PNHP

Ensure health coverage for all New Yorkers

Ensure health coverage for all New Yorkers

Implementing the New York Health bill could provide a single-payer health insurance system for the state

By Elizabeth Rosenthal, M.D.
The Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Dec. 12, 2014

Although the Affordable Care Act has made improvements in our health-care system by expanding access and curbing the most abusive practices of the health insurance industry, it does not address the core problems with our current health-care system.

While adding 900,000 formerly uninsured New Yorkers to the insurance rolls is no small success, healthcare remains too expensive for the average family.

The costs of deductibles, copays and out-of-network charges remain major obstacles, and these bloated, unnecessary charges we pay to profit-driven health insurance corporations have not been brought under control by the Affordable Care Act.

They effectively leave millions of our fellow New Yorkers uninsured or underinsured — one job loss or illness away from bankruptcy — and unable to truly access critical care.

This broken system also severely limits our access to certain doctors and medicine, as insurance companies decide which doctors and medications deserve to be covered within their networks.

Billions of dollars continue to be wasted by for-profit insurance companies under this defective model. We can do better!

Eliminate middleman

These billions of squandered dollars could all be going toward providing health care if we eliminated this unnecessary middleman and its inflated costs.

Implementing the New York Health Bill could accomplish this — not only making care affordable to New York families but also by saving New Yorkers $20 billion a year, plus helping us cut our property taxes by eliminating local government’s costs of paying for Medicaid and their employees’ health care.

All New York residents would be covered, there would be no premiums, deductibles copays or out-of-network charges, and we would have our free choice of doctors, hospitals and health care providers.

As a physician, I have seen up close how my patients are suffering: unable to pay for their medications, tests and doctor visits. Because of this, many delay treatment until their health is in serious jeopardy. They are forced to choose between buying food and buying pills. They avoid costly tests and doctor visits, so that a curable cancer becomes deadly due to lack of timely treatment.

Every day, five New Yorkers die due to a lack of health care. That’s about 2,000 lives per year in our state.

There is a growing movement in New York, and across the country, to push for state single-payer systems; 25 states have introduced single-payer bills.

New York State can lead the way. Our state Legislature can resolve these problems by passing the “New York Health” bill.

It provides privately delivered health care to New Yorkers without the restrictions and exorbitant costs that residents face from insurance companies.

It’s a win-win by saving taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars while improving health care for everyone.

It would not only change the way we treat health care — as a basic human right instead of a luxury — but would also help improve overall public health by ensuring the health of all New Yorkers, which ultimately would benefit us all.

It’s why we need to pass this important bill.

The writer is an assistant clinical professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and a Larchmont resident.

VIEW THE LEGISLATION

Read the New York Health bill. Go to assembly.state.ny.us and type in the bill number (A05389 or S02078-A) in the Quick Bill Search window.

MORE

The New York State Assembly Committee on Health is holding hearings on the New York Health bill around the state. A New York City meeting is slated for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Dec. 16, at New York University, Grand Hall 5th Floor, Center for Academic & Spiritual Life, 238 Thompson St.

http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/12/12/new-york-health-bill-offers-single-payer-system/20263917/

Single-payer health insurance advocated for N.Y. State

By Henry Davis
Buffalo News, Dec. 11, 2014

One patient went overseas for an operation to avoid paying high out-of-pocket costs here.

A single mother in a low-paying job worried that private health insurance will leave her financially strapped.

And a doctor described how the 18 health care providers where he practices need almost as many employees just to keep track of insurance paperwork.

Those stories highlighted a hearing this week on creating single-payer health care in the state that advocates contend would solve those problems.

“The current system is not working, and we should not take a failure and make it a bigger failure,” said Dr. Jason M. Matuszak, a family physician who specializes in sports medicine at Excelsior Orthopaedics in Amherst.

Matuszak was one of about two dozen people who voiced support for New York Health, a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, D-Manhattan, during a hearing in Hohn Auditorium at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. He’s conducting six hearings statewide, with plans to move the bill out of the Assembly’s Health Committee, of which he is chairman, and introduce it into the Assembly for a vote in the spring.

“Even people with coverage are finding obstacles to care and costs devastating to their finances,” Gottfried said.

The bill, to no one’s surprise, is receiving intense criticism.

The Business Council of New York State, which lobbies for private employers, has long been on record of opposing the proposal, calling its promise of universal, unlimited coverage “a mirage.”

Gottfried is no stranger to trying get approved single-payer health care. The plan was originally introduced 23 years ago and passed the Assembly. It has not been brought to the Legislature for a vote since then.

New York Health would fold in Medicare and other current government programs, and replace much of what the Affordable Care Act created. Funding would come from a payroll tax and a surcharge on higher income. Proponents offered examples of why single-payer is the better path to take.

Matuszak cited a 27-year-old woman who teaches overseas and who suffered torn knee cartilage. Rather than pay high out-of-pocket costs here, she had her surgery in Spain, which operates a single-payer health system.

“She did this despite top surgeons being here and the language barriers of getting care there,” he said. “She shouldn’t have to make that choice.”

Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine, in which doctors and hospitals work for the government. Instead, the government becomes the primary payer of care, similar to Medicare, the federal health plan for those 65 and older.

To proponents of single-payer, the Affordable Care Act maintains an inefficient and complicated health system.

The United States spends almost twice as much as other developed nations on health care. But many of the key measurable results are, at best, the same, and problems persist with patient safety and poor access.

Administrative costs consume a large share of health spending and create bureaucratic hassles. The existence of multiple private insurers requires hospitals and doctors to administer many different contracts with different coverage and policies.

Matuszak noted that Excelsior needs 13 employees to handle the billing for its 18 health care providers.

“It compromises care,” he said.

Dr. Myron L. Glick, founder of the Jericho Road Community Health Center in Buffalo, described how for 20 years he has had a front-row seat to see the health system’s failure to take care of the poor and vulnerable.

He recalled a recent diabetic patient whose medication bill had reached $900 a month. She couldn’t afford it, even with existing programs for help.

“Access to health care is a basic human right,” he said.

Glick also criticized the amount of red tape, saying his practice deals with more than 100 insurance contracts for the 15 percent of his patients with private coverage.

Tasha Moore, a community health worker at the Matt Urban Hope Center, talked about how she will soon lose coverage through Medicaid, the health plan for the poor. Her private insurance will cost $120 a month, a price that’s financially overwhelming on her $12-an-hour salary. “It doesn’t help me. I can’t afford it,” she said.

The Buffalo Niagara Partnership, the regional chamber of commerce, issued a statement saying that the bill fails to consider the high costs associated with the proposed assessments for funding, or the positive economic impact that health plans have by providing tens of thousands of jobs, and paying property and payroll taxes.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/medical/single-payer-health-insurance-advocated-for-ny-state-20141211

Too much cost sharing in health exchange, advocates say

By Morgan True
VTDigger.org, Dec. 10, 2014

Alissa Carberry, 24, is an early childhood educator working at a nonprofit in Burlington’s Old North End. She has type 1 diabetes and employer-sponsored health insurance from Vermont Health Connect.

Carberry said she has become active with Vermont’s Health Care is a Human Right campaign because she can’t keep up with the cost of managing her condition.

“I’m lucky that my work does cover my premiums, but the deductibles and copays are simply outrageous,” Carberry said, speaking at a recent news conference in Burlington.

Managing her diabetes means that she needs health care services much more frequently than the average person. Her first bill this year was $2,100, she said. Carberry makes less than $30,000 per year and is working to pay down four years of student loan debt.

“It is simply not possible for me to pay all of my bills,” she said.

Her first three months of insulin pump supplies cost her $642 this year, after insurance, she said. She pays another $20 per month for strips to test her blood sugar and $50 dollars a month for insulin.

“So, if you’re doing the math, it adds up quickly,” she said. “These are the measures my doctor asks me to take to make a plan to grow old in good health.”

Her doctor also advises her to see a dentist and optometrist regularly. But her silver plan doesn’t cover those services and it’s not something she can pay for on her own.

“I’m struggling to make ends meet and take care of my health. As a person in my mid-20s, this should not be an issue that I have to face,” Carberry said.

There are thousands of Vermonters like her who don’t get the care they need or do so at the expense of good food, housing or education, Carberry said.

Deb Richter, a physician, said coverage through Vermont Health Connect leaves her patients who have chronic medical needs with expenses they struggle to afford.

Gold plans are the second-most generous on the exchange and cover between 78 percent and 82 percent of medical costs. Carberry’s silver plan covers 70 percent of her costs.

A plan that covers 80 percent of costs is the lowest value plan Green Mountain Care can offer, and sources with knowledge of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s forthcoming benefit proposal have suggested it will fall in the range of a gold plan.

“In my view, the gold plan’s out-of-pocket costs are still too high,” Richter said.

Carberry and the Health Care is a Human Right campaign are urging the governor to offer a plan for health care reform through which coverage is paid for by progressive taxes and Vermonters pay nothing out-of-pocket at the point of service.

Shumlin administration officials have indicated that Green Mountain Care, as the publicly financed program is known, will likely involve some amount of cost sharing. Not including any deductibles or copays would greatly increase the program’s cost.

Richter argues that cost sharing penalizes people like Carberry who have medical conditions that require regular care.

Like activists from the Health Care is a Human Right campaign, she said medical services should be treated as a public good.

“We don’t charge people whose houses burn down more money to cover the fire department,” Richter said.

Too much cost sharing in health exchange, advocates say

Alan Weil opposes payment reform

Why I Oppose Payment Reform

By Alan Weil, Editor-in-Chief, Health Affairs
Health Affairs Blog, December 12, 2014

I had my epiphany shortly after I announced my departure from the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) about nine months ago. In an effort to help find my successor, I contacted some executive search firms. One firm quoted what they referred to as the “market price.” When I pressed them to tell me how much effort this price represented, they declined to do so. Ultimately, I recommended that NASHP contract with a search firm that charged by the hour.

It was then that I realized that, given the choice between capitation (a fixed fee for the outcome I desired) and fee-for-service (an hourly rate with no accountability for the outcome), I, as a purchaser, chose fee-for-service. Only a hypocrite would go around talking about the importance of payment reform, while secretly conducting business the old way!

Having given the matter some further thought, I present my five reasons for opposing payment reform:

1. The premise of payment reform is flawed.

The major actors in today’s health care system have thrived in the old payment model, which rewards volume: filling beds, making referrals, conducting tests, and the like. We now say we want them to improve population health and clinical outcomes while holding down costs. Different competencies are required to achieve these different objectives. There is no reason to expect that the people and institutions that were successful under the old model are the best people and institutions to charge with carrying out the new model.

2. Payment reform is insufficiently disruptive.

As we capitate or bundle payments, these aggregated payments are generally given to the highest cost actor in the system: the hospital, health plan, or large medical practice that already has the most resources. We expect that, due to new incentives, they will share those resources with other, lower-cost professionals like dieticians, social workers, and community health workers, whose efforts may improve health outcomes. But this may be wishful thinking. Hospitals and health plans operate with inertia and under constraints that may prevent them from having what an observer might consider a rational response to the new incentives. Marginal changes in payment policy fail to disrupt the concentration of power held by expensive institutions, thereby limiting the likely effects.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that payment reform will achieve the goals we need it to achieve.

The Institute of Medicine tells us that 30 percent of health care spending is wasteful. Only nineteen of the original thirty-two Pioneer ACOs remain in the program, and only twelve are producing enough savings to be shared. Only 58 of the more than 200 participants in the Medicare Shared Savings Program are saving more than 2 percent. For all the effort we are putting into payment reform, at this point, we don’t have an evidence base that shows what we are doing will achieve the end result we desire.

4. The original rationale offered for payment reform doesn’t match the current objectives.

The current iteration of payment models began with integrated health systems, like Geisinger and Intermountain, complaining that they were financially penalized when they delivered high quality care. They had a point. Efforts to, for example, improve birth outcomes, yielded financial losses due to reduced revenue from Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Today’s narrative is that we need payment reform to leverage a system that is resistant to change to fundamentally alter the model of care. The original rationale required only that incentives be directionally correct — keep your savings when you invest in better quality. The more ambitious goal of payment reform opens up tremendous risks such as providers gaming quality metrics and avoiding complex patients. The payment reform movement has been hijacked to suggest it can accomplish things its founders never imagined.

5. Payment reform poses a risk for the growing understanding of the importance of patient-centered care.

Imagine the following scenario: three people come to the doctor with knee pain. Each person has their own goal for the outcome of their treatment: one wants to manage pain during her daily activities, one wants to play tennis again, and one wants be completely pain free. Now try and imagine a “value formula” for providers to achieve these three patient-centered outcomes. Even if you could come up with one, operationalizing it would be nearly impossible. And what provider would be willing to accept financial risk for achieving such varied patient goals? When we implement payment for “value” we oversimplify to make the methods administrable, but lose all nuance of patient preference.

Despite all of these reservations, I do not actually oppose payment reform. We all know current payment methods system are seriously flawed and that we can do better. But this list serves as a reminder that payment policy, like grass, is always greener on the other side.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/12/12/why-i-oppose-payment-reform/

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

The health policy literature is saturated with expressions of the concept that we are no longer going to pay for health care based on the volume of care delivered, but rather we are going to start paying for quality instead. Traditional fee-for-service medicine encourages greater use of resources simply because that increases revenues. Innovations in payment reform are being proposed that supposedly will change fee-for-service to a system rewarding quality. Alan Weil, Editor-in-Chief of Health Affairs, provides us with insight on what those innovations might do.

Some of the proposals include accountable care organizations, pay for performance, bundling of payments, Medicare shared savings, capitation, and increased transparency combined with placing the upfront financial responsibility on patients so that they are forced to be better-informed shoppers. Each of these has its own problems and some could actually cause worse outcomes than our traditional fee-for-service system.

Perhaps the most important point that Weil makes is that those who have thrived on the volume-driven model are the same individuals we are asking to improve clinical outcomes while holding down costs. As he states, “There is no reason to expect that the people and institutions that were successful under the old model are the best people and institutions to charge with carrying out the new model.”

In the video at the following link, after presenting the five reasons for opposing payment reform, Weil suggests five elements that should be embraced when considering payment reform. I found them to be disappointing. For instance, he suggests that we should allow the leaders to lead and then follow them as we implement the payment reforms under a multi-payer system. He makes no attempt to distinguish these leaders from the MBAs who are already maximizing their business models while basically ignoring patient service concepts.

Perhaps more important is what is missing from Weil’s comments. He says absolutely nothing about concepts of social insurance, particularly the single payer model. Yet single payer would be far more effective in improving health care value than would any of the payment reforms under consideration today.

http://nyshealthfoundation.org/news-events/events/nyshealth-conference-payment-reform-expanding-the-playing-field

#WhiteCoats4BlackLives: Health Care Workers Stage Nationwide Protests Against Police Brutality

By Lilly Workneh
 The Huffington Post, December 10, 2014

Medical students from more than 70 schools on Wednesday protested racial profiling and police brutality through the social media initiative #WhiteCoats4BlackLives.

Hundreds of medical students wore white coats at “die-ins” and other protests on campuses to spotlight racial bias as a public health issue.

The medical students joined others who have demonstrated since grand juries in Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York City declined to indict white police officers in the killings of unarmed black men. Some of the protests have involved students, including those in high schools, colleges and Ivy league schools.

Pictures that circulated Wednesday showed medical students holding signs that read, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” and “We Can’t Breathe” — rallying cries for those protesting the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York.

The effort was endorsed by Students for a National Health Program, an affiliate of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of more than 19,000 medical students and professionals that advocates for improved universal Medicare.

“We as medical students feel that this is an important time for medical institutions to respond to violence and race-related trauma that affect our communities and the patients we serve,” says a statement on the organization’s website.

“We feel it is essential to begin a conversation about our role in addressing the explicit and implicit discrimination and racism in our communities and reflect on the systemic biases embedded in our medical education curricula, clinical learning environments, and administrative decision-making.”

Here are photos from medical students in the #WhiteCoats4BlackLives protests Wednesday:

USC Keck School of Medicine

University of Illinois-Chicago and Rush

Howard University

Morehouse School of Medicine

Boston University School of Medicine

Mt. Sinai hospital staff and students

Medical College of Wisconsin

University of California-San Francisco

Columbia University Medical Center

Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/whitecoats4blacklives_n_6304736.html

Searching for a national child health coverage policy

The Search For A National Child Health Coverage Policy

By Sara Rosenbaum and Genevieve M. Kenney
Health Affairs, December 2014

Abstract

Thirty-eight percent of US children depend on publicly financed health insurance, reflecting both its expansion and the steady erosion of employment-based coverage. Continued funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is an immediate priority. But broader reforms aimed at improving the quality of coverage for all insured children, with a special emphasis on children living in low-income families, are also essential. This means addressing the “family glitch,” which bars premium subsidies for children whose parents have access to affordable self-only employer-sponsored benefits. It also means addressing the quality of health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets—whether or not purchased through the state and federal exchanges—that are governed by the “essential health benefit” standard of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In this article we examine trends in coverage and the role of Medicaid and CHIP. We also consider how the ACA has shaped child health financing, and we discuss critical issues in the broader insurance market and the need to ensure plan quality, including the scope of coverage, use of a pediatric medical necessity standard that emphasizes growth and development, the structure of pediatric provider networks, and attention to the quality of pediatric health care.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/12/2125.abstract

****

The ACA’s Pediatric Essential Health Benefit Has Resulted In A State-By-State Patchwork Of Coverage With Exclusions

By Aimee M. Grace, Kathleen G. Noonan, Tina L. Cheng, Dorothy Miller, Brittany Verga, David Rubin and Sara Rosenbaum
Health Affairs, December 2014

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. “Pediatric services” is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans—the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules—address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/12/2136.abstract

****

The Scheduled Squeeze On Children’s Programs: Tracking The Implications Of Projected Federal Spending Patterns

By C. Eugene Steuerle and Julia B. Isaacs
Health Affairs, December 2014

Abstract

Federal programs for children are under increasing budgetary pressure. According to current federal law or any budget alternative being offered by the president or congressional leaders, spending on children would decline as a share of the budget and of the national economy. This article summarizes past, current, and projected budgets for children’s programs. It traces significant historical expansions of means-tested programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; depicts fairly significant declines in more universal supports, such as the income tax exemption for dependents; and shows the future squeeze on children’s programs brought about by automatic growth in health, retirement, and tax subsidy programs, along with the failure of revenues to keep pace with the overall growth in spending. Federal programs for health care have been a mixed blessing for children: Medicaid has grown to be the largest federal support for children, but overall federal health care costs eat away at the share of the budgetary pie left for anything else.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/12/2214.abstract

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

During the health care reform process there seemed to be an attitude that we were already doing well in ensuring that the health care needs of children were being met. Employer-sponsored family coverage took care of middle- and upper-income children, Medicaid and SCHIP covered lower-income children, and community health centers and other safety-net institutions took care of children who were not covered by the other programs. The Affordable Care Act expanded assurances of coverage by providing income-based subsidies for plans offered through the exchanges. So what is the problem?

Having multiple sources of coverage with different eligibilities that change with continual changes in life circumstances – income levels, employment status of family income source, changes in geographical location, variations in community resources, citizenship status, etc. – results in instability of coverage for everyone, certainly including children. These articles from the current Health Affairs summarize some of these variations in the public and private programs, variations in benefits covered, and variations in financing of the programs. The current situation might be summed up as lacking “a national child health coverage policy” (Rosenbaum and Kenney).

Although many factors contribute to the deficiencies in child health coverage, one of the more important is that we continue to try to build upon a fragmented combination of public and private programs, an approach that only perpetuates many of these deficiencies. An example is the “family glitch” in which children do not have access to exchange subsidies if the employed parent receives solo coverage through their work. Efforts to patch the various flaws only increase the complexity and administrative burden of our dysfunctional system, and yet patches on a fundamentally flawed infrastructure can never provide the stability that we need.

So what can we do? We can build a new health care financing infrastructure that serves well the needs of not only our children, but all of us. That would be a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for all – but not just a Medicare that serves only the elderly and persons with disabilities, rather, like Canada, a Medicare that serves all of us. Our children deserve it, and so do we.

Just try to get an appointment with a Medicaid managed care provider

Access to Care: Provider Availability in Medicaid Managed Care

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, December 2014

Examining access to care takes on heightened importance as enrollment grows in Medicaid managed care programs. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can opt to expand Medicaid eligibility, and even States that have not expanded eligibility have seen increases in enrollment. Most States provide some of their Medicaid services—if not all of them—through managed care. The Office of Inspector General received a congressional request to evaluate the adequacy of access to care for enrollees in managed care.

We found that slightly more than half of providers could not offer appointments to enrollees. Notably, 35 percent could not be found at the location listed by the plan, and another 8 percent were at the location but said that they were not participating in the plan. An additional 8 percent were not accepting new patients. Among the providers who offered appointments, the median wait time was 2 weeks. However, over a quarter had wait times of more than 1 month, and 10 percent had wait times longer than 2 months. Finally, primary care providers were less likely to offer an appointment than specialists; however, specialists tended to have longer wait times.

Findings

  • Half of providers could not offer appointments to enrollees
  • Forty-three percent of providers were not participating in the plan at the listed location
  • Another 8 percent of providers were not accepting new patients
  • Among the providers who offered appointments, the median wait time was 2 weeks; however, over a quarter had wait times of more than 1 month
  • A small number of providers required patients to submit medical records prior to scheduling an appointment or would not accept patients with certain medical conditions
  • Primary care providers were less likely to offer an appointment than specialists; however, specialists tended to have longer wait times
  • The median wait time for specialists was twice as long as that for primary care providers

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate significant vulnerabilities in provider availability, which is a key indicator for access to care. These findings also raise serious questions about the abilities of plans, States, and CMS to ensure that access-to-care standards are met. Without adequate access, enrollees cannot receive the preventive care and treatment necessary to achieve positive health outcomes and improved quality of life.

Notably, 51 percent of providers were either not participating in the plan at the location listed or not accepting new patients enrolled in the plan. When providers listed as participating in a plan cannot offer appointments, it creates a significant obstacle for an enrollee seeking care. Moreover, it suggests that the actual size of provider networks may be considerably smaller than what is presented by Medicaid managed care plans.

Among the providers who offered appointments, the median wait time was 2 weeks. However, over a quarter had wait times of more than 1 month, and 10 percent had wait times longer than 2 months. Long wait times can have a significant impact on patient care. It also raises questions about whether these plans are complying with their States’ standards for access to care, as most States have access standards that require appointments be provided within 1 month or less. That so many providers could not offer appointments within a month raises concerns about enrollees’ ability to obtain timely access to care.

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-13-00670.pdf

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

One of the major features of the Affordable Care Act was to expand Medicaid to cover a greater number of low-income individuals. Although many states opted out of the expansion, nevertheless Medicaid enrollment increased in those states as well. Because of the expansion of state budgets required to cover the burgeoning Medicaid population, most states have moved most if not all of their Medicaid patients into Medicaid managed care plans.

Although states claim that this benefits patients by placing them in organizations that are designed to manage their health care, the real reason is that the states wanted to save money. The managed care plans agree to provide care at a cost lower than the costs of comparable care provided by community hospitals and physicians. Because of the increased enrollment, the total costs of Medicaid are increasing, but the payments per individual are not.

Medicaid, being a welfare program, was already chronically underfunded. Further limiting payments per patient can place a serious strain on resources that would pay for all of the promised care. This OIG study was done in the summer of 2013, before the surge in enrollment that began later that year. If half of providers could not offer appointments to patients at that time, what is happening now that the managed care organizations must accommodate the added demand?

Although there are already many anecdotal reports that the managed care organizations are not meeting their obligations under these state contracts, we will have to wait longer before we have a comprehensive objective evaluation of the extent of the deficiencies in health care services.

Isolating low-income individuals and placing them into an underfunded welfare program will certainly perpetuate disparities in care. Yet the deficiencies in health care services are even worse in those states that opted out of Medicaid expansion, and they are worse for the undocumented residents who are prohibited from participating in Medicaid or in the subsidized plans offered by the exchanges.

Under a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for all – everyone would have access to a system that met the highest standards of care. The wealthy would still have their high standard of care, but with their special amenities paid for separately, such as private hospital suites, whereas low-income individuals could have the same high standard of care, but without the amenities. Because of the efficiencies of the single payer model, it would not cost the nation any more than we are now spending on health care.

Med student: Why you should protest the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown

By Christy Duan
KevinMD.com, December 9, 2014

In the pediatrics playroom, the medical team and I, a medical student, hunkered down in child-sized chairs to review patient progress notes. A television screen nearby diverted my attention. On CNN, video of protesters alternated with Eric Garner’s final moments. The television was mute, but I could hear Garner say, “I can’t breathe …I can’t breathe …” One moment, he is alive. The next, he is dead. The video loops again. One moment, he is alive. The next, he is dead.

For days, this loop has been replaying in my mind. I’ve been thinking about the non-indictment of Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who put Garner, an unarmed 43-year-old father of six, in a banned chokehold that led to his death. The coroner called it a homicide. I’ve been thinking about the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, who shot to death Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old high school student. Both officers are white. Both dead men are Black.

After we went over the final progress note, we paused and stared at the television screen. Someone asked, “What do they expect to accomplish? What do these kids think lying on the ground in these ‘die-ins’ will actually do?” Other comments followed. “The attorney general already said they would investigate further.” “The police commissioner already said that they would review training procedures.” More questions. “If they force the police to go to jail, will they be satisfied then?” “What more do these people want?”

These were reasonable questions. I tried to engage. I tried to say something about the importance of protest as an articulation of outrage and as a powerful force for social change, about the institutionalized racism and systematic oppression of people of color, about the relentless, daily injustices that erode the spirit.

I don’t know if I made sense, but sitting in a miniature chair with toys and coloring books strewn about the room, I found this moment particularly poignant. Working in the Bronx, most of our patients are children of color. Doctors treat their colds and sniffles, as well as more serious conditions like HIV and cystic fibrosis from birth to age 21. These children — our patients — will grow up to be victimized, traumatized, and executed. What kind of society is that?

Because of the unanticipated conversation, the context, and perhaps a fear of being labeled as “unprofessional,” I didn’t mention my plans to don my white coat and scrubs to join a peaceful protest later this weekend. Instead, I became quiet and followed the rest of the medical team out of the playroom to begin rounds.

In light of recent events, my medical school sent an email to the student body with the intention of supporting us and cautioning that any arrest — even for civil unrest — may be deleterious to our careers. But some things simply must be protested.

I have a problem with the word “professionalism.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “the skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job.” Too often, the word is misused — especially when “polite behavior” is taken to mean “compliance.”

As a medical profession, we often use the word “non-compliant” in a paternalistic way to identify patients who do not obey our treatment plans. Often, we attribute this disobedience to poor health literacy or lack of discipline. There’s a growing movement to move to the word “adherence,” in which patients actively collaborate with their health care teams to develop a therapeutic plan to follow.

For me, protest is professionalism. In both, it’s less about “compliance” and more about “adherence.” This national protest is not about disobeying authority. This protest is about working together to catalyze movement towards a society that is just for all citizens. As medical professionals, we see the inequities arising from racism on a daily basis. While it is a public health issue, we are failing our patients if we do not also see it as a human rights issue.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, we have been given “a bad check” in which “it is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.” It’s time for medical professionals to help people cash that check.

Christy Duan is a medical student.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/12/protest-deaths-eric-garner-michael-brown.html

Out-of-pocket costs put care out of reach

By Anne Scheetz, M.D.
Chicago Tribune, Letters, Dec. 6, 2014

Some of the newly insured have joined the ranks of those who can’t afford to use their health coverage because their out-of-pocket costs are so high. This is an inevitable problem in a system in which people’s total costs — premiums plus deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance and non-covered expenses — are related poorly if at all to what they have left after paying for food, housing, utilities, transportation and other necessities. It is an inevitable problem in a system in which those who have the greatest health care needs — because they are women, or sick, or have disabilities — have the highest health care costs.

Yet there is a simple solution that would save money for almost everyone — for the country as a whole, for governments at all levels and for 95 percent of U.S. households. If we get rid of the enormous administrative waste created by our complex system of financing and implement instead single-payer Medicare for all, we can provide high-quality health care for everyone with no financial barriers or burdens. It’s the common-sense solution, and it’s the solution that would show us to be truly a nation united.

Dr. Anne Scheetz resides in Chicago. This letter was originally titled “Insurance costs.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/

Employer-sponsored plans taking a greater share of employee income than ever before

National Trends in the Cost of Employer Health Insurance Coverage, 2003–2013

By Sara R. Collins, David Radley, Cathy Schoen, Sophie Beutel
The Commonwealth Fund, December 9, 2014

Looking at trends in private employer-based health insurance from 2003 to 2013, this issue brief finds that premiums for family coverage increased 73 percent over the past decade—faster than median family income. Employees’ contributions to their premiums climbed by 93 percent over that time frame. At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in both large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less protective benefits. However, the study also finds that while premiums continued to rise through 2013, the rate of growth slowed between 2010 and 2013, following implementation of the Affordable Care Act. While families experienced slower growth in premium contributions and deductibles over this period, sluggish growth in median family income means families are paying more in premiums and deductibles as a share of their income than ever before.

Premium Increases Outpace Growth in Family Income

Despite the recent slowdown in growth, insurance premiums have risen faster than median incomes for the under-65 population. While average family premiums have climbed by 73 percent since 2003, median family income has risen by 16 percent over the same time period. As a result, total premiums (including the employer and employee shares) relative to income have continued to climb for middle-income working-age families. In 2013, average annual family premiums were 23 percent of median family income, up from 15 percent in 2003 and 21 percent in 2010. There are similar trends in premiums for single coverage: average premiums have climbed 60 percent over the decade, while median income for single-person households has grown by only 11 percent.

Although workers are paying more for their health insurance, their premiums are buying less financial protection, partly because more plans include deductibles and the size of those deductibles has spiked dramatically. In 2013, 81 percent of workers were enrolled in a health plan with a deductible, up from 78 percent in 2010 and just over half (52%) in 2003. As with employee contributions to premiums, incomes have lagged growth in deductibles such that deductibles are consuming an ever-growing share of worker income.

Research has shown that the slower growth in wages during the past decade has been part of a trade-off to preserve health benefits. But while growth in premiums and deductibles has slowed over 2010–2013, median family income, when adjusted for inflation, remains below 2010 levels. Indeed, U.S. families are still trying to recapture lost income from the financial crisis and recession of 2008: real median income is 8 percent lower than it was in 2007. It is unlikely that most families at the middle and lower end of the income distribution are able to detect or feel the premium slowdown in their pocketbooks since they are paying more in premiums and deductibles as a share of their income than ever before.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/issue-brief/2014/dec/1793_collins_nat_premium_trends_2003_2013.pdf

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Both premiums for employer-sponsored health plans and employee out-of-pocket expenses for health care have continued to increase well in excess of employee income, in spite of a general slowing in health care spending. Employees “are paying more in premiums and deductibles as a share of their income than ever before,” and it is likely that there is no relief in site, in spite of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

We desperately need public policies to correct the excessive and increasing inequality in America, and a good start would be to replace our current inequitable health care financing system with an equitably-financed and more efficient single payer national health program – an improved Medicare that covers everyone.

Medical students to hold nationwide ‘die-ins’ and protests Wednesday because #BlackLivesMatter

Students at more than 70 medical schools – in New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere – will protest lack of indictments for police killings in Ferguson, Mo., and New York, and to spotlight racial bias as a public health issue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 9, 2014

Contact:
Mark Almberg, communications director PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org

What

Protests, demonstrations and “white coat die-ins” at medical schools in New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere (see list below) in response to the recent decisions by authorities to not bring indictments in the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York.

We as medical students feel that this is an important time for medical institutions to respond to the violence and race-related trauma that affect our communities and the patients we serve.

We feel it is essential to begin a conversation about our role in addressing the explicit and implicit discrimination and racism in our communities and reflect on the systemic biases embedded in our medical education curricula, clinical learning environments, and administrative decision-making. We believe these discussions are needed at academic medical centers nationwide.

Who

Medical students

When

3 p.m. Eastern Time (check local actions; list below), Wednesday, Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day

Why

Racial bias and violence are not exclusively a problem of the criminal justice system. As we have seen in Ferguson, Mo., New York, and countless other places, bias kills, sickens, and provides inadequate care. As medical students, we must take a stand against the oppression of our black and brown patients, colleagues, friends, and family. By standing together at medical schools nationwide, we hope to demonstrate that the medical student community views racial violence as a public health crisis. We are #whitecoats4blacklives.

Where

Medical schools across the country, including but not limited to:

Albany Medical College, Albany  
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland
Charles R. Drew/UCLA Medical Education Program, Los Angeles
Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York
Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden
Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta
Frank H. Netter School of Medicine at Quinnipiac, North Haven
George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Harvard Medical School, Boston
Howard University College of Medicine, Washington DC
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore
Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Meharry Medical College, Nashville
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing
Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta
New York Medical College, Valhalla
New York University School of Medicine, New York
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago
Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus
Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago
Rush Medical College, Chicago
Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield
Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis
Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia
Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook
SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn
Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia
Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Worth
Touro University California College of Medicine, Vallejo
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston
Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans
University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo
University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix
University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock
University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego
University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco
University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati
University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana Champaign, Urbana
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester
University of Medicine and Health Sciences, St. Kitts
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami
University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis
University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine, Biddeford
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, N.Y.
University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond
Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem
Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis
Weill Cornell Medical College, New York
Yale School of Medicine, New Haven

*******

This initiative has been endorsed by Students for a National Health Program, part of Physicians for a National Health Program ( www.pnhp.org ), an organization more 19,000 physicians, health professionals, medical and health professional students who advocate for universal, single-payer, improved Medicare for all.

Slowing health care costs – the wrong way

The Health-Cost Slowdown Isn’t Just About the Economy

By David Leonhardt
The New York Times, December 5, 2014

It’s one of the most important economic questions today: Is the snail-like growth of health costs over the last several years a real trend, or is it merely a temporary part of the Great Recession’s aftermath?

The data experts who compile the government’s official numbers on health spending lean toward the more pessimistic view. They think the slowdown – to the lowest level of growth on record – stems in large part from Americans skimping on medical care during tough times.

In the aftermath of the 1990-91 recession and the slow recovery that followed, health spending stopped growing more quickly than the rest of the economy. It accounted for 13.4 percent of economic output in 1996, the same share as it had in 1993.

But the weak economy doesn’t seem to have been the main reason. The rise of health maintenance organizations (or H.M.O.’s) – along with other attempts by insurers to hold down costs – was.

Then a backlash against H.M.O.’s took hold, and health spending started growing rapidly again. The surge didn’t end until the last few years, when the efforts of the reformers began to have a widespread effect.

It’s simply not true that G.D.P. and health costs have historically moved in tandem. On the other hand, the experience of the 1990s demonstrates that a slowdown in health costs isn’t guaranteed to persist.

If patients start to rebel against some of the changes that have held down health costs – like narrow networks, which restrict which doctors they can see – spending may start to rise again. It also may start to rise if labor unions manage to undercut a tax on generous health plans or if Republicans succeed in stopping efforts to make Medicare more efficient. (Yes, that’s related to the infamous death-panel debate.)

The American health care system really is changing. What happens next will be one of the biggest economic stories of the coming decade.

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD 

There are several factors contributing to the slowdown in health care spending, but one of the most important is insurance innovation that is impairing affordability and access. These innovations include “consumer empowerment” measures, such as ever-higher deductibles, shift from co-payments to higher coinsurance, establishment of higher-cost tiers, and narrower provider networks that impair access.

The supporters of consumer-directed health care celebrate these “savings” that we are seeing, but this represents forgone health care – much of it beneficial health care. While some cite studies such as the RAND HIE and the Oregon natural experiment as showing no harm done, in fact, these studies were not powered to shown harm, but only to show a difference in spending.

People are doing without the care that they should have. Based on my clinical experiences, people really do suffer and die merely because they delayed care when they could not afford it.

Today, because of the transfer of health care costs to patients, being insured is no longer enough to prevent personal bankruptcy. It is not even enough to ensure that you will not die from causes for which intervention is effective.

There are far more effective ways to control health care spending, beginning with a single payer system. The recovered administrative waste alone would be more than enough to pay for care that patients are now avoiding due to our ill-advised and inhumane “skin in the game” policies.