Category Archives: Medicare for All

Gallup Poll Says Americans Equally Divided on Single-Payer

Don McCanne, former President of the Physicians for a National Health Plan posted a New York Times article that said that Americans are equally divided over support for single-payer versus private insurance.

The article also said that support for single-payer edged up 10-points from last year, and closed  a 27-point gap since 2010.

This year’s survey, conducted Nov. 2-8, indicated that 48% preferred the private health insurance system and 47% preferred the government-run system.

Here is the breakdown by party:

Favor government-run system
22%  Republicans/Leaners
67%  Democrats/Leaners

Favor system based on private insurance
76%  Republicans/Leaners
29%  Democrats/Leaners

When asked if they had an opinion on “Medicare for All”, the majority said they did not have enough information.
17%  Favor
21%  Oppose
61%  Don’t know enough to say

While private insurance is still favored, if only by a percentage point, time will tell as the GOP’s tax plan takes effect and wipes out the middle class, whether that poll changes in the direction of single-payer.

Advertisements

No Paradox

Sometimes, the solution to a problem is staring you right in the face, but you refuse to see it because you are blinded by your perceptions, your beliefs, or the distortions others have placed in your mind by lies and falsehoods spread about the real benefits of the solution, or the downsides.

Case in point, the question of single-payer health care in the US. The health insurance industry and their lobbyists and defenders in Congress have done a great job poisoning the minds of many Americans against the idea of single-payer, whether on ideological or economic grounds.

Yet, many of these same Americans are getting some form of government-sponsored health care, either Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, or health care through the Veterans Administration. So, it was striking that before the enactment of the ACA, many Tea Party protesters shouted or carried signs that read, “Keep your hands off of MY Medicare!”

What they did not know or realize, was that it wasn’t THEIR Medicare, but the government’s Medicare. They were ones receiving the benefits.

So, it struck me this morning when I read an article by Tom Lynch of the Lynch Ryan blog, Workers’ Comp Insider.com.

The article, The American Health Care Paradox: A Lot Of Money For Poor Results, compares the US health care system with the health care systems of the OECD nations (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

The OECD has 35 members, of which the US is one, and was formed in Paris in 1961. They promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. It also performs annual comparative analyses of issues affecting its members.

Health care is one such issue, as is life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, and death rates from cancer, among other health care-related topics.

But regarding health care, as Tom reports, on a per capita basis, we spend 41% more on health care than our wealthy nation peers in the OECD, and 81% more than the entire OECD average.

The following graph indicates amount of public versus private funding of health care among the OECD nations, as well as the OECD average. The light blue bars indicate private funding; the dark blue bars indicate public funding.

OECD Health Care Funding — 2015

According to Tom, while our public funding (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) is comparable to many of the other countries in the OECD, private funding in the US is more than 100% greater tham Switzerland, and 300% greater than the OECD average.

Life expectancy:            US: 78.8 years (76.3 men, 81.2 women)
UK: 81 years (79.2 men; 82.8 women)
Japan: 83.9 years (80.8 men; 87.1 women)

Infant mortality:          US: 6.1% (per 1000 live births) 45% higher than UK at 4.2%, and 265%                                                higher than Japan’s at 2.3%.

Obesity and overweight rate is exceeded only by New Zealand. Finally, the rate of death from cancer per 100,000 people is 188, Mexico’s is 115, Japan’s is 177. But we lead the world in smoking cessation (whoopee!). So, I guess we can all breathe easier now than the rest of the world, especially the third world where so many start smoking at a very young age.

Into this discussion, Tom throws the current Republican tax plan, which he rightly says will throw 13 million people off of health care, and see $25 billion cut from Medicare.

Tom says that fixing health care will take time and a lot more money, and he is skeptical that the GOP tax scam will do that.

Duh! Of course it won’t. That’s the whole point of the tax scam and the umpteenth attempts to scuttle the ACA. They don’t believe in health care as a right for all Americans. It is in their DNA as Libertarian Conservatives. They are not Republicans, at least not like the two Republican presidents who tried to get health care passed, Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.

No, they want the money for their fat cat donors. They even said so publicly and bragged about it. And if all those votes to repeal and replace ACA didn’t convince you that they are fundamentally opposed to any government-sponsored health care, except their own, then you are blind.

The solution is staring you in the face on the above chart, Every other OECD member nation spends more publicly for health care than we do privately, and we are getting bad outcomes. Why is that? It is because health care is not like other consumer goods, and therefore should not be funded or marketed by private companies.

It is long past the time we should follow suit and do what every other OECD country has done, create a single-payer, improved Medicare for All system and stop fooling ourselves that the private market works. It does not, and the proof is in the metrics on cost, life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity and cancer deaths, etc.

CMS Proposes to Allow States to Define Health Benefits

A connection of mine today posted a link to a CMS Fact Sheet in which they propose to allow states to define essential health benefits beginning January 1, 2019.

According to the fact sheet, this rule is intended to increase flexibility in the individual market, improve program integrity, and reduce regulatory burdens associated with the PPACA in the individual and small group markets. (See my post, “Regulation Strangulation“)

The rule also includes proposals that would provide states with more options in how the essential health benefits (EHBs) are defined for their state, it would also enhance the role of states related to qualified health plan (QHP) certification, and to provide states with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, particularly the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges.

Finally, they propose to permit states to reduce the magnitude of risk adjustment transfers in the small group market to minimize unnecessary burden, and proposes other changes that would streamline the Exchange consumer experience and the individual and small group markets.

What does this really mean?

Anytime the federal government attempts to allow the individual states to determine or define certain social benefits, we end up with a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, costs of impairment, etc.

We know that in certain states, the loss of a body part in one state has an impairment value different from the same body part in another state, according to the ProPublica report .

So when I see that CMS wants to allow states to define what essential health benefits are,  we have to ask ourselves, what do they mean by essential, and is one state’s essential health benefits, another state’s burden?

I understand that certain states, particularly so-called “Red” states with conservative governors and legislatures, will be free to decide that certain treatments and procedures are just too expensive for them to cover, or that they violate the ethical or moral sentiments of the community in the state, i.e., abortion, birth control, sexual reassignment surgery, etc.

Allowing states to define and decide what is essential and what is not, may be harmful to the health of many of their citizens, even if it saves the state money.

And I am rather leery of CMS’s desire to “strengthen” the individual or small group markets, because who decides what constitutes strengthening, and who makes those decisions and under what circumstances.

Rather than allowing legislators and governors to decide what medical care their citizens can receive in their state, rather than trying to shore up a market, whether it is the individual market or the group market, we should move to provide all Americans with the same health care and the same medical benefits, coast to coast, under a Medicare for All plan.

Anything less would be worse than what we have now, and would be more costly and more complex and confusing. This rule should be scraped.

Regulation Strangulation

The American Hospital Association (AHA) released a report that stated that there is too much regulation that is impacting patient care.

The report, Regulatory Overload Assessing the Regulatory Burden on Health Systems, Hospitals, and Post-acute Care Providers, concludes with the following assessment:

Health systems, hospitals and PAC providers are besieged by federal regulatory requirements promulgated by CMS, OIG, OCR and ONC, many of which are duplicative and cumbersome and do not improve patient care. In addition to the regulatory burden put forth by those agencies, health systems, hospitals and PAC providers are subject to regulation by additional federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and by state licensing and regulatory agencies. They also operate under stringent contract requirements imposed by payers, such as Medicare Advantage, Medicaid Managed Care plans and commercial payers, which also require reporting data in different ways through different systems. States and payers contribute to burden through, for example, documentation, quality reporting and billing procedures layered on top of the federal requirements.
Regulatory reform aimed at reducing administrative burden must not approach the regulatory environment in a vacuum — evaluating the impact of a single regulation or requirements of a single program — but instead must look at the larger picture of the regulatory framework and identify where requirements can be streamlined or eliminated to release resources to be allocated to patient care.
In a previous post, Models, Models, Have We Got Models!, I said that from the beginning of my foray into the health administration world, I noticed that there were too many models, programs, and schemes dedicated to lowering costs and improving quality of care, that only raised the cost of health care and did not improve quality of care.
This is what I said then about all the models, programs, and rules promulgated by CMS over decades that have not made things better:
The answer was simple. Too many models, programs, rules, and so on that only gum up the works and make real reform not only impossible, but even more remote a possibility as more of these inane models are added to what is already a broken system.
So it seems that I was right even then, and now the AHA has proved it so. Why not scrap these models, programs, and rules and institute real reform…Medicare for All and be done with it?

“Yes, We Have No Humana”

Have you ever gone into a store looking to purchase an item they are supposed to carry because that is the kind of store they are, and been told that it is not available in your area?

For example, if I walked into a shoe store and wanted to buy a certain kind of very nice, but not too expensive shoe, and was told that shoe is not available in this area, I would feel that the act of buying shoes from a shoe store was somewhat disorganized and complicated. Especially if the store sells under their name (remember Florsheim?).

This is what happened to me today when I tried to get a Medicare Advantage plan for my medical condition from, you guessed it, Humana.

As my readers well know, I’ve been critical of Humana before due to issues with my late mother. However, after learning about Special Needs Plans from CMS, my agent informed me that Humana does not offer a Medicare Advantage plan for people with my condition in my area.

So, to use my shoe store analogy above, Humana does not sell Special Needs Plans (certain kind of nice, but not too expensive shoe) under their name in my area of the country.

How stupid is that?

Why shouldn’t everyone be able to buy the same shoe no matter where they live?

Naturally, if you wanted to buy sandals, and lived in Alaska during the winter, you wouldn’t, but all things being equal, you should.

Now I understand why in some counties there are only one exchange to purchase insurance, but again that is like saying there is only one shoe store in a certain county where you can buy shoes.

Totally wrong and bad for business. This is why we need Medicare for All, and should stop denying coverage to anyone, anywhere in the country, for whatever reason. If I buy that certain shoe in New York, I should be able to buy it also in California, Kansas, or anywhere else in the country.

To do anything less only makes the system worse.

So, “yes, we have no Humana, we have no Humana today.”

The End of the World Is Near (The Health Care World, That Is)

Fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, brilliantly summed up the current GOP attempt to blow up the nation’s health care system in today’s post.

Rather, than repeat and comment on what he wrote, I am letting you read the post here.

Then there is a great graphic on what the Cassidy-Graham bill will mean for states, and from a brief look at it, I can say that they are playing favorites with some, but not all of the states of the former Confederacy, and sticking it to those states in the North (and West like California) who they have disdain for.

Because of it’s dire impact on the health care system, it should actually be called the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid bill, because like those two 19th century bandits, they are going to rob us blind. How do you say “We are taking back your health care” in Spanish?

But, in actuality, it is just another way of giving a tax break to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

If this bill passes, and the Orangutan signs it, the end of the world in health care would soon follow. The only option then would be single-payer, and it would be ironic and even cruel if that was the GOP’s game plan all along. Wreck the health care system so that single-payer is the only option left, and if that fails, they drop the whole thing and move on.

We shall see next week, as there are two Senators who may hold the future of health care in their hands, Collins of Maine and Murkowski of Alaska.

The “Curse” of For-Profit Health Care

Recently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a Medicare for All bill into the U.S. Senate, and many Democratic Senators signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.

Earlier yesterday morning, on his way to a photo-op in Naples, Florida to see the damage from Hurricane Irma (why didn’t he go to the Keys), the Orangeman tweeted that Senator Sanders’ bill would visit a curse on the U.S.

This from a man who said that he preferred the Canadian system, and told the Australian Prime Minister to his face, and the cameras, that they had a better health care system than the US.

What are we to make of someone who likes other countries health care systems as long as it is not our system? What do we do when the elected leaders of this country are dead set against providing the best health care system to their constituents, and in fact, are determined to take away what little health care they already have?

I find it rather odd, and callous that the Orangutan calls Sen. Sanders’ plan a curse, when millions of Americans are cursed everyday with not having any health care, or minimal care at best.

No, what is a curse are families going broke paying for medical care, individuals forgoing needed care because it costs too much, doctors and nurses burned out because they are overworked, underpaid (in some cases), and trying to work in a broken, bureaucratic, sclerotic, and byzantine system.

The American “health care” system is the curse. The cure, or rather the silver bullet for this vampiric monster, is single-payer. Maybe Sen. Sanders’ bill won’t pass this time, with this Congress and this President, but it or something like it should in the future.

Our curse as a nation is in our slavish devotion to making everything conform to the will and whim of the free market. We have seen that the free market is great for the production and selling of goods and services, but health care is not a consumer good. It is a right of every man, woman, and child.

The Canadians, the Australians, the British, and many other nations are not so slavishly devoted to the free market as we are when it comes to providing health care to all their citizens, and they cannot be called “Socialist” or “Communist” in any way, shape, or form.

Only because of the greed of a few insurance companies, Wall Street players and their investor clients, as well as very wealthy Libertarian brothers from the energy sector do we continue to be cursed with the worse system for providing health care.

Finally, the ultimate curse this nation has is the individual who said single-payer would be a curse. And like Dracula, only the light of day will stop him.