PNHP

More and more, ‘Medicare for All’ feasible

More and more, ‘Medicare for All’ feasible

By Bill Knight
Peoria Journal Star, Feb. 12, 2019

From last Saturday through this Wednesday, the National Nurses United labor union has been leading a coast-to-coast effort to strengthen the already-substantial public support for Medicare for All, and to lobby lawmakers to represent their constituents in passing this logical reform.

Medicare for All (M4A) is ‘single-payer’ health care where all Americans would get health coverage from private providers paid by government. M4A would improve the popular Medicare program for the elderly and expand it to cover everyone. Advocates say it would omit insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and private insurers and their huge profits, and save workers, businesses and consumers billions of dollars.

Health care’s high costs, lousy coverage and lack of options isn’t news, but within 72 hours early last month, three reports sparked renewed interest in the increasingly feasible Medicare for All: price hikes for various drugs, health-care reforms in developing countries, and the first Congressional hearing on Medicare for All (M4A).

Three dozen pharmaceutical companies raised prices on hundreds of prescription medicines an average of 6.3 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported; Bolivian president Evo Morales announced the launch next month of free universal health care there; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved of the Budget and Rules Committees’ hearings on Medicare for All.

There’s hope:

‒ Americans support Medicare for All, according to polls by Reuters, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard/Politico, all of which show about 70 percent approval, including 64 percent of Republicans.

‒ Such single-payer care is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and many labor groups, plus the NAACP, the National Farmers Union, the National Organization for Women, the Green Party, and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

‒ Studies indicate Medicare for All over the next decade could mean spending trillions of dollars LESS than current health-care spending.

“Additional taxes that a person would pay annually are far less than the average person is paying in premiums to insurance companies,” said Dr. Pamella Gronemeyer, a physician and small businesswoman in Highland, Ill., active in the Illinois Single Payer Coalition. “Also, the savings created by a system that spends money for health care and not administrative costs is indisputable. Medicare operates on an overhead of 2 to 3 percent; the overhead of private insurance companies is around 20 percent.

“We can make Medicare better without copays and deductibles if we include the whole nation and all age groups,” she continues. “Many fear that if they give up their employer health benefits, they will get worse care. This is not true. As a Medicare enrollee, I have my choice of physicians and health-care facilities; I know that the bills will be paid; and patients and providers are not pitted against each other.”

Politically, legislators should recognize that issues that may be initially controversial eventually can be embraced by society, said U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), a Bradley University graduate and member of Congress’ Medicare for All Caucus.

“Medicare faced considerable resistance immediately prior to its passage [in 1965],” Kelly said. “It has now become a staple upon which millions of Americans rely. Many other developed countries had some form of social insurance that eventually evolved into national insurance for nearly as long as the United States has wrestled with the concept.”

Dr. Gronemeyer adds that the move to a system already used by most industrialized countries would also be good for the United States as a nation.

“The country is only as well as the state of health of the sickest and weakest,” Dr. Gronemeyer said. “Medicare for All is the most economically affordable, equitable and patriotic health care for this country.”

https://www.pjstar.com…

This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy

By Lorie Konish
CNBC, February 11, 2019

KEY POINTS
  • Two-thirds of people who file for bankruptcy cite medical issues as a key contributor to their financial downfall.
  • While the high cost of health care has historically been a trigger for bankruptcy filings, the research shows that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has not improved things.
  • What most people do not realize, according to one researcher, is that their health insurance may not be enough to protect them.

Filing for bankruptcy is often considered a worst-case scenario.

And for many Americans who do pursue that last-ditch effort to rescue their finances, it is because of one reason: health-care costs.

A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.

Other reasons include unaffordable mortgages or foreclosure, at 45 percent; followed by spending or living beyond one’s means, 44.4 percent; providing help to friends or relatives, 28.4 percent; student loans, 25.4 percent; or divorce or separation, 24.4 percent.

While the findings are consistent with past studies on bankruptcy, the data also highlight a key new factor: whether the Affordable Care Act has reduced the burden of medical debt for people.

“Despite gains in coverage and access to care from the ACA, our findings suggest that it did not change the proportion of bankruptcies with medical causes,” an article on the study published in the American Journal of Public Health states.

The number of debtors who cited medical issues as a contributing reason for their bankruptcy actually increased slightly after the law’s implementation — 67.5 percent in the three years following the law’s adoption versus 65.5 percent prior.

The culprit for the lack of improvement was inadequate health-care insurance, according to a co-author of the research, Dr. David U. Himmelstein, a distinguished professor at Hunter College and founder of advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program.

“Unless you’re Jeff Bezos, people don’t have very good alternatives, because the insurance that is available and affordable to people, or that most people’s employers provide them, is not adequate protection if you’re sick,” Himmelstein said.

Most families do not have enough saved for a simple emergency, let alone thousands of dollars in unexpected medical costs. A recent study from personal finance website Bankrate found that only 40 percent of Americans have enough saved to cover a $1,000 emergency expense.

To help combat this problem, Physicians for a National Health Program is advocating for a national Medicare for All program that would broaden insurance coverage for Americans.

“Health insurance is only very partial protection,” Himmelstein said. “I liken it to a hospital gown that looks like coverage until you actually inspect it.”

The research included 910 Americans who filed for bankruptcy between 2013 and 2016.

https://www.cnbc.com…

Do only 13 percent support Medicare for All if it means end of private insurance?

Poll: Just 13 percent want 'Medicare for all' if it means end of private insurance

By Matthew Sheffield
The Hill, February 7, 2019

A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans.

In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn’t allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as “single-payer.”

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn’t compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a “public option.”

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to keep the existing health care system intact.

The Hill-HarrisX survey was conducted among a statistically representative sample of 1,001 registered voters from Feb. 1-2. It has a sampling margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

The Hill-HarrisX Daily Poll

Which of the following comes closest to your view?

15% – The government should remove itself from paying for all health care

14% – The current healthcare system should be kept as is

26% – Any citizen should be able to sign up for Medicare/Medicaid regardless of age or income while those with private plans could keep their existing insurance

13% – Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income and private health plans should be abolished

32% – Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income but people should be able to purchase private supplemental plans

https://thehill.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This survey is important because it is being cited by others as proof that voters want to be able to keep their private insurance plans, and thus they believe that politicians are stretching too far when they support a single payer version of Medicare for all that would eliminate all private insurance.

Actually these results are not that straightforward. Those surveyed were given five choices, and that means that each choice would average 20 percent support. For any option to approach 100 percent support, almost everyone would have had to reject the other four choices. That would be highly unlikely in any poll in which the advantages and disadvantages of each option are not that clear.

Three of the choices included a base of Medicare/Medicaid. That alone can be confusing since many people are aware that Medicaid is a welfare program for low-income individuals and there would be some reluctance to choose a welfare program to apply to everyone as either an option for enrollment or as a mandated plan.

The Medicare/Medicaid option that allows people to sign up voluntarily or keep their existing private plan corresponds to the public option proposal being bantered about, although many might not make that association, nor even know what the ramifications of the public option would be. One-fourth selected this choice.

One of the other two Medicare/Medicaid options is a mandated program that includes everyone and would allow individuals to purchase additional private supplemental plans. That is not unlike our current program of allowing Medicare beneficiaries to purchase a supplemental Medigap plan. By implication, this seems to assume that the proposed Medicare/Medicaid program leaves people exposed to financial risk unless additional coverage is obtained. Thus it is perplexing that this was the most popular choice – with one-third selecting it. Why would people select a plan that would require the purchase of additional coverage to ensure adequate financial security?

The other Medicare/Medicaid mandated plan seems scary to some because it would abolish private health plans with which most of us are very familiar. This fear made this the least popular choice – at 13 percent – and thus led to the title of the article in The Hill. Only 13 percent want Medicare for All if it means the end of private insurance. The irony is that this is the choice that is closest to Single Payer Medicare for All in which everyone is guaranteed health care for life which is affordable – the least expensive model of comprehensive reform – and allows free choice of health care professionals and institutions. The need for private health insurance, with all of its inefficiencies, extra costs, and administrative excesses, is eliminated.

The other two unpopular choices were keeping the system as it is and removing the government from paying for health care. Apparently the public does understand that the system needs to be changed and that the government should be involved in the financing. Seventy-one percent chose one of three Medicare/Medicaid options – presumably a proxy for government involvement.

Although the politicians campaigned on Medicare for all, they are very busy backpedaling now by denying that they would abolish private insurance. Surely they understand that keeping private insurance as an option destroys most of the benefits of the single payer model – universality, equity, administrative efficiency, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and affordability. By keeping private insurers in place, collectively we pay more and get less. That’s not what we want, or at least it shouldn’t be.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Saving Veterans’ Health Care

Readers object to a plan to privatize the V.A. system.

By Andrew Coates, M.D.
The New York Times, Letters, Feb. 11, 2019

To the Editor:

Re: “V.A. Rule Would Broaden Access to Private Health Care for Some Veterans” (news article, Jan. 31):

The Department of Veterans Affairs has begun to shift tremendous resources, measured in billions, away from publicly provided — and therefore publicly accountable — medical and surgical care.

Precisely the wrong direction!

What is the big problem at the publicly run veterans hospitals and clinics? Cynically underfund a great public service and then advertise only its failures, while ignoring its fundamental and irrefutable successes.

The V.A. should not be torn down, but defended and expanded — on history, on principle and especially on its superlative health outcomes. Instead of privatization, we should demand expansion of the V.A.

We desperately need a national health program. We should see in the V.A. system a foundation for a national health service, able to offer excellent and accountable care for everyone in the United States.

Dr. Andrew Coates is an assistant professor of medicine and psychiatry at Albany Medical College and a past president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

https://www.nytimes.com…

Single-payer would save trillions

By Johnathon Ross, M.D., M.P.H.
Toledo (Ohio) Blade, Letters, February 9, 2019

In response to a letter about the cost of single-payer healthcare (“Medicare for All cost said to be $32 trillion,” Jan. 27), polls show that many people are confused about what Medicare for all would cost. I hope that the following is helpful to the author and other readers.

The Mercatus Institute at George Mason University and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have published cost estimates of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill. Both studies were as conservative as possible. They project significant savings over 10 years, while covering an additional 28 million people and improving coverage for 32 million, eliminating co-pays and deductibles, and allowing complete choice of doctor and hospital.

Mercatus estimates that we will need $32 trillion of new tax dollars to replace insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments like co-pays and deductibles. This may seem like a shocking amount of new taxes but total national health spending would still be $2 trillion less over the same period of time. The PERI group estimates we would save about $6 trillion.

Both studies show large administrative savings from simplified billing for doctors, global budgets for hospitals, savings from negotiations for better prices for drugs and equipment, and from the elimination of the administrative waste.

Dr. Johnathon Ross is a past president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

https://www.toledoblade.com…

Eighty-seven million adults are inadequately insured

Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA

By Sara R. Collins, Herman K. Bhupal, and Michelle M. Doty
The Commonwealth Fund, February 7, 2019

The greatest deterioration in the quality and comprehensiveness of coverage has occurred among people in employer plans. More than half of Americans under age 65 — about 158 million people — get their health insurance through an employer, while about one-quarter either have a plan purchased through the individual insurance market or are enrolled in Medicaid. Although the ACA has expanded and improved coverage options for people without access to a job-based health plan, the law largely left the employer market alone.

Since the ACA, Fewer Adults Are Uninsured, but More Are Underinsured

Compared to 2010, when the ACA became law, fewer people today are uninsured, but more people are underinsured. Of the 194 million U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 in 2018, an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured.

There also has been some improvement in long-term uninsured rates. Among adults who were uninsured at the time of the survey, 54 percent reported they had been without coverage for more than two years, down from 72 percent before the ACA coverage expansions went into effect.

More Adults Are Underinsured, with the Greatest Growth Occurring Among Those with Employer Coverage

Of people who were insured continuously throughout 2018, an estimated 44 million were underinsured because of high out-of-pocket costs and deductibles. This is up from an estimated 29 million in 2010. The most likely to be underinsured are people who buy plans on their own through the individual market including the marketplaces. However, the greatest growth in the number of underinsured adults is occurring among those in employer health plans.

Fewer Adults Report Not Getting Needed Care Because of Costs, but Gains Have Stalled in Recent Years

In 2014, the year the ACA’s major coverage expansions went into effect, the share of adults in our survey who said that cost prevented them from getting health care that they needed, such as prescription medication, dropped significantly. But there has been no significant improvement since then.

Inadequate Coverage Is Associated with More Cost-Related Problems Getting Needed Care

The lack of continued improvement in overall access to care nationally reflects the fact that coverage gains have plateaued, and underinsured rates have climbed. People who experience any time uninsured are more likely than any other group to delay getting care because of cost. And among people with coverage all year, those who were underinsured reported cost-related delays in getting care at nearly double the rate of those who were not underinsured.

Fewer Adults Have Difficulty Paying Their Medical Bills, but the Improvement Has Stalled

There was modest but significant improvement following the ACA’s coverage expansions in the proportion of all U.S. adults who reported having difficulty paying their medical bills or said they were paying off medical debt over time. However, those gains have stalled.

Inadequate Coverage Is Associated with More Problems Paying Medical Bills

Inadequate insurance coverage leaves people exposed to high health care costs, and these expenses can quickly turn into medical debt. More than half of uninsured adults and insured adults who have had a coverage gap reported that they had had problems paying medical bills or were paying off medical debt over time. Among people who had continuous insurance coverage, the rate of medical bill and debt problems is nearly twice as high for the underinsured as it is for people who are not underinsured.

From the Conclusion

U.S. working-age adults are significantly more likely to have health insurance since the ACA became law in 2010. But the improvement in uninsured rates has stalled. In addition, more people have health plans that fail to adequately protect them from health care costs, with the fastest deterioration in cost protection occurring in the employer market. The ACA made only minor changes to employer plans, and the erosion in cost protection has taken a bite out of the progress made in Americans’ health coverage since the law’s enactment.

Health care costs are primarily what’s driving growth in premiums across all health insurance markets. Employers and insurers have kept premiums down by increasing consumers’ deductibles and other cost-sharing, which in turn is making more people underinsured.

WHY ARE INSURED AMERICANS SPENDING SO MUCH OF THEIR INCOME ON HEALTH CARE COSTS?

Several factors may be contributing to high underinsured rates among adults in individual market plans and rising rates in employer plans:

1. Although the Affordable Care Act’s reforms to the individual market have provided consumers with greater protection against health care costs, many moderate-income Americans have not seen gains. The ACA’s essential health benefits package, cost-sharing reductions for lower- income families, and out-of-pocket cost limits have helped make health care more affordable for millions of Americans. But while the cost-sharing reductions have been particularly important in lowering deductibles and copayments for people with incomes under 250 percent of the poverty level (about $62,000 for a family of four), about half of people who purchase marketplace plans, and all of those buying plans directly from insurance companies, do not have them.

2. The bans against insurers excluding people from coverage because of a preexisting condition and rating based on health status have meant that individuals with greater health needs, and thus higher costs, are now able to get health insurance in the individual market. Not surprisingly, the survey data show that people with individual market coverage are somewhat more likely to have health problems than they were in 2010, which means they also have higher costs.

3. While plans in the employer market historically have provided greater cost protection than plans in the individual market, businesses have tried to hold down premium growth by asking workers to shoulder an increasing share of health costs, particularly in the form of higher deductibles. While the ACA’s employer mandate imposed a minimum coverage requirement on large companies, the requirement amounts to just 60 percent of typical person’s overall costs. This leaves the potential for high plan deductibles and copayments.

4. Growth in Americans’ incomes has not kept pace with growth in health care costs. Even when health costs rise more slowly, they can take an increasingly larger bite out of incomes.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org…

Trump Versus the Socialist Menace

By Paul Krugman
The New York Times, February 7, 2019

After all, voters overwhelmingly support most of the policies proposed by American “socialists,” including higher taxes on the wealthy and making Medicare available to everyone (although they don’t support plans that would force people to give up private insurance — a warning to Democrats not to make single-payer purity a litmus test).

https://www.nytimes.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Many politicians today are walking away from Single Payer Medicare for All – a system that would make health care affordable for everyone. Many suggest instead that we merely need to add one more option to our fragmented system of financing health care. So how is the system that they want to protect working?

Of just the U.S. adults alone – the 194 million aged 19 to 64 in 2018 – an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured. The greatest growth in underinsured has been in the insurance market that supposedly we were protecting – the employer-sponsored health plans that are required to cover only 60 percent of the typical person’s overall costs.

This is shocking! The financial protection supposedly afforded by private employer-sponsored plans is deteriorating. Yesterday’s Quote of the Day revealed that the incidence of medical bankruptcy has not declined since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

And yet there is a surge in the call to protect private insurance from being displaced by a single payer Medicare for All system. As only one of hundreds of examples, Paul Krugman writes that people don’t support plans that would force them to give up private insurance – “a warning to Democrats not to make single-payer purity a litmus test.”

When you look at all of the other proposals designed to avoid the enactment of a single payer Medicare for All system, none of them address adequately this deterioration in the financial protection that should be an essential feature of private insurance. Yet if you redesign private plans so they do provide that protection, the premiums would be so high that much greater public subsidies would be required – subsidies that the politicians will tell us we can’t afford.

They don’t get it. Our current fragmented, dysfunctional, administratively wasteful system is by far the most expensive model of financing health care, while taking away choice of doctors and hospitals and forcing on individuals excessive out-of-pocket costs that have resulted in inadequate coverage for 87 million adults. Eighty-seven million!

All of that would go away with the least costly system of providing comprehensive coverage for everyone: Single Payer Medicare for All.

Remember when they tell us that people want their private plans protected from Medicare for All, 87 million adults are potentially exposed to financial hardship, and most of them don’t even realize it since they have not yet faced major medical expenses. But what is insurance for? Prepaid medical care through the social insurance program of Single Payer Medicare for All will show you what it’s for. Eighty-seven million fewer adults that would have to worry about the potential of debt from medical bills.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act

By David U. Himmelstein, M.D.; Robert M. Lawless, J.D.; Deborah Thorne, Ph.D.; Pamela Foohey, J.D.; and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
AJPH, March 2019

In surveys conducted by researchers with the Consumer Bankruptcy Project in 2001 and 2007, a majority of recently bankrupt debtors implicated medical bills or illness-related work loss as causes of their bankruptcy, findings that President Obama used to argue for passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA both expanded and upgraded health insurance coverage, banning preexisting illness exclusions, imposing a cap on out-of-pocket spending, and mandating coverage for essential benefits. Although these reforms might attenuate the risk of medical bankruptcy, increasing medical costs and stagnant incomes could have the opposite effect.

We sought to assess the incidence of medical bankruptcy in the current era using methods similar to those employed by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project in its 2001 and 2007 surveys.

The share of debtors reporting a medical contributor before the ACA’s January 1, 2014 implementation (65.5%) and after implementation (67.5%) was similar (P = .37). Both of these figures are close to the 62.1% estimate from the 2007 survey, and in a difference-in-differences analysis we found no evidence that trends differed between states that did versus did not accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion (P = .76). The responses regarding individual items in the current survey are also similar to those in 2007, when 57.1% of debtors cited medical bills as contributors to their bankruptcy and 40.3% cited income loss due to illness.

Medical bankruptcy has garnered public attention because it resonates with the abuse that Americans—including many middle-class Americans—suffer at the hands of our health care finance system. Despite gains in coverage and access to care from the ACA, our findings suggest that it did not change the proportion of bankruptcies with medical causes.

Moreover, medical costs continue to outpace incomes, 29 million remain uninsured, and many of those with health insurance face unpredictable and unaffordable out-of-pocket costs as copayments and deductibles ratchet up. And few Americans have adequate disability coverage, leaving them vulnerable to illness-related income loss that amplifies the financial distress caused by medical bills.

Although death is inevitable, good public policy can ensure that financial suffering from illness is not.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The Affordable Care Act did not change the proportion of bankruptcies with medical causes. “The share of debtors reporting a medical contributor before the ACA’s January 1, 2014 implementation (65.5%) and after implementation (67.5%) was similar.”

A well designed single payer Medicare for All program would essentially eliminate medical bills as a contributing cause to bankruptcy though we would still need more effective programs that would replace lost income due to illness – income that would be required to meet basic needs.

The Affordable Care Act has not provided enough financial protection for those with health care needs, and merely adding to the insurance market another public option, as many politicians are suggesting, will do essentially nothing to reduce the scourge of medical bankruptcy. We need to enact and implement Single Payer Medicare for All if we want to seriously address this problem.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Medicare for All is an improved free-market solution

By Ed Weisbart, M.D.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 7, 2019

I am a capitalist and physician who believes competition within a market can drive up quality and drive down cost. That’s why I believe single-payer Medicare for All is an improved market solution and the best road forward for American health care.

Think about it. The market today pits doctors like me against other doctors, each in search of the most lucrative insurance contracts we can get. After all, by necessity, we’re running a de facto retail business, and if we can sign on with an insurer that pays us a few bucks more for the same amount of work, it’s pretty hard to turn down.

From time to time, you may have seen those little notices in your doctor’s office listing insurance networks with which your doctor no longer participates. You quickly scan that list, see that your insurance company isn’t on it, and forget about it. After all, you don’t think it really affects you. It does.

What that notice actually means is that your physician’s practice has signed a contract with a new insurer that pays more than some of their other insurers do, and that new contract promises an influx of better-paying patients. To make room for these new patients, we doctors leave networks that aren’t as economically advantageous. We’re just responding to the ever-changing market and making business decisions.

This is an unfair and inhumane use of the market. It makes me sick that someone’s economic value determines whether physicians take care of them. This is a terrible side effect of the for-profit health care market.

It’s also incredibly wasteful. A recent study from Milliman showed that the average American physician spends $99,000 per year just dealing with insurance companies. That’s money that must be made up, and it eventually comes back to you and your employer in higher premiums.

Imagine, instead, that you live in a country where every person is worth the same economic value to any physician. Imagine that you could go to any doctor you choose and the payment automatically follows you. Imagine that you never have to check to see if your doctor is “in network” and that no one can tell you have to change doctors. Imagine that you — and only you — control your own health care decisions.

In other words, imagine you live in a country with single-payer, improved Medicare for All. Instead of hundreds of insurance companies, imagine the United States has one single payer — Medicare — and it includes coverage for prescription drugs, dentistry, eyeglasses and more — all without any co-pays or deductibles.

That’s precisely the country we would have with the Medicare for All Act of 2019, which Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., is currently proposing.

Intuitively, one automatically assumes the costs of such a pipe-dream solution would be prohibitive, but the counterintuitive facts say the opposite: Single-payer, improved Medicare for All would cost less than the current, wasteful system. Twenty-eight independent economic analyses have come to the same conclusion: Medicare for All would reduce what our nation spends on health care.

Most of the studies predict dramatic savings — at a minimum, enough to eliminate the need for co-pays and deductibles, while adding coverage for dentistry, eyeglasses and hearing aids, and giving us access to virtually every doctor. Even a Koch-brothers-funded study a few months ago concluded that Medicare for All would save the nation trillions of dollars over 10 years.

A 2018 analysis from the University of Massachusetts estimated a 12 percent increase in overall utilization of health care services but a 9 percent drop in total administrative costs, a 40 percent drop in the 15 percent we spend on pharmaceuticals, a 2.8 percent drop created by developing uniform rates, and a 1 percent drop by reducing fraud and other waste. Overall, the 12 percent increase is more than balanced by a 19 percent cost savings, dropping our 2017 health care spending from $3.24 trillion to $2.93 trillion.

In a nation that shut down a government over a $5.7 billion wall proposal, saving $331 billion in health care is huge.

I support Rep. Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act of 2019 because it applies the free market to the delivery side of health care — in favor of patients — because doctors should be competing for patients, not for insurance contracts.

Medicare for All is pragmatic, doable and necessary — because our current system is broken. It stands to reason that if we can find a way to pay for health care that’s far too expensive, then we can certainly afford health care that’s less expensive.

Dr. Ed Weisbart is a family physician in Olivette, Mo. and chairs the Missouri chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

https://www.stltoday.com…

Cost Savings from Improved Medicare for All

Health care costs are increasing dramatically for American businesses, with no end in sight. This depresses wages, makes employees reluctant to use their health insurance, and puts companies at a competitive disadvantage. Improved Medicare for All would generate significant savings for both businesses and workers.

Featuring MCS Industries CEO and Business Initiative for Health Policy founder Richard Master, and University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Gerald Friedman.

New medical bankruptcy study: Two-thirds of filers cite illness and medical bills as contributors to financial ruin

Researchers found no evidence that the ACA reduced the proportion of bankruptcies driven by medical problems; insurance offered little protection to middle-class Americans.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2019

Contacts: David U. Himmelstein, M.D., dhimmels@hunter.cuny.edu; Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., steffie_woolhandler@hms.harvard.edu; Clare Fauke, 312-782-6006, clare@pnhp.org

Medical problems contributed to 66.5% of all bankruptcies, a figure that is virtually unchanged since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to a study published yesterday as an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health. The findings indicate that 530,000 families suffer bankruptcies each year that are linked to illness or medical bills.

The study, carried out by a team of two doctors, two lawyers, and a sociologist from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project (CBP), surveyed a random sample of 910 Americans who filed for personal bankruptcy between 2013 and 2016, and abstracted the court records of their bankruptcy filings. The study, which is one component of the CBP’s ongoing bankruptcy research, provides the only national data on medical contributors to bankruptcy since the 2010 passage of the ACA. Bankruptcy debtors reported that medical bills contributed to 58.5% of bankruptcies, while illness-related income loss contributed to 44.3%; many debtors cited both of these medical issues.

These figures are similar to findings from the CBP’s medical bankruptcy surveys in 2001 and 2007, which were authored by three researchers in the current study (Himmelstein, Thorne, and Woolhandler), and then-Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren. As in those earlier studies, many debtors cited multiple contributors to their financial woes.

The current study found no evidence that the ACA reduced the proportion of bankruptcies driven by medical problems: 65.5% of debtors cited a medical contributor to their bankruptcy in the period prior to the ACA’s implementation as compared to 67.5% in the three years after the law came into effect. The responses also did not differ depending on whether the respondent resided in a state that had accepted ACA’s Medicaid expansion. The researchers noted that bankruptcy is most common among middle-class Americans, who have faced increasing copayments and deductibles in recent years despite the ACA. The poor, who were most helped by the ACA, less frequently seek formal bankruptcy relief because they have few assets (such as a home) to protect and face particular difficulty in securing the legal help needed to navigate formal bankruptcy proceedings.

Relative to other bankruptcy filers, people who identified a medical contributor were in worse health and were two to three times more likely to skip needed medical care and medications.

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study, a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York’s (CUNY) Hunter College and Lecturer at Harvard Medical School commented: “Unless you’re Bill Gates, you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, copayments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanishes when prolonged illness causes job loss – just when families need it most. Private health insurance is a defective product, akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain.”

In the article, the authors note that “medical bills frequently cause financial hardship, and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that they were by far the most common cause of unpaid bills sent to collection agencies in 2014, accounting for more than half of all such debts.”

The study’s senior author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an internist in the South Bronx, Distinguished Professor at CUNY/Hunter College and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard commented: “The ACA was a step forward, but 29 million remain uncovered, and the epidemic of under-insurance is out of control. We need to move ahead from the ACA to a single-payer, Medicare for All system that assures first-dollar coverage for everyone. But the Trump administration and Republicans in several states are taking us in reverse: cutting Medicaid, threatening to gut protections for the more than 61 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, and allowing insurers to peddle stripped-down policies that offer no real protection.”

Study co-author Robert M. Lawless, the Max L. Rowe Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law noted: “In the Supreme Court’s words, bankruptcy is a fresh start for the ‘honest but unfortunate debtor.’ Our study shows that for many bankruptcy debtors, the misfortune continues to come from the way we pay for health care. Bankruptcy may provide a fresh start, but it comes at a high financial and emotional cost for those who file. Filing for  bankruptcy can stop the financial bleeding that the health care system imposes, but curing that system’s ills is the only lasting solution.”

“Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.” David U. Himmelstein, Robert M. Lawless, Deborah Thorne, Pamela Foohey, and Steffie Woolhandler. American Journal of Public Health, March 1, 2019 (online Feb. 6, 2019). DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901

Deborah Thorne of the University of Idaho and Pamela Foohey of Indiana University Bloomington also were co-authors of the study. Drs. Himmelstein and Woolhandler founded Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org), a nonprofit research and education organization whose more than 22,000 members support single-payer national health insurance. PNHP had no role in funding or otherwise supporting the study described above.

Hospital prices grew faster than physician prices in hospital-based care

Hospital Prices Grew Substantially Faster than Physician Prices for Hospital-Based Care in 2007–14

By Zack Cooper, Stuart Craig, Martin Gaynor, Nir J. Harish, Harlan M. Krumholz, and John Van Reenen
Health Affairs, February 2019

Abstract

Evidence suggests that growth in providers’ prices drives growth in health care spending on the privately insured. However, existing work has not systematically differentiated between the growth rate of hospital prices and that of physician prices. We analyzed growth in both types of prices for inpatient and hospital-based outpatient services using actual negotiated prices paid by insurers. We found that in the period 2007–14 hospital prices grew substantially faster than physician prices. For inpatient care, hospital prices grew 42 percent, while physician prices grew 18 percent. Similarly, for hospital-based outpatient care, hospital prices grew 25 percent, while physician prices grew 6 percent. A majority of the growth in payments for inpatient and hospital-based outpatient care was driven by growth in hospital prices, not physician prices. Our work suggests that efforts to reduce health care spending should be primarily focused on addressing growth in hospital rather than physician prices. Policy makers should consider a range of options to address hospital price growth, including antitrust enforcement, administered pricing, the use of reference pricing, and incentivizing referring physicians to make more cost-efficient referrals.

From the Discussion

Our findings suggest that there may be significant differences in the bargaining leverage of hospitals and physicians. More work needs to be done to quantify the differences between the two groups’ bargaining leverages and the extent to which there are differences in the price elasticities facing the two types of providers.

Our results also have direct implications for strategies to address growth in health spending for the privately insured. For example, a bill recently introduced in the California legislature would allow state officials to regulate hospital and physician prices. Broad-brush efforts that do not discriminate by setting could miss the mark. Our work suggests that instead of focusing on growth of physician prices (which have grown roughly at the pace of inflation), in the short run policy makers should devote more of their efforts to addressing growth of hospital prices.

https://www.healthaffairs.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Under our current fragmented system of financing health care, it is no surprise that hospital prices have been growing faster than physician prices for both inpatient and outpatient services. Merger and acquisition activities, including hospital acquisition of medical groups have long been suspected as contributors to health care inflation. So what do we do about it?

It is well established that markets do not work well in setting prices for health care, whereas publicly financed and publicly administered programs are more effective in determining appropriate value. A well designed single payer Medicare for All program would go a long way toward improving pricing in health care.

Central planning and budgeting of capital improvements does a better job in controlling capacity of the system, thus ensuring the right number of beds. Operations of the facility should be funded through global budgets, just as the fire department is. That would both slow excessive growth in prices while ensuring adequate funding to fulfill the community’s needs.

Physicians would be reimbursed at negotiated rates whether through fee-for-service or capitation, depending on the practice model. Our government Medicare program has been more effective than private insurers at keeping price increases at sustainable rates.

At any rate, according to this study, “efforts to reduce health care spending should be primarily focused on addressing growth in hospital rather than physician prices.”

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

An Open Letter to Rep. Pramila Jayapal Regarding Medicare for All

We applaud your efforts to improve the legislation from previous versions by including guaranteed access to vital services such as reproductive health and long-term care, but have two serious questions about the future of private insurers and exactly who might be left out of an otherwise universal system.

By Isabel Ostrer, Chris Cai, and Ana Malinow, M.D.
Common Dreams, Feb. 6, 2019

Dear Congresswoman Jayapal,

Thank you for your hard work and leadership as the new lead sponsor of the forthcoming Medicare for All Act of 2019. As health care providers and health justice advocates, we look forward to working with you to grow support for the bill and ensure its future passage.

We applaud your efforts to improve the legislation from previous versions by including guaranteed access to vital services such as reproductive health and long-term care. However, we have identified two key policy provisions that must be addressed in the final bill: 1) the explicit prohibition and buyout of investor-owned, for-profit health facilities, and 2) the explicit inclusion of coverage for every resident of the U.S., regardless of immigration or citizenship status.

1. As part of a transition to a Medicare-for-all system, for-profit health facilities should be converted to nonprofit governance and their owners compensated for past investments.

There is no place for profit in a humane and efficient national health program. For-profit providers (including hospitals, dialysis centers, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices) have been shown to provide inferior care at inflated prices and are more likely to bend care to profitability. For-profit hospitals spend less on nurses and other clinical aspects of care, but more on administration and financial management, compared to nonprofits. For-profit nursing homes are cited for quality deficiencies 28 percent more often than nonprofits, and for deficiencies that place residents in immediate jeopardy 53 percent more frequently. Investor-owned home care agencies cost Medicare $752 more per patient than nonprofit agencies, while providing worse care. In addition, investor-owned chains have often been cited for questionable business practices and have been repeatedly  implicated in large-scale fraud.

To achieve a fully nonprofit health system, Medicare for all legislation should include plans for the government to “buy out” investors in for-profit institutions. Researchers estimate the fair market value of investor-owned facilities covered by a buyout to be $150 billion at most. Using Treasury Bill financing over 15 years at the current interest rate of 3 percent would cost the government about $12.75 billion annually, equivalent to about 1 percent of annual hospital costs. Even in the short term, these costs would be offset by eliminating what we currently waste on investor profits. For example, total profits of just three investor-owned firms (HCA, DaVita and Fresenius) totaled more than $6 billion in 2017. For the sake of both patient health and cost savings, we cannot afford to let investor-owned facilities participate in a Medicare for all system.

2. A future Medicare for all program must include everyone living in the U.S., regardless of immigration or citizenship status. 

Aside from humanitarian concerns, excluding anyone in the U.S. from a national health plan only adds waste and unnecessary administrative costs. Immigrants are often used as a scapegoat for skyrocketing health costs, but studies show that instead of draining our health care dollars, immigrants subsidize and maintain our health care system.

Between 2002 and 2009, immigrants contributed $115 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they used in health care. Because of their lower utilization costs, immigrants also heavily subsidize private insurance for U.S.-born residents. A single-payer bill must explicitly include both documented and undocumented immigrants, and not leave eligibility up to administrative whims.

As medical students and physicians, we strongly believe that a single-payer program is the only solution to our country’s failing health care system. However, to ensure the long-term success of Medicare for All, we must get the policy details right, including a ban on for-profit health facilities with a planned buyout of investors, and the inclusion of every U.S. resident, regardless of immigration status.

Sincerely,

Christopher Cai, Medical Student
Isabel Ostrer, Medical Student
Ana Malinow, M.D.

Isabel Ostrer is a medical student at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and a member of Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP).

Chris Cai is a medical student at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and a member of Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP).

Dr. Ana Malinow has  spent her career taking care of undocumented, refugee, and poor children in Cleveland, Houston and Pittsburgh before moving to San Francisco, where she is currently practicing as a general pediatrician. She is past President of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization of 20,000 health care providers that support single payer national health care.

https://www.commondreams.org…