Public Plan
-
Senate Health Bill: Less, Later, and Holy Complexity Batman (P2)
-
Senate Health Bill: Less, Later, and Holy Complexity Batman (P1)
-
Does the New Senate Health Care Bill Get the Job Done?, Pt 2
4 Potential Healthcare Roadblocks in the Senate
Published November 16, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
What can we expect on the Senate healthcare reform front this week? Besides the usual political shenanigans, I mean, like John McCain telling a bunch of his constituents to tear up their AARP cards because AARP supports the House bill (so proud to live in Arizona.) Well, here is a hint. The Senate may win one of those ‘last runner to cross the finish line’ awards, after its members take many byzantine detours along the way. After seemingly falling into a black hole last week, the Senate’s drafting and debate over its combined healthcare bill won’t be making up any time. Insiders don’t expect a test vote before Thanksgiving, making a bill before Christmas a very faint possibility. So why is that?
There are 4 big issues Harry Reid needs to negotiate around:
Lies, Damned Lies
Published November 14, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT
Many of us acknowledge that the passage of HR 3962 last Saturday was not an altogether positive thing. The bill does provide consumer protections not currently available, and will expand coverage to many currently uninsured. But it also mandates a captive market for private insurers and provides an exceptionally weak public option that’s expected to cover 2% of the population and cost more than outrageously expensive private coverage. Worst of all, Stupak's last minute amendment strikes down women’s rights as a trade-off for universal healthcare coverage. It’s ugly. Not as ugly, however, as the Republican lies that tried to defeat it.
The Dirty Little Secret of Health Care Cost Control
Published November 11, 2009 @ 02:12PM PT
The trickiest knot in health care reform isn't immigration or abortion or even a public option. It's who's going to pay for it. We've talked a-plenty about new revenue, be it the House's surtax on millionaires or the Senate's high-cost health insurance tax. But we also need money derived from the savings that can be wrung out of our bloated $2.4 trillion a year health care system (a figure that dwarfs the measly $90 billion a year we'll spend fixing it.) Half of the costs for each of the health care bills -- and more than half of what the Obama Administration has proposed throughout the year -- are recouped by policies that "bend the curve" of our accelerating health care costs. Indeed, Republicans have made bemoaning the proposed $500 billion over 10 years of cost containment provisions in Medicare into high kabuki theater. Nonetheless, we're hearing a new "conventional wisdom" that the reform plans aren't good because they don't do enough to control costs -- and some who push this thread into hyperbole by claiming there's no cost control at all.
Here's the dirty little secret of cost control at this stage of the game: most of the politicians making the claim that the reform bills don't do enough to control costs wouldn't be caught dead voting for the ideas that really will control costs!
Don't believe me? Well, let's take Mark Warner or Susan Collins or one of the other senators now looking to poke holes in a reform plan while being secretive about what their own method for controlling costs will be. Which of the following ideas would these so-called "fiscal conservatives" actually vote for?
First, there are the elements that we know with certainty that the Congressional Budget Office would score as an aggressive way to control costs. We can start with ending the program for overpaying Medicare Advantage for-profit HMOs per customer compared to traditional Medicare -- a proposal in all the bills that the CBO guarantees will cut costs but which the insurance industry and most Republicans and moderate Democrats are fighting. Or there's the "Cadillac" tax in the Senate Finance bill, itself a somewhat lame iteration of removing the tax exemption on employer-provided insurance, a guaranteed source of revenue that also exerts downwards pressure on the cost of insurance. Or how about a public option that pays Medicare-based rates, a tool that the CBO has repeatedly scored as a cost-saver and a significantly higher cost-saver than one with negotiated rates (Warner only supports the latter, Collins supports neither of the above)?
Second, you know what else would substantially save money? Having the federal government negotiate and/or set the rates for health care services. That's how every single-payer system, from Europe to Asia to Oceana, achieves the bulk of dramatic savings. That's how hybrid public-private systems like Japan have achieved such efficiency that our per-person costs are three times as much as theirs (if we waved a single-payer magic wand tomorrow and removed the administrative costs of private insurance, we'd still have 2.5 times the costs of Japan). That's even how the conservative and wholly privatized model of Switzerland operates. And I would have a heart attack and die if I saw a single centrist Senator propose it.
Finally, there are the cost control measures that will likely save money but which the Congressional Budget Office will score as netting very little savings. These are likely the proposals a Collins or a Warner will champion. But because the CBO is doubtful that they would produce guaranteed savings, we could implement them all and still be open to the charge of "This bill doesn't do enough to control costs." For example, many -- including Bob Laszewski -- are hailing the idea of either a bipartisan Congressional commission or an independent MedPAC-like board to propose and implement cost-control tools for Medicare free from the politicking of Congress. It's a good idea, but one that the CBO is not likely to score well (interestingly, because they don't think it will generate more savings that what's already included in the bills -- natch.) Investments in prevention, primary care, coordinate care, the medical home, electronic health records -- all elements that we know save money in state Medicaid programs, closed systems like the VA, and state-of-the-art high-quality health systems like the Mayo Clinic, all likely to leave the CBO unimpressed. Reducing hospital readmissions, making adjustments for productivity changes at hospitals, and allowing trimming waste, fraud and abuse? Already in the bill, chief. Tort reform? Fuggedaboutit.
I would love it if the reform bills in Congress did even more to reform the way Medicare delivers its payment systems, blazing a path for private payers to follow. Real cost containment won't come from a single bill but from creating tools that allow us to adjust and bend the curve next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. It's not that the proposals on the table do nothing -- that I fear is about to become an often-repeated lie -- and it's not like we don't know what we can do to bend costs even further. But getting these options past the so-called fiscal conservatives who should be championing them? That's the true Gordian knot.
The dirtiest secret of all is that in health care, one man's waste is another man's profit margin... and still another's campaign contribution.
(Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13061661@N08/ / CC BY-ND 2.0)
Is National Healthcare Reform Repeating Massachusetts' Mistakes?
Published November 10, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
So where are we, as a nation, on health reform? You can compare the plans currently in play in an excellent summary here. But I can sum it up in two words: Massachusetts 2.0. Remember, MA was the first state to require all residents to have health insurance, with hardship exceptions. This was coupled with an employer mandate. It now has the highest percent insured population in the country, 97.4%. It is also drowning in healthcare costs, and looking for ways to cover them. The basis of its model: expand private insurance and use public insurance as a safety net. That has a familiar homey (or should I say House-y) ring to it, doesn’t it?
Given that Obama has studiously avoided talking about, much less praising, the MA effort, it’s ironic that Congressional efforts have mirrored this universal coverage pilot so closely. For instance, MA took the Congressional approach of tackling coverage first, and costs later. Nearly five years after its inception, MA universal healthcare is encountering steep resistance to proposed measures that would bend the cost curve, like Pay For Performance programs. As a result, insurance premiums continue to rise. They are expected to go up 10% for 2010. That’s not a good omen, as both chambers of Congress rely primarily on Medicare reimbursement cuts and pilot P4P programs to achieve cost savings.
More ominous yet, doctors in MA are cherry-picking patients based on their insurance plans. In MA as everywhere else, there is a shortage of primary care physicians. When demand is greater than supply, power shifts to those who provide the service. The complexity of the insurance behemoth wasn’t addressed during the MA overhaul, and it was in fact strengthened by a coverage mandate that did nothing to decrease insurance administrative bureaucracy. So doctors continue to pay for their correspondingly large administrative staff by preferentially seeing private plan patients. Some actually refuse to see poor patients on state-subsidized public plans.
House Health Reform Passes! An Early Start to the Holiday Season
Published November 09, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
We got an early start to the holiday season during an exciting and historic weekend. Obama reminded House Democrats that they have developed more comprehensive reform than any Congress in the last 70 years, and that it was a historic opportunity to pass it. Democrats responded by passing HR 3962 by 220-215 (two more votes than necessary) and with one Republican to make it “bipartisan”. Like Thanksgiving, though, it didn’t happen without a lot of carnage beforehand. Now the rude and boorish relatives are settling in until the New Year.
First, if you missed the Republican “debate” on the bill, you can see it at the end of yesterday’s post. Apparently acting like a bullying child in response to women exercising their right to free speech is what passes for public representation now. The GOP alternative healthcare reform “plan” was just as hollow, and following an amusing rant by Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, below (“Wanna buy it? Wanna try it? Wanna sell it? Come on America, buy this one. You're guaranteed to be left behind if you're left behind today."), the House duly rejected it 176-258.
Why Do We Need a Public Option Anyway?
Published November 03, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Political games are alive and well in Washington, D.C. First the House releases HR 3962, a disappointing bill with an optimistic and completely misleading name – the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Then the GOP decides it’s an opportune time to release its own bill, which House leader John Boehner says will lower cost and expand access by “making the current system work better” with less government intrusion into the private sector. Sounds great John, only, well, there is no system … and that whole government intrusion line? Well, that brings me to my point. Why do we need a public option again?
It seems politicians on both sides of the aisle have lobbyist-induced amnesia on that aspect. Democrats hope including a public option – no matter how weak and ineffective (a more expensive alternative to private plans that covers 2% of the population? Please!) – is all it takes to please the public, even if it’s designed to fail. Meanwhile, Republicans decry government intervention and propose tweaks around the edges of our disastrous healthcare mess that conveniently avoid touching the profit-driven culprits themselves. In other words, the US has heart disease and our D.C. representatives suggest blood transfusions, an artificial knee replacement and a flu shot.
Case in point: the central aspects of the GOP bill are tort reform, insurance pools, and inter-state policy purchases. Two of the three are already in place in many states – they haven’t budged healthcare costs significantly (tort reform achieves 10% reductions in malpractice insurance, per the CBO.) Tort reform is a good idea anyway, but not for cost curve reasons. The third proposal, while useful, doesn’t help much when insurance costs are out of control nationwide.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, knows that now. The same man who touted a $5,000 insurance tax credit per family as the answer to our insurance woes now remains unemployed and his $1,000 per month COBRA is running out. He’s shopping the individual insurance market at age 51 and with a pre-existing condition that insurers cite in denying coverage. Think he’s a bit worried? All politicians should be placed in that situation; maybe they would get a clue.
Anyone familiar with T.R. Reid’s body of work on international universal healthcare systems knows that a public option isn’t a part of many of them (gives “socialized medicine” a rather hollow ring, doesn’t it?) There is a single public payer in some (Canada), multiple private insurance payers in others (Germany, Switzerland) and some countries use a combination (England.) What’s the difference then? Very simply, their ‘private insurers’ are non-profit corporations governed by iron-clad regulations: no loopholes, no kickbacks, no lobbyist favors, no profit or surplus beyond required reserves.
Why is that? Insurers are there to provide payment for the care of country residents, with no deliberate and systematized waste and no tricks. Patients are not pawns in a giant profit mill. Now, does this sound like the situation in the US? It seems like the banks and the healthcare industry own Washington, D.C. While Joe Public pays for congressional salaries and benefits (with fantastic health plan choices), lawmakers actually work for Joe Lobbyist. So whatever regulations are placed around the health insurance industry, we can rest assured they will be weak and full of holes by design.
Making sure people are covered and making sure that coverage is affordable are two different things, a distinction neither party has addressed satisfactorily. A strong public option is just one of two methods to keep private insurer prices and practices in line, regulation being the other. But if regulation is to be the answer, we need a representativectomy and a lobbyist exterminator to spray the capital. That seems unlikely. As Nancy Pelosi “mistakenly” left Kucinich’s state single payer amendment out of HR 3962 (as of scheduling this post, it hadn't been reinstated), we can’t vote with our feet by becoming interstate medical refugees. So I’m still pushing for a strong public option.
Photo http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3883236444_edbc207a32.jpg // CC BY 2.0
Understand Healthcare Reform in 2 Easy Steps
Published November 01, 2009 @ 05:00AM PT
If you’re tired of ignorant political sound bites in the healthcare debate, I have the cure. Better yet, it’s virtually free of public and private insurance discussions, with their associated pointed fingers. The film Money-Driven Medicine explores the reasons why the US spends more than twice what the next developed country does on healthcare, with terrible health outcomes. The story is told by in-the-trenches doctors, patients and their family members, a physician healthcare improvement leader, and a medical ethicist. It’s unique, highly educational and fascinating.
Join the Watch-In! for America’s Health now through November 10 for a systemic look at what’s really driving the cost and quality of our healthcare. Find out what’s compelling our healthcare spending, and why tweaking around the edges of our public health disaster won’t change a thing. In a nutshell, our country is unique in turning patients into profit centers.
Why join the Watch-In? Because Money-Driven Medicine:
“help(s) viewers distinguish between structural change and sham reform. It will convince them that a sound, sustainable medical infrastructure is crucial not just to their personal futures but to the economy and society as a whole – why curing America’s healthcare crisis could be a matter of national life and death.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Make a pledge to join the Watch-In! for America’s Health today. Of course, if you can stand more discourse on the insurance industry and public versus private insurers and providers, read and watch on.
I made the mistake of watching T.R. Reid’s special, Can We Really Fix U.S. Healthcare?, about his experience exploring international universal healthcare systems, the night before the House revealed its new bill, HR 3962. As a result, I’m feeling a bit underwhelmed by Nancy Pelosi’s hard-fought victory. The LinkTV special is a summary of Reid’s book, The Healing of America, which explores both the how and the why of these healthcare systems. It’s an excellent primer on the 4 main types of healthcare systems, distinguished by who pays for and who provides the care. Watch it and be both entertained and sobered simultaneously, when you consider how far we have to go to even catch a glimpse of the best ones on the horizon.
Reid is also the creator of PBS’ special Sick Around the World, which gives an excellent summary of 5 international universal healthcare systems. No, it’s not just theory: he took his injured shoulder around the world with him, to see how each healthcare system would treat it.
But remember, before you click over to Reid’s insurer-patient-provider view of true developed nations, join the Medicine For Profit Watch-In for a refreshing, insurance-light look at some root problems in American health "care". Thanks to Change.org member CherokeeGirl for Change, who alerted me to both very worthwhile programs.
Photo http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2689975613_187194cdaa.jpg //CC BY 2.0
