Dr. John Ross Speaks Out on Marketplace
Listen to the Commentary
AMA opposes single payer health system
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:46:12 -0700
Subject: qotd: AMA opposes single payer health system
American Medical Association
August 12, 2003
AMA opposes single-payer health system
Reiterating the AMA’s position on health insurance, AMA President Donald J.
Palmisano, MD, today said, “A solution to the problem of the uninsured is
desperately needed – but a single-payer health care system is not the answer.”
The AMA strongly disagrees with an article arguing for a single-payer health
care system published in the Aug. 13 issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), which is editorially independent from the AMA,
and has long-standing policy opposing a single-payer health care system. A
JAMA editorial accompanying the single-payer opinion piece encourages
the exploration and discussion of various new solutions.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2403-7951.html
The AMA proposal for reform:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/expandinghealthinsur.pdf
Comment: The AMA proposal eliminates employer-sponsored coverage and provides tax credits to “empower individuals and families to choose and control their own coverage.” They propose “promoting a health insurance market that is affordable for individual and family coverage.” They concede that this market model will not result in universal coverage, but instead adopted simulation models that define “full coverage” as 95% of the population.
Rashi Fein, PhD, in the editorial cited by the AMA, called not only for a discussion of alternatives; he called for those who do not join in support
of the Physicians’ Proposal to “develop and propose something better,more
effective, and with fewer untoward side effects.” The AMA proposal is worse,
less effective, and has greater untoward side effects.
The AMA needs to go back to the start of the policy prices by first accepting the essential goals of universality, comprehensiveness,accessibility and affordability. We challenge their policymakers to come up with any model that meets these goals other than a universal, publicly funded, publicly administered, single payer system of social insurance. But we are not going to wait much longer; we need reform now!
How One Hospital Benefited on Questionable Operations
This article from NYTimes.com
How One Hospital Benefited on Questionable Operations
August 12, 2003
By KURT EICHENWALD
Could it possibly be, Dr. Patrick Campbell wondered, that doctors at his hospital in Redding, Calif., were cracking open the chests of perfectly healthy people?
Dr. Campbell, an internist, first suspected trouble in Redding Medical Center’s cardiology program soon after joining the hospital in 1993, according to papers obtainedby federal investigators. That year, one of his patients underwent open-heart surgery even after the surgeon told Dr. Campbell the procedure was unnecessary. Two years later, another patient received a coronary bypass,though the cardiologist’s report said it was not necessary.
Then there were the numbers – tens of thousands of diagnostic tests, thousands of surgical coronary procedures. The totals seemed more likely for a major
university medical center than for a hospital in a rural community of about 90,000 people.
Dismayed, Dr. Campbell brought his concerns to Stephen E.Corbeil, the hospital’s chief executive at the time. Though Dr. Campbell declined to comment on the meeting and Mr.Corbeil did not return telephone calls, the papers obtained by federal investigators indicate that the administrator’s response was succinct: The young internist, he said, should mind his own business.
Ultimately, Dr. Campbell’s concern proved to be everyone’s
business. Last week, the hospital’s owner, Tenet Healthcare, agreed to pay $54 million to the government to resolve accusations that Redding Medical doctors conducted unnecessary heart procedures and operations on hundreds of healthy patients. Tenet did not admit any wrongdoing and agreed to cooperate with further investigations.
As disturbing as the accusations may be, there would have been a logic to what a patient called Redding’s “little house of horrors” – a logic born of the twisted finances of American health care, which may have made the hospital less willing to hear concerns about two of its highest-billing doctors.
Until federal agents raided Redding last fall, Tenet’s business model was based on maximizing the dollars it could collect from Medicare, the nation’s biggest buyer of healthcare. And Medicare’s complex formulas – the template for private insurers, as well – reward some kinds of healthcare more richly than others, and few more richly than cardiac care.
So it was that two heart doctors at Redding – Dr. Chae Hyun Moon, the chief cardiologist, and Dr. Fidel Realyvasquez,its top cardiac surgeon – became immensely powerful, people who worked there said. Tenet promised investors growing profits, and at Redding, these people said, that required steady growth in cardiac care.
Together, Dr. Moon, who also sat on the hospital’s board,and Dr. Realyvasquez directed the California Heart Institute, the cardiac program that Redding had started in the 1970’s, and it proved to be a bonanza.
`We were constantly being pushed to bigger budgets, and there was no way to do it without the heart institute,” one former Redding administrator said. “People were terrified that Moon would go on vacation, because of the effect a few days would have on the hospital’s financial performance.”
While few doubt the hospital would have responded to explicit evidence of problems in the heart program, like high death rates, the financial pressures created a disincentive to pursue less specific suspicions, people who worked at Redding said.
And there were many suspicions. Besides Dr. Campbell, more than half a dozen doctors, along with medical technicians and patients, expressed concerns to multiple administrators, according to people interviewed and records obtained by investigators. There were also questions of competence: one former executive said that two years ago, a representative of the company whose ultrasound machine Dr.Moon relied on for many of his diagnoses warned that he was misusing it.
But the hospital never conducted the peer reviews that might have confirmed the critics’ doubts. “I sometimes just shake my head at the American system,where the financial intent is almost cleverly designed to create mischief,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a PrincetonUniversity health care economist. “For administrators, it
creates a conflict of interest when they’re trying to deliver the numbers at the same time that doctors are saying the hospital is doing too much cardiac surgery.”
Tenet’s $54 million settlement with the government – the largest ever for accusations of billing federal health programs for unnecessary care – means that the company will not face criminal or civil charges. But the company has been upended by the scandal, the first in a series of events to raise questions about the company’s finances.
Numerous executives, including Jeffrey C. Barbakow, its longtime chief executive, have resigned, and its stock has lost almost three-quarters of its value.
A criminal investigation of Drs. Moon and Realyvasquez is continuing, though no charges have been filed. Their work at the heart institute has been suspended, and Dr. Moon has surrendered his medical license pending resolution of the
matter. Lawyers for each of them say that, while other doctors’ opinions about their decisions may differ, neither did anything illegal.
“Certainly physicians can and do have differences of opinion,” said Matthew Jacobs, a lawyer in Sacramento representing Dr. Moon. “But to base a fraud prosecution on such differences with no other evidence of fraud just doesn’t work.”
Malcolm Segal, a lawyer for Dr. Realyvasquez, said that his client’s decisions to operate were justified. “Dr.Realyvasquez is an outstanding, well qualified surgeon,”Mr. Segal said. “He did everything he was supposed to do and believes that when he provided the surgery to the patients, it was needed.”
For its part, Tenet says that as part of its settlement with the government, it has imposed new checks and balances to ensure that no future problems could occur at Redding.
Harry Anderson, a Tenet spokesman, said the company’s new management had agreed to heighten monitoring and education programs “to rebuild the reputation and services of Redding Medical Center so it may continue to serve that community for years to come.”
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of former patients of the two doctors who now must wonder whether there was any reason for their operations. They are like Shirley B. Wooten, 78, who sought care last year for back and arm pain. After
several tests, she was told she needed emergency bypass surgery, which was conducted by Dr. Realyvasquez.
Complications followed, and Mrs. Wooten, who loved to attend dances with her husband, Bob, and take long driving trips around the California countryside, can no longer write or walk steadily. An independent expert has deemed the surgery unnecessary, and she is suing.
“I had to quit my job to take care of her,” Mr. Wooten said. `Our lives came to a screeching halt after that surgery, I’ll tell you.” Push for Higher Profits
By the winter of 1998, Redding Medical Center was virtually bursting at the seams. A conference room was converted into a patient care area. The emergency room was running overcapacity.
“We were beyond full,” one former administrator said. “We were flying.”
That fiscal year, officials said, the hospital exceeded its budget for pretax profit by almost 50 percent, bringing in more than $50 million. And then at a budget meeting with senior Tenet officials, the order came down: Do better next year.
“We said `We don’t know how to do it unless we have extra capacity,’ ” the former administrator said. “They were pushing for what I thought was ridiculous financial results.” Tenet agreed to invest millions of dollars to complete rapidly the construction of a five-story addition to the hospital. People in town came to call it “the tower,” a symbol of how a once sleepy hospital, founded by a single
local physician in 1945, had truly entered the big time.
The project only heightened Redding’s dependence on Dr.Moon and the California Heart Institute. The son of a family practitioner, Dr. Moon told associates that his
decision to become a doctor had been dictated to him by God when he was a boy. He graduated in 1972 from the Medical College at Yonsei University in Seoul, and completed his internship and residency at Metropolitan Hospital in New
York.
After setting up practice in Redding in the early 1980’s, Dr. Moon rapidly developed a reputation for aggressively pursuing evidence of coronary disease. He also was known for being quick to recommend a cardiac catheterization, in
which a small tube is passed through a blood vessel to examine how a patient’s heart is working.
“His philosophy has always been if you know the anatomy of the diseased heart, you are going to be able to make informed decisions,” said Dr. Bruce Kittrick, an internist at Redding who does not believe the accusations against Dr.Moon. “That is what made him really investigate anatomically most of the people he took care of.”
That willingness to conduct catheterizations and other invasive procedures also helped fuel Dr. Moon’s success within Redding Medical Center. Over time, he became one of the hospital’s biggest money-makers, conducting more than
35,000 catheterizations during his years there, which other cardiologists say is easily many times the number that they would expect in such a time frame.
In the last fiscal year he collected more from Medicare than all but one other cardiologist in Northern California,figures compiled by the program show, billing for almost $4 million in the 12 months ended June 30, 2002. In that year,
Medicare records show, he billed for 876 catheterizations for the left side of the heart, at least four times the number performed by any of his colleagues in Northern California.
By the early 1990’s, Dr. Moon’s success gave him enormous power in the organization. At one point, according to several Redding doctors, a former administrator and investigative records, Dr. Moon earned the reputation for
having been instrumental in persuading Tenet to dismiss one of Redding’s chief executives. The event, which became the stuff of hospital legend, only increased Dr. Moon’s influence, said one former administrator.
“No one would ever want to take him on,” he said. “Moon was Redding Medical Center, and he knew it.” Indeed, Dr. Moon became fond of making that point himself.”Who is Redding Medical Center?” he said in a recorded presentation in the mid-1990’s. And then, participants said, Dr. Moon pointed to himself.
Administrators’ pay grew if Redding’s profits exceeded Tenet’s expectations, so the financial performance of Dr.Moon, Dr. Realyvasquez and their cardiac program was reviewed intently.
As part of a companywide procedure, Redding’s chief financial officer prepared a report each month describing important events affecting the hospital’s returns.
“They noticed everything,” one former administrator recalled. “If Moon’s numbers were off a little bit, they asked about it.”
In turn, Redding did all it could to keep its heart specialists happy. The hospital began an advertising campaign, with mailings and billboards that used tombstones and other images invoking death to persuade Redding residents to be checked for heart disease. It paid nurses to dictate charts for Dr. Moon, who colleagues and former administrators said made little time for record keeping. It
sponsored golf tournaments to promote the heart institute, and sometimes offered Dr. Moon use of its helicopter to fly to the golf course, administrators and doctors said.
The doctors also received particular attention from senior Tenet executives, particularly Thomas Mackey and Neil Sorrentino, according to former Redding executives, doctors and documents obtained by investigators. Mr. Mackey was
ultimately the chief operating officer of Tenet, while Mr. Sorrentino was the head of its California hospitals.
Topping it off were the financial rewards. Former Redding administrators said that, around 1997, Dr. Realyvasquez demanded and was given a lucrative contract, paying him huge sums of money.
“He told us the number he wanted, and we had to work backwards to figure out a way to get it to him,” one administrator said.
Normal checks and balances did not seem to apply to Dr.Moon, Redding physicians said. He was not only head of the cardiology program but also a hospital director. And though he was not board certified in cardiology or internal
medicine – a credential he dismissed as insignificant – he was also head of the hospital’s Cardiology Care Committee, in charge of conducting peer review of his own program’s quality of care.
Court records say that committee rarely, if ever, met.Others Saw Trouble Signs
Across town, Redding’s chief rival, Mercy Medical Center,also took admissions from Dr. Moon. But the staff there was far less impressed with him.
In 1996, one of his patients at Mercy, Charles K. Brown, a 67-year-old man from Anderson, Calif., suffered a stroke while Dr. Moon was performing a catheterization and soon died. Staff members in Mercy’s catheterization lab
complained to the hospital’s medical division, saying that Dr. Moon’s care had fallen below appropriate standards.
According to court records, the staff members said that Dr.Moon left the hospital while the patient was unstable,leaving nurses without clear instructions. A review of the medical chart found no indication that Dr. Moon had taken basic preparatory steps to ensure that Mr. Brown was well enough for the procedure, according to written findings of the medical division.
As a result, the medical division ruled that Dr. Moon would have to be monitored by another doctor. “Leaving the nurses to deal with the complication was inappropriate and a serious quality of care issue,” read aletter to Dr. Moon from the medical division. `You will not jeopardize patient safety.”
Dr. Moon objected, saying in a letter that he had alerted Mr. Brown’s other doctors to his problems and had been assured they were handling his care. The division revised its decision, saying that the monitoring would be limited to two cases and that a letter would be placed in his file.Dr. Moon struck back, announcing in an advertisement in the local newspaper that he would no longer admit patients to Mercy. He then sued the hospital, claiming defamation and
financial harm. The suit was later dismissed.
About the same time, Dr. Campbell, the internist, brought his concerns about Redding Medical Center’s heart program to Mr. Corbeil, then the hospital’s chief executive.
Dr. Campbell arrived at Redding in 1993 and quickly benefited from Dr. Moon’s influence; the cardiologist helped him and three other doctors form a group practice, and pledged that Tenet would provide more than $100,000 toward the group’s start-up costs.
The same year, Dr. Campbell’s worries about the heart center began.. Dr. Moon recommended that a patient, Mary Rosburg, receive immediate coronary surgery, according to papers obtained by federal investigators. A surgeon working with Dr. Realyvasquez telephoned Dr. Campbell, vehemently arguing that no surgery was needed. Dr. Moon’s view prevailed, and the once-reluctant surgeon performed the operation. Ms. Rosburg died from complications several
months later.
In 1995, another of Dr. Campbell’s patients, Emma JeanMontgomery, came under the care of Dr. Moon’s team. An associate of Dr. Moon informed Dr. Campbell that the patient had severe coronary disease and needed immediate surgery, which Dr. Realyvasquez performed. Afterward, whenDr. Campbell reviewed the medical chart, he found none of the evidence of serious heart problems that Dr.Realyvasquez had described, according to records obtained by federal investigators.
Dismayed, Dr. Campbell took Ms. Montgomery’s records to another local cardiologist, Dr. Roy Ditchey, who was astounded to hear that the patient had undergone surgery, according to information obtained by federal investigators.
It was then that Dr. Campbell approached Mr. Corbeil, but the administrator dismissed his concerns, papers obtained by the investigators say. Dr. Campbell, who still practices in Redding, has since filed a suit on behalf of the government, under the federal whistle-blower statute, which remains under seal.
When faced with credible concerns about a program, health care experts said, it is commonplace in the hospital industry to bring in an outside group to conduct a review.
“Most hospital administrators are very responsible,” said Evelyn Baram-Clothier, executive director of the American Medical Foundation for Peer Review and Education. “I have administrators who call us to review departments just to be
sure they’re O.K.” In the fall of 1996, Mr. Corbeil was succeeded by Kenneth Rivers. The following spring, according to court documents and records obtained by federal investigators, a group of doctors including Dr. Campbell, Dr. Kittrick and two others approached him to discuss the cardiac program.
According to the papers, Dr. Kittrick spoke for the group and asked for an independent peer review of the cardiology program, to determine if the catheterizations were reliable. Mr. Rivers replied that he would have to ask
Tenet’s lawyers whether such a study would violate patient confidentiality, the records say.
No such study was ever done, according to doctors at thehospital. As new administrators arrived, the same pattern was repeated. According to court papers and other records, Dr.Roy Pick, a local cardiologist, approached Mr. Rivers’s successor, Stephen Schmidt, and Mr. Schmidt’s replacement,Hal Chilton, the current chief executive. Each time, Dr.Pick, who had reviewed the records of some of Dr. Moon’s patients, raised concerns about the heart program and asked
for an independent peer review. None was undertaken.
Dr. Pick and Mr. Chilton did not return calls seeking comment. A phone number for Mr. Schmidt, who has since retired, could not be located. Phone numbers found through a computer search for Mr. Phillips, Mr. MacKay and Mr.Sorrentino were all disconnected.
Dr. Thomas Drakes, a board-certified oncologist who worked at Redding for two decades and taught at the University of California at Davis, said he, too, raised his concerns withMr. Schmidt, with little result.
“Here I am, a guy on his staff who has some credibility,and I go to Schmidt and tell him he’s going to have a `60 Minutes’ episode on your hands here if you don’t dosomething,” Dr. Drakes said. “He just said, `Don’t worryabout it.’ ”
But, by 2002 the secrets at Redding Medical Center were about to burst into public view. Differing Diagnoses Last year, the Rev. John Corapi decided, at 55, to have acardiac stress test at Redding. He passed the test, but Dr.
Moon still suggested a trip to the catheterization lab. While Father Corapi, a Roman Catholic priest, was still on the table, Dr. Moon broke the news: He needed an emergency triple bypass. According to Father Corapi, the doctor said
he had three dissecting arteries, a critical condition. Still, Dr. Moon suggested waiting for surgery until the next week, when Dr. Realyvasquez returned.
Anxious, Father Corapi said that he telephoned a friend in Las Vegas, Joseph F. Zerga, an accountant who had close contacts with a cardiac unit at a local hospital. He persuaded Father Corapi to come to Nevada for the emergency
surgery. But when he got to Las Vegas, the heart specialists were confused. “While I was being processed in, the cardiologist there said, `Excuse me, what are we bypassing?’ ” said Father Corapi, who, like Dr. Campbell, has filed a
whistle-blower suit.
Back in Redding, Father Corapi and Mr. Zerga met with hospital officials, who said that two cardiologists had reviewed the records and agreed with Dr. Moon’s findings, though they declined to name the doctors. “I expected the hospital to be extremely concerned over this situation,”Mr. Zerga said. “But they weren’t.”
When further discussions with the hospital proved unsatisfactory, Mr. Zerga contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Within days, agents found their way to Robert G. Simpson, a lawyer in Redding for whom Dr. Moon had recommended a four-way bypass last summer. Mr. Simpson had challenged Dr.Moon’s diagnosis after getting a secondand a third opinion. Mr. Simpson has since been interviewed by federal investigators and is now representing numerous patients suing Redding.
Four months after being contacted about Father Corapi,federal agents raided the hospital. For Tenet, it was as if the roof were suddenly falling in.Near the time of the Redding raids, the company was hit with other financial body blows that raised the same question: Was Tenet really as successful as it had long appeared? Or had it just profited from multiple methods -including unnecessary surgery at Redding – of gaming the Medicare system?
On Oct. 28, Kenneth Weakley, an analyst with UBS Warburg, reported that Tenet was heavily dependent on special Medicare payments for particularly sick patients. These”outlier” payments accounted for about 24 percent of Tenet’s base Medicare payments for overnight stays, Mr.Weakley wrote, triple the amount three years earlier.
That same day, the federal Department of Health and Human Services notified Tenet that it would be auditing its hospitals to see if the company had been improperly manipulating its outlier payments. The company failed to disclose the information publicly for more than a week, later saying it had waited until it had more specifics.(The overpayment allegations were not covered by the $54
million settlement.)
As the events unfolded, the nature of the outlier problem became clear. Tenet hospitals had been rapidly increasingtheir retail charges – amounts actually paid by very few people who have procedures without insurance. But those
numbers are used in determining outlier amounts. In essence, Medicare was paying Tenet more for treating sicker people, when in fact all Tenet was doing was charging higher prices.
Under pressure from investors, Tenet in early November disclosed that it received $763 million in outlier payments in the 2002 fiscal year, much of it from 11 hospitals that had ramped up retail charges. Seven of those 11 hospitals
are in California.
Among that group is Redding Medical Center. According tofederal data, outlier payments to Redding were off the charts. Medicare projected that it would pay 5.1 percent of its total standard payments for inpatient care at all hospitals to outliers. At Redding, in fiscal 2002, the payments instead reached 118.6 percent, or $55.7 million.
Indeed, the problems at Redding seem to infuse the repeated scandals at Tenet. Two of the company’s biggest allies of Dr. Moon and Dr. Realyvasquez were soon gone. Mr. Mackey, the company’s chief operating officer, left in November
amid reports that he was an architect of the company’s pricing strategy. Then, in March, Mr. Sorrentino, head of the company’s California hospital operation, also departed.
As the scandals unwound, with pricing strategies changing and the cardiac program suspended, Redding’s finances fell apart. According to data filed with the State of California, total net patient revenue at Redding for the first quarter of
this year (the latest data available) dropped almost in half from the period last year, falling from $61.1 million to $31.2 million. All told, more than 75 percent of that decline came from the drop in Medicare payments, which fell by $23 million. Indeed, the numbers at Redding raise questions about how problems at the hospital could have been missed. The state filings show, in the 12 months ended June 30, 2002, Redding Medical Center generated pretax net income of $94 million, more than any other of Tenet’s 40 hospitals in California.
Just down the street, the larger Mercy Medical Center reported pretax net income of about $5 million in the same period.
“When those types of numbers get reported back to the home office, does everyone stay willfully blind and declare a holiday, or does someone say, `Let’s postpone the celebration and take a hard look at these,’ ” said Neil Getnick of Getnick & Getnick, which specializes in business integrity counseling. “Part of business integrity is creating reasonable expectations amongst shareholders of
what kind of profits you can achieve, and what we have seen with Tenet indicates that the company departed from that basic model.”
In that, analysts say, is the essence of the problem.Different hospitals can be run more efficiently, but ultimately, health care is a commodity; the science
available at one hospital is the same across the street. The industry itself is more than a century old. Yet Wall Street expects and rewards double-digit earnings growthfrom hospital companies, something analysts say is unsustainable.
“The hospital industry is by its very nature a mature industry,” said Mr.Reinhardt, the Princeton economist. “Itis not a high-margin business. It can’t be a growth
industry like some Internet company. That is just unreasonable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/business/12TENE.html
Bob LeBow on the Physicians' Proposal
Robert LeBow, M.D., former president of Physicians for a National Health Program and author of “Health Care Meltdown,” speaking at a press conference at City Hall in Philadelphia, on release of the JAMA article on the physicians’ proposal for single-payer national health insurance:
I frequently hear people tell me that America has the best health care system in the world. And in some cases, that is true. In July, 2002, I sustained a catastrophic injury while riding my bike to work. I am alive today, thanks, in art, to the high level of medical technology that was available for me.But, the U.S. also is the only developed country where getting sick or injured can, and all too frequently does, lead to bankruptcy. In fact, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. And, many bankruptcies happen to people with health insurance.
Our employer-based health insurance system is outmoded, illogical and needsto be replaced. Perverse incentives make our health care system a poor value for the amount we spend. Health care needs to return to an emphasis on health, not cost or profit.
Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever and most of
the rest of us are underinsured. We are underinsured in the sense that even with insurance, there is a lot of cost shifting to the patient. And,for people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, the expense of long termcare, outpatient rehabilitation and prescription drug costs are largely left to private savings.
The “market” had been a failure for health care in America. Health care is not a commodity like fast food or automobiles. For health care, the public sector, in fact, has a much lower overhead than the private sector.
Thousands of doctors have signed on in support of the Physicians’ Proposal for a National Health Insurance program because it will provide comprehensive and affordable access to health care for every person in America, and remedy the loss of dignity that we have inflicted on ourselves as individuals and as a nation. It is time to put the patient first – not last – in the setting of priorities.
Bob LeBow, August 12, 2003
Health Care Meltdown:
https://pnhp.org/publications/health_care_meltdown.php
The Physicians’ Proposal:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/6/798
or
http://www.physiciansproposal.org/
Bob LeBow on the Physicians’ Proposal
Robert LeBow, M.D., former president of Physicians for a National Health Program and author of “Health Care Meltdown,” speaking at a press conference at City Hall in Philadelphia, on release of the JAMA article on the physicians’ proposal for single-payer national health insurance:
I frequently hear people tell me that America has the best health care system in the world. And in some cases, that is true. In July, 2002, I sustained a catastrophic injury while riding my bike to work. I am alive today, thanks, in art, to the high level of medical technology that was available for me.But, the U.S. also is the only developed country where getting sick or injured can, and all too frequently does, lead to bankruptcy. In fact, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. And, many bankruptcies happen to people with health insurance.
Our employer-based health insurance system is outmoded, illogical and needsto be replaced. Perverse incentives make our health care system a poor value for the amount we spend. Health care needs to return to an emphasis on health, not cost or profit.
Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever and most of
the rest of us are underinsured. We are underinsured in the sense that even with insurance, there is a lot of cost shifting to the patient. And,for people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, the expense of long termcare, outpatient rehabilitation and prescription drug costs are largely left to private savings.
The “market” had been a failure for health care in America. Health care is not a commodity like fast food or automobiles. For health care, the public sector, in fact, has a much lower overhead than the private sector.
Thousands of doctors have signed on in support of the Physicians’ Proposal for a National Health Insurance program because it will provide comprehensive and affordable access to health care for every person in America, and remedy the loss of dignity that we have inflicted on ourselves as individuals and as a nation. It is time to put the patient first – not last – in the setting of priorities.
Bob LeBow, August 12, 2003
Health Care Meltdown:
https://www.pnhp.org/publications/health_care_meltdown.php
The Physicians’ Proposal:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/6/798
or
http://www.physiciansproposal.org/
JAMA: Physicians reopen the national discussion on
JAMA – The Journal of the American Medical Association
August 13, 2003 Editorial
Universal Health Insurance – Let the Debate Resume By Rashi Fein, PhD
The article by The Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer NationalHealth insurance in this issue of THE JOURNAL should re-energize the much needed debate on universal health insurance.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the approach that nearly 8000 physicians and medical students have endorsed, this group has provided a considerable service by fanning the almost extinguished spark called universal health insurance. Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this article is that by offering its approach, the Physicians’ Working Group issues a challenge: those who reject its “solution” are challenged to present its own, better and stronger one as a replacement. Thus, it will not suffice simply to dismiss the Physicians’ Working Group solution as unworkable. The American health care system and American society face a real problem and are compelled to search for an answer.
Now is the time to reopen that discussion. The members of the Physicians’ Working Group have done their job by raising the issue of national health
insurance once again. Those who like their proposal should join with them.
Those who do not should develop and propose something better, more effective, and with fewer untoward side effects. No one should sit back and bemoan the existing state of affairs. The “health care mess” is too real for anyone to ignore it.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/6/818
The abstract of the proposal:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/6/798
The full proposal:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/6/798
To view the list of endorsers:
For physicians who wish to add their endorsement:
http://www.physiciansproposal.org/
Universal Health Plan is Endorsed
Published on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Universal Health Plan is Endorsed
Thousands of doctors back proposal in JAMA
by Liz Kowalczyk and Amber Mobley
Thousands of US physicians have endorsed a broad proposal that would abolish for-profit hospitals and insurers and transfer all Americans into an expanded and improved Medicare program for all ages, reigniting the debate over universal health care a decade after President Clinton’s failed plan.
While the four physicians who wrote the plan — three of whom are affiliated with Harvard Medical School — are members of a nonprofit organization that has long pushed for universal health coverage, the new proposal is important for two reasons: It was published today in one of the country’s most prestigious and its most widely circulated medical journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and because of the large number of doctors — nearly 8,000, including two former surgeons general — who endorsed it.
“The doctors said they hope to spark a debate over national health insurance that essentially ended with the death of the Clinton health plan.
Of the Democratic presidential candidates, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich is advocating a single-payer system.
Americans spend $1.6 trillion on health care, which the doctors say is more than enough money to cover every American. The doctors contend that there will be at least $200 billion in administrative savings in a single-payer, national insurance plan.”The Associated Press
JAMA officials said it is unusual for the journal, which has a circulation of about 700,000 worldwide, to publish an article endorsed by such a large number of physicians. JAMA’s editor, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, said that an editorial accompanying the article represents the journal’s viewpoint that it is time for the country to grapple more seriously with major problems in the health-care system.
“Look, if you don’t agree with this plan, it’s not a foolproof plan, there are plenty of problems with it, come up with something better,” she said in an interview. “Let the debate resume. It’s sort of been on the back burner and it’s time we get on the stick with this. We are the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have a specific health plan for our people. It’s a disgrace. We have too many people not insured, and this is wrong.”
In the editorial accompanying the proposal, Rashi Fein of Harvard Medical School said one drawback of such a comprehensive plan is that it may be too radical to pass the US political system, but that the doctors’ proposal “should re-energize the debate.”
The plan, developed by the Physicians for a National Health Program, based in Chicago, differs from Clinton’s 1993 initiative in fundamental ways. Clinton sought to avoid large new taxes, instead seeking to require all companies to offer health insurance with federal subsidies helping small employers, Fein said. The country’s basic system — employers buying health insurance from nonprofit and for-profit insurance companies — would have remained intact.
The physicians’ plan is more radical and more encompassing, including coverage for the 41 million uninsured Americans as well as incorporating ways to control costs by setting a national budget, providing a set amount of money to hospitals for day-to-day operations and major expansions, paying for nursing home and home care for the elderly, and developing a national list of drugs the program would pay for.
The government would pay for health care through an expanded version of traditional Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly. Most hospitals and clinics would remain privately owned and operated, and the national health insurance program would pay them a monthly budget for operating costs. Investor-owned facilities would be converted to nonprofit status. Private insurance companies would be virtually eliminated. The plan is endorsed by former surgeons general Dr. David Satcher, who served under Clinton, and Dr. Julius Richmond, appointed by Jimmy Carter.
One of the doctors’ arguments is that for-profit companies and multiple insurers are diverting money from clinical care for the demands of business. The physicians estimate that the country would save $200 billion annually by eliminating profits of investor-owned hospitals and insurance companies and by reducing administrative costs for hospitals and doctors who must bill dozens of different insurance companies. Private health insurers now consume 12 percent of premiums for overhead, while Medicare and the Canadian national health insurance system have overhead costs below 3.2 percent, the doctors reported.
Taxes, the doctors said, would increase. But except for the very wealthy, higher taxes would be offset by the elimination of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket copayments and deductibles, they argued.
Lead coauthor Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said during a news conference in Washington, D.C., that the doctors want to curtail the entrepreneurial aspects of medicine, where insurers and providers avoid unprofitable patients and try to shift costs back to patients. But she said they also sought ways to control costs amid skyrocketing insurance premiums.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, both physicians at Cambridge Hospital and associate professors at Harvard Medical School, were coauthors.
Critics and even advocates of universal health insurance said the doctors’ proposal has major shortcomings. Susan Pisano of the American Association of Health Plans said private industry, not the government, has led the way in adopting disease management programs and prescription drug coverage. “Political pressures on Congress make change and innovation very difficult,” she said.
Giving hospitals a set monthly budget is similar to a form of managed care called “capitation,” in which insurers paid doctors and hospitals a set amount of money to treat patients. If they kept under the budget, providers made a profit; if they exceeded the budget, they lost money.
But capitation is now being called a failure by many providers, because it creates a financial incentive to limit care, and many insurers are moving away from it.
Further, many health-care economists questioned whether the proposal is realistic in the United States, given that even Clinton’s more modest plan failed.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company
Physicians' Proposal in JAMA(pdf)
Doctors Call for National Health Insurance
EMBARGOED UNTIL: August 12, 2003, 3 p.m. Central
Contacts: Steffie Woolhandler MD 518-794-8109
Quentin Young MD 312-782-6006
Doctors Call for National Health Insurance Journal of the American Medical Association Publishes Physicians Proposal for National Health Insurance
Signed by 7,782 Physicians
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 11, 2003 — In an unprecedented show of physician support for National Health Insurance (NHI), 7,782 U.S. physicians propose single payer NHI in an article in the August 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The “Physicians’ Proposal for National Health Insurance” was drafted by a blue ribbon panel of leading physicians. The signers include 2 former U.S. Surgeons General, the former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of medicine,hundreds of medical school professors and deans, and thousands of practicing doctors throughout the nation. The Proposal will be presented in D.C. at The National Press Club on August 12 at 10am in the Murrow room.
“This is an historic moment. Today, thousands of physicians are taking a stand on the side of patients and repudiating the powerful insurance and drug lobbies that block wholesome reform,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a leading Chicago physician who chaired the Department of Medicine at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital and convened the group of prominent physicians that drafted the proposal.”
The doctors’ article also critiques the health reform plans that have been offered by President Bush and the major Democratic presidential contenders. “Proposals that would retain the role of private insurers – such as calls for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing more seniors into private HMO’s – are prescriptions for failure. By perpetuating administrative waste, such proposals make universal coverage unaffordable,” said Dr. Young.
The physicians call for national health insurance that would cover every American for all necessary medical care – in essence an expanded and improved version of traditional Medicare.
* Patients could choose to go to any doctor and hospital. Most hospitals and clinics would remain privately owned and operated, receiving a budget from the NHI to cover all operating costs. Physicians could continue to practice on a fee-for-service basis, or receive salaries from group practices, hospitals or clinics.
* The program would be paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes that would be fully offset by reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket spending.
* The proposed single payer NHI would save at least $200 billion annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services.
* Administrative savings would fully offset the costs of covering the uninsured as well as giving full prescription drug coverage to all Americans.
“In the current economic climate, we can no longer afford to waste the vast resources we do on the administrative costs, executive salaries, and profiteering of the private insurance system”, states Dr. Marcia Angell, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. “We get too little for our money. It’s time to put those resources into real health care for everyone.”
The physicians’ call for NHI comes as rising health costs and premiums, and the increasing number of uninsured have stimulated a new round of health reform initiatives. Yet most politicians have steered clear of NHI, offering proposals for incremental reforms of the current system.
“How bad does it have to get before politicians are willing to prescribe the major surgery our health system needs? Premiums are skyrocketing and we already spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. 41 million people are uninsured, and millions more are under-insured and can’t afford vital medicines. How bad does it have to get before our politicians admit we need national health insurance?” asked Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, lead author of the proposal and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard.
###
The full list of signers is available on the internet, but will be password protected until the JAMA’s embargo is lifted. To obtain a password, members of the press may call (312) 782-6006.
Physicians for a National Health Program was founded in 1987 and includes physicians in every state and medical specialty. For local contacts or other information, contact PNHP’s headquarters in Chicago at (312) 782-6006 or visit: www.pnhp.org.
Press/7.15 ver
Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Powerpoint Slideshow
Uninformed voters threaten health care reform in California
Oakland Tribune
Aug. 8, 2003
Health care proposals featured at forum Fate of reform plans uncertain in light of gubernatorial unrest ,By Rebecca Vesely
Promising to “keep going until I die or pass this bill,” State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, pitched her plan for a universal health care system to a largely receptive crowd Thursday afternoon.
“I’m not talking about short-term fixes,” Kuehl said. “I’m talking about building a system slowly that will be comparable to Social Security or Medicare.”
Kuehl’s so-called single-payer bill, S.B. 921, would do away with employer-based coverage and install a government-run system akin to Canada’s. It would consolidate financing into a state fund and provide a minimum standard of care for all residents.
Another health care bill, sponsored by (Senate) leader John Burton,
D-SanFrancisco, called “pay or play,”… would require employers to cover a baseline of their workers’ health care or pay into a pool that would then cover the workers.
U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, told the crowd that a state bill was the best hope of reforming health care. Bills passed by Congress and the Senate last month to add prescription drugs to Medicare, by contrast, are “lousy” and “useless,” he said.”I’m counting on the good state Legislature and the continuing service of Gov. Gray Davis to make this happen,” Stark said.
The Oct. 7 election to recall Davis could affect the prospects of both bills. Little is known about where the many candidates stand on health care.Davis has not taken a position on any of the health care reform bills.
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1559248,00.html
Comment: In a well functioning democracy, the citizens have an obligation
to be informed on the important issues facing society. Current polls indicate that Californians are about to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor even though he has not yet expressed any of his views on the crucial issues currently facing the state.
California is in the midst of a health care crisis. Gov. Davis’ silence on reform is unforgivable. But failure of the state’s citizens to ask the hard questions before deciding on how to vote is even more unforgivable.
Who should own the results of publicly-funded medical research?
The Washington Post
August 5, 2003
A Fight for Free Access To Medical Research
Online Plan Challenges Publishers’ Dominance
By Rick Weiss
Why is it, a growing number of people are asking, that anyone can download
medical nonsense from the Web for free, but citizens must pay to see the
results of carefully conducted biomedical research that was financed by their taxes?
The Public Library of Science aims to change that. The organization, founded
by a Nobel Prize-winning biologist and two colleagues (Harold Varmus,Patrick O. Brown and Michael Eisen), is plotting the overthrow of the system by which scientific results are made known to the world — a $9 billion publishing juggernaut with subscription charges that range into thousands of dollars per year.
In its place the organization is constructing a system that would put scientific findings on the Web — for free.Scientists and budget-squeezed librarians have long railed against publishers’ stranglehold on scientific literature, to little avail. But with surprising political acumen, the Public Library of Science — or PLoS
— has begun to make “open access” scientific publication an issue for everyday
citizens, emphasizing that taxpayers fund the lion’s share of biomedical research and deserve access to the results.
“It is wrong when a breast cancer patient cannot access federally funded research data paid for by her hard-earned taxes,” Rep. Martin O. Sabo(D-Minn.) said recently as he introduced legislation that would give PLoS a boost by loosening copyright restrictions on publicly funded research. “It is wrong when the family whose child has a rare disease must pay again for research data their tax dollars already paid for.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19104-2003Aug4.html
Comment: Should the results of publicly-funded medical research be placed in the public domain, or should the results remain the intellectual property of others, marketed by copyright-protected scientific journals? Should we continue to support the superfluous middleman publishers who control access for the purpose of profit, or should we establish our own “public library” with universal access and lower administrative costs?Just as we are reassessing the high costs, administrative excesses and restricted health care access through our system of private health plans, we should also be reassessing the unnecessary costs and restricted access to the results of medical research that we have funded.