Texas has passed a telehealth law, joining other states. This ties in with yesterday’s infographic.
Here are the details:
Texas has passed a telehealth law, joining other states. This ties in with yesterday’s infographic.
Here are the details:
The following post, from fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, who has a guest post from former WCRI CEO, Dr. Rick Victor, states that the current political regime in Washington’s ban on travel from certain countries and ban on allowing a certain religious minority into the country will further exacerbate the already projected physician shortage that this writer had previously discussed in earlier posts on the subject.
Here is the link to Joe’s and Dr. Victor’s posts.
If there ever was a good enough reason for the implementation of medical travel into general health care, and into workers’ comp medical care, this is it.
Do you really want to see injured workers go without treatment or without needed surgeries because there aren’t enough US-born physicians and surgeons, because some narcissistic, egomaniacal, billionaire con artist has banned needed foreign-born physicians from entering the country?
Who knows? Maybe one of these doctors has a revolutionary new treatment or therapy that can bring relief to millions of Americans, or can cure a terrible disease?
Banning them only makes America weaker, not Great Again.
P.S. Here is a follow-up post from Peter Rousmaniere’s Working Immigrants blog.
Yesterday’s crushing defeat of the so-called “American Health Care Act” or AHCA, signals the end of the seven-year long attempt by the Republican Party to legislatively kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Yet, as was pointed out on one cable news network last night, it won’t stop the health insurance industry from getting the Republicans in Congress to kill parts of the law slowly by eliminating the taxes that go to pay for the coverage.
Call it “genocide by stealth”, since millions of Americans will die, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO’s) scoring of AHCA. If they can’t kill the law outright, the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, actually the Congressional version of the Tea Party, will kill it slowly.
Why do you think they keep saying it is a disaster and it is crumbling? It’s because they are dead set against anyone getting health care unless someone else can make a profit from selling a policy.
Then there is the other question, the one usually raised by liberals and progressives, especially those who supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders last year in the primaries, as to why we are the only Western country without universal coverage.
The answer is complex, but not complicated (“who knew health care was so complicated?). First, everything the government of the US has ever implemented for the benefit of people has had to pass muster with the Constitution. It either has to be covered by the Constitution directly, or implied through the taxing mechanism.
Second, the Founding Fathers never mentioned or promoted the right to health care, as the prevailing political and social philosophy of the day was concerned with freedom, liberty, and private property. It has been unclear what, if anything, was meant by the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, let alone, the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”
Why they never mentioned health care and why other nations have it, is due to the fact that the US was founded during the first half of the period historians call, “the Enlightenment”, when the right to private property, liberty, and freedom were the topics of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, the difference between Classical Liberalism (Conservatism) and Modern Liberalism (Liberalism) is between negative rights (the right not to be killed) versus positive rights (the right to a job, education, housing, health care, etc.)
Canada gained its limited independence from Britain nearly a hundred years after we did, and therefore was influenced by the philosophy of the second half of the Enlightenment, which stressed involvement by government in the economy.
The only time the Founders cared about providing some kind of health care plan was directed towards a particular group of citizens in the late eighteenth century, as I wrote about in this post.
What is now called the Public Health Service began as a government-sponsored, health plan for merchant sailors on ships entering and leaving US ports and on inland waterways. It was never challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, nor was it ever attacked by members of the opposition party. In fact, it was supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalist politicians of the day.
The third reason why we don’t have universal, single-payer is because the government allowed employers to provide coverage during WWII to attract women into the workplace when the men went overseas. The UK is often cited as an example for single-payer, but what most supporters of this type of plan do not realize is that because of the devastation the UK suffered at the hands of German bombs, their health care system needed to be re-built from scratch, so the government stepped in with the NHS. Even Churchill supported it.
Fourth, we have always provided health care to certain at risk groups like the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and to children (CHIP), as well as to former service persons and their families (Tricare), etc. Perhaps the way to begin to get universal coverage is to merge all of these programs into one, then expand it to cover everyone else.
But for the time being, a major disaster was averted, but we should not think this is the end of the debate, nor is there victory. The battle lines are drawn, and the enemy is not surrendering. This is not a time for congratulation, but for vigilance and resolve.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
Veering away from the usual topics covered in this blog, I thought about some recent articles I saw about the attempt to repeal and replace, or to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the current political regime wants to do.
The first article, in yesterday’s [failing] New York Times, warned that repealing the ACA would make it harder for people to retire early. Those who retire early, before reaching 65, can get retiree coverage from their former employers, but not many companies offer that coverage.
Those early retirees poor enough could turn to Medicaid, and everyone else would have to go to the individual market. Without the ACA, health care coverage would be more difficult to get, cost consumers more where available, and provide fewer benefits.
According to the article, if the ACA is repealed, retiring early would become less feasible for many Americans. This is called job-lock, or the need to maintain a job to get health insurance.
This is one of the concerns the ACA was supposed to address, in that it would reduce or eliminate job lock. Repealing the law could, according to the article, affect employment and retirement decisions.
The second article, from Joe Paduda, also from yesterday, reported that improving healthcare will hurt the economy, and Joe lays out the arguments for doing something or doing nothing to improve health care and what effect they would have on economic growth.
For example, Joe states that healthcare employs 15.5 million full time workers, or 1 out of every 9 job. In two years, this will surpass retail employment. As Joe rightly points out, those jobs are funded by employers and taxpayers. He suggests that some experts argue that healthcare is “crowding out” economic expansion in other sectors, thereby hurting growth overall.
But Joe also points out that by controlling health care costs, employment will be cut, and stock prices for pharmaceutical companies, margins for medical device firms, and bonuses at health plans will also be affected.
So, if cost control and increasing efficiency works, these lost jobs, reduced profits, and lower margins, Joe says, will hurt the economy. The economy will suffer if the health care sector is more efficient, and since healthcare is also a huge employment generator and an inefficient industry, fixing that inefficiency will reduce employment and growth.
Thus, the title of this article, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
But wait, there’s more.
Yesterday, a certain quote has been making the rounds through the media. It was uttered by Number 45. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”
Yes, it is complicated and complex, but does it have to be so? If we consider the second Churchill quote above, and realize that the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and many other Western countries have some form of single payer, then one must conclude that it is only the US that has complicated and made too complex, the providing of health care to all of its citizens.
There are many reasons for this, which is beyond the scope of this article or blog, but there is one overriding reason for this complexity…GREED. Not the greed of wanting more of one thing, but the greed of profit, as one executive from an insurance company stated recently.
This brings me to the last of the articles I ran across yesterday. It was posted on LinkedIn by Dave Chase, founder of the Health Rosetta Institute. He cited a segment on the Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson program, in which Carlson interviewed a former hospital president who said that pricing was the main problem with the US healthcare system.
Mr. Chase does not solely rely on Carlson’s guest in his article, but cites other experts in the field as evidence that pricing failure is to blame.
If we are to except this as true, then it buttresses my point that the overriding problem is greed, for what else is the failure to control prices but a symptom of greed inherent in the American health care system, and something that does not exist elsewhere in the Western world.
Which brings me to Churchill’s first quote above. Since we Americans have tried the free market system of health care wanting, and have tried a reformed free market system, perhaps it is time to go all the way to a government-sponsored, Medicare for All, single payer system.
The bottom line is: we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. The question is, which is the lesser of two evils.
UPDATE: Here is Joe’s take on what will happen to the ACA in the next two years. I agree with his assessment.
A report from the Kauffman Family Foundation, as mentioned in last week’s The Atlantic, stated that more than a quarter of Americans indicated that someone in their family is struggling to pay medical debt.
Higher rates of individuals are found among low-income and uninsured people, and many are not suffering from chronic illnesses, but rather from sudden or one-time illnesses, according to Gillian B. White.
This isn’t surprising, Ms White writes, given the state of most Americans’ finances. She says that most people are ill-prepared to deal with any financial shock.
Another report cited in her article from the J. P. Morgan Chase Institute (hey, didn’t they cause some of the financial shock Americans are experiencing?), looks at how medical costs factor into household financial instability.
They looked at 250, 000 Chase checking accounts where they could categorize about 80 percent of the expenditures, and found that for a median-income household (around $57,000 a year), expenses fluctuated by an average of 29 percent, or $1,300 month to month.
The authors of the study examined extraordinary medical expenses: large (more than $400 and more than 1 percent of annual income) and unusual ( falling more than two standard deviations outside a normal household’s spending for a month).
40 percent of middle-class and older families faced an extraordinary expense of $1,500 or more due to a medical expense, and around 16 percent of middle-income households had one large expense during a one year period. The authors found that these expenses tended to show up when they experienced an uptick in income.
Ms. White concludes her article by debunking the idea that having Americans spend a significant amount of their own money up front will encourage them to shop around for better health care deals. The reality, she states, is that they will forego treatment if they cannot afford it.
So What Does This Mean For You?
Well, for those in the medical travel industry it means that you need to focus on getting those middle-class families to get their treatment abroad where the costs are lower, and to concentrate less on cosmetic, plastic, reconstructive and augmentation surgeries, fancy medical treatments of dubious value, and concentrate on offering the kinds of treatments Americans are foregoing.
Debating whether or not certifications are valid or worth the paper they are printed on, is a nice academic exercise, but real people are skipping vital medical care while you debate and hold conferences around the world.
I’ll say this again: the market will not come to you, you must go to the market.
Forbes.com has published an extensive article claiming that PPO’s have perpetrated a great heist [author’s words] on the American middle class.
According to the article, trillions has been redistributed from the American workforce to the healthcare industry, creating an economic depression for the middle class.
The article consists of an interview conducted by author Dave Chase and Mike Dendy, Vice Chairman and CEO of Advanced Medical Pricing Solutions, Inc., a healthcare cost management company.
Here is the link to the full article:
Is it any wonder why work comp is also so screwed up? Too many cooks (or is that crooks?) taking their “cut” out of the middle class.
But we keep insisting that we have the best health care system in the world, that our workers get the best care when they are injured and don’t need to have any alternatives explored to improve the care and treatment they get, and that the free market is the best way to provide health care. It’s free alright. Free for the greedy to become more greedy. But not for you and me.