By Bernie Sanders
Guardian, May 10, 2011

The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people. Meanwhile, we spend about twice as much per capita on health care and, in a wide number of instances, our outcomes are not as good as others that spend far less.
 
It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system. It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage. It is time for the United States to provide a Medicare-for-all, single payer health coverage program.
 
Under our dysfunctional system, 45,000 Americans a year die because they delay seeking care they cannot afford. We spent 17.6 percent of our GDP on health care in 2009, which is projected to go up to 20 percent by 2020, yet we still rank 26th among major, developed nations on life expectancy, and 31st on infant mortality. We must demand a better model of health coverage that emphasizes preventive and primary care for every single person without regard for their ability to pay.
 
It is certainly a step forward that the new health reform law is projected to cover 32 million additional Americans, out of the more than 50 million uninsured today. Yet projections suggest that roughly 23 million will still be without insurance in 2019, while health care costs will continue to skyrocket.
 
Twenty-three million Americans still without health insurance after health reform is implemented? This is unacceptable. And that is why, this week, Representative Jim McDermott and I are announcing the re-introduction of the American Health Security Act, recognizing health care as a human right and providing every U.S. citizen and permanent resident with health care coverage and services through a state-administered, single payer program.
 
Let’s face it: until we put patients over profits, our system will not work for ordinary Americans.
 
It is incomprehensible that drug companies still get away with charging Americans twice as much, or more, than citizens of Canada or Europe for the exact same drugs manufactured by the exact same companies. It is an outrage that insurers still often hike premiums 20 percent, 40 percent and 60 percent a year on individual policy holders; and some insurers still spend 40 cents of every premium dollar on administration and profits while lavishing multimillion-dollar payouts on their CEOs.
 
It boggles the mind that approximately 30 percent of every health care dollar spent in the United States goes to administrative costs, rather than to delivering care. We must do better. Taiwan, for example, spends only a little over 6 percent of GDP on health care, while achieving better health outcomes on some key indicators than we do; yet they spend a relative pittance on administrative costs.
 
I am very proud that my home state of Vermont is now taking big steps to lead the nation in health care by moving forward on a plan to establish a single payer health care system that puts the interests of patients over chasing profits. The American Health Security Act would make sure every state does the same – taking profits out of the equation by implementing a single payer system, but letting each state administer its own program, according to strict standards, in a way best suited to its needs.
 
The goal of real health care reform must be high-quality, universal coverage in a cost-effective way. We must ensure, to as great a degree as possible, that the money we put into health coverage goes to the delivery of health care, not to paper-pushing, astronomical profits and lining CEOs’ pockets.

Bernie Sanders is U.S. senator from the state of Vermont.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/10/healthcare-congress

By Ethan Parke
Vtdigger.org, May 9, 2011

One icy and treacherous day in February 1988, I slithered my way to Montpelier from my farm in the Northeast Kingdom to testify at a hearing about universal health care. The previous year the Legislature had set up a health care board that was charged with coming up with a plan to provide health care to all 62,000 uninsured Vermonters.

Twenty-three years later, I am still trundling up to the Statehouse to watch, and in my own way, to participate in discussions about reforming health care in Vermont. For the most part, it has been an exercise in futility. But May 2011 feels different. I don’t want to celebrate quite yet for fear of jinxing the progress that has been made with the passage of H.202, but I do believe Vermont has now laid the groundwork for a more equitable and sustainable health care system.

Gov. Peter Shumlin deserves enormous credit for changing the direction of our health care reform efforts. When the Democratic leadership in Washington was saying single payer was “off the table,” Shumlin courageously campaigned for governor on a single payer platform. When Republicans chanted “government run” and “socialized medicine,” Shumlin stood by the principle of health care as a public good.

H.202 reached final passage with a 94-49 vote in the House, after weeks of hard work by legislators poring over every sentence of the 142-page bill. But it was Shumlin, as Senate leader in the previous session, who conceived the idea of bringing Harvard health economist William Hsiao to Vermont to design a universal health care system. And it was the Shumlin health care team, led by Anya Rader Wallack, who wrote the initial draft of the legislation and shepherded it through the legislative process.

What makes H.202 different from all previous attempts at health care reform in Vermont? For one thing it contains a rather explicit commitment to public financing of health care. Quoting from the bill: “The purpose of Green Mountain Care is to provide, as a public good, comprehensive, affordable, high quality, publicly financed health care coverage for all Vermont residents in a seamless and equitable manner regardless of income, assets, health status, or availability of other health coverage.”

This, if it comes true, is nothing short of revolutionary. Gone will be the health insurance–employment linkage, gone will be the individual bankruptcies caused by health care debt, and gone will be the cost shifts inherent in providing uncompensated care. Most importantly, gone will be the immoral nature of our current system, which treats health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, rather than as a service that is necessary to our collective well-being.

Predictably, Vermont’s new health care legislation has been attacked from both the right and the left. Republicans want to know the price tag, which is unknown at this time because there is not yet a financing plan or a benefits package. However, it is unlikely that the ideologues in the Republican Party would support this law even if these components were known.

Make no mistake, Green Mountain Care will be paid for with taxes, but new taxes for health care will amount to no more than is currently paid in Vermont to private insurance companies, and possibly less. Green Mountain Care will also take advantage of every federal penny that is available for health care, either by maintaining existing federal programs, such as Medicare, or by rolling them into Green Mountain Care through a federal waiver. Either way, seniors and those on other federal programs would get better coverage than they now have.

On the left are critics such as the Physicians for a National Health Program, which issued a press release claiming that “the bill passed by the Vermont House falls well short of the single-payer reform needed to resolve the health care crisis in that state.” Specific criticisms were that the bill would still allow a role for private insurance, that hospital expansion would not be controlled, that co-pays and deductibles would still burden citizens, and that for-profit providers would be allowed to deliver inferior care at inflated prices.

Granted, there is much yet to be worked out before Green Mountain Care is implemented. Even the start-up date is in doubt due to the federal health care law that currently prohibits state innovation prior to 2017. And there are many vested interests that will fight to preserve the status quo every step of the way, as they always have. But what other state has taken so bold a step as Vermont?

Later this year we will have a five-member board that will have authority over the Green Mountain Care benefit package, and will decide whether or not to impose cost-sharing requirements on individuals. The board will set provider reimbursement levels and hospital budgets, and will make final decisions on health facility investments. The board will also recommend an annual health care budget to the Legislature.

No later than Jan. 15, 2013, the secretary of administration will recommend financing plans that could be used to implement Green Mountain Care. The financing would be very broad-based. Everyone—employers and individuals—would contribute. Although private health insurance could still be offered in the state, the broad-based financing would induce most employers to drop their private plans in favor of Green Mountain Care.

The consolidated financing is what would create the savings potential. Not only would administrative waste be reduced and lucrative profits for insurance companies eliminated, but the state would have the opportunity to direct health care spending in ways to boost efficiency and improve quality. This has been loosely termed “payment reform,” an idea that can be effective only when financing has been consolidated so that spending decisions can be made in a rational and publicly accountable fashion.

One of the difficulties of enacting universal health care at the state level is that it must be done in partnership with the federal government. Also, because Vermont is a state, not a country, there are many cross border issues that must be resolved. Such issues include how to pay for Vermont residents who work for out-of-state employers and how to cover health care services Vermonters receive out of state. These complexities will be a challenge going forward, but if the performance of this year’s legislature is any indication, no problem will be too daunting.

Senate President pro tem John Campbell and House Speaker Shap Smith made sure that H.202 did not stall in committee, as so many bills in previous sessions had done. Senate Health and Welfare Committee Chair Claire Ayer kept the discussion amiable, while Mark Larson, Chair of the House Health Care Committee, with soft-spoken nerves of steel, made sure that the bill adhered to the principle of health care as a universal public good.

Special recognition should go to Senator Kevin Mullin, the lone Republican from either chamber to vote for the bill. Senator Mullin, with his emphasis on fiscal responsibility, added much to the debate, and a stronger bill was passed as a result of his efforts.

Vermont’s new health care legislation is only a first step. But it is a historic first step because for the first time, a pragmatic, achievable road map has been set out as a matter of state policy, leading to a publicly funded health care system that retains high quality health care within a system of cost controls.

Twenty-three years have passed since I first walked into the Statehouse on a health care mission. At that time I was thinking of my family, and of Vermont farmers, and of low income people who had no health insurance. Even then, however, I wanted more than charity. I wanted recognition that we are all in this together, that a functional society could devise a way to provide health
care to all, the same as we decide to have public schools, or fire and police protection. I watched and mourned the failed attempts at health care reform in 1989, 1994, 2005, and 2007. Now, finally I have hope.

Ethan Parke is a resident of Montpelier, Vt.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/09/parke-finally-real-hope-for-health-care-reform/

By Hamilton Davis
Vtdigger.org, April 25, 2011

For the second time in 15 years, the state of Vermont is making a concerted effort to rebuild its health care system. The odds were long for the mid-1990s campaign, which failed, and they are equally long now. That is not to say that the drive toward reform initiated by Gov. Peter Shumlin is doomed, only that it is a very long shot.

In some ways the program recently adopted by the Legislature is considerably more far-reaching than the earlier try. The aim now is a single-payer system, which almost certainly can’t be fully achieved, but which does at least pinpoint the two central issues: the need to provide health care coverage to everyone in the state and the need to control costs in the delivery system, which routinely rise at 6 percent to 9 percent above the underlying rate of inflation.

Moreover, Vermont policy makers, most importantly the governor himself, understand that no reform effort can survive unless the costs can be brought under control. Shumlin has been pressing for a single-payer system for several years now, but among the thousands of words he’s expended on the issue, none were more important than his statement that he wouldn’t go forward with single payer unless the system costs can be constrained.

In 1966 when the federal government took responsibility for providing health care to the poor and the elderly, costs in the system amounted to a little more than 6 percent of our total national output. That figure is approaching 17 percent today and is heading steadily toward 20. It’s a cost engine that reaches into virtually policy corner of American life. Some 50 million people in the United States have no health insurance; many millions more are underinsured. In Vermont, 47,000 people are uninsured; another 160,000 are underinsured; the total encompasses just under one-third of the state’s population. Even those who are well insured may pay huge monthly bills.

The damage is not limited to individuals. Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor and lower income workers) play a major role in both federal and state budget deficits. Those pressures in turn foreclose investments in such critical areas as education and physical infrastructure, like bridges and roads. And medical inflation saps the competitive fiber of American business firms, large and small.

The clear need for reform is an obvious asset for the Shumlin administration going forward. There are some other promising auguries. One is the staff the governor has assembled to manage the program. Anya Rader Wallack, whom Shumlin has retained on a contract, is a national class health policy analyst. Steve Kimbell, the newly-appointed commissioner of BISHCA, is tough and knowledgeable about state government. Shumlin has called them a “dream team,” and that isn’t hyperbole. An added plus: When the final design comes into the legislature next year, it will be managed in the House by Shap Smith, the most adept Speaker since Ralph Wright.

So, given the pressing need and the assets assembled, why are the odds so long?

Health care is nothing like a market

There are many reasons why the health care issue is one of the gnarliest the country has faced in the last half century. One is that physical health is vital to every single person. This fact invests health care with enormous importance: emotionally, socially, financially. Another is that it is technically complex, well beyond the reach of most people. It takes 10 years to train a brain surgeon. Even the most intelligent, well-educated patient has no chance to figure out difficult medical questions on his or her own.

The single most important reason, however, is the strange, almost perverse way the health care system is wired, or more accurately, not wired together. While many policy makers talk about trying to utilize market forces to control costs, health care is nothing like a market.

Consider a patient, call him John. He wakes up one morning and feels badly. He goes to see his primary care physician, Sally Jones. Dr. Jones examines him, makes a diagnosis, and prescribes treatment. This process could include lab tests, imaging like x-rays or scans, and possibly a course of drugs. Possibly this regimen works. If not, Dr. Jones could refer him to a specialist physician, or a local hospital.

The new physicians, or the local hospital, carry out the same procedure, at a more elaborate level of sophistication. Maybe that works. If it doesn’t, the specialist could refer John to a subspecialist with narrower but deeper expertise; he could also send him from a community hospital to a tertiary medical center nearby. The specialists and the staff of the medical center carry out the same diagnosis-treatment regimen. If John can’t be cured at this level he may be referred to very sophisticated physicians out-of-state, to Pittsburgh, say, for a heart transplant, or Boston for high-level cancer treatment, or the Mayo Clinic for a stubborn illness that has frustrated diagnosis.

It is also possible for John to pick and choose his route through this maze. He can pick his own specialist and subspecialist. He can choose one hospital over another, and patients do, all the time.

The critical point here is that these nodes in the system are normally financially and professionally separate from one another. Whoever is paying for John’s health insurance just has to keep paying the individual bills. If there is duplication of effort—repeated imaging or lab work, for example, or unnecessary care—well, that still has to be paid for. No one is responsible for John’s total care; there is no single price. The driver of this process is that most doctors and hospitals get paid on a fee-for-service basis—the more things they do, the more they can bill for. That reality is an engine that drives cost.

And it has powerful purely medical effects also. American doctors always take responsibility for their own patients. But they hate taking responsibility for what other doctors do. So if John gets unnecessary care or poor quality care no one is responsible for repairing the situation. Anyone who doubts this should read the Institute of Medicine report issued in 1999 showed that hospital errors in the United States kill as many as 98,000 people per year, three jumbo jet crashes worth per day.

That does not mean that all, or even most care, in the United States or in Vermont, is bad. Much of it is excellent—indeed some of it approaches the miraculous. But there are no financial incentives for brilliant care or even fully-up-to-standard care. The incentives, in fact, run in the other direction. If you go to the hospital to have your right leg cut off and they cut off the left, your payer will end up getting charged for cutting off two, since you still have to cut off the left. A few years ago the Henry Ford health care system in Detroit decided not to bill for two procedures in such a case, a departure so striking that it made the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

Cutting off legs is pretty dramatic, of course, but the same dynamic works across the system, from messed up appointments to misdiagnosis, to all manner of errors and unnecessary care. Mistakes in the system get paid for by the public, not by the health care providers. Markets don’t generally work like that; if a system does work like that, it isn’t a market at all.

The key piece of evidence that the above scenario is valid is the technique, developed in Vermont by Dr. John Wennberg, called small area variations. In the early 1970s, Wennberg, then at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, began collecting and then publishing data showing that medical use rates varied dramatically between communities n the state. At that time, for example, 60 percent of the kids in Stowe had had their tonsils removed; in nearby Waterbury, the fi
gure was just 20 percent. The rates of gallbladder surgery varied between hospital services areas by three times, and hysterectomy varied by four.

The health status of one community can differ from another, of course, but the main indicator of a significant difference is a difference in age and Wennberg adjusted for age. No one was ever able to make a straight-face case that those kind of variations were driven by anything other than doctors dealing with similar problems in radically different ways. The small area variations analysis was particular striking in Vermont, which is quite homogeneous in its population—mostly white, with a few small urban areas and the remainder suburbs and rural settlements.

Over time, Wennberg, who soon moved to Dartmouth Medical School, steadily expanded his data analysis to other states; today, these data are regularly published in what is now known as the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. This document is one of the foundation sources for any assessment of health care in the United States today. In his book Complications, Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, cited Wennberg’s work as evidence for the baleful influence of variation in medical practice in the United States.

“What he has found is a stubborn, overwhelming, and embarrassing degree of inconsistency in what we do,” Gawande wrote. “His research has shown, for example, the likelihood of a doctor sending you for a gallbladder-removal operation varies 270 percent depending on what city you live in; for a hip replacement, 450 percent; for care in an intensive care unit during that last six months of your life, 880 percent.”

Given that the lower utilization rates tend strongly to show up in areas with the most sophisticated and high quality care, it is a reasonable inference that a significant volume of the care in the higher use-rate areas is unnecessary. And a major contributor to the health care cost problem.

Generally speaking, Vermont has tracked the national trends in the rapid growth of health care expenditures. Comparing Vermont to other states and to national averages is complex. In the 1970s and 1980s Vermont’s costs tended to be comparatively low, but over the last two decades Vermont has grown more rapidly than the country as a whole. Irrespective of how such analyses play out, it seems clear that the Vermont cost inflation is not sustainable.

Per capita health care spending increased by 8 percent between 2004 and 2008, at a time when the underlying rate of inflation in the economy ran around 2 percent. The difference of about 6 percent could be called the unsustainability rate. There is no way Vermont state government, or any government, can keep raising major revenues at that rate for long. And that performance has been going on for 40 years.

No one in the United States has figured out how to solve this dilemma. And it isn’t for lack of trying. The federal government and the governments of the various states have been trying to put the brakes on health care costs since the early 1970s, once it became obvious that Medicare and Medicaid had increased demand at a much more rapid rate than anyone had anticipated. There were certificate-of-need programs to limit growth in capacity and for system costs,rate setting in many states, and a raft of alphabet soup programs, PROs, and PPROs, and DRGs — the landscape is littered with the smoldering hulks of these programs. Nothing worked: fee for service medicine defeated them all.

It isn’t theoretically impossible for a Vermont single-payer system to solve this problem on the way to controlling costs, but it won’t be easy—at all events, nobody has figured it out yet. The core difficulty even if you had a pure single payer—state government—it isn’t clear how you could divide up a shrinking pile of money among the various unconnected nodes of the system. How much of the pie goes to our patient John’s primary care doc, and how much to the array of specialists, sub specialists, community hospitals, local medical centers, like Fletcher Allen and Dartmouth-Hitchcock, and how much to the out-of-state centers for really tricky stuff? One could argue that the doctors and hospitals could figure that out for themselves—which is actually a very good idea, but there’s no way to do that in the absence of hard-wired connections between the various elements in the delivery system.

And a much tougher question than that: who decides which of the elements of the care in the whole skein is good, very good, kind or poor, unnecessary, incompetent?

In short, fully rationalizing a balkanized system even in a tiny state like Vermont is as tough a problem as anyone could find. Yet, if the state takes the responsibility for taking care of everyone without have a firm grip on the costs then Vermont would end up with a financial problem like it has never seen before. Doesn’t that argue for abandoning the whole idea?

Well, no. Because the other side of the coin is equally valid. Failing to get a grip on the costs and quality in the system will be damaging to our whole society in the ways that we’ve laid out above. It would probably be better if the problem were to be tackled at the national level, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen any time soon. If Vermont is willing to step up, we might find our way to higher ground.

The hurdles for a single-payer system

Since the Legislature is close to final passage of a bill authorizing the program development process, it’s worth asking what other hurdles are out there. VTDigger.org will examine each of these in detail over the next several weeks, but for now here are just some of them:

* The exchange and the insurance issue. In a true single payer, private insurance isn’t an issue. One payer pays all the bills. In the original legislation, the Shumlin administration proposed to begin backing insurance companies out of the state before the full system has been designed. This effort not surprisingly upset the private insurers, but it has also brought the business community into the fray. Business firms are concerned that competition in the insurance will disappear before it’s clear that their costs won’t climb even faster than they have been.

Many small and intermediate firms now manage their health care costs by scrambling yearly to switch their coverage from one company to the next, trying to chip a little off the bill by taking advantage of the insurance company competition. It doesn’t really work—the cost increases are still brutal–but it’s all they have. The Shumlin team said that federal law obliged them to establish the exchange now. They did not oppose the Senate amendments increasing the number of insurance firms that can operate in the state.

In fact, the business community probably had a case to make in the short term, but they might be wise to keep in mind the long term. No insurance company can manage a fragmented health care system—Vermont business needs successful reform as much or more than anyone else. Still, the Shumlin team will have to manage a fractious business community over the next few years and it probably won’t be easy.

* The big ERISA companies. Federal law guarantees that companies that insure their own employees can’t be interfered with by state governments, the so-called ERISA (don’t ask) law. It may be possible for the administration to look for some kind of waiver, but that doesn’t mean it would be smart. The elephant in the middle of the room in this issue is IBM, but there are others that are critical also. IDX corporation, now a part of General Electric, is one. Lockheed Martin is another. But IBM is the key employer in the state. It has been the catalyst that brought the Vermont economy into the modern era, and it would be devastating to the state if IBM left.

The company itself has denied considering this, but Shumlin can’t ignore
the possibility. Moreover, the health care bill can’t be looked at in isolation. Shumlin led the drive to shut down Vermont Yankee, which concerned IBM because its Essex Junction plant is such a big electric power user. There was a lot of whispering in the Chittenden County business community that Shumlin would reverse himself on Yankee, but any possibility of that went glimmering when the tsunami in Japan revealed the catastrophic risks posed by shaky nukes.

The reality is that Shumlin might have to simply carve the ERISA companies out of the plan, if they insist on going. That would definitely cause a problem for Anya Rader Wallack and the designers of the system—they would have to replace to revenue flows from the IBMs and GEs. However, the only stronger commitment than single payer that Shumlin has made is to job growth and preservation and losing an ERISA employer wouldn’t do much for that.

On the other side of the coin is the prospect that if Shumlin and the dream team can build a cost-sustainable system, then the ERISA companies would be crazy not to jump into it. The big U.S. employers like IBM, GE, John Deere, Citi Bank and others, formed the so-called Leapfrog Group years ago to figure out how to get health care costs under control, and there is no evidence to date they have done so.

Some top officials from IBM met with Shumlin early this month to press their case that they should be able to continue to manage their Vermont health costs as part of their national system. They said they had learned to control their costs and the governor was quoted as saying he agreed with that. There is probably less to all that than meets the eye. It’s far more likely that what IBM controls is its health care contributions rather than the actual total health care costs for their employees. An IBM employees group seemed to suggest that when they held a pro-reform press conference several weeks after the Shumlin meeting with top IBM officials.

For the last several years, major employers in the U.S. have been moving toward replacing a defined benefit—we pay for employee’s health care—to a “defined contribution”—we pay part of the cost and the employee pays the rest. IBM might be more generous than some other ERISA firms, but it’s clear that many middle class employees of large organizations who have gold-plated health plans still pay a sizeable chunk of their paycheck for health care.

We’ll return to this issue in future articles, but for now, a single example from real life: A college professor in Vermont with an income of $90,000 pays $10,140 for health care, between contributions to the college plan and out-of-pocket expenses. Part of that is tax deductible, but the after-tax hit is still more than $6,000 per year. The employee, in other words, is picking up a major chunk of the inflation rate in health care costs.

If Vermont could get its costs under control, it would be a major boon to the big state employers as well as the rest of the employer community.

* Doctor attitudes. No stakeholder group in the single payer issue is as important as doctors. At the end of the day, they run the health care system and any reform that they perceive to come between them and their patients cannot stand. Anyone who doubts that need only look at what happened to the health maintenance organization or HMO movement in the mid-1990s, which was full of promise in the early part of the decade but by 1997 was in full retreat—by that time, movie audiences around the country would boo if an HMO was mentioned in film.

The recent kerfuffle over a survey of doctor attitudes about single payer (read the story by Jon Margolis) looked bad but probably won’t have a lasting effect. Still, effective reform will almost certainly put heavy pressure on physician incomes as well as requiring them to begin taking responsibility for the performance of the whole system, which will mean shifting the whole medical culture. The design team will have to watch this issue closely going forward.

* Medical system connectivity. In Vermont, there has historically been relatively little cross-community medical management. Most local medical communities have been fiercely independent. They will refer patients back and forth, but anyone who thinks, for example, that the physicians at Rutland Hospital think they need help from Fletcher Allen in managing their medical affairs simply hasn’t been paying attention. This situation is changing somewhat, probably under the lash of accelerating pressure for structural reform. Fletcher Allen and Central Vermont Medical Center, for example, have recently adopted a joint structure that looks like a merger. There have also been discussions between Fletcher Allen and Southwest Vermont Medical Center in Bennington. There has been no major work, however, on a full rationalization effort among the state’s 14 hospitals that would eliminate excess capacity and force the state’s physician to take direct responsibility for both costs and quality in the whole system.

A group of health policy people gathered together in the 1980s by the Windham Foundation put forward a rationalization plan that called for two umbrella organizations: the one in west would have been led by Fletcher Allen and would have included community hospitals in St. Albans, Middlebury, Rutland and Bennington, Montpelier and Morrisville. The second would be led by Dartmouth Hitchcock and would subsume Newport, St. Johnsbury, Windsor, Brattleboro, Springfield and Grace Cottage. The reaction of local hospital CEOs to this idea could be fairly described as virulently hostile. The reaction from Rutland’s CEO was volcanic. The idea died a rapid death.

One of the most intriguing ideas in the light of the current reform atmosphere is whether it would be possible to go beyond even the Windham Plan through an alliance of some sort between Fletcher Allen and Dartmouth Hitchcock. Both are high quality, but small tertiary medical centers. An alliance between them would accomplish two important results. One would be to give them a greater mass than they now possess and they could do some things they can’t now manage. Neither, for example, have a large enough patient pool to enable them to train doctors in specialty pediatrics. Combining their operations might give them a big enough population base. More importantly, a joint Fletcher Allen/Dartmouth-Hitchcock structure might exercise the kind of domination over the whole state that could enable the kind of cost and quality controls that will be necessary in a reformed system. Significant ties between the two big centers that serve Vermont may be a bridge too far, but still it would be interesting.

* Geographic complexity. Any single payer system finally adopted by Vermont could only cover the state of Vermont, at least in the fully legal sense. But there is bound to be tremendous leakage in and out of the system from neighboring states. Fletcher Allen, for example, gets a significant chunk of its business from northeastern New York. Much if not most of the tertiary care delivered to eastern Vermont goes to Dartmouth Hitchcock, which is in New Hampshire. Patients from Bennington County often get specialized care in Albany, N.Y. If the single payer design gets built on the principle of capitation, then management of this structure will get very complex.

Myths abound

The above are just some of the components of the design challenge facing the Shumlin team. There are some areas where they don’t need to waste much time. Call them the myths of the health care debate.

* The cost problem is the fault of the insurance companies. It isn’t. The principal reason the health insurance industry looks so bad is the rate at which the costs rise in the system. The insurance companies have been expected to control costs in the system, but they have no clue how to do that. What they can do is try to slow down the cost engine by building in bureaucratic require
ments, which simply adds expense.

* Low cost equals bad care. Wrong. Bad care is way more expensive than high quality care. This is a complex issue, but for now, doubters might look at Olmstead County, Minn., where all the care is delivered by one organization — the Mayo Clinic, arguably the finest standalone medical operation in the world. Per capita costs there are consistently among the very lowest in the United States.

* Costs rise as rapidly as they do because the population is aging. In fact, the population is aging, but it’s worth asking whether the rate at which it is aging is anywhere close to the rate at which medical costs go.

The answer to controlling costs is to shift from disease management to “wellness”—to changing people’s lifestyle away from such self-destructive habits as smoking, overeating and too little exercise. Refashioning people’s lifestyles would definitely take costs out of the system, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. It would take years, if not decades, to effect significant change, and in the meantime the obesity rate in the United States is increasing and the cost engine roars on. For the foreseeable future, doctors and hospitals will be treating disease, not focusing on wellness.

* The answer is Health Savings Accounts, a favorite of conservative ideologues. Health Savings Accounts can be a useful piece of an employer’s insurance plan in the current environment, but they have no chance of solving the cost containment problem. The idea that a sick patient is going to go shopping for cheaper treatment like a used washing machine is absurd.

* More resources means competition and thus lower prices. In a market, yes. In health care, no. The extensive research on this question goes under the heading “Supplier induced demand.” It is why historically costs in Boston with a wealth of medical resources, are much higher than in New Haven, Conn., where much of the care is concentrated at Yale New Haven system.

Here’s an early example from the Wennberg data on Vermont: In the early 1970s two local hospitals in St. Albans, which competed aggressively, merged into the Northwestern Medical Center. Competition gone. In one year, utilization rates for that hospital service area dropped in half, and stayed there.

* Government can’t run health care, single payer is socialized medicine. Well, it’s true that government can’t run health care—the problem is that no one else can either. Anyone who thinks that insurance companies can manage health care isn’t paying attention. The Shumlin Plan at this point contemplates how to pay for the care. How the money gets spent is for the dream team to figure out.

It’s a really big challenge.

END NOTE: This overview of the health reform issue has attempted to touch on the major issues and hurdles facing the reform effort. Over the course of the development process, VTDigger.org will elaborate on several of them, discussing the analysis in more depth and laying out the research and data that undergird them.

Hamilton Davis is a veteran Vermont journalist. He was the managing editor of the Burlington Free Press in the 1970s. He is also the author of Mocking Justice: Vermont’s Biggest Drug Scandal, and two chapters of the book, Howard Dean: A Citizen’s Guide to the Man Who Would Be President.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/25/prognosis-long-odds-for-health-care-reform/

By Carl Etnier
Vtdigger.org, May 6, 2011

Green Mountain Care is set to become law now that the House and Senate have passed the final version of the health care reform bill, which was hammered out in conference committee earlier this week. The House approved the bill Thursday on a 94-49 vote.

The legislation now heads to the governor’s desk where it is expected to be signed into law with fanfare. Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, is the architect of the single-payer health care plan, and he will likely sign the bill into law next week.

The House vote was intensely partisan with minority leader Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, noting afterward that no House Republicans had supported it. He complained that the House GOP was shut out of the three-member House delegation to the conference committee, and he called on Shumlin “to ensure that minority position concerns are addressed.”

One Republican, Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, who voted against the legislation, said she would collaborate in implementing the state’s pioneering reform of its health care system.

Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, and chair of the House Health Care Committee, reminded lawmakers that the health care reform initiative is the result of the problems inherent in the current system.

“Too many Vermonters continue to be uninsured, and even more face financial risk if they get sick or hurt because of inadequate insurance,” Larson said. “Vermont businesses continue to struggle with the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. And the way that we fund health care is inequitable, inefficient, and unfair to many. It continues to support the ability to cost shift, one to the other.

“Most importantly, our health care system lacks the ability to control costs and to ensure that the dollars Vermonters do spend provide Vermonters with quality and go towards things that help Vermonters get better when they’re sick or hurt, or to stay healthy, to avoid not just the cost of getting sick, but also just to preserve their health,” Larson said.

Green Mountain Care sets the state on a path towards universal health care coverage for Vermonters, regardless of where or whether they are employed. It would not, strictly speaking, be a single-payer system, as private supplemental insurance plans will continue to be available, and federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid will continue, but Larson expects the plan to reduce the number of insurers now operating in the state. He also says that the coverage of Green Mountain Care will be such a comprehensive benefits package, he is not “sure why somebody would want to purchase additional insurance beyond that, but that would be a choice that they could make.”

The conference committee resolved a number of issues that had mobilized health care activists in the waning days of the session. The Senate had specified that illegal immigrants be excluded from the coverage of Green Mountain Care. The final bill asks for a study of the costs of including or excluding undocumented immigrants. Larson pointed out that fear of deportation keeps illegal workers from seeking treatment when they need it, and if their condition worsens so much that they require emergency care or hospitalization, then those costs are borne by other Vermonters. It’s possible, he said, that it would be less expensive for everyone to cover even those aliens without papers.

Another thorny question relegated to further study is whether to cover and require payments from those eligible for TRICARE and other federal coverage. In this case, too, Larson said, it’s possible that creatively including these individuals in Green Mountain Care could lower costs for everyone.

Health insurers were both helped and hurt at the conference committee table. The bill’s supporters want Vermont to set up by 2014 a health benefit exchange of the type mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act. Some people had feared that no insurance providers would want to participate in Vermont’s exchange; the bill now requires that the state try to entice at least two insurance companies to underwrite Vermonters. On the other hand, the number of insurance company representatives allowed to serve on the Green Mountain Care advisory committee was reduced from three to one.

The bill was a signature issue in Shumlin’s gubernatorial campaign. In the Legislature, it has been the subject of intense lobbying, both by supporters and opponents. With passage virtually a foregone conclusion, representatives largely confined themselves to clarifying or debating the changes from the conference committee.

A few had the energy left to argue the larger questions of the bill. Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, lamented the “lost opportunity” to help uninsured and under-insured Vermonters sooner than 2014. She also said that there were so many unanswered questions, it was like “Scarlett O’Hara health care: ‘We will think about that tomorrow.’”

Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Ripton, countered that the current approach is not working, and though the bill “does not provide a solution to our problems, it does provide a process through which we can reach one.”

Deb Richter, a physician who has lobbied for decades for single-payer health care, was on hand for the vote, and she was “overjoyed” at the passage of “an amazing piece of legislation.” She says that she gets a lot of letters from people who don’t understand the legislation, so she expects to be part of a group that travels around the state to explain to Vermonters how the bill works. When asked whether she would like to be a member of the five-member board the bill creates to implement Green Mountain Care, she replied, “I would never turn away a position that could be helpful to the process.”

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/06/health-care-bill-en-route-to-the-governor/

By Chelsea Conaboy
The Boston Globe, May 7, 2011
 
As soon as 2017, Vermont could become the first state to provide and pay for insurance for most of its residents under a plan passed by the Legislature Thursday. But it must first clear several significant hurdles, including persuading the federal government to allow the state to assume responsibility for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and finding a way to pay for the program.
 
The bill outlines a planning process for implementing what is often referred to as a “single-payer” system. Called Green Mountain Care, the program would operate in its first few years much like other state health care exchanges established under the federal Affordable Care Act and must begin enrolling individuals and small business in 2014. That’s the year the mandate for most Americans to have health insurance takes effect.
 
Vermont’s plan is different, however, because it lays out the state’s intention in 2017 to move most people with private and government insurance into a unified system in which their insurance would be paid for through their taxes, not through premiums and copayments.
 
Anya Rader Wallack, special assistant for health care to Governor Peter Shumlin, said that the bill’s passage is a significant step toward a single-payer system, but that supporters have “some real heavy lifting ahead.”
 
An analysis by Harvard economist William Hsiao and Steve Kappel, a Vermont health-policy consultant, said the plan could shave between $1.7 billion and $2 billion off the state’s projected $9 billion in health care costs in 2020.
 
Implementing the plan would require new taxes. One proposal studied by Hsiao, Kappel, and others is to raise payroll taxes to 10.9 percent for employers and 3.6 percent for employees.
 
By Kappel’s analysis, even with the new taxes, employers and employees at low-wage companies that now offer high benefits would save money using the exchange. But the new program would cost those at high-wage companies with lower benefits. Kappel called it a “humble bill” that leaves many open questions. “This bill is very much more a statement of goals,” he said.
 
Wallack said far more analysis is needed before the state can present the Legislature with a solid financial plan. The Vermont secretary of administration must present a plan for paying for the program to the Legislature by Jan. 15, 2013.
 
The state’s largest health system, Fletcher Allen Health Care, could manage just fine as a provider in the proposed system, said Melinda L. Estes, president and chief executive. However, she said, “There are a tremendous amount of unknowns from the business and employer side,” including whether the system would be exempt under the new program because it is self-insured, meaning it acts as insurer for its employees.
 
Paul Harrington, executive vice president of the Vermont Medical Society, questioned whether the state could secure the waivers necessary to assume authority for the federal programs while continuing to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies through the Affordable Care Act. His group did not take a position on the bill.
 
The bill, which passed with a final House vote of 94 to 49 after approval in the Senate, was opposed by some business groups, including the Vermont Insurance Agents Association.
 
The bill establishes a system to help people find and manage their health plans through the exchange. But Joseph Normandy, executive director of the insurance association, worries that many of his members could lose business. About one-third of his group’s 150 member agencies sell health insurance, he said.
 
“In this economy, when you outlaw health insurance agents, you eliminate jobs,” Normandy said.
 
But the plan also saw pushback from people who said it did not go far enough.
 
Without a funding plan or details about what kind of coverage the state would offer, the bill does not actually do much, said Dr. David Himmelstein, visiting professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
 
“It’s an important step, if they take the next one,” he said. “If this is all they pass then, frankly, it’s not.”
 
Chelsea Conaboy can be reached at cconaboy@boston.com.
 
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-07/news/29520685_1_single-payer-system-health-insurance-affordable-care-act/