PNHP

Direct Contracting Entities: The Latest Scam to Privatize Medicare

Direct Contracting Entities: The Latest Scam to Privatize Medicare

By Lambert Strether of Corrente
Naked Capitalism, September 27, 2021

Alert reader Carla brought Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) to my attention in comments here. She in turn had been informed by a webinar from PNHP, the long-time single payer advocates. As it turns out, DCEs grow in the same polluted soil as the Democrats’ previous privatization attempt, the Geographic Contracting model, now on hold, after a public outcry. However, DCEs are complicated to explain, because our health care system is run by greedy sociopathic members of the professional managerial class, who complicate matters deliberately, partly for fun, but mostly for profit [1].

Because personnel is policy, I’m going to start with Liz Fowler who, at least nominally animated by an ideology called Value-Based Care (VBC), is using her position as Director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to impose a “payment model” called “Direct Contracting Entities” on the majority of “traditional” Medicare recipients, thereby privatizing it. (Medicare Advantage is already privatized.) Each of those italicized topics will get its own heading, below. I’ll use a simple Q&A format, where the questions are in the form “Who is Liz Fowler?” and answers are in the form “Liz Fowler [family blog]s.” The simple structure works because the entire CMMI structure should be razed and the ground salted, so nothing like it ever happens again. It won’t be, so I’m going into detail so that when CMMI comes up with its next privatization scam, you’ll be able to recognize the moving parts. So to Liz Fowler.

Liz Fowler

Who is Liz Fowler? Here is Fowler’s official biography:

Elizabeth Fowler, J.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to joining the Biden administration, she was Executive Vice President for Programs at the Commonwealth Fund. Before joining the Fund, Dr. Fowler served as Vice President for Global Health Policy at Johnson & Johnson. In that role, she focused on health care delivery system and payment reform in the U.S. and health care systems and reform in emerging markets. Prior to that position, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama on health care and economic policy at the National Economic Council, and occupied key positions at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where she assisted with implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Prior to her work in the administration, Dr. Fowler was Chief Health Counsel to former Senate Finance Committee Chair, Senator Max Baucus, served as Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for WellPoint, Inc. (now Anthem).

Liz Fowler [family blog]s. As we wrote earlier this year, unknowingly translating the above:

Ah, Liz Fowler. An old friend and an especially scaly Flexian who makes Jon Gruber look like a cute little gecko:

When the legislation that became known as “Obamacare” was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it… What was most amazing about all of that [or not] was that, before joining Baucus’ office as the point person for the health care bill, Fowler was the Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs (i.e. informal lobbying) at WellPoint, the nation’s largest health insurance provider (before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus’ top health care aide). … More amazingly still, when the Obama White House needed someone to oversee implementation of Obamacare after the bill passed, it chose . . . Liz Fowler. Now, as Politico’s “Influence” column briefly noted on Tuesday, Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door as she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry: “Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading ‘global health policy’ at Johnson & Johnson’s government affairs and policy group.”

Having Fowler involved in anything is a terrible sign; she’s as corrupt as they come [2]. One of the things she’s enmeshed in at CMMI is Value-Based Care, to which we now turn.

Value-Based Care

What is Value-Based Care?. The concept seems to have gained its first prominence at Harvard Business School in 2006, but here is how the New England Journal of Medicine defined it in 2017:

Value-based healthcare is a healthcare delivery model in which providers, including hospitals and physicians, are paid based on patient health outcomes. Under value-based care agreements, providers are rewarded for helping patients improve their health, reduce the effects and incidence of chronic disease, and live healthier lives in an evidence-based way.

Value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or capitated approach, in which providers are paid based on the amount of healthcare services they deliver. The “value” in value-based healthcare is derived from measuring health outcomes against the cost of delivering the outcomes.

Which sounds reasonable enough, even if you know how slippery the word “value” can be. The key point is that “fee for service” (FFS) is not the payment model under VBC. Value is. However–

Value-Based Care [family blog]s. Ask yourself: How will determining value be operationalized within a payments system? The answer will be to develop a taxonomy of what is valued, and then code for it and bill on the coding, case by case. Hold onto that thought for when we get to DCEs. Meanwhile, Liz Fowler’s ideology is Value-Based Care:

During her opening plenary at the National Association of ACOs Spring 2021 Conference, Liz Fowler, PhD, JD, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, highlighted how the center is taking a pause to reassess its models and determine what is coming next.

“I want to make clear that our commitment to value-based care has never been stronger,” Fowler said.

This brings us to the CMMI, the institutional setting in which Value-Based Care is being pursued.

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

What is the CMMI? To begin with, people at Fowler’s level believe that ObamaCare was passed to deliver not merely “access” to health care, but access to value-based health care, and that CMMI was to be the instrument for this. Once more from Fowler’s ACO plenary:

In addition to providing insurance for the uninsured, the goal of the Affordable Care Act was to move away from fee-for-service to value-based care. Although strides have been made, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is taking time to reassess its portfolio of payment models.

Expanding on the concept of “payment models,” from Kaiser Family Foundation’s CMMI FAQ:

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), also known as the “Innovation Center,” was authorized under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and tasked with designing, implementing, and testing new health care payment models to address growing concerns about rising costs, quality of care, and inefficient spending. Congress specifically directed CMMI to focus on models that could potentially lower health care spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) while maintaining or enhancing the quality of care furnished under these programs. CMMI is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

In other words, “because markets“; there is no alternative to them. CMMI is “taking time” to “reassess” its models because, well–

The CMMI [family blog]s. The GAO reported on the CMMI’s efforts in 2018. As we wrote:

Beyond noting that only 2 of the 37 “Innovation” Center models were worth expanding, GAO assessed the Center by the three goals it had set up for itself. Page 54 et seq:

Goal 1: Reduce the growth of healthcare costs while promoting better health and health care quality through delivery system reform This goal has three performance measures that focus on ACOs. As shown in table 3, the Innovation Center has reported mixed results in achieving the targets set. For the remaining measure—the percentage of ACOs that shared in savings—the center did not meet its target during either of the two years for which data were available. …

Goal 2: Identify, test, and improve payment and service delivery models. This goal has one performance measure, which identifies the number of models that currently indicate (1) cost savings while maintaining or improving quality or (2) improving quality while maintaining or reducing cost. As of September 30, 2016, the Innovation Center reported that four [of 37] section 1115A model tests have met these criteria (see table 4).

Goal 3: Accelerate the spread of successful practices and models. For this goal, the first performance measure focuses on the number of states developing and implementing a health system transformation and payment reform plan. The second measure focuses on increasing the percentage of active model participants who are involved in Innovation Center or related learning activities. As shown in table 5, the Innovation Center reported meeting its target for the first measure for both fiscal years 2015 and 2016, but not meeting its target for the second measure.

And concluding, with the woo-woo noises at last becoming audible:

Looking forward, officials told us that the Innovation Center has developed a methodology to estimate a forecasted return on investment for the model portfolio, and is in the early stages of refining the methodology and applying it broadly across the portfolio in 2018. As part of the development efforts, the Innovation Center expects to utilize standard investment measures used in the public and private sectors.

Whatever that means. Since we don’t know what a model is, what on earth is the use of creating a portfolio of them?

The situation has not improved since then, as Bill Frist (!!) writes (“only five of the 54 models delivered substantial financial savings. The majority have not saved money, and several are on pace to lose billions of dollars”) and as Fowler in her plenary admits:

Fowler worries that over the past decade since CMMI was established, the stakeholders have reached no consensus about what, specifically, the center should be achieving. Some of the questions that need to be answered are as follows:

  • Are cost savings the most important measure of success, or is quality improvement just as important?
  • Is risk bearing among providers the key to unlocking value?
  • Should CMMI’s goal be to expand a model so it becomes a permanent part of Medicare, or is health care transformation the ultimate goal?

The ACA funded CMMI $10 billion from 2011 through 2019, and another $10 billion for each decade after that. These funds were not subject to the appropriations process. For that amount of money, we’re still asking questions like that?

Nevertheless, the CMMI wields enormous power, because through it, HHS can implement payment models without Congressional authorization. One such payment model is the “Direct Contracting Entity,” to which we now turn.

Direct Contracting Entities

What are Direct Contracting Entities? As defined by one DCE player, Pearl Health:

DCEs enable participants to transition their Traditional Medicare populations to value-based care via a capitated reimbursement model, creating a predictable flow of revenue, and the opportunity to generate shared savings, creating incentives for providing more efficient care.

Seems reasonable enough. Venture capitalists Andreessen Horowitz are a bit more expansive:

One of the hallmarks of value-based care is a shift away from reactive, fee-for-service models and toward prospective payment models. Direct contracting is a model where large holders of risk — like self-funded employers and health plans — contract directly with a narrow set of provider groups and health systems [3] for a specific population and a defined set of services [4]. This can look as simple as contracting with a handful of health systems to provide all-inclusive care bundles for joint surgery, to something as broad-reaching as establishing an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) for the comprehensive care of a patient population in a given region. Because both parties share in accountability and responsibilities across cost, care coordination, and outcomes, models like these represent a major step in the transition toward value-based care.

These CMS Direct Contracting programs represent a key step forward by driving increased access to value-based care for the Medicare Fee-for-Service group of beneficiaries. And importantly, they create a range of new opportunities for new entrants by 1) substantially broadening the range of care organizations that can participate in these models (including new entrants that previously would have been ineligible) and 2) granting increased flexibility on the benefits design and patient care initiatives that can be offered, thus creating unique opportunities for new entrants that offer care solutions that can ultimately drive higher-value care (but would have not been within scope or incentivized with traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service).

Translating: “[D]riving increased access to value-based care” means the elimination of fee-for-service care. More importantly, “new entrants that previously would have been ineligible” means, for example, private equity or “big tech,” Presumably why Andreessen Horowitz is taking a look at the field of play. I shudder to think what “unique opportunities for new entrants” could mean. Uber for kidneys? Unfortunately for us all–

DCEs [family blog]. Let’s work through the “unique opportunities.” First, from PNHP, today there are 53 DCEs (with new openings temporary closed). 28 are investor-owned. 6 are insurer-based. The 6 insurer-based DCEs “operate in 19 states that have 57% of the entire national FFS population.” If DCEs can move those all those FFS patients customers to VBC, that would mean 57% of $660 billion in Medicare spending by 2025 ($330 billion in 2019). How would the DCEs do that? They would sign up doctors, and that would bring the del>patients customers along. Again PNHP:

Doctors are lured to participate in a DCE by promises of up to a 40% increase in provider Medicare reimbursement

and a reduced set of core quality measures they have to meet. Once doctors sign up, their patients are automatically “aligned” to the DCE without patients’ knowledge or consent; patients are sent a letter, which they are not likely to read or understand.

And you can bet the DCE won’t help them understand. But wait! There’s more! The DCEs are money machines, and not just because of revenues from patient care. They are money machines because — this is why I asked you to hold that thought on coding — value-based care is a phishing equilibrium for upcoding. (In the vulgate: If fraud can occur, it will already have occurred. See NC here and here on medical upcoding.) Here is a worked example from Ed Weisbart of PNHP:

Note how the different codes — all for the same patient! — drive the bottom line; see at “CMS pays.” In fact, there’s an entire industry line of business devoted to gaming medical codes for profit:

(It’s really beautiful that AI is being used for fraud. But indeed, why not?) So, to review, DCEs allow insurance companies and investor-owned entities to put the entire Medicare fee-for-service system in their crosshairs, capturing 67% of the existing “traditional Medicare population,” most of them without informed consent, using them as human fodder for upcoding fraud, and all without congressional authorization or review of any kind. If that’s not privatization I don’t know what is. I guess this is sort of thing is why Hillary Clinton said single payer would “never, ever” come to pass [5]. Whaddaya know. Thanks, Liz!

Conclusion

Obviously, there are a great many layers of obfuscation to the DCE privatization scam, and I hope I got them right. Please correct me where I have gone wrong. (Here is Weisbart’s PowerPoint presenation; medical back office mavens will be able to understand it better than I can.)

Finally, there is a petition: Consider signing it. The Geographic Contracting model was stopped; DCEs can be stopped.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com…

Notes

  1. In the Before Times, I would have been much more polite. But here we are.
  2. Back when Obama was shilling for the Affordable Care Act, he did a series of town halls on health care policy, to which I listened. The post on the town hall has long ago succumbed to link rot, but I remember that a PNHP doctor with whom I was familiar actually managed to ask Obama a question on single payer. I forget what Obama answered, but the fact of the question itself was remarkable (given that Max Baucus refused to allow single payer advocates at his hearings, and had them arrested when they protested). The White House had an intern out of Fowler’s office doing a live blog. When I checked, the single payer question had been censored.
  3. Sounds like an opportunity for in-and-out-of network gaming, to me.
  4. Ditto.
  5. This also explains why Biden but a non-entity like Becarra in charge of HHS (aside from the payoff to the California oligarchy). Alex Azar, shark though he was, would have understood this play. Becarra is a babe in the woods with no health care experience, and won’t.

High Uninsurance post-ACA for Low-Income, Black, Hispanic Americans

Summary: This study used a national survey to document high levels of uninsurance among vulnerable populations after ACA implementation, especially in states not choosing to expand Medicaid – up to 40-60% for some groups in some states. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the ACA falls far short.

States’ Performance in Reducing Uninsurance Among Black, Hispanic, and Low-Income Americans Following Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Health Equity, July 21, 2021, by G. Lines et al.

From the abstract:

Purpose: To assess state-level variation in changes in uninsurance among Black, Hispanic, and low-income Americans after implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [in 2014].

Methods: We analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2012 to 2016…

Results: The range in the percentage point reduction in uninsurance varied substantially across states: 19-fold for Black (0.9–17.4), 18-fold for Hispanic (1.2–21.5), and 23-fold for low-income (1.0–27.8) adults. … In some states, more than one quarter of Black, one half of Hispanic, and approaching one half of low-income adults remained uninsured after full implementation of the ACA. Compared with states in the lowest quintile of change in coverage, states in the highest quintile experienced greater improvements in ability to see a physician.

From Fig 3, for low-income individuals. Dark bars are states that expanded Medicaid.

Comment:

By Jim Kahn, M.D., M.P.H.

National averages for uninsurance don’t do justice to the dismal post-ACA shortfalls for vulnerable groups – Blacks, Hispanics, and low-income. Especially in states that failed to expand Medicaid, but also in states that did expand. As this study demonstrates, these shortfalls impair ability to see a physician, and that, we know, worsens health outcomes.

How long will our country continue its commitment to highly inefficient convoluted health insurance schemes when there is a simple, efficient, equitable solution waiting for us to pluck it off the shelf and put it in place?

Single payer would not need studies or graphics like this. We’d just cover everyone.

Please.

http://healthjusticemonitor.org…

Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.

Seniors, beware of this poison pill

By Jane Katz Field, M.D.
Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer, September 27, 2021

The Medicare Annual Enrollment Period starts Oct. 15, which means people over 65 will be inundated with ads encouraging them to sign up for what’s called “Medicare Advantage.” While Medicare Advantage (also called Medicare “Part C”) sounds like it’s part of traditional, nonprofit Medicare, it’s actually operated by commercial, for-profit insurance companies, who, with the help of misleading marketing and celebrities like Joe Namath, have enrolled about 40 percent of American seniors.

Medicare Advantage (MA) is different from traditional Medicare in a few important ways. Traditional Medicare uses a transparent, straightforward “fee for service” system to pay clinicians and hospitals for patient care. However, under MA, the government pays commercial insurance companies a fixed monthly amount for each subscriber, allowing insurers to keep as profit what they don’t pay out for care.

MA plans tempt enrollees with low monthly premiums and certain benefits, like routine vision, hearing, (limited) dental coverage, and gym memberships. But these low upfront premiums mask the hidden costs that appear when you actually need care.

If you’re lucky and stay healthy, you can initially save money with MA because you won’t need to buy what’s called “supplemental coverage,” which covers gaps in traditional Medicare. But, for MA recipients, when you get sick, you discover that the insurer’s “network” doesn’t include the specialist you need to see, so you either go without care, or pay out of pocket. Then, the plan might refuse to authorize tests and procedures your doctors order and stick you with high copays for treatments, and deductibles for prescription drugs, that add up to thousands of dollars a year.

Traditional Medicare does impose some costs, such as a 20 percent coinsurance, but most enrollees cover those by purchasing a supplemental “Medigap” plan, for about $2,000 per year. By comparison, average out-of-pocket expenses for MA members in 2021 was $5,000 for “in network” services and close to $10,000 for “out-of-network” services not covered by the insurer.

Besides imposing massive costs for treatment of complex health issues, MA plans turn a profit by selectively recruiting healthy, low-cost (and therefore profitable) patients, while driving unhealthy, unprofitable ones back to traditional Medicare, which must cover everyone. They dangle flashy perks like gym memberships or even free sneakers, knowing that new sneakers aren’t much use to those with chronic or disabling health conditions. And then they require cancer patients to pay up to 20 percent of the cost of chemotherapy, which amounts to tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Perhaps most shocking is how MA plans avoid paying for (expensive) end-of-life care. As a result, MA members in their last year of life disproportionately leave these plans to enroll in traditional Medicare so as not to bankrupt their families as they are dying. But when MA members return to traditional Medicare, there’s no guarantee they’ll be accepted for a supplemental Medigap plan.

MA plans also make money by aggressively “up-coding,” which means they embellish diagnosis codes to exaggerate how sick a patient really is. Upcoding inflates insurers’ bottom lines because the government pays MA plans a flat fee based on how serious the enrollees’ health problems are. For example, if a kidney test is only slightly abnormal, MA plans will get more money by coding it as “renal failure” — a complex and potentially deadly diagnosis. As a result of pervasive upcoding, taxpayers pay MA plans 4 percent more than the cost of care in traditional Medicare. Despite how much MA plans limit patient choice and access to care, they aren’t saving taxpayers any money. In 2019, the federal government spent $321 more per-person for MA enrollees than it would have if those enrollees had been in traditional Medicare.

Commercial insurers have had long enough to prove that they could improve care and cut costs, and they have failed at both. The only way to achieve these goals is by eliminating the waste and profits of commercial insurers and moving to a Medicare for All system, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year while covering everyone of all ages for all medically necessary care.

Dr. Jane Katz Field is a retired pediatrician. She is vice president of the Vermont Chapter of the Physicians for a National Health Program.

https://www.reformer.com…

How the US vaccine effort derailed and why we shouldn’t be surprised

Low vaccine rates may be the predictable outcome subject to entrenched social forces that have diminished American health and life expectancy since the 1980s, health researchers say

By Jessica Glenza
The Guardian, September 27, 2021

Dr Claudia Fegan’s patient was a congenial, articulate and unvaccinated 27-year-old deli worker who contracted Covid-19 and became so ill he required at-home oxygen treatments.

Now recuperating, he told his doctor his 64-year-old boss had been vaccinated, and she too was sickened with a “breakthrough” case. However, she only had mild symptoms.

“He said, ‘Wow, I really should have done that,’” said Fegan, about getting vaccinated. Instead, he was sickened in the Delta-driven fourth wave of the pandemic, as he waited to see “how it played out.”

The story is one example of how the United States purchased enough vaccines to inoculate its entire population, and even potentially embark on a round of booster shots, but health professionals found lacking another essential element essential to a successful vaccination campaign: trust.

That lack of confidence garnered the United States an unenviable distinction – in mid-September it became the least vaccinated member of the world’s seven most populous and wealthy democracies, or “G7,” which includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

Now, a surge of the Delta Covid-19 variant has killed on average more than 2,000 Americans per day and forced the US death toll past the symbolic milestone of 675,000 deaths, the estimated number of Americans who perished in the 1918 influenza pandemic, even as hospitalization and death from Covid-19 are largely preventable.

The cause of flagging vaccine uptake in the United States has flummoxed national health authorities, who in May loosened mask guidance in hopes it would encourage more people to get vaccinated, in July again recommended masks because of the Delta variant, and hoped August’s full FDA approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine would increase vaccine mandates.

In a September speech, just days before the US slipped behind Japan, Joe Biden channeled national exasperation: “Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated even though the vaccine is safe, effective and free.” He called for vaccine mandates affecting 100 million Americans, two-thirds of US workers.

However, all these strategies have failed to encourage more than 900,000 Americans per day to get vaccinated in recent weeks, far lower than nearly 3m doses administered per day in April, the height of the vaccination drive. Finally, in mid-September, the country’s slow progress allowed Japan to surpass the US both in terms of vaccination rate per 100,000 people and percentage of the total population with one or both shots.

There are very specific, well-documented reasons that Americans are hesitant to take vaccines. They vary from the troubling way the medical system treats people of color, to vaccine misinformation campaigns overwhelmingly popular in conservative circles, to logistical challenges.

But population health researchers, whose work considers how society as a whole is faring, said low vaccine uptake may be looked at another way: as the predictable outcome of a campaign subject to entrenched social forces that have diminished American health and life expectancy since the 1980s.

“When I look at this I do see a very familiar pattern,” said Dr Steven Woolf, a prominent population health researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University. “When Operation Warp Speed came out I thought I was just seeing a modern example of this old problem where the scientific community developed the vaccine at ‘warp speed,’ but the implementation system for getting it out into the community was inadequate.”

Woolf calls this “breakthrough without follow-through”. In that light, the plodding vaccination campaign could be seen as one more aspect of the American “health disadvantage.”

The phrase describes a paradox: the US houses among the most advanced medical and research centers in the world, but performs poorly in basic health metrics such as maternal mortality and infant mortality; accidental injury, death and disability; and chronic and infectious disease.

“So much of the whole issue of social determinants of health and the US ‘health disadvantage’ is rooted in a lack of trust and a lack of trustworthiness in many parts of our society,” said Laudan Y Aron, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s health policy center.

An important piece of research in this area is a 2013 report by a panel chaired by Woolf, directed by Aron, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Called US Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health, the report describes how Americans spend more than double per person on healthcare compared with 17 peer nations, but rank near the bottom in health outcomes.

The phenomenon is described as “pervasive”, affecting all age groups up to 75, with life expectancy declining especially for women. In just a few examples, Americans have the highest infant mortality, children are less likely to live to age five, and the US has the worst rates of Aids among peer nations.

The US also has the highest or among the highest rates of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung disease and disability. Together, these risk factors culminate in Americans having the worst or second worst probability of living to age 50.

Americans know intuitively that their healthcare is expensive, frustrating and often unfair. Remarkably, even amid the pandemic, roughly 30 million Americans went without health insurance, exposing them to potentially ruinous medical debt.

“It’s also really interesting how often the messaging is: talk to your doctor, talk to someone you trust,” said Aron. “Yet, we don’t really acknowledge how many people don’t have a doctor, or a doctor they have a trust-based relationship with them.”

“Even the term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ kind of rubs me the wrong way,” she said. “It’s a term that really puts the onus on the individual and the choices he or she is making,” as opposed to focusing on the systemic problems driving poor vaccine uptake.

But researchers such as Woolf have found healthcare alone is not to blame for Americans’ poorer health relative to peer nations. Rather, as with the vaccination drive, disparities are driven by a diverse range of forces, from the built environment to a faltering education system to racism and inequality. Even people relatively well insulated from societal ills live shorter, sicker lives than their counterparts in Europe.

“That is, Americans with healthy behaviors or those who are white, insured, college-educated, or in upper-income groups appear to be in worse health than similar groups in comparison countries,” the 2013 report found.

Research since this report was published has elaborated on these findings, notably recent research showing that American life expectancy has declined while peer nations saw continued gains.

“To some extent, we feel that reflects the tendency of Americans to reflect the role of government, and insist on their freedoms,” said Woolf. However, it is an attitude that can be taken to extremes, “and there’s no better example than Covid-19.”

These societal forces transcend vaccine messaging, resulting in lower overall vaccination rates in the US, and a population whose resistence appears to have hardened.

“People want to have the freedom not only to allow themselves to die from a disease, but increase the risk of their relatives and friends to die from the disease,” he concluded.

Nevertheless, public health workers across the country are not giving up. Fegan and counterparts at Cook County Health are involved in time-consuming outreach, going door-to-door to vaccinate people and having “kitchen table conversations” where there is space to ask, What are you afraid of?

“The way you build trust comes over time,” said Fegan, who is national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer healthcare system as in other developed countries.

“The people who want to get vaccinated are vaccinated,” said Fegan. Now, the long campaign ahead “is, again, meeting patients where they are.”

https://www.theguardian.com…

Racism, Chronic Disease, and Mental Health: Time to Change Our Racialized System of Second-Class Care

By Judith L. Albert, M.D.; Claire M. Cohen, M.D.; Thomas F. Brockmeyer, M.D., Ph.D.; and Ana M. Malinow, M.D.
Healthcare, September 27, 2021

Abstract

In this article, we describe how the “weathering hypothesis” and Adverse Childhood Experiences set the stage for higher rates of chronic disease, mental health disorders and maternal mortality seen in African American adults. We illustrate the toll that untreated and overtreated mental health disorders have on Black individuals, who have similar rates of mental health disorders as their white counterparts but have fewer outpatient mental health services and higher rates of hospitalizations. We discuss the history of Medicaid, which, while passed alongside Medicare during the Civil Rights era, was Congress’s concession to Southern states unwilling to concede federal oversight and funds to the provision of equal healthcare for poor and Black people. Medicaid, which covers 33% of all Blacks in the US and suffers from chronic underfunding and state efforts to weaken it through demonstration waivers, is a second-class system of healthcare with eligibility criteria that vary by state and year. We propose the adoption of a national, single payer Medicare for All system to cover everyone equally, from conception to death. While this will not erase all structural racism, it will go a long way towards leveling the playing field and achieving greater equity in the US.

Introduction

On 25 May 2020, Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd’s neck and back for 9 minutes, 29 seconds, killing him during an arrest in Minneapolis for allegedly using a counterfeit $20 bill. Nearly 2000 miles to the west, a healthy full-term boy was born in San Francisco to Stephanie Mills (not her real name). Stephanie, a 29-year-old Black woman with hypertension, named her son George. At the 1-month well-baby check, Stephanie scored off-the-chart high on her post-partum depression screen, including thoughts of self-harm. The pandemic meant isolation from any support, including her own parents, each of whom suffered from pre-existing conditions, putting them at greater risk for COVID-19. The images of George Floyd added to her anxiety as a new mother. She cried and grieved for George Floyd. The obstetrician found it hard to stabilize Stephanie’s hypertension. However, the next available psychiatrist appointment to manage Stephanie’s suicidal ideation for a patient on Medicaid was months away. Taken together, the circumstances surrounding the death of the Black man and the birth of the Black child are linked by the difficulties experienced by Stephanie, the young mother. She struggled with a social burden that may impact the course of her son’s life and health. Both George Floyd and Stephanie, the new mom, likely suffer from the weathering effects of living Black in America, as we will describe within.

The Weathering Hypothesis and Adverse Childhood Events

The “weathering hypothesis” was first proposed by Arline Geronimus in 1992: “Namely, that the health of African American women may begin to deteriorate in early adulthood as a physical consequence of cumulative socioeconomic disadvantage.” [1] Now, nearly 30 years later, a large body of literature has expanded upon this hypothesis. There is accumulating evidence that structural as well as interpersonal racism contribute to the significant increases in Black maternal and infant morbidity and mortality compared to that of whites. [2] Furthermore, this evidence is not limited to maternal-child health. [3] It is useful to focus on hypertension, as both George Floyd and Stephanie Mills suffered from chronic hypertension. Indeed, Derek Chauvin’s defense centered on the assumption that George Floyd’s pre-existing health conditions, including hypertension, were the actual cause of his death, not the asphyxiation from the knee on his neck.

In the US, physicians have been taught for generations that African Americans were genetically pre-disposed to hypertension, but documentation of an inheritance pattern derived from sub-Saharan African populations has been difficult to identify. Some studies indicate a gradient of hypertensive risk from low in African populations to moderate in Afro-Caribbean populations to highest in African Americans. [4]. It is now widely accepted that hypertension is manifested differently in US populations based on social determinants of health (SDoH) [5], defined broadly as the conditions in the environments where people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks [6].

George Floyd’s health issues are symptomatic of a life lived with the effects of weathering and SDoH, and the newborn George will have a path through childhood, adolescence and adulthood that likely will be negatively impacted by the same risks. In addition to the impact of SDoH, including structural racism, his life may be further complicated by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which have also been shown to exert a cumulative effect on childhood, adolescent and adult physical and mental health [7]. Adverse childhood experiences include living with a household member who was depressed, mentally ill, attempted suicide, died or was incarcerated, and being treated or judged unfairly because of one’s or race or ethnic group. Clearly, racism can be considered an adverse childhood experience [8]. Data from the 2017–2018 National Survey of Children’s Health Report reveal that by age 18, one in three children has experienced at least one parent-reported ACE in their lifetime, and one in five has experienced two or more [9]. Given the household makeup of many Black children in America, it is disturbing, but not surprising, that among children whose parents make between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in other words, the median household income), almost 20% of Black children, compared to 12% of white children, have experienced two or more ACEs in their lifetime [9]. Extensive research shows that childhood adversity, including excessive or prolonged activation of the stress response, changes our biological systems [10], putting children with higher ACE scores at higher risk of adverse health outcomes [7]. As with SDoH, a high ACE score likely plays a role in the “weathering effect.”

Mental Health and Maternal Health Disparities

According to the American Psychiatric Association, rates of mental illness among adults aged 18 or older are no different in Blacks than those of the general population [11], yet disparities exist in mental health service use: Blacks use about half the outpatient care and fewer psychiatric medications as white adults, yet are hospitalized at twice the rate as their white counterparts for mental illness [12]. Furthermore, while the occurrence of severe mental illness among Blacks is lower than among whites, Blacks with the same symptoms as whites are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a disorder with greater stigma and worse prognosis, and less likely to be diagnosed with mood disorders [13]. Fear of being mis- or over-diagnosed might be at the root of the “stigma” so often attributed as the reason Blacks do not seek or use mental health services. When studied, few racial/ethnic differences are found among the reasons for not using mental health services, with service cost or lack of insurance as the most frequent reason for not seeking care among all racial/ethnic groups, and a belief that services did not help as the least cited reason [12]. In Stephanie’s case, it was lack of access, and not “stigma,” that prevented her from getting the mental health care she needed.

Finally, maternal mortality rates in the US far surpass those of other high-income countries, yet pregnancy-related mortality rates among Black women are three times higher than white women, even among college-educated Black women. The rate of maternal mortality among Black women aged 30–34 widens to four times higher than white women [14], confirming the weathering hypothesis that the health of African American women begins to deteriorate in early adulthood.

The equitable implementation of interventions requires access to physical and mental health services as well as early diagnosis and intervention, including comprehensive health insurance coverage, and this is specifically where equity fails Black Americans.

Disparities in Health Insurance Coverage Result in Second-Class Care

While the most prevalent form of health insurance in the US is employer-sponsored health insurance, only 47% of Black families, compared to 66% of white families, obtain their insurance from their employers [15]. This leaves most non-elderly, non-military Blacks with two options: public insurance or none at all. In fact, Blacks have the highest percentage of Medicaid enrollment of any racial or ethnic group other than American Indian and Alaskan Natives [16]. This makes Medicaid, a means-tested program for poor children and adults, a significant form of health insurance for Black Americans.

From its inception in 1965, conservative members of Congress, many from Southern states, opposed the idea of federal control of health programs for poor and low-income people, but found state control of Medicaid more acceptable. Medicaid historically allowed individual states to control access to medical care through means testing (eligibility based on income, age, pregnancy and disability) and has been funded differently in Southern states with higher Black populations, effectively imbedding racism into its structure. Indeed, states have been able to resist efforts to mandate universal standards for healthcare provision for poor children and adults at key points for over 50 years [17]. In the 1970s, Congress successfully resisted a provision in the Medicaid legislature that required states to provide comprehensive care to all who met the requirements, and in 2012, the US Supreme Court decision made Medicaid expansion in all states optional instead of mandatory, a decision that has impacted Black populations significantly in the Southern states with large populations of color [17]. These are also among the 12 states that have failed to expand Medicaid [18]. As a result of state control, Medicaid remains poorly funded and reimbursed, and is shunned by many medical providers [19]. Of the 14 states that have not expanded or have not yet implemented the expansion of Medicaid, 12 are among the states with the worse overall health system performance [20]. There is no denying that access to some health insurance is better than no access at all. However, when compared to those with private insurance, those with Medicaid report greater likelihoods of not having a usual source of care, postponing care, going without care, or delaying filling a prescription due to cost [21].

The lack of access to mental health providers is a critical issue for Medicaid subscribers: mental health providers may choose not to accept Medicaid patients because to do so is an economic hardship. Compared to reimbursements for primary care providers, reimbursements to psychiatrists are 24% lower, and in 11 states, the reimbursement to psychiatrists is over 50% lower [22]. As a result, the percent of psychiatrists that accept private health insurance is lower than other specialties and has declined by 17 % since 2005–2006, but the situation is even more dire for publicly insured individuals, as only 43% of psychiatrists accept Medicaid [23]. This is the case despite advocacy from the American Psychiatric Association for full insurer compliance with the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act that requires insurers to reimburse mental health care at a level comparable to physical health.

Medicaid, documented to improve maternal morbidity and mortality [24], covers 40% of all births in the US plus maternal care up to 60 days post-partum. After this period, it is up to the state to determine what happens to a mother’s health care needs, and as a result, millions of women lose health insurance shortly after delivery. The rate of perinatal “churning,” or losing health insurance prior to conception or in the post-partum period, is over 30%, with higher rates (41%) in non-Medicaid expansion states, including Southern states with greater numbers of people of color [25]. In expansion states, post-partum women may be eligible to purchase private health insurance in the Exchanges, even with premium subsidies, but many find coverage unaffordable and will likely have to change their provider [26]. In non-Medicaid expansion states, such as Texas, that have limited eligibility for adults with children, a post-partum woman on Medicaid must make under $2961 per year to qualify for Medicaid 60 days after delivery [27].

Section 1115 of the Social Security Act gives authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve “experimental, pilot or demonstration projects likely to assist in promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program.” [28]. This permits the Secretary to waive certain federal Medicaid requirements, allowing states greater flexibility to design and improve their programs. Historically, states have used these demonstration waivers to create programs that expand care to new populations, offer more services and expand delivery of care. However, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, many states have used these waivers to restrict and limit, rather than expand and ease, access.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation compiled a tracker [29] that aggregates information on pending and approved Section 1115 Medicaid waivers. As of 28 June 2021, 63 waivers, across 45 states, had been approved and 27 waivers, across 22 states, were awaiting approval.

While a few waivers, such as expanding access to mental health and substance use care, promote Medicaid program objectives, others, such as work requirements, a priority under the Trump administration, are either pending, in Court, or already implemented in 15 states [29]. Studies show that 59% of Medicaid enrollees work, and 80% live in a family where at least one family member works. For those adults who do not work, most report an inability to work due to illness or disability, having to care for someone in their home, attending school, looking for work, or being retired [30]. Recognizing that these work requirements do not foster Medicaid program objectives, but instead lead to disenrollment, the Biden Administration sent letters to all states with approved work requirement directing them to begin the process to withdraw such requirements [31].

Demonstration projects waiving required benefits, imposing copays above statutory limits, fees for missed appointments, restrictions of free choice of family planning provider, and healthy behavior provisions have been approved or are pending in 17 states [31]. An article published by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed premiums to be a barrier to accessing and receiving services for low-income individuals, and cost-sharing amounts as low as $1 to $5 result in reduced use of care, including necessary services, increased use of emergency room care, and negative health consequences such as uncontrolled hypertension, elevated cholesterol and decreased asthma care for children [32]. They also found that any potential revenue gains to the state from premiums and copays collected from Medicaid enrollees are offset by disenrollment, increased use of emergency room care, greater costs for the uninsured, and added administrative expenses. Responding to Medicaid restrictions, six medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, and the American Psychiatric Association, representing over 560,000 physicians and medical students, published a statement of joint principles cautioning state and federal authorities on the misuse of Medicaid waivers, exhorting them to “first, do no harm.” [33]. It is clear that leaving decisions as important as healthcare to states has resulted in mixed results, at best.

Perhaps most significantly and insidiously, the creation of Medicaid, which, as we have seen, functions as a second-class system for poor and low-income populations, has taught at least three generations of physicians, medical students and healthcare workers that it is acceptable to offer less treatment (fewer specialists within a network) at lower reimbursement rates than the more fortunate people with employer-based health insurance. From the very beginning of their medical education, trainees are “taught” that a system outside of the main private insurance healthcare is good enough for poor and low-income populations that are over-represented by Black populations. Unable to find providers that accept their public health insurance, Medicaid enrollees are shunted to the academic centers, which have traditionally accepted these patients in their “teaching” hospitals and clinics. In our experience, it is not unusual for a patient at an academic institution to spend 3 hours seeing a doctor in clinic, seeing first the medical student, then the resident and finally the attending physician, as if that patient’s time is not as valuable as that of the patient with private health insurance. Further, it can be argued that an entire system based on employer-sponsored health insurance is racist by design: to be in the position to be offered affordable health insurance by your employer requires a well-paid job, possibly a union job, a good education starting in pre-school, freedom from police harassment, and affordable and safe housing, all made difficult, if not impossible, by generations of laws that have advantaged the dominant class. By the time individuals on Medicaid reach the age of Medicare eligibility, they have already been subjected to a racist system that is structurally rigged against them. Furthermore, while health outcomes do improve for Blacks after age 65 and disparities between white and Black health outcomes narrow [34], a lifetime of racist experiences, and discrimination by medical professionals, in addition to the damaging effects of SDoH, have inflicted their damage.

The success of programs that could identify and address the chronic physical and mental health implications of SDoH, racism and the disparate distribution of ACEs between Black and white children requires a healthcare system that people of all races and incomes can access from birth to death. The employer-based health insurance system in the US is simply unable to do this, since many low wage workers are ineligible because they are not full-time employees, or they cannot afford the copays and deductibles in the plan offered by the employer. This leaves 30 million individuals without health insurance and another 40 million underinsured [35]. Medicaid offers coverage to the uninsured who qualify for benefits. However, as we have seen, this qualification, or means testing, creates significant barriers to access that vary state by state and year by year.

A More Equitable System under Medicare

In contrast, Medicare, a system also created in the midst of the civil rights movement, is universal based on age alone, and administered federally, not state by state: everyone is eligible regardless of race, economic status or employment at age 65. Nearly all physicians participate in Medicare and receive comparable levels of reimbursement for medical care.

No other high-income country has tiered their health care financing and delivery system as the US has: based not on need, but the ability to pay. Other countries with similar levels of economic development to the US have managed, some for almost a century, to create equitable universal access to health care with better outcomes and at less cost than we have achieved in the US.

If health care is a human right, as many Americans believe, given the strong public support for Medicare for All [36], it cannot be left up to states to determine who deserves this right and who does not. It is the federal government’s duty to guarantee this.

National single payer healthcare, popularly known as Medicare for All, is a publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare system, where government-run insurance replaces private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid (including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid Managed Care), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, while TriCare, the Veteran’s Administration and the Indian Health Service remain intact. Taxes will inevitably be used to fund the program, but these will be offset by the elimination of premiums, copays, deductibles and coinsurance. Once instituted, doctors and patients would see very little disruption as there will be free choice of provider and hospital. There are currently two bills [37,38] proposed in Congress that detail the use of savings generated from lower administration costs and negotiated prices with pharmaceutical companies to establish a national health insurance program that covers all US residents for all medically necessary services, including prescription drugs and long-term care, and prohibits private health insurance companies from duplicating services offered by the national insurance program. As stated above, there is widespread popular support for expanding Medicare to all Americans, as well as institutional support from organizations such as the American College of Physicians [39], Physicians for a National Health Program [40], and National Nurses United [41]. In a systematic review of the economic analyses of 22 single payer plans, Cai and colleagues found consensus for the “fiscal feasibility” of a single-payer financing approach in the US [42].

Conclusions

How could a national single payer healthcare system in the US improve the health outcomes of baby George and his mother, Stephanie? Especially when faced with a world-wide pandemic? While a more equitable healthcare system will not dismantle all the structural racism that they will face, access to comprehensive, universal, high-quality healthcare will go a long way to level the playing field. The second-class, means-tested healthcare system, Medicaid, would no longer be necessary. A well-financed, government-run (and privately delivered) healthcare system would not be based on a profit-driven private insurance market. It would not be linked to employment. It would be accessible to all and accountable to the people it serves. It would institute just and fair reimbursement of providers from all specialties, including mental health and the long-term care of chronic disease. The effects of weathering and disparate distribution of ACEs will not disappear quickly, but recognition of, and access to, care for the resulting medical conditions would become widely available. A national single payer healthcare system offers the promise of the continuity of care over a lifetime. This is what baby George should look forward to, and what this country must achieve.

https://www.mdpi.com…

References

  1. Geronimus, A.T. The Weathering Hypothesis and the Health of African-American Women and Infants: Evidence and Speculations. Ethn. Dis.; 1992, 2, 207–221.
  2. Collins, J.W.; David, R.J.; Handler, A.; Wall, S.; Andes, S. Very Low Birthweight in African American Infants: The Role of Maternal Exposure to Interpersonal Racial Discrimination. Am. J. Public Health; 2004, 94, 2132–2138.
  3. Bailey, Z.D.; Krieger, N.; Agénor, M.; Graves, J.; Linos, N.; Bassett, M.T. Structural Racism and Health Inequities in the USA: Evidence and Interventions. Lancet; 2017, 389, 1453–1463.
  4. Cooper, R.S.; Forrester, T.E.; Plange-Rhule, J.; Bovet, P.; Lambert, E.V.; Dugas, L.R.; Cargill, K.E.; Durazo-Arvizu, R.A.; Shoham, D.A.; Tong, L.; et al. Elevated Hypertension Risk for African-Origin Populations in Biracial Societies: Modeling the Epidemiologic Transition Study. J. Hypertens.; 2015, 33, 473–481.
  5. Davis, S.K.; Gebreab, S.; Quarells, R.; Gibbons, G.H. Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Health among Black and White Women Residing in Stroke Belt and Buckle Regions of the South. Ethn. Dis.; 2014, 24, 133–143.
  6. Braveman, P.; Egerter, S.; Williams, D.R. The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annu. Rev. Public Health; 2011, 32, 381–398.
  7. Felitti, V.J.; Anda, R.F.; Nordenberg, D.; Williamson, D.F.; Spitz, A.M.; Edwards, V.; Koss, M.P.; Marks, J.S. Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am. J. Prev. Med.; 1998, 14, 245–258.
  8. Racism is an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE)—The Jordan Institute for Families. Available online: https://jordaninstituteforfamilies.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  9. HRSA Maternal & Child Helath. ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES IN THE NSCH. Available online: https://mchb.hrsa.gov… (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  10. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005.
  11. American Psychiatric Association. Mental Health Disparities: Diverse Populations; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Mental Health Service Use among Adults; SAMHSA: Rockville, MD, USA, 2018.
  13. Schwartz, R.C. Racial Disparities in Psychotic Disorder Diagnosis: A Review of Empirical Literature. World J. Psychiatry; 2014, 4, 133.
  14. Petersen, E.E.; Davis, N.L.; Goodman, D.; Cox, S.; Syverson, C.; Seed, K.; Shapiro-Mendoza, C.; Callaghan, W.M.; Barfield, W. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Pregnancy-Related Deaths—United States, 2007–2016. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.; 2019, 68, 762–765.
  15. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employer-Sponsored Coverage Rates for the Nonelderly by Race/Ethnicity. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  16. Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicaid Coverage Rates for the Nonelderly by Race/Ethnicity. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  17. How Foundational Moments in Medicaid’s History Reinforced Rather Than Eliminated Racial Health Disparities. Health Affairs. Available online: https://www.healthaffairs.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  18. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  19. Tucker, J.L. Factors Influencing Physician Participation in Medicaid in the USA. Int. J. Soc. Econ.; 2002, 29, 753–762.
  20. The Commonwealth Fund—2020 Scorecard on State Health System Performance. Available online: https://2020scorecard.commonwealthfund.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  21. Key Facts about the Uninsured Population. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  22. Melek, S.; Stoddard Davenport, M.; Gray, M.T. Addiction and Mental Health vs. Physical Health: Widening Disparities in Network Use and Provider Reimbursement A Deeper Analytical Dive and Updated Results through 2017 for 37 Million Employees and Dependents. Available online: https://www.milliman.com… (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  23. Bishop, T.F.; Press, M.J.; Keyhani, S.; Pincus, H.A. Acceptance of Insurance by Psychiatrists and the Implications for Access to Mental Health Care. JAMA Psychiatry; 2014, 71, 176–181.
  24. Eliason, E.L. Adoption of Medicaid Expansion Is Associated with Lower Maternal Mortality. Women’s Health Issues; 2020, 30, 147–152.
  25. High Rates of Perinatal Insurance Churn Persist after the ACA. Health Affairs. Available online: https://www.healthaffairs.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  26. Expanding Postpartum Medicaid Coverage. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  27. Medicaid and CHIP Income Eligibility Limits for Pregnant Women as a Percent of the Federal Poverty Level. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  28. About Section 1115 Demonstrations | Medicaid. Available online: https://www.medicaid.gov… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  29. Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers by State. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  30. Garfield, R.; Rudowitz, R.; Damico, A. Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work; Kaiser Family: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018.
  31. Available online: https://www.medicaid.gov… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  32. The Effects of Premiums and Cost Sharing on Low-Income Populations: Updated Review of Research Findings. KFF. Available online: https://www.kff.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  33. Section 1115 Demonstration Waivers and Other Proposals to Change Medicaid Benefits, Financing and Cost-Sharing: Ensuring Access and Affordability Must Be Paramount. Available online: https://www.psychiatry.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  34. National Research Council (US); Institute of Medicine (US). Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health; Woolf, S.H., Aron, L.U.S., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
  35. Health Coverage Affordability Crisis 2020 Biennial Survey. Commonwealth Fund. Available online: https://www.commonwealthfund.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  36. Poll: 69 percent of voters support Medicare for All. The Hill. Available online: https://thehill.com… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  37. Jayapal, P. H.R. 1976—Medicare for All Act of 2021. Available online: https://www.congress.gov… (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  38. Sanders, B. S. 1129—Medicare for All Act of 2019. Available online: https://www.congress.gov… (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  39. Doherty, R.; Cooney, T.G.; Mire, R.D.; Engel, L.S.; Goldman, J.M.; Abraham, G.; Henry, T.L.; Hilden, D.R.; Kapoor, A.; Lenchus, J.D.; et al. Envisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: A Call to Action by the American College of Physicians. Ann. Int. Med.; 2020, 172, S3–S6.
  40. Physicians for a National Health Program—PNHP. Available online: https://pnhp.org (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  41. Let’s Get Healthcare Reform Right with Medicare for All | National Nurses United. Available online: https://www.nationalnursesunited.org… (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  42. Cai, C.; Runte, J.; Ostrer, I.; Berry, K.; Ponce, N.; Rodriguez, M.; Bertozzi, S.; White, J.S.; Kahn, J.G. Projected Costs of Single-Payer Healthcare Financing in the United States: A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses. PLoS Med; 2020, 17, e1003013.

Californians Crave Single Payer!

Summary: Three diverse California groups – doctors in training, low income populations, and leaders of community-based organizations — recently showed high support for single payer. Very encouraging trend, invigorating! Let’s harness that energy.

Health reform debate, USC Keck School of Medicine, September 21, 2021, single-payer presenter Paul Song, M.D.

See Dr. Song’s PowerPoint deck HERE.

Community Voices Priorities and Preferences of Californians with Low Incomes for Health Care Reform, September 2021, by The Healthy California for All Commission

From the Executive Summary:

Both the public opinion poll and the CBO leader interviews and surveys conducted show strong support for a single, statewide, government-run health care program that covers all people who live in California. The poll suggests that 65% of Californians with low incomes support the concept, with people of color showing greater support: 76% of African Americans, 71% of Latinos, 73% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, 65% of Native Americans and 54% of whites. Similarly, a majority of CBO leaders indicated support for the concept of a single statewide government-run health care program.

Comment:

By Jim Kahn, M.D., M.P.H.

Look what’s happening in California: So much support for single payer, from different corners … two diverse examples arrived in the last couple of days.

All of us who educate and advocate for single payer have been in debates, arguing the merits of single payer versus strategies that are pure market (“skin in the game”) and blended (like the ACA). Usually we’re quite pleased to swing opinion 10-20%. Look what happened when Paul Song spoke at USC Keck School of Medicine – a 41-point swing! To 89% support! Paul is a brilliant presenter. But, also, the times are changing … more and more people in health care and out recognize the gaping flaws in the current health care non-system, and the excellent performance of single payer.

Who recognizes it especially well? The population that is most vulnerable and in need. In statewide polling of low income populations and of community-based organization leaders, the Health California for All Commission found a clear consensus: “strong support for a single, statewide, government-run health care program that covers all people who live in California”. That sounds like … single payer.

There’s lots of work left to do. Lots more people to convince, including importantly our legislators. Bills to write, battles to wage. But I think we’ve turned a corner … to widespread recognition of what is known so well outside our country’s borders: single payer is a stunningly efficient and effective solution.

http://healthjusticemonitor.org…

Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.

Texas’ Abortion Law Could Worsen the State’s Maternal Mortality Rate

By Abigail Abrams
TIME, September 22, 2021

Texas’ controversial six-week abortion ban has been in effect just 21 days, and physicians and researchers are already warning that the impact could be dire: if the law remains in effect, Texas could see a significant increase in maternal mortality.

A new analysis from Dr. David Eisenberg, a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist who provides abortions in Missouri and Illinois, estimates that with the new law in effect, the state could see increases in maternal mortality of up to 15% overall, and up to 33% for Black women next year. The estimate is based on previous research that has established a clear link between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality. Black patients are often disproportionately impacted by abortion restrictions, and they are far more likely to die in to pregnancy-related deaths than white or Hispanic women.

“When you eliminate the ability for people who become pregnant to decide what’s best for them and their health and their family, it has a negative impact on the health of themselves, as well as their families and the communities they come from,” says Eisenberg, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, prohibits abortion once an ultrasound detects cardiac activity. In practice, that means that no one in the state can provide an abortion after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, which is before many people discover they are pregnant. In addition to the law’s impact on patients, its extreme limit could also cause many abortion clinics to close their doors, which would further reduce access to care for state residents.

While the Texas law is unprecedented in its private enforcement mechanism, many other states have passed limits on abortion in recent years, and researchers have shown that these are associated with negative health outcomes. In a study published in March in the journal Contraception, Eisenberg and his co-authors found that from 1995 to 2017, the maternal mortality rate increased most significantly in states that enacted the most restrictive abortion laws. In 2017, states that restricted abortion had a maternal death rate (28.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) that was nearly double (15.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) those that had passed laws protecting access to abortion.

In another study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2019, researchers looked at maternal mortality data from 38 states and Washington, D.C. and found that gestational limits on abortion and Planned Parenthood clinic closures each significantly increased maternal mortality. They found that laws restricting abortion based on gestational age ​​increased maternal mortality by 38% and that a 20% reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics increased a state’s maternal mortality rate by 8%.

Since the study was based on statistical analyses of state-level data, researchers could not look at complicating factors for each individual patient. But Summer Sherburne Hawkins, the study’s lead author and an associate professor at Boston College’s School of Social Work, says the analysis shows the direct impact of abortion restrictions like the one in Texas.

“Based on our research, restricting abortion based on gestational age, as has been done in Texas, will likely have detrimental effects on women’s health,” she says. “It could have increases in maternal mortality.”

Eisenberg’s new analysis builds on this idea and pulls from his previous research published in Contraception. He found the Global Health Data Exchange showed a 6% increase in maternal mortality in states that restricted abortion access relative to neutral states. The CDC WONDER database showed a 24% increase in states that restricted abortion access relative to neutral states. The median increase, 15%, is what he predicts could take place in Texas if its current abortion law remains in place.

Abortion providers in the state are already seeing patients who they fear could end up in dangerous circumstances. Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a staff physician at Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston, says the law has forced him to turn away patients who will likely not be in a place to have a healthy pregnancy. Planned Parenthood has become a “traffic control” center with care coordinators helping people find resources to travel out of state for care or explore other options, he says. But not all patients can travel long distances to receive care.

Kumar says he saw a patient last week who is navigating a meth addiction and is homeless, who he doubts will be able to travel out of state to get an abortion. Another of his patients already has seven children, one of whom is in the hospital with a terminal illness. She likely will not be able to leave the state—and her children—to get an abortion either, but she also knows she will struggle to take care of another child, Kumar says.

The Texas law means these patients must make incredibly difficult choices as they seek care. If they cannot obtain abortions, they may be forced to deal with the mental and physical stress of carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

“There’s also consequences with morbidity, meaning people having more complicated pregnancies that take a toll on their health, having more complications, and having a lower quality of life,” Kumar says. “And that’s not just for them. It’s also for their families and the children that they are forced to have.”

The U.S. faces a crisis of maternal mortality

The new Texas law is the latest in a wave of restrictions on abortion nationwide. For more than a decade, largely conservative states like Texas that have steadily implemented a series of laws and regulations making it more logistically and financially difficult for women to access all kinds of reproductive health care. Even amid this trend, Texas stands out as one of the most challenging places to obtain an abortion and to give birth to a child.

The U.S. has faced a crisis of maternal mortality for years. It has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world, and the country’s numbers have worsened significantly over the last 30 years, according to a new report the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released Sept. 15. This is in large part due to growing disparities in access to quality care for women of color. “As an individual, as a Texan, I’m appalled that, at a time where we need stronger hospitals and a higher quality of hospital care for Texans, we’re going in the wrong direction,” Norma Cantú, chair of the Commission on Civil Rights, said in response to a question from TIME last week.

The maternal mortality rate in Texas is already higher than the U.S. average, and Black women bear the brunt of this tragedy: they account for just 11% of live births, but make up 31% of maternal deaths in the state. In 2013, Texas created an expert committee to examine this issue. It found that many of the maternal deaths in Texas are preventable and recommended that the state extend health insurance coverage for poor mothers to one year after they have a baby. But lawmakers have not done that. Instead, in May the state passed a law extending Medicaid coverage for six months after childbirth.

Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country, the highest rate of uninsured women of childbearing age, and its leaders have refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which would have allowed more low-income Texans to access the public health insurance program. Texas also has the strictest income limit for Medicaid eligibility in the country: a single Texan parent with three children must earn $277 or less a month to be eligible. During pregnancy, that cap increases to $4,373.

The new Texas abortion law is being challenged in court. The Department of Justice has asked a federal judge in the Western District of Texas to block the law while it sues Texas, and the next hearing is set for Oct. 1. But even if the law is temporarily blocked, it is written in a way that could make it difficult for abortion providers to resume their regular work until they have a final verdict.

The effects of even a temporary ban are likely to reverberate. When Texas enacted a law in 2013 that required abortion clinics to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals and imposed other restrictions, half the clinics in the state closed. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional in 2016, few clinics returned. As a result, huge swaths of the state became abortion deserts. Under the new law, the average Texan must drive 14 times farther than they had to previously to access an abortion.

In recent weeks, lawmakers from other conservative states have said they see Texas as a model and hope to pass similar legislation, and in December, the conservative Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case about an abortion restriction in Mississippi. While those who oppose abortion are celebrating what they see as a win for their movement, physicians and researchers like Eisenberg—as well as residents in conservative states—say they are bracing for a coming wave of maternal deaths.

https://time.com…