Tag Archives: Immigrants

Immigrants Pay More In Private Insurance Premiums Than They Receive In Benefits | Health Affairs

A press release from Dr. Carol Paris of the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) reported the following article from yesterday’s Health Affairs journal.

Two of the authors of the study, Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein are regular contributors to many articles appearing in Health Affairs, and you may remember them from my review of the book they published along with Howard Waitzkin and others, Health Care Under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health.

Here is the press release in full:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Despite recent claims that immigrants are a drain on the American economy and health system, a study published yesterday in Health Affairs shows that immigrants make a net contribution to private health insurance plans. The research team, which included several PNHP members, found that as a group, immigrants paid $88.7 billion in private insurance premiums but used only $64.0 billion in insurer-paid health care, generating a surplus of $24.7 billion in 2014.

In “Immigrants Pay More in Private Insurance Premiums Than They Receive in Benefits,” researchers Leah Zallman, M.D., M.P.H., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Sharon Touw, M.P.H., David Himmelstein, M.D., and Karen Finnegan, Ph.D. found that between 2008 and 2014, immigrants generated a cumulative surplus of $174.4 billion for private insurers, heavily subsidizing the the benefits of U.S.-born enrollees and boosting the profits of insurance companies. On a per-enrollee basis, immigrants provided an average premium-over-payout surplus of $1,123 each, while U.S.-born Americans incurred an average deficit of $163 each. Undocumented immigrants, who generally use little medical care, generated the largest surplus at $1,445 per enrollee.

While recent studies have examined the financial impact of immigrants on public health programs like Medicare, this project was the first to look specifically at immigrants’ role in financing private health insurance. Since undocumented immigrants or those residing legally in the U.S. for fewer than five years are not eligible for Medicaid and Medicare, private insurance is often immigrants’ only coverage option. Even so, many immigrants are afraid to use the coverage that they earn and pay for.

“Almost every day I see immigrant patients who avoid seeking the care they need to stay healthy,” said lead author Dr. Leah Zallman, who is director of research at the Institute for Community Health, physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Political leaders have created a climate of fear by blaming immigrants for driving up health care costs. However, this study and our prior research shows that by paying more into the system than they receive, immigrants actually subsidize both private insurance and Medicare for U.S.-born citizens.”

Don McCanne added the following on his post this afternoon about immigrants and private health insurance premiums.

From the Discussion

Immigrants contributed far more in premiums for private coverage in 2014 than their insurers paid out for their care, with undocumented immigrants generating the largest per enrollee surplus. This net surplus offset a deficit incurred by US natives and exceeded total insurance industry profits by about $10 billion that year. Our 2014 findings were not anomalous: Immigrants made large net contributions in every year in the period 2008–14, with little change over time.

While immigrants’ premiums were similar to those for US natives, immigrants incurred much lower expenditures—a disparity that was present in analyses limited to working-age adults. Among immigrants, expenditures increased with duration of time in the US, a phenomenon documented previously. This may reflect worsening health habits related to acculturation, increased care-seeking behaviors, and increased educational standing with time in the US. However, because premium contributions also increased with time in the US, immigrants made a net contribution to private health insurance regardless of their length of residence in the US.

Our findings contradict assertions that people born in the US are systematically subsidizing the medical care of immigrants, particularly those who are undocumented. On the contrary, immigrants subsidize US natives in the private health insurance market, just as they are propping up the Medicare Trust Funds.

Immigrants’ subsidies to private insurance and Medicare likely reflect their relative youth and good health, as well as the reluctance of many to seek care. Policies that curtail the flow of immigration to the US are likely to result in a declining number of such “actuarially desirable” persons, which could worsen the private insurance risk pool.

Source: Immigrants Pay More In Private Insurance Premiums Than They Receive In Benefits | Health Affairs

Advertisements

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

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

Immigrants in construction — key facts « Working Immigrants

Peter Rousmaniere posted the following fact sheet about immigrants working in construction. While this has no bearing on health care at present, it does have some bearing on workers’ comp, especially in light of the current regime’s draconian policy towards immigrants from Central America.

As this “crisis” progresses, it may be harder for construction companies to find workers to employ on construction sites.

This, in turn would mean that they may be less construction work, and for the insurance industry, less risk and less profit to be made from insuring these projects.

In workers’ comp, that would translate into less frequency of losses, but it would also cut off revenue from carriers covering such risks.

And he promised to create jobs? Hardly.

Source: Immigrants in construction — key facts « Working Immigrants

Health Care, Immigration, and the Supreme Court

This week America underwent a shock of such magnitude that many believe that this is the end of the experiment begun in 1776, and the United States lost its standing as the “Shining City on a Hill.”

We have witnessed the cruelty of the Trump regime towards innocent children snatched from the arms of their parents, simply because their parents want to escape the violence and oppression of the drug gangs rampant in their home countries.

These parents want not only to secure for their children a life free from being recruited into these gangs, they also want to provide their children with a better life.

And most of them did so according to US immigration law. They presented themselves at legitimate border crossings, and were summarily arrested, had their children separated from them, the children, some as young as a few months old, put in cages, or transferred across the country, and placed in facilities where no press or Congressional observers are allowed to see for themselves, except on special guided tours where they cannot speak to the children.
Recently, a judge in California ordered the regime to re-unite the children with their parents and effectively ended the zero-tolerance policy.

Tomorrow, at 11 am, I, and many others around the nation will take part in a march to protest this cruel and un-American action. The march I will be attending will be held in West Palm Beach and will cross the Intracoastal Waterway by way of a bridge connecting the mainland with Palm Beach island. The march will terminate at Mar-a-Lago, the former home of Marjorie Merriweather Post, heiress to the Post cereal fortune, and that is now owned by the Orangutan.

Why am I writing this, and what does it have to do with health care? And what does the Supreme Court have to do with these other issues?

That is what this post will attempt to address.

To begin with, the immigration issue will have a profound effect on the health care system, as the older Americans get, the more home health and nurses’ aides they are going to need.

Preventing these unfortunate men, women and children, fleeing violence and drug gangs, and civil war and corruption at home, will mean that in the future there will be fewer workers to take these and many other jobs in health care and other industries.

In addition, the so-called “travel ban”, is really a cynical attempt to impose a Muslim ban without calling it one. The Supreme Court weighed in on this move this week, ignoring the racist comments made by the Orangutan, and gave him wide latitude to ban anyone he does not like.

This will have the chilling effect of preventing both medical students and physicians from coming to the US, not only from the countries on the list, but all other Muslim nations. The medical travel industry, also may feel some effect, as providers and facilitators from Gulf states, and other nations in the region, may be prevented from attending conferences and speaking engagements, and Americans who go to the UAE may be given greater scrutiny upon return to the US.

As a grandson of immigrants, this un-constitutional, un-American, and inhumane action by this regime is very disturbing and sickened me when I heard the cries of those children. But, according to recent polling on the issue, 58% of Republicans approved of the separation of children from their parents, while 92% of Democrats disapproved. The CNN poll results are here:

On top of the immigration debacle, and the “travel ban”, there was a third and more devastating blow to American democracy and to the Republic this week. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on many issues brought before the Court, portends that the Court will be radically altered once a replacement is chosen and confirmed by the Senate.

But unlike the Merritt Garland nomination, Mitch McConnell is vowing to confirm whatever nominee the Orangutan appoints, and the regime promises to appoint a strict Conservative justice. Several commentators have indicated that abortion, LGBTQ rights, and maybe even health care, could be overturned if one more current justice, most probably Ruth Bader Ginsberg, retires or like Scalia, dies in the next two years. She is 85.

Overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal once again, will force women to seek back alley abortions, and will severely impact their health and lives. Also, it is possible that birth control and access to it, may be denied to women, and that will have serious impacts on health care in the future. Some believe that Roe is settled law, but don’t count on them being right. The Religious Right is waiting for the day that women are forced to carry to term pregnancies they don’t want, and then have any neo-natal or post-natal care taken away, so that they and their babies suffer needlessly.

A strict Conservative on the bench also threatens gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, as it was Justice Kennedy who broke with the Conservatives and said that gay people had a constitutional right to marry. It may mean that more cases like the recent Colorado case may be decided in the plaintiff’s favor, albeit without the bias the state Commission showed to religion.

Lastly, health care could face enormous challenges ahead if the makeup of the Court swings radically to the right. The current Court ruled that the ACA was Constitutional, but since the coup of 2016, the GOP has steadily destroyed the law and a radical Supreme Court just might put the last nail in the coffin and deny millions of Americans health care. There is also a health care bill in Congress that will remove many diseases and pre-existing conditions from coverage.

This is especially disturbing to yours truly, as I have one of those pre-existing conditions: ESRD. Right now, I have Medicare only, but who knows what a radical Court may do to that and the other health care programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, etc.

In college, I was taught that the Court generally swings from liberal to conservative, but in my lifetime, it has gone from liberal to conservative, to radically conservative, so that now we may be headed for a judicial, corporate dictatorship where the people have little or no rights, and Corporate and religious interests have all the rights.

The following quote sums up our predicament:

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Sinclair Lewis

So, what do we do?

Well, the march tomorrow morning is a start. I have been critical of those groups opposed to this regime sitting on their kiesters and doing nothing except marching once a year in January for two straight years in the Women’s Marches. This crisis is bigger than just one demographic group. This fight is for the soul of the nation and for the Republic as a democratic republic. A journalist heard this morning on MSNBC said she went to Minnesota recently when the Orangutan was there, and she said that the cab driver told her that he is a Republican, is against the Orangutan, and cannot speak to friends about him because they believe him 100% and think he is a god.

Great! Now we have a Caucasian version of Kim Jong Un.

We have to work together, because in the words of Pastor Niemoeller:

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Founding Fathers knew something like this would happen, but never thought that the Electoral College, created to prevent this, would actually make it a reality. We are living in scary times.

Have a good weekend everyone, and if I don’t write before Wednesday, have a safe and happy Fourth…it may be our last.

The Cry of the Children

Taking a break from writing about health care, workers’ comp, and medical travel, I want to talk about something I saw, or rather heard yesterday afternoon on MSNBC.

It was an audio (furnished by ProPublica) of children crying at a detention center (more like Concentration Camp) that broke my heart. I was in tears, and very seldom do so. But those cries went right to me.

If they did to you, then you are a good human being. If not, then you have no soul. And please, don’t quote me that that’s the law, or it is in the Bible, or they are illegal and have no rights.

EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS RIGHTS.

And as for whether or not they are “illegal”, I guess you forgot that when your ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or whatever ship they sailed on, the landlords here for thousands of years knew you were “illegal” too.

The ancestors of all of these people now streaming to our border came to this hemisphere some 20,000 years ago, so by those standards, you, me, and all the rest of us are undocumented aliens. But no one tells us to leave. Or yanks our kids from our arms.

That we do this and many other things to minorities is a symptom of our greed, ignorance, and stupidity that never seems to die out. Take for example, our Confederate-era Attorney General, Jeff “Foghorn Leghorn” Sessions. That refugee from the set of “Gone With the Wind” is not only a religious zealot, but a full-out bigot and racist from a region of the nation that still has not given up its racism and hatred of non-whites, and non-Christians. In this case, non-Protestants from Catholic Latin America.

Too many of our fellow Americans have been poisoned by talk radio, Fox News, and local politicians to see that we are all immigrants and that at times in the long history of the human species, we were migrants too. Our prehistoric ancestors migrated, as did many more recent peoples. But none ever subjected to such cruelty, except during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

We were all taught in school to believe in the ideals of America as a shining city on a hill (incidentally, an idea the Puritans created), and was more about a religious view than a secular one. We were all taught about why we fought a revolution, why we have a Declaration of Independence, and why we have a Constitution that secures our rights and liberties.

And now we are throwing all that away because of a clique of neo-fascist, racist bullies and bigots, headed by a pathological liar and con man, who has conned a large segment of the American people (by which I mean White people) that he can make America great again, all the while cozying up to dictators and dissing our friends.

Folks, this is how Hitler and the Nazis began. And it ended with 6 million dead (my maternal great-uncle, aunt and their six children among them), so don’t tell me it is legal or biblical. You know where you can put that.

And those of you who say they have stolen our jobs or they are criminals and rapists, I have news for you…next time you are in a restaurant, or a family member is in a hospital, bus your own table, and clean up your family member’s dirty linen. Because if Herr Miller (Stephen) gets his way, there won’t be any bus boys, nurses’ aides, home health aides, janitors, and other occupations Americans won’t be filling begging for workers. Oh, and you can come to Florida and pick your own fruits and vegetables, because there won’t be anyone to do it for you.

AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, SO WE NEED THESE PEOPLE.

 

Typical Family of Four Now Paying Over $28,000 for Health Care

A report issued Monday by Milliman indicated that the cost of health care for a typical American family covered by the average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan in 2018 is $28,166, as per the Milliman Medical Index (MMI).

Broken down into component parts, this represents the following costs:

2018 MMI Components of Spending
31% ($8,631) – Inpatient
19% ($5,395) – Outpatient
29% ($8,275) – Professional services
17% ($4,888) – Pharmacy
4% ($995) – Other (Home health, ambulance, DME, prosthetics)

The key takeaway from the report is that employers are paying more; but employees are paying a lot more.

The health care expenditures are funded by employer contributions to health plans and by employees through their payroll deductions and out-of-pocket expenses incurred when care is received, according to the report.

The report continues that they are seeing over the long-term, and that employees are paying a higher percentage of the total, with employee expenses increasing 5.9%, and employer expenses increasing 3.5% in 2018.

The total cost of health care is shared by both the employer and employee for a family of four, the MMI stated, which breaks down to three categories:

1. Employer subsidy. Employers that sponsor health plans subsidize the cost of healthcare for their employees by allocating compensation dollars to pay a large share of the cost.
2. Employee contribution. Employees who choose to participate in the employer’s health benefit plan typically also pay a substantial portion of costs, usually through payroll deduction.
3. Employee out-of-pocket cost at time of service. When employees receive care, they also often pay for a portion of these services via health plan deductibles and/or point-of-service copays.

The relative proportions of medical costs for 2018 are:

56% ($15,788) – Employer contribution
27% ($7,674) – Employee contribution
17% ($4,704) – Employee out-of-pocket

Looking at this another way, employees are paying a total of 44% as either a contribution or out-of-pocket, which adds up to $12,378, compared to the employers’ 56% and $15,788, respectively.

As health care gets more expensive, it will naturally lead to higher costs for employers, but also higher costs for employees. And as has been happening more commonly, employers are shifting more of the costs onto the employees. With stagnant wages, as reported daily in the news, this is going to be a problem for those families caught in the squeeze between rising costs for medical care and stagnant wages.

This would be resolved by creating a single payer health care system that will save both employers and employees money,