Detroit Free Press
April 1, 2003
For UAW, health pay is a crisis nationally
By Jeffrey McCracken

The head of the United Auto Workers put automakers on notice Monday: You can’t stem rising health-care costs by shifting the burden to workers and retirees. The auto industry alone can’t solve “America’s health care crisis.”

“A lot of people, especially in the press, are curious about how we are going to solve the problem of rising health-care costs during this year’s auto talks. The answer is, we’re not. It’s a national problem that demands a national solution,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told the Detroit Economic Club at Cobo Center.

“We need a universal, comprehensive single-payer health-care program to cover every man, woman and child in the United States. You can’t fix the health-care crisis in America at any one bargaining table with any one employer or within any one industry.”

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/uaw1_20030401.htm

(In reading today’s quote, please ignore the deficiencies of a verbatim transcript of a spontaneous response given during the Q&A segment of the presentation, but concentrate instead on the message.)

Alliance for Health Reform March 21, 2003 Washington, DC

“Dynamics of the Uninsured”

ED HOWARD: Let me just ask each of our panel members if we don’t have any other questions from the floor if they care to take about 30 seconds and sum up what you think folks ought to take away from this discussion. We have a budget resolution that’s making its way through at least one House of the Congress and probably the other House soon at least in some iterations it will have some money that is intended to address the problems of folks without insurance. How should that money get spent? How should we apply it to this discussion that we’re having this afternoon? And what next steps ought to be at the highest priority in that context? Or you can tell us anything else you want.

PAMELA FARLEY SHORT, Ph.D., Professor of Health Policy and Administration and Director, Center for Health Care and Policy Research, Penn State: Well I guess one idea or thought that I’d like to share and I haven’t had a chance to share so far is just that to say that one of the things that seems to me is really lacking in our patchwork kind of system of health insurance is a source of coverage that’s reasonably priced and that people can hang onto as their personal circumstances change. So whether – and that is an impediment to – it complicates the issue and the problem of using almost any kind of financing strategy for example if we have tax credits you still have the problem of where are people going to buy reasonably priced insurance on terms that are just not as favorable as large employers offer at least closer to that than people can buy on the individual market. So one of the reasons why there’s so much turning and so much turnover is that there really is no place that people can be insured as their incomes go up and down particularly as their incomes kind of float around some eligibility limit so that if we had whether it be and there are lots of different ideas on the table as to what such a universal source of individual health insurance might be ranging from expanding and allowing people to buy into public programs of Medicaid or Medicare at older age levels, purchasing cooperatives, the federal employees plan, the state employees plans and there’s a lot of ideas about what that might be but at the moment nothing like that exists and so what happens is that as soon as people’s income goes up so that the state will know and the federal government will no longer pay for them to have coverage for Medicaid they have to leave that source of coverage and find another it’s not and if we could move towards the direction of some of a system where the coverage could stay put you just are covered from a given place and you keep that plan and your kids they’re covered with you but what changes as your circumstances change is who’s paying for it and that may be a way of getting ourselves out of some of the problems that we currently confront so that as your income rises you pay more, if you have a job your employer doesn’t necessarily provide you with the coverage but pays into you know contributes towards your coverage you know this is kind of a system that you know in essence union employees have that sort of situation because their jobs change so much and maybe if we could figure out a way to get a place that everybody could buy then almost any financing strategy from you know tax credits to buying it yourself even for those high income people would be a lot easier.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=806

Comment: There is growing recognition that the pool of uninsured is not a single relatively stable (though expanding) group of individuals. In fact, it is quite unstable as individuals rotate in and out of various programs based on eligibility or ability to pay. Change in employment status changes eligibility for employer-sponsored programs. Moving in and out of poverty status changes eligibility for public programs for low-income individuals. Change in health status affects eligibility for individual coverage. Change in age affects eligibility for SCHIP or Medicare coverage.

Dr. Short is quite correct. We need an affordable, comprehensive health insurance product that will always be ours, regardless of employment status, health, age, income level, or any other arbitrary determinant of insurance eligibility. But which insurer will offer that kind of product?

Why is there a deafening silence in response to this question?

It’s quite clear that only a universal, public-insurance program can ever fill that bill. Once we accept this principle, it would be very easy to develop a strategy for equitably financing the system.

Washington Post
March 24, 2003
Bethlehem Retirees’ Benefits to End
By Adam Geller

Company-paid health benefits for 30,000 white-collar Bethlehem Steel retirees will end this month, after a bankruptcy judge Monday rejected a request to extend coverage through April.

Instead of the extension, the court approved an arrangement that might offer both union and salaried retirees reimbursement for two weeks of medical insurance.

The United Steelworkers of America, which represents retirees from union ranks, has already agreed to a deal that will see their members lose health insurance after March 31.

But a lawyer representing white-collar retirees argued that they needed more time, and would not have the benefit of alternative health insurance the union may be able to arrange for its retirees.

A. Dennis Terrell, the attorney for the salaried retirees:

“We have a lot of old people who don’t know what to do. They need time to figure out what to do.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20447-2003Mar24.html

Comment: Play or pay, employer-mandate models of reform are receiving support from a broad range of interests. But is this really what we want? Instead of being left stranded, not knowing what to do, these retirees could have been in a universal public program and would never have had to face their current dilemma.

Isn’t it time to provide permanent health security for everyone by establishing our own public program of universal insurance? We can afford it. What’s stopping us?

Chicago Tribune
March 23, 2003
Seniors spurning pilot Medicare PPO effort
By Bruce Japsen

A new and highly touted Bush administration effort to help Medicare patients pay for prescription drugs is a bust so far.

Three months into a much-anticipated pilot program, less than 1 percent of the elderly and disabled Medicare recipients eligible have signed up.

The initiative targeted up to 11 million Medicare patients in 23 states… to sign up for preferred provider organizations (PPOs).

Unlike health maintenance organizations, PPOs allow subscribers to visit doctors outside of their networks, a key reason they have become the most popular health plan.

The Bush administration figured the PPOs’ popularity would mean that the pilot program would go over well with the elderly and disabled covered under the federal Medicare health insurance program.

On its face, the premium charged by the PPO seems like a bargain. The monthly charge is between $40 and $75 on top of the $58.70 monthly Medicare premium.

In contrast, most seniors who want prescription coverage have to buy supplemental policies priced at $200 or more a month, join an HMO that restricts their choices or pay out of their own pocket.

Why the lack of enthusiasm?

Among other things, most PPO plans do not cover the latest and typically more expensive brand-name prescriptions some seniors say their doctors are prescribing. They do pay for generic versions of brand-name drugs, but sometimes those versions are not yet available.

The fact that seniors have not embraced the pilot could be a setback for Bush health advisers who saw the program expanding to cover even more of the nation’s 40 million Medicare patients in health plans operated by private companies.

For now, Bush official Scully says, the PPO pilot is budget neutral, using existing Medicare funds that prevent the plans from offering brand-name coverage. Should Congress pass the president’s reform bill, Scully said, plans would compete for a larger chunk of money, and a much richer benefit with brand-name coverage will be available.

Tom Scully, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:

“The health plans need to do a better job of marketing because the only way you get people to switch is through a lot of marketing.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0303230063mar23,1,4556174.story

Comment: Question of the day: How many red flags can you count here?

A very fundamental flaw in the Bush administration’s reasoning is that PPOs in the private market were not chosen because of their popularity, but rather they were chosen when the indemnity plans were withdrawn from the market and individuals were left with a choice of PPOs or HMOs. Although integrated HMOs such as Kaiser remain popular, network middleman HMOs ultimately have proven to be less popular than PPOs since the HMOs have been more restrictive and less dependable. Patients do prefer to have the greater choice of providers that PPOs offer compared to HMOs, with the added option of obtaining care outside of the provider list even though with increased cost sharing.

The primary advantage that PPOs offer over indemnity plans is that PPOs contract rates with providers, theoretically controlling costs. But once the market is saturated with PPOs (and HMOs), rates must reflect the true costs of delivering care plus a modest profit or the health care market will collapse. Ironically, Medicare also “contracts” rates with providers, but without the need to have restrictive provider lists since non-contracted providers must still adhere to Medicare-dictated rates (with a minor adjustment). Thus if benefits and cost sharing in the PPOs and traditional Medicare were comparable, there would be absolutely no reason to choose a PPO, because of the restrictive provider lists and the greater administrative waste (with the need to increase beneficiary cost sharing).

The reason that the PPOs in this pilot program are not selling well is that the program is “budget neutral.” Since the PPOs receive the same reimbursement as the costs in the traditional Medicare program, not only do they have to target their marketing to a healthy subset of Medicare beneficiaries, they also must be certain that their prescription drug “carrot” used to entice patients is a very low-cost (Spartan) program. Medicare beneficiaries recognize the inadequacies of these minimal prescription plans and do not want to give up their free choice of providers in exchange for this very minimal benefit.

Tom Scully suggests that the problem is inadequate marketing on the part of the plans. He certainly exposes his blind faith in the market when he suggests that an inferior product needs only the blessing of Madison Avenue to displace our popular Medicare program.

Particularly disconcerting is the fact that Scully states that, under the president’s reform bill, plans would “compete for a larger chunk on money” for more generous prescription coverage. The president’s plan for traditional Medicare offers only negligible prescription benefits (nearly worthless discount cards, $600 maximum for poverty-level beneficiaries, and an approximately $6000 deductible catastrophic coverage for the wealthy). Scully’s comments suggest that the administration is willing to pay more to the plans than the amount allocated for the traditional program. That certainly belies their claim that the private plans will reduce costs.

Why should taxpayers support more expensive private plans while being denied prescription coverage in our own public Medicare program? The least expensive solution that would provide comprehensive prescription coverage for everyone would be to add it as a benefit to our traditional Medicare program.

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured
March 2003
The New Middle-Class of Uninsured Americans – Is it Real?
by John Holahan, Catherine Hoffman, and Marie Wang

Summary

We conclude that data from the Census Bureau’s 2002 annual report Health Insurance Coverage: 2001 has been misinterpreted when the majority of the newly uninsured are characterized as either middle- or high-income people. Using household income brackets that do not account for the composition of the household or the effect of general inflation on income when studying changes over time can create misunderstanding about who the uninsured are, as well as the effectiveness of different policy options intended to decrease the number of uninsured.

While we found that the number of high-income uninsured (400%+ of poverty or $56,512 for a family of three in 2001) grew by about 300,000 due to a loss of employer-sponsored coverage, this is substantially less than unadjusted data from the Census Bureau’s report might indicate. We also found nearly a 300,000 decline in the number of middle-income Americans who lacked health insurance, largely because there were 800,000 fewer middle-income Americans. Many middle-income Americans lost jobs and/or income, contributing to the substantial increase in the number of people with incomes below 200% of the poverty level-where the likelihood of employer-sponsored coverage is much lower and uninsured rates are much higher. Most of the growth (1.3 million) in the uninsured was borne by low-income Americans with incomes less than 200% of the poverty level.

http://www.kff.org/content/2003/4090/4090.pdf

Comment: The tenor of this report seems to indicate that it is reassuring that the increase in the numbers of uninsured has been primarily in the low-income sector, and not in the middle- and high-income sectors as previously reported based on unadjusted Census Bureau data. Rather than a decline in the rate of insurance in the middle-income sector, there has been a decline in income with a large shift to the low-income sector and a concomitant loss of employer-sponsored coverage. The obvious conclusion is that many middle-income Americans not only lost their insurance, but they also lost their incomes – doubly bad news.

The authors make the point that this difference is important from a policy perspective. Generally, many employers of low-income individuals do not have adequate financial resources to provide insurance coverage for their employees. Studies of tax credits and association health plans indicate that they would fall far short of the need. Thus, policies designed to enhance public programs for low-income individuals seem to be in order. If so, we should be increasing eligibility and funding for these programs, especially Medicaid. But the exact opposite is taking place.

We simply won’t get it right until we are prepared to accept the fact that we desperately need to pool all of our existing resources into one publicly-administered program. That would work just fine for all of us.

The Boston Globe
3/21/2003
Editorial
The Medicare cure

The Bush administration is so eager to shift Medicare recipients into HMOs that one might assume private insurers have a better record than Medicare at curbing the growth in health costs. In fact, neither the government insurance program for the elderly nor the private sector has excelled at holding down costs, but a recent report found that Medicare does a substantially better job than the insurers.

(Also)… a 2002 study… found that Medicare beneficiaries are generally more satisfied with their health care than are privately insured people under age 65.

So the question remains: Why would the Bush administration be encouraging Medicare recipients to join HMOs by offering them better prescription-drug benefits than they would get under a plan for those who stay in Medicare?

The answer is that the administration knows there is great popular pressure to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. If this were done through the traditional Medicare program, it would give government enormous buying power to drive down drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Splitting off Medicare recipients into smaller HMOs addresses one of the drug industry’s great fears: that a single agency with the power of the entire Medicare population would be able to force down the exorbitant prices now charged for many essential medicines.

A healthy pharmaceutical industry is crucial to progress in developing life-saving drugs. But at a time when hospitals, doctors, and Medicare recipients themselves have had to make sacrifices, the drug industry should do its part, too. The Health Affairs report makes a strong argument for putting a drug benefit right where it belongs, in Medicare, with its superior record of controlling costs and satisfying its beneficiaries.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/080/editorials/The_Medicare_cure+.shtml

Comment: The primary goal of the Bush administration is to reduce public (tax) funding of the Medicare program. Strengthening Medicare with a bona fide prescription benefit would complicate that task because public support of our program of social insurance would be even greater. But the Bush administration also supports policies that greatly benefit their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

The Boston Globe is quite correct with its comments on this one aspect of the complex Medicare issue. All other providers of health care services to Medicare beneficiaries must comply with the restrictions that the program places on allowable charges – charges that attempt to be both fair to the providers and fair to the taxpayers. Since pharmaceuticals have become a greater component of health services, it has become imperative that this industry also comply with the same standards of fairness. By making pharmaceuticals a full benefit of Medicare, the government will be in a position to set allowable charges, based on fairness to all.

The Boston Globe
3/21/2003
Editorial
The Medicare cure

The Bush administration is so eager to shift Medicare recipients into HMOs that one might assume private insurers have a better record than Medicare at curbing the growth in health costs. In fact, neither the government insurance program for the elderly nor the private sector has excelled at holding down costs, but a recent report found that Medicare does a substantially better job than the insurers.

(Also)… a 2002 study… found that Medicare beneficiaries are generally more satisfied with their health care than are privately insured people under age 65.

So the question remains: Why would the Bush administration be encouraging Medicare recipients to join HMOs by offering them better prescription-drug benefits than they would get under a plan for those who stay in Medicare?

The answer is that the administration knows there is great popular pressure to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. If this were done through the traditional Medicare program, it would give government enormous buying power to drive down drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Splitting off Medicare recipients into smaller HMOs addresses one of the drug industry’s great fears: that a single agency with the power of the entire Medicare population would be able to force down the exorbitant prices now charged for many essential medicines.

A healthy pharmaceutical industry is crucial to progress in developing life-saving drugs. But at a time when hospitals, doctors, and Medicare recipients themselves have had to make sacrifices, the drug industry should do its part, too. The Health Affairs report makes a strong argument for putting a drug benefit right where it belongs, in Medicare, with its superior record of controlling costs and satisfying its beneficiaries.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/080/editorials/The_Medicare_cure+.shtml

Comment: The primary goal of the Bush administration is to reduce public (tax) funding of the Medicare program. Strengthening Medicare with a bona fide prescription benefit would complicate that task because public support of our program of social insurance would be even greater. But the Bush administration also supports policies that greatly benefit their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

The Boston Globe is quite correct with its comments on this one aspect of the complex Medicare issue. All other providers of health care services to Medicare beneficiaries must comply with the restrictions that the program places on allowable charges – charges that attempt to be both fair to the providers and fair to the taxpayers. Since pharmaceuticals have become a greater component of health services, it has become imperative that this industry also comply with the same standards of fairness. By making pharmaceuticals a full benefit of Medicare, the government will be in a position to set allowable charges, based on fairness to all.