PNHP

Delaware Hospital CEO says consider single-payer

Delaware Hospital CEO says consider single-payer

Beebe chief: Health-care industry is sick
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware Coast Press Reporter

Like a doctor warning a patient to change his lifestyle today to avoid pain and suffering in years to come, the president of Beebe Medical Center says the nation’s health-care industry should act now to ensure it will be strong in future decades.

Jeffrey Fried, Beebe’s top executive since 1995, admits he doesn’t have easy solutions to existing problems caused by steadily rising health-care prices — or to challenges posed by an increasingly elderly population. But he does offer one prescription: a serious search for an alternative to a health-care system that, he says, cannot survive as it is.

“I don’t know all the answers, and I don’t know what the eventual solution is,” Fried said in a recent interview at his office on Beebe’s campus in Lewes. “But what I feel most strongly about is, the current system simply is not sustainable. So we ought to be looking at all the different possibilities and all the options right now.”

Current conditions — from millions of workers without health insurance to millions who have insurance that fails to provide comprehensive preventive medicine — may seem severe, but Fried said worse could be on the way as the number of retirement-age Americans rises. He noted federal statistics showing that in the year 2000 there were 3.9 tax-paying workers for every person on Medicare, but in the year 2030 the ratio will be just 2.4-to-1 — nearly 40 percent lower.

Already, he said, the federal government fails to fully reimburse any Delaware hospital for its Medicare expenses. Other patients’ payments make up the difference, a situation that could be exacerbated unless the health-care system is overhauled.

“So you’ve got an aging population, and we know an aging population uses more health-care services than younger people. And you’re going to have fewer people working to provide those services,” Fried said. “To me, that’s a train wreck waiting to happen.”

But little, he said, is being done to head off the collision. “The thing that frustrates me is that these statistics aren’t somebody’s private information,” he said. “They’re available to anybody. I don’t understand why people don’t see what’s looming on the horizon.”

Government’s role

He calls for government to lead the way. But one prominent government attempt at such leadership, during Bill Clinton’s first term as president, failed to spark dramatic change.

“You’ve got all kinds of people (in health care) who want to make the system better for (themselves), and nobody wants to give up anything,” Fried said. “Hillary Clinton tried to put everybody around the table. The problem is, everybody comes to the table trying to make the system better for themselves.”

But another effort should be made, he said, because the free-enterprise system isn’t geared to meeting the challenge on its own.

“I used to believe that the competitive model that works for the rest of the world would work for health care. The more time I spent in health care, the more I realized it doesn’t work,” said Fried, who was an executive at Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital for 12 years before moving to Beebe. “The reason it doesn’t work is that, first of all, you don’t have a level playing field.

“You have hospitals providing all the services needed in a community, regardless of (patients’) ability to pay,” he said. But there also are “niche players who go after certain kinds of patients with certain kinds of services and aren’t really interested in serving the uninsured and the underinsured. You’ll see imaging centers going up, you’ll see surgery centers going up and you’ll see endoscopy centers going up. But these facilities aren’t interested in taking care of the uninsured.

“And pharmaceutical companies are developing new medications all the time. Medical-equipment companies are developing new technologies. But nobody’s really interested in providing services for people who can’t pay for them.”

Meanwhile, he said, insurance companies continually strive to enhance their profits by paying health providers less for services received by those who do have coverage. And that coverage isn’t always comprehensive; not everyone who is covered is assured of undergoing medical testing that would save money in the long run.

“So much of our system — I’m not saying it’s bad — is driven by the stock market, the capital markets and what’s happening on Wall Street and similar places around the world,” Fried said. “The market goes up and down based upon quarterly performance reports. The problem is, preventive medicine isn’t based on quarterly reports. You’ve got to make some investment over time to really see any benefit.”

Covering everyone

While the American Medical Association and many other forces within the health-care industry insist radical change isn’t necessary, Fried is among those calling for serious consideration of instituting the “single-payer universal” system common to many other industrialized nations.

Under single-payer, a government-run organization would collect all health-care fees and pay all medical bills. Advocates such as Physicians for a National Health Care Program say that replacing today’s complex billing system would save money that could be used to provide care for those who currently don’t get it. Under single-payer, all Americans would be covered and current health services would continue. Private insurance no longer would be necessary.

Some opponents of single-payer say the government would spend too much. Others predict the opposite, saying government wouldn’t spend enough to ensure patients received all the care they needed.

“I’m not sure single-payer is the right answer,” Fried said. “Maybe we’ll come up with a solution nobody has thought of. One of the great things about this system is that the entrepreneurial spirit has always allowed us to come up with new discoveries and look at things differently. Just to say ‘This won’t work’ or ‘That won’t work’ is not acceptable to me.

“My position more than anything else is, the current system doesn’t work. It isn’t going to last forever, so we’ve got to start thinking about something else. And the longer we wait to think about something else, the less time we have to do something before it becomes a crisis. It seems to me people would do best to deal with these problems now rather than waiting 10-20 years down the road.”

E-mail Bruce Pringle at bpringle@smgpo.gannett.com.
Originally published Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Health Care for All Bike Tour -Idaho

The Bob LeBow Bike Tour – “Health Care for All” is a local event aimed at encouraging a healthy lifestyle for riders of all ages, while enjoying the beauty of rural Canyon and Owyhee Counties. The Bob LeBow Bike Tour is held on the second Saturday of June and includes 5 different routes ranging from 3 to 100 miles. All rides start and finish at Nampa High School. Proceeds of the Bob LeBow Bike Tour – “Health Care for All” benefit the Terry Reilly Health Services Zero Pay Fund. Lunch, water stops, first aid, and sag wagons will be provided. Registration fees include a 2004 tour tee-shirt, water bottle, and entry to door prizes.

Please click on the link to view the full details

Porter & Teisberg: Redefining competition in health care

Porter & Teisberg: Redefining competition in health care

The Boston Globe
June 8, 2004
A prescription for healthcare
Professor: Get industry to compete over quality instead of shifting
costs
By Robert Weisman

Michael E. Porter has a new problem to fix.

The Harvard Business School professor, often described as America’s foremost
business strategist, has never shied away from tackling intractableproblems.

…his latest challenge is one that has stumped the best and brightest business theorists, politicians, and policy makers: America’s dysfunctional healthcare system. And Porter is staking his reputation on a prescription that calls for a healthy dose of competition.

In a long essay in the June edition of Harvard Business Review, the 57-year-old Porter argues for redefining healthcare competition on the level of specific diseases and treatments, rather than on the level of health plans, networks, or hospital groups. ”The wrong kinds of competition have made a mess of the American healthcare system,” contend Porter and his coauthor, Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg of the University of Virginia.

”The right kind of competition can straighten it out.”

The article is significant not only for its critique, but also because it bears the Michael Porter stamp. One of only 15 ”university professors” (the highest designation for faculty members) at Harvard University, his 16 books on strategy, competitive advantage, and business clusters have made him among the most sought-after business thinkers in the world. Porter consults for corporations, regions, and even nations.

Porter and Teisberg have a deceptively simple diagnosis: Healthcare competition today works on the wrong level. The players — health plans, payers, providers, and doctors — engage in what the authors call ‘zero-sum competition,” dividing value rather than creating it. They seek to transfer costs onto one another, limit access to care, hoard information, and stifle innovation, all to the detriment of patients.

The right kind of competition should occur at the level of preventing, identifying, and treating patients’ conditions and diseases, Porter and Teisberg assert. They call for collecting and disseminating information about the outcome of medical procedures, so patients can make intelligent choices about physicians and hospitals. They also recommend transparency in billing and pricing to reduce cost shifting, discrimination, and other inefficiencies. And they propose increased specialization by healthcare providers, resulting in more centers of excellence in conditions and treatments that compete for patients.

Most of the tried-and-failed healthcare reform efforts of the past decade have emphasized government playing a larger role, as it does in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries. By contrast, the Porter-Teisberg approach would be a largely private sector solution, with employers helping to instigate change by negotiating with health insurers and providers for quality, choice, and transparency.

Government would have a role, not as a ”single payer” or an insurer of last resort, but by blocking network restrictions, hospital consolidation, and multiple hospitalization bills, and helping to set a framework for reform through its Medicare program. The role of health plans, meanwhile, would be more akin to that of coaches and advisers, helping their members navigate the system and find the best care.

Teisberg… speaking of herself and Porter, said, ”Neither one of us has come at this as a healthcare expert. We’re out there talking to people because we care about this. It matters.”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/08/a_prescription_for_healthcare/?

Harvard Business Review
June 2004
Redefining Competition in Health Care
The wrong kinds of competition have made a mess of the American health
care system. The right kinds of competition can straighten it out.
by Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg

We believe that competition is the root of the problem with U.S. health care performance. But this does not mean we advocate a state-controlled system or
a single-payer system; those approaches would only make matters worse. On
the contrary, competition is also the solution, but the nature of competition in health care must change. Our research shows that competition in the health care system occurs at the wrong level, over the wrong things, in the wrong geographic markets, and at the wrong time. Competition has actually been all but eliminated just where and when it is most important.

The most fundamental and unrecognized problem in U.S. health care today is that competition operates at the wrong level. It takes places at the level of health plans, networks, and hospital groups. It should occur in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of individual health conditions or co-occurring conditions. It is at this level that true value is created-or destroyed-disease by disease and patient by patient. It is here where huge differences in cost and quality persist. And it is here where competition would drive improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, reduce errors, and spark innovation. Yet competition at the level of individual health conditions is all but absent.

To access the report (fee $16.95):
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/home/index.jhtml;jsessionid=FVZ2U4LSFGSSECTEQENSELQ?_requestid=5752
and click on “Curing U.S. Health Care (HBR OnPoint Collection)”

Comment: The debate rages on as to whether the financing of health care should be guided by a government program or by competitive forces in the private marketplace. Innumerable studies have refuted the claim that, in health care, private marketplace competition improves quality and lowers costs. Professors Michael Porter and Elizabeth Teisberg concede that the existing “zero-sum competition” has “made a mess of the American health care system.” They now describe “positive-sum competition” as the solution. They contend that preserving market forces through a new model of competition would be the best means of providing value by improving quality while controlling costs.

Their article is to be followed by a book on the subject, with the intention that it be the guide to revolutionary reform of the health care marketplace. Because of the prestige and credibility of the authors, we should become well informed on their vision of reform, and be prepared to respond appropriately.

As academic leaders in the business world, it is no surprise that they are determined to make competition work in health care, with almost a religious
fervor. They concede that they are relative novices in the health care arena, but they believe that they can introduce innovative approaches to competition that would have a positive impact on the health care system. In spite of being health care novices, they have identified much in the health policy literature that confirms that competition has not provided enough value to offset the impaired quality that permeates our system, thus their “zero-sum” thesis.

As pro-competitive, free market advocates, they cannot accept a model, such
as single payer, that uses government mechanisms to achieve quality and control costs. But in their fervor to depend on private competition as the driving force for value, problems begin to appear as they develop their positive-sum” thesis. Only a small sampling of the issues will be listed here. If, in fact, their proposals gain political traction, a more detailed analysis can be prepared later, describing what is good and what is bad about their concepts.

(Quotations are from their paper.)

* They appropriately emphasize that we need greater value in health care. But most of their concepts are directed at improving quality, the more important component of value, whereas very little are directed toward controlling costs. It is true that eliminating ineffective or detrimental care does reduce costs, but an explosion in technological advances, some of dubious value, has been a major driver of cost escalation. They do not adequately address this important concern.

* Most of their recommendations for improving quality have already been covered extensively in the health policy literature. Efforts are already being made to address them, and even greater efforts will inevitably be made in the future.

* “The most fundamental and unrecognized problem in U.S. health care today is that competition operates at the wrong level. It takes place at the level of health plans, networks, and hospital groups. It should occur in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of individual health conditions or co-occurring conditions.” What does competition have to do with this? We do recognize that many of the problems are in our approaches to prevention, diagnosis and treatment. We definitely need to continue to identify these problems and then correct them. But is that best approached by establishing an elaborate and necessarily imperfect system of measuring and reporting quality parameters for the purpose of enabling providers to be rewarded by relatively unsophisticated purchasers in the marketplace? Or would it be better to establish a single, integrated system of funding care that directs the financial resources to beneficial preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic services with incentives for higher quality? It seems that the direct approach would be more efficient and effective.

* “Under positive-sum competition, providers would have to issue a single bill for each service bundle, rather than a myriad of bills for each discrete service.” Billing abuses occur both with bundling and unbundling of charges. Suggesting that billing problems for chronic disorders would be solved by mandated bundling is simplistic reasoning at best.

* They suggest that hospitals should develop “unique expertise” and not try to “be all things to everyone.” Hospitals then could compete (nationally?) with other hospitals providing similar unique expertise. This ignores the fact that hospitals provide mostly very routine services and need to be geographically accessible in a timely manner. Also the emphasis on increased specialization has been demonstrated to decrease health care value, driving up spending without a commensurate improvement in outcomes.

* “Network restrictions” would be eliminated, and “co-pays would be the same inside and outside of the network.” Does this mean that price would no longer be a dominant factor in a competitive marketplace? Though it should be stated here that their emphasis on the goal of improving quality is to be commended.

* Although a major goal would be to keep the government out of the competitive marketplace, “antitrust authorities would scrutinize system participants” to prevent market domination. If higher quality is the goal, shouldn’t higher quality providers be allowed to dominate the market? And would we be able to stabilize the capacity of the system if the remaining providers were not able to survive financially? Wouldn’t it be more rational to adopt programs aimed at improving the quality of all providers, rather than a competitive model that automatically sacrifices those who fall on the lower part of the curve?

* To “eliminate price differentials for favored groups… the federal government could limit the spread between the most discounted price and the highest price charged by a provider for any service and then reduce this spread each year over a five year period.” How do price controls fit in with free market competition? And what happens when destabilization returns after the five years have passed?

* “For high-risk people unable to buy health plans, assigned risk pools, like those used in automobile insurance, will need to be developed.” Why didn’t we think of that?

* “Large deductibles combined with medical savings accounts would let some patients take financial responsibility for their choices.” But also under their model, the legal responsibility for bills would shift from the patients to the payers who would “bear full legal responsibility for the medical bills of paid-up subscribers.” Well, make up your mind. Is the financial responsibility that of the patient or of the payer?

* Although they give competition much credit as a potential driver of quality, they ignore the fact that a single payer system would address many of the quality issues that they describe. In fact, by design, the singlepayer system would attack the quality problems aggressively and effectively, whereas their competition model would approach them with primary attention given to the bottom line. But profits in health care have almost no correlation with quality, and their model, in spite of their rhetoric, provides negligible financial incentives to improve quality on a global basis, though it may be effective in a few isolated instances.

Professors Porter and Teisberg still have much to learn about the health care system. Let’s hope that they do not limit their exposure to their colleagues who believe that we must rely strictly on competition in free markets no matter how compelling the evidence that they simply do not work in health care. Maybe they’d like to take a closer look at the single payer model. A single payer system would provide value by enabling higher quality within the limits of the resources we have, and isn’t that what good business is all about?

Porter & Teisberg: Redefining competition in health care

Porter & Teisberg: Redefining competition in health care

The Boston Globe
June 8, 2004
A prescription for healthcare
Professor: Get industry to compete over quality instead of shifting
costs
By Robert Weisman

Michael E. Porter has a new problem to fix.

The Harvard Business School professor, often described as America’s foremost
business strategist, has never shied away from tackling intractableproblems.

…his latest challenge is one that has stumped the best and brightest business theorists, politicians, and policy makers: America’s dysfunctional healthcare system. And Porter is staking his reputation on a prescription that calls for a healthy dose of competition.

In a long essay in the June edition of Harvard Business Review, the 57-year-old Porter argues for redefining healthcare competition on the level of specific diseases and treatments, rather than on the level of health plans, networks, or hospital groups. ”The wrong kinds of competition have made a mess of the American healthcare system,” contend Porter and his coauthor, Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg of the University of Virginia.

”The right kind of competition can straighten it out.”

The article is significant not only for its critique, but also because it bears the Michael Porter stamp. One of only 15 ”university professors” (the highest designation for faculty members) at Harvard University, his 16 books on strategy, competitive advantage, and business clusters have made him among the most sought-after business thinkers in the world. Porter consults for corporations, regions, and even nations.

Porter and Teisberg have a deceptively simple diagnosis: Healthcare competition today works on the wrong level. The players — health plans, payers, providers, and doctors — engage in what the authors call ‘zero-sum competition,” dividing value rather than creating it. They seek to transfer costs onto one another, limit access to care, hoard information, and stifle innovation, all to the detriment of patients.

The right kind of competition should occur at the level of preventing, identifying, and treating patients’ conditions and diseases, Porter and Teisberg assert. They call for collecting and disseminating information about the outcome of medical procedures, so patients can make intelligent choices about physicians and hospitals. They also recommend transparency in billing and pricing to reduce cost shifting, discrimination, and other inefficiencies. And they propose increased specialization by healthcare providers, resulting in more centers of excellence in conditions and treatments that compete for patients.

Most of the tried-and-failed healthcare reform efforts of the past decade have emphasized government playing a larger role, as it does in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries. By contrast, the Porter-Teisberg approach would be a largely private sector solution, with employers helping to instigate change by negotiating with health insurers and providers for quality, choice, and transparency.

Government would have a role, not as a ”single payer” or an insurer of last resort, but by blocking network restrictions, hospital consolidation, and multiple hospitalization bills, and helping to set a framework for reform through its Medicare program. The role of health plans, meanwhile, would be more akin to that of coaches and advisers, helping their members navigate the system and find the best care.

Teisberg… speaking of herself and Porter, said, ”Neither one of us has come at this as a healthcare expert. We’re out there talking to people because we care about this. It matters.”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/08/a_prescription_for_healthcare/?

Harvard Business Review
June 2004
Redefining Competition in Health Care
The wrong kinds of competition have made a mess of the American health
care system. The right kinds of competition can straighten it out.
by Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg

We believe that competition is the root of the problem with U.S. health care performance. But this does not mean we advocate a state-controlled system or
a single-payer system; those approaches would only make matters worse. On
the contrary, competition is also the solution, but the nature of competition in health care must change. Our research shows that competition in the health care system occurs at the wrong level, over the wrong things, in the wrong geographic markets, and at the wrong time. Competition has actually been all but eliminated just where and when it is most important.

The most fundamental and unrecognized problem in U.S. health care today is that competition operates at the wrong level. It takes places at the level of health plans, networks, and hospital groups. It should occur in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of individual health conditions or co-occurring conditions. It is at this level that true value is created-or destroyed-disease by disease and patient by patient. It is here where huge differences in cost and quality persist. And it is here where competition would drive improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, reduce errors, and spark innovation. Yet competition at the level of individual health conditions is all but absent.

To access the report (fee $16.95):
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/home/index.jhtml;jsessionid=FVZ2U4LSFGSSECTEQENSELQ?_requestid=5752
and click on “Curing U.S. Health Care (HBR OnPoint Collection)”

Comment: The debate rages on as to whether the financing of health care should be guided by a government program or by competitive forces in the private marketplace. Innumerable studies have refuted the claim that, in health care, private marketplace competition improves quality and lowers costs. Professors Michael Porter and Elizabeth Teisberg concede that the existing “zero-sum competition” has “made a mess of the American health care system.” They now describe “positive-sum competition” as the solution. They contend that preserving market forces through a new model of competition would be the best means of providing value by improving quality while controlling costs.

Their article is to be followed by a book on the subject, with the intention that it be the guide to revolutionary reform of the health care marketplace. Because of the prestige and credibility of the authors, we should become well informed on their vision of reform, and be prepared to respond appropriately.

As academic leaders in the business world, it is no surprise that they are determined to make competition work in health care, with almost a religious
fervor. They concede that they are relative novices in the health care arena, but they believe that they can introduce innovative approaches to competition that would have a positive impact on the health care system. In spite of being health care novices, they have identified much in the health policy literature that confirms that competition has not provided enough value to offset the impaired quality that permeates our system, thus their “zero-sum” thesis.

As pro-competitive, free market advocates, they cannot accept a model, such
as single payer, that uses government mechanisms to achieve quality and control costs. But in their fervor to depend on private competition as the driving force for value, problems begin to appear as they develop their positive-sum” thesis. Only a small sampling of the issues will be listed here. If, in fact, their proposals gain political traction, a more detailed analysis can be prepared later, describing what is good and what is bad about their concepts.

(Quotations are from their paper.)

* They appropriately emphasize that we need greater value in health care. But most of their concepts are directed at improving quality, the more important component of value, whereas very little are directed toward controlling costs. It is true that eliminating ineffective or detrimental care does reduce costs, but an explosion in technological advances, some of dubious value, has been a major driver of cost escalation. They do not adequately address this important concern.

* Most of their recommendations for improving quality have already been covered extensively in the health policy literature. Efforts are already being made to address them, and even greater efforts will inevitably be made in the future.

* “The most fundamental and unrecognized problem in U.S. health care today is that competition operates at the wrong level. It takes place at the level of health plans, networks, and hospital groups. It should occur in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of individual health conditions or co-occurring conditions.” What does competition have to do with this? We do recognize that many of the problems are in our approaches to prevention, diagnosis and treatment. We definitely need to continue to identify these problems and then correct them. But is that best approached by establishing an elaborate and necessarily imperfect system of measuring and reporting quality parameters for the purpose of enabling providers to be rewarded by relatively unsophisticated purchasers in the marketplace? Or would it be better to establish a single, integrated system of funding care that directs the financial resources to beneficial preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic services with incentives for higher quality? It seems that the direct approach would be more efficient and effective.

* “Under positive-sum competition, providers would have to issue a single bill for each service bundle, rather than a myriad of bills for each discrete service.” Billing abuses occur both with bundling and unbundling of charges. Suggesting that billing problems for chronic disorders would be solved by mandated bundling is simplistic reasoning at best.

* They suggest that hospitals should develop “unique expertise” and not try to “be all things to everyone.” Hospitals then could compete (nationally?) with other hospitals providing similar unique expertise. This ignores the fact that hospitals provide mostly very routine services and need to be geographically accessible in a timely manner. Also the emphasis on increased specialization has been demonstrated to decrease health care value, driving up spending without a commensurate improvement in outcomes.

* “Network restrictions” would be eliminated, and “co-pays would be the same inside and outside of the network.” Does this mean that price would no longer be a dominant factor in a competitive marketplace? Though it should be stated here that their emphasis on the goal of improving quality is to be commended.

* Although a major goal would be to keep the government out of the competitive marketplace, “antitrust authorities would scrutinize system participants” to prevent market domination. If higher quality is the goal, shouldn’t higher quality providers be allowed to dominate the market? And would we be able to stabilize the capacity of the system if the remaining providers were not able to survive financially? Wouldn’t it be more rational to adopt programs aimed at improving the quality of all providers, rather than a competitive model that automatically sacrifices those who fall on the lower part of the curve?

* To “eliminate price differentials for favored groups… the federal government could limit the spread between the most discounted price and the highest price charged by a provider for any service and then reduce this spread each year over a five year period.” How do price controls fit in with free market competition? And what happens when destabilization returns after the five years have passed?

* “For high-risk people unable to buy health plans, assigned risk pools, like those used in automobile insurance, will need to be developed.” Why didn’t we think of that?

* “Large deductibles combined with medical savings accounts would let some patients take financial responsibility for their choices.” But also under their model, the legal responsibility for bills would shift from the patients to the payers who would “bear full legal responsibility for the medical bills of paid-up subscribers.” Well, make up your mind. Is the financial responsibility that of the patient or of the payer?

* Although they give competition much credit as a potential driver of quality, they ignore the fact that a single payer system would address many of the quality issues that they describe. In fact, by design, the singlepayer system would attack the quality problems aggressively and effectively, whereas their competition model would approach them with primary attention given to the bottom line. But profits in health care have almost no correlation with quality, and their model, in spite of their rhetoric, provides negligible financial incentives to improve quality on a global basis, though it may be effective in a few isolated instances.

Professors Porter and Teisberg still have much to learn about the health care system. Let’s hope that they do not limit their exposure to their colleagues who believe that we must rely strictly on competition in free markets no matter how compelling the evidence that they simply do not work in health care. Maybe they’d like to take a closer look at the single payer model. A single payer system would provide value by enabling higher quality within the limits of the resources we have, and isn’t that what good business is all about?

Downward trend in costs still double the growth of the economy

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:31:34 -0700
Downward trend in costs still double the growth of the economy

Health Affairs
June 9, 2004
Tracking Health Care Costs: Trends Turn Downward In 2003
By Bradley C. Strunk and Paul B. Ginsburg

Total health care spending per privately insured person rose 7.4 percent in 2003. This increase was 2.1 percentage points lower than the 2002 increase of 9.5 percent, which was itself slightly lower than the 2001 increase of 10 percent. Therefore, it is now clear that we have entered a period of decelerating cost trends following a steep acceleration during 1996-2001.

Nevertheless, the cost trend remained high by historical standards and continued to outpace U.S. economic growth by a sizable margin. With per capita gross domestic product (GDP) increasing 3.8 percent in 2003, the gap between it and the trend in health care spending remained larger than the average 2.5-percentage-point gap over the past thirty years.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w4.354/DC1

Center for Studying Health System Change
June 9, 2004
Health Care Spending Growth in 2003 Posts First Major Slowdown in a Decade
Despite Downtick, Health Care Spending Growth Continues to Outpace Economic
Growth

Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis, Consumers Union:

“Despite a modest slowdown, health care costs continue to rise rapidly, threatening the affordability of health insurance for more and more people. Marketplace changes-combined with recent legislation that provides tax incentives that encourage high-deductible coverage-are steering our health care system further from the goal of spreading costs broadly across the entire population. Tragically, the long-term impact is likely to be increased financial barriers to getting needed health care, placing a growing burden on the sick and those with low-incomes.”

http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/681/

Comment: “Downward trend” and “slowdown” have little meaning to patients to
whom costs are being shifted in order to relieve the purchasers of the burden of paying for health care costs that are increasing at twice the rate of growth of the U.S. economy.

We clearly need new policies, and single payer sounds more and more like just the right solution.

The high costs of for-profit care

The high costs of for-profit care

CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
June 8, 2004
Commentary
The high costs of for-profit care
By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein

Why do for-profit firms that offer inferior products at inflated prices survive in the market? Several prerequisites for the competitive free market described in textbooks are absent in health care.

First, it is absurd to think that frail elderly and seriously ill patients, who consume most care, can act as informed consumers (i.e., comparison-shop, reduce demand when suppliers raise prices or accurately appraise quality). Even less vulnerable patients can have difficulty gauging whether a hospital’s luxurious appurtenances bespeak good care.

Second, the “product” of health care is notoriously difficult to evaluate, even for sophisticated buyers like government. Physicians and hospitals create the data used to monitor them; self-interest puts the accuracy of such data into question. By labelling minor chest discomfort “angina” rather than “chest pain,” a US hospital can garner both higher Medicare payments and a factitiously improved track record for angina treatment. It is easier and more profitable to exploit such loopholes than to improve efficiency or quality.

Even for honest firms, the careful selection of lucrative patients and services is the key to success, whereas meeting community needs often threatens profitability. For example, for-profit specialty hospitals offering only cardiac or orthopedic care (money-makers under current payment schemes) have blossomed across the United States. Most of these new hospitals duplicate services available at nearby not-for-profit general hospitals, but the newcomers avoid money-losing programs such as geriatric care and emergency departments (a common entry point for uninsured patients). The profits accrue to the investors, the losses to the not-for-profit hospitals, and the total costs to society rise through the unnecessary duplication of expensive facilities.

Finally, a real market would require multiple independent buyers and sellers, with free entry into the marketplace. Yet, many hospitals exercise virtual monopolies. A town’s only hospital cannot compete with itself, but can use its market power to inflate its earnings. Not surprisingly, for-profit hospital firms in the United States have concentrated their purchases in areas where they can gain a large share of the local market. Moreover, many health care providers and suppliers enjoy
state-conferred monopolies in the form of licensure laws for physicians and hospitals and patent protection for drugs. Additionally, government pays most health costs – even in the United States. Indeed, public funding for health care in
the United States exceeds total health spending in Canada on a per capita
basis. It’s an odd market that relies largely on public funds.

Privatization results in a large net loss to society in terms of higher costs and lower quality, but some stand to gain. Privatization creates vast opportunities for powerful firms, and also redistributes income among health workers. Pay scales are relatively flat in government and not-for-profit health institutions; pay differences between the CEO and a housekeeper are perhaps 20:1. In US corporations, a ratio of 180:1 is average. In effect, privatization takes money from the pockets of low-wage, mostly female health workers and gives it to investors and highly paid managers.

Behind false claims of efficiency lies a much uglier truth. Investor-owned care embodies a new value system that severs the community roots and Samaritan traditions of hospitals, makes physicians and nurses into instruments of investors, and views patients as commodities. Investor ownership marks the triumph of greed.

For the full commentary:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1814

For the CMAJ article, “Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” by P.J. Devereaux, et al: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1817

Comment: Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization, advocating for the single payer model of universal health insurance. But most of us are strongly opposed to the intrusion into the health care delivery system of for-profit corporate boards and their passive investors. Both the article and commentary should be read in their entirety for a better understanding of why we are so deeply offended by the ethical compromises of investor-controlled health care.

Democracy dwindles with rise in inequality

Democracy dwindles with rise in inequality

American Political Science Association
June 7, 2004
American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality
By the Association’s Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy

Among the Task Force’s findings based on analysis of the U.S. economy, voting and other forms of political participation, and government policy making:

* The United States has, in effect, 2 classes of citizenship: Wealthier Americans are far more active across the board – from voting to contacting government officials and joining pressure groups in Washington-than are those with lower incomes.

* Both major political parties target many of their resources on recruiting those who are already the most privileged and involved.

* The Internet, which offers opportunities for virtual political participation and communication among citizens, may actually be reinforcing existing inequalities because it is more accessible to affluent, non-Hispanic whites, and the highly educated.

* The decline in union membership has reduced the traditional role of blue-collar trade unions in bringing working Americans into the political process.

* The rise of “public interest” citizen associations has not significantly corrected the bias of the system toward the more privileged.

* The economic disparities of U.S. citizens are growing more sharply in the United States than in other democratic nations like Britain, Canada, France,
Germany and Italy.

Economic gaps have widened not just between the poor and the rest of society
but also between privileged professionals, managers and business owners on
the one hand, and the middle strata of regular white-collar and blue-collar employees on the other. Indeed, the report noted, “the very richest one percent of Americans has pulled away from not only the poor but also the middle class.” Individuals with privilege were less likely to press for policies aimed at problems with medical costs, education, housing, jobs and child care that affect the less well-off.

Theda Skocpol, Director of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University:

“…disparities in participation ensure that ordinary Americans speak in a whisper while the most advantaged roar. The concerns of lower or moderate income Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, and legal immigrants are systematically less likely to be heard by government officials. In contrast, the interests and preferences of the better-off are conveyed with clarity, consistency, and forcefulness.”

http://www.apsanet.org/news/index.cfm#inequality

Press release:
http://www.apsanet.org/Inequality/MediaPressRelease.pdf

To download a 22 page short version of the report:
http://www.apsanet.org/Inequality/generalreport.cfm

Comment: As if democracy alone were not enough, it seems that we need new
policies that will incentivize ordinary Americans to become a roaring voice in the democratic process. Without such policies, health care equity will remain only our pipe dream. But then could the roar of the masses with their disparate needs ever drown out the clear, consistent and forceful roar of the better-off?

Back to work. And back to whispering…

Canadian and American health status the same, except for the poor and uninsured in the U.S.

Canadian and American health status the same, except for the poor and uninsured in the U.S.

Statistics Canada
and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
June 2004

Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, 2002-03
By Claudia Sanmartin and Edward Ng, Health Analysis and Measurement Group,Statistics Canada
and
Debra Blackwell, Jane Gentleman, Michael Martinez and Catherine Simile,
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States

Conclusions

The JCUSH (Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health) represents a unique
population health survey conducted jointly by two national statistical agencies, Statistics Canada and the United States National Center for Health Statistics. The use of a common questionnaire and identical data collection and processing methods provides highly comparable data. As a result, the findings from JCUSH provide valuable insights regarding similarities and differences between Canada and the United States in a manner not previously possible.

Overall, the health status of Canadians and Americans is generally similar with most individuals in both countries reporting that they are in good, very good or excellent health. More Americans, however, reported being at either end of the health status spectrum – in excellent health and in fair and poor health – compared with Canadians. This was particularly true among women. This may be associated with the higher rate of highly severe mobility limitation and obesity among American women. There were relatively few differences between men.

Canadians and Americans were similar regarding access to health care services provided under similar funding models. In the case of dental services, for example, where most depend on private insurance, access was similar in the two countries.

Canadians and Americans differed overall, however, regarding access to health care services provided under different insurance models such as those covering physician services. While Canadians are similar to insured Americans regarding access to a regular medical doctor and regarding unmet health care needs, they face significantly less barriers to care when compared with uninsured Americans.

The greatest differences between the two countries are related to differentials by income in health. While there has been solid evidence for some time of the social gradient in health status in both Canada and the United States, this is the first time that we have been able to examine the question of whether there are systematic differences in health status by social position in the two countries. One of the important findings of this survey is that Americans in the poorest income quintile report fair or poor health, obesity and severe mobility impairment more frequently than their Canadian counterparts. At the other end of the income spectrum, there are no systematic differences in the reporting of fair or poor health or mobility impairment among the most affluent households on either side of the border.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82M0022XIE/2003001/pdf/82M0022XIE2003001.pdf
or
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

Comment: In the first population health survey to provide both a comprehensive and precise comparison of the United States and Canada, two dramatic conclusions are evident. First, Canadians and insured Americans have similar access, whereas uninsured Americans clearly have impaired access and greater unmet health care needs. Second, affluent Canadians and Americans have comparable levels of health whereas low income Americans have poorer health than low income Canadians.

The conclusion seems inescapable that the unmet health care needs and poorer
health are due to lack of affordability because of lack of insurance. But many opponents of comprehensive health care reform have tried to explain these differences by claiming that there are fundamental cultural differences in low income Americans and low income Canadians, differences that do not extend into the average income and affluent sectors.

Maybe the United States does fail on other parameters of social solidarity that result in less favorable health outcomes for the poor. But a great first step to address these differences would be to eliminate financial barriers to health care by providing comprehensive coverage for everyone.

For-Profit Hospitals are Costlier Than Non-Profits

EMBARGOED UNTIL:Monday, June 7, 5:00 p.m. 2004
Contacts: Dr. PJ Devereaux (cell) (289) 237-3748
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler (617) 665-1032
Dr. Quentin Young (312) 782-6006

For-Profit Hospitals are Costlier Than Non-Profits, Study Finds
Evidence Against For-Profit Health Care Now Conclusive

* Please Click on the below links to access the article and editorial

Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals

The high costs of for-profit care

Charging the patient to save the system?

Investor-owned hospitals have 19% higher charges than non-profit hospitals, according to a study appearing today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The study, the most comprehensive analysis comparing for-profit and non-profit facilities, was carried out by a highly respected team of physicians and statisticians at McMaster University led by Dr. PJ Devereaux. That team had previously reported that investor-owned hospitals have 2% higher death rates. The researchers, though based in Canada, used data from U.S. hospitals, since for-profits are rare in Canada. The possible introduction of for-profit hospitals is expected to be a campaign issue in upcoming Canadian elections.

In an accompanying editorial, Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School calculate that converting all investor-owned hospitals (13 percent of U.S. hospitals) to non-profit ownership could have saved $6 billion of the $37 billion spent on care at investor-owned hospitals in 2001.

“Investor-owned hospitals charge outrageous prices for inferior care.” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. “That’s not just an opinion, it’s now a proven fact. The for-profits skimp on nurses, but spend lavishly on their executives and paper-pushers.” Previous research by Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstetin, based on financial filings by virtually all U.S. hospitals, found that administration accounted for 24.5% of total costs at non-profit hospitals vs. 34% at for-profits, while payroll costs for clinical personnel were 7 percentage points higher at non-profits.

Dr. Woolhandler also noted that: “Previous studies have shown a consistent pattern – investor-ownership compromises care and raises costs. For-profit dialysis clinics have higher death rates. For-profit nursing homes deliver lower quality care. For profit hospices give dying patients less care. For-profit rehab facilities cost Medicare more. And for profit HMOs deliver poor quality care and have extraordinarily high overhead costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that HMOs actually increases Medicare costs by at least $2 billion each year — and President Bush and the Republicans in Congress just handed them an extra $46 billion in the Medicare drug bill.” Dr. Himmelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: “For-profit hospitals milk the system for legal, but outrageous payments for executives and shareholders. And they also routinely bilk the system through fraud. Columbia/HCA — the largest hospital firm — paid a $1.7 billion settlement for overbilling Medicare last year. Tenet — the second largest — paid a half a billion dollars to settle fraud and abuse charges in the 1980’s (when the firm was known as NME) and is under investigation again for massive billing fraud, and performing hundreds of unnecessary heart operations. And HealthSouth — which dominates the rehab hospital market — just admitted to $3.4 billion in fraudulent accounting. In each case, the CEO who presided over the fraud was forced out. But only after Columbia/HCA’s got $324 million, Tenet’s received $111 million, and HealthSouth’s pocketed $112 million. In health care, crime pays handsomely.”

The researchers at McMaster are considered leading experts on research methodology. The team of 20 researchers reviewed 788 medical articles on hospital care, eventually honing in on the 8 highest quality and most relevant studies– which included a total of 350,000 patients and a median of 324 hospitals in each study. They contacted the original authors to verify the findings, then used advanced statistical techniques to combine the 8 studies. Of the 8 studies, only one showed that for-profits had lower costs. However, all of the non-profit hospitals included in this study were managed by a for-profit firm — in other words, both groups of hospitals in the study were under for-profit management.

“We can no longer afford to leave health care to the marketplace” said Dr. Quentin Young, National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. “This study demonstrates the marvelous opportunities for improved health services when the U.S. adopts a national health insurance system (single-payer) based on traditional not-for-profit care.”
________________

“The High Costs of For-Profit Care,” Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1814-1815, June 8, 2004.

“Payments for Care at Private For-Profit and Private Not-for-Profit Hospitals: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis,” P.J. Devereaux et al, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1817-1824, June 8, 2004.

A bibliography of references on the negative impact of investor-ownership on health care is also available.

####

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of 12,000 physicians advocating for non-profit national health insurance. PNHP has chapters and spokespeople across the country. For contacts, call (312) 782-6006.

A single-payer response to the health care crisis

A single-payer response to the health care crisis

By Ross C. Anderson (mayor of Salt Lake City)
   

A health care crisis in this country is having a profound impact on the lives of millions of people. We live in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet more than 44 million of our citizens are without access to health care coverage, including 8.5 million children.

 Those who are covered, and employers who provide health care benefits to employees, are experiencing skyrocketing increases in the costs of medical insurance. Those higher costs are due largely to the huge profits of the middle-man insurance companies and the exorbitant compensation paid to insurance company executives.

 The reasons for lack of health care coverage are varied. Many people are self-employed and unable to afford the cost of health insurance. Millions of people work for employers who don’t provide health insurance. Others are unemployed but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

The consequences of living without health insurance are often devastating. The cost of basic preventive health services such as prenatal care, well-child check-ups and cancer screenings can be prohibitive. Many of the uninsured go without preventive care, waiting until a health disaster strikes before seeking assistance, and then often facing bills that bankrupt them. Or, worse yet, they may be unable to obtain medical services because of their inability to pay.

The Institute of Medicine has estimated that 18,000 adults in America die every year because they are uninsured. Women with breast cancer who don’t have health insurance are twice as likely to die as those who are covered. Uninsured men are nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of colon cancer as those who are covered. A lack of health insurance and the high cost of medical care can have a disastrous effect on individual lives and on our entire community.

The rising cost of health care is negatively impacting all sectors of our economy. City government has been hit hard. The cost to Salt Lake City Corporation of providing employee benefits has risen 59.5 percent since 1998, primarily due to the increase in health care costs. The increase in health insurance costs has caused significant budget challenges, leading to a loss of jobs and a decrease in city services. Likewise, in 2003, employers across the nation faced average one-year premium increases of 13.9 percent for private health insurance.

There is a solution to this crisis. As a nation we can do more to provide all of our citizens access to basic, quality health care services. But to accomplish this will require the political courage to stand up to those in the health care industry resistant to change.

Creation of a system that provides access to health care for all Americans could best be accomplished by developing a single-payer system under which a government-sponsored entity serves as the insurer for all Americans. Under this system, physicians, hospitals and drug companies would remain privately owned. Only insurance coverage would be centralized.

A single-payer system is better for patients and better for doctors. Canada, which has a single-payer system, spends $1,000 less per capita on health care than does the United States, but delivers more care and greater choice for patients. Combining the single-payer efficiency of Canada’s system with the much higher funding of ours would yield better care than Canada’s or ours at present.

Under a single-payer system, the General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings on health care costs of 10 percent — which in 2002 amounted to $150 billion dollars. This savings alone would cover the cost of providing medical care to those currently without health care coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that a single-payer system would reduce health care costs overall by $225 billion, while providing comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan provides this kind of savings.

We can no longer afford our current health care delivery system. A single-payer system would provide health care coverage for all Americans, create greater efficiency in our health care system and result in a healthier population. It would benefit the vast majority of patients, employers, governmental entities and taxpayers.

We can stand up to those who continue to gain from the inefficiency of our current system — the insurance companies, enormous hospital chains and pharmaceutical companies that comprise the health care oligarchy — and create a fair, efficient, single-payer health care system for all Americans.
   
   

Feachem's Kaiser study not credible

Feachem’s Kaiser study not credible

British Journal of General Practice
June 2004
Questioning the claims from Kaiser
By Alison Talbot-Smith, Shamini Gnani, Allyson M Pollock and Denis Pereira Gray

Summary

Background: The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects.

Aim: To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al’s comparison and conclusions.

Method: Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article.

Results: Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al’s methodology was flawed. Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser’s patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors. Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser’s costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are $1161 and $1951 for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively. Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures. Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al’s integrated model.

Conclusion: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/webmaster/ebjgp/journallogin.asp?OrigURL=/journal/index.asp

BBC
JAN. 17, 2002
NHS ‘worse value than US provider’

Professor Richard Feachem:

“If an NHS patient moved to Kaiser they would be delighted with the experience, and if a Kaiser patient moved to the NHS they would be horrified.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1764713.stm

Comment: The 2002 BMJ article by Richard Feachem et al has been cited frequently as proof that an American HMO is superior to the British National Health Service. 82 letters were published in response to the BMJ article, all challenging the validity of Feachem’s conclusions.

This article by Alison Talbot-Smith et al provides a definitive compilation and analysis of the criticisms of Feachem’s article. There is now absolutely no doubt that Feachem’s claims are not supported by the evidence.

The opponents of public models of reform likely will continue to cite Feachem’s work as proof that private HMOs are superior to publicly administered or publicly owned models of health care funding and delivery (even though this is an unwarranted extrapolation of his invalid conclusions). But with the publication of Talbot-Smith’s definitive critique, anyone who continues to use Feachem’s study to advance his or her arguments can be summarily dismissed as not being a credible voice in the debate.

——————————————————————————————-

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:42:19 -0700
Subject: qotd: Judy Feder on single payer

Kaisernetwork.org HealthCast
5/11/2004
Policy Options To Expand Health Insurance Coverage Lauren Leroy: …a recent report that was published by the Institute of Medicine called “Insuring America’s Health” … set out a set of principals that any proposal or any policy that would be adopted to provide insurance coverage should meet. And those include coverage that is universal, continuous, affordable to individuals and society, sustainable, and offers access to high quality care. …which of the options of the proposals do you think best meet these criteria?

Judy Feder, dean of policy studies at Georgetown University: I think that the criteria that the Institute of Medicine has laid out are certainly the right ones for evaluating our health care system, but they are one mean feat for any kind of political proposal. And because Lauren asked me to keep the answers short, and because I am an honest woman, whatever one’s politics, the only thing that comes close to meeting all these criteria I would say would be a single payer system. It could be Medicare for all, but it would be substantially improved benefits than Medicare now offers evenwith the new drug benefit. So if you really are going to hold yourselves to those criteria, you don’t have a lot of choices…

And later…

Lauren Leroy:
…what have you learned about what are the critical messages that might convince the us, the 85% who are insured about the value of covering them, the 15%, to shift political will a bit?…

Judy Feder:
…What I believe is to start where the questioner asked about what is in it for me who has insurance. And we do need more stability. We do want lower costs. We do want to know that our coverage will be secure for us. And there are policy proposals that do make coverage more affordable and more secure for those of us who have it at the same time that we bring in other people. And I think being explicit about that is fine. I think that it is – and I am persuaded by others who have been making this argument longer than I – I think that we have to be willing to mobilize people around what’s the right thing to do. And what kind of a society do we want to live in? And I think that if we avoid that question and try to con people into “it’ll be okay,”

we’re not going to get from here to there. And so I would urge everybody, if you believe that, to start saying it and to say it loud and often and to tell elected officials you are willing to pool your resources to make that possible.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1139

Comment: …start saying it and say it loud and often…

Feachem’s Kaiser study not credible

Feachem’s Kaiser study not credible

British Journal of General Practice
June 2004
Questioning the claims from Kaiser
By Alison Talbot-Smith, Shamini Gnani, Allyson M Pollock and Denis Pereira Gray

Summary

Background: The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects.

Aim: To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al’s comparison and conclusions.

Method: Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article.

Results: Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al’s methodology was flawed. Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser’s patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors. Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser’s costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are $1161 and $1951 for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively. Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures. Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al’s integrated model.

Conclusion: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/webmaster/ebjgp/journallogin.asp?OrigURL=/journal/index.asp

BBC
JAN. 17, 2002
NHS ‘worse value than US provider’

Professor Richard Feachem:

“If an NHS patient moved to Kaiser they would be delighted with the experience, and if a Kaiser patient moved to the NHS they would be horrified.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1764713.stm

Comment: The 2002 BMJ article by Richard Feachem et al has been cited frequently as proof that an American HMO is superior to the British National Health Service. 82 letters were published in response to the BMJ article, all challenging the validity of Feachem’s conclusions.

This article by Alison Talbot-Smith et al provides a definitive compilation and analysis of the criticisms of Feachem’s article. There is now absolutely no doubt that Feachem’s claims are not supported by the evidence.

The opponents of public models of reform likely will continue to cite Feachem’s work as proof that private HMOs are superior to publicly administered or publicly owned models of health care funding and delivery (even though this is an unwarranted extrapolation of his invalid conclusions). But with the publication of Talbot-Smith’s definitive critique, anyone who continues to use Feachem’s study to advance his or her arguments can be summarily dismissed as not being a credible voice in the debate.

——————————————————————————————-

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:42:19 -0700
Subject: qotd: Judy Feder on single payer

Kaisernetwork.org HealthCast
5/11/2004
Policy Options To Expand Health Insurance Coverage Lauren Leroy: …a recent report that was published by the Institute of Medicine called “Insuring America’s Health” … set out a set of principals that any proposal or any policy that would be adopted to provide insurance coverage should meet. And those include coverage that is universal, continuous, affordable to individuals and society, sustainable, and offers access to high quality care. …which of the options of the proposals do you think best meet these criteria?

Judy Feder, dean of policy studies at Georgetown University: I think that the criteria that the Institute of Medicine has laid out are certainly the right ones for evaluating our health care system, but they are one mean feat for any kind of political proposal. And because Lauren asked me to keep the answers short, and because I am an honest woman, whatever one’s politics, the only thing that comes close to meeting all these criteria I would say would be a single payer system. It could be Medicare for all, but it would be substantially improved benefits than Medicare now offers evenwith the new drug benefit. So if you really are going to hold yourselves to those criteria, you don’t have a lot of choices…

And later…

Lauren Leroy:
…what have you learned about what are the critical messages that might convince the us, the 85% who are insured about the value of covering them, the 15%, to shift political will a bit?…

Judy Feder:
…What I believe is to start where the questioner asked about what is in it for me who has insurance. And we do need more stability. We do want lower costs. We do want to know that our coverage will be secure for us. And there are policy proposals that do make coverage more affordable and more secure for those of us who have it at the same time that we bring in other people. And I think being explicit about that is fine. I think that it is – and I am persuaded by others who have been making this argument longer than I – I think that we have to be willing to mobilize people around what’s the right thing to do. And what kind of a society do we want to live in? And I think that if we avoid that question and try to con people into “it’ll be okay,”

we’re not going to get from here to there. And so I would urge everybody, if you believe that, to start saying it and to say it loud and often and to tell elected officials you are willing to pool your resources to make that possible.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1139

Comment: …start saying it and say it loud and often…