Category Archives: Insurance

Medicare for All Act of 2019

Yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the Medicare for All Act for 2019, along with 19 co-sponsors in the Senate.

This bill mostly follows the previous bill he introduced in 2017, yet it has one notable addition. The new bill is summarized as follows:

*  Eligibility: Covers everyone residing in the U.S.
*  Benefits: Covers medically-necessary services including primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care (bans the Hyde Amendment), vision and dental care, and prescription drugs. This bill also provides home- and community-based long-term services and supports, which were not covered in the 2017 Medicare for All Act.
*  Patient Choice: Provides full choice of any participating doctor or hospital. Providers may not dual-practice within and outside the Medicare system.
*  Patient Costs: Provides first-dollar coverage without premiums, deductibles or co-pays for medical services, and prohibits balance billing. Co-pays for some brand-name prescription drugs.
*  Cost Controls: Prohibits duplicate coverage. Drug prices negotiated with manufacturers.
*  Timeline: Provides for a four-year transition. In year one, improves Medicare by adding dental, vision and hearing benefits and lowering out-of-pocket costs for Parts A & B; also lowers eligibility age to 55 and allows anyone to buy into the Medicare program. In year two, lowers eligibility to 45, and to 35 in year three.
According to the Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), this bill can be improved by:
* Funding hospitals through global budgets, with separate funding for capital projects: A “global budget” is a lump sum paid to hospitals and similar institutions to cover operating expenses, eliminating wasteful per-patient billing. Global budgets could not be used for capital projects like expansion or modernization (which would be funded separately), advertising, profit, or bonuses. Global budgeting minimizes hospitals’ incentives to avoid (or seek out) particular patients or services, inflate volumes, or up-code. Funding capital projects separately, in turn, allows us to ensure that new hospitals and facilities are built where they are needed, not simply where profits are highest. They also allow us to control long term cost growth.
* Ending “value-based” payment systems and other pay-for-performance schemes: This bill continues current flawed Medicare payment methods, including alternative payment models (including Accountable Care Organizations) established under the ACA, and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). Studies show these payment programs fail to improve quality or reduce costs, while penalizing hospitals and doctors that care for the poorest and sickest patients.
* Establishing a national long-term care program: This bill includes home- and community-based long-term services and supports, a laudable improvement from the 2017 bill. However, institutional long-term care coverage for seniors and people with disabilities will continue to be covered under state-based Medicaid plans, complete with a maintenance of effort provision. PNHP recommends that Sen. Sanders include institutional long-term care in the national Medicare program, as it is in Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s single-payer bill, H.R. 1384.
* Banning investor-owned health facilities: For-profit health care facilities and agencies provide lower-quality care at higher costs than nonprofits, resulting in worse outcomes and higher costs compared to not-for-profit providers. Medicare for All should provide a path for the orderly conversion of investor-owned, for-profit health-care providers to not-for-profit status.
* Fully covering all medications, without co-payment: Sen. Sanders’ bill excludes cost-sharing for health care services. However, it does require small patient co-pays (up to $200 annually) on certain non-preventive prescription drugs. Research shows that co-pays of any kind discourage patients from seeking needed medical care, increasing sickness and long-term costs. Experience in other nations prove that they are not needed for cost control.
Any other legislation such as strengthening the ACA, or half-measures for Medicare such as
buy-ins or public options, or leaving private, employer-based insurance alone, will not solve the
problems we are having, which stem from the financing of health care, and not the providing of
health care.

Medicare for All and Its Rivals | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

Richard’s Note: A shout-out to Don McCanne for posting this today from the Annals of Internal Medicine, which is providing the full article for free. The authors, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, both MDs, should be familiar to readers as two of the authors I covered in my review of the Waitzkin, et al. book, Health Care Under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health. In the spirit of the AIM, I am posting the entire article below with link to the original. It is that important.

Medicare for All and Its Rivals: New Offshoots of Old Health Policy Roots

The leading option for health reform in the United States would leave 36.2 million persons
uninsured in 2027 while costs would balloon to nearly $6 trillion (1). That option is called the
status quo. Other reasons why temporizing is a poor choice include the country’s decreasing life
expectancy, the widening mortality gap between the rich and the poor, and rising deductibles
and drug prices. Even insured persons fear medical bills, commercial pressures permeate
examination rooms, and physicians are burning out.
In response to these health policy failures, many Democrats now advocate single-payer,
Medicare-for-All reform, which until recently was a political nonstarter. Others are wary of
frontally assaulting insurers and the pharmaceutical industry and advocate public-option plans
or defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Meanwhile, the Trump
administration seeks to turbocharge market forces through deregulation and funneling more
government funds through private insurers. Here, we highlight the probable effects of these
proposals on how many persons would be covered, the comprehensiveness of coverage, and
national health expenditures (Table).

Table. Characteristics of Major Health Reform Proposals as of March 2019

Medicare for All

Medicare-for-All proposals are descendents of the 1948 Wagner–Murray–Dingell national health
insurance bill and Edward Kennedy and Martha Griffiths’ 1971 single-payer plan (2). They would
replace the current welter of public and private plans with a single, tax-funded insurer covering
all U.S. residents. The benefit package would be comprehensive, providing first-dollar coverage
for all medically necessary care and medications. The single-payer plan would use its
purchasing power to negotiate for lower drug prices and pay hospitals lump-sum global
operating budgets (similar to how fire departments are funded). Physicians would be paid
according to a simplified fee schedule or receive salaries from hospitals or group practices.
Similar payment strategies in Canada and other nations have made universal coverage
affordable even as physicians’ incomes have risen. These countries have realized savings in
national health expenditures by dramatically reducing insurers’ overhead and providers’ billing-
related documentation and transaction costs, which currently consume nearly one third of U.S.
health care spending (3). The payment schemes in the House of Representatives’ Medicare-for-
All bill closely resemble those in Canada. The companion Senate bill incorporates some of
Medicare’s current value-based payment mechanisms, which would attenuate administrative
savings. Most analysts, including some who are critical of Medicare for All, project that such a
reform would garner hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative and drug savings (4) that
would counterbalance the costs of utilization increases from expanded and upgraded coverage.
Reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket costs would fully offset the expense of new taxes
implemented to fund the reform.

 

“Medicare-for-More” Public Options

Public-option proposals, which would allow some persons to buy in to a public insurance plan,
might be labeled “Medicare for More.” Republicans Senator Jacob Javits and Representative John
Lindsay first advanced similar proposals in the early 1960s as rivals to a proposed fully public
Medicare program for seniors. This approach resurfaced during the early 1970s as Javits’
universal coverage alternative to Kennedy’s single-payer plan and gained favor with some
Democrats during the 2009 ACA debate.
Policymakers are floating several public-option variants, most of which would offer a public plan
alongside private plans on the ACA’s insurance exchanges. Although a few of these variants
would allow persons to buy in to Medicaid, most envision a new plan that would pay Medicare
rates and use providers who participate in Medicare. Positive features of these reforms include
offering additional insurance choices and minimizing the need for new taxes because enrollees
would pay premiums to cover the new costs. However, these plans would cover only a fraction
of uninsured persons, few of whom could afford the premiums (5); do little to improve the
comprehensiveness of existing coverage; and modestly increase national health expenditures.
The Medicaid public-option variant, which many states might reject, would probably dilute
these effects.
Medicare for America, the strongest version of a public-option plan, would automatically enroll
anyone not covered by their employer (including current Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s
Health Insurance Program enrollees) in a new Medicare Part E plan. It would upgrade
Medicare’s benefits, although copayments and deductibles (capped at $3500) would remain.
The program would subsidize premiums for those whose income is up to 600% of the poverty
level, and employers could enroll employees in the program by paying 8% of their annual
payroll. The new plan would use Medicare’s payment strategies and include private Medicare
Advantage (MA) plans (which inflate Medicare’s costs [6]) and accountable care organizations.
Medicare for America would greatly expand coverage and upgrade its comprehensiveness but
at considerable cost. As with other public-options reforms, it would retain multiple payers and
therefore sacrifice much of the administrative savings available under single-payer plans.
Physicians and hospitals would have to maintain the expensive bureaucracies needed to
attribute costs and charges to individual patients, bill insurers, and collect copayments. Savings
on insurers’ overhead would also be less than those under single-payer plans. Overhead is only
2% in traditional Medicare (and 1.6% in Canada’s single-payer program [7]) but averages 13.7%
in MA plans (8) and would continue to do so under public-option proposals. Furthermore, as in
the MA program, private insurers would inflate taxpayers’ costs by upcoding as well as cherry-
picking and enacting network restrictions that shunt unprofitable patients to the public-option
plan. This strategy would turn the latter plan into a de facto high-risk pool.

The Trump Administration White Paper and Budget Proposal

Unlike these proposals, reforms under the Trump administration have moved to shrink the
government’s role in health care by relaxing ACA insurance regulations; green-lighting states’
Medicaid cuts; redirecting U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs funds to private care; and
strengthening the hand of private MA plans by easing network-adequacy standards, increasing
Medicare’s payments to these plans, and marketing to seniors on behalf of MA plans. A recent
administration white paper (9) presents the administration’s plan going forward: Spur the
growth of high-deductible coverage, eliminate coverage mandates, open the border to foreign
medical graduates, and override states’ “any-willing-provider” regulations and certificate-of-
need laws that constrain hospital expansion. The president’s recently released budget proposal
calls for cuts of $1.5 trillion in Medicaid funding and $818 billion in Medicare provider payments
over the next 10 years.
Thus far, the effects of the president’s actions—withdrawing coverage from some Medicaid
enrollees and downgrading the comprehensiveness of some private insurance—have been
modest. His plans would probably swell the ranks of uninsured persons and hollow out
coverage for many who retain coverage, shifting costs from the government and employers to
individual patients. The effect on overall national health expenditures is unclear: Cuts to
Medicaid, Medicare, and the comprehensiveness of insurance might decrease expenditures;
however, deregulating providers and insurers would probably increase them.
In 1971, a total of 5 years after the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, exploding costs and
persistent problems with access and quality triggered a roiling debate over single-payer plans.
As support for Kennedy’s plan grew, moderate Republicans offered a public-option alternative,
1 of several proposals promising broadened coverage on terms friendlier to private insurers.
Kennedy derided these proposals by stating, “It calms down the flame, but it really doesn’t meet
the need” (10). President Nixon’s pro market HMO strategy—a close analogue of the modern-
day accountable care strategy—ultimately won out, although his proposals for coverage
mandates, insurance exchanges, and premium subsidies for low-income persons did not reach
fruition until passage of the ACA.
Five years into the ACA era, there is consensus that the health care status quo spawned by
Nixon’s vision is unsustainable. President Trump would veer further down the market path.
Public-option supporters hope to expand coverage while avoiding insurers’ wrath. Medicare-
for-All proponents aspire to decouple care from commerce.

‘Medicare for America’ Will Not Get Us Where We Need to Be

In light of yesterday’s revelation that the Orangutan is seeking to repeal the entire ACA, which would leave millions of Americans without health coverage, here is an incremental measure that some are advocating so that those who like their expensive, profit-driven, corporate health insurance plans can keep them, but as the article below from Common Dreams states, will not get us where we need to be.

This incremental approach, called Medicare for America, claims that it provides universal coverage, and thus insures everyone has healthcare.

However, as Michael Lighty points out, “…is universal coverage guaranteed healthcare?”

His answer is to debate the role of the US based private insurance, it’s business model, relationship to the healthcare industry and finance sector. This is sometimes referred to as the medical-industrial complex.

Here is the rest of the article:

The incremental approach to healthcare reform is an approach the nation can no longer afford. Only Medicare for All will do… With so much written about the politics and some about the policy of

Source: ‘Medicare for America’ Will Not Get Us Where We Need to Be

Why Medicare for some is the wrong idea | TheHill

From the Overnight News Desk:

Diane Archer wrote in The Hill Monday on why half measures on Medicare for All, so-called “Medicare for Some” is not the answer to our current health care crisis.

In her article, she takes aim at the very root of the problem, commercial health insurance. This article should serve as confirmation of the issues I raised in previous posts, By What Right? and Health Care Is Not a Market.

The “pragmatists” she speaks of, naturally are many of you out there who have criticized the push towards Medicare for All, simply because you have a personal, financial and career stake in the status quo.

It is high time you put aside your personal and professional interests, and put the interests of the American people ahead of all other considerations. Doing so will improve your value as health care and related industries professionals, because you will be serving a higher cause than yourselves.

Here is Ms. Archer’s article:

The American people deserve a frank conversation about how we can guarantee access to health care as a right in this country. That conversation does not begin with Medicare for some. It begins – and ends – with Medicare for all.

Source: Why Medicare for some is the wrong idea | TheHill

Health Care Is Not a Market

For the next twenty-one months, there will be a national debate carried on during the presidential campaign regarding the direction this country will take about providing health care to all Americans.

However, to anyone who reads the articles, posts and comments on the social media site, LinkedIn, that debate is already occurring, and most of it is one-sided against Medicare for All/Single Payer. The individuals conducting this debate are for the most part in the health care field, as either physicians, pharmaceutical industry employees, hospital systems executives, insurance company executives, and so on.

We also find employee benefits specialists and other consultants to the health care industry, plus many academics in the health care space, and many general business people commenting, parroting the talking points from right-wing media.

That is why I re-posted articles from my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda last week and yesterday,  who is infinitely more knowledgeable than I am on the subject, and has far more experience in the health care field, that not only predicts Medicare for All (or what he would like to see, Medicaid for All), but has vigorously defended it and explained it to those who have misconceptions.

For that, I am grateful, and will continue to acknowledge his work on my blog. But what has caused me to write this article is the fact that most of the criticism of Medicare for All/Single Payer is because those individuals who are posting or commenting, are defending their turf.

I get that. They get paid to do that, or they depend on the current system to pay their salaries, so naturally they are against anything that would harm that relationship.

But what really gets me is that they are deciding that they have the right to tell the rest of us that we must continue to experience this broken, complex and complicated system just so that they can make money. And that they have a right to prevent us from getting lower cost health care that provides better outcomes and does not leave millions under-insured or uninsured.

However, not all these individuals are doing this because of their jobs. Some are doing so because they are wedded to an economic and political ideology based on the free market as the answer to every social issue, including health care. They argue that if we only had a true free market, competitive health care system, the costs would come down.

But as we have seen with the rise in prices for many medications such as insulin and other life-saving drugs, the free market companies have jacked up the prices simply because they can, and because lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have forced Congress to pass a law forbidding the government from negotiating prices, as other nation’s governments do.

Yet, no other Western country has such a system, nor are they copying ours as it exists today. On the contrary, they have universal health care for their citizens, and by all measures, their systems are cheaper to run, and have better outcomes.

None of these countries can be considered “Socialist” countries, and even the most anti-Socialist, anti-Communist British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill said the following, “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.”

Notice that Sir Winston did not say, free market competition. He knew that competition is fine for selling automobiles, clothing, food, and other goods and services. But not health care.

He also said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else. We’ve tried the free market in health care, and drug prices and other medical prices are through the roof.

However, another thing they have not done, and I believe none of the other OECD countries have done about health care, is to divide the “market” into silos such as the elderly with Medicare, the poor with Medicaid, children with CHIP, veterans with the VA, and their families with Tricare, etc.

No, they pay for all their citizens from a global budget, and do not distinguish between age level, income level, or service in the armed forces.

And their systems do not restrict what medical care their people receive, so that no only do they have medical care, but dental care, vision care, and hearing care. It is comprehensive. And if they have the money to pay for it, they can purchase private health insurance for everything else.

In the run-up to the debate and vote in the UK on Brexit, the point was raised that while Britain was a member of the EU, their retirees who went to Spain to retire, never had to buy insurance because the Spanish providers would bill the NHS.

However, once Britain leaves the EU, they will have to buy insurance privately, because the NHS won’t pay for it. But not all retirees can afford private insurance, so many British citizens will have a problem.

As I have mentioned before in this blog, I was diagnosed with ESRD, and am paying $400 every three months for Medicare Part B. I was doing so while spending down money I received after my mother passed away in 2017. My brother and I sold her assets and used that money to purchase property so that she could go on Medicaid, and eventually into a nursing home when the time came for her to be cared for around the clock.

Since my diagnosis, and prior, I was not working, so spending $400 every three months, and paying for many of my meds, has been difficult. I am getting help with some of the meds, and one is free because my local supermarket chain, Publix gives it for free (Amlodipine).

I hope to be on Medicaid soon, but would much rather see me and my fellow Americans get Medicare for All, and not have to pay so much for it. (a side note: we have seen that Medicaid expansion has been haphazard, or reversed, even when the government is paying 90% of it)

So why are we not doing what everyone else does? For one thing, greed. Drug companies led by individuals like Martin Shkreli, who is now enjoying the hospitality of the federal government, and others are not evil, they are following the dictates of the free market that many are advocating we need. No thanks.

For another, Wall Street has sold the health care sector as another profit center that creates a huge return on investment by investors and shareholders in these companies and hospital systems. Consolidation in health care is no different than if two non-health care companies merge, or one company buys another for a strategic advantage in the marketplace.

There’s that word again: market. We already have a free market health care system, that is why is it broken. What we need is finance health care by the government and leave the providing of health care private. That’s what most other countries do.

So those of you standing in the way of Medicare for All/Single Payer, be advised. We are not going to let you deny us what is a right and not a privilege. We will not let you deny us what every other major Western country gives its people: universal, single payer health care.

Your time is nearly up.

Surveys Say Health Care More Expensive for US Workers

A post on LinkedIn by Jaimy Lee, Health Care Editor at LinkedIn, reported Thursday that a pair of surveys indicated that health care is getting more expensive for many workers in the US.

Ms. Lee states that,

“Of the roughly 50% of Americans who get their health insurance from their employer, the cost of the average single premium rose 3% and the average family premium jumped 5% from 2017 to 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That means premium rate increases are rising faster than inflation, which rose 2.5% during the same period.”

In addition, the Kaiser survey reported that:

  • The average annual premium last year for one person was $6,896 and $19,616 for a family in 2018. (Workers have to pay for, on average, between 18% and 29% of their premium.)
  • The average deductible amount for single coverage in 2018 was $1,573. That’s similar to 2017.

And that a separate survey stated that, 45% of Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 years old were underinsured — meaning they have health insurance but their out-of-pocket costs exceed at least 10% of their household income — in 2018. [Emphasis added]

And, in a blow to those who would like to keep the current employer-based system and not move towards an improved and expanded Medicare-for-All system, a growing number of the underinsured are people who get their health benefits through their employers. That’s up 20% over the last four years. (Traditionally the underinsured are adults who buy insurance on the individual market.)

Ms. Lee closes her post on employer-based health care underinsured workers with the following from Vox:

“In a great historical irony, the evident faults of employer-sponsored insurance are helping fuel a new appetite for Medicare-for-all, a single-payer system where everybody gets health coverage from the government,” writes journalist Dylan Scott. “Shifting 160 million people from the coverage they currently get through their jobs to a new government plan is a lot of disruption — and disruption, especially in health care, has historically made a lot of Americans nervous.”

They may be nervous at first, but it would be much better to be fully insured and nervous for a short time, than to be uninsured and nervous worrying about how they will afford ever increasing costs of insurance.

Medicare-for-All is the only way to provide such piece of mind.

Low Wage Workers Pay More For Health Care Than High Wage Workers « Workers Comp Insider

Tom Lynch, of LynchRyan, posted this last week, but due to a technical error, it did not reach his audience. This article should be cited by anyone who encounters libertarian know-it-all’s on the Internet who put the blame of our expensive health care system on such individuals as lawyers, as one such person I recently debated. Also, the chart from the OECD should be cited over and over again when defending the subject of improved Medicare for All single payer health care. However, Tom does not support Medicare for All, which is understandable, but not a viable position given the overwhelming support it has among many Americans.

Here is Tom’s article:

Anyone who can rub two brain cells together knows America spends more, much more, on health care than any other developed nation, as this chart from the Organization for Economic and Cooperative De…

Source: Low Wage Workers Pay More For Health Care Than High Wage Workers « Workers Comp Insider