PNHP

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

By Robert H. Frank
The New York Times, July 7, 2017

Lingering uncertainty about the fate of the Affordable Care Act has spurred the California legislature to consider adoption of a statewide single-payer health care system.

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

Total costs are lower under single-payer systems for several reasons. One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. Single-payer systems also spend virtually nothing on competitive advertising, which can account for more than 15 percent of total expenses for private insurers.

The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more than $73,000 in the United States but less than $23,000 in France.

Despite this evidence, respected commentators continue to cite costs as a reason to doubt that single-payer can succeed in the United States. A recent Washington Post editorial, for example, ominously predicted that budget realities would dampen enthusiasm for single-payer, noting that the per capita expenditures under existing single-payer programs in the United States were much higher than those in other countries.

But this comparison is misleading. In most other countries, single-payer covers the whole population, most of which has only minimal health needs. In contrast, single-payer components of the United States system disproportionately cover population subgroups with the heaviest medical needs: older people (Medicare), the poor and disabled (Medicaid) and returned service personnel (Department of Veterans Affairs).

In short, the evidence is clear that single-payer delivers quality care at significantly lower cost than the current American hybrid system. It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objection.

In addition to being far cheaper, single-payer would also defuse the powerful political objections to the Affordable Care Act’s participation mandate. Polls consistently show that large majorities want people with pre-existing conditions to be able to obtain health coverage at affordable rates. But that goal cannot be achieved unless healthy people are required to join the insured pool. Officials in the Obama administration tried, largely in vain, to explain why the program’s insurance exchanges would collapse in the absence of the participation mandate.

But the logic of the underlying argument is actually very simple. Most people seem able to grasp it if you ask them what would happen if the government required companies to sell fire insurance at affordable rates to people whose houses had already burned down.

No home insurer could remain in business if each policy it sold required it to replace a house costing several hundred thousand dollars. Similarly, no health insurer could remain in business if each of its policy holders generated many thousands of dollars in health care reimbursements each month.

That’s why the lack of a mandate in the alternative plans under consideration means that millions of people with pre-existing conditions will become uninsurable if repeal efforts are successful. An underappreciated advantage of the single-payer approach is that it sidesteps the mandate objection by paying to cover everyone out of tax revenue.

Of course, having to pay taxes is itself a mandate of a sort, but it’s one the electorate has largely come to terms with. Apart from fringe groups that denounce all taxation as theft, most people understand that our entire system would collapse if tax payments were purely voluntary.

The Affordable Care Act is an inefficient system that was adopted only because its architects believed, plausibly, that the more efficient single-payer approach would not be politically achievable in 2009. But single-payer now enjoys significantly higher support than it did then, and is actually strongly favored by voters in some states.

Solid majorities nationwide now favor expansion of the existing single-payer elements of our current system, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid cuts proposed in Congress have been roundly criticized. Perhaps it’s time to go further: Individual states and, eventually, the entire country, can save money and improve services by embracing single-payer health care.

https://www.nytimes.com…

A health care solution is on the table

By Ahmed C.K. Kutty, M.D.
Concord Monitor, July 7, 2017

With the turmoil surrounding the current healthcare bill in the Senate, a solution hiding in plain sight deserves every concerned American’s attention.

Medicare For All fits the bill as a worthy replacement for the much maligned Affordable Care Act.

Having been around for 52 years, Medicare is familiar and popular, efficient with an overhead of 3 percent, contrasted with 30 percent in the private sector plans, and is available to all seniors and the disabled, regardless of economic status.’

Medicare for All will be eminently affordable with savings of $500 billion predicted, from $3.4 trillion that is the current health care tab for the whole country. Financed publicly. No premiums, deductibles and copays will be due at the point of care. Delivery will remain largely private, as under the current system.

The time is now for an improved Medicare to be expanded to cover all 320 million of us in a single national risk pool.

Did Winston Churchill know something about our national character we did not when he remarked: “Americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they have tried all else.”?

http://www.concordmonitor.com…

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

By Robert H. Frank
The New York Times, July 7, 2017

Lingering uncertainty about the fate of the Affordable Care Act has spurred the California legislature to consider adoption of a statewide single-payer health care system.

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

Total costs are lower under single-payer systems for several reasons. One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. Single-payer systems also spend virtually nothing on competitive advertising, which can account for more than 15 percent of total expenses for private insurers.

The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more than $73,000 in the United States but less than $23,000 in France.

Despite this evidence, respected commentators continue to cite costs as a reason to doubt that single-payer can succeed in the United States. A recent Washington Post editorial, for example, ominously predicted that budget realities would dampen enthusiasm for single-payer, noting that the per capita expenditures under existing single-payer programs in the United States were much higher than those in other countries.

But this comparison is misleading. In most other countries, single-payer covers the whole population, most of which has only minimal health needs. In contrast, single-payer components of the United States system disproportionately cover population subgroups with the heaviest medical needs: older people (Medicare), the poor and disabled (Medicaid) and returned service personnel (Department of Veterans Affairs).

In short, the evidence is clear that single-payer delivers quality care at significantly lower cost than the current American hybrid system. It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objection.

In addition to being far cheaper, single-payer would also defuse the powerful political objections to the Affordable Care Act’s participation mandate. Polls consistently show that large majorities want people with pre-existing conditions to be able to obtain health coverage at affordable rates. But that goal cannot be achieved unless healthy people are required to join the insured pool. Officials in the Obama administration tried, largely in vain, to explain why the program’s insurance exchanges would collapse in the absence of the participation mandate.

But the logic of the underlying argument is actually very simple. Most people seem able to grasp it if you ask them what would happen if the government required companies to sell fire insurance at affordable rates to people whose houses had already burned down.

No home insurer could remain in business if each policy it sold required it to replace a house costing several hundred thousand dollars. Similarly, no health insurer could remain in business if each of its policy holders generated many thousands of dollars in health care reimbursements each month.

That’s why the lack of a mandate in the alternative plans under consideration means that millions of people with pre-existing conditions will become uninsurable if repeal efforts are successful. An underappreciated advantage of the single-payer approach is that it sidesteps the mandate objection by paying to cover everyone out of tax revenue.

Of course, having to pay taxes is itself a mandate of a sort, but it’s one the electorate has largely come to terms with. Apart from fringe groups that denounce all taxation as theft, most people understand that our entire system would collapse if tax payments were purely voluntary.

The Affordable Care Act is an inefficient system that was adopted only because its architects believed, plausibly, that the more efficient single-payer approach would not be politically achievable in 2009. But single-payer now enjoys significantly higher support than it did then, and is actually strongly favored by voters in some states.

Solid majorities nationwide now favor expansion of the existing single-payer elements of our current system, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid cuts proposed in Congress have been roundly criticized. Perhaps it’s time to go further: Individual states and, eventually, the entire country, can save money and improve services by embracing single-payer health care.

https://www.nytimes.com…

Michael Lighty explains the waiver process proposed for a California single payer system

Policy Rant: CA SB 562 and Federal Waivers

By Michael Lighty
Medium, July 6, 2017

Skeptics of SB 562, the California single-payer bill, latch onto the question of obtaining federal waivers to help fund the new Healthy California Trust Fund, an independent public authority created by SB562 that will guarantee healthcare to all Californians thru single-payer financing. But these skeptics fail to recognize the political, statutory and legal paths available to ensure the new system receives all the federal funds for which Californians are eligible.

Through on-going consultations with advocates, administrators, legal authorities and health policy analysts, the sponsor of SB 562 is preparing for how the new system can build upon the existing Medicaid 1115 waiver for California, utilize newly granted state flexibility under the current Administration, apply for a 1332 waiver under the ACA, and establish Healthy California as a Part B provider for Medicare as well as subsidize Part D premiums, approaches consistent with current law and regulation.

Professor William Hsiao in his July, 2011, analysis of constraints to state single-payer, cites existing provisions of the Social Security Act that give states the opportunity to administer Medicare, an element useful to creating the “single channel” entity that reimburses all providers, the model for Healthy California.

He also discusses the usefulness to state single payer of Section 1332 of the ACA, which Congress intended to facilitate state universal healthcare systems, including single-payer financing. Converting federal tax subsidies under the ACA to monies into the new Healthy California Trust Fund, and getting federal tax credits for any employer and individual tax payments to fund the new Trust Fund, are the primary changes, the granting of which are contemplated by the legislative debate and the ACA statute. The waiver must certify the state program is budget neutral to the federal government and expands coverage. Hawaii obtained a 1332 waiver in January to provide federal tax credits for employer paid state taxes, replacing tax credits for employer paid insurance or coverage, a precedent relevant to SB 562.

Much uncertainty surrounds the future of Medicaid, but greater state “flexibility” is expected, along with reduced funding. Such flexibility does make it more likely that California can obtain those federal Medicaid dollars, however we organize our healthcare financing, provided we spend those dollars per the eligibility rules.

In other words, Californians will receive every federal healthcare dollar for which we are eligible, the question is in what form — can we use those dollars as part of the “single channel” created by the Healthy California Trust Fund to pay providers? And if we don’t get those monies, or the Federal government denies waivers to California while granting great flexibility to other states, we can litigate. These decisions are subject to judicial review.

In a political environment of gridlock and worse at the federal level, and increasing focus for change at the state level, with Democrats in control of California government holding 2/3 legislative majorities and the governorship, the politics strongly favor organizing to win in the golden state. With the resources of a nation, California can and should lead the country to achieve healthcare as a human right.

Michael Lighty is Director of Public Policy at California Nurses Association/National Nurses United.

https://medium.com…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

What legislative process on the state level is there that would allow a state to use Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies and other federal funds for a state-based single payer system? That question is apropos to SB 562, the California single payer bill. Michael Lighty, the policy director for the California Nurses Association – the major driving force behind the current efforts to enact a single payer system in California, explains that process to us.

I will make no effort to paraphrase his comments.

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

Single payer support growing but malleable

Data Note: Modestly Strong but Malleable Support for Single-Payer Health Care

By Liz Hamel, Bryan Wu, and Mollyann Brodie
Kaiser Family Foundation, July 5, 2017

As Congress continues to negotiate a repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), some observers have suggested that if Republicans are unable to pass a replacement plan, it will create momentum for Democrats to push the country towards a single-payer health care system. This section of the latest Kaiser Health Tracking poll finds that while there has been a modest increase in the public’s level of support for single-payer in recent years, a substantial share of the public remains opposed to such a plan, and opinions are quite malleable when presented with the types of arguments that would be likely to arise during a national debate.

Trending support for single-payer

The June Kaiser Health Tracking poll finds that a slim majority of the public (53 percent) now favors a single-payer health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, while just over four in ten (43 percent) are opposed. This is somewhat higher than the level of support found in a variety of Kaiser polls with slight variations in question wording dating back to 1998. From 1998 through 2004,  roughly four in ten supported a national health plan, while about half were opposed. In polling from 2008-2009, the period leading up to passage of the ACA, the public was more evenly divided, with about half in favor of a single-payer plan and half opposed.

Independents may be diving slight shift in overall attitudes

Not surprisingly, there are partisan divisions in how the public feels about single-payer health care, with a majority of Democrats (64 percent) and just over half independents (55 percent) in favor and a majority of Republicans (67 percent) opposed. However, the recent increase in support for single-payer has largely been driven by an increase among independents. Among this group, on average in 2008-2009, 42 percent said they would favor a single-payer plan, a share that has increased to a majority (55 percent) in the most recent tracking poll.

“Medicare-for-all” vs. “Single-payer”

Language often matters in framing questions about health policy. For example, the February 2016 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that when terms were tested on their own, outside the definition of a national health plan that would cover all Americans, the public was more likely to react favorably to the term “Medicare-for-all” (64 percent favorable) than “single-payer health insurance system” (44 percent favorable). However, the current poll finds that when the plan is defined as one in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, support is similar when the plan was referred to as “Medicare-for-all” (57 percent in favor) as when it was referred to as “single payer” (53 percent).

Support for single-payer is malleable when given opposing arguments

While a slim majority favors the idea of a national health plan at the outset, a prolonged national debate over making such a dramatic change to the U.S. health care system would likely result in the public being exposed to multiple messages for and against such a plan. The poll finds the public’s attitudes on single-payer are quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate. For example, when those who initially say they favor a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard that such a plan would give the government too much control over health care, about four in ten (21 percent of the public overall) say they would change their mind and would now oppose the plan, pushing total opposition up to 62 percent. Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would require many Americans to pay more in taxes or that it would eliminate or replace the Affordable Care Act, total opposition increases to 60 percent and 53 percent, respectively.

On the other side, when those who initially oppose a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard such a plan would reduce health insurance administrative costs, four in ten (17 percent of the public overall) change their position and say they would now favor the plan, bringing total support to 72 percent. Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would ensure that all Americans have health insurance as a basic right or that it would reduce the role of private health insurance companies in health care, total support increases to 71 percent and 65 percent, respectively.

http://www.kff.org…

Topline: Precise questions and trends in responses
http://files.kff.org…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This highly credible Kaiser Foundation poll confirms the results of other recent polls showing that there has been a modest increase in support of single payer reform. A few specific points in this poll are worth noting.

Partisan polarization persists with 64 percent of Democrats supporting single payer and 67 percent of Republicans opposed. Amongst independents support has increased – now a majority at 55 percent, indicating that the single payer message is gaining traction amongst those not locked into a partisan camp. There is still a divide within each of the two dominant parties in that a significant minority of Democrats oppose single payer and a significant minority of Republicans favor it. For these reasons, single payer advocates should not narrowly target their educational efforts to a single party.

Last year a Kaiser poll showed that the term “Medicare-for-all” was preferred to “single payer” by 64 percent to 44 percent. With the recent increased interest in single payer, partly attributable to the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, the preference for Medicare-for-all over single payer has narrowed – now 57 percent to 53 percent. This is further evidence of the increased traction of single payer.

We have known that support for single payer is malleable. Previous surveys have shown that when supporters are asked about features of single payer that might be perceived as negative (too much government control, requiring more taxes, or now eliminating the Affordable Care Act) then support declines. This survey shows that the reverse is also true. When opponents are asked about single payer features that might be perceived as favorable (health insurance as a basic right, reduction in administrative costs, or reducing the role of private insurance) then support increases. In practice, the malleability has been used to defeat state ballot measures through the use of a few soundbites late in the campaigns. California’s measure lost 3 to 1 and measures in Oregon and Colorado lost 4 to 1. Positive soundbites do not seem to offset the uncertainty and fear created by negative soundbites.

Although this poll shows that there has been a modest increase in support of single payer – now 53 percent, up from the 40s over the past two decades – that support is malleable and 43 percent remain opposed. We still have a lot of work to do – education, coalition activities, and enlisting more grassroots support. Almost everyone would prefer single payer; it’s just that too many do not yet realize it.

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

Why I was arrested while asking Sen. Portman to vote against TrumpCare

By Roona Ray, M.D., M.P.H.
Cleveland Plain-Dealer, July 6, 2017

On Wednesday, June 28, I was one of dozens of doctors, nurses, patients with chronic illness, and voters who visited six senators on Capitol Hill to tell them to vote “no” on TrumpCare.

My group visited the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.

After hearing about the catastrophic $800 billion cuts to Medicaid proposed by Senate Republicans, we had come to Washington, D.C., from around the country to object. We came on just a few days’ notice in order to defend the public’s right to health care and to oppose tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

In response, we were arrested.

The senator was not available, so I sat down alongside other health workers and patients on the couches and floor in Sen. Portman’s office to tell his staff and closed doors our stories; we wondered if the senator was sitting inside.

Chuckie, a Lake Milton, Ohio, voter and disabled General Motors auto worker from Mahoning County, told how health insurance helped him get treatment after being diagnosed with Crohn’s disease.

Jenn spoke about her mother, who had survived illness because of Medicaid and went on to become an Emergency Room nurse.

Ali, a medical student, described how Medicare had helped her 78-year-old father survive heart disease.

Michaela, a community health center nurse and mother of three, anguished that she would be forced to turn patients away from care if the bill passed.

A mother and her two children with a congenital condition called Noonan’s syndrome relayed how health insurance saved her family from bankruptcy.

Vinay said that health insurance gave him mental health services that made the difference between his best and worst days. He worried that decimating Medicaid would rob millions of Americans of their best days.

I trained for nine years after college to become a family doctor and public health specialist. After I started working, I realized that I couldn’t always give patients the care they needed. It wasn’t because I hadn’t learned enough. It was for these reasons: My patients were sometimes uninsured, or they had been kicked off their insurance plans, or they didn’t qualify for the right kind of insurance, or they couldn’t afford their co-pays, deductibles, medical bills, or donut holes, or their insurance didn’t cover the treatments and tests they needed.

As a doctor, it’s frustrating and horrific to watch patients get sick and die from preventable disease simply because they don’t have the right plastic insurance card. There is no biology that explains this mechanism of disease. As a citizen, it’s unacceptable to see fellow humans needlessly suffer.

We moved into the hallway, where our stories echoed down stately marble corridors into other senators’ offices. While we were sharing our stories about why health care matters to us, the Capitol police swarmed around us, shackled our wrists behind our backs with plastic zip ties, and dragged us off.

Nearly 40 of us went to the D.C. jail for crowding passage through a public building.

If the Senate passes this cruel bill, they will shackle the entire health system. They will tie the hands of health care workers and prevent them from delivering medical care, and they will doom patients to suffering from preventable disease.

The Republican death care bill proposes to kick 22 million people off the health insurance they have now.

It will cause millions to get sick, and it will cause an estimated 29,000 Americans to die each year. Thousands of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals will be forced to watch as millions of our patients are unable to access the care they need. This would be a tragic violation of our professional ethics and an insult to our years of training, hard work, and goodwill.

It is no surprise that nearly every major association of health professionals opposes this bill. It is surprising, however, that this opposition is not being heard. Doctors and nurses do not typically sit-in and risk arrest. But traditional means of communication are not registering with Congress.

Health care workers will support our patients. We reject a bill that promotes death and disease. We reject a bill that hands out unnecessary tax cuts to the few uber-wealthy at the expense of the health of millions.

I would rather go to jail than see patients needlessly suffer and die. The minor discomfort of being handcuffed, detained for eight hours, and slapped with a $50 fine pales in comparison to the years of death, despair, and pain millions of Americans will experience if our lawmakers pass this deadly bill.

Even if it requires more arrests, we will continue to confront Sen. Portman and his colleagues — who are shielded from the impact of this vote by their own taxpayer-funded premium health plans — with the reality that this bill is literally a matter of life or death.

Dr. Roona Ray is a board-certified family physician and HIV and public health specialist, and serves on the board of Physicians for a National Health Plan, Metro New York Chapter.

http://www.cleveland.com…

Why I was arrested while asking Sen. Portman to vote against TrumpCare

By Roona Ray, M.D., M.P.H.
Cleveland Plain-Dealer, July 6, 2017

On Wednesday, June 28, I was one of dozens of doctors, nurses, patients with chronic illness, and voters who visited six senators on Capitol Hill to tell them to vote “no” on TrumpCare.

My group visited the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.

After hearing about the catastrophic $800 billion cuts to Medicaid proposed by Senate Republicans, we had come to Washington, D.C., from around the country to object. We came on just a few days’ notice in order to defend the public’s right to health care and to oppose tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

In response, we were arrested.

The senator was not available, so I sat down alongside other health workers and patients on the couches and floor in Sen. Portman’s office to tell his staff and closed doors our stories; we wondered if the senator was sitting inside.

Chuckie, a Lake Milton, Ohio, voter and disabled General Motors auto worker from Mahoning County, told how health insurance helped him get treatment after being diagnosed with Crohn’s disease.

Jenn spoke about her mother, who had survived illness because of Medicaid and went on to become an Emergency Room nurse.

Ali, a medical student, described how Medicare had helped her 78-year-old father survive heart disease.

Michaela, a community health center nurse and mother of three, anguished that she would be forced to turn patients away from care if the bill passed.

A mother and her two children with a congenital condition called Noonan’s syndrome relayed how health insurance saved her family from bankruptcy.

Vinay said that health insurance gave him mental health services that made the difference between his best and worst days. He worried that decimating Medicaid would rob millions of Americans of their best days.

I trained for nine years after college to become a family doctor and public health specialist. After I started working, I realized that I couldn’t always give patients the care they needed. It wasn’t because I hadn’t learned enough. It was for these reasons: My patients were sometimes uninsured, or they had been kicked off their insurance plans, or they didn’t qualify for the right kind of insurance, or they couldn’t afford their co-pays, deductibles, medical bills, or donut holes, or their insurance didn’t cover the treatments and tests they needed.

As a doctor, it’s frustrating and horrific to watch patients get sick and die from preventable disease simply because they don’t have the right plastic insurance card. There is no biology that explains this mechanism of disease. As a citizen, it’s unacceptable to see fellow humans needlessly suffer.

We moved into the hallway, where our stories echoed down stately marble corridors into other senators’ offices. While we were sharing our stories about why health care matters to us, the Capitol police swarmed around us, shackled our wrists behind our backs with plastic zip ties, and dragged us off.

Nearly 40 of us went to the D.C. jail for crowding passage through a public building.

If the Senate passes this cruel bill, they will shackle the entire health system. They will tie the hands of health care workers and prevent them from delivering medical care, and they will doom patients to suffering from preventable disease.

The Republican death care bill proposes to kick 22 million people off the health insurance they have now.

It will cause millions to get sick, and it will cause an estimated 29,000 Americans to die each year. Thousands of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals will be forced to watch as millions of our patients are unable to access the care they need. This would be a tragic violation of our professional ethics and an insult to our years of training, hard work, and goodwill.

It is no surprise that nearly every major association of health professionals opposes this bill. It is surprising, however, that this opposition is not being heard. Doctors and nurses do not typically sit-in and risk arrest. But traditional means of communication are not registering with Congress.

Health care workers will support our patients. We reject a bill that promotes death and disease. We reject a bill that hands out unnecessary tax cuts to the few uber-wealthy at the expense of the health of millions.

I would rather go to jail than see patients needlessly suffer and die. The minor discomfort of being handcuffed, detained for eight hours, and slapped with a $50 fine pales in comparison to the years of death, despair, and pain millions of Americans will experience if our lawmakers pass this deadly bill.

Even if it requires more arrests, we will continue to confront Sen. Portman and his colleagues — who are shielded from the impact of this vote by their own taxpayer-funded premium health plans — with the reality that this bill is literally a matter of life or death.

Dr. Roona Ray is a board-certified family physician and HIV and public health specialist, and serves on the board of Physicians for a National Health Plan, Metro New York Chapter.

http://www.cleveland.com…

CMS halts release of Medicare Advantage data

Medicare Halts Release of Much-Anticipated Data

By Charles Ornstein
ProPublica, June 29, 2017

In the past few years, many seniors and disabled people have eschewed traditional Medicare coverage to enroll in privately run health plans paid for by Medicare, which often come with lower out-of-pocket costs and some enhanced benefits.

These so-called Medicare Advantage plans now enroll more than a third of the 58 million beneficiaries in the Medicare program, a share that grows by the month.

But little is known about the care delivered to these people, from how many services they get to which doctors treat them to whether taxpayer money is being well-spent or misused.

The government has collected data on patients’ diagnoses and the services they receive since 2012 and began using it last year to help calculate payments to private insurers, which run the Medicare Advantage plans. But it has never made that data public.

Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have been validating the accuracy of the data and, in recent months, were preparing to release it to researchers. Medicare already shares data on the 38 million patients in the traditional Medicare program, which the government runs.

The grand unveiling of the new data was scheduled to take place at the annual research meeting of AcademyHealth, a festival of health wonkery, which just concluded in New Orleans.

But at the last minute, the session was canceled.

In a statement, CMS said there were enough questions about the data’s accuracy that it should not be released for research use. CMS said it will examine the data for 2015 “to determine if it is robust enough to support research use.”

(Health economist Austin) Frakt notes that researchers know “vastly more” about traditional Medicare because the data has been available for decades. “The claim is that private insurers are innovating in ways that traditional program is not. We need to validate that. We need to know what they’re doing for the benefit of everyone. We can’t do that without the data.”

In recent years, private insurers that run Medicare Advantage plans have been under fire for allegedly overcharging Medicare. The Center for Public Integrity reported last year that more than three dozen audits had found that plans overstated the severity of enrollees’ medical conditions to garner more money. (The Center had to file a Freedom of Information lawsuit to access the audits.) In 2014, the Center’s reporting suggested that insurers had collected $70 billion in improper payments from 2008 to 2013.

The Department of Justice recently intervened in two federal lawsuits in Los Angeles (here and here) accusing UnitedHealth Group of providing “untruthful and inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries” to boost its revenues.

“The system used to capture encounter data has numerous unresolved operational and technical issues and fails to capture a reliable, comprehensive picture of beneficiaries’ diagnoses,” a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans said in an email. “This could put payments at risk, which could also increase premiums and decrease benefits. We look forward to working with Administrator Verma and CMS to improve the encounter data and address these issues.”

https://www.propublica.org…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

We have access to the data for the traditional Medicare program, but the same data have not been available for the private Medicare Advantage plans. We do know that the private plans have been cheating the taxpayers, initially by selectively marketing their products to less expensive, healthier populations while receiving full payments based on average needs, and then, later, by upcoding the diagnoses in order to receive unwarranted higher risk adjusted payments as if the beneficiaries were sicker than they actually are.

Now that CMS is headed by a pro-market ideologue – Seema Verma – the promised release of the data was reversed with the explanation that “there were enough questions about the data’s accuracy that it should not be released for research use.” Yet it is being used to overpay the private plans. Verma has stated repeatedly that the private plans produce higher quality at lower costs, yet she refuses to let us see the data. What data we do have suggest the opposite.

With the overpayments, the Medicare Advantage plans are able to offer their products with lower premiums and cost sharing, obviating the need for patients to purchase Medigap plans. With this perception of a better deal, enrollment in the private plans continues to increase, helping to fulfill the goal of privatizing Medicare. Once the private plans have supplanted much of the traditional Medicare program, the public privatizers plan to decrease the government contribution to the plans (decrease premium support – vouchers) leaving Medicare beneficiaries to pick up more and more of the costs.

Look, it’s our government, our taxes, our Medicare. Keeping us in the dark allows them to surreptitiously inflict their ideology upon us – an ideology that is shifting wealth upwards, away from workers. After listening to the Fourth of July speeches celebrating America, it does not seem that privatizing Medicare is the way we make America great again.

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

Let’s talk about single-payer health care

By James Whalen, M.D.
Chicago Tribune, July 4, 2017

As the Republicans’ attempt to radically reduce health care benefits for the economic disadvantaged and simultaneously provide huge tax cuts for the rich, the current legislation to repeal Obamacare is on life support.

In light of the gridlock it is easy to speculate that the country is heading toward single-payer health care.

What “single payer” means deserves clarification, as opponents of this so-called Medicare for all equate it with socialized medicine. This is pure demagoguery.

Socialized medicine is a system of health care in which the government owns all medical facilities in the system and employs all health care personnel, including professionals. Health care administered by the Veterans Administration is an example of this.

“Single payer” simply means that there is one insurer, the federal government. Medical providers will continue as they are now: independent agents who bill insurers (i.e., the government) for services rendered.

Hospitals that successfully attract patients will have more revenue than unsuccessful hospitals, and physicians will enjoy more reimbursement for services the more they work. Competition will still thrive.

In addition to its simplicity, Medicare for everyone will be much more efficient.

With this system, there will be no exorbitant salaries for health care executives (nor multimillion-dollar severance packages), no advertising costs that raise insurance premiums, and no need to service stockholders.

America has tried competition in the health care marketplace, and that left about 40 million people without medical insurance.

Obamacare clearly has its warts and the Trump administration’s efforts to sabotage it have put it in an ever more precarious position.

It is time to move to a single-payer system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com…

AHCA or BCRA: “Murder for hire”

A Health Care War On The Poor

By Kathleen Sebelius and Ron Pollack
Health Affairs Blog, June 27, 2017

Many criticisms have been leveled against the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care Reconciliation Act- the new Senate health bill offered by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The unmistakable hallmark of these bills, however, is that they constitute a very cruel war on the poor. By far, no demographic group would be hurt more by these legislative proposals than low-income people. They are the bulls-eye!

As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found, over the next decade the largest cutback in the Senate and House bills are reductions to the safety-net Medicaid program (a $772 billion cut in the Senate bill, and an $834 billion cut in the House bill).

Additionally, there are significant cuts to the subsidies that were designed to make private insurance premiums and cost-sharing affordable for low- and moderate-income families, with $424 billion cut in the Senate bill and $276 billion cut in the House bill.

These decreases, which would cause enormous harm to low-income families, are obviously not part of an overall scheme to promote fiscal prudence since both the Senate and House bills lavish huge tax benefits to the rich and special interest groups. The Senate provides $541 billion in such tax benefits, and the House provides $664 billion.

According to CBO, the proposals in both the Senate and House bills would cause huge numbers of people to become uninsured within a decade. The Senate bill would cause 22 million to lose coverage, and the House bill would force 23 million into the ranks of the uninsured. In total, at least 49 million would be uninsured – more than the aggregate population of almost half (24) the states in our nation.

The bottom line is clear: While both the House and Senate bills provide unneeded tax help for wealthier people, the Republicans’ war on the poor would cause many and very severe casualties on people with greatest needs. Hopefully senators of good will call for an immediate and complete cease fire.

***

Health Affairs Reader Response:

By Robert Stone, M.D.

“War on the Poor” is strong language, and sometimes strong language is appropriate to a discussion, even in as sober a journal as Health Affairs. I would use even stronger language. The 6/27/17 Annals of Internal Medicine article “The Relationship of Health Insurance and Mortality: Is Lack of Insurance Deadly” is the most definitive peer-reviewed publication yet showing that removing healthcare coverage for millions of Americans will lead to thousands of preventable deaths per year. What do we stand for as a nation? This is a murderous bill. The bill, either House or Senate version is a huge tax cut for the wealthy, paid for by the middle class and the poor. Why is there such a rush to pass it without discussion and debate? It appears to me the reason for that is because Senators’ wealthy donors want to see the tax cuts. Therefore, you could call this bill not only murderous, but “Murder for hire.”

http://healthaffairs.org…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Rob Stone is one of us. He has been a very active participant and a thought leader in PNHP for a couple of decades. His message for us today is that we have to start saying it like it is. The fact that so many Senators are on record as being willing to enact legislation that will kill thousands of Americans in exchange for payments from wealthy donors who want the associated tax cuts, that does constitute “Murder for hire.”

The politicians are not alone in this conspiracy. We can no longer accept an “arm’s length” excuse to allow these wealthy donors to escape blame. The work of Gilens and Page has shown that it is these very individuals who drive the process (link below). They are the ones who are hiring the murderers (though Gilens and Page would confine their rhetoric to benign academic language). And, yes, the members of Congress are murderers when they enact policies that they know will kill people.

At PNHP we have been gentlepersons as we advocate for policies that will enhance health, reduce physical suffering, and prevent financial hardship for all residents of America (and next, the world). Yet we see policies perpetuated that inflict so much harm (and, by no coincidence, at a great financial cost), and we complain that their policies are wrong and that we have better policies. Is arguing policy enough when it is devoid of warranted intense emotional expression?

But something has been happening. Americans now understand that the improvements of Obamacare are grossly deficient since too many people are unable to receive or afford the medical care that they need. Bernie Sanders came along and told us that expanding Medicare to include everyone through a single payer system would make health care affordable and accessible to all. Those of us who have long supported those views have joined him a clarion call for health care justice for all.

Although single payer sounded like a pretty good idea to those who hadn’t given it much thought, many were still hoping Trump and the Republicans could bring us health care nirvana through repeal and replace. But now Americans have had a rude awakening in discovering that the repeal and replace movement of the past six years has been a fraud. The Republicans finally had to bring their proposal out from the closet for what they hoped would be quick action before rushing home to pick up their checks from their wealthy donors. But we peeked! The American people have now found out that the replacement would make access and affordability much worse – not at all what they were asking for when they supported the campaign to repeal Obamacare.

Of course we do not want to change our policy positions on single payer. We have what America needs. But it may help to deliver the message if we turn up the volume on our rhetoric, just like Rob Stone has done in today’s message. However, a crucial caveat is that it is absolutely imperative that we be extremely meticulous in the accuracy of our rhetoric in order to maintain the credibility that we have established. This is not a name calling contest. But when policies kill, we need to say so. If in doubt, don’t, but when there is absolutely no doubt, say it.

Many positive terms have been used in the labeling of legislation in order to hide the negative impact: “affordable” when health care remains unaffordable, “better care” when more people lose their care, “access” when increased financial barriers impair access, and even “American” when the policies supported are un-American. Although the words themselves are not bad words, they are tarnished when used in dishonest rhetoric (although “American” still seems to hold its own in spite of current day challenges).

That said, we cannot let negativity drown out our very positive message of  guaranteed, affordable health care for all – the single payer message. That needs to be front and center, but how do we do that? Well, we are already doing it by having been meticulous with the truth. When we say “an improved Medicare for all” people understand that we are referring to a revered program that will be further improved and made available to all. Even the term “single payer” – a neutral technical policy term – has been used extensively as part of the positive message of health care for all.

With our continued efforts to deliver this very positive message, “single payer” and “improved Medicare for all” are rightfully taking their place on the top shelf in the rhetoric library, alongside “Mom” and “apple pie” – a nice thought as we celebrate our nation’s birthday.

Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”:
https://www.cambridge.org…

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

Polling: How you discuss single payer matters

The Economist/YouGov Poll
April 2-4, 2017

81. Do you favor or oppose expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American?

60% – Favor strongly or favor somewhat

23% – Oppose strongly or oppose somewhat

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net…

***

The Economist/YouGov Poll
June 25-27, 2017

61. Do you favor or oppose creating a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?

44% – Favor strongly or favor somewhat

31% – Oppose strongly or oppose somewhat

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

During a time when there is a crescendo of support for single payer/Medicare for All, the Economist/YouGov polls suggest that support declined during the past couple of months. There is a lesson here, but it is not that single payer support is fading.

The single payer policy community would recognize these two questions as being essentially the same from a policy perspective. But the layman hears the first question as being the expansion of Medicare to cover everyone (Medicare for All), whereas the second question is about single payer, government, and taxes (single payer). The first is about a popular insurance program which we have all earned and eventually participate in, and would it be that everyone could be included. The second is about government taking over health care and us being taxed for it when the insurance benefit at work seems to be working just fine, and the boss is already paying for most of it anyway. At least that’s often the perception.

We already knew this. “Medicare for all” polls better than does “single payer.” What is reassuring is that people are beginning to understand the single payer concept well enough such that there is more support than opposition, even if it is a government program for which we will be taxed. The term “single payer” is out there and will be used by friend and foe alike, so people have to understand that it refers to an improved version of Medicare in which everyone gets to participate.

The lesson? We should not only continue with but we should expand our education and advocacy activities through coalitions and grassroots efforts. The people are getting the word. Support is burgeoning. Soon the public will be immunized against the soundbites of the opponents.

Do members of Congress deserve government subsidized health insurance?

Tie Congress’s Paychecks to Our Good Health

By Nicholas Kristof
The New York Times, June 29, 2017

Members of Congress are paid $174,000 a year, while members of Poland’s lower house of Parliament are paid $32,300 a year.

Hmm. It looks as if we’re getting ripped off. Members of Congress seem to underperform compared to members of Parliament in Poland and across the democratic world.

Conservatives are right to worry that feeding at the government trough breeds dependency and laziness. So I suggest we introduce pay for performance, using metrics like, say, health.

I cite Poland because so many Poles (including the Krzysztofowicz family, later renamed Kristof) came to America for a better life, yet today American babies are one-third more likely to die in their first year of life than Polish children are (and twice as likely as Italian, Portuguese and Czech babies!).

Meanwhile, the U.S. spends far more on health care — an average of nearly $10,000 per person — than other countries do. Poland spends just $1,680 per person.

This is a stain on America. Choose almost any modern country, and its people pay less for health care and its children are more likely to survive.

In short, we as taxpayers are getting cheated.

But ultimately the United States should follow the example of every other advanced country and ensure health coverage for all. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” President Trump promised a week before taking office. Now he backs plans that would lead to 22 million fewer people having coverage. But if Taiwan, Slovenia, Spain, Japan and just about every other modern country can have coverage for everyone, so can we.

And, members of Congress, here’s the deal: If you ever adopt Medicare for all, I’ll endorse a pay-for-performance pay raise for all of you along with guaranteed, subsidized health insurance.

Oh, never mind. That, you already have.

https://www.nytimes.com…

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Right now many members of Congress are fighting the concept that health care should be an entitlement (some would say a right). Not only do they offer no realistic assistance for the 28 million who remain uninsured, some members are supporting policies that would cause another 22 million to lose their insurance. If they really believe that not everyone is entitled to have insurance then why do most of us believe that these well paid members of Congress are somehow entitled to generous health care plans, largely funded by us taxpayers?

I could write much more about this, but isn’t that observation enough? Some deserve health care at our expense and others don’t?

A benefit for the privileged? An entitlement? A right? For a few? For everyone?

Do we really have to play rhetorical games to come to the conclusion that everyone should have health care? If we believe that, and most Americans do, then we need to hire members of Congress who agree with us and get rid of those members who think that they are more entitled to health care than the rest of us.

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