PNHP

‘Medicare for All’ the moral choice

‘Medicare for All’ the moral choice

By Dr. Tom Hayhurst
The (Fort Wayne, Ind.) Journal Gazette, April 16, 2019

I note that a federal judge recently made a decision potentially invalidating the Affordable Care Act. President Donald Trump subsequently stated he fully supported repeal of the ACA. He went on to tout what he described as a much better health care plan but offered no details.

Repealing the ACA would leave more than 20 million of our currently insured fellow citizens without adequate health insurance. Having reviewed his website, I am not aware of the position of Rep. Jim Banks regarding this matter, which is important to many citizens of northeast Indiana.

Independent studies indicate that thousands of our fellow citizens die each year because they do not have health insurance. As a doctor, I am the volunteer director of the Multi-County Medical Outreach Clinic in Columbia City. With vigorous support from Parkview Health and many agencies and individuals throughout the region, we provide free health care for the working poor (from any county) who are either uninsured or underinsured.

In that setting I have seen many who have been driven into bankruptcy by large medical bills after hospitalization for serious illness. I am also aware of others who have died because of a lack of health insurance. For example, I cared for a 41-year-old man who presented to a local emergency department at 3 a.m. gasping for air with a temperature of 104 and almost no detectable blood pressure. He had extensive pneumonia, did not respond to vigorous treatment and died a few hours later in the intensive care unit. He had delayed seeking medical care because he had lost his job and his health insurance.

Many of our current 30 million (50 million if the ACA is repealed) uninsured fellow citizens face this choice every day. Some are lucky enough to avoid serious consequences of their decision. Many others suffer death or disability or bankruptcy. I have seen it firsthand.

So where do we go from here? At the least, we need to make sure that every citizen has affordable health insurance. The most efficient way to do this would be to gradually expand Medicare to include every citizen.

Medicare has been around since the 1960s and has many advantages over other forms of health insurance. Cost controls have gradually been put into place which help verify that costs are necessary and sensible and appropriate. Pharmaceutical costs will decrease significantly when the government allows competitive bidding for medications under Medicare Part D – which it has blocked for more than a decade. Medicare overhead is much less than that of private sector health insurance companies – 4% to 5% as opposed to 20% to 25% for the private health insurance industry.

The high overhead typical of private health insurance results in billions of wasted dollars. How else would the private health insurance industry afford $100 million+ bonuses for their executives?

There are many who make gloom-and-doom predictions for government health care programs, including U.S. and Canadian Medicare. They complain continually about rationing of health care in Canada. Recently I spoke with a Canadian visitor who had presented to a Canadian hospital with chest discomfort and a possible heart attack. That gentleman was seen by a cardiologist within minutes after arrival.

There is already extensive health care rationing in the USA. The patient I described earlier suffered from health care rationing as a result of poverty. I should add that essentially all Medicare services in the USA are provided by the private sector; the government acts only as an efficient insurance agent.

The Feb. 26 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association contains an excellent article: “Rationing of Health Care in the United States.” The article concludes: “It has been said many times that in the richest country in the world, in which many of the greatest scientific and medical advances are developed, it is a blight on the U.S. soul that each of its residents does not fully benefit from available health care.”

That quote touches on the aspect of the health care debate that concerns me greatly – the immorality of needless death, disability and financial ruin in our country, which declares it is a God-fearing, “religious” country. Some faith leaders speak out on this moral issue.

But why aren’t we hearing an outcry from more religious leaders to solve this moral and economic “blight on the soul of America”?

Our goal should be eventual “Medicare for All”; it surpasses all other options for making affordable quality health care available to every U.S. citizen.

Dr. Tom Hayhurst is a physician and former member of Fort Wayne City Council.

http://www.journalgazette.net…

Don’t believe the lies about single-payer health care

By Garrett Adams, M.D., M.P.H.
Louisville Courier Journal, April 15, 2019

American health care is in continuing crisis. Access is declining, and costs are out of control. Medical bankruptcies, unheard of in other developed countries, still plague us. Even though the U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on health care, our health outcomes are far worse than other comparable nations. For example, way more American women die of pregnancy-related complications than in any other developed country, and the rate is rising.

Statistics are people with the tears wiped dry.

What’s wrong? Corporate profiteering. Corporations squeeze the insured, you, for every nickel to pay their dividends and increase cash value. Insurance companies raise premiums, deductibles and co-pays; they deny claims and contrive to insure only healthy (cheap) people.

The patchwork of private insurance costs our nation billions in administration, billing and collecting — amounting to a full third of health care expenditures. Hospitals track every pill and bandage and charge patients and hundreds of different insurers for each item. Physicians spend an average of nine hours a week with a jumble of plans for billing, preapproval and payment. It is taking a toll on the profession in burnout, early retirement, depression and suicide. Patients are angry and frustrated by the bureaucratic maze of filing claims, with justifiable claims often rejected.

Medicare Advantage, which privatizes Medicare, is burdened with fraud and poor cost control. Insurance companies selling Advantage plans bilked the government for an estimated $70 billion between 2008 and 2013.

The U.S. system isn’t about improving health care; it’s about profit. Single-payer changes the dynamic; with single-payer the system becomes patient-oriented, not profit-oriented.

Single-payer means ONE payer, the government, pays the bills while health care delivery (doctors and hospitals) remain in private hands. The wasteful bureaucracy of private health insurance goes away. The government becomes the insurer. Coverage is unhooked from employment, allowing workers to change jobs or start new businesses.

What about workers for insurance companies, such as Humana, when single-payer replaces private insurance? The new system will need their administrative experience. Moreover, single-payer legislation specifies that displaced workers be provided retraining and two years of salary. Many, who are health care workers themselves, will move back to actually providing care. And, like all of us, they and their families will have all medically necessary care as a right!

In 2003 the first single-payer bill in the U.S. Congress was tagged the Medicare-for-All bill. The name stuck. Today there are many “Medicare-for-All’s.” However, only two are single-payer plans, one House and one Senate version. They provide for publicly financed, nonprofit national health insurance that fully covers medical care for all Americans.

Drug companies, for-profit hospitals, insurance companies and others invested in profit-based care are campaigning vigorously against single-payer, spreading misinformation and fearmongering. Industry-aligned anti-single-payer individuals are posing as ordinary citizens spreading misinformation about single-payer.

Don’t believe the lies. National health plans work extraordinarily well in every other industrialized nation. Canada, Scotland, Sweden, Taiwan, and Japan (among dozens of others) cover their entire population for a fraction of what the U.S. spends (wastes!) and enjoy longer lifespans and better health outcomes. How will we pay for it? An American single-payer plan will pay for itself by redirecting wasted administration and profiteering funds into patient care. Consider the vast difference in cost: From 2007 to 2014, spending in private plans grew nearly 17 percent per enrollee, while Medicare spending decreased 1.2 percent per beneficiary.

Congressman John Yarmuth has represented the 3rd District of Kentucky in the House of Representatives with honor and distinction since 2006, and he has always been a single-payer champion. As chairman of the budget committee, he called for Medicare-for-All hearings. He knows that a majority of Americans support single-payer, but he has recently withdrawn his support. Chairman Yarmuth should continue to represent the will of the people and give single-payer his wholehearted endorsement.

Single-payer will have an immediate healing effect on all our people, and it will arrest our surging wealth inequality. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” With single-payer, in one transformative action, on at least one level, everyone becomes the same, and we seriously commit to a true democracy with justice for all.

Dr. Garrett Adams is a founding member of Physicians for National Health Program – Kentucky and a member of the group’s national board.

https://www.courier-journal.com…

Sanders town hall audience cheers after Fox News host asks if they’d support ‘Medicare for All’

By Brooke Seipel
The Hill, April 15, 2019

The audience at a Fox News town hall erupted in cheers and applause when asked by moderator Bret Baier if they would support Sen. Bernie Sanders‘s (I-Vt.) “Medicare for All” proposal.

“I want to ask the audience a question here. … How many are willing to transition to what the senator says, a government-run system?” Baier asked before the crowd burst into cheers.

The question comes a week after Sanders introduced updated Medicare for All legislation in the Senate.

His proposed bill would largely eliminate private insurance and institute a single-payer system managed by the government.

The updated version would also include coverage for long-term care, such as nursing homes, which is  not covered by Medicare currently. Home- and community-based care would also be covered.

A number of other 2020 Democratic candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have endorsed Sanders’s legislation.

The White House blasted Sanders’s proposal, however, adding to its past criticism of single-payer plans.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the plan a “total government takeover of health care that would actually hurt seniors, eliminate private health insurance for 180 million Americans, and cripple our economy and future generations with unprecedented debt.”

Republican leaders have also blasted the bill, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying it won’t happen under a GOP-controlled Senate.

Despite criticism, a number of polls have shown both Democratic and Republican voters support Medicare for All. One such poll conducted by The Hill in October showed a majority of Republicans supported single-payer health care. Another poll conducted in January showed that 56 percent of American voters supported such an insurance system.

The video of Sanders on Fox quickly gained attention online Monday, with many pointing to the applause and past polling as examples of support among even conservatives for Medicare for All.

Sanders agreed to a Tax Day town hall on the network, moderated by the “Special Report” anchor Baier and “The Story” anchor Martha MacCallum.

In March, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez announced that the network would be barred from hosting any of the party’s primary debates. Democratic presidential candidates are not precluded from appearing on Fox News for interviews or town halls, however.

https://thehill.com…

Medicare for all is not scary, but a great idea

By Jack Bernard and William Elsea, M.D.
Georgia Health News, April 15, 2019

The following statistic shocked us, even as jaded as we may be:

The U.S. 2014 infant mortality rate was 70 percent higher than that of other wealthy nations, all of which have national health care. It also indicated that American children had a 57 percent greater risk of death here, though that is partly caused by high mortality in the United States related to automobiles and guns.

The primary job of a Georgia local health director is to define the health needs of our community and then ensure that these needs are met. A closely related task is to inform the community of these health care needs and systemic shortfalls.

One key to success is ensuring that our residents are aware of problems so they can take unified action to resolve issues and ameliorate mortality and morbidity issues. In a democracy known for its high ideals, permitting innocent children to suffer and die because their families cannot afford care is simply inexcusable. This unacceptable situation goes directly against our basic sense of morality as Americans.

But the problem is far broader than just children. Our adult population has a higher morbidity and mortality rate than those in other countries. In general, U.S. health care lags far behind other democracies in regard to access, as well as cost containment.

Just as disturbing is the fact that Georgia and other Southern states have an even worse health status than the nation as a whole. We must recognize this fact before we can solve the problem.

It’s disturbing to have prominent people state that U.S. care is the best in the world, ignoring facts, and that “socialized medicine” as practiced in every other democracy is somehow lacking.

There would be no communistic takeover of medicine under Sen. Bernie Sanders’ recently revived Medicare for All Act of 2019 program, as some legislators have implied in the past. Sanders is a supporter of the democratic socialism seen in advanced countries, not the repressive form imposed in dictatorships.

Under the Sanders plan, you could still go wherever you wished for treatment, with the vast majority of physicians and hospitals accepting government reimbursement and a small number accepting only private pay (similar to U.S. “concierge medicine’’ now). That’s why the bill is co-sponsored by 14 of Sanders’ colleagues and endorsed by 65 organizations.

Let’s look at some other mistaken notions that many politicians promulgate about single payer (expansion of Medicare to cover all ages), starting with cost. We can’t just continue with what we have now, as industry interest groups would have you believe.

In the 1970s, health care spending as a portion of total GDP was 7 percent. It is now an astounding 18 percent and expected to hit 20 percent by 2026.

Clearly, spending under our current system is out of control. In part, rising costs are due to our citizens delaying necessary preventive and primary care until an expensive medical crisis arises.

To give us perspective, let’s look at the figures for other major nations, all of which have universal coverage. In 1970, their average spending was 5 percent of GDP, relatively close to our 7 percent. In 2017, it was 11 percent compared to 18 percent here.

Increased health care spending is causing our nation to delay vital public/private investments in education, roads, bridges, technology and other areas. All the while, our mortality and morbidity rates surpass those of other developed nations. Isn’t it time to try another approach, like Sanders’ Medicare for All?

There are a variety of ways to finance single payer that will make it actually less expensive overall than what we have now. First, Medicare administrative costs are only 2 percent to 3 percent versus 12 percent or more for private insurance firms.

Yes, taxes will go up for some, but there will no longer be deductibles and premiums off-setting expenses for many citizens. Plus, there will no longer be medical bankruptcies, the largest cause of total bankruptcies.

Under Medicare for all, our overall national health care would improve, via better access, planning, and standards. Further, with the future addition of universal budgeting and cost control in areas like drug pricing, costs will be contained while everyone is covered. Now it is up to each of us to pressure our state and national elected officials to understand the facts and act now, not later.

Jack Bernard, former Georgia Director of Health Planning, is a retired senior vice president with a national health care corporation and a Fayette County Board of Health member. Dr. William R. Elsea was Fulton County health commissioner, president of the National Association of County and City Health Directors, and a professor at Emory Medical School.

https://www.georgiahealthnews.com…

Medicare for All Explained Podcast: Episode 10

Interview with Alex Lawson

April 15, 2019

Alex Lawson, the Executive Director of Social Security Works, encourages seniors currently on Medicare to demand improved Medicare for All with dental, vision, long-term care, and zero cost-sharing. Hosted by Joseph Sparks. Additional episodes will be uploaded twice monthly. Subscribe in iTunes, or access a complete archive of the podcast, below.

https://medicareforallexplained.podbean.com

AMSA endorses the Medicare for All Acts of 2019

Future Physicians Endorse Medicare for All

AMSA (American Medical Student Association), April 12, 2019

The American Medical Student Association (AMSA) stands in strong support of Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act of 2019, H.R. 1384, and of Sen. Bernie Sanders Medicare for All Act, S. 1129. As an organization of future physicians, AMSA seeks to improve the health and enhance healthcare access for everyone in America, true healthcare for all; and the federal single-payer system proposed in the Medicare for All Act would be a momentous step toward that vision.

The current system creates a huge administrative burden that takes physicians away from patient care, allows pharmaceutical companies to drive up costs of medicines, and makes essential healthcare services unaffordable for many. As AMSA National President Perry Tsai, M.D., Ph.D., remarked at the introduction of Sen. Sanders’ bill, “For each thing we learn on our way to becoming physicians who care for patients, we find one more thing that will prevent us from caring for our patients…Our dream [of caring for patients] is turning into a nightmare, and we will not stand for it.” Comprehensive health coverage through Medicare for All would result in lower administrative costs, increased healthcare access for everyone regardless of employment, and reduced burdens on physicians such that they can spend more energy on patient care.

“As medical trainees, we have witnessed on multiple occasions how the current healthcare system fails to provide affordable, high quality, comprehensive care to all patients and their families,” Avanthi Jayaweera, AMSA’s Education and Advocacy Fellow, said. “We are inheriting a system that puts profits over our patients’ lives. The next generation of physicians want Medicare for All to allow for a future where we can put our patients first just as we are taught in our clinical training.”

AMSA is proud to support these bills to establish Medicare for All and is organizing a Health Care for All Week of Action, April 15-19, in order to educate and engage medical trainees to ask their members of Congress to support Medicare for All. Hanan Rakine, co-chair of AMSA’s Health Care for All Campaign, stresses, “It is our role as future health care professionals to advocate for our patients’ well-being and right to health care.”

Through our Health Care for All Campaign, AMSA has over 50 years of experience fighting for equitable, efficient and quality universal health care coverage. Unburdened by conflicts-of-interest, medical students are fighting for the healthcare system that our nation and our communities need, not the system pharmaceutical and insurance companies have created. As the largest body of future doctors in the U.S., AMSA is fighting for a future that puts patients ahead of special interests. AMSA believes that no person should go without needed emergent or preventive health care services. AMSA believes that these proposals released by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders will address the current inequities of the U.S. healthcare system by ensuring every individual living in the U.S. has access to comprehensive health care benefits.

About the American Medical Student Association:

AMSA is the oldest and largest independent association of physicians-in-training in the United States. Founded in 1950, AMSA is a student-governed, non-profit organization committed to representing physicians-in-training, advocating for quality and affordable health care for all, and building the next generation of physician leaders.

https://www.amsa.org…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

With AMSA’s endorsement of both Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Acts of 2019, we know that the future of health care is in very good hands.

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

Medicare for All could have been on standby for the Paradise fire

Why Butte County needs Medicare-For-All more than ever

By Paul O’Rourke-Babb
Enterprise-Record, April 7, 2019

New Medicare-for-All legislation (The Medicare for All Act of 2019, HR 1384) was just introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) with 103 cosponsors. I’m for it. Our nation has another, better, chance to fix our broken health insurance system.

As a retired Nurse Practitioner and a long-time Butte County resident, I strongly believe Medicare for All will give our communities the health care security that we desperately need. Here’s why.

Whether you’re a patient, a health care provider or a hospital, I don’t need to tell you the health care challenges we were facing before the fire just got a whole lot worse. You already know.

Fifty thousand people have been displaced. Adventist Hospital, doctors’ and therapists’ offices, and clinics have been damaged or destroyed by fire. If you owned your business and lost it, you also lost your ability to pay for private insurance. If your employer was burned out, you lost your job and if your employer was sponsoring your health insurance, you lost that too.

Getting health care was a problem before the fire, but it’s even worse now. No matter whether you get insurance through work, Covered California or Medicare, the scarcity of primary care doctors was already a problem. If you’re on Medi-Cal, almost no physician would accept you as a patient. At the same time that the number of people who qualify for Medi-Cal will likely rise, the ability of doctors to hire staff and see those people will worsen.

That’s because many patients and their doctors lost their homes and businesses and had to move away to find shelter. The Butte County vacancy rate was already critical at around 2%. Then the fire took out an estimated 6.5% of the county’s housing units.

On top of that, our communities have been traumatized. Month-long waits or long drives to access mental health care were common before the fire. Today it’s worse.

Affording health care remains another big problem. Over 21% of Butte County households were living in poverty before the fire. But even at higher incomes, the costs of health insurance prevented 4 in 10 of us from seeking the care we need.

Now it’s worse. Insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays don’t magically disappear during disasters. But the money to pay them has to compete with the need to rebuild our lives from scratch.

Area hospitals, greatly impacted by the fire, are also disproportionately burdened by having to deal with multiple insurance companies and this adds a layer of completely unnecessary expense to our health care.

Medicare for All would make health care more affordable. Here’s how:

It would reduce the cost of billing.

Medicare for All would dramatically reduce the average $99,581 that physicians spend each year on billing and insurance-related work just to get paid. It would save hospitals millions of dollars on redundant and often competing billing administration, up to 25% to 30% of their budgets.

Reduced billing costs means savings for you and for a public insurance system.

It would finance health care in a completely different way.

A public Medicare-for-All system will eliminate upfront costs like premiums, deductibles and co-pays. A combination of taxes, based on one’s ability to pay, would ensure that everybody would pay their fair share for the same comprehensive policy. And universal coverage would ensure that the system would remain solvent and financially stable.

It would cost you less.

The savings from a more efficient health care system means that we would pay less in taxes than we are now paying in premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

We would all have the same comprehensive, high-quality health insurance no matter what circumstances change in our lives.

You could see the doctor of your choice, even if your doctor had to set up a new practice in another area or gave up private practice and took a job at a hospital.

When I moved to Butte County many years ago for work, the active arts community and beautiful environment attracted me. Life here should be peaceful and uncomplicated. When it comes to our health care, it’s anything but. It doesn’t have to be this way. Contact your congressional representatives and voice support for Jayapal’s new bill. At the same time, let your state legislators know that you also support California Medicare for All. We need it now, more than ever.

Paul O’Rourke-Babb is a retired Nurse Practitioner and longtime member of Physicians for a National Health Program. He lives in Chico.

https://www.chicoer.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The Butte County fire in which the beautiful town of Paradise was destroyed was a heart-wrenching experience for my wife and me, especially wistful since we had visited our dear friends there frequently in years past. Our friend and health care reform colleague, Paul O’Rourke-Babb, describes in his article what this meant to so many residents of Butte County. It was a terribly tragic event that only those who were there to experience it can truly comprehend.

So why does this belong in a blog on single payer Medicare for All? Paul tells us. Although they lost their hospitals and clinics, the surrounding communities were there to help. But they were restricted by the deficiencies in our highly dysfunctional health care financing system. Imagine if, instead, everyone was covered by a single payer Medicare for All program. All attention would be directed to providing the care needed, with no concerns about insurance coverage, cost sharing, provider networks, prior authorization requirements, or any of the other cruel, parsimonious features of our current system.

When the fire and forest services were battling the blazes destroying the homes, they did not first check to see if the homes were registered to qualify for fire services nor did they have to obtain prior authorization to extinguish the blazes. We have often said that health care should always be there for you just as the fire department is when you need it. We would have that with a well designed, single payer Medicare for All.

Maybe it would not have made much difference during the urgent moments of the fire, but it can make a very big difference now for those who lost their work and the health insurance that went with it and are now facing medical bills that compound the financial hardships that they are facing. We can do only so much to try to console those facing grief, but at least we can take worries about paying for health out of any future tragedy like this – by enacting and implementing single payer Medicare for All.

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

Can the 66 million people who leave their jobs keep their insurance?

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (JOLTS): January 2019

Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 15, 2019

Separations

Total separations includes quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. Total separations is referred to as turnover. Quits are generally voluntary separations initiated by the employee. Therefore, the quits rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave jobs. Layoffs and discharges are involuntary separations initiated by the employer. Other separations includes separations due to retirement, death, disability, and transfers to other locations of the same firm.

Annual Levels and Rates

In 2018, there were 68.9 million hires, an increase of 3.3 million from 2017. Total separations (the sum of quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations) rose by 2.6 million in 2018 to 66.1 million. Quits rose for the ninth consecutive year reaching 40.1 million in 2018, up by 2.4 million. Quits comprised 61 percent of total separations. Layoffs and discharges edged up by 307,000 in 2018 to 21.9 million and comprised 33 percent of total separations. Other separations edged down by 44,000 in 2018 to 4.1 million and comprised 6 percent of total separations.

The annual hires for 2018 was 46.3 percent of the annual average CES (Current Employment Statistics) employment level. This rate has been trending upwards since 2009. The annual total separations rate for 2018 was 44.3 percent. The annual rates for the components of total separations were 26.9 percent for quits, 14.7 percent for layoffs and discharges, and 2.8 percent for other separations.

https://www.bls.gov…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

We are being told repeatedly that we should not enact a single payer Medicare for All program because people like their insurance they get at work, and they should be able to keep it if they want. Yet in 2018, 66 million individuals left their employment – a turnover rate of 44 percent!

For those 66 million separations from work, employer-sponsored plans did not prove to be the stable coverage that most of us want. Sure, many of these individuals were not even offered coverage at work, but that is more evidence that the employer-sponsored plans that the Affordable Care Act was designed to protect often do not provide reliable, stable coverage.

Of course there are other problems with employer-sponsored plans. They frequently have excessive cost sharing requirements, especially high deductibles, that can create financial hardship and impair access to care. Provider networks frequently prevent access to the patients’ choices of health care professionals and facilities, and often even fail to include much choice for highly specialized problems (though some larger employers may have special programs for centers of excellence). With change of employment, provider networks, benefits covered, and cost sharing requirements may change dramatically, potentially creating instability in the individual’s health care.

So who are these individuals who are so pleased with the health insurance that they get at work? Well, the workforce is a relatively healthy population that on average does not require much health care. Many feel secure with the financial protection that they believe their plan is providing even though they may have little experience with the system because of their good health. Some do have more significant medical problems and many of them do find professionals with whom they are pleased, and so the system works fairly well for them. But what about those who can’t go to their established care sources, or who cannot afford the out-of-pocket cost sharing, or who cannot afford the medications on which they have been maintained, or are one of the 44 percent with employment turnover and find that their new employer does not provide coverage, yet they earn too much for ACA subsidies? How can you say that employer-sponsored plans work well for them?

Another thing, employers insure predominantly the healthy workforce and their young healthy families. Those with more significant and costly medical problems tend to receive their care from government programs – Medicaid, Medicare, the VA system, safety-net institutions, and cost shifting by the uninsured (disproportionate share payments, etc.) – financed by us, the taxpayers. Pooling risk is one of the most fundamental functions of health insurance, so why are we granting employers favorable selection in their risk pools while passing adverse selection onto the taxpayers? Obviously it would be much more equitable to have one universal risk pool under single payer Medicare for All. Insurance premiums paid by employees along with forgone wage increases to cover the employer’s contribution are a form of regressive financing of health care – the opposite of the more equitable progressive financing of a tax-funded single payer system.

Next time you are told that we have to reject single payer Medicare for All because it would not allow individuals to have the choice of remaining enrolled in a health plan at work, point out that last year the 66 million people experiencing work separations did not have that choice, even if they previously had been offered insurance at work.

Addendum: About that 66 million job turnover

Quote of the Day, Addendum for April 11, 2019

About that 66 million job turnover each year, Dr. Ed Weisbart makes a very important point:

“I’ve been using numbers like this for a while but to make a different point — that the ~1.3M job displacements from single payer are a single bump in the road, with mitigation strategies, compared to the unending sea that is our current culture. 60M every year, for decades before and decades to come, vs 1M in a single planned way.”

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Thus not only can we use this number of a 66 million job turnover each year as as an argument against “you can keep your insurance,” but also as an indication that the job displacement caused by eliminating private insurance does not create a formidable employment nightmare for the one million or so that might be displaced. We can do it.

Another addendum: About that 66 million job turnover

Quote of the Day, Second addendum for April 11, 2019

About that 66 million job turnover each year, UMass economics professor Gerald Friedman makes another very important point:

“Excellent note! To these 66 million need to be added all those whose employers change their insurance plan. And this is a growing problem because of narrow insurance plans where people need to change their primary care provider.”

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

None needed. This thing has a life of its own.

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

Here’s the one practical solution to the health care crisis

By Marc Sapir, M.D., M.P.H.
San Francisco Chronicle, April 11, 2019

New Medicare for All legislation (House Resolution 1384) reached the floor of Congress with 107 congressional co-sponsors, and has since added one more. Immediately, a widespread counterattack against Medicare was launched, incessantly calling it idealist, leftist, pie-in-the-sky, outrageously costly and guaranteed to increase your taxes, raise the national debt, take away your right to private insurance, cut doctor’s incomes and, in short, branding it as nothing but disastrous socialism. The anti-Medicare campaign originates with conservative think tanks such as Heritage and American Enterprise (policy foundations attached to insurers and Big Pharma), some policy gurus in academia defending private insurers and politicians receiving lobbying support from insurers.

They aim to block the one practical solution to the health care crisis Americans face.

None of these arguments is new, as health policy researchers Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein document in their essay, “Medicare for All and its rivals,” in the April 2 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

It’s the same story we’ve heard repeatedly since Medicare began in 1965 coming from ideologues protecting hugely profitable insurers on Wall Street. Their cause is misanthropic; people suffer. They leveled the same attack against LBJ, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and now against Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Here are the facts:

In a socialist health care model (similar to much of our Department of Veterans Affairs services), medical doctors are salaried government employees.

Medicare, in contrast, leaves the private-health-care-system intact, eliminating only the profit-driven insurance companies, which are self-serving and restrict care. Simplifying financing provides everyone 100 percent full access, plus dental, vision and long-term care. A Medicare credit card bills Medicare, not the patient.

The talk that Canadians are not happy with their Medicare is anecdotal fraudulence. Repeated surveys reveal that Canadians are far happier with their Medicare than are Americans with our chaotic system. With a half-million personal bankruptcies yearly in the United States from health debt, and early deaths from denied care, that’s not surprising.

When Medicare was proposed by President Lyndon Johnson, he wanted everyone covered but could only get coverage for seniors because of fierce resistance. Despite repeated attempts to undermine and privatize Medicare, it’s done a better job for seniors than the private insurers could or would. For example, my family’s supplementary private insurance would not allow my wife to go to the best reputed surgeon performing parathyroid surgery because he was not on its panel. We decided to go to that specialist in San Francisco anyway and pay 20 percent of the cost, knowing that Medicare pays the other 80 percent of the bill. And, because Medicare determines how much the surgery is worth, our 20 percent was far less costly than if Medicare was not involved (our cost share was in the hundreds, rather than thousands, of dollars).

Under HR1384, Medicare would be improved, broadening coverage and eliminating the 20 percent share payment. Everything is paid for. But how?

If it worries you that you might have to pay a payroll tax, consider this: Medicare for seniors is funded by a payroll tax.

And because care for seniors (who need more care than younger patients) is funded that way, any added payroll tax would add less than what you pay right now in Medicare payroll tax and any other taxes that are implemented. (In return, we would have the right to go anywhere we want for care — to stay with our familiar doctors, clinics, hospitals or not.)

But where does the claim of prohibitive costs to the economy come in? In a word, it’s a ruse.

We now pay more than twice as much per capita for health care as other rich countries (and yet our health outcomes are worse). In a study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United States ranks 29th among all nations for access to and quality of health care (after most of Europe, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea).

U.S. government spending alone on health care (Medicare, Medi-caid and other programs) could fund the entire health care systems of almost all countries in the world. That means Medicare for All, which will lower health care costs, won’t inflate the deficit nor cost individuals more than they currently pay.

The main issue is how to best capture the money currently spent on health care and direct it into one Medicare fund. It won’t be hard.

Dr. Marc Sapir is a retired East Bay primary care physician and the former medical director of the Center for Elders’ Independence. A long time member of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP.org), he currently serves on the steering committee of the organization’s California division.

https://www.sfchronicle.com…

PNHP statement on Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act of 2019

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), April 10, 2019

Dear colleague,

Today is another important day in the movement towards improved Medicare for All. This morning, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2019 in the Senate, along with 14 co-sponsors. Sen. Sanders has long been a strong voice for health care justice in the U.S., and we welcome his continued advocacy and leadership for single-payer reform.

What’s in the bill?

The Medicare for All Act of 2019 mostly follows the Senator’s 2017 bill, with one notable addition. Here’s a summary of what’s in the bill:

  • Eligibility: Covers everyone residing in the U.S.
  • Benefits: Covers medically-necessary services including primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care (bans the Hyde Amendment), vision and dental care, and prescription drugs. This bill also provides home- and community-based long-term services and supports, which were not covered in the 2017 Medicare for All Act.
  • Patient Choice: Provides full choice of any participating doctor or hospital. Providers may not dual-practice within and outside the Medicare system.
  • Patient Costs: Provides first-dollar coverage without premiums, deductibles or copays for medical services, and prohibits balance billing. Copays for some brand-name prescription drugs.
  • Cost Controls: Prohibits duplicative coverage. Drug prices negotiated with manufacturers.
  • Timeline: Provides for a four-year transition. In year one, improves Medicare by adding dental, vision and hearing benefits and lowering out-of-pocket costs for Parts A & B; also lowers eligibility age to 55 and allows anyone to buy into the Medicare program. In year two, lowers eligibility to 45, and to 35 in year three.

How can the bill be improved?

Similar to the 2017 bill, the launch of this bill is a major step forward in the fight for Medicare for All. At the same time, PNHP again recommends ways that this bill can be improved:

Fund hospitals through global budgets, with separate funding for capital projects: A “global budget” is a lump sum paid to hospitals and similar institutions to cover operating expenses, eliminating wasteful per-patient billing. Global budgets could not be used for capital projects like expansion or modernization (which would be funded separately), advertising, profit, or bonuses. Global budgeting minimizes hospitals’ incentives to avoid (or seek out) particular patients or services, inflate volumes, or upcode. Funding capital projects separately, in turn, allows us to ensure that new hospitals and facilities are built where they are needed, not simply where profits are highest. They also allow us to control long term cost growth.

End “value-based” payment systems and other pay-for-performance schemes: This bill continues current flawed Medicare payment methods, including alternative payment models (including Accountable Care Organizations) established under the ACA, and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). Studies show these payment programs fail to improve quality or reduce costs, while penalizing hospitals and doctors that care for the poorest and sickest patients.

Establish a national long-term care program: This bill includes home- and community-based long-term services and supports, a laudable improvement from the 2017 bill. However, institutional long-term care coverage for seniors and people with disabilities will continue to be covered under state-based Medicaid plans, complete with a maintenance of effort provision. PNHP recommends that Sen. Sanders include institutional long-term care in the national Medicare program, as it is in Rep. Pramila Jayapal?s single-payer bill, H.R. 1384.

Ban investor-owned health facilities: For-profit health care facilities and agencies provide lower-quality care at higher costs than nonprofits, resulting in worse outcomes and higher costs compared to not-for-profit providers. Medicare for All should provide a path for the orderly conversion of investor-owned, for-profit health-care providers to not-for-profit status.

Fully cover all medications, without copayment: Sen. Sanders’ bill excludes cost-sharing for health care services. However, it does require small patient copays (up to $200 annually) on certain non-preventive prescription drugs. Research shows that copays of any kind discourage patients from seeking needed medical care, increasing sickness and long-term costs. Experience in other nations prove that they are not needed for cost control.

What’s next?

Single-payer opponents, including deep-pocketed lobbying groups like the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future that represent corporate health care interests, will certainly attack this bill and its co-sponsors. At the same time, a slew of alternative proposals that fall short of what is needed, like a public option, could confuse the public.

Let’s remind our members of Congress that a majority of Americans (including a growing majority of physicians) support real single-payer reform. So please consider calling both of your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and request that they co-sponsor the Medicare for All Act of 2019. If they are already a co-sponsor, thank them and ask them to work towards improving this bill, educating their colleagues, and amplifying the work of grassroots organizers.

The fight for a just health care system for all is moving forward. Together, it’s a fight we can win.

Sincerely,

Adam Gaffney, M.D., M.P.H
President

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Single payer Medicare for All bills have now been introduced in both the House and the Senate. They are both named Medicare for All Act of 2019, although there are significant differences in the bills. What do we do with them?

In this session of Congress, neither bill can clear the Senate, and they would certainly face a veto by President Trump. But that is true of other reform measures, especially those that offer a Medicare-like public option. So our goal during this session of Congress is to use the two single payer Medicare for All bills to educate, not only the public at large, but also present and potential future members of Congress and potential presidential candidates. But remember, the politicians need to hear it from their constituents. The public leads, politicians follow, unless corrupted.

The most important message is why the single payer model of Medicare for All is the only model that will achieve the goal of truly affordable and equitable health care for absolutely everyone. There is a surge in popularity for reform that protects private employer-sponsored plans and the private Medicare Advantage plans, reflecting the fact that the public and many politicians do not realize the profound differences in the efficiency, affordability, and equity of the two models of reform: single payer Medicare for All versus public option Medicare for some. Tweaks to the Affordable Care Act do not even qualify as a game changer.

For those who do understand the single payer model, it is important to educate them on the policy details that are important, such as those concerns listed in the PNHP message above. Time is short. Potential presidential candidates are already refining their policy positions, as are members and candidates for Congress. Their positions should be clear before the election, and the policy details of the legislation should be carefully defined before the next session of Congress begins. This work has to be done now. Relying on a drawn-out, legislative sausage-making process could be disastrous. Human lives depend on getting it right.

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

Bernie Sanders Introduces New Medicare For All Bill, Welcoming War With Insurance Industry

He’s promising more benefits — and facing more opposition.

By Daniel Marans and Jonathan Cohn
HuffPost, April 10, 2019

Bernie Sanders on Wednesday is formally introducing an updated version of his bill to enroll every U.S. resident in a single, government-run health insurance plan.

This new iteration of “Medicare for All” legislation looks a lot like the previous one, which the independent Vermont senator introduced in the fall of 2017. It envisions a government insurance plan that would pay for all medical services with almost no out-of-pocket expenses, making it more comprehensive than either traditional Medicare or employer policies.

The latest version of Medicare for All also includes coverage of home health aides, job counselors, and other supports that allow disabled and elderly people to live on their own, outside of nursing homes or other institutions.

Funding for the legislation would have to come through some combination of taxes and fees, in lieu of what employers and individuals pay for insurance today, with government regulating the prices of prescription drugs, hospital services and every other type of health care service in order to keep the program’s overall costs manageable.

The new bill, like its predecessors, does not offer many details on these financial provisions, making it impossible to say with precision how different groups of Americans would ultimately fare, or whether it would require new deficit spending. But Sanders on Wednesday is distributing a separate list of funding options, including new payroll taxes, and vowing to fight health care industry groups that, he said, were profiting at the expense of the American public.

“The current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with health care, it’s all about greed and huge profits,” Sanders planned to say at a news conference, according to prepared remarks his office circulated in advance. “It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows health insurance companies and drug companies to make tens of billions of dollars in profits and their CEOs to make outrageous compensation packages.”

With millions of Americans struggling to pay their medical bills, even with the Affordable Care Act in place, the idea of creating a single, national health insurance program that would cover nearly all medical expenses is attracting greater interest than it has in many decades.

The 2017 Medicare for All bill had 16 Democratic senators as co-sponsors, far more than Sanders had recruited previously, and the 2019 version has nearly as many. Among the Democratic senators on both the old and new bills are Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ― all of whom, like Sanders, are seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

“The fact that his new bill has attracted support from many other senators, including presidential front-runners, is a sign that politicians are really starting to listen to the people,” Adam Gaffney, president of Physicians for a National Health Plan, said. “It’s an encouraging development, though obviously large obstacles lie ahead.”

And those obstacles loom larger every day. Precisely because Medicare for All is getting more serious attention, it’s also generating more serious pushback ― not just from Republicans and health care industry groups, who are already mobilizing against it, but also from some Democrats, who say the Sanders proposal would be too difficult to pull off, as policy or politics, or simply not a great idea on the merits.

One Democratic senator who supported the 2017 bill, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, has pointedly declined to endorse the new version. “In the near term, there are faster ways to reach universal coverage by building on the progress we’ve made through the Affordable Care Act, while addressing the high cost of care and medications,” Shaheen told HuffPost.

And all four of the 2020 contenders co-sponsoring the Sanders bill have indicated during campaign appearances they would also support more incremental efforts to achieve universal coverage, such as proposals that would allow employers to keep offering private coverage for employees who want it.

One reason some Democrats have misgivings is the public’s decidedly mixed feelings about the kind of transformation Sanders envisions. Americans like the sound of Medicare for All but, as polls have shown repeatedly, they get skittish when they realize it means giving up private insurance.

“There are 160 million people who get their insurance through their employer,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), sponsor of a bill that would create a government insurance plan but make it voluntary for many people, said earlier this year. “You cannot tell them overnight that it is gone.”

Or, at the very least, you cannot do so without expecting a lot of resistance. Although centralized systems in other developed countries deliver high quality, universal coverage at a fraction of what it costs in America, none of those other countries first had to dismantle a scheme as entrenched and expensive as the U.S. system.

Simply enacting such a program would be daunting, especially if the Senate does not modify or abolish the filibuster, which effectively requires a vote of 60 members to pass most legislation. In an interview with HuffPost on Saturday, Sanders indicated that he was wary of abolishing the filibuster.

And although Sanders on Wednesday will cite independent studies showing that a Medicare for All system could actually result in the U.S. spending less money on health care, those studies assume savings from simplified billing and lower payments to health care providers that, some experts worry, might not materialize as planned.

But Sanders is no stranger to skepticism. Almost nobody in mainstream politics took Medicare for All seriously before Sanders made it the linchpin of his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And although he has effectively lost the support of one additional senator ― former Minnesota Democrat Al Franken co-sponsored the 2017 bill but his replacement, Tina Smith, isn’t on the 2019 version ― Sanders now boasts the support of twice as many outside groups as in 2017, including the powerful labor unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union.

The new bill is also winning praise from representatives of the disability rights community, who worked closely with Sanders on crafting the provisions for home- and community-based services ― which, today, are typically available only for people whose low incomes qualify them for Medicaid, and even then only on a limited basis. Previous versions of the Sanders bill did not include this coverage.

“We are grateful to Senator Sanders for including home and community-based long term services and supports (LTSS) as part of the Medicare for All bill,” said Nicole Jorwic, senior director of public policy at The Arc. “The ‘All’ includes people on waiting lists for these services all over the country.”

Sanders envisions moving all people into the new government insurance program over the course of four years. That is a key difference between his bill and the latest version of House Medicare for All legislation, which Rep. Pramila Jayapal introduced in February and which calls for a transition of just two years.

But in most respects the two bills are similar ― and on a similar political trajectory. The new version of Jayapal’s legislation included enhancements, including better coverage of long-term care for the elderly and disabled. It also had slightly less support than a previous version: About two dozen incumbent House Democrats who signed onto a Medicare for All bill in the last Congress declined to co-sponsor Jayapal’s. But Jayapal also secured support from new interest groups, including some of the unions that are now signing onto the Sanders bill as well.

Although many Democrats in Congress aren’t ready to support Medicare for All, most seem to favor at least some expansion of government-run insurance programs. And even the most conservative members of the party’s caucus agree on the need to defend the Affordable Care Act’s gains against President Donald Trump, who recently announced his support for a lawsuit that would wipe the law off the books because of one allegedly unconstitutional provision.

But on Capitol Hill, Republicans seem eager to deemphasize “Obamacare,” which polls show becoming more popular, and focus instead on Medicare for All, which has the potential to rattle voters who fear change.

“People say ‘I don’t know what Medicare for All is about,’” Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who happens to be a physician, told HuffPost. “Well as a doctor, I can tell you. It means longer lines and waiting times to get to see a doctor. It means higher taxes. It means fewer choices, less freedom.”

In reality, countries with single government programs and other forms of national health insurance frequently have shorter waits for services ― not to mention far fewer people struggling with medical bills. Just this past week, Gallup published a survey in which one-third of Americans reported that they or a family member postponed medical care because of concerns over cost.

“Thirty-four million have no health insurance, even more are underinsured and one insurance company executive pockets almost $500 million for a merger which will only drive health care costs higher,” Sanders plans to say on Wednesday. “Please don’t tell me that this is a rational health care system.”

Amanda Terkel and Jennifer Bendery contributed reporting.

https://www.huffpost.com…

Doctors’ group welcomes Sen. Sanders’ Medicare-for-All bill

Physician leaders urge Congress to move past incremental proposals towards full single-payer reform

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, April 10, 2019

Contact: Clare Fauke, communications specialist, 312-782-6006, clare@pnhp.org

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a nonprofit research and education organization of 23,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals, welcomes the Medicare for All Act of 2019 as an important step towards the organization’s goal of a single-payer national health plan. Introduced today by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the bill would improve Medicare to include all medically necessary services, while expanding coverage to everyone in the U.S.

“The Affordable Care Act has taught us that merely tinkering around the edges of our broken health care system will only perpetuate its problems: skyrocketing costs, falling health outcomes, medical bankruptcy, and needless death,” said Dr. Adam Gaffney, PNHP’s president and a critical care physician and faculty member at Harvard Medical School. “It’s time to eliminate the greed and waste of private health insurance and move to a Medicare for All system that puts patients ahead of profits.”

Dr. Gaffney notes that despite the advances of the ACA, more than 28 million Americans remain uninsured, with tens of millions more under-insured. Sen. Sanders’ bill would reduce the number of uninsured to zero, allowing everyone in the U.S. to visit the doctor or hospital of their choice for medically necessary care, including dental, vision, and mental health care. It would also largely eliminate patient cost-sharing, which deters many Americans from seeking needed care.

Besides expanding coverage, the Medicare for All Act would go a long way towards containing the nation’s overall health care costs, which are double the per-capita spending of other industrialized nations that provide universal coverage. Without single-payer reform, U.S. annual health spending is projected to reach $5.96 trillion — 19.4 percent of GDP — by 2027.

PNHP commends the inclusion of community and home-based long-term care services in the new bill. However, PNHP also recommends several additional improvements to the Medicare for All Act that would save money and improve patient care. In particular, healthy payment strategies are needed, including global budgeting and the separation of capital and operating payments to hospitals and other institutional providers; ending “value-based” payment systems; and providing a path for the orderly conversion of investor-owned, for-profit health-care providers to not-for-profit status.

Dr. Gaffney encouraged members of Congress to move past the recent flurry of incremental proposals, such as those that claim to “strengthen” the ACA by further subsidizing the private insurance industry, or add a costly public option to our already fragmented system. “Only a true single-payer plan can provide both universal coverage and the hundreds of billions in annual savings necessary to work,” added Dr. Gaffney.

“We look forward to working with Sen. Sanders to strengthen and advocate for this important bill.”

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is a nonprofit research and education organization whose 23,000 members support single-payer national health insurance.