Tag Archives: Health Policy

COVID-19 and America’s Social Safety Net

Friday’s HuffPost published an article by Emily Peck on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and its impact on the country’s broken social safety net.

The article indicates that millions of working Americans do not get paid sick days. It also states that a stunning 70% of low-wage workers and one of three workers in the private sector, have no access to paid sick time.

According to Ms. Peck, the US is one of the few countries in the world without a national paid sick leave policy. In addition, she adds, millions of Americans do not have health insurance, or their policies are designed to keep them away from doctors with high co-payments and deductibles.

Both these issues, Ms. Peck writes, highlights how coronavirus, or COVID-19, could test the US’ uniquely weak social safety net.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, the executive director of MomsRising, a nonprofit advocating for paid leave is quoted in the article, “Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have a lack of policies that most other countries take for granted that protect their public health.”

This isn’t just a “coronavirus” problem, Ms. Peck says. Even though the CDC warned Americans earlier in the week, so far there have been very few case reported in the US. (Note: As of this writing,  there have been 74 reported cases in the US, and two men have died in Washington State, and one case was recently reported in Rhode Island, and one in Manhattan)

Yet, fears of an outbreak has put a spotlight on the public health system. With cuts to many agencies by Trump, many experts fear that we will be unable to deal with the crisis, especially since the Trump called it a hoax at a recent political rally.

He also appointed his evolution-denying Vice President, Mike Pence to coordinate the Administration’s response after gagging several Administration personnel from appearing on the Sunday talk shows. It was mentioned after the announcement that Pence did not believe that smoking causes cancer when he was Governor of Indiana.

For the Democrats, says Ms. Peck, coronavirus makes the case for policies like universal health care and paid sick and family leave.

Some key points to consider:

First, flu rates are higher without sick leave. What about coronavirus?

In the US, the article reports, just 10 states, 20 cities and three counties have some kind of paid sick leave. This is compared with the rest of the world, where more than 145 countries have this benefit. People who live in those places, research shows, are less likely to get sick, Ms. Peck reports.

And lack of paid sick leave is certainly a “risk factor”, according to Nicolas Ziebarth, associate professor in health economics at Cornell. Professor Ziebarth’s 2019 paper in the Journal of Public Economics, looked at Google data on flu rates, compared cities with leave policies with those without, and found that flu rates were 5% lower in places with sick leave.

An upcoming paper of Professor Ziebarth’s, based on CDC data, has found that the rates are actually 11% lower.

For those workers in low-wage jobs, if they get sick, they cannot afford to take time off of work because they are barely getting by. So, they end up going to work, and they get their co-workers sick.

Working from home isn’t an option.

Many companies are telling employees to work from home with the threat from coronavirus. However, for low-wage hourly workers, says Ms. Peck, this just isn’t an option. Many work in industries that have contact with the community — such as food servers, people who care for children, clean offices and homes.

As stated above, it is not just sick leave, The US also lacks any kind of comprehensive paid family leave policy, according to Ms. Peck, which would enable workers to take time off to care for a close family member’s health issues. This issue first came to light in 1993 when Bill Clinton signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act, which required covered employers to provide employees with job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons.

An example of just how needed is paid family leave, comes from the experience of Ericka Farrell, a mother of three in Maryland, who lost her temp job in the early 2000s because she had to take so much time off to care for her young son. She did not regret staying home, but now works with MomsRising to advocate for paid leave herself, writes Ms. Peck.

Millions are uninsured. Many more have terrible insurance.

According to Ms. Peck, even if you take time off when you are sick, you might not be able to afford to see the doctor. Slightly more than 10% of Americans. she mentions, or about 30 million people, don’t have health insurance. This is because their employers do not offer it, or it is too expensive.

Things to consider regarding the uninsured:

  • Far less likely to go to the doctor
  • Americans with insurance face obstacles to getting care due to high co-payments
  • Then there are the deductibles, which have been going up for decades
  • Most people haven’t come near clearing those deductibles at the beginning of the year

John Graves, associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was quoted as saying, “If we as a society are going to face a spreading infectious disease, the worse time of the year is the beginning of the year.”

Graves added that the US health care system is simply not designed to deal with a potential pandemic.

First, he says, the US relies on employment-based insurance. If people are thrown out of work due to an economic downturn, they lose coverage.

Second, insurance is designed to encourage people not to see the doctor through so-called “cost-sharing.”  Co-payments and deductibles exist to discourage people from visiting the doctor or going to the hospital for every “cough and sniffle.” Graves said.

Lastly, in 2018, the Administration made it easier for people to buy insurance plans with less generous coverage, and don’t always cover expenses stemming from preexisting conditions, the article says. Experts have said that these plans they consider junk policies, have even higher out-of-pocket costs.

So what does this all mean?

It means that cuts to the social safety net guarantees that should the coronavirus get out of hand, the US is not prepared to deal with it effectively, and many more people will probably die who shouldn’t because of politics and ideology.

Hospital closings in rural areas, the firing of hundreds of health care personnel at the federal level, silencing the experts in infectious diseases, and the appointment of a man who rejects evolution and says smoking does not cause cancer to coordinate the Administration’s response, is a recipe for a catastrophe of unimanigable proportions. Calling it a hoax in front of your ardent supporters who believe everything you say, will only lead to more confusion and more deaths.

But this crisis also proves that it is high time those on social media sites like LinkedIn who are part of the health care industry, whether they are physicians, in the pharmaceutical industry, work in hospitals, are device manufacturers, or are consultants and researchers, accept the fact that single payer, universal health care (Medicare for All) is not just an economic necessity, but a public health necessity as well.

Is your big, fat five or six figure incomes more important than human health? It’s your call.

KFF Health Tracking Poll – September 2019: Health Care Policy In Congress And On The Campaign Trail | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

This month’s poll probes Democrats’ views about the general approaches to expanding health coverage and lowering costs put forward by the candidates; the public’s health care prio…

Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll – September 2019: Health Care Policy In Congress And On The Campaign Trail | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation


Comment by Don McCanne
According to this new poll, Democrats support Medicare-for-all (“a national health plan”), Independents are split, and Republicans are opposed. Also, Democrats and Independents both support a public option (“a government-administered health plan”), and Republicans are split. However, the public is confused as to whether Medicare-for-all and a public option are similar or different, and half have not heard much about Medicare-for-all and even more have not heard much about a public option.
It seems as if individuals do have an opinion on Medicare-for-all and on a public option even though many are confused as to what they are. The fact that the pollsters referred to one as “a national health plan” and the other as “a government-administered health plan” likely leaves many of those polled with little understanding of the refinements distinguishing the two models.
Features that people might be interested in include the following:
Everyone is automatically covered for life
Affordability is assured through equitable taxes based on ability to pay
Financial barriers such as high deductibles are eliminated
Choices of physicians and hospitals are assured through elimination of insurer networks
Hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative waste is recovered
Of course, these are features of the single payer model of Medicare for all and none would apply by merely adding a public option to our fragmented financing system of a multitude of public and private insurance programs.
When will the pollsters finally ask the following questions?
Should everyone be covered or just some of us?
Should insurance be automatic forever or should it depend on life circumstances?
Should payments into the system be made affordable based on income, or should many be left out because they can’t afford the premiums?
Should high deductibles and surprise medical bills be used to deprive individuals of health care that they should have?
Should patients have choices of their physicians and hospitals or shall we continue to allow private insurers to restrict choices to their networks?
Should we continue to tolerate wasting about half a trillion dollars in administrative excesses, or should we redirect those funds that so that we can pay for care for those currently uninsured or underinsured?
In other words, do we want a health care system that we can afford that takes care of all of us, or do we want to merely add a public option and a couple of tweaks to ACA that leaves our overpriced, highly dysfunctional system in place? People really need to understand the differences between Medicare-for-all (single payer version) and a public option. Let’s see that they do.

Useless Health Insurance Companies

Don McCanne’s Quote-of-the-Day brings us an article from the Los Angeles Times by Michael Hiltzik about how useless health insurance companies are.

Los Angeles Times
August 5, 2019
Health insurance companies are useless. Get rid of them
By Michael Hiltzik


The most perplexing aspect of our current debate over healthcare and health coverage is the notion that Americans love their health insurance companies.

This bizarre idea surfaced most recently in the hand-wringing over proposals to do away with private coverage advocated by some of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for president. Oddly, this position has been treated as a vote-loser.

During the first round of televised debates on July 30 and 31, only four of the 20 candidates raised their hands when asked if they would ban private insurers as part of their proposals for universal coverage: Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Kamala Harris of California, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Harris later backed away, releasing a “Medicare for all” proposal that would accommodate private insurers at least for the first 10 years.

Health insurers have been successful at two things: Making money and getting the American public to believe they’re essential.


She should have stood her ground. The truth is that private health insurers have contributed nothing of value to the American healthcare system. Instead, they have raised costs and created an entitled class of administrators and executives who are fighting for their livelihoods, using customers’ premium dollars to do so.

“Health insurers have been successful at two things: Making money and getting the American public to believe they’re essential,” says Wendell Potter. He should know, since he spent decades as a corporate communications executive in the industry, including more than 10 years at Cigna.

The insurers’ success in making themselves seem essential accounts for the notion that Americans are so pleased with their private coverage that they’ll punish any politician who dares to take it away. But the American love affair with private insurance warrants close inspection.

Let’s start by examining what the insurers say are their positive contributions to healthcare. They claim to promote “consumer choice,” simplify “the health care experience for individuals and families,” address “the burden of chronic disease” and harness “data and technology to drive quality, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.” (These claims all come from the website of the industry’s lobbying organization, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

They’ve achieved none of these goals. The increasingly prevalent mode of health coverage in the group and individual markets is the the narrow network, which shrinks the roster of doctors and hospitals available to enrollees without heavy surcharges. The hoops that customers and providers often must jump through to get claims paid impose costly complexity on the system, not simplicity. Programs to manage chronic diseases remain rare, and the real threat to patients with those conditions was lack of access to insurance (until the Affordable Care Act made such exclusion illegal).

Private insurers don’t do nearly as well as Medicare in holding down costs, in part because the more they pay hospitals and doctors, the more they can charge in premiums and the more money flows to their bottom lines. They haven’t shown notable skill in managing chronic diseases or bringing pro-consumer innovations to the table.


The vast majority of Americans have very little need for medical care in any given year; that’s why most people are satisfied with their coverage. But what if they have a big claim?


Insurers cite these goals when they try to get mergers approved by government antitrust regulators. Anthem and Cigna, for example, asserted in 2016 that their merger would produce nearly $2 billion in “annual synergies,” thanks to improved “operational” and “network efficiencies.”

The pitch has a long history. The architects of a wave of health insurance mergers in the 2000s also proclaimed a new era of efficient technology and improved customer service, but studies of prior mergers show that this nirvana seldom comes to pass. The best example may be that of Aetna’s 1996 merger with U.S. Healthcare in a deal it hoped would give it access to the booming HMO market.

According to a 2004 analysis by UC Berkeley health economist James C. Robinson, the merger became a “near-death” experience for Aetna. The deal was expected to bring about “millions in enrollment and billions in revenue to pressure physicians and hospitals” to accept lower reimbursement rates, he wrote.

“The talk was all about complementarities, synergies, and economies of scale… The reality quickly turned out to be one of incompatible product designs, operating systems, sales forces, brand images, and corporate cultures.” Aetna surged from 13.7 million customers in 1996 to 21 million in 1999, but profits collapsed from a margin of nearly 14% in 1998 to a loss in 2001.

Even when they don’t happen, insurance merger deals cost customers billions of dollars. That’s what happened when two proposed deals — Aetna/Humana and Anthem/Cigna — broke down on a single day in 2017. The result was that Aetna owed Humana $1.8 billion and Anthem owed Cigna $1.85 billion in breakup fees — money taken out of the medical treatment economy and transferred from one set of shareholders to another.

In reality, Americans don’t like their private health insurance so much as blindly tolerate it. That’s because the vast majority of Americans don’t have a complex interaction with the healthcare system in any given year, and most never will. As we’ve reported before, 1% of patients account for more than one-fifth of all medical spending and 10% account for two-thirds. Fifty percent of patients account for only 3% of all spending.

Most families face at most a series of minor ailments that can be routinely managed — childhood immunizations, a broken arm here or there, a bout of the flu. The question is what happens when someone does have a complex issue and a complex claim — they’re hit by a truck or get a cancer diagnosis, for instance?

“We gamble every year that we’re going to stay healthy and injury-free,” Potter says. When we lose the gamble, that’s when all the inadequacies of the private insurance system come to the fore. Confronted with the prospect of expensive claims, private insurers try to constrain customers’ choices — limiting recovery days spent in the hospital, limiting doctors’ latitude to try different therapies, demanding to be consulted before approving surgical interventions.

Indeed, the history of American healthcare reform is largely a chronicle of steps taken to protect the unserved groups from commercial health insurance practices.

When commercial health insurance became insinuated into the American healthcare system following World War II via employer plans, it quickly became clear who was left behind — “those who were retired, out of work, self-employed, or obliged to take a low-paying job without fringes,” sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his magisterial 1982 book, “The Social Transformation of American Medicine.”The process even left those groups worse off, Starr observed, because insurance contributed to medical inflation while insulating only those with health plans. “Government intervention was required just to address the inequities.”

Insurers wouldn’t cover the aged or retirees, so Medicare was born in 1965. Insurers refused to cover kidney disease patients needing dialysis, so Congress in 1973 carved out an exception allowing those patients to enroll in Medicare at any age. (So much for addressing the “burden of chronic disease.”)

Individual buyers were charged much more for coverage than those buying group plans through their employers — or barred from the marketplace entirely because of their medical conditions — the Affordable Care Act required insurers to accept all applicants and, as compensation, required all individuals to carry at least minimal coverage.

The health insurance industry’s most telling contribution to the debate over healthcare reform has been “to scare people about other healthcare systems,” Potter told me. As a consequence, discussions about whether or how to remove private companies from the healthcare system are chiefly political, not practical.

The Affordable Care Act allowed private insurers to continue playing a role in delivering coverage not because they were any good at it but because their wealth and size made them formidable adversaries to reform if they chose to fight it. They were sufficiently mollified to remain out of the fray, but some of the big insurers then did their best to undermine the individual insurance exchanges once they were launched in 2015.

Even as individual Americans fret over losing their private health insurance, big employers have begun to see the light. Boeing, among other big employers, is experimenting with bypassing health insurers as intermediaries with providers by contracting directly with major health systems in Southern California, Seattle and other regions where it has major plants. It would not be surprising to see the joint venture of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan Chase try a similar approach in its quest to bring down costs.

That’s an ironic development, since the private insurers first entered the market precisely by offering to play the role of intermediaries for big employers. But instead of fulfilling the promise of efficiency and cost control, they became rent-seeking profiteers themselves.

There’s no doubt that it will take years to wean the American healthcare system off the private insurance model; Kamala Harris’s proposal may be merely a recognition of the necessary time frame. It’s true that some countries with universal healthcare systems preserve roles for private insurance, including coverage for services the government chooses to leave out of its own programs or providing preferential access to specialists, at a price.

But the private insurers’ central position in America’s system is an anachronism dating back some 75 years. The sooner it’s dispensed with, the better — and healthier — America will be. The next time a debate moderator asks presidential candidates if they favor doing away with private insurance, let’s see all the hands go up.

Voters Tuning Out of Health Care Debates

Axios reported yesterday that American voters are tuning out of the health care debates dominating Washington, the presidential campaign, and the politically active talking about Medicare for All and other proposals, according to an article by Drew Altman.

Axios conducted six focus groups in three states, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania. It was facilitated by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of Polling and Survey Research. The focus groups consisted of independent, Republican, and Democratic voters in several swing states and districts.

They were only aware of candidates’ and elected officials’ proposals on health care, but they did not see them as relevant to their struggles to pay medical bills or navigating the health care system.

Each of the six focus groups had between 8 and 10 people who are regular voters and said that health care will be an important issue for them in the 2020 election for President.

Here are the takeaways from the focus groups:

  • These voters are not tuned into the details — or even the broad outlines — of the health policy debates going on in Washington and the campaign, even though they say health care will be at least somewhat important to their vote.
  • Many had never heard the term “Medicare for all,” and very few had heard about Medicare or Medicaid buy-in proposals, or Medicaid and Affordable Care Act state block grant plans like the one included in President Trump’s proposed budget.
  • When asked what they knew about Medicare for all, few offered any description beyond “everyone gets Medicare,” and almost no one associated the term with a single-payer system or national health plan.
  • When asked about ACA repeal, participants almost universally felt that Republicans did not have a plan to replace the law.
  • When voters in the groups were read even basic descriptions of some proposals to expand government coverage, many thought they sounded complicated and like a lot of red tape.
  • They also worried about how such plans might strain the current system and threaten their own ability to keep seeing providers they like and trust.

Most of the voters in these groups did not see any of the current proposals from either side of the aisle as solutions to their top problems: namely paying for care or navigating the insurance system and red tape.

The debates on health care have gotten too far into the weeds and are too complex and complicated for the average voter to understand, let alone follow at this early stage of the presidential campaign.

The debate will become more meaningful, the article contends, when they see stark differences between the health plan of the Democratic nominee and Trump. This way, they will be able to focus more on what those differences mean for themselves and the country.

Here is the comment posted in response by Don McCanne:

Although we should be cautious about trying to draw Great Truths from half a dozen focus groups, we should be concerned about what these groups revealed about their understanding of the basis of the problems that they experience with our health care system.

They see problems with navigating the health care system and with paying their medical bills. But when offered solutions for these problems they show little understanding of even basic health policy, and they seem to be influenced more by political memes expressing a distrust of government, complexity of public solutions, and government interference with their interactions with the health care system.

A particularly important example of this is, “When asked what they knew about Medicare for all… almost no one associated the term with a single-payer system or national health plan.”

This lack of sophistication leaves them unaware that the government Medicare program is far more deserving of our trust than the private insurers (“surprise medical bills” anyone?), that a government program that includes everyone though a publicly funded universal risk pool is far less complex than a multitude of private insurers with various complex rules for accessing and paying for care, and that a single payer system interferes less since the patient has free choices in health care whereas the private plans are more restrictive of benefits while limiting coverage to their contracted provider lists (a minute fraction of the physicians and hospitals available throughout the nation).

Health policy is complicated, but the message for single payer Medicare for All need not be: enrollment for life, free choice of physicians and hospitals and other health care professionals and institutions, and automatic payment by our own public program. The focus groups already understand that the Republicans do not have a replacement plan, but what they do not understand is that only the single payer model of Medicare for All meets these goals whereas the ACA/public option Medicare for Some often leaves them exposed to the access and affordability issues they already face.

Again, single payer Medicare for All means:

  • Never have to change insurers
  • Free choice always of doctors and hospitals
  • No medical bills since care has been prepaid through our taxes.

None of these are features of either the Republican proposals or the Democratic ACA/public option proposals. It’s a simple message. Let’s do our best to see that the American voter understands it.

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.

Medical Mystery: Something Happened to the U.S. Health System After 1980 | The Incidental Economist

Good morning all. While perusing my LinkedIn feed, I found this article from May of last year, and thought it would be a perfect addition to the series of articles posted last week about Medicare for All/Single Payer, and why opposition to it is more harmful than the alleged or imagined fear-mongering we are seeing from many quarters.

This is especially significant in light of my post last week, Health Care Is Not a Market, and as the article below suggests, the US health care system diverged exactly at the time of the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the introduction of pro-market forces, supply-side economics.

So it is no coincidence that as Austin Frakt writes, that prices went up, while health outcomes went down, and that socioeconomic status and other social factors exert larger influences on longevity.

Here is the article:

The following originally appeared on The Upshot (copyright 2018, The New York Times Company). Research for this piece was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Source: Medical Mystery: Something Happened to the U.S. Health System After 1980 | The Incidental Economist

Fallout of the End of ACA Subsidies

Joe Paduda today gave a very succinct and clear-minded assessment of the fallout of the ending of the ACA subsidies, also known as Cost-Sharing Reimbursement (CSR) payments.

Here is Joe’s article.

It makes perfect sense that what the Orange man said yesterday will do more damage to health care than his false and misleading pronouncements of the past year that the ACA is failing and doing harm.

It is you, sir, who are doing harm. To the poor, to minorities like those in Puerto Rico despite your morning mea culpa, to African-Americans and Latinos,  to women, to international agreements and organizations,  and to our credibility with our allies and adversaries.


Health Care Policy Resume

Richard Krasner, MA, MHA
7151 Summer Tree Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33437
(561) 738-0458
(561) 603-1685, cell
Blog: https://richardkrasner.wordpress.com
Skype: richard.krasner

Professional Profile

Master’s In Health Administration (MHA) graduate with extensive Insurance business experience and academic training in Political Science and other Social Sciences, looking to transition into Health Care Policy.


• Strong financial, organizational, written and presentation skills.
• Strong analytical and problem solving skills.
• Strong database management and quality assurance skills.
• Able to respond to complex questions from internal and external customers.
• Able to work independently; team player; self-motivated.
• MS Office, Windows.


Master’s in Health Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, Dec. 2011
Introduction to US Health Care Systems Organization Behavior in Healthcare
Health Care Mgmt. (elective) Topic: Healthcare Quality Health Law
Health Policy Healthcare Finance
Planning & Mktg. in Healthcare The 2010 Affordable Care Act (elective)
Research Methods for Healthcare Mgmt.

EnergySmart Hospitals: A Comparative Review
Banning Soda under the SNAP Program: A Policy Review
Legal Barriers to Implementing Int’l Providers into Medical Provider Networks for WC
PPACA: The End of Workers’ Compensation?
Medical Management Internship Paper

M.A., History, New York University, New York, New York
Concentration: American History

B.A., Liberal Arts, SUNY Brockport, Brockport, NY
Concentrations: Political Science, History, Sociology/Afro-American Studies/Social Sciences/Humanities

Professional Experience

Blogger, Transforming Workers’ Compensation blog, Boynton Beach, FL            2012 – Present

  • Publishing articles to promote the implementation of medical tourism into Workers’ Compensation.

Risk Management Consulting Services, Boynton Beach, FL                                                  2002 – 2010
For Strategic Outsourcing, Inc., a professional employment organization (PEO)
in Charlotte, NC with more than 830 clients and 33,000 assigned employees.
• Performed detailed risk and loss analysis on all lines of property & casualty coverage, with emphasis on workers’ compensation and general liability.
• Worked on the design and analysis to create internally or purchase an effective Risk Management Information System (RMIS).

For Environamics, Inc., a commercial construction company in Charlotte, NC.
• Worked with the Human Resources Manager and insurance broker to create fully developed losses in all lines of insurance and loss development factors.
• Developed the analysis to determine the best levels of self-insurance and deductibles. Created fully functional loss spreadsheets.

For the Fredrick C. Smith Clinic, one of the largest physician-owned medical clinics in
• Conducted detailed risk and loss analysis in their workers’ compensation program.
• Developed the criteria to use to select a third party claims administrator.
• Designed an effective strategy to reduce frequency and severity of workers’ compensation claims.

For Bonitz, Inc., a commercial construction company (sub-contractor) in Columbia, SC,with
over 1000 associates (employees), with 16 locations in 6 states, specializing in ceiling, drywall and flooring.
• Under supervision of Director of Human Resources, designed a more effective safety program with special emphasis on Workers’ Compensation claims and claims costs.
• Assisted in the set-up and implementation of claims database system (RMIS).
• Worked on wrap-up claims, policies and programs on an as needed basis.

Sr. Specialist/Data Mgmt., Aon Risk Services of TX, Inc., Houston, TX                             2001 – 2002
• Responsible for processing internal/external client requests for data.
• Analyzed changes in clients’ Experience Modification Factors.

Risk Management Consultant, Dallas, TX                                                                                 1995 – 2001
Various assignments in Texas and Florida in Risk Management, Claims Administration and Data

Data Analyst, Stirling Cooke, Dallas, TX
• Responsible for data integrity; data and system reconciliation; running claims and policy reports; running monthly loss runs; coordinating and compiling TPA claims data; responsible for month-end processing.

BPO Compliance Analyst, PMSC, Sarasota, FL
• Gathered, analyzed, defined and implemented requirements and procedures for electronic reporting of WC data.
• Documented data reporting requirements. Developed and executed test plans.
• Compiled, analyzed and verified WC exposure, premium and claims data for statistical bureau reporting.
• Tested and analyzed data reporting software. Coordinated resolution of programming issues with programmers.

Data Services Consultant, NCCI, Inc., Boca Raton, FL
• Analyzed, researched and resolved issues for all data types, requests and collection systems for all data reported to company.
• Responded to complex questions and data requests from internal and external customers.
• Researched and resolved carrier appeals to ensure equitable application of data reporting incentive programs.
• Participated in internal carrier visitations and end-user training.

Underwriting Data Analyst (Contract), Allstate, Boca Raton, FL
• Performed data analysis and data management tasks to support underwriting operations.

Additional Experience

Claims Coding Supervisor, Reliance National Insurance Company, NY, NY
• Supervised work of coding staff. Assisted in testing of database software during
data conversion process from current database to new database.

Claims Administrator, Hamond & Regine Inc., Mineola, NY
• Managed and improved administration of Construction/Maintenance OCIP “wrap-up”
claims program (WC, GL, and Builders’ Risk) for retail insurance broker, resulting in improved operational and insurance program analysis.
• Created and generated Loss Control Analysis Reports, improving risk analysis and exposure identification.
• Interacted with Loss Control/Safety personnel to improve monitoring of claims and incidents. Reduced errors and omissions by more than 50%.
• Investigated, analyzed and coordinated correction of claims data discrepancies, saving client over $100,000 in additional premium.
• Conducted periodic claims file reviews and audits. Gathered and prepared claims data for renewal process.

No-Fault Claims Supervisor, American Colonial Insurance Company, NY, NY
• Administered Automobile No-Fault claims unit .

WC Claims Examiner, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co., NY, NY
• Processed, investigated and paid WC & Disability claims.


Medical Tourism and Workers’ Compensation: What are the barriers? Medical Travel Today.com, PERSPECTIVES, published online on November 14, 2012.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 1, Insurance Thought Leadership.com, published online on November 12, 2012.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 2, Insurance Thought Leadership.com , published online on November 15, 2012.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 3, Insurance Thought Leadership.com, published online on November 28, 2012.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 4, Insurance Thought Leadership.com, published online on December 4, 2012.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 5, Insurance Thought Leadership.com, published online on December 14, 2012.

Implementing Medical Tourism into Worker’s Compensation, CASE STUDY, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on January 2, 2013.

The Stars Aligned: Mexico as a medical tourism destination for Mexican-born US workers under Workers’ Compensation, PERSPECTIVES, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on January 16, 2013.

Immigration Reform On The Horizon: What It Means For Medical Tourism And Workers’ Compensation, Insurance Thought Leadership.com, published online February 10, 2013.

Immigration Reform on the Horizon – What it Means for Medical Tourism and Workers’ Compensation, PERSPECTIVES, Medical Travel Today.com, published online February 13, 2013.

Spinal Fusion Outcomes in Washington State, PERSPECTIVES, Medical Travel Today.com, published online February 27, 2013.

Implementing international medical providers into the U.S. workers’ compensation system, Part 1, Costa Rica Medical Tourism, Inc. published online on March 2, 2013.

Employee vs. Employer Choice of Physician Revisited: Additional Commentary on How Best to Incorporate Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation, TBD Consulting.com, published online on March 4, 2013.

Rising Hospital Costs: What they mean for Workers’ Compensation and Medical Tourism, TBD Consulting.com, published online on March 13, 2013.

Legal Barriers to Implementing International Providers into Medical Provider Networks for Workers’ Compensation: A White Paper, WordPress.com, published online on March 15, 2013.

What I Learned at the 5th World Medical Tourism & Global Healthcare Congress, and Why It Matters to the Workers’ Compensation Industry, TBD Consulting.com, published online on March 20, 2013.

A ‘Case Study’ in Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation, TBD Consulting.com, published online on April 3, 2013.

What Can Medical Tourism Do about Pain Medication Abuse?, Medical Tourism Today.com, published online on April 5, 2013.

Medical Tourism and Workers Compensation: What are the Barriers?, TBD Consulting.com, published online on April 10, 2013.

Point/CounterPoint: A Virtual Dialogue on the Merits of Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation, Part 1, TBD Consulting.com, published online on April 17, 2013.

Point/CounterPoint: A Virtual Dialogue on the Merits of Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation, Part 2, TBD Consulting.com, published online on April 18, 2013.

Ensuring Patient Safety: Making Sure Medical Tourism Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is, Medical Sea.org, published online on April 22, 2012.

Ensuring Patient Safety: Making Sure Medical Tourism Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is, OPINION, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on April 24, 2013.

Ten Years On: Medical Tourism Industry a decade out, Medical Tourism Today. com, published online on May 24, 2013.

Healthcare Transparency, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on June 6, 2013.

Surgical Shenanigans: How Workers’ Compensation is being ripped off, Medicalsea.org, published online on June 24, 2013.

My Defense of Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on July 8, 2013.

The Faith of My Conviction: Integrating Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation is Possible — and not a Pipe Dream, PERSPECTIVES, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on July, 17, 2013.

Surgical Shenanigans: How Workers’ Compensation is being ripped off, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on July 22, 2013.

On the Bright Side, Medicasea.org, published online on August 4, 2013. http://www.medicalsea.org/on-the-brightside/



And Now For Something Completely Different, Medicalsea.org, published online on August 9, 2013.
http://www.medicalsea.org/and-now-for-something-completely -different/

Founding Fathers and the ACA, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on August 26, 2013.

Lessons, Medicalsea.org, published online on August 28, 2013. http://www.medicalsea.org/lessons/

Far In Front of the Crowd, Medicalsea.org, published online on August 30, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 1, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on October 9, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 2 Outpatient Costs, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on October 16, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 3 Consolidation of US Hospitals, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on October 18, 2013.

“Have I Got A Deal For You?” — The Medical-Device Tax Shuffle and Medical Tourism, Medicalsea.org, published online on October 20, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 4 Cost to Employees, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on October 23, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 5 Immigration Reform, published online on October 25, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Part 6 Technology, published online on October 30, 2013.

Interview, SPOTLIGHT, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on October 31, 2013.

Ten Years On: One Person’s View of Where the Medical Tourism Industry Will be a Decade from Now, INDUSTRY NEWS, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on October 31, 2013.

Medical Tourism Industry a Decade from Now: Observations and Conclusion, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com,published online on November 1, 2013.

Cross-border Workers’ Compensation A Reality In California, Medicalsea.org, published online on December 3, 2013.

Knee Surgery in Costa Rica — A Less Expensive Alternative, Medicalsea.org, published online on December 31, 2013.

Cross-border Workers’ Compensation A Reality In California, Medicalsea.org, published online on January 22, 2014.

What to know before providing Medical Tourism Services, Medicalsea.org, published online on February 14, 2014.

Can Medical Tourism Relieve Stress in Workers’ Comp?, Medicalsea.org, published online on February 19, 2014.

Beware the IRS: What to Know Before Using Medical Tourism for Group Health Plans, Medicalsea.org, published online on February 25, 2014.

Statutes are not Statues Why Workers’ Comp Must Open up and Be Flexible, Medicalsea.org, published online on April 8, 2014.

ACA to Lead to Physician Shortages Possible Effects for Medical Tourism in Work Comp, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com, published online on April 14, 2014.

Why Medical Tourism for Workers’ Comp is an Idea Whose Time Has Come, U.S. Domestic Medical Travel.com, published online on April 16, 2014.

Why Medical Tourism for Workers’ Comp is an Idea Whose Time Has Come, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on May 1, 2014.

Miami Beach: Fun, Sun and Medical Tourism, Medicalsea.org, published online on May 14, 2014.

Travel expense may be reimbursed under certain conditions, Medicalsea.org, published online on July 3rd, 2014

“We’re Not No. 1!” We’re No. 11, Healthcare Talent Transformation.com published online on July 17, 2014.

From Pariah to Player: South Africa’s Journey towards Becoming a Medical Tourism Destination,

Corruption Not Limited To US Health Care, Medicalsea.org, published online on July 21, 2014.

Top 10 Causes of Workplace Injuries: How Medical Tourism Can Save Employers Money, U.S. Domestic Medical Travel.com, published online on September 15, 2015. http://www.usdomesticmedicaltravel.com/email/v2-2-full.html#story5

Paralysis by Analysis: Or the Only Thing We Have to Fear Is, Fear Itself, U.S. Domestic Medical Travel.com published online on October 20, 2015. http://www.usdomesticmedicaltravel.com/email/v2-3-full.html#story2

Follow-up Visits After Surgery: Telehealth, Medical Travel and Workers’ Comp, U.S. Domestic Medical Travel.com published online on October 20, 2015. http://www.usdomesticmedicaltravel.com/email/v2-3-full.html#story3

Interview, SPOTLIGHT, Medical Travel Today.com, published online on November 3, 2015. http://www.medicaltraveltoday.com/newsletter/v8-19-full.html#story1

Why the Globalization of Health Care Will Not Be Easy, but May Come to Pass in the Future

Maria Todd has written a very excellent piece on the globalization of health care. I will let Maria speak for herself.