse to protest the health reform plan drafted by the House Health Committee.

“Go back to the drawing board and consider a different bill,” Richter bellowed toward the windows of the state capitol. She and the other demonstrators object to the limited scope of the committee’s reform plan, which calls for expanding state-subsidized health coverage to many of the state’s uninsured and promoting better management of chronic diseases among all Vermonters.

The recently organized Concerned Vermonters for a Universal Health Care System prefers the bill the House Health Committee recommended last year, which set out a roadmap to move all Vermonters to a government-financed health care system. Gov. Jim Douglas derailed the broader reform proposal with a veto last spring.

The House Health Committee expects to wrap up work on its new health reform bill this week.

Richter, who has a family medicine practice in Cambridge, blamed politics for the committee’s scaled-back proposal: House Democrats are trying to accommodate the demands of the Republican governor and avoid another veto in an election year.

“They have crafted a bill he would have no choice but to sign,” she told the crowd.

Inside the Statehouse, however, representatives of the Douglas administration found plenty to criticize in the latest draft of the House Health Committee’s bill.

Joshua Slen, director of the state Office of Vermont Health Access, posed the biggest challenge to the bill when he questioned the way the committee proposed to pay for the new Catamount Health program for the uninsured and the bill’s chronic care initiatives. The cost of the proposal isn’t set because the committee continues to study options that change how many uninsured could be expected to enroll.

The House bill specifies that the new programs would be paid for in part with dollars the state will receive under its new agreement with the federal government for funding Medicaid. This is the funding source Slen questioned.

Under the Global Commitment for Health agreement, the federal government has promised Vermont $4.7 billion over five years for state-subsidized health care. State officials project the Medicaid will require at least $4.2 billion in those years. Slen said the administration has plans for another $300 million, and he wants to hold at least $100 million in reserve in case Medicaid costs are higher than projected. The committee has been considering using $70 million from this fund.

“My recommendation to the governor has been we can’t be in a position that eats into that cushion,” Slen said.

Some committee members weren’t convinced of the administration’s math or Slen’s conclusion that their plan would consume the cushion. They had their own financial experts reviewing the numbers.

A parade of other witnesses, mostly advocates with special interests, offered the committee their comments on the bill.

“You did a good job setting the stage to move forward,” said Richard Davis, executive director of the Campaign for Health and a registered nurse.

He praised the comprehensive health coverage that would be offered to the uninsured and the plan to better manage treatment of people with chronic diseases such diabetes.

Davis questioned the requirement that someone who has insurance now would have to go a year without insurance before becoming eligible for Catamount Health. “I don’t understand that, if you want to promote access.”

Dr. Marvin Malek questioned the committee’s assumptions about how much money might be saved with the bill. “I don’t see administrative savings,” he said, noting that it wasn’t the single-payer system he advocated.

“If you are expecting there will be a lot of savings because of chronic care management, I’m not optimistic,” Malek added. He and others warned the system might not reap financial benefits from revamping chronic care for years.

Richter addressed the committee, too, before joining the noon rally. She told the panel they were repeating the mistake made by lawmakers in the 1990s by recommending repairs rather than reform of a broken health care system.

“Nothing in the bill offers cost relief in the near future,” she said. “It will result in more uninsured. And the bill makes no provisions for the under-insured.”

The committee will consider today how to react to all the comments it heard about the bill.

Vice Chairman Malcolm Severance, R-Colchester, observed late Tuesday, “We heard a lot today we have to listen to very carefully.”

Health care: the single payer vision

Letter
Louisville Courier-Journal
Friday, February 17, 2006

America has wonderful hospitals, clinics, and doctors. We conduct brilliant research. But there is a missing link: access to health services.

Some day, however, financial barriers to health care in America will be removed, and, finally, we will provide health care for all. Every resident will have affordable, high quality comprehensive health care. Infant mortality rates will fall, immunization rates and life expectancy will rise, and the World Health Organization will rank the efficiency of American health care first, instead of 37th. Health care will be disengaged from employment, freeing millions of health care hostages to pursue jobs they want, rather than jobs they take for health benefits.

Self-employment and entrepreneurship will become financially feasible. American business and manufacturing again will be competitive with countries that have national health plans. Without health benefits as a hiring issue, small businesses will compete equally with large ones for good employees. Medical bankruptcies — now half of all bankruptcies, and especially affecting the middle class — will vanish. Ninety-five per cent of Americans will pay less for health care than they do now.

Malpractice issues will diminish. Physicians will spend more time with patients and people will choose physicians and hospitals freely, rather than being forced into a market network. Money will not change hands between patients and providers, again improving doctor-patient relationships and leading to fewer claims. Since 60 percent of current settlement costs are for future medical care and everyone already will have medical care, settlements will go down and professional liability insurance costs will go down proportionately. Overhead in doctors’ offices will plummet because of vastly simplified billing to a single payer. Primary care physicians will be valued and reimbursed accordingly.

There will be no Medicaid crises, no unreimbursed care for doctors, hospitals or other providers, and no cost-shifting. Health-related issues associated with natural disasters, such as hurricane Katrina, or pandemic influenza, will be managed seamlessly.

A national electronic medical record system will detect medical errors quickly. Half a million Kentuckians are uninsured, 85,000 in Jefferson County. The dire straights of unhealthy Kentuckians have been dramatically portrayed in The Courier-Journal. Uninsured people forego doctor visits and necessary medicine; they postpone medical attention until illness is far advanced, more expensive to treat, and some cannot be helped.

Eighteen thousand Americans — six 9/11 bombings — die every year because they cannot afford medical care.

Privatization of traditional Medicare is a Trojan horse bringing more pain to a critically ill American health care system. Health insurance companies increase profits by raising premiums, reducing benefits, shifting costs to consumers, and providing coverage for only the healthiest.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act specifically prohibits negotiation for volume discounts and requires private administration. It is an example of the difficulties of mixing profit-taking with health care delivery. It provides lucrative profits to insurance and pharmaceutical industries; but a high cost is borne by the American people. Dr. Oliver Fein, New York City internist, says: “I was outraged when one of my patients required hospital admission after stopping her medications, because she couldn’t afford the $45.57 co-payment demanded by [her new plan].” Health Savings Accounts, tax credits, consumer-directed health care, voucher sytems, etc. are Band-Aids for a failed experiment in health care delivery; they cannot control costs effectively, and they will not provide comprehensive universal affordable health care.

We have the highest health costs in the world, more than twice that of other developed nations that provide care to all of their citizens. We spend more, but we get less. We have the money now to provide excellent health care for everyone. A bill in the U.S Congress, HR 676, describes the details of a single payer national plan. The majority of American citizens support a national health program, and data indicate that the majority of physicians do so as well. We need non-profit single payer health care reform now.

GARRETT ADAMS, M.D., M.P.H.
State Coordinator
Physicians for a National Health Program — Kentucky
Louisville 40206

Louisville Courier-Journal: Readers' Forum

Originally published February 13, 2006

READERS’ FORUM

Providing health care for everyone: ‘Everybody in, nobody out’

I’m writing to thank state Rep. Joni Jenkins and her colleagues who raised their voices in support of HCR 40, a resolution that urges Congress to pass House Resolution 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which provides a system of universal single-payer health care insurance.

HR 676 is a publicly funded, privately delivered plan to address the current immoral system, which rations care to those who can afford it. The health care meltdown is accelerating, threatening families, stifling job growth and squeezing funds for education and housing. The solution is HR 676: Everybody in, nobody out.

The deep-pocketed interests that profit from the current collapsing system demonize the single-payer alternative as a form of socialized medicine, which it is not. The current system is bankrupting families, but not industry CEOs and their collaborators.
Ten years ago, Taiwan moved from a system similar to our current system to a single-payer model. Coverage was expanded from less than 60 percent to 97 percent of Taiwan’s residents. What’s the deal? Taiwan can figure this out, but we can’t?

Our current system leaves 46 million out, and millions more underinsured. George Washington wrote: “The admiration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.” Rather than shuffle and make excuses, Jenkins and HCR 40 supporters have taken a giant step forward for justice.

MARK McKINLEY
Louisville 40204

‘The right thing to do’

Thank you for the Jan. 30 article on single-payer health insurance. Most everybody knows someone who needs medical treatment but cannot afford it.

Before thinking that health insurance for all Americans is too good to be true, read U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ bill, HR 676, which outlines the financing. With the money that can be saved from the administrative costs and advertising of privately owned insurance companies, the U.S. government could provide health care services to all, as do Britain and Canada.

Federal and state funding of existing health care programs would involve a modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3 percent, a 5 percent health tax on the top 5 percent of income earners, and a small tax on stock and bond transfers.

HR 676 would give us more ownership for health care. We could afford it and would be able to choose our own doctors. Morally, it is the right thing to do, and it makes good business sense. . . .

If you want this, ask your Kentucky state representative and senator to vote yes on HRC 40, which endorses the U.S. House bill, HR 676.

JILL HARMER
Louisville 40205

‘We’re all in this together’

In the Jan. 9 Readers’ Forum, single-payer health insurance was endorsed by a local Democratic club. As major corporations . . . crash under their commitments to employees, health insurance and pensions are of equal interest to Republicans.

Thanks to economy of scale, the cost to employers to provide health insurance was less than equivalent salaries, and it guaranteed a healthier workforce. Employees, in turn, bought it as a money-saver.

Today, our national piecemeal attempts to provide health insurance through employers are collapsing. The wonderfully proficient medical treatment available has made the gamble of health care insurance a game too expensive to get into.

Originally, employee pensions looked profitable if company profits increased to cover the eventual cost or if valued employees worked longer to collect the deferred compensation. Employees trusted management to hold part of their pay as savings for old age.

Today, so many companies are going bankrupt or ending up without the projected resources that even the U.S. Treasury can’t cover the needed pensions. . . . Republicans and Democrats, we’re all in this together.

PRUDENCE TODD MOFFETT
Masonic Home, Ky. 40041