By Sarah Kliff
The New York Times, March 5, 2021

Democrats spent much of the 2020 presidential primary debating the best way to expand public health insurance. They sparred over whether to enroll everyone in public coverage — the preferred policy of Senator Bernie Sanders — or to give everyone a choice to do so, the public option plan that President Biden supports.

The candidates repeatedly proposed a future in which private insurers play a diminished role in the American health system — or no role at all.

But the first major legislation of the Biden administration, if it passes in the Senate, moves in the opposite direction: It proposes spending billions to expand private health insurance coverage to millions more Americans.

The American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package that the House passed last week, would increase government subsidies to health insurers for covering recently laid-off workers and those who purchase their own coverage.

The decision to start with subsidizing private insurance shows how it can often be the path of least resistance when legislators want to expand coverage. The changes can slot neatly into a pre-existing system, and tend to garner support from the health care sector (which benefits).

The American Rescue Plan spends $34 billion expanding the Affordable Care Act subsidies for two years. The changes would make upper-middle-income Americans newly eligible for financial help to buy plans on the Obamacare marketplaces, and would increase the subsidies already going to lower-income enrollees.

The stimulus package also subsidizes private health insurance premiums for newly unemployed workers. The legislation that the House passed would cover 85 percent of COBRA premiums through September.

These policies have moved forward easily and with little opposition.

But some progressives have questioned the decision to route patients into private health plans, which will cost the government more because of the high prices they pay for care.

“I don’t think this was the most efficient way to do this,” said Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic congresswoman from Washington State, who is the lead sponsor of the House’s Medicare for All bill. She proposed legislation that would have allowed unemployed Americans transition to Medicare rather than staying on their former employers’ plans. This did not move forward.

In recent years, Democrats have increasingly embraced the idea of a large expansion of public health benefits. The public option would give all Americans the option to sign up for a Medicare-like plan, and a “Medicare for all” program would move everyone to a government health plan.

Polling shows public support for each idea also going up, with the public option tending to rank more favorably than Medicare for all.

In coming years, Democrats will probably confront more decisions about how to expand coverage. The new Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of 2022, setting up a figurative cliff in which premiums would go back up if Congress did not act.

Democrats could use the moment to make those changes permanent, further solidifying the role of private health insurance. If enrollees find themselves satisfied with their increasingly subsidized plans — if they perceive the coverage as more affordable because the government pays a bigger share of the tab — the urgency to expand public coverage may lessen.

“It’s revealing that they’re sun-setting the expansion of subsidies, and not dealing with the longer-term challenge of how do you finance this,” Yale Professor Jacob Hacker said. “Their plan to bolster the A.C.A. is the path of least resistance, but it’s a path that only takes you so far.”

https://www.nytimes.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Where is the roar?

Our health care system is the most expensive in all the world and yet in many regards performs poorly compared to other Western nations. Many of us supported a single payer, improved Medicare for All which would have repaired most of the defects in our system.

With a new administration we should expect great strides toward a high performance system. So what are we getting? Only more of the same and with a sun-setting provision at that. Should they enact a public option it would be only one more player in our fragmented, dysfunctional system of financing health care. Most of the advantages of a single payer Medicare for All are possible only if it is a single program and the other players, including the private insurers, are eliminated.

But no. We are attempting to enact a temporary program that would leave us no better off when it is terminated. We can’t just sit around until the program goes away. And further, we can’t just passively accept the fact that private insurance is here to stay and we’ll never have health care justice. It is time that they hear us roar, loud and clear.

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

By Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
JAMA, March 2, 2021

The importance of access to health care and the financial protections that insurance should provide have never been more salient, and the potential consequences of the costs and gaps within the patchwork system in the US have never been more dire. Would the US population be better off with a simple, single-payer, uniform Medicare-for-all type of insurance plan?

Trade-offs abound in policy decisions about health insurance. Although the advantages of moving to such a single-payer plan might be appealing, there are large hidden costs that must be considered.

First, having a single health insurance plan to cover the heterogeneous US population can actually make people worse off than tailoring the generosity of benefits to different people’s needs and preferences. In work I carried out with Mark Shepard, PhD, now at the Kennedy School at Harvard University, and Jonathan Skinner, PhD, at Dartmouth College, we highlight that the costs of having a uniform public insurance benefit have increased dramatically since Medicare’s advent in 1965.

One reason for the sharp increase in the costs of having a uniform public insurance benefit is the dramatic advances in health care within the last half century, with many more intensive—and costly—treatments now available. Providing all the care that might possibly be available is a much more expensive proposition now, necessitating forgoing many other things. A second reason is the substantial growth of income inequality. A person with a high income might be willing to devote resources to expensive care of only minimal health benefit, whereas a person with a lower income may need to devote those same resources to housing or education. A third reason is that, as tax rates have risen, the economic cost of raising funds to cover public insurance programs has become much larger.

All of this means that providing the same public insurance plan to everyone would leave segments of the population worse off. This could be higher-income groups, if the public benefit is limited and they are prohibited from going around it; or lower-income groups, if the benefit is comprehensive and too few resources are left to be devoted elsewhere. An alternative that might be better for everyone would be a basic public health plan available to all coupled with increased spending on other social insurance programs for lower-income groups, with the option to augment those benefits with privately purchased wraparound plans—more like the Medicaid-for-all who want it proposal.

A second factor in evaluating the costs and benefits of having a single plan is the trade-offs that are inherent to insurance plan design. Different people value different features in their health insurance, even if the overall generosity of the plan is held constant. Of course, most would prefer lower costs and broader coverage, all else being equal. Although most want the same care but at a lower price, lower cost sharing means higher premiums, whereas narrower networks can lower premiums.

Amitabh Chandra, PhD, at the Kennedy School and the Business School at Harvard University and I explored the answers given by a nationally representative survey sample about what features in a health insurance plan were most important to those surveyed, focusing on the trade-offs among elements such as lower co-payments, more expansive networks, lower premiums, and more comprehensive coverage. People were remarkably divided in their preferences about those dimensions, and given the option, they would make different choices about their insurance coverage.

The impetus for a single-payer plan is often not only the hope of reducing costs but also the goal of expanding coverage. The same survey suggests that altruistic concern for other individuals’ access to care, encouragingly, cuts across the political aisle. Faith in whether the government or the private sector is best able to effectively provide that care is much more sharply divided.

Another potential drawback of having a single plan is that competition among plans has the potential to drive down costs and accelerate innovation. This requires true competition within the insurer market, as well as among clinicians, hospitals, and other health care facilities, which is not the case in many parts of the country. There is genuine debate to be had about the potential for the introduction of a public option to increase choice and competition to promote higher value.

The costs of a single, expansive public program point to the potential benefits of giving enrollees a choice among insurance options—free or heavily subsidized for lower-income populations—to expand coverage while allowing people to make choices that reflect their priorities and drive value. There is an example along these lines in the Medicare Advantage system already in place, and most patients enrolled in Medicaid receive their insurance through privately managed plans.

None of this is meant to say that the current system is serving the US population well now. Individuals are paying more and getting less than they should—and this is particularly true for vulnerable populations. Instead, acknowledging the societal value of expanding coverage and increasing affordability, as well as the unavoidable trade-offs involved in the design of public programs, would move the country toward implementing a fiscally sustainable, high-value public insurance safety net.

https://jamanetwork.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This article was selected because it represents the views of a respected and influential academic, Katherine Baicker, PhD, Dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. She says that there are large hidden costs in the trade-offs that we would have to accept in adopting a single payer Medicare for All program. We should try to understand what these trade-offs would be and what costs they would entail.

First she contends that covering everyone with the same plan could make them worse off because people have different needs and preferences. But that partially defeats the purpose of insurance which is to spread the risk amongst everyone (though we would add “equitably distributed”). We certainly cannot predict unknown risks in the future, and selectively covering pre-existing disorders also fails to spread the risk. Everyone should be covered for all reasonable services.

She states that the sharp increase in the costs of having a uniform public insurance benefit is due to the dramatic advances in health care, but that is not a unique feature of having a universal program. Everyone should be able to benefit from these advances, and an equitably-funded, universal risk pool makes that possible. Besides much of the increase in costs is due to price increases, and they are better contained in a public system.

She states that the substantial growth in income inequality might influence the willingness to devote resources to expensive care, suggesting that decisions would be based on the ability to pay. But a single payer system would obviate the need for such a two-tiered or multi-tiered system.

She states that higher tax rates would be needed because of the increased economic cost of raising funds to cover a public insurance program, but she doesn’t mention here the offset of a reduction in private spending. Besides, financing the system though progressive taxes is what makes the financing equitable.

She stretches logic when she says that the wealthy might be worse off if the benefits are too limited, while lower-income people might be worse off if comprehensive benefits result in fewer resources that could be devoted elsewhere. But all reasonable health care services would be covered, and the wealthy would be free to purchase whatever services are not included in the comprehensive benefit package. She suggests an alternative of establishing a basic public health plan for all with additional social insurance programs for those with low incomes and privately purchased wraparound plans for the wealthier, but this abandons the concept of single payer Medicare for All while perpetuating many of the deficiencies of the current system. (In my early novice years in health policy, I wrote a proposal for a basic public health plan with options to purchase additional coverage. Fortunately, Claudia Fegan was able to set me straight, and I got to work studying health policy, which I have continued to this day.)

She says that the hope of reducing costs while expanding coverage cuts across the political aisle, but there is a sharp divide in faith in whether the government or the private sector is best able to effectively provide that care. It is surprising to note the number of policy academics who are driven by faith in markets when the objective literature paints a clear advantage for government programs. Think of how many private insurance programs rely on public funds yet manage to divert significant amounts of these funds to their own industry. Sounds like greed-driven faith.

Confirming her belief in private markets versus the government, she touts competition of health plans, when what we need instead is cooperation within the health care delivery system. Single payer Medicare for All would promote the latter.

It is interesting that she closes by stating, “None of this is meant to say that the current system is serving the US population well now” and calls for “implementing a fiscally sustainable, high-value public insurance safety net.” Well, single payer Medicare for All would do that for everyone in a comprehensive system that we could afford as individuals and as a nation.

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

We talked to Dr. Abdul El-Sayed about M4A and building a movement in the wake of Biden’s victory.

By Natalie Shure
The Nation, March 1, 2021

Even if the near-term dream of getting a Medicare for All (M4A) champion into the White House ended with the defeat of Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2020 primary campaign, the fight to win single-payer health care financing in the United States is far from over. The House and Senate M4A bills have over 100 Democratic cosponsors, and Congress’s insurgent left flank is growing.

Nonetheless, the path forward for any robust reform is challenging. Moderate congressional Democrats opposed to M4A still outnumber those in favor of it, and President Joe Biden is on their side.

But that’s no reason to despair, argue Drs. Abdul El-Sayed and Micah Johnson in their new book Medicare for All: A Citizen’s Guide.

Natalie Shure: You’ve stressed the importance of advancing the case for Medicare for All in the context of health care policy debates that are all but imminent with a slim Democratic majority under the Biden administration. How should Medicare for All advocates orient themselves toward incremental reforms, and differentiate between those that get us closer or farther from our goals?

Abdul El-Sayed: I have a pretty simple rubric: I ask myself, (a) Does it expand health care access generally? (b) Does it do so via public means? And (c) does it reduce the power and influence of health care corporations? If the answer to all three of those things is yes, then I support it. And if the answer to any of those things is no, I’ve got to take a far closer look, but usually I don’t. So, for example, take COBRA subsidies for people who have lost their employer-sponsored insurance. In theory, it’s going to extend health care access, but it does so by feeding money into the corporate health system, and doesn’t extend the footprint of public health care. So I don’t support COBRA subsidies: I think they fuel the brokenness of a system that does not do the job it’s supposed to do, which won’t address its own failures. Compare that to something like a public option—which, don’t get me wrong, has its real issues; but if you have a truly public public option that expands the footprint of public health care, expands health care generally, and reduces the power and influence of health care corporations, then I think it’s a plan we could get behind. But here’s the thing: We cannot accept that as the answer. We can accept that as a step toward the answer. I want folks to understand the difference. You can’t try to pitch it as the be all and end all of health care reform—only as a step toward a truly universal single payer system. But I’d rather take a step forward than a step back, and I’d rather take a step forward than staying where I am.

https://www.thenation.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Incremental steps toward single payer Medicare for All reform have always been controversial. Medicare was to have been a first step toward universal health care, but, after over half a century, we still do not have universal coverage. Many hoped that the incremental changes in the Affordable Care Act would lead to universal coverage, but it has locked into place many of our profound deficiencies in health care financing and clearly needs to be replaced, rather than simply being tweaked further.

The immediate prospects for single payer reform are virtually non-existent. We have elected a president who is steadfastly opposed and is extracting from his potential cabinet members a promise not to advocate for single payer.

What do we do for the next four years? Above all, we should continue to educate and advocate for Medicare for All. Support is growing and will continue to grow as more people come to understand the imperative of the model. In the meantime, there will be opportunities for incremental advances. Incremental improvements could be beneficial, but they risk delaying the end goal of a universal single payer system because of the inertia that follows reform efforts.

It is important that any incremental measures would move us closer to the ultimate model. As Abdul El-Sayed says, interim measures should expand health care access, through a public process, while reducing the power and influence of health care corporations. Although he can support a properly designed public option, he makes clear that we cannot accept that as the answer, but only as a step toward the answer.

The question is, would it be possible to enact a public option that would be a step toward single payer? It would have to be designed much like current insurance products since the intent is that it would compete with private insurance. As an incremental step, it would have almost nothing in common with the desired end result. You couldn’t very well pay for it through equitable taxes and give it free to the recipients while others continue to purchase their insurance using premiums or forgone wage increases. We do not need another insurance product; we need single payer, improved Medicare for All.

So let’s not divert our energy toward incrementalism. We need to keep on with education, coalition activities, and grassroots efforts. Right now we need to target that toward Present Biden. If the nation demands Medicare for All, he’ll have to yield.

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

Re: Chernew M, Cooper Z, Larsen Hallock E, and Scott Morton F. “Physician Agency, Consumerism, and the Consumption of Lower-Limb MRI Scans.” Journal of Health Economics. (2021).
National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), March 2021

What This Study Found

• Patients often received their MRIs from higher-priced providers even when lower-priced options were available closer to home. On average, patients bypassed six lower-priced providers on their way to the higher-priced location.
• If patients spent no additional time traveling but selected the lowest-priced provider available, total MRI spending would be 36 percent lower. If patients extended their travel time to one hour to reach the lowest-priced provider they could cut overall MRI spending by 55 percent.
• Despite significant price variation and high cost sharing for MRIs, out-of-pocket costs had little influence on patient decisions about where to receive care. Fewer than one percent of patients used the price transparency tool to investigate MRI prices and compute their out-of-pocket costs for different providers.
• Referring physicians are the key arbiter of where patients receive care. Physicians tend to refer their patients to a very small set of imaging providers regardless of prices charged. As a result, to access lower cost providers patients must diverge from physicians’ established referral patterns.

What These Findings Mean

This analysis highlights the influence that referring physicians have over where patients receive care. Rather than price shopping for lower-limb MRI scans, patients appear to receive care at the usual locations to which their physician traditionally refers patients.

https://nihcm.org…

Journal of Health Economics: Chernew et al
https://www.sciencedirect.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

This reference is being used by NIHCM to support consumer-directed health care – having the consumer help to control health care spending by shopping for health care prices.

In this case it is shown that the patient will travel a further distance for a higher priced MRI if the physician has made the specific referral, when price shopping could save time and money.

But should price shopping really be the primary determinant in health care spending? Wouldn’t it be preferable to rely on the advice of your physician who is presumably making the referral based on quality, service, and the existence of an established, functional referral relationship?

In fact, this week I am scheduled for an MRI, and I will not be going to the closest facility, nor will I know the price that is being charged. Rather I have relied on my physician to make the right choice based on what he believes to be optimal management of my medical condition. I have no urge to price shop and then use that to override my physician’s recommendation.

If we had a single payer Medicare for All system, price would not be a consideration since it would automatically be determined by our public stewards and be set to be fair based on legitimate costs and an appropriate margin. I think the government can do a much better job of determining how we can get the best value for our $4 trillion national health expenditures than I could as a health care price shopper.

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

The Biden administration is trying to make the health care law more generous and closer to its original design, but may disappoint progressive allies hoping for more.

By Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times, February 27, 2021

Tucked inside the stimulus bill that the House passed early on Saturday are a series of provisions to make the private plans more affordable, at least in the short term.

The legislation, largely modeled after a bill passed in the House last year, would make upper-middle-income Americans newly eligible for financial help to buy plans on the Obamacare marketplaces, and would increase the subsidies already going to lower-income enrollees. The changes would last two years, cover 1.3 million more Americans and cost about $34 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republican critics of the law contend that Democrats are seeking to install long-sought permanent policies through a temporary stimulus plan.

Those close to the effort say its ambitions — and its limits — reflect the preferences of those leading the way. Mr. Biden, who was involved in the passage and rollout of Obamacare as vice president, ran on the idea of expansion, not upheaval.

But the Biden health project still faces challenges, and it may disappoint his allies. The new proposed spending, which would bring the law’s subsidies in line with early drafts of the Affordable Care Act, is temporary.

And for many Democrats, the overhauls do not go as far they had hoped.

Mr. Becerra has previously supported a single-payer system. He faced questions about his commitment to that idea from Senator Bernie Sanders, who has repeatedly introduced Medicare for All legislation, and from Republican senators who oppose the idea. In each case, he responded similarly: The Affordable Care Act is the president’s focus, and his own as well.

“I’m here at the pleasure of the president of the United States,” Mr. Becerra said. “He’s very clear where he is — he wants to build on the A.C.A. That will be my mission.”

Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic congresswoman from Washington State, who led a joint Biden-Sanders policy task force during Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign, says she is heartened by the measures the administration is taking — but concerned that the current efforts don’t yet match the promises made to progressives during the campaign.

“I believe we’re going to do so many things in this package, and I do think it’s a good package,” she said. “But I believe we haven’t done enough to help everyone who has fallen into the cracks.”

https://www.nytimes.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Once Joe Biden was assured of the Democratic nomination for president, he made it very clear that he would reject legislation for single payer Medicare for All, disappointing most progressives, and build on the Affordable Care Act instead. We should take a look at what we want out of our health care system and what some of Biden’s temporary Bandaid approaches will do as compared with single payer Medicare for All (M4A).

• We want a system that is truly universal – everybody in, nobody out. Biden’s proposal will add more participants to the current program, but still leave millions out. M4A is truly universal.
• We want a program that is affordable for each individual and for society as a whole. Biden’s plan will add significantly more spending to the program while leaving it still unaffordable for too many individuals. M4A would achieve all goals of financing reform without significantly increasing spending.
• We should end fragmentation of the financing system which results in tremendous inequities. Biden’s plan would perpetuate fragmentation. M4A would end fragmentation, creating a program that serves everyone equitably.
• Health care coverage should be stable and permanent throughout life. Biden’s proposed fixes would be temporary, many expiring in two years. It is likely that legislators would develop reform fatigue in this session and fail to followup with more permanent measures. M4A would be a single program – permanent throughout life.
• We won’t attempt to itemize the multitude of problems with employer-sponsored insurance, such as job lock, but many conservatives and progressives believe that it should be terminated. Biden would perpetuate it since it involves less government involvement – predominantly private spending with a tax benefit. M4A would end employer-sponsored insurance, and, for many, M4A would be better.
• Medicaid carries the stigma of being a welfare program which results in legislative underfunding and neglect. Biden would attempt to expand Medicaid in those states that have underutilized it. M4A would terminate the program and move everyone into a universal, comprehensive and equitable program.
• Fragmentation results in dysfunctional financing of health care. Biden would perpetuate fragmentation whereas M4A would bring an end to it.
• The U.S. system is uniquely characterized by profound administrative waste, especially by the private insurers and the administrative burden they place on the health care delivery system. Biden’s proposals would add more administrative burden along with the costs they entail. M4A is specifically designed to greatly reduce this burden and its associated costs.
• The privatization of public programs such as Medicare through Medicare Advantage and Medicaid through private managed care programs have proven to provide poor value for the taxpayer (obscured by cherry picking and lemon dropping) and should be eliminated. Biden would continue these programs, whereas M4A would eliminate them.
• Patients should have free choice of their professionals and health care institutions. Biden would continue health plans with restrictive networks that take away free choice. M4A allows choices within the entire health care delivery system.
• Facing out-of-pocket costs at the time health care is received results in impaired access to beneficial care. Biden would continue these financial barriers to care, whereas M4A would basically eliminate them.

The list is endless. As Abdul El-Sayed, M.D. and Micah Johnson, M.D. say in their book, “Medicare for All: A Citizen’s Guide,” we want universal coverage, comprehensive coverage, pricing power, administrative efficiency, progressive financing, and public accountability.

Do we want one system that works well for everyone, or do we want to continue with an overpriced, dysfunctional system that leaves so many out? When Becerra and Jayapal are reluctantly willing to yield to Biden’s wishes, for lack of an alternative that he will accept, we have a problem. President Biden needs to hear our message, loud and clear, so that he will understand that single payer Medicare for All is an imperative. No more expensive mediocrity!

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

By Jonathan Cohn
St. Martin’s Press, February 2021

Excerpts from the Conclusion – What Change Looks Like:

The next great debate over health care reform might not happen for many years. Or it might happen right away. It depends to some extent on what else is happening in politics – and how the Supreme Court rules on the new Obamacare case. But a debate will happen sooner or later, and when it does, two directions are possible.

One is to reverse course, to scale back the Affordable Care Act or eliminate it altogether. This remains the agenda of the Republicans and their allies. The idea is to cut back on the things conservatives instinctively oppose, so that taxes are lower, regulations are looser, and federal spending comes down. But for many, the objection to Obamacare also reflects a more basic rejection of universal coverage, which by definition means putting everybody into one system with a lot of redistribution – with contributions from healthy people financing the costs of the sick, and the wealthy paying extra to cover the poor.

Republicans want less of that redistribution or maybe none at all. And if they get their way someday, people who are healthy will save money, at least while they remain healthy, and people at higher incomes won’t have to pay so much in taxes. But the burden of medical expenses will shift onto those who have more health problems and those who have less money, which is what every reputable projection about every serious Republican plan of the last ten years has shown.

The alternative approach on health care is to continue the crusade for universal coverage that Democrats have been carrying on since the days of Roosevelt and Truman. It would mean finding some way to make sure everyone has insurance – as in 99 percent of the population, not just 92. It would mean improving benefits, so everyone can afford to go to the doctor, or fill a prescription, or be admitted to the hospital without having to pay big out-of-pocket costs. Today, that’s a problem for many Americans with “good” coverage. Ideally, it would also mean a simpler system, one in which patients and providers weren’t constantly fighting with insurance companies over billing and approvals, or shifting between plans and networks.

The Affordable Care Act, like the Clinton plan before it, was an attempt to achieve the liberal end of universal coverage through a more conservative scheme that relied heavily on competition among private insurers. But the intellectual foundation for that calculation seems increasingly shaky, especially when it comes to controlling the cost of care.

Even many card-carrying economists schooled in the virtues of markets and hazards of government control now wonder whether it’s time for the United States, like other developed nations, to set a global budget for health care, have the government regulate prices, or maybe do both of those things.

The version getting the most attention in American politics today is the single-payer proposal that Bernie Sanders and his followers have been promoting: Medicare for All. The reality is that any system that covers everybody with low out-of-pocket costs and some kind of government control over spending is going to look a lot more like Medicare for All then what the U.S. has now. That shouldn’t scare anybody. Medicare for All is the same basic idea Harry Truman proposed in the 1040s, and it’s in the DNA of Medicare, a program Americans cherish.

The case shouldn’t be that hard to make, given how well the best systems abroad perform. But it will require a lot more work – by wonks and operatives, officials and activists.

https://us.macmillan.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Jonathan Cohn’s new book has been receiving excellent reviews, and rightfully so. It is a well researched, meticulously accurate summary of the last ten years with the Affordable Care Act and the preceding health care reform history leading up to it.

If you are interested in history, it is great, but more importantly, if you are interested in how we got here in health care reform and where the various pathways before us lead, it is essential reading.

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

By Cheryl Clark
MedPage Today, February 19, 2021

When they made their bold announcement in mid 2018, three corporate powerhouses — Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, and JP Morgan Chase — were going to revolutionize the healthcare delivery system.

After all, they had author, innovator, and surgeon Atul Gawande, MD, at the helm.

But less than three years later, the companies acknowledged the effort known as Haven would dissolve by the end of this month.

In a nutshell, the concept was fatally flawed, (Gawande) said, in so many words.

On the good side, he said, the effort accomplished a lot. In its two and a half years of existence, Haven’s thought leaders designed a coverage model with no co-insurance, no deductibles, no cost for 60 critical drugs, and low-cost mental health services and primary care.

But the pandemic brought home a critical point. “We have an employer-based system. A job-based system is a broken system in a world where people are moving every couple of years to different roles and many, many, kinds of jobs,” he said.

“The pandemic has really brought this out in spades,” he said, as the lockdowns cost many workers their jobs, and thus the health insurance that came with them.

“The vulnerability we have of tying your healthcare to your job, that remains still a big hill to climb, and the government has to solve it. That is a public core issue that we still have not faced up to,” Gawande said.

https://www.medpagetoday.com…

Comment:

By Don McCanne

“Tying your healthcare to your job, that remains still a big hill to climb, and the government has to solve it,” so says Atul Gawande. Apparently Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon agree since they are walking away from any effort to try to revolutionize our health care system.

What is the obvious solution? A single payer model of an improved Medicare for All. These icons of corporate America know that. It’s too bad they won’t say it.

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