Category Archives: Trump

When ICE comes knocking, healthcare workers want to be prepared | Healthcare Dive

Note: No matter where you come down on the issue of immigration and the undocumented, this process of rounding up men, women and children needing medical care is reminiscent of the tactics carried out not only by the Gestapo during the Nazi period in Germany, but every other authoritarian regime in history. We should be better than this. We are better than this.

 

Hospital staff are on the front lines in the fight against a growing threat to their patients’ health: fear.

Source: When ICE comes knocking, healthcare workers want to be prepared | Healthcare Dive

Advertisements

Immigrants and Health – Two Studies

The following two articles come from Dr. Don McCanne’s Quote of the Day blog.

International Journal of Health Services
August 8, 2018
Medical Expenditures on and by Immigrant Populations in the United States: A Systematic Review
By Lila Flavin, Leah Zallman, Danny McCormick, and J. Wesley Boyd

Abstract

In health care policy debates, discussion centers around the often-misperceived costs of providing medical care to immigrants. This review seeks to compare health care expenditures of U.S. immigrants to those of U.S.-born individuals and evaluate the role which immigrants play in the rising cost of health care. We systematically examined all post-2000, peer-reviewed studies in PubMed related to health care expenditures by immigrants written in English in the United States. The reviewers extracted data independently using a standardized approach. Immigrants’ overall expenditures were one-half to two-thirds those of U.S.-born individuals, across all assessed age groups, regardless of immigration status. Per capita expenditures from private and public insurance sources were lower for immigrants, particularly expenditures for undocumented immigrants. Immigrant individuals made larger out-of-pocket health care payments compared to U.S.-born individuals. Overall, immigrants almost certainly paid more toward medical expenses than they withdrew, providing a low-risk pool that subsidized the public and private health insurance markets. We conclude that insurance and medical
care should be made more available to immigrants rather than less so.

From the Discussion

Many Americans, including some in the health care sector, mistakenly believe that immigrants are a financial drain on the U.S. health care system, costing society disproportionately more than the U.S.-born population, i.e., themselves. Our review of the literature overwhelmingly showed that immigrants spend less on health care, including publicly funded health care, compared to their U.S.-born counterparts. Moreover, immigrants contributed more towards Medicare than they withdrew; they are net contributors to Medicare’s trust fund.

Our research categorized immigrants into different groups, but in all categories, these studies found that immigrants accrued fewer health care expenditures than U.S.-born individuals. Among the different payment sources – public, private, or out-of-pocket – public and private expenditures were lower for immigrants, with immigrants spending more out-of-pocket. Differences decreased the longer immigrants resided in the United States.

While annual U.S. medical spending in 2016 was a staggering $3.3 trillion, immigrants accounted for less than 10% of the overall spending – and recent immigrants were responsible for only 1% of total spending. Given these figures, it is unlikely that restrictions on immigration into the United States would result in a meaningful decrease in health care spending. To the contrary, restricting immigration would financially destabilize some parts of the health care economy, as suggested by Zallman and colleagues, who found that immigrants contributed $14 billion more to the Medicare trust fund than they withdrew.

Fiscal responsibility is an important reason for the United States to provide insurance for newly arrived immigrants, as they could continue to enlarge the low-risk pool of healthy individuals that helps offset the cost of insuring high-risk individuals. Currently, under the ACA, undocumented immigrants cannot enroll in the state health care exchanges. If we are seeking to minimize costs, which would seem a major factor in the reasoning of policymakers who would deny immigrants care, then it makes financial sense to enroll individuals who will (on average) contribute more to the health care system than they withdraw. Healthy, young immigrants are precisely whom we should target for Medicaid enrollment, state exchanges, or private health insurance.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0020731418791963

===

The New England Journal of Medicine
August 1, 2018
A New Threat to Immigrants’ Health — The Public-Charge Rule
By Krista M. Perreira, Ph.D., Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Ph.D., and Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D.

The United States is making major changes to its immigration policies that are spilling over into health policy. In one such change, the Trump administration is drafting a rule on “public charges” that could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families. The concept of a public charge dates back to 19th-century immigration law. Under current guidelines, persons labeled as potential public charges can be denied legal entry to the United States. They can also be prevented from adjusting their status from a nonimmigrant visa category (e.g., a student or work visa) to legal permanent resident status. In addition, if they become public charges within the first 5 years after their admission to the United States, for reasons that existed before they came to the country, in rare cases they can be arrested and deported. Immigrants and their families consequently have strong incentives to avoid being deemed public charges.

In evaluating whether a person is likely to become a public charge, immigration officials take account of factors such as age, health, financial status, education, and skills. The use of cash assistance for income maintenance (e.g., Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and government-funded long-term care are considered in making these determinations. Other noncash benefits such as health and nutrition programs are specifically excluded from consideration, and use of cash-assistance benefits by the immigrant’s dependents is not currently factored in.

The Trump administration is proposing sweeping changes to these guidelines. A draft rule from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would substantially expand the definition of a public charge to include any immigrant who “uses or receives one or more public benefits.” Not just cash assistance but nearly all public benefits from federal, state, or local governments would be considered in public-charge determinations, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and subsidized health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA); Medicare would be excluded. The DHS draft notes that in making these determinations, “having subsidized insurance will generally be considered a heavily weighted negative factor.” The broadened definition of public charge would also encompass food assistance (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] and the Women, Infants, and Children Program [WIC]), programs designed to assist low-income workers (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC]), housing assistance (Section 8 vouchers), and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Moreover, not only immigrants’ use of public assistance but use of these programs by any dependents, including U.S.-born citizen spouses and children, would also be considered.

The potential impact of these changes is enormous. In 2016, about 43.7 million immigrants lived in the United States. If enacted, the new regulations would affect people seeking to move to the United States to be reunified with family members and to work, as well as lawfully present immigrants who hope to become legal permanent residents (green-card holders). One estimate suggests that nearly one third of U.S.-born persons could have their use of public benefits considered in the public-charge determination of a family member. This includes “10.4 million citizen children with at least one noncitizen parent.” Notably, unauthorized immigrants are not the primary target of the draft rule, since they are already ineligible for most federally funded public assistance. Instead, lawfully present immigrants would bear the brunt, as well as persons living in “mixed-status” families (those in which some members are citizens and others are not) and persons living abroad who wish to immigrate to the United States.

We believe that the draft public-charge regulation represents a substantial threat to lawfully present immigrants’ access to public programs and health care services. What modifications may be made is uncertain — after the rule is formally proposed, there will be a public comment period, and revisions could be made before it is finalized. But if this rule takes effect, it will most likely harm the health of millions of people and undo decades of work by providers nationwide to increase access to medical care for immigrants and their families.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1808020?query=featured_secondary

Justice Dept. Says Crucial Provisions of Obamacare Are Unconstitutional – The New York Times

The following article should alarm every decent American, especially those who wants to see every American have health care that does not eat into their life savings or cause them to go into debt.

Your humble author is one of them and may also be affected if this draconian decision is upheld by the courts and the Supreme Court. Thanks Bernie Bots and Steiners…thanks for giving us Justice Gorsuch by not voting or not voting for the Democratic candidate two years ago.

For what this will mean to Americans, here is Dr. Don McCanne’s take on it:

“Amongst the more important provisions of the Affordable Care Act were the requirements for guaranteed issue and community rating. For individuals with preexisting conditions, insurers could not deny them coverage nor could they charge them higher premiums than are charged for others in the same age group. This corrected two of the most serious defects in the individual insurance market that existed before enactment of ACA and made insurance available to many who otherwise could not purchase the plans.

Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions says that he will no longer defend these provisions. If the courts uphold his position, individuals with significant health care needs may find insurance with adequate benefits to be either unaffordable or not even available to them. Then concepts such as “universal” or “affordable” become moot.

How does this compare to our traditional Medicare program? The courts have already ruled that Part A of Medicare – the hospital benefit -is mandatory and must be accepted if the individual also accepts Social Security benefits. However, this does not apply to Part B – the physician benefits – nor to Part D – the drug benefits. Thus the courts have ruled that the government can require certain mandates in health care, but it also demonstrates that our current Medicare program needs to be improved, for this and for a great many other reasons. So a single payer, improved Medicare for all should be able to pass constitutional muster.

Once we have an improved Medicare that covers everyone, instead of thinking of it as some sort of unwanted government mandate, most of us would think of it as an automatic program ensuring health care financing for all of us – one that we have earned though our individual contributions based on ability to pay – guaranteed, affordable health care forever.”

On the Job Injury Costs Rising

Turning back to the original subject of this blog, workers’ comp issues, two articles this week discusses two recent reports that examine the issue of workplace safety.

The first article highlights the fact that despite a drop in the number of workplace injuries, the cost of those injuries and illnesses continues to rise, according to the 2018 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index.

According to the Safety Index, the number of most serious injuries and illnesses fell by 1.5%, yet their cost, including medical and lost-wage payments, rose by 2.9% between the 2017 and 2018 reports.

Total cost of the most disabling work-related injuries was $58.5 billion, with the 10 leading causes accounting for $51.4 billion of the total, the Index reported.

An earlier post in this blog has discussed this issue before.

The top cause of workplace injuries, according to the Index, was overexertion, costing employers $13.7 billion in 2015. Falls on the same level came after that at a cost of $11.2 billion, while falls at a lower level cost another $5.9 billion.

Finally, rounding out the top five causes, were struck by object or equipment at $5.3 billion, and other exertions or bodily reactions at nearly $4.2 billon, the Index reported.

The second article discusses a report issued by the AFL-CIO on making workplaces safer. The report outlines the state of safety and health protections for American workers, and includes state and national information on workplace fatalities, injuries, illnesses, the number and frequency of workplace inspections, penalties, funding, staffing and public employee coverage under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act). It also has information on mine safety and health.

A side note here: On Tuesday, the voters in West Virginia defeated Don Blankenship, the former Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Company, who was convicted and spent a year in prison for his role in a mine safety disaster, who ran for the Republican nomination for US Senator. Blankenship not only ran a lackluster campaign, but engaged in calling Senate Majority Leader McConnell a few choice names, and attacked his wife and father-in-law because they are Chinese. He chose to use racist language to attack McConnell’s family,

But back to the issue at hand.

In 2016, there were 5,190 workplace deaths due to traumatic injuries, which was an increase over the 4,836 deaths reported in 2015. The rate of fatalities in 2016 also increased from 3.4 per 100,000 in 2015 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2016.

Since Congress enacted the OSH Act, more than 579,000 workers can claim that their lives have been saved. But the article states that too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness or death as a result of chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, and other preventable tragedies. Add to that, workplace violence is increasing.

Key points to consider:

  • An average of 14 workers die because of job injuries; does not include death from occupational diseases, estimated to be 50,000 – 60,000 each year
  • In 2016, nearly 3.7 million workers across all industries, plus state and local governments, had work-related injuries and illnesses; 2.9 million reported by employers in private industry
  • Due to limitations on current reporting system, true toll is estimated to be two or three times greater, or 7.4 – 11.1 million injuries and illnesses a year
  • Cost of these injuries and illnesses estimated at $250 billion to $360 billion

Key takeaways:

  • During eight years of Obama administration, a strong track record on worker safety and health was achieved. Dedicated pro-worker advocates appointed to lead job safety agencies, increase budget for job safety, stepped up enforcement and strengthened workers’ rights, landmark legislation protecting workers from silica and coal dust issued, long-overdue rules on other serious safety and health hazards, including beryllium and confined space entry in construction industry introduced
  • Opposition by business groups and Republican-led Congress thwarted action on a number of initiatives, but at end of eight years, Obama administration put in place protections, policies, and programs that made jobs safer, reduced injuries and illnesses, and saved workers’ lives

Compare that to what the current anti-worker, pro-business fascist regime in Washington is doing to not only roll back the work of the Obama administration, but to undo all the safeguards and protections workers had fought and died for over the past century.

There is even consideration of looking at the child labor laws. Instead of draining the swamp, the head of this regime has nominated a coal industry executive to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Folks, this gang of corporate criminals wants to make America great again by not moving forward, but by moving backward. They want to take the country back, alright — right back to the 19th century when businesses did whatever they wanted, workers had no rights, and if you got injured or ill on the job, it was too bad. Or maybe it was your fault. That was the verdict in the civil case against the two owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, whose factory went up in flames in March 1911, and led to enactment of workers’ compensation laws and fire codes.

And the sad thing is, there are many business professionals who support and defend this regime and its leader, especially on social media sites like LinkedIn. They are not CEOs or Presidents of companies, although some maybe, albeit small ones. They do have executive titles at the managerial, supervisory or vice presidential levels. They are not informed about the struggles workers endured during the last century to gain those rights and protections. And until the labor movement, and the union leadership regains their rightful place as defenders of those rights, these actions will continue until they are gone forever.

 

ACA Gains Reversing

The Commonwealth Fund reported today that the marked gains in health insurance coverage made since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 are beginning to reverse.

This is according to new findings from the latest Commonwealth Fund ACA Tracking Survey.

According to the survey, the coverage declines are likely the result of two major factors:

1) lack of federal legislative actions to improve specific weaknesses in the ACA and

2) actions by the current administration that have exacerbated those weaknesses. These include the administration’s deep cuts in advertising and outreach during the marketplace open-enrollment periods, a shorter open enrollment period, and other actions that collectively may have left people with a general sense of confusion about the status of the law.

Here are the key findings:

*  About 4 million working-age people have lost insurance coverage since 2016
*  The uninsured rates among lower-income adults rose from 20.9 percent in 2016 to 25.7 percent in March 2018
*  The uninsured rate among working-age adults increased to 15.5 percent
*  The uninsured rate among adults in states that did not expand Medicaid rose to 21.9 percent
*  The uninsured rate increased among adults age 35 and older
*  The uninsured rate among adults who identify as Republicans is higher compared to 2016
*  The uninsured rate remains highest in southern states
*  Five percent of insured adults plan to drop insurance because of the individual mandate repeal
What are the policy implications of this reversal?
The absence of bipartisan support for federal action has seen legislative activity shifted to the states.
Broadly, the leaving of policy innovation to states will lead to a patchwork quilt of coverage and access to health care across the country. It will fuel inequity in overall health, productivity, and well-being.
Folks, as I wrote about in What’s Really Wrong With Health Care? and Obamacare: The Last Stage of Neoliberal Health Reform, until we see a change in the consciousness of both the American people, their representatives in Congress, and in Corporate America, especially within the financial industry to radically alter the direction health care is heading, the situation will only get worse.
We need to get the money and the greed and the corporations out of health care altogether. We need a single payer system that does not proletarianize physicians, does not turn health care into a commodity, does not financialize it, commercialize it, and compromise it for the benefit of a few, and to the detriment to the many.
As this is May Day, the international workers’ day, wouldn’t it be nice if we could start moving in that direction, as so many other nations have already done?

HHS Under Trump: A Revolving Door of Corporate Executives

The following article sheds light on the revolving door at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the so-called Trump Administration, or should I say criminal regime.

It seems that corporate executives from various health care companies have been appointed to several positions within HHS, only to leave unexpectedly.

Case in point, John Bardis, an executive formerly with MedAssets, became Assistant Secretary of HHS for Administration and resigned under fire. He was the CEO of a health care financial firm, and had experience running other health care related companies; nevertheless, he had no direct experience in health care or public health.

Another example of the revolving door concerns Daniel Best, former Corporate Vice President of Industry Relations at CVS Health, and Pfizer before that, to Senior Adviser to the Secretary of DHHS for Drug Pricing Reform. REALLY!?

Adam Boehler, CEO of Landmark Health, and previous founder of Avalon Healthcare Solutions and Trellis Rx, and Operating Partner of Private Equity company Francisco Partners, was appointed to Director of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center (CMMI).

Dr. William Staley, from McKinsey Consultant to Coordinator of US Government Activities to Combat Malaria. He is a doctor, and his bio on the State Department website lists his prior positions at State.

This is what draining the swamp looks like. This is not how government should be run. This is how corporate America gets its grubby hands on the health care system for the profit of a few.

Here is the link to the full article.

Tariffs Threaten U.S. Health Care

The petulant man-child occupying the White House is proposing to impose a 25 percent tariff on Chinese products and ingredients, according to a report in the New York Times on Friday.

Some of the products and ingredients are essential to health care in the U.S. such as pacemakers, artificial joints, defibrillators, dental fillings, birth-control pills and vaccines.

In addition, dozens of drugs and medical devices are also among products targeted for the tariff. Some of them are in short supply, and dangerously so. They are epinephrine, which treats allergic reactions, and others like insulin, whose price rising has led to public outrage.

This proposed tariff has unsettled the medical device and supply industries, since a growing number of products and their components are manufactured in China.

The manufacturing of medical equipment has shifted from throwaway surgical gloves to more complicated products like MRI scanners.

An International Trade Commission in January, the Times reported, said the fastest growth in China’s medical device industry has been in sales of orthopedic devices, plates, and screws, made mostly of titanium and used for surgery and sports medicine.

One analyst, the Times continued, estimated that 12 percent of medical devices imported to the US come from China, which amounts to $3 billion a year.

A report this week by RBC Capital Markets, the article mentioned, estimated that if the tariffs took effect, this could cost the medical device industry up to $1.5 billion each year. Some of these higher costs would result in higher prices for those devices, and would affect baby boomers, who are the biggest recipients of hip and knee replacements.

This no doubt would be a boon to the medical travel industry, from the US to countries not imposing tariffs on Chinese products, or not.

Greg Crist, spokesperson for AdvaMed, the device members trade group, said its members were “disappointed because this action threatens to affect the health and well-being of American patients and those around the world, the Times article added.

While it is unclear if the tariffs would be enacted, companies have until May to lobby the administration for changes. But the man-child ratcheted up the pressure by threatening to levy tariffs on an additional $100 billion in imports.

However, analysts said that it was unclear if the tariffs would have an effect on the drug industry, even though China is a leading exporter of raw pharmaceutical ingredients, according to the article.

“We don’t see much impact,” said Umer Raffat, a pharmaceutical industry analyst for Evercore ISI on Tuesday to investors.

This is so because many generic drugs that contain Chinese ingredients are manufactured in places like India and would not be subject to the tariffs.

Yet, one trade group has sounded the alarm, the article indicated. They said that the tariffs could exacerbate the issue of health care costs as the administration is pledging to lower drug prices.

Lastly, there are two drugs on the list of 1,300 Chines exports: epinephrine and lidocaine, which are in short supply in their injectable form.

“Things are so bad right now with the injectables, we don’t need anything else to pile on, to possibly make things worse,” said Erin R. Fox, a drug-shortage expert at the University of Utah.

She also said that the tariffs could exacerbate the shortfalls of generic injectable drugs, the decades-old products that are the mainstay of hospitals and have long been in short supply due to manufacturing problems and disruptions in supply.

For some widely used products, it is unclear, according to the article, how American consumers would be affected. Insulin is one example; however, all three companies that sell insulin in the US, Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk said they did not import insulin from China.

Whatever happens with the tariffs, the effect they would have on health care here and around the world is uncertain. However, it would be prudent for those in the health care industry, the medical travel industry, and the workers’ comp industry to be aware and act accordingly to provide their patients with the drugs and devices they need.