State's health insurance needs intensive care
State’s health insurance needs intensive care
By David Lazarus
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, August 21, 2005
The United States is spending billions of dollars a year — not including the roughly $60 billion annual tab for the war in Iraq — to fight terrorism.
We’re doing this because terrorists hurt people. The especially proficient ones kill people.
But if keeping people out of the hospital (or morgue) is a primary goal of this lavish spending, how do we explain the catastrophe that is the U. S. health care system?
An increasing number of Americans are going without health coverage as our company-sponsored insurance system continues to erode.
Those without insurance, in turn, are skipping visits to doctors and failing to take preventive measures that could keep an illness from becoming debilitating.
These are two of the findings from a report issued last week by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. It showed that the number of California adults covered by company-sponsored health plans is steadily falling.
Perhaps even more troubling, spouses and kids of California workers are increasingly losing health insurance as companies cut back on the scope of coverage.
This is California we’re talking about — the wealthiest state in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And our health care system is failing us.
“California’s problems are the problems of the nation,” said Richard Brown, director of the UCLA center and co-author of the newly released study.
“The cost of health care has continued to increase so rapidly it has outstripped by far workers’ increases in salary and the ability of employers to afford it.”
Indeed, companies that once provided health benefits as a routine matter of employee compensation are increasingly offloading costs on workers in the face of double-digit annual price increases.
Average workers, in turn, are increasingly finding it difficult to provide themselves and their families with the coverage they need to ensure well-being.
More than 6 million Californians now lack health insurance. At the national level, the number of uninsured is a staggering 45 million.
That number will only continue to climb as more companies step back from their traditional role as health-insurance provider.
Rick Wagoner, chief exec of General Motors, told shareholders earlier this summer that GM — the nation’s largest private purchaser of health insurance — will spend $5.6 billion this year on health benefits for workers and retirees.
That’s more than the company spends on steel for its vehicles, and translates to an extra cost of $1,500 for every car or truck produced.
“Our $1,500-per-unit health care expense represents a significant disadvantage versus our foreign-based competitors,” Wagoner said. “Left unaddressed, this will make a big difference in our ability to compete in investment, technology and other key contributors to our future success.”
He added: “It is crystal clear that we need to achieve a significant reduction in our health care cost disadvantage and to do so promptly.”
But how do we do that? If universal coverage for all Americans is our goal, and it must be, what’s the use of pouring more money and resources into a system that’s already out of reach of millions of people and breaking the economic backs of employers large and small?
The answer, obviously, is to admit that the employer-based insurance system that came into being during World War II is no longer capable of accommodating the nation’s health care needs.
“It’s time for employers to take a very close look at a single-payer health care system,” said state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. “They need to see that there is a way to control costs while still providing high standards of health care for everyone.”
Kuehl has introduced legislation — SB840 — that would create such a system in California. The bill was approved by the state Senate in May and is now winding its way through the Assembly.
A single-payer system essentially provides health coverage for everyone, based on taxes collected from companies and individuals. There are no extra co- pays or premiums. Anyone can receive treatment from any doctor at any hospital.
“Single-payer is a really good system,” UCLA’s Brown said. “It’s the most effective way to ensure equity and to control health care spending and costs.”
The beauty of Kuehl’s plan is that it would allow California to serve as a proving ground for the rest of the country. Single payer could be introduced and tinkered with here, then rolled out elsewhere.
Canada adopted a similar approach in gradually expanding a single-payer system to all its provinces. It started with Saskatchewan in the 1940s.
The Canadian system isn’t perfect — far from it. Long waits for treatment are a constant complaint.
Nevertheless, nearly two-thirds of Canadians surveyed still give their health care system a grade of A or B, according to poll results released last week.
When was the last time you spoke with a working man or woman who gave similarly high marks to the U.S. health insurance system?
If anything, the experiences of Canada, Britain and other developed nations that have pursued single-payer systems can show the United States both what works and what doesn’t in shaping a program to meet this country’s needs.
Whatever else, the UCLA study shows that if we don’t do something soon to remedy things, more Americans will go without coverage with each passing year.
“I think we’re finally getting to a point where a significant portion of the business community will stand up and say that it can’t take it anymore,” said Brown. “Maybe that’s when we’ll see something get done.”
David Lazarus’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also can be seen regularly on KTVU’s “Mornings on 2.” Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.