« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

September 30, 2005

Tax cuts, health spending, and reviving the economy

Medicaid Responsiveness, Health Coverage, and Economic Resilience:
A Preliminary Analysis

By Stan Dorn (The Economic and Social Research Institute), Barbara Markham Smith (Health Policy Innovation, Inc.) and Bowen Garrett (The Urban
Institute)
The Health Policy Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
September 27, 2005

With $10 billion in Medicaid spending reductions under consideration by Congress, the issue of Medicaid has returned to the forefront of the nation’s public policy debate. One recurring proposal to limit federal Medicaid spending would place firm caps on either Medicaid enrollment or federal Medicaid spending.

Such caps could dramatically restructure the program. Currently, individuals who meet their state program’s eligibility requirements are guaranteed coverage. Accordingly, when changed economic conditions increase the number of people who qualify for Medicaid, enrollment automatically rises. This capacity to expand in response to need has prevented millions of Americans from losing coverage in recent years. From 2000 to 2004, enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) fell from 63.6 percent to 59.8 percent of all U.S. residents. Many workers who lost ESI became uninsured, but others instead qualified for Medicaid. If Medicaid had not been allowed to grow, and enrollment was instead capped at 1999 levels, the number of uninsured in 2004 would have been 6 million higher - roughly 52 million, rather than the 46 million estimated by the Census Bureau several weeks ago.

If health insurance premiums continue to grow much faster than total earnings, the next few years are likely to see further declines in employer-sponsored coverage and an ongoing rise in the number of uninsured. That rise could be much steeper if national policymakers undercut Medicaid’s capacity to expand.

Medicaid’s responsiveness to changing conditions may also have important implications for the economy as a whole, not just for individuals in need. When recession hits, more households have incomes low enough to qualify for Medicaid. Because Medicaid guarantees coverage to eligible individuals, enrollment automatically rises, which increases state and federal spending. Such spending stimulates the economy, limiting further job loss and contributing to economic recovery.

http://www.jointcenter.org/publications1/publication-PDFs/MediCaidFullReport.pdf

And…

Sailing into the Perfect Storm
Uwe Reinhardt, Ph.D., Princeton University
National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting
August 19, 2005

Tax Cuts versus Added Health Spending

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were passed on the (Keynesian) argument that it would put added money into the pockets of taxpayers who would then spend more and, thus, revive the economy.

An economist would find it hard to argue with this theory. It is standard fare in macro-economic policy and it works.

That same theory, however, also predicts that added government spending - be it on health care, education, roads, or mass transit - revives the economy as well.

For example, without the rapid growth of health spending during the 1980s and the jobs it added, the Reagan recovery of that decade would not have been nearly as robust.

Every added dollar of health spending diffuses quickly throughout the entire US and, most importantly, stays at home. Hardly any of it leaks abroad.

By contrast, good parts of a major tax cut may leak abroad in the form of offshore investments or spending on consumer goods made abroad.

The construction of new hospital facilities or of new golf resorts both are scored as “investments” in the national GDP accounts.

We always pretend that building golf courses boosts the economy, while building hospitals is a drag on the economy.

Does that make sense to you?

http://www.ncsl.org/print/press/UReinhardtslides_AMSeattle05.pdf

And…

The White House
August 8, 2005

To ensure the economy remains strong, President Bush has called on Congress to act on other aspects of his agenda. His plans include making his tax cuts permanent, restraining spending by the Federal government…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html

Comment: How many times have you heard it? The only way that we can keep the economy going is to cut taxes and cut federal spending. The establishment of a commission to find $10 billion in cuts for the Medicaid program is an extension of the administration’s principle that any cut in federal spending is good for the economy.

This year, health care represents 15.6% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That’s a huge hunk of our economy.

Policies that increase the flow of funds to the health care delivery system benefit the economy, whether those are private funds funneled through private insurers or public funds funneled through public insurance programs. The primary difference is that more of the funds passing through the hands of the private insurers are diverted to administrative services. Although the funds that insurers consume also enter the economy, most of us would rather see those funds spent on health care instead of superfluous paperwork.

The lesson: Do not ever let the opponents of reform get away with stating that the taxes that would be required to pay for a national health insurance program would destroy the economy. The exact opposite is true. It’s difficult to think of a better way to nurture a healthy economy than to nuture our health care system.

September 29, 2005

Priced out of health insurance, or health care?

‘Skeletal’ benefits in doubt
Critics say cut-rate policies offer little coverage in need
By Victoria Colliver
San Francisco Chronicle
September 21, 2005

As health care costs soar, insurers are offering a growing array of low-cost policies with high deductibles and limited benefits.

Now, some public officials are questioning the value of those plans, and specifically whether they give consumers access to health care at a price they can afford.

In a hearing Tuesday in San Francisco, state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi explored the issue, gathering testimony from insurers, physician groups and hospital groups in an effort to determine whether tougher standards should be set for policies with so-called skeletal benefits.

Such plans include those with strict caps on costs for hospitalization and medical events, as well as those that offer no coverage for maternity and other conditions. Some high-deductible policies generally come with tax-deferred savings accounts that can belong either to the employer or to the employee.

“As a regulator, I am troubled to see the floor of standard benefits eroding,” said Garamendi.

Inexpensive bare-bones plans might be attractive to consumers, but “it’s all well and good until you happen to need that coverage,” Garamendi said. Such policies could lead to bankruptcies and draw younger and healthier people out of insurance risk pools, causing more comprehensive policies to become more expensive, he said.

Representatives from the insurance industry said health plans are simply responding to the marketplace by creating more-affordable policies that give consumers more control in making health care decisions.

“The concern we have is people seem to be priced out of health insurance,” said Anne Eowan, of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/21/BUGVHEQULR1.DTL&hw=garamendi&sn=001&sc=1000

Comment: Tragically, the insurers, in preventing premium increases that would price their insurance products out of the market, are pricing patients out of health care.

Why do we leave them in charge? What saving grace is there that should cause us to continue to support market competition of private insurance plans over a universal program of public social insurance?

There is a saving grace for the latter: our health.

September 28, 2005

Correlating societal health with religiosity and secularism

Note: The following Quote of the Day is highly controversial. If you are not in the mood to contemplate difficult societal issues, you may want to delete this message at this point.

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Journal of Religion & Society
Volume 7 (2005)

Abstract:

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.

Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly.

From the Introduction:

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.

Conclusion:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developing democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies.

Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

The Journal of Religion & Society is a cross-disciplinary, electronic journal published by the Rabbi Myer and Dorothy Kripke Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Creighton University.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/index.html

Comment: Many will dispute that there is a cause and effect relationship in this correlation, and some will dispute the conclusions regarding the comparisons of societal health between prosperous developed democracies. It is not the intent of this message to address these debates.

There is an important health policy lesson here. Policies that accept the status quo in health care, and depend on societal faith-based, charitable impulses to address the deficiencies, have not and never will ensure adequate access and coverage for the tens of millions of Americans currently left out. All other prosperous democracies have depended on secular government interventions and resources to ensure health security for all. The United States has no other choice than to do the same if we ever expect to realize our Samaritan values extolled by our religious leaders.

September 27, 2005

Politics of the progressive-liberal agenda - Lakoff and Dionne

The Post-Katrina Era
By George Lakoff
The Huffington Post
September 8, 2005

It is impossible for me, as it is for most Americans, to watch the horror and suffering from Hurricane Katrina and not feel physically sore, pained, bereft, empty, heart-broken. And angry.

Katrina will not go away soon, and she has the power to change America.

The cause was political through and through - a matter of values and principles. The progressive-liberal values are America’s values, and we need to go back to them.

The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.

The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.

It’s the difference between We’re-all-in-this-together and You’re-on-your-own-buddy.

It’s the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You’re only entitled to what you can afford.

It’s the difference between connection and separation.

It is this difference in moral and political philosophy that lies behind the tragedy of Katrina.

It is a truth that needs to be told starting now - over and over. There can be no delay. The Bush administration is busy framing it in it’s own way: bad things just happen, it’s no one’s fault; the federal government did the best it could - the problem was at the state and local level; we’ll rebuild and everything will be okay; the people being shipped out will have better lives elsewhere, and jobs in WalMart! Unless the real truth is told starting now, the American people will accept it for lack of an alternative.

The Democratic response so far is playing right into Bush’s framing. By delaying a response for fear it will be called “partisan,” the Democratic leadership is allowing Bush to frame the tragedy. And once it is framed, it is hard to reframe! It is time to start now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-postkatrina-era_b_7034.html

And…

Democrats In Disarray
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post
September 27, 2005

Democrats and liberals are ecstatic that President Bush has finally faced his moment of accountability. The travails of Hurricane Katrina followed a bad summer for the president and have called into question his leadership style, competence and intense partisanship.

But Democrats are less ecstatic about . . . Democrats. Over the past several weeks, it was impossible not to run into Bush critics who would shake their heads and complain: “Yes, but where are the Democrats? Who are our leaders?
What do they have to say?”

But the party’s problems are structural and can be explained by three numbers: 21, 34 and 45. According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate.

Those numbers mean that liberal-leaning Democrats are far more dependent than conservatively inclined Republicans on alliances with the political center. Democrats second-guess themselves because they have to.

Consider that in 2004 Democrat John Kerry won 85 percent of the liberal vote and defeated Bush by a healthy 54 percent to 45 percent among moderates. But Bush prevailed because he won 84 percent of a conservative vote that constitutes more than a third of the electorate.

The core difficulty for Democrats is that they must solve two problems simultaneously — and solving one problem can get in the way of solving the other. Over time Democrats need to reduce the conservative advantage over liberals in the electorate, which means the party needs to take clear stands that could detach voters from their allegiance to conservatism. For some in the party this means becoming more moderate on cultural issues such as abortion. For others it means full-throated populism to attract lower-income social conservatives. Some favor a combination of the two, while still others worry that too much populism would drive away moderate voters in the upper middle class. The debate often leads to intellectual gridlock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601462.html

Comment: Politics! Well, as far as health care reform is concerned, politics have certainly resulted in intellectual gridlock (plural is deliberate).

George Lakoff is both right and wrong. Allowing the conservatives to frame the debate on health care reform has prevented the liberals from communicating the efficiency and effectiveness of national health insurance.

On the other hand, framing the debate as “promoting the common good” versus “relying on individual discipline and initiative,” will only further solidify the liberal/conservative political polarization over health care reform. This approach to the debate can only enhance the position of the conservatives because it strengthens gridlock, ensuring a perpetual impasse on reform.

The debate does need to be reframed, but in a highly credible, non-partisan manner. We need to address the leading health care concerns of most Americans, including affordability, access, higher quality, choice, reliable coverage, and simple fairness in funding health care. Although there are many models of reform, only national health insurance can guarantee all of these. (The very few other models that might come close lose out on affordability.) These are not partisan issues. All Americans agree on them.

This reframing of the debate is not a concession to moderates. Liberals will still be promoting the common good, but they can do that better by publicly supporting these issues, rather than by shoving “Health Care is a Right!” placards into the faces of the conservatives.

There is evidence that this approach is already having a positive effect. A survey by The Pew Research Center demonstrated that 65% of Americans “favor a government guarantee of health insurance for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes.” This includes 59% of Republicans who are social conservatives and 63% of Republicans who are pro-government conservatives. Only Republican enterprisers remain opposed.

We need to reframe, but not as a Red versus Blue debate. Let’s have an all Purple debate, and we can do that without any compromise in the principles of the Blue, albeit without the support of a minority sector of the Red. That sector is hopeless anyway.

The Pew Research Center report, Beyond Red vs. Blue
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

September 26, 2005

Health insurance churning

Entrances and Exits: Health Insurance Churning, 1998-2000
By Kathryn Klein, Sherry Glied, and Danielle Ferry
The Commonwealth Fund
September 2005

Abstract:

Analysis of 1998-2000 health insurance data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey shows large numbers of people with unstable health insurance coverage.Young adults, Hispanics, people with low levels of education, those who transition into and out of poverty, and those with private non-group insurance are most likely to have unstable coverage. In addition, demographic factors and type of insurance interact to determine stability of coverage.Young adults and Hispanics with Medicaid or private insurance, for example, were relatively likely to lose their coverage. And less than half of people who transitioned into and out of low income and were initially uninsured were able to obtain coverage. Policies must target these high-risk groups in order to provide them with stable health insurance coverage.

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/klein_855_entrancesexits_ib.pdf

Comment: Numerous studies have shown that individuals with unstable, intermittent insurance coverage are exposed to the same risks as the uninsured: financial hardship, impaired health outcomes, and even death. Policies should target not only the uninsured, but the victims of insurance churning as well. Targeting policies to the latter can be difficult since these are moving targets.

Obviously insurance churning would disappear, as would the problems of the uninsured and the under-insured, if we adopted a universal, single payer system. It is astounding that we continue to reject a simple, affordable, highly effective solution, while we continue to tinker with more carefully targeted but fragmented programs that are more expensive and relatively ineffective. Whatever happened to common sense?

September 23, 2005

Beth Capell responds on the Medicaid waivers

Beth Capell, Ph.D., Policy Consultant for Health Access California, responds on the Medicaid waivers:

Don:

As bleak as your assessment is, it is not bleak enough.

In Utah as elsewhere, the cuts envisioned under the waivers approved by the Bush Administration occurred but NOT the expansions of coverage; so as bad as the original deal was, the reality is worse.

In California, for the moment, we have stopped the proposal to move seniors and persons with disabilities into mandatory Medi-Cal HMOs. This was a hard fight won in the last days of the legislative session; it may be revisited next year. California like a number of other states was held hostage for essential hospital funding.

Hurricane victims need help now, not months from now. It can take not just months but years to negotiate waivers, especially for states that have under-funded Medicaid programs to begin with.

Beth Capell, Ph.D.

September 22, 2005

Medicaid waiver extortion

Waiting for Action
Right Words but Little Practical Help for Poor
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
September 22, 2005

Medical care for the evacuees from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is urgently required. As Mark McClellan, the top federal health official in the Department of Health and Human Services (head of CMS), said last week, “The best and fastest way to provide help to evacuees is to support the state programs in place and support the local health care providers already in place, not to take time to build major new systems.”

The way to do that, he said, is to make the evacuees eligible for Medicaid for the next few months so they will know that their hospital, doctor and medication bills will be paid.

The governors, through their national association, agreed, and a measure to make all the evacuees Medicaid-eligible for the next five months (with an option for the president to extend the time) is pending before the Senate in a bill sponsored by the leaders of both parties and the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee.

But it appears that the Bush administration, rather than backing this simple and effective measure, is insisting on a slower, more cumbersome approach, requiring each state to negotiate its own waiver from the rules limiting eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

Officials at the National Governors Association, who back the bipartisan bill, said they are not clear why the administration is balking at this simple solution. McClellan told me in an interview that “we’re meeting all the needs” with the waiver approach. But with evacuees spread among all the states, it’s hard to believe that’s true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/21/AR2005092102510.html

Comment: Waivers? What is so urgent about waivers that the process of providing health care coverage for the evacuees should be delayed until waivers can be negotiated? Well, let’s take a look at these Medicaid waivers.

When the government is controlled by people who don’t believe in government, one of the first priorities is to cut wasteful spending. And what could be more “wasteful” than Medicaid, a program to fund health care for a sector without a political voice, those living in poverty?

Since its enactment almost four decades ago, the government has used a passive but highly effective mechanism of controlling Medicaid spending:
inflation. Without adequate adjustments for inflation, many providers now fund part of the care for their Medicaid patients since their overhead expenses are greater than their Medicaid reimbursement. Normally, an administration looking for methods to reduce costs in a welfare program would immediately target profits, but that is not an option since profits disappeared many years ago. So what other option might there be?

When Medicaid was established, it was recognized that the individuals living in poverty did not have affordable access to any health care services (except “county,” and anyone who was around then remembers that “county” did not equate with access). Consequently, the benefit package established by the enabling legislation was very generous, including most services that were appropriate. The budget cutters of today recognized that they could sell the concept that these benefits were more generous than what the poor folks should be “entitled” to, and thus trimming benefits became another mechanism of containing Medicaid spending. The problem is that the benefits were fixed in law, and so a waiver process had to be established in order to circumvent the requirements.

It was decided that the waiver process should be budget neutral, that Medicaid funds could be shifted to the growing numbers of low-income uninsured individuals, as long as the process did not increase total Medicaid spending. As an example, then-Governor Michael Leavitt obtained a waiver for Utah from HHS (federal Health and Human Services) that would expand coverage to more individuals, but exclude coverage for hospitalization and specialist services. Although this was disastrous for Medicaid beneficiaries, it suited the administration’s agenda so well that Michael Leavitt was appointed Secretary of HHS.

Now the administration would like to provide waivers (i.e., cut benefits) in every state. As another example, California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s administration has been negotiating a waiver in which HHS would require that California’s high-cost patients with severe chronic disabilities be moved into HMOs. Currently they are receiving as appropriate care as possible by well qualified, dedicated private sector providers who have a mission to do their best in an environment of limited financial resources. Under the waiver, these Medicaid beneficiaries would be shifted from their current continuing care, which is working for them, to HMOs, regardless of whether they’re even accessible, and which must make a profit with the paucity of Medicaid funds provided. Obviously, these unfortunate individuals would lose their essential supportive medical services. The California legislature rejected this requirement, and negotiations on waivers are currently at a realtive impasse.

So why are waivers more urgent than providing health care coverage for the victims of Katrina? Well, of course, they aren’t. But what an opportunity! Got those states right where we want them! You want us to help you pay for health care for those “underprivileged” evacuees? We have just the answer, and it is budget neutral. We’ll authorize you to quit wasting money on all of the unnecessary care for those other welfare folks so you can spend it on the evacuees.

Any after the Katrina crisis is over? Hey, you signed on to the waiver, Buddy!

"Choice" in Health Care: What Do People Really Want?

“Choice” in Health Care: What Do People Really Want?
By Jeanne M. Lambrew, Ph.D.
The Commonwealth Fund
September 2005

Abstract:

Proposals to expand the individual health insurance market and promote health savings accounts are intended to provide consumers with more “choice.” The types of choices people prefer, however, are not well understood. This analysis of survey data finds that having a choice of health care providers matters more to people than having a choice of health plans. Dissatisfaction among adults with no choice of providers was more than twice as high as among those with no choice of plan. Moreover, a large majority of Americans who have had experience with employer-based health insurance believe that employers do a good job of selecting quality plans.

Two of three preferred an employer-selected set of plans over an employer-funded account that they would use to find coverage on their own.

Thus, policymakers should be cautious about embracing the individual market and health savings accounts as a way to improve satisfaction in the system.

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/lambrew_853_choice_ib.pdf

Comment: The debate over “choice” in health care is more than a rhetorical game; it drives policy.

This survey adds to the research that confirms that patients clearly do want to have choice of their providers of care, including physicians and hospitals, and that provider choice is much more important than having choice of insurers. Yet advocates of market approaches to health care funding tout choice of health plans as if that were the only choice that consumers want, and most plans do restrict choice of providers to varying degrees.

An important finding of this study is that individuals do have confidence in plans that are selected by employers. As long the plan covers the patients’ own providers, they could care less which insurer is providing the administrative services. In contrast, if the insurer takes away patients’ choices of providers, then they are displeased with that plan. (Kaiser Permanente is not an exception because patients have selected that system as their provider.)

Recently, we’ve seen an increase in political support for providing incentives to choose products in the individual insurance market. Insurers recognize that beneficiaries do want to have greater choice of their providers. Thus we are seeing larger lists of approved providers, along with coverage for out-of-network providers, albeit with financial penalties. But this relaxation of the exclusions from provider lists may represent a Hobson’s choice.

The tradeoff for having greater choice of providers is to relinquish the financial security that insurers traditionally provided. Having a choice of a physician who you cannot afford provides less choice than the first horse at the stable door. After all, Hobson did provide a horse, but the insurers are no longer providing financial security in the event of loss.

September 21, 2005

Aetna makes it easier to buy "under-insurance"

Aetna Launches New Health Insurance Website with Online Enrollment Capability for Individuals and Their Families
Aetna Press Release
September 20, 2005

“Aetna is making it as simple as possible for individuals to choose the appropriate, affordable plans that match their health care coverage needs,” said Laurie Brubaker, Aetna’s national general manager for Individual Markets. “The website guides individuals to consider their current life stages - for example, graduating from college, getting married, raising a family, becoming a sole proprietor, being between jobs or retiring early. We know that people’s priorities change and life circumstances determine the type of health care coverage individuals need.”

“We believe we can make an impact on reducing this nation’s population of uninsured - and under-insured - people,” Brubaker added. “We have researched consumers’ needs and created a range of health plans that provide choice, simplicity and affordability. Our cost-effective plans are designed to fit a variety of personal situations.”

In addition, Aetna offers individuals and their families high-deductible health plans that are compatible with the Aetna HealthFund® HSA (health savings account) in (eleven states and D.C.). These plans offer members similar benefits to the Aetna Advantage PPO plans… paired with an HSA.

http://www.aetna.com/news/2005/pr_20050920.htm

And…

Health Products for Individuals
Aetna

Life Stages in California (as an example)

New graduate
Getting married
Raising a family
Self employed
Between jobs
Empty nest
Retiring early

Frequently Asked Questions

The Aetna Advantage plans are voluntary plans that are medically underwritten; they are not conversion plans.

http://www.aetna.com/members/individuals/

Brochure for California Aetna Advantage Plan options:
http://www.aetna.com/members/individuals/health/data/
memberbrochure_California.pdf

Comment: The trends represented by the Aetna Advantage plans portend disaster for the future of health care coverage. This discussion barely touches on some of the alarming aspects of their program.

These plans are being marketed as a mechanism of selecting out only the coverage that you believe you will need, thereby avoiding contributing to risk pools that include coverage that you believe you won’t need.

Individuals will be enticed by the lower premiums of the limited coverage they select. Since no healthy person can predict future major health care needs, those individuals who select the limited plans will find themselves financially vulnerable with a significant change in their health status.

This unpredictability is precisely why everyone needs to have comprehensive coverage through a common risk pool.

Since these plans are “voluntary plans that are medically underwritten,” they will be sold exclusively to healthy individuals. People with preexisting disorders will have to find their coverage elsewhere. In the individual market, those plans would have to charge very high premiums because they concentrate risk. In actuality, those plans have been priced out of the market, leaving these vulnerable individuals without coverage.

The state-sponsored high-risk pools have not been able to make a dent in this problem. Only nefarious insurers/policymakers would target those with the greatest needs for exclusion from coverage.

These plans for various life stages “are not conversion plans.” Simply stated, as you move from a low-risk life stage, to one with greater risks, you must again pass underwriting standards to be covered by a plan that better meets your needs. What a clever idea. Aetna has figured out a way to drop coverage of many of those individuals who do develop chronic problems.

A problem for traditional plans is that, through the years, many of their clients develop chronic problems, and that results in higher, less-competitive premiums. This life stage concept circumvents that problem. Wall Street should really like this.

One of the most serious defects is that these are being marketed as plans that provide catastrophic coverage. If you look at the brochure describing plan options, you will see that they all offer an “out-of-pocket maximum,” ranging from $5000 to $25000. So if you chose the most comprehensive coverage, your maximum out-of-pocket expense, as an individual, would be $5000 plus the premiums paid for the year, or so they would have you believe. But what is the “out-of-pocket maximum”? It is merely the deductible plus the coinsurance paid to in-network providers. It does not include deductible and coinsurance penalties for using out-of-network providers. It does not include the balance of fees and charges required by non-contracted providers, which can be in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. It does not include charges for services not covered by your individual plan, often the very coverage you declined because you wouldn’t need it. You would think that there would be regulations prohibiting insurers from using the term, “out-of-pocket maximum,” unless a full, clearly stated disclosure of the true risks were simultaneously provided.

Aetna also reveals the fallacy of the HSA plans. The high-deductible health plan that covers everything after the deductible is met is a fiction. The Aetna HealthFund® HSA plans “offer members similar benefits to the Aetna Advantage PPO plans.” Clearly, the HSA plans work only if you don’t get sick.

Under-insurance has become epidemic in America. Insured individuals are financially vulnerable in the face of significant medical need. The Aetna Advantage program represents a perverse expansion of this epidemic of under-insurance.

Aetna’s press release on the Aetna Advantage program, states that “we can make an impact on reducing this nation’s population of… under-insured people.” They could, but apparently they have no intention of doing so.

September 20, 2005

Business leaders support single-payer

Business leaders lean toward dramatic health-care changes
Friday, September 16, 2005

By Rick Haglund
Detroit Bureau
MLive.com

TRAVERSE CITY — Frustrated over seemingly never-ending hikes in health care costs, some 40 percent of Michigan business executives polled in a new survey say they support nationalized health care or a privately run, single-payer system financed by the federal government.

The poll of 350 business people, released here Thursday at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s annual Future Forum conference, found that 42 percent of those surveyed supported a national health care system. Answering a second question, 40 percent said they supported a single-payer system.

In the wide-ranging survey by pollster Steve Mitchell, business leaders also expressed a deep pessimism about the state’s business climate and Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s leadership.

Sixty-nine percent said the state’s business climate is on the wrong track, while only 43 percent approved of the job Granholm is doing.

“We have not seen numbers like this since the early 1990s,” Mitchell said.

That was a time when unemployment in the state topped 15 percent. Unemployment currently is at 6.7 percent.

But Mitchell said Granholm’s low approval rating wasn’t too surprising, given the Republican leanings of most business owners surveyed. President Bush got a 70 percent approval rating in the poll.

Also the national economy is doing well, while Michigan’s manufacturing-based economy is struggling, he said.

Granholm’s spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the governor’s 43-percent approval rating by members of a group with close ties to the state Republican Party was “just great.”

Support for universal health care among most Republican business executives was surprisingly high, even in the face of rapidly rising costs.

“This finding that four in every 10 business decision-makers are willing to look at a different way of delivering health care is something you wouldn’t have seen 10 years ago,” said Mitchell, president of Mitchell Research and Communications Inc. in East Lansing.

His poll surveyed Michigan Chamber of Commerce members from Aug. 15-Sept. 1. Of those surveyed, 72 percent represented businesses employing fewer than 50 workers; 16 percent were in manufacturing.

Rich Studley, senior vice president of government affairs at the chamber, said business owners may be looking to the federal government to provide health care because they’re frustrated that their efforts to control costs aren’t working.

And many of the chamber’s small-business members who can’t afford to provide health insurance for their workers, but who would like to, “see that goal just getting farther and farther away,” Studley said.

William Rustem, president of Public Sector Consultants Inc. in Lansing, said the apparently increasing support by business for universal health care could lead to radical reforms. Many business leaders have been reluctant to push for universal health care because the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are opposed.

“I think this is an amazing result,” Rustem said about the chamber poll. “This may be a recognition by the business community of a public will to do something about health care.”

On Wednesday, the annual Kaiser Family Foundation survey found it now costs U.S. employers an average $10,800 a year to provide health insurance for a family. That’s up 9.2 percent from 2004.

The chamber survey also found the top two problems limiting the hiring of workers in coming years are a lack of skilled applicants and the high cost of health care.

Among various state taxes, 56 percent of business decision-makers said the Single Business Tax was the most onerous.

Studley credited Granholm with proposing sweeping changes in the SBT earlier this year, even though the chamber has vehemently opposed Granholm’s plan to raise taxes on insurance companies in order to give manufacturing and research companies a break.

He criticized the Legislature for not yet passing SBT reform.

“Every day our members are making decisions about whether to stay in Michigan or leave,” Studley said. “The message we want to send to the Legislature is: For goodness sake, take action.”

Spending on biomedical and health services research

Financial Anatomy of Biomedical Research
By Hamilton Moses III, MD; E. Ray Dorsey, MD, MBA; David H. M. Matheson, JD, MBA; Samuel O. Thier, MD
JAMA
September 21, 2005

The United States spent an estimated 5.6% of its total health expenditures on biomedical research, but less than 0.1% for health services research.

Biomedical research funding increased from $37.1 billion in 1994 to $94.3 billion in 2003. Principal research sponsors in 2003 were industry (57%) and the National Institutes of Health (28%).

The federal government and foundations spent $1.4 billion on health policy research and health services research in 2002. Federal funding for health services research came primarily from the NIH ($787 million in fiscal year 2002) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ($299 million in fiscal year 2002). The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation accounted for nearly 63% of the $359 million foundations gave for health policy in 2002.

This limited investment in health services research has occurred despite growing concern about the cost (eg, double digit growth in health insurance premiums) and quality (eg, errors in medicine and failure to implement best practices) of health care in the United States.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/11/1333?etoc

Comment: Many astute observers of the health care scene are now questioning the value of much of our expensive new technological and pharmaceutical products. Although new drugs may show a slight, statistically significant superiority in clinical trials, there is genuine concern that most of these new products do not have much of an overall favorable impact on the health of the target populations, especially when compared with established, less expensive products. Also, regions which have a greater capacity for providing higher tech care have failed to demonstrate a commensurate improvement in health care outcomes (though there are isolated examples of the benefits of some interventions). The point is that our research has been targeted toward creating more profitable products rather than toward more beneficial products that provide much greater value.

In contrast, consider what improvements could be made in the overall health of our entire population if only we put in place the policies already demonstrated to be effective through health policy and health services research. The impact could be readily measured in just the number of lives saved, not to mention the reduction in human suffering. Most of these policies would cost very little and could actually result in a reduction of our global health care spending.

This is not to say that we should not be investing in biomedical research, but we should be demanding that health care consumers, who are footing the bill, receive greater value than they currently are.

Government and foundation spending in health policy and health services research has been a bargain considering the rich body of beneficial policy options that it has produced. So why aren’t we putting these policies into place?

That’s not really meant to be a rhetorical question. Perhaps we could use one more survey of the policy literature addressing this question. The political scientists could help us with the “why,” but who can help us with the “how to”?

September 19, 2005

Canadian and British researchers receive Lasker Awards

Five Pioneers Are Awarded Lasker Medical Prizes
By Lawrence K. Altman
The New York Times
September 18, 2005

The 2005 Lasker Awards for medical research are going to scientists who discovered stem cells, invented genetic fingerprinting and developed a powerful technology that played a crucial role in mapping the human genome.

The research award for stem cell work is going to Drs. Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till, emeritus professors at the University of Toronto and the Ontario Cancer Institute.

Sir Edwin Southern of the University of Oxford and Sir Alec J. Jeffreys of the University of Leicester in England received the Lasker Award for developing two powerful technologies, Southern blotting and DNA fingerprinting, that, the foundation said, “together revolutionized human genetics and forensic diagnostics.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/science/18lasker.html

Comment: In arguing against national health insurance for the United States, pro-market advocates frequently state that a government-run program, like they have in Canada and England, will suppress innovation and technological advances that are possible only in a free-market system.

This year’s Lasker awards, presented to Canadian and British researchers, certainly demonstrate that the manner of funding health care in their nations did not suppress research and innovation. In fact, their work was conducted in an environment that spends significantly less on health care than does the United States.

Probably the two greatest technological advances of the last half century are C-T scans and MRIs. Each was appropriately awarded the Nobel Prize, which were shared with British researchers. Again, the very modest funding of Great Britain’s National Health Service did not suppress their research.

One other very important point: No matter the avenue of funds flowing into health care, whether public or private, there is absolutely no way that the health care tech industries are going to simply walk away from the $1.9 trillion that we are already spending. They will continue to do everything in their power to try to get a portion of that, including innovative research and practical applications of publicly-funded research through the NIH.

Although unrelated to this message, it is imperative that we acknowledge the fifth Lasker Award mentioned in the title: “… a nonscientist, Nancy Brinker, is the winner of the Lasker Public Service Award for creating the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which has helped transform a disease once rarely mentioned in polite conversation into an international issue.”

September 17, 2005

Iraqi Constitution guarantees health insurance

Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution
(Translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press)

Chapter Two: Rights and Freedoms

Article (30): 1st - The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honourable life for the individual and the family - especially children and women - and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf

Comment: Freedom and democracy brings the right of health care to everyone.

Or does it?

September 16, 2005

Attitudes of Business Leaders Regarding Health Care Coverage

Attitudes of Business Leaders Regarding Health Care Coverage
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
September 2005

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation commissioned a survey of business owners and persons in charge of health care benefits at American businesses… to determine attitudes and trends pertaining to health care coverage issues.

Looking at trends in answers to open-ended questions

11. Respondents from smaller businesses… When asked to speculate on the one or two most important changes regarding health insurance benefits in the next five to ten years, respondents say that health care costs will continue to increase at a rate that, if not resolved, will result in too many Americans being unable to afford health care coverage. Some respondents say that this will result in the U.S. having to adopt a nationalized/socialized government health care plan to provide universal coverage to all Americans.

Differences by Company Size:

  • Smaller companies worry that they will not be able to provide health insurance to their employees in five to ten years…, and if prices do not decline, they expect to see a reduction in quality of service and an increase in the number of uninsured Americans.
  • Medium sized companies foresee small businesses not being able to provide health insurance to their employees and an increase in medium to larger companies defraying more of the cost to the employee. Some respondents expect to see a more “consumer-driven” form of health care.
  • Large businesses focus on annual increases in the costs of coverage. These respondents expect health care to become more consumer-driven through an increase in choices and flexibility, with employees selecting portions of a health plan to buy into to cover services they expect to need. They also expect to see health savings accounts become the norm. Some respondents mention that they expect the system to revert back to that of decades in the past when only medical catastrophes were covered by health insurance.

http://www.rwjf.org/files/newsroom/091405_CoverageBusinessPoll.pdf

And…

Health Premiums Rise 6.6%
By Christopher Lee
The Washington Post
September 16, 2005

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees (FEHBP - Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) will rise an average of 6.6 percent next year, the lowest increase in nine years, the Bush administration said yesterday.

The worker’s portion of the premium will rise 10.9 percent, compared with a
5.8 percent boost in the government’s portion — the disparity that rankles the union (American Federation of Government Employees).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091501560.html

Stephen Barr’s column:

OPM (Office of Personnel Management) officials said yesterday that it appears that an increasing number of enrollees have switched coverage and chosen lower-cost (FEHBP) plans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502644.html

And…

Starbucks Chairman Focuses on Health Care Expenses
By Christina Ficara
All Headline News
September 15, 2005

Howard Schultz, chairman of Starbucks, announces his plans to spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than on raw materials needed to brew its coffee.

Schultz made the announcement at a Washington, D.C. meeting with lawmakers from his home state - one of several organized by Schultz to address “a growing health care crisis.”

Shultz said he hopes congressional leaders will put the issue “at the front of their agenda.”

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000153490

Comment: It is not only business leaders that are anticipating a greater shift of health care costs to individuals; the government is leading the way by shifting more of the premium to federal employees, causing them to select lower cost plans that increase their financial exposure when accessing health care. Business leaders across the spectrum believe that this trend will accelerate.

Business leaders who really do care, such as Starbuck’s Howard Schultz, understand that it is now imperative that Congress address this issue.
Unfortunately, the RWJ survey reveals that business leaders support solutions that would reduce their costs, but at the expense of their employees who have health care needs.

Single payer isn’t even on their radar, except by default only after system collapse. If business believes that single payer would be the logical solution then, why isn’t it now? Don’t we want to avoid the pain?

September 15, 2005

Milliman and cost sharing

The Price of Illness: Cost Sharing and Health Plan Benefits
By Arthur L. Baldwin III (principal and consulting actuary, Milliman, Inc.), Marian Mulkey and Matthew Kagan
California HealthCare Foundation
September 2005

From the Conclusion:

In the individual market, trends toward products with greater cost-sharing requirements are to be expected and may be desirable, since holding down premiums may help consumers purchase and maintain coverage. They are also potentially of great concern. The natural instinct of consumers asked to choose among a range of products is to focus on the predictable, recurring expense of the premium, rather than the uncertain, intermittent out-of-pocket costs associated with serious illness or injury. As consumers struggle to find products with affordable premiums, health insurance carriers will continue to do whatever they can to control premiums, including further development of products that impose greater cost sharing at the time of service.

However, individuals’ choice of products with high levels of cost sharing can have long-term repercussions, because consumers are guaranteed coverage only in the product in which they are currently enrolled. If their health or financial situation changes, those who wish to “trade up” to more comprehensive coverage will be subject to medical underwriting and may be declined, leaving them exposed to burdensome, perhaps even financially ruinous, costs. The implications for California’s most vulnerable consumers, including the poorest and sickest, are worrisome and could ultimately prompt health insurers, purchasers, policymakers, and citizens to revisit fundamental issues of how coverage and care should be regulated, financed, and delivered.

http://www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/ThePriceofIllness
ConsumerCostSharing.pdf

Comment: “The implications… are worrisome.”

Milliman, Inc. has been a leader in providing sound though sterile business advice on health care. (Many recognize the name because of their somewhat infamous publication of suggested hospital lengths of stay, a resource used by managed care organizations to reduce the duration of hospitalizations.) It is very reassuring to see that a representative of Milliman recognizes the unfortunate human impact of current trends in health care coverage, and that fundamental reform needs to be considered.

According to a preliminary survey released this week by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, “two-thirds of the large employers surveyed said that they would shift cost to employees, which include increasing the percentage of premiums paid by the employee, as well as raising deductibles, copayments, coinsurance or out-of-pocket maximums.”
(http://www.insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_3027958)

People are already hurting and it’s getting worse. Let’s “revisit the fundamental issues” now.

September 14, 2005

Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care?

Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs
By Richard Hillestad, James Bigelow, Anthony Bower, Federico Girosi, Robin Meili, Richard Scoville and Roger Taylor
Health Affairs
September/October 2005

Abstract

To broadly examine the potential health and financial benefits of health information technology (HIT), this paper compares health care with the use of IT in other industries. It estimates potential savings and costs of widespread adoption of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, models important health and safety benefits, and concludes that effective EMR implementation and networking could eventually save more than $81 billion annually-by improving health care efficiency and safety-and that HIT-enabled prevention and management of chronic disease could eventually double those savings while increasing health and other social benefits. However, this is unlikely to be realized without related changes to the health care system.

(This report is a product of the RAND HIT Project. It benefited from the guidance of an independent Steering Committee, chaired by David Lawrence, and was sponsored by Cerner, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson and Johnson, and Xerox.)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/5/1103

And…

Hope And Hype: Predicting The Impact Of Electronic Medical Records By David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler

Abstract

The current fascination with electronic medical records (EMRs) is not new. For decades, vendors have capitalized on this enthusiasm. But hospitals and clinics have ended up with little to show for their large outlays. Indeed, computing at a typical hospital has not gotten much beyond what was available twenty-five years ago. The RAND analysis continues the tradition of hope and hype. Unfortunately, behind their impressive predictions of savings lie a disturbing array of unproven assumptions, wishful thinking, and special effects.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/5/1121

Comment: It is assumed to be a given that soon we are to have greater quality, greater efficiency, and a reduction in medical error through the fulfilled promise of an integrated information technology system using electronic medical records and computerized order entry systems. The RAND article speculates on the benefits and cost savings of that Utopian concept. The Himmelstein and Woolhandler commentary explains why this is no more than a pipedream at the present. They list many of the issues that have not been resolved.

As only one example, let’s take the issue of privacy. Supporters contend that an encrypted electronic record is more secure than a paper record in a stack file. But doesn’t that record have to be accessible? Wouldn’t a system need to be in place to allow access to records of a comatose patient who is unable to give consent? If those providing immediate care would be able to gain access, then doesn’t it seem likely that others could as well. Since the goal is a nationally integrated technology system, doesn’t that mean that some patient records would require transfer through WAN rather than LAN technology, relying on the Internet? Once that record moves into a non-secure cache on the Internet, it is there forever for all the world to see. Are we really ready for that?

Who is developing this technology and for what purpose? A hint may be found in another article in this same issue of Health Affairs, reporting on use of electronic medical records in private physician offices. These offices used systems from private vendors, a process which represents another diversion of dollars from patient care to administrative intermediaries. Perhaps more alarming was the finding that the primary “benefit” of the electronic records is that they provided a means of increasing fees by upcoding, without a commensurate increase in the quality of the services provided. Is this what this technology is all about? Making more money? Private sector development and application of information technology will always hinge on the potential prospects for increasing profit.

Pete Stark has said that the technology for electronic medical records is “free” since it has already been developed and paid for by the VA system. A system developed in the public sector is designed for the simple reason to improve the care of patients. Before we could adopt a public sector system, we would need an administration that believes the government should do what it can do better.

Although the RAND HIT report is only speculative, it does threaten us with an unintended consequence (or more likely intended, considering the sponsors of the report). The political response to the concerns about escalating health care costs have been to dodge the real issues and to turn to support of information technology as the means to reduce costs by increasing efficiency. But adding an information technology system to our current fragmented system would only increase costs, and quite significantly so. Once again, we have been conned into using their rhetorical framework to debate health care reform.

Establishing efficiency is not about adding an expensive technology that wouldn’t function well under our current system. Efficiency is about reducing the profound administrative waste by adopting a single, publicly administered insurance program. Efficiency is about budgeting capital improvements to reduce the waste of excess services that result from excess capacity. Efficiency is about negotiating fair prices so that we reduce the waste of worthless or detrimental expenditures such as the marketing excesses of the pharmaceutical firms.

In spite of the challenges, we should accelerate our efforts to develop a truly beneficial information technology system. Just imagine how well an integrated information technology system would function with an integrated health care delivery system: a single payer system.

Des Moines Register comes out for Medicare for All

Free business from health costs
By Register Editorial Board
Des Moines Register
September 9, 2005

First the bad news: Health-insurance premiums in Iowa increased an average of 12.4 percent from 2004 to 2005. Now, more bad news: Employees are paying higher premiums and deductibles. A family’s out-of-pocket maximum increased. So did the average cost for an office co-payment. So did the co-pay for prescription drugs.

The good news? Sorry, there isn’t much when it comes to the cost of health insurance.

These results are taken from the 2005 Iowa Employer Benefits Study conducted by David P. Lind and Associates and Data Point Research. More than 700 employers responded to the survey. Most reported rate increases.

When companies pay more for health insurance, employees pay more. Yet it’s hard to blame the companies. They’re simply caught in the middle of an employer-based health-care system that ties jobs to insurance. It’s the only model of its kind in the world, and it doesn’t work. It leaves businesses looking like the bad guys, when most businesses want to do right by their workers.

Consider how an employer-based system began: During World War II, wages were frozen, and labor was in short supply. Employers enticed workers with health-care benefits. What started as a job perk has become an expectation - and a huge financial burden on business. That’s bad for businesses and bad for the economy.

So what can businesses do now? Lobby Congress to shift the burden to a government-sponsored system or expand an existing government program such as Medicare, the tax-financed system of health care currently available to seniors and the disabled.

Imagine the Medicare option. Businesses could choose between keeping private-sector insurance for their employees or paying to cover them through Medicare. Employees also could pay into this system and even purchase supplemental coverage. Medicare has low administrative costs, so coverage likely would be cheaper for companies and employees.

It would be good for Medicare, too. Adding younger, healthier people and their dollars would spread the risk and minimize costs.

Good for the government. Good for workers. Good for business. That would be good news.

Doctor to talk about health care for all Ohioans proposal

By Kevin Lamb
Dayton Daily News

Dr. Johnathon Ross has worked for universal, government-paid health insurance since he worked for an HMO 20 years ago.

“I learned that all insurance companies want to insure pig iron, under water, against fire,” the Toledo internist said. “In health insurance, that means their whole idea is to avoid taking care of sick people.”
The result is a situation the Single-Payer Action Network of Ohio hopes to correct. Nearly 1 in 6 Americans is uninsured — 45.8 million including 1.3 million Ohioans — generally those with poorer health or lower income who need coverage the most.

Ross will talk about SPAN Ohio’s proposed Health Care for All Ohioans Act at 7 p.m. Monday at a free public forum at Montgomery County Democratic Party headquarters, 131 S. Wilkinson St.

The bill is unlikely to pass either house in Ohio’s legislature, so supporters hope to collect enough signatures by December to force a referendum on the November 2006 ballot.

“About nine out of every 10 people I ask are signing our petition,” said Sheila Conard, the Oakwood grandmother who immigrated from England nearly 50 years ago and chairs SPAN’s Greater Miami Valley chapter.

The bill would create a publicly administered health care fund to pay all the state’s medical bills, including dental, vision, mental health and prescriptions.

Doctors and other providers would remain private enterprises, and patients could choose them freely.

The fund would come from taxes on employers and wages — mainly 3 percent on gross business receipts, 3.85 percent on income up to $90,000 a year and additional employer and employee taxes on higher incomes. Residents would pay nothing out of pocket.

Most residents and employers pay far more for health care now, Ross said, through premiums, out-of-pocket costs and taxes for Medicaid and indigent patients’ hospital care. That’s the reason he supports a single-payer plan over other alternatives for universal coverage.

“A lot of health economists have looked at this and found this is the only way to cover everyone and save money at the same time,” he said.

The reason is that 24.1 percent of U.S. health care expenses went for administrative overhead in 2003, according to Public Citizen. Administrative costs were 6.8 percent in Canada’s single-payer system, and 2.9 percent in Medicare, the only American single-payer system.

The American Medical Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans oppose single-payer systems, although not necessarily universal coverage. The doctors’ main concern is that economic downturns would reduce taxes and therefore payments.

Insurers naturally oppose being put out of business, but they also express doubts that government can contain costs and improve quality more effectively than private insurers.

“Some powerful people don’t like what we’re doing very much,” Conard said. “But you know what? We’re not going away. There are some very determined people who want this.”

For more information about Monday’s forum, SPAN Ohio or its bill, contact Conard at 299-7536 or gmvspan@aol.com, or go online to www.spanohio.org.

Contact Kevin Lamb at 225-2129.

Health Crisis in Louisville's West End

There is a solution, experts tell forum
By Anne Braden
The Louisville Defender
(Special to The Defender)
Thursday, September 8, 2005

Millions of people across the U.S. are in poor health, and many are dying of diseases and conditions that could have been cured. Thousands of these people live in Louisville —- the largest number in the West End. This is a tragedy and it does not have to be that way.

That is the message brought to a recent community forum sponsored by the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression at its headquarters on Broadway by Dr. Adewale Troutman, director of the Louisville Metro Health Department and two other panelists.

“This is a matter of social justice and human rights,” Troutman said. “We are told that in this country we are guaranteed ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ But we can’t have any of these unless we have health care.”

There are a number of reasons why so many Americans die when they don’t have to, and the principal one is that people do not get preventive care, the panelists told the forum. “They do not go to a doctor or clinic for regular check-ups, so by the time they are diagnosed, it is too late,” said another panelist, Dr. Garrett Adams, a distinguished local physician.

And they don’t go for check-ups because they don’t have health insurance, the panelists told the forum. (A recent Census Bureau report based on Year 2000 figures, stated that 45.8 million people in the U.S, have no insurance at all, and 530,000 of them live in Kentucky, about, 85,000 of them in Louisville. And that many more are under-insured, some say as many as 80 million.)

There is an answer to this crisis, Dr. Troutman said. It’s Single-Payer National Health Insurance.

Most people —- including the people who need it most – don’t know what that term means. The name is not very descriptive.

Panelists at the forum put it simply. “It’s a system like Medicare,” said Dr. Adams “But it’s not just for people over 65, it’s for everybody, and it covers all medical conditions.”

If it’s so simple, then why don’t we have it?

Dr. Adams put that simply too. “The block is the insurance industry,” he said. “The insurance companies are parasites feeding off the medical system. They are the middle-man, and Single Payer would cut them out.” And they spend some of their huge profits, Adams said, to use their connections to mass communication systems to tell people Single Payer would be a calamity and would be bad for them.

But today there is hope that this powerful force can be overcome, said the third panelist, Kay Tillow, a coordinator of a broad local coalition, Kentuckians for Single Payer Healthcare. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has introduced a bill in Congress to implement Single Payer, HR 676. It is called the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Bill. And a mass movement in support of it is spreading like wildfire all across the country.

Dr. Troutman, who is recognized nationally as an authority on health care conditions in African American communities, also stressed the wide gap that exists between health conditions in the white and Black communities. If you are Black, statistically you are 2-1/2 times more likely than whites to die in infancy, and your life span will be 10 years shorter than that of whites. African Americans are 12 percent of the U.S. population but 27 percent of the uninsured.

The Facts & the Figures

All the panelists peppered their presentations with statistics and factual information. Dr. Adams showed slides with charts demonstrating the rising numbers of uninsured people and the growing number of administrators of health care services.

Dr. Troutman noted that much of his academic training and experience has been in research and statistics. “Anything I tell you is backed up by statistics and facts,” he said. “We do not have a health care system in the U.S. We have a fragmented program to manage sickness.”

For example, the panelists presented these facts:
• This is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a guaranteed health plan for all of its people.
• The U.S. spends an average of about $5,000 per patient on health care. Other countries, which have national health programs, spend between $2,000 and $3,000. But, according to the World Health Organization, the U.S. is 37th in the world in efficiency of health care delivery.
• 18,000 people in the U.S. die each year for lack of health insurance. That’s six times the number that were killed in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
• Between 80 and 85 percent of the people without insurance in the U.S. are employed. They just can’t afford rapidly rising insurance premiums, which have increased by double digits each year since 2001.
• Drug company profits average four times those of other Fortune 500 companies.

How It Would Work

About 35 people attended the forum. They were very diverse, racially and age-wise, and came from many sections of the community. They were full of questions to the panelists.

First of all, they wanted to know exactly how Single-Payer would work. Dr. Adams explained it, step by step. Every person in the country could apply for and receive a National Health Insurance Card. When they needed treatment or a diagnosis, of just a check-up, they would go to the doctor, clinic or hospital of their choice. That health provider would send the bill direct to a special agency created for this purpose. It would pay the bill direct to the provider. The patient would owe nothing. There would be no deductibles or co-pays.

Coverage would be comprehensive for all medically necessary care, including home health, nursing homes, dental, vision, mental health, hospitals, office visits, physicians, laboratory tests, medicines, and rehabilitation. Thus, like Medicare, the program would be “publicly funded and privately delivered.”

And where would the money to finance the program come from? From a modest payroll tax on employers and employees —- less than employers pay now to private insurers if they provide coverage to their employees, and less than employees pay private companies if they can afford insurance at all. In addition, there would be a tax on corporate profits and higher rates for people whose income is over $250,000 a year. A subsidy from the Federal Government would be much less than it now puts into health care because the huge administrative costs of private insurers would be eliminated.

But what about employees of insurance companies who would lose their jobs? The Conyers bill provides a cushion for these people, Dr. Adams said, as any humane government should, when progress inflicts suffering on some individuals. In a program something like the GI Bill after World War 11, displaced workers would be subsidized for several years while they returned to school, entered training programs to learn new skills and professions, or established diverse businesses of their own.

Countering the Arguments of Opponents

And what, members of the audience wanted to know, should they say to counter the arguments of those who say Single Payer would destroy the so-called “health system” and them?

All of this, Dr. Troutman said, is a web of myths, circulated by those who control the channels of mass communication and the economy, and it’s an old pattern. In the 1920s for example, the scare word was “Bolshevik,” and the American Medical Association turned people away from the simple reform of health clinics in poor communities by giving them that label. Later, in the mid-20th Century they called universal health care “socialized medicine,” and today, they still use that term. They also say Single Payer would lower the quality of health care, drive young people away from seeking medical careers and experienced doctors out of the country or out of the profession, would mean waits for months or even years to get service at hospitals, and would bankrupt the country.

None of this, Dr. Troutman and Dr. Adams said, is true. Single-payer is not “socialized medicine,” in which the government would run health care. Rather it is like the Canadian system in which patients choose the provider they want and a public agency pays for it —- a system that is “publicly financed but privately delivered.” The tales of long waits in Canada are greatly exaggerated, but where they happen it is because the Canadian program is under-funded. If Canada spent anywhere near as high a percentage of its Gross National Product on health care as the U.S. does, there would be no waits.

They said some high-priced specialists might flee the profession, but Cuba, which has a socialized system and has the best health delivery system in the world, according to researchers, recruits more youth into the profession than it needs and exports doctors to other health-starved countries. The volume of paperwork in Canada is much smaller than the amount required by private insurers in the U.S. And the cost to the government of a Single Payer plan would be much lower than the amount it now pays to states and health providers.

Journeys to Commitment

The recent forum was moderated by Alice Wade, Organizer/Coordinator of the Kentucky Alliance. The introduction of the panelists included brief summaries of their unique life stories, and each one opened their presentation by telling about their own journey to a commitment to Single Payer.

Dr. Troutman grew in the South Bronx when that area was predominantly African- American and in an advanced state of decay. He was the son of a single mother who worked at low-paying jobs to support her children, and he lived on the streets. Most of his close friends are now either dead (one in the East River), on drugs living the life of a dealer, or in prison. He says he often wonders why his position is totally different and concludes that it must be the work of a Divine Providence and God must have a purpose for his life. Something in Troutman turned him in the direction of service to others very early. As a student, working his way through City College of New York, he became a part of the Black Liberation Movement of the 60s in New York and organized the first Black Student Union in New York’s university system. He went on to earn a medical degree and a Master’s in both public health and Black Studies in distinguished universities. When he came out of school, he had already decided to use his education and skills to improve the lives of Black and poor people. Since then, he has held high positions in both public agencies and private health care facilities, and in research institutions and has used all of them to pursue his purpose of helping the people he left behind in poverty and isolation. (He worked with Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher on a widely-acclaimed study of the Black/white health gap and co-authored a recent highly-publicized article based on this study entitled “What If We Were Equal?”)

Since becoming Louisville Metro Health Department’s first African American director in January 2004, his primary objective has been to make that agency’s services and information more readily available to poor communities, and he has already accomplished a series of reforms. He has come to believe that real health care requires more than physical care. He said it must also address the mental, psychological and spiritual needs of people. And he believes bringing real health reform will require taking on the host of evils that plague health-starved communities —- for example, lack of jobs and educational opportunity and hopelessness.

Dr. Adams was born in Nashville and recently retired from the full-time faculty of the U of L School of Medicine where he was Chief of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Medical Director of Communicable Diseases at the Metro Health Department. He holds an M.D. and Master’s degrees in Public Health from a series of top-ranked universities. For many years, he was on the staff of Kosair Children’s Hospital and says that despite its valiant efforts to meet the needs of struggling parents and their children he saw the deterioration in health care access and delivery throughout the U.S.

He says he first heard of Single Payer insurance from a medical journal article he read when he was working at the Metro Health Department two years ago. His curiosity was aroused, and he looked at the web site of the Physicians for a National Health Program (www.PNHP.org). He endorsed the Physicians Proposal for a National Health Program, and he soon found he was not alone. He said when he signed on in August 2003, there were 8,000 doctors across the country who had done the same thing. By last January, he said, this number had increased to 13,000. The American Medical Association, which only represents 25 per cent of American physicians, still opposes Single Payer, but many primary care physicians —- frustrated by worsening life conditions in low-income communities and the inability of health care agencies to meet their needs —- are organizing rapidly everywhere for Single Payer.

Kay Tillow is a native of Western Kentucky and —- like Dr. Troutman —- came to maturity in the 1960s. She became an organizer and worked first with miners in Eastern Kentucky where the miners’ union was under massive attack, was losing members as union mines shut down and was being forced to close its network of hospitals in the mountains. Later she moved to Pittsburgh and worked many years on the staff of the union that represented hospital workers there and fought not just for their rights but also for better health care for patients. About 15 years ago, she returned to Kentucky, and began organizing hospital workers first in Western Kentucky and then in Louisville. She now serves as staff of the Nurse’s Professional Organization (NPO), the union which represents local hospital workers. It has carried on a long struggle with the Norton hospital system, and has recruited a majority of the workers in one of its hospitals. But it has been unable to get a contract because Norton has steadily refused to negotiate, despite several decisions from the National Labor Relations Board ordering it to do so.

Tillow still works as staff for NPO while she helps organize Kentuckians for Single Payer Healthcare. She says the local group is part of a burgeoning national movement to pass the Conyers bill. Fifty members of Congress have joined Conyers as co-sponsors of the bill. “But there are over 400 members, so we have a long way to go,” Tillow said. “But we are growing fast.” She said that nationally scores of religious institutions, civil-rights organizations and unions have endorsed the bill, and the local coalition is also growing. It will soon begin to work to get the state legislature to enact a Single Payer plan for Kentucky. Tillow was a key organizer of a coalition seeking a Kentucky Single Payer plan over a decade ago, and she recalled that the recently deceased Leonard Gray, who was then a state legislator, introduced a bill to enact a state plan. It did not get out of committee, but meantime the coalition supporting it did extensive research and proved that such a plan would be much less costly to the state than its current levels of subsidy to health institutions.

A Personal Experience

Dr. Troutman ended his presentation to the forum with another personal story. He said he recently had occasion to be hospitalized himself—- for a minor condition that needed official diagnosis. He said he got into a local hospital immediately and got thorough and skilled attention from doctors and staff. He said he realized this was because he is a doctor himself and has good insurance. But then he added:

“I stayed one night, they gave me one pill, did a cardiogram, stress test and one other test and three (not so good) meals.” When I left, they gave me a copy of my bill on which the balance due was zero because my insurance was paying it. When I got home and looked at it, the total was over $12,000. I thought to myself, ‘If I didn’t have insurance, what would I do?’ I would have to take bankruptcy and would probably lose my home. I realized that this is what happens to millions of people in the U.S. —- studies show that 51 percent of bankruptcies result from medical crises.”

Dr. Adams said the experience had strengthened his determination that this experience not happen to any more people in Louisville

Dr. Troutman is eager to speak to more community groups about Single Payer and the Black-white health gap. If your church or neighborhood group or union local would like to have him, call the Alliance at 778-8130 and they will tell you how to contact those responsible for his schedule. Tillow and Dr. Adams said their organizations also are eager to provide speakers.

Contact Kentuckians for Single Payer Healthcare at 459-3393, Also everyone is welcome at regular meetings of the Coalition. They meet on the third Thursday of each month, 5:30 to 7 p.m. at Central Presbyterian Church, Fourth & Kentucky.

Cheney Dropped By White House HMO

The Onion
NOTE: The Onion is a satirical newspaper.

September 7, 2005 | Issue 41•36

WASHINGTON, DC—Citing Dick Cheney’s pre-existing health conditions and his refusal to meet regularly with his primary care physician, the White House’s health-insurance provider terminated the vice president’s coverage Monday.

AmeriHealth, the parent company of the HMO serving the executive branch, issued a “termination of benefits” notice to Cheney Aug. 3. The form letter, addressed to “Member #782B-11107-3905C (Cheney, Richard Bruce),” informed the vice president that his health coverage would cease, “effective immediately.”

Speaking to reporters Monday, Cheney expressed dismay over being dropped from the HMO.

“I am a victim of a bureaucracy,” Cheney said. “This action on the part of AmeriHealth is exceedingly unfair.”

In the form letter, AmeriHealth customer-service manager Bob Kielas apologized for any inconvenience caused by the adjustment, and encouraged the vice president to contact an AmeriHealth customer-service representative to make arrangements for his final payments.

Cheney said he was on hold for “almost half an hour” during a phone call he made to AmeriHealth shortly after receiving the notice. “This is a contemptible way to treat a customer,” he said. “It’s complete bullshit, to speak frankly.”

Cheney said he was “reasonably certain” that his premiums were still being automatically deducted biweekly from his pay.

“I’m supposed to be covered,” the vice president said. “This is a nightmare.”

Those close to Cheney report that the vice president has long complained about having to see doctors within the HMO network, rather than choosing his own specialist. In 2003, Cheney wrote a letter of complaint when, instead of being admitted to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for treatment of his angina, he was directed to an HMO-approved urgent-care clinic in Clarendon, VA. According to the vice president, he sat in a crowded lobby between a mother with a colicky baby and a drunken Georgetown student with a broken nose for several hours, and both were examined before him.

Last February, Cheney received a bill for $2,000 for a coronary procedure that was only partially covered by his HMO. In a call that was recorded for quality-assurance purposes, Cheney argued for nearly 20 minutes with an associate customer-service representative identified only as “Heather.” Cheney grew progressively more belligerent on the phone, until Heather said, “Sir, if you continue to use that type of language, I will have to end this call.”

White House sources say that, while Cheney received his letter early this month, he was unaware of the cancellation on Aug. 23, when he visited the hospital following a possible heart attack and was told that he was “not in the computer.”

Although the vice president was admitted to the hospital and learned that he had only been suffering acid reflux, he received a bill Monday for $1,500.

“This is a complete and total outrage,” Cheney said. “AmeriHealth cannot possibly expect me to pay that kind of money out of pocket.”

Cheney said he is unsure what action he will take if his HMO membership is not reinstated.

“I’m still too young for Medicare, and I’ll simply run into the same pre-existing-condition clause if I purchase a health-insurance policy on my own,” Cheney said. “Sometimes I just feel hopeless. There are very few health-care options available to someone like me.”

September 13, 2005

Excess consumer demand?

Letters to Business
By Richard T. Landres, M.D., Stockton
San Francisco Chronicle
September 11, 2005

SB840, the (single payer) bill proposed by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would increase the cost of health care rather than reduce it. This is because a large portion of our health care expenditures are driven by consumer demand for services.

As a practicing physician in California for more than 30 years, it’s been my experience that patients and families usually want the very best health care (i.e, every conceivable test, whether medically necessary or not, and sometimes more than once).

Even when the diagnosis is understood and not serious, medically unnecessary tests are frequently obtained in order to reassure the patient and/or because of physicians’ malpractice liability concerns.

Ethical physicians who attempt to curtail unnecessary testing and treatment often have dissatisfied patients, who need only go to another doctor to get whatever test or treatment they desire.

Whether or not one favors a single-payer system politically, make no mistake that Sen. Kuehl’s proposed legislation — lacking as it does any provision for patient copayments or premiums or any external utilization controls — would dramatically increase health care costs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/11/BUGIPEL7TQ1.DTL&type=business

And…

Many Adults Do Not Follow Doctors’ Recommendations for Care, Survey Shows
Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report
Sep 13, 2005

More than half of U.S. adults have previously decided not to follow treatment recommendations from their physician because they considered them “unnecessary or too aggressive,” according to a Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive poll, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Poll respondents cited as the main reasons for unnecessary treatment recommendations physicians’ concerns about malpractice lawsuits (53%), physicians’ desire to earn more (45%) and physicians’ desire to meet the demands of patients (45%).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=32531

Comment: Supporters of the consumer-directed health care (CDHC) contend that health care costs are out of control because patients are demanding too much care. CDHC advocates contend that we will not control costs until we require patients to pay more out-of-pocket for all of this “unnecessary”
care.

Judging from this Harris poll, it appears that, in sharp contrast, patients believe that it is the physicians who are responsible for all of this “unnecessary” care. Would anyone suggest that physicians be required to share in the costs for all of this “unnecessary” testing and treatment that they are ordering for their patients?

Both theories are fundamentally flawed. Most health care spending is for beneficial services (though qualifications to this comment will not be addressed here). The excess spending that would be due to meeting unreasonable demands of patients would constitute only a minute fraction of overall spending. Likewise, most recommendations made by physicians are sincerely intended to benefit patients. Instituting financial penalties on either the patient demand side or the physician supply side would have only a very modest impact on overall health care spending. More importantly, the reduction in spending would reduce the amount of beneficial services provided. The savings would be very small, but the negative impact on health could be significant.

There are better methods of managing costs such as improving the primary care infrastructure, using capital budgets to ensure appropriate levels of capacity, and negotiating fair pricing of services and products.

Lets’ quit blaming the patients who demand too much care and doctors who are getting rich by providing too many services. Compared to the real problems with our health care system, these are almost phantom issues. Instead, let’s get on with fixing our system using sound theory and proven principles. We really can achieve health care justice for all, if we just get serious.

September 12, 2005

Drug Lobby Second to None

How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington
Special Report

By M. Asif Ismail

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2005 — The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent more than $800 million in federal lobbying and campaign donations at the federal and state levels in the past seven years, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found. Its lobbying operation, on which it reports spending more than $675 million, is the biggest in the nation. No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy in that period. Its combined political outlays on lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.

The drug industry’s huge investments in Washington—though meager compared to the profits they make—have paid off handsomely, resulting in a series of favorable laws on Capitol Hill and tens of billions of dollars in additional profits. [See What the Industry Got.] They have also fended off measures aimed at containing prices, like allowing importation of medicines from countries that cap prescription drug prices, which would have dented their profit margins. Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company, made a profit of $11.3 billion last year, out of sales of $51 billion.

The industry’s multi-faceted influence campaign has also led to a more industry-friendly regulatory policy at the Food and Drug Administration, the agency that approves its products for sale and most directly oversees drug makers. [See FDA: A Shell of its Former Self]

Most of the industry’s political spending paid for federal lobbying. Medicine makers hired about 3,000 lobbyists, more than a third of them former federal officials, to advance their interests before the House, the Senate, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other executive branch offices.

In 2003 alone, the industry spent nearly $116 million lobbying the government. That was the year that Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which created a taxpayer-funded prescription drug benefit for senior citizens.

That figure was not anomalous. In 2004, drug makers upped their reported expenditures on lobbyists to $123 million, a record amount for the industry. Of the 1,291 lobbyists who were listed that year as prepresenting pharmaceutical corporations and their trade groups, some 52 percent were former federal officials.

By adding the benefit to Medicare, the government program that provides health insurance to some 41 million people, the industry found a reliable purchaser for its products. Thanks to a provision in the law for which the industry lobbied, government programs like Medicare are barred from negotiating with companies for lower prices.

Critics charge that the prescription drug benefit will transfer wealth from taxpayers, who provide the funding for Medicare, to pharmaceutical firms. According to a study done in October 2003 by Boston University professors Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, 61 percent of Medicare money spent on prescription drugs will become profit for drug companies. Drug-makers will receive $139 billion in increased profits over eight years, the study predicts. The Medicare prescription drug benefit starts in 2006.

America the lucrative
The U.S. government contributes more money to the development of new drugs—in the form of tax breaks and subsidies—than any other government. Of the 20 largest pharmaceutical corporations, nine are based in the United States. Yet drugs are more expensive in the United States than in any other part of the world, and global drug companies make the bulk of their profits in the United States.

Many blame the industry’s clout in Congress and with the executive branch for the high price of drugs. While many governments worldwide have regulated drug prices, the industry has been able to block a host of measures aimed at controlling prices in the United States. In the past few years, the industry has mounted an effective, organized campaign against legalizing importation of drugs from Canada.

As the Center reported in January, the industry trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, hired a former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, and his top aide to lobby the Canadian government on the issue. The industry’s pressure may be paying off. Last week, Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh announced that his government would ban the bulk export of prescription drugs and crack down on Internet pharmacies that sell drugs to Americans.

A spokesman for PhRMA, Jeff Trewitt, told the Center in January that price controls thwart innovation and importation of drugs pose serious health risks.

The top 20 drug corporations and the industry’s two trade groups, PhRMA and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biomedicine companies, disclosed lobbying on more than 1,600 bills between 1998 and 2004. They may have lobbied on far more bills; the Center could only count bills specifically mentioned by the companies and trade groups in their filings. In many cases, lobbyists list issues, like “animal health issues,” rather than specific bills. In counting the number of bills, the Center excluded those lobbied on by BIO that relate solely to biotechnology issues, such as genetically engineered foods.

Apart from Congress, the industry lobbied an array of agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the State Department on dozens of issues. For instance, PhRMA lobbied 33 federal agencies on 39 issues separately identified under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

As the Center reported last week, the agencies include the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which shapes the country’s trade agreements with other nations. Since 1998, it has filed 59 lobbying reports concerning the USTR, more than any other lobby or interest.

In recent years, the industry has shown significant power in influencing U.S. trade policy. For example, current drafts of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement reflect PhRMA’s desire to remove price controls on drugs and provide intellectual property protection in proposed member countries. Recently, the USTR, at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry, pressured Guatemala into repealing a recently passed law permitting wider marketing of generic drugs.

The top 20 corporations and the trade groups reported spending nearly $478 million on lobbying, or nearly 70 percent of all the money the industry reported. These corporations had roughly 64 percent of the global market share, according to IMS Health, a private consulting company that studies the industry.

Congress is most frequently listed as a target of the industry’s lobbying attentions; contacts with the House or Senate are listed on about 5,500 lobby disclosure reports. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the Executive Office of the President are other agencies heavily lobbied by the industry.

Like other well connected interests in Washington, pharmaceutical firms look to former insiders to carry their message to Congress and executive branch officials. In May 2003, as the battle over the Medicare legislation was climaxing, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America, the industry trade group, hired the newly formed lobby shop of Larson Dodd, LLC to join its already formidable army of representatives swarming the hallways of Congress. The hiring of Dave Larson and Quin Dodd by PhRMA—and later by Wyeth and other drug manufactures—was in keeping with the industry’s standard operating procedure: employing former officials to lobby on bills sponsored by their ex-bosses.

Larson was a health policy advisor to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the chief sponsor of a Medicare bill that, six months later, would become law, with potentially tens of billions of dollars of windfall for the drug companies. Dodd is a former legislative director to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the fourth ranking Republican in the upper chamber.

A third of all lobbyists employed by the industry are former federal government employees, including more than 15 former Senators and more than 60 former members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The two trade groups, PhRMA and BIO, are headed by two influential former members of Congress. PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin and BIO president Jim Greenwood were on committees that regulated drug companies and they each sponsored several bills related to the industry.

The Center reviewed the 1,600 plus bills the top 20 drug corporations and PhRMA and BIO lobbied. Sponsors of more than 50 percent of those bills had one or more former staff members representing the industry. A few of the sponsors have gone on to become lobbyists themselves.

Political giving
In addition to hiring former members and their staffs, the industry has also helped keep lawmakers in office by making political contributions. Since the 1998 election cycle, employees of the pharmaceutical and health product industry, their family members and industry political action committees have given $133 million in campaign contributions to candidates running for federal and state offices, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since 2000, the top drug corporations and their employees and PhRMA gave more than $10 million to 527 organizations, tax-exempt political committees which operate in the grey area between federal and state campaign finance laws.

Nearly $87 million of the contributions went to federal politicians in campaign donations, with almost 69 percent going to Republican candidates. Top recipients of the industry’s campaign money include President George W. Bush (upwards of $1.5 million) and members who sit on committees that have jurisdiction over pharmaceutical issues.

In the states, the industry gave more than $46 million to candidates since ‘98, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics, which tracks campaign finance at the state level.

The Center could not determine the amount drug interests spent on lobbying in states because of the lack of comparable state disclosure requirements for expenditures. But their lobbying, campaign donations and grassroots efforts have taken on an added dimension because many states are threatening the industry’s high profit margins in a way the federal government and Congress have been unwilling to do.

With states running into fiscal crises, several governors and legislatures have been exploring ways to contain drug prices. Among the several options that have been considered around the country include allowing seniors and others to legally buy drugs from Canada and other countries.

Though some states have been less amenable to drug industry pressure, the drug industry hasn’t given up the fight. For Washington’s biggest spending lobby, it’s a small investment to make for its continuing prosperity.

Victoria Kreha, Alexander Cohen, Kevin Boettcher and Emily McNeill contributed to this report.

Pharmaceutical Industry Spent $800 million on Lobbying over 7 years, Report States

Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report
08 Jul 2005

The pharmaceutical industry spent $800 million on federal lobbying and campaign contributions over the last seven years, according to a report released Wednesday by the… Center for Public Integrity, Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer reports. CPI reviewed more than 5,500 lobbying disclosure reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records (Hallam, Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/7). CPI found that the industry spent $116 million on lobbying and political campaigns in 2003, when Congress approved the prescription drug benefit under Medicare that bars HHS from negotiating drug prices with the industry. The industry spent $128 million in 2004 to lobby for such measures as tax breaks as part of a corporate tax relief bill (Freking, AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/7). CPI said the industry also has lobbied to weaken FDA enforcement, strengthen patent protections and extensions and receive tax credits (CQ HealthBeat, 7/6). In addition, the report stated that the pharmaceutical industry employs 1,291 registered lobbyists — more lobbyists in Washington, D.C., than any other industry — more than half of whom were former U.S. officials (Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/7). CPI found that more than 3,000 people over the past seven years have lobbied for the industry, including 75 former lawmakers. Those lawmakers include former Sens. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), former Reps. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and Tom Foley (D-Wash.) and current Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America President Billy Tauzin (R-La.) (AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/7). According to Bloomberg/Inquirer, Tauzin was a “key architect” of the 2003 Medicare law. The report is part of CPI’s yearlong investigation of pharmaceutical industry lobbying and campaign financing. CPI last week published a report that found drug makers have spent more time attempting to influence the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office than FDA. CPI also examined the number of warning letters FDA sent to drugmakers from 1997 to 2004 and found that the number decreased by 84% from 140 to 23 (Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/7).

Reaction
Roberta Baskin, executive director for CPI, said, “It is astonishing to learn that no other interest has spent more money to sway public opinion in this time period.” Baskin added, “We are not accusing drug companies of wrongdoing; however, we do believe that such financial success deserves close scrutiny” (CQ HealthBeat, 7/6). Ken Johnson, senior vice president for PhRMA, said the report was “clearly biased and one-sided” and did not recognize that “medicines researched and developed by America’s biopharmaceutical research companies save lives and improve the quality of life for tens of millions of patients from around the world” (AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/7). Johnson added that the tax credits the industry receives do not constitute a major subsidy. Johnson said, “Today’s regulations and laws encourage companies to take risks as they pursue cutting-edge research and spend nearly $50 billion a year to develop new and better medications.” Dan Eramian — vice president for communications for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is headed by former Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) — said that “having a staff with legislative experience to understand the black box of D.C. is a good thing” (CQ HealthBeat, 7/6). The report is available online.

Medicare Law Prompts a Rush for Lobbyists

By Robert Pear
New York Times
August 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 - The new Medicare law has touched off explosive growth in lobbying by the health care industry, whose spending on advocacy here far exceeds that of consumer groups and other industries like defense and banking.

Almost every week the federal government issues new rules or guidelines to carry out the 2003 law, which provides a drug benefit starting in January. To keep track of the new rules and to decipher their meaning is a full-time job for hundreds of lawyers and lobbyists, who regularly seek changes advantageous to their clients.

With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, health care providers, insurers, drug makers and pharmacies are continually trying to influence rules for the drug benefit and other initiatives authorized by the law.

“You see a real surge in health care lobbying because that’s where the money is,” said Frederick H. Graefe, a lobbyist for hospitals and makers of medical equipment. “Twenty years ago the defense industry was dominant and had the most lobbyists, the big players. Now it’s health care.”

Last year alone, the health care industry spent $325 million - more than any other sector - in its efforts to influence Congress and federal agencies, according to Political Money Line, a nonpartisan group that studies reports filed with Congress by lobbyists and their clients.

Drug companies led the way. They reported spending $86.9 million on lobbying last year, followed by hospitals with $55 million and doctors with $35.4 million.

Lobbying Congress nowadays often means persuading lawmakers to make telephone calls to Bush administration officials on behalf of clients concerned about specific issues, like the Medicare payment for a drug or a medical device.

The pinpoint focus of much lobbying is illustrated by the case of Lexapro, an antidepressant made by Forest Laboratories. The Bush administration has said that Medicare drug plans must cover “substantially all” antidepressants, but not necessarily Lexapro, a drug widely prescribed for depression and anxiety among older adults. Claudia Schlosberg, a lawyer with Blank Rome who represents Forest Laboratories, has been pressing Medicare officials to reverse that decision and has obtained letters from several members of Congress supporting the company’s position in favor of covering Lexapro.

“Every health care interest has a voice on Capitol Hill,” said Elizabeth J. Fowler, a lawyer who recently left the Democratic staff of the Senate Finance Committee to join a consulting firm. “What you lose in the process is consumer and beneficiary voices. We heard a lot more from industry interests than from beneficiaries.”

Chris Jennings, who became a lobbyist after serving as health policy coordinator for President Bill Clinton, said: “The proliferation of health care lobbyists produces specialization. The broader good is often lost as people focus on next year’s Medicare reimbursement rate for a specific group of health care providers, or a regulation to be issued next month.”

The health care industry is subject to pervasive federal regulation, and the government sets prices for many goods and services provided to the elderly under Medicare. But the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress are receptive to advice from the industry, including private insurers who will deliver the drug benefit.

“The success of the new Medicare law depends on a robust partnership between government and the private sector,” said Stacey Hughes, a partner in the lobbying firm established by former Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma.

Health policy experts and officials said the growth of health care lobbying reflected several trends:

  • Congress earmarks more and more money each year for specific hospitals, medical schools and health care projects. Health care providers and local officials have a better chance to obtain such largess if they retain lobbyists to plump for their projects on Capitol Hill.
  • Lobbying has become more substantive. To buttress their arguments, lobbyists need data, cost estimates and economic analyses of health policy proposals. They retain expert consultants to prepare such reports.
  • Lobbyists have adopted many techniques of political campaigns. They hire pollsters and buy advertising to sway public opinion and pressure Congress.
  • Many lobbyists have carved a niche for themselves by focusing on one party, one house of Congress, one Congressional committee or a handful of influential lawmakers.

Carol A. McDaid, a health care lobbyist at Capitol Decisions, a subsidiary of the Van Scoyoc Companies, said, “It’s become so sophisticated that, in preparation for a critical vote, a big health care or pharmaceutical company will hire a different firm to lobby each key member of an important committee, like the Ways and Means Committee.”

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America reported spending $15.5 million on lobbying last year, while two of its members, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, spent $5.6 million apiece and Johnson & Johnson spent $4.5 million.

Other heavyweight lobbies included the American Medical Association, which spent $18.5 million last year, and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which spent $5.6 million, about the same amount as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

By contrast, AARP, the lobby for older Americans, spent $8 million. The American Cancer Society spent $2.6 million, the American Heart Association spent $1 million and Families USA, the liberal group that calls itself a voice for health care consumers, reported spending $40,000.

Alan B. Mertz, president of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, said the advocacy budget for his group had more than tripled, to $2.5 million this year from $750,000 in 2002. “We had to beef up our advocacy to deal with threats to our Medicare reimbursement,” Mr. Mertz said, noting that Medicare payments for laboratory tests had been frozen through 2008.

Lobbyists said it made sense for their clients to pour money into lobbying because so much money was at stake. Health care accounts for more than 15 percent of the nation’s economy, and private insurers often look to Medicare as a guide in deciding what services to cover and how much to pay.

Moreover, the federal role is growing. Medicare and Medicaid will account for 37 percent of all spending on prescription drugs next year, up from 20 percent this year, said Stephen Heffler, an economist at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Bush administration and the Congressional Budget Office say Medicare will spend more than $1 trillion on prescription drugs in the next 10 years, with outlays topping $100 billion a year after 2009.

Two linguistic changes show how health care lobbyists have emerged as a potent force. Lobbyists and trade associations, once seen as special interests, are now called “stakeholders,” with a legitimate claim to be heard in the policy-making process.

“Expanding coverage” used to mean providing health insurance to people who had none. But lobbyists now use the term in a different sense. When they speak of “coverage expansions,” they mean that Medicare should cover, or pay for, new technology like PET scans, implantable defibrillators and drug-coated stents to treat clogged arteries.

Political campaign contributions are frequently coordinated with lobbying campaigns. Lobbyists often hold fund-raisers at the request of members of Congress, as allowed by campaign finance laws. They are expected to contribute money from their own pockets and to raise money from clients.

“You increase your influence and access by doing fund-raisers,” said James C. Pyles, a lawyer and lobbyist for psychoanalysts and home care agencies. “If you’re not on the donor list, you don’t have much access.”

Ms. McDaid, who lobbies for hospitals and ambulance companies, said: “In the old days, the requests for political giving went mainly to your clients’ political action committees. Now health care lobbyists have to tithe personally. The bigger your client base, the more pressure there is to give. It’s not unusual for a lobbyist at a big firm to give $25,000 to $50,000 in personal contributions to Congressional candidates in a two-year election cycle.”

The growing prominence of health care issues on the national agenda has created an unquenchable demand for lobbyists. New issues include bioterrorism, stem cells, health information technology, the privacy of medical records, television advertising of prescription drugs and the importing of drugs from Canada.

Republicans are in demand at lobbying firms and trade associations, but so are knowledgeable Democrats.

John E. McManus, who formed his own lobbying firm after working for Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee, received a total of $620,000 last year from the American Medical Association, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and several drug companies, including Merck and Genentech. Mr. McManus can help them navigate the new Medicare law because, as a Congressional aide, he helped write it.

On the other side of the political spectrum, David H. Nexon, a health policy adviser to Senator Edward M. Kennedy for more than two decades, stepped down in February to become senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the lobby for makers of medical devices like Medtronic and Guidant.

Charles M. Brain, director of legislative affairs for President Clinton, reported that he got $240,000 last year for representing the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Stephen J. Ricchetti, deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, lobbies for Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis and Pfizer.

Richard J. Pollack, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said health lobbying had become more partisan.

“We hire Republicans to lobby Republican members of Congress and Democrats to work Democratic offices,” Mr. Pollack said.

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association has retained Mr. Jennings and Mark W. Isakowitz to lobby for legislation to increase the use of generic drugs. As a White House aide, Mr. Jennings helped devise the Clinton plan for universal health insurance. As a lobbyist at the National Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Isakowitz, a Republican, helped defeat the Clinton plan.

As the costs of Medicare and Medicaid soar, federal prosecutors and members of Congress are investigating fraud and abuse with new zeal. Many health care companies find they need more lawyers and lobbyists to cope.

In a recent advertisement recruiting lawyers for its Washington office, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, one of the nation’s largest law firms, said its health care practice had “experienced tremendous growth.”

Medicare PPOs' gain is taxpayers' loss

Defective Design: Regional Competition In Medicare An inconsistent approach to regional competition in the Medicare Modernization Act will be very costly for taxpayers.
by Steven D. Pizer, Roger Feldman, and Austin B. Frakt
Health Affairs
August 23, 2005

Abstract:

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 creates several new types of private insurance plans in Medicare. The most familiar of these is the preferred provider organization (PPO). Uneven application of regional bidding requirements will place new PPOs at a competitive disadvantage relative to established health maintenance organizations (HMOs). A little-noticed section of the regulations implementing MMA offsets this disadvantage and gives PPOs a strong incentive to bid in some regions, but costs to the taxpayer will be high: up to $60 billion over ten years.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.w5.399

Comment: We have been sold the concept that Medicare can improve quality and reduce costs only by introducing private plans that compete in the marketplace, competing with each other and with the traditional Medicare program. Is that really true?

Competing health plans under the Medicare + Choice program were not able to reduce costs. In fact, when it was recognized that costs were actually higher, rate increases were reduced and many plans fled the market, even though they were still receiving more funds than were paid for comparable services under the traditional program.

You would think that this failed experiment would have been enough. But no. Congress then established the Medicare Advantage program, specifically designed to be certain that PPOs would enter the private Medicare market. To ensure that private plans would be successful, Congress provided extra funds for the plans, estimated by some to be as much as 119% of the amount paid for comparable services in the traditional Medicare program.

Now we see that this was still not enough. Since it was clear that PPOs would not be able to compete with HMOs in some regions, rules were established that could result in giving PPOs an additional $60 billion in incentives to cover regions not served by HMOs.

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to ask how paying more money reduces costs? Shouldn’t we ask for an explanation of how providing extra funds to private plans creates a level playing field for competition with the traditional Medicare program?

Maybe Congress had something else in mind. Maybe they wanted to see private plans thrive, and they knew that they could not without trumping marketplace dynamics by artificially infusing extra funds into the private element of the competing programs.

Why would Congress and the administration go to such an effort and expense to support private plans? We think we know. Once such plans are commonplace, then Congress can begin a process of neglect by design, transforming the traditional Medicare program into a severely underfunded program that will satisfy no one, patients and providers alike. Once private plans predominate, the process of shifting costs to the Medicare beneficiaries through innovative product design can be accelerated. The ultimate goal is to shift the responsibility for funding health care away from the tax system and back to the individual.

Once again we’ve fallen into the trap of letting the opponents of government frame the debate. They would have us believe that only marketplace competition can improve quality and reduce costs, but by their own deliberate interference in the marketplace, they have shown us that they know that the market didn’t work.

Advocates of market competition will tell us that monopolies (single sellers) and monopsonies (single buyers) can destroy market competition by gaining exclusive control of the market. That is true, but does that mean that we would automatically receive lower quality health care at a higher cost?

Suppose that the monopsony were our own public, single payer insurance system. Wouldn’t we be in a position to demand higher quality health care than we are currently receiving? And wouldn’t we be in a position to demand fair pricing of services so that we would receive appropriate value for our health care investment?

Let’s no longer participate in the debate on health care reform as they have framed it: the failed model of market competition between health plans. Let’s move on to our framing of the debate: a single payer monopsony that provides higher quality at fair prices.

September 11, 2005

President Bush on 9/11

The White House
September 10, 2005
President’s Radio Address

On Sunday, our nation will observe the fourth anniversary of the September the 11th terrorist attacks. Every American has memories of that day that will never leave them. We remember the images of fire and terror at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania, and in the heart of New York City.

We remember the ruthlessness of those who murdered the innocent and took joy in their suffering. We remember the courage of the police and firefighters and rescue personnel who rushed into burning buildings to save lives, knowing they might never emerge. And we remember the victims — moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives — and the loved ones they left behind.

As night fell on America on September the 11th, 2001, we felt grief and great sorrow. Yet we also saw that, while the terrorists could kill the innocent, they could not defeat the spirit of our nation. The despair and tragedy of that day were overcome by displays of selflessness, courage and compassion.

Today, America is confronting another disaster that has caused destruction and loss of life. This time the devastation resulted not from the malice of evil men, but from the fury of water and wind.

Our greatest resource in such times is the compassionate character of the American people, because even the most destructive storm cannot weaken the heart and soul of our nation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050910.html

Comment: Today we all mourn the terrible tragic loss of 3000 lives on 9/11/01. Mere words cannot express our thoughts…

In the two months following 9/11/01, another 3000 American lives were lost… merely due to the delay in access to health care because of lack of health insurance. A few of us also mourn that tragic loss… and the loss of another 3000 lives the following two months… and another 3000 the two months after that… and… and…

Since 9/11/01, twenty-four times we have duplicated the tragic loss of 3000 lives.

Is the “compassionate character of the American people” solely dependent on television images from CNN or Fox News? Does “the heart and soul of our nation” really require electronic cable feed for sustenance?

September 09, 2005

Should a city council set health policy?

Hospitals defeated in bid to block rival
By Darrell R. Santschi
The Press-Enterprise
September 7, 2005

More than a month into one of the most bitterly divisive public debates in Loma Linda’s 35-year history, three City Council members voted Tuesday night to issue a permit to build a specialty hospital here.

In so doing, Mayor Floyd Petersen and Councilmen Charles Umeda and Robert Christman rejected a consortium of area community hospitals’ argument that it was up to the city to prevent the specialty hospital from “cherry picking” patients for lucrative surgical procedures, which the hospitals say will jeopardize their emergency and indigent care.

The 28-bed California Heart and Surgical Hospital is to be built at the northeast corner of Barton Road and New Jersey Street, not far from two of the proposal’s biggest detractors: Redlands Community Hospital and Loma Linda University Medical Center.

In the end, the three council members said they didn’t see it as their responsibility to settle issues that they say the state and federal governments should be addressing.

At the Aug. 23 hearing, Dr. William Plested, president-elect of the American Medical Association, contended that specialty hospitals force nonprofit general hospitals to innovate.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/
PE_News_Local_C_hospital07.13717ca7.html

Comment: Just imagine that the $1.9 trillion that we are already spending on health care was in a single, taxpayer-funded pool. That’s not a far reach of imagination since 60% of that spending is already through the tax system.
As taxpayers, what would we want the stewards of our health care system to do in this situation?

Would we want our cardiac surgery services for our community to be delivered in a full-service, tertiary-level, not-for-profit Center of Excellence, or would we want to have our cardiac surgery done in a limited facility, devoid of other hospital support services, and managed with the primary intent of maximizing profit for passive investors?

What about joint replacement? If something went wrong, perhaps resulting in renal shutdown, does it seem reasonable that you would have to be transferred, while critically ill, to a real, full-service hospital, one with a renal team that could better manage your complication?

We would never allow our public funds to be placed in the hands of special interests more concerned about profit than the public good. We would demand regional planning to enable optimal use of our finite resources. What is ironic is that we are not already making this demand, but that has more to do with our current, inefficient, fragmented system of funding care. There are far better systems that would greatly improve our resource allocation; single payer certainly comes to mind.

AMA president-elect William Plested, himself a cardiovascular surgeon, seems to suggest that the technological innovations developed in our academic medical centers could continue to take place only if dollars are drained from our system to support highly profitable, private, special interests, competing in the marketplace, entities that are relieved of any obligation to provide emergency, indigent or other money-losing services. What nonsense.

Once again, the AMA demonstrates that we should not look to it for leadership in solving the problems of our health care crisis. The PNHP voice is needed now, more than ever.

September 08, 2005

Garamendi's "Priced Out"

Priced Out
Health Care in California
2005
John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner

Table of Contents

Chapter 1
The State of California Health Care:

  • The National Context
  • Crisis in Health Insurance: Skyrocketing Health Insurance Premiums
  • Crisis in Health Insurance: Paying More for Reduced Coverage
  • Health Costs and the Economy
  • Crisis in Health Insurance: Growing Uninsured Overall, Greater Reliance on Public Safety Net
  • What Happens to the Uninsured?
  • Health Status is Declining in California
  • California Faces Unique Challenges in Public Health Care Funding Including Lack of Federal Support
  • Health Care Quality and Cost Containment

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/PRS/PRS2005/priced-out-health-care-in-california.pdf

Comment: This certainly is not an exciting or provocative quote. So why was it selected?

The first chapter of “Priced Out” describes the health care problems in California, but in a national context. With over 12% of the nation’s population, California exemplifies the national problems and our failures to address them.

This first chapter serves as an excellent, stand-alone report of the some of the more important deficiencies of our entire health care system. We cannot hope for reasonable solutions unless we understand the problems. This report provides a foundation for that understanding. You should consider downloading the first chapter (if not the entire report) for use in your activism for reform.

The report is peppered with specific recommendations that some might describe as incremental tweaking of the system. They should not be lightly dismissed since many of the recommendations would be of value in a universal system of funding health care.

Although some might be distracted by these specifics, Garamendi does list his overriding health care principles. His first principle: “Universal health care coverage is the only real answer.”

The first chapter makes it very clear that the complexities of our dysfunctional system cannot be adequately addressed by simple measures that merely tweak the system, as important as they are. Thorough restructuring of the way that we fund health care will be required to achieve equitable, affordable, comprehensive health care for everyone.

NMA Aids Hurricane Katrina Victims

September 7, 2005

Dear Colleague:

As African American physicians who live and work in the affected communities hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina, the nation is turning to us for guidance and support as the recovery continues. We are actively involved in the evolving participation of the NMA in this ongoing relief effort. By extension, this is an American crisis, and the NMA is addressing it as such.

To date, the NMA has several physicians: Drs. Rahn Bailey of Houston; Leonard Weather of New Orleans currently residing in Shreveport, LA; Roosevelt McCorvey of Montgomery, Alabama; Reginald Rigsby of Madison, Mississippi; Claudette Shepard of Memphis, Tennessee; Niva Lubin Johnson of Chicago, Illinois; Walter Faggett, D.C. Department of Health, Washington, DC; Ingrid Taylor of St. Louis, Missouri; Christopher Ervin of Atlanta, Georgia; and Wilma Wooten of San Diego, California among others who are serving as points of contact in these affected areas.

We are in the process of updating the NMA’s website www.nmanet.org with the latest information regarding our efforts. This portal, we hope, will become your destination of choice in the coming weeks. We will include relevant contact and resource information, as well as opportunities for volunteering and collaboration. Inquiries about NMA members’ involvement in this effort should be directed to our Membership department at (202) 347-1895 ext. 220 or to jwilson@nmanet.org. Media-related inquiries and suggestions should be directed to External Affairs, at (202) 347-1895, ext. 262 or to rstone@nmanet.org.

Finally, we are anxious to receive your feedback about how well the process is working and how we can improve. Please let us hear from you. We can be reached at 800-662-0554 and/or visit www.nmanet.org for regular updates of the hurricane relief efforts.

Below are updates from Dr. Bailey regarding his recent findings, experiences and needs in caring for the evacuees in Houston, TX. We appreciate his efforts and we will keep you apprised of the latest developments.

Sincerely,
Sandra L. Gadson, M.D.
President

September 2, 2005

Dear Fellow NMA members,

Many thanks for your phone calls and emails. I am honored to take lead role on coordinating efforts by way of a medical team of physicians to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina not only in the Houston, Texas area but all across the United States. We are very concerned with the growing and compounding health issues not only in New Orleans and surrounding areas and states but for those victims transported to the Houston Area. The NMA is encouraging all members to please volunteer your time and give to the charities to help aid this national disaster. Taking lead role in combining our efforts to assist, I’m asking each of you to give of your time (1-2 weeks) working onsite at the Astrodome and shelters throughout the city. We are asking for all types of physicians. If you are not licensed in the State of Texas, you can contact the Harris County Medical Society at (713) 524-4267 or website www.hcms.org. The website gives information on how to obtain a provisional license as well as list information on insurance coverage for those with concerns on protection of malpractice lawsuits. The reason for the 45 day temporary license was intended for Louisiana (or Mississippi) physicians) to come over and care for their own patients. Other uses of that provision are being discouraged unfortunately. For MDs inside of Texas though, they can contact the TMA at 800-880-1300 and speak with Gayle Love.

For more information on insurance needs, you can call Texas Department of Insurance at (800) 252-3439 or visit their website at www.tdi.state.tx.us. Please assist by way of contacting any physicians you may know to help us in our joint efforts to better serve the Hurricane Katrina victims. They may contact me, my coordinator or any of the agencies that will be listed at the end of this letter. Your assistance doesn’t stop with aid by way of food, shelter, clothing, etc. We encourage each of you to speak with your pharmaceutical contacts regarding donating medical supplies and medicines. In your efforts to ask for donations by colleagues and pharmaceutical contacts, we must get a political response via our most powerful tool, which is our voice. We need all the states across the US to be challenged to adopt families. The City of Detroit adopted 500 families for which they are providing total support. All states must ban together and assist the multitude of displaced families. Also, we need to get our voice out to all African American radio and television stations and newspapers both local and national to become our media vehicle and aid our efforts to magnify the overall adversities and needs of African American victims.

It is my goal to send updated emails periodically of the NMA efforts to aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina who are being housed in the Astrodome, Reliant Arena, and soon at the George R. Brown Convention Center as well as surrounding Red Cross agencies and shelters in Fort Bend, Baytown, and throughout the Houston area.

Our strong commitment to assist African American patients and support of our medical students exemplify the integrity for which the NMA was founded. The National Medical Association (NMA) was established in 1895 to address the specific needs of a culturally diverse population. We represent over 25,000 minority physicians in 24 specialty medical disciplines. The National Medical Association’s Scientific Assembly is acclaimed as the nation’s foremost forum on medical science and African American health.

Given all the devastation, we cannot forget our future medical students who were displaced from all the schools in New Orleans and surrounding areas with regards to books, tuition, and other college expenses that was once covered by scholarships that are now questionable. As Section Chair of Psychiatry, I have proposed that our physicians adopt a medical student. We must not let our future medical students have interrupted education or financial difficulties. Some of the students displaced from Xavier, Tulane, Loyola and other area medical schools within the New Orleans area have lost everything. Some students are not from Louisiana and were recruited and supported by school scholarships and mentor programs. Their backgrounds are diverse and families are poor and/or unable to help them with their medical education and needs.

I’m sure many of you have watched the news channels and are inundated with information of donations, relief efforts, horrific and touching rescue scenes and much more. My NMA Psychiatry Coordinator and Executive Assistant noted that her company and many other companies within the Houston area have donated amounts of $2 million and more to the Red Cross and other charities. Many Houstonians are opening their homes to assist. The last news broadcast mentioned that over 100,000 people from New Orleans have come to the Houston area. The City of Houston and other local area towns have tried their best to accommodate and are doing an outstanding job but we are not equipped to handle this multitude of victims for an extended period of time. As members of the NMA, we must meet our responsibilities as a medical organization in a medical crisis.

Many contribution websites are listed on the NMA website www.nmanet.org. I’ve listed more local websites below:

American Red Cross: www.redcross.org.
Houston Local Number: 713-313-5480

Salvation Army: www.salvationarmyusa.org
800-435-7669 (800 HELP NOW)

Texas Southern University (Admitting displaced students)
713-313-1059/713-313-7071

Houston Independent School District (For evacuee students)
713-892-6699

Texas A&M Galveston: 409-740-4448 or 877-322-4443

Harris County Housing Resource: 713-578-2055

FEMA: www.fema.gov
800-621-FEMA
Volunteer Houston: 713-965-0031

Employment for Evacuees: 1-888-469-5627

Food Stamps: 800-500-4266
(Displaced Families can get assistance in Houston area)

WIC: 800-942-3678

Sources for homes that are available: www.nola.com

To open your home to evacuees: www.openyourhome.com

Local news: www.abc13.com and www.click2Houston.com, www.KHOU.com and many more give more information.

Kindly forward this information to all your colleagues and other physicians in all specialty areas. When contacting us via phone or email, be sure to include email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses and any other contact information so we can update our database and add more physicians to our communication updates. Please be in prayer for everyone. Thank you for your continued support and assistance in getting the word out and for your many donations and ongoing contributions.

Sunday September 4, 2005

I want to let all of my NMA colleagues know what is truly going on here regarding health care for the Hurricane Katrina victims from New Orleans currently housed in the Astrodome and Reliant Arena.

The stories I’m going to share are indicative to the many stories that was heard over and over again given by victims in dire need of medical treatment and comfort.

My first patient was an African American woman who cried uncontrollably the whole night. I did my best to sedate her but within an hour she was back up crying. Her story was about her lost 13-year-old daughter. She said that as the water kept rising in their home, her daughter was with her. However, when they got out of the house, her daughter along with others floated away in the raging waters and lost in the night. She doesn’t know if her daughter is alive or dead. Another African American woman lost both her daughter’s ages 6 and 16 the same way. She literally screamed to the top of her lungs much of the night in grief.

A 50-year-old African American man, Vietnam Veteran, had virtually the same story. Water was rising in the house so Monday night they slept in the attic. The next day with the water continuing to rise, they were told to evacuate to the Superdome. They did. They stayed from Tuesday to Thursday in the most deplorable conditions. At the Superdome, he reported three (3) girls were raped, men getting physically assaulted, and people walking through human waste down the hallway that leads onto the floor of the Superdome. People were sleeping in this same waste filled hallway because they had nowhere else to go and nowhere to sleep. His 22-year-old son lived through the flood but was shot at the Superdome. He said it was total ciaos everywhere you turned. No running water, no air, too many people, no security, no food, and nothing to drink. He told me the police in New Orleans were taking food and water from nearby stores and selling it to them. After the officers left the stores, other people went in to find food and water and were thought to be looters. How could this be? Where was the city government? Where is the law enforcement? Where was the local disaster relief groups located in the city? One would think if you were t! old to evacuate to a specific location, that the location would be prepared to accommodate as many as the location could hold and at the very least have bare necessities of water, food, place to use the restroom and somewhere to sleep. The Superdome had 40,000-50,000 people that couldn’t get out and had no means of transportation to evacuate the city. Most are poor African Americans. As I looked into our infamous Astrodome, I saw rows and rows of cots for people to rest, portable restrooms, food and water, clothing areas, designated shower areas for men and women, and medical areas to receive treatments.

I treated many opiate dependent patients. They had chills, cramps, sweating, diarrhea, and other symptoms associated with withdrawals. Many of these patients were on methadone and had been on it for years. By now they are four to five days without medications and are in withdrawals. Something that made me frown was to hear that it was good for these patients to go through these symptoms. How inconsiderate! It is bad medicine to ignore any healthcare conditions with real symptoms if they were caused from dependent medicines or not. We as physicians took an oath to help everyone from all walks of life in need of medical treatment regardless of ethnicity, background, religion, etc.

One dependent male told me his heartfelt story. Again, same beginning of rising water in their home. The water was 3-4 ft. on the first floor and rising by the minute. He grabbed his elderly grandmother and put her on his back then left the house wading in deep water and swam down to the St. Bernard Parish High School. They got up on the second floor where it was safe. He continued going back for others that were located on his street using a raft to help move them and their belongings safely to the school.

Three small boys came to me with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). One of the boys was shivering like a leaf. His mother told me that he had seen a man get shot in the Superdome. The mother went on to tell of all the children crying with no milk, formula and diapers. Some women had children that didn’t belong to them as they were displaced from their families.

These heartfelt stories go on and on. The loud screams and crying were so mentally exhausting as we tried our best to comfort the patients.

Something positive did come out of the evening. I must report that the medical services team of physicians was very organized in helping to treat the victims. I applaud the massive response from the pharmaceutical companies for supplying such neuroscience medications like Strattera, Concerta, Cymbalta, Prozac and many more. These were actual medicines and not samples. The kind humanitarian effort of the pharmaceutical companies is greatly appreciated by the medical staff in efforts to administer appropriate medical care to these victims.

In conclusion, I cannot accept nor understand our inability to respond to rudimentary and basic necessities like transportation, food and clothing, law enforcement, etc. This is totally pathetic, ridiculous, intolerable, and unacceptable coming from people in positions that should be prepared for these kinds of crisis and were caught off guard. How can FEMA, a national government agency to aid in such disasters, allow these victims to go over three (3) or more days without the basic human necessities?

We cannot sit idle by and see this happen again. We must be prepared at all times to take care of our own.

Rahn K. Bailey, M.D., F.A.P.A.
Board Certified, General and Forensic Psychiatry
Chairman, NMA Psychiatry Section

And

Holly L. Blackmon
NMA Psychiatry Section Coordinator

NMA is the National Medical Association, and they endorse single payer. We encourage people who wish to volunteer to work with NMA.

Free corporations from health expenses

OPINION
The Business Journal (Milwaukee)
From the September 2, 2005 print edition
Guest Comment
By Jack Lohman and Dr. Eugene Farley

It is by historical accident that U.S. businesses provide health care to their employees, and it has now placed them at a serious disadvantage when competing globally or against imports whose manufacturers do not have to add this extra 8 percent to 15 percent to the price of their products.

In other countries, health care is a taxpayer burden. It is here too, but we pay through many circuitous routes that have caused jobs to leave the country. We add these costs to our product prices, and it makes us uncompetitive with products that come from countries that already have taxpayer-paid medical systems. Corporations in Canada pay only an $800 annual per-employee tax. The result, as just one example: The Big Three auto companies now make more cars in Ontario than in Detroit, and Toyota just selected Canada over the United States for its new Rav4 manufacturing plant. Jobs are leaving our country because they are doing it right and we are doing it wrong!

The United States must adopt a universal health care system like Canada’s, but long wait times do not have to be a part of our system. We can do better and we will do better. With universal coverage, Canadians have longer life expectancy (by two years), 35 percent lower infant mortality, and 100 percent of the citizens are covered with 40 percent less in total costs. They’ve paid for it with a system that has 8 percent rather than 30 percent administrative costs. More than 90 percent of the patients love it, as do most of the physicians.

But who would pay for our system? The same people who are paying for it today: the taxpayers. We all pay for our health care system, which costs $1.6 trillion each year nationally, and 100 percent of this money comes from we the people, through taxes, premiums, co-pays, deductibles, purchases, employer tax breaks and the other methods we use for collecting money. When we buy product, that company adds its health care costs to the price and we pay at the cash register.

Jobs at stake

But that added price is killing American jobs, and if the feds aren’t willing to fix it the state must. We are only talking about changing how we collect and use the same health care money. Such a system would also replace our Medicaid and BadgerCare costs, assume 40 percent of worker compensation costs, and even replace Medicare if the feds were willing to buy in.

Even if it were zero savings we’d be market winners. And we’d have more than adequate coverage, though it would not cover non-essential lifestyle enhancement surgeries or drugs. Gap insurance would be an option for employers and those wanting to pay for those procedures themselves. That leaves a job for the 400 insurance companies.

Once we eliminate employer-paid medical coverage, which now represents from 8 percent to 15 percent of U.S. employee costs, companies and jobs will stop leaving the state and new companies and jobs (and the tax revenues that result) will start flowing into the state. A properly run universal health care system is the most business-friendly and public-friendly system available.

If our state is the first to do this we will gain jobs from other states. If we are last, they will get our jobs. We must be the leaders, and business leaders must sideline the health care interests to make it happen here.

Jack Lohman of Colgate is the retired CEO of an independent diagnostic lab. Dr. Eugene Farley is a retired physician in Madison.

The Lagging Poor

Washington Post
Editorial Page
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

THe poverty level edged up last year, to 12.7 percent — the fourth straight annual increase. Overall median income remained flat at $44,389, down 3.8 percent from its peak in 1999. This is a robust economic recovery?

The Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance in the United States is not alarming — but neither is it cheering, or even reassuring. Rather, the numbers underscore the lagging and uneven nature of the economic recovery since the 2001 recession. According to the new data, 4 million more people were living in poverty in 2004 than in 2001, and 4.6 million more people lacked health insurance.

Administration officials counsel patience, pointing to the downturn of the 1990s, when it took several years for the poverty rate to start to fall. “The last, lonely trailing indicator of the business cycle,” Commerce Department official Elizabeth Anderson said of the poverty rate.

This has about it more than a whiff of wishful thinking. For one thing, the increase in poverty between 2003 and 2004 is in fact out of the ordinary; such a rise hasn’t happened between the second and third years of an economic recovery since the federal government began collecting poverty data in 1960. For another, the poverty rate may be a lagging indicator, but in this case it’s not lonely: See, for example, the median income of working-age households, which declined 1.2 percent.

Another ominous signal involves health insurance coverage. Although the percentage of people with coverage remained unchanged from 2003 to 2004, that masked a shift from employer-provided insurance to government coverage. The percentage of people with employer-based health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Most of this slack has been taken up by Medicaid, the shared federal-state health program for the poor and disabled. But with state budgets under increasing strain from Medicaid costs and with Congress poised to make cuts in the program, it’s not at all certain that states will be willing or able to maintain coverage for working Americans hovering at the edge of poverty.

In the wake of this data and the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was wise to postpone this week’s planned vote to repeal the estate tax. Lawmakers need to remember in the weeks to come that this is an economic recovery that continues to leave too many Americans behind.

September 07, 2005

73% of workers want a national health care system

Health care tops a growing list of worries
By John Sweeney, President of AFL-CIO
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Sep. 5, 2005

Despite the “recovery,” economic dissatisfaction among working Americans is increasing. Nearly 60 percent are not happy with the country’s economic situation, according to new research by Peter D. Hart Research for the AFL-CIO.

Rising health-care costs are eating away at Americans’ security. Fifty percent of working people say they personally worry very or somewhat often about not being able to afford health care. With more than 40 million uninsured, too many Americans can’t afford to pay the doctor and soaring health bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcies in this country.

Americans are also worried about what health-care costs are doing to the country. In fact, 73 percent say establishing a national health-care system should be a top priority for Congress and the President.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12563348.htm

Comment: Unions have long supported comprehensive health benefit programs for their members. Many union leaders still support a strong role for unions in dictating the terms of coverage, even though the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy has significantly weakened their negotiating power. This weakness is exemplified by the reduced health benefits that California grocery workers received after a painful, prolonged strike.

Nevertheless, 73% of workers do want Congress and the President to establish a national health care system. Since only 12.5% of wage and salary workers are union members, the union leadership is not in a position to demand, specifically, universal, employer-sponsored coverage, but it is in a position to add political support to the movement for a universal system that would cover everyone, including the 87.5% of workers who do not belong to unions.

Employer-sponsored coverage has many deficiencies, including regressive funding, job lock, affordability for small businesses, administrative waste, deficiencies in family coverage, higher costs than public programs, and other features which characterize our fragmented system of funding care.

Union leaders would best serve the interests of their own members and the interests of all workers and everyone else, if they would support a truly universal, comprehensive, publicly administered program of national health insurance. 73% of workers are ready for it, and so are we.

September 06, 2005

Is Regence BlueCross BlueShield selling retirement plans?

Regence BlueCross Blue Shield of Oregon

Regence Health Savings Account
Frequently Asked Questions

For employers:

Q: What are the advantages to the employer?

A: Employer contributions to a health savings account are tax-deductible in year in which the contributions were made. For small employers without a retirement plan, funding a health savings account could be a way to offer retirement savings to employees.

http://www.or.regence.com/needCoverage/individual/hsa/index.html

Comment: Are Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) a form of health insurance, or are they retirement plans? Pension planning involves setting aside funds to be used as an income source by each individual in his/her retirement. In contrast, health insurance is a method of pooling funds to pay for health care, health care which will be used disproportionately by those with greater health care needs.

When Congress authorized policies to combine retirement planning and health insurance in the form of HSAs, they created a product that serves neither function well. Individuals with significant health care needs automatically lose their retirement benefits as they draw down their accounts. As health insurance, the pooled funds are split up into small, individual accounts, providing inadequate funding for those with greater health care needs.

Congress recognized that HSAs are not a form of health insurance and would not provide adequate financial security in the face of medical loss. As a result, the legislation requires that participants in HSA plans must have what? Health insurance! This has created new opportunities for insurers to market highly profitable, high-deductible PPO plans that fail to provide adequate financial and health security for the majority of moderate-income individuals.

Regence BlueCross BlueShield is passing the HSA off as a retirement savings plan, but absent the disclaimer that the retirement benefits will be denied to individuals with health problems. What a perversity!

September 02, 2005

Two American Disasters

The faces of disaster
Editorial
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Aug. 31, 2005

The images were stunning: rooftop rescues, submerged casinos, a high-rise hotel bereft of windows, and the Superdome’s roof peeled back in places like a banana peel.

As the floodwaters along the Gulf Coast begin to recede, aid for the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina will begin to flow in.

Charities will send money donated by Americans whose emotions and morals were stirred by the plight of citizens who suddenly lost loved ones, homes, pets and all trace of modern convenience to Katrina’s lash.

Even larger amounts will flow from federal and state governments, doing what governments must do to cope with catastrophe on this scale.

Few Americans will begrudge the hurricane-haunted people of New Orleans, Mobile, Biloxi and Gulfport the dollars that will flow their way to undo the harm that hellish Katrina did.

Yet, sure as the sunrise, some of that money will be wasted. Some of it will go to help people who are, truth be told, of imperfect moral fiber. Some of it, in the sad way of the world, will be skimmed by profiteers who feast on others’ misery.

Yet no one will suggest those facts as reasons not to spend the money, just as no brave emergency workers declined Monday to rescue folks whose stubborn folly in ignoring evacuation orders left them in peril.

When lives hang in the balance, you don’t withhold help just because the people in trouble may have contributed to their own predicament.

In the midst of sudden, natural calamity, citizens of this nation are usually clear about that truth.

Why is it, then, that things get so muddy, so sour when the calamity that grips millions of Americans is man-made, subtle and slow-moving? Why, in those cases, are so many so slow to help, so eager to find excuses for inaction and to blame the victims?

Think, for example, of the scandal of the uninsured in this land. The U.S.
Census Bureau reported yesterday that, despite a decent economy, the number of Americans without health coverage rose again to an all-time high last year, to 45.8 million, up 800,000 over 2003.

This quiet calamity harms millions, as surely and as grievously as Katrina did. But it doesn’t yield dramatic rescue footage. It doesn’t entice CNN correspondents to yell into gale-force winds. Its dramas happen out of camera’s sight, in doctor’s offices, hospitals, workplaces, classrooms and glum kitchens.

Lack of health coverage costs people health, jobs, diplomas, quality of life and peace of mind. It’s the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in America.
It costs lives.

Yet the flood tide of the uninsured keeps rising, with no sense of national urgency. Political leaders do little, or even worse than nothing. Some of the “solutions” now in vogue amount to blaming the victim, as though wanting good health care were some kind of moral failing.

If only we could summon the better angels of our nature to cope with such man-made disasters as well as we do when it’s Nature, not politics, that deals out the damage.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/12518551.htm

September 01, 2005

Mass voters may get a new angle on health care

Health Reform Program report makes the case for single-payer program
By Rebecca Lipchitz
BU Today
August 31, 2005

A once unpopular plan for health care reform in Massachusetts is gaining support from legislators and with an upcoming vote on an amendment to the state constitution, it may have a new chance to enter the spotlight.

The plan calls for a single-payer health care system, and Alan Sager, an SPH professor, and Deborah Socolar, an SPH health sciences project manager, hope Massachusetts voters will support it. Sager and Socolar codirect the BU-based Health Reform Program. Their recent report, titled $1 Billion Per Week is Enough, asserts that the money wasted on health care overhead and other unnecessary costs in Massachusetts would cover the health care costs of every resident.

As many as 10 percent of the Commonwealth’s more than six million residents are uninsured, yet individuals and businesses spend $52.7 billion a year on health care, according to the report, which served as testimony on behalf of Senate Bill 755. The proposal to establish the Massachusetts Health Care Trust is now in the lap of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing.

The proposal would cover all the state’s residents and contain costs by allowing doctors to manage the budget, but not benefit from it. One budget would compensate doctors, another would go toward health care expenses. Doctors would manage only the latter. A large portion of excess cost in the current health care system is paperwork, Sager says, “and the mistrust is the largest source of paperwork. The clerks and the doctors and hospitals fighting insurance companies are not adding an ounce to human health or security. Only when doctors have to make tradeoffs will they have the ability and willingness to weed out clinical waste.”

In the past, such effective solutions lacked political support. “What won’t work can pass,” he says, “but what will work won’t pass.” But efforts to reform the Massachusetts health care system could take an unexpected turn this fall.

An amendment that would require the Commonwealth to provide health insurance to all residents passed overwhelmingly at last year’s constitutional convention. If the amendment passes again at this year’s convention, scheduled for September 14, it would be put before the voters. (Proposed amendments must be approved twice by the legislature before being placed on a ballot.) If voters endorse it, the Commonwealth must find a plan to achieve it. New debates on how to best cover all residents would be sparked, giving new relevance to ideas once cast aside.

The proposal to establish a Health Care Trust is not the first attempt to create a single-payer health care system in Massachusetts, but the idea has not always been marketed very well, Sager says. “The phrase ‘single-payer’ is four syllables,” he says, “and includes two of the most unpopular words in America.” But such a solution is increasingly relevant, according to bill cosponsor Senator Steven Tolman (D-Boston).

“Once you hear the facts about what’s going on in our health care system, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that we have a major problem,” Tolman says “A third of our dollars are not going to direct care.”

In addition to covering all residents, regardless of whether they can afford it, a single-payer system has other benefits, such as taking the pressure off businesses and municipal governments to provide health benefits and unemployment insurance.

Tolman, who has supported a single-payer solution in the past, says the public is likely to accept such a measure only incrementally. “People are afraid of change,” he says. “We know that, but the work [Sager and Socolar] have done has clearly given us the evidence that the money is in the system.”

WMC Wrong on Health Care and Attorneys

By Jack E. Lohman
8/30/2005

Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that Wisconsin Manufacturers Commerce opposes the recent state Supreme Court decision that declared the limits on malpractice awards unconstitutional and that lead paint trials can move forward. WMC was extremely quick to take the side of its business, health care and insurance members, but to the detriment of the public. WMC is wrong on a number of accounts.

Indeed the malpractice and health care systems need fixing, but removing physician and hospital accountability and victim protection is not the way to do it. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though it does get certain WMC members off the hook at the expense of their business members and the public.

Let’s dispense with a major myth: it is true that health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation, but the malpractice industry is not the monster driving the system. Having been a health care provider for 25 years before retiring in 2004, I’m as testy toward trial lawyers as the next guy. But this one is not their doing, and WMC should look inward to its own health care members for the solution.

Malpractice awards have remained essentially flat for five years at less than 0.5% of our state’s total health care costs. But insurance premiums have soared by 120% because of a runaway insurance industry that is allowed to make up its losses incurred elsewhere. Besides, only 9 awards in the last 10 years exceeded the cap we would have had in place. Most awards are settled out of court because doctors won’t testify against doctors.

Rising health care costs are the result of only one thing, a medical community that has switched from being humanitarian centers to for-profit corporations. The industry is running amok. They are inefficiently operated and they love it, because inefficiency is where they make their profits.

Both Medicare and private insurers are incurring 20% to 30% of their costs from unnecessary and inappropriate medical testing, and another 30% in exorbitant administrative waste (compared to Canada’s 8% and Medicare’s 3.5%). Wisconsinites are supporting 400 for-profit insurance companies compared to the ONE non-profit in each Canadian province.

It is true that jobs are leaving Wisconsin, but it’s because of runaway health costs and not because of attorneys. That will not change under the Supreme Court ruling. If WMC really wants to get behind its manufacturing members (and the public at the same time), it will sideline its health care and insurance members and support a universal health care system like that in Canada, one which would also cover the 15% of our uninsured population.

To cover health care costs in Canada, their employers pay only a small per-employee tax of $800 and the taxpayers pick up the rest. They use one medical administrator, like Medicare uses WPS in our state. All physicians and hospitals remain independent and patients keep their physician choice.

We don’t have to have the wait times that they do; we don’t with Medicare and we can properly fund any universal system we develop. Over 90% of Canadian patients prefer their system to ours, and only a handful per year come to the states to speed up elective surgeries. Another handful of physicians move south because they can become millionaires here and not there.

So what would happen with the jobs WMC claims will leave the state? With a repaired health care system the nation’s second-highest health care costs would drop to the lowest, our malpractice costs would remain at the lowest in the nation, more manufacturers would move to and stay in Wisconsin, workers would immigrate and state tax revenues would increase, unemployment would decrease, WMC membership would increase, and patients would increase for the medical community.

So, WMC, what’s not to like about this fix?

Lohman is a retired business owner, is volunteer director of www.WiCleanElections.org and can be reached at jlohman@execpc.com

USA Today-KFF-Harvard Health Care Costs Survey

USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health September 1, 2005
Health Care Costs Survey

Survey Findings

Health care costs are more than a barrier to access to care, our findings show that medical bills create a significant challenge for many American families, including those with insurance, impacting their lives in a variety of ways…

Health care costs create a significant barrier to getting healthcare for many Americans.

More than 4 in 10 adults (44%) report having a chronic condition such as heart disease, cancer, asthma or diabetes, or a handicap or disability that limits their daily lives. This group has a significantly harder time accessing health care specifically because of the costs.

Moderate and lower-income, working adults report significantly more problems paying for medical care compared to their higher-income peers and insured seniors.

Uninsured adults (18% of the public) report considerably greater problems accessing health care because of the costs than those with insurance and say it’s costs that keep them out of the health insurance market.

It appears that people see few alternatives to lower their health care bills beyond skipping care. Few report negotiating prices with their health care providers or seeking cheaper providers via the internet.

Many Americans worry about paying for medical care.

.and many are experiencing rising health care costs. The public lays blame for these rising costs on profits made by drug and insurance companies; few view doctors as being part of the problem.

Prescription drugs play an important role in many people’s lives, and many report problems paying for these drugs.

Lastly, it is important to note that the survey also shows that many Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with the cost of health insurance and feel the health care system works well for them personally, perhaps illuminating why there isn’t a greater public outcry for health system reform. These findings set the context for the significant challenges faced by those who are most dependent on the system.

Summary and Chartpack of the Survey:
http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/7371.pdf

USA Today three part series (third part to be published tomorrow, Sep.2):
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/health-care-crunch-digest.htm?LOC=vanity

Survey Toplines:
http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/7372.cfm

Comment: Use the time that you would have spent reading my comment to save these links. You will need to set aside time to review this study and the USA Today series. As an advocate of health care reform, it will be well worth your time.