Tag Archives: Medicare for All

COVID-19 and the End of the Neoliberal Era in Health Care

The subject of neoliberalism has been discussed in this blog five times between 2018 and 2019, and is the focus of an article in The Milbank Quarterly, by John E. McDonough, professor of public health practice at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health.

In the article, Professor McDonough points to a Commonwealth Fund chart (see below) that shows the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) for health care, comparing the US to 10 other high income nations. The chart shows that from 1980 to 2018, spending by the US was among the highest 40 years ago, but that in the early 1980s, US spending leapt above the others. and growing wider over four decades.

 

He then asks, “what happened to US health care in the early 1980s-and since then?”

McDonough responds by pointing to two New York Times columns by Austin Frakt, Medical Mystery: Something Happened to U.S. Health Care Spending After 1980 and Reagan, Deregulation and America’s Exceptional Rise In Health Care Costs.

McDonough suggested that a big part of the answer involves the broad economic and political trade winds of the late 1970s and 1980s, often called “Reaganomics” or “supply-side economics”, because Reagan ushered in a new era in the US. Some, like George H. W. Bush, running for President in 1980 for the Republican nomination, called it “voodoo economics.” However. as McDonough states, and as my previous posts on the subject calls it, it is “neoliberalism.”

This term evokes Adam Smith, but the 20th century version owes itself more to the works of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others. According to McDonough, the neoliberal agenda consists of cutting taxes, repealing regulations, shrinking or privatizing government (remember Grover Norquist’s desire to shrink government to fit in his bathtub and strangle it), suppressing labor, encouraging free-market trade, accepting inequality as price for economic freedom (something that has come under fire this year and since the 2016 election, making people receiving services and benefits pay as much as possible, and reorienting corporate thinking and behavior to promote return on equity as their only goal.

The New Deal era that was replaced by neoliberalism, McDonough states, lasted 48 years, from 1933 to Reagan’s inauguration in 1981. The neoliberal era, he points out, is 40 years old and showing signs of rust, cracks, and failing systems. Signs of this are Trump’s war on trade, deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations,, anger over “deaths of despair” from opioid and other addictions and economic distress, awareness and revulsion about rising levels of inequality across society, and spreading rejection of absolutist “shareholder capitalism.”

In addition, recent protests over the deaths of African-American males at the hands of police, coupled with the Corona virus pandemic, are all signs that something is terribly wrong.

But what about health care, McDonough asks again?

Reiterating what he said above, US health care between 1980 and 2020 saw spending rise far above US economic growth, while growth in insurance premiums and cost-sharing increased well beyond advances in household incomes. On key indicators, he reports, the US performs worse than most nations on life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, chronic disease mortality, levels of overweight and obesity, suicides, and gun violence, as well as glaring systemic health inequalities, as has been discussed during the BLM protests as one factor in people taking to the streets.

Despite the advances in technology and high spending, Americans give their system the lowest satisfaction ratings.

Yet, between 1965 and the 1980s, major infusions of investor capital has gone to all corners of our health care system, courtesy of shareholder-owned for-profit companies who often cut long-lasting ties with local communities, according to McDonough. It did not help that in 1986, the Institutes of Medicine, instead of convicting for-profits of “killing” health care, released a 600 page report on “For-Profit Enterprises in Health Care, that identified pluses and minuses that called for greater monitoring.

Finally, McDonough concludes that the US need to look outward, not inward, as is usually the case to solve big problems with health care. One such study, in 2018 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Beyond Neoliberalism, is a clarion call for a new policy sphere forming in think tanks, academia, advocacy and activist groups, and the legal community, as well as some Republican/conservative quarters as Marco Rubio, who rejects shareholder primacy. He says the search is on for a new paradigm, and hopes the election in November will bring it forth.

He doesn’t have to look far. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the PHNP, and others have the paradigm. It is Medicare for All/Single Payer. But first we have to rid ourselves of the baboon in the Oval Office and his economic minions, Mnuchin the Mieskeit, and Kudlow the Meshuggeneh.

Stay safe everyone.

Public Health Emergencies and Health Care

In light of recent protests and violence, especially the state-sponsored violence that was unleashed by a fascist would-be dictator last night in the nation’s capital for a political photo-op that cleared peaceful protesters with tear gas and flash bombs, we must stop defending an economic system that believes that human rights such as health care are a priviledge of one’s pocketbook, and not their humanity. This attitude is not limited to health care, but in the midst of a pandemic, it is imcumbent on us to begin somewhere.

The statement below from Dr. Adam Gaffney, President of the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) rightly states that police violence and racism are public health emergencies, must be understood from an historical perspective as well.

In my post, Why The US Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care – It Is Not What You Think, the reluctance of the US to implement universal health care is tied to Southern White racism.

So, those whose career or jobs depend on the status quo, and you know who you are, are  standing in the way of change or defend the status quo, are the ones who can bring change, or else change will be made without you.

Here is the statement:

June 2, 2020

Statement from Physicians for a National Health Program:

The horrific murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has sparked protests nationwide. Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organization of more than 23,000 doctors who support Medicare for All, denounces police brutality and racism in all forms; demands immediate steps to ensure racial justice at all levels of government; and calls for racism and racial health inequity to be treated as public health emergencies.

“The murder of Floyd,” said Dr. Adam Gaffney, president of PNHP, “is yet the latest example of the pervasive racism that sickens our nation. It is emblematic of the deeply entrenched system of institutionalized racism that afflicts both our criminal justice and health care systems.”

Police violence is a public health emergency.

Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men of color. Black men in particular face a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police, and are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than are white men. Over-policing in communities of color and sentencing disparities mean that in the U.S. — which has the highest rate of incineration in the world — Black Americans are incarcerated at a rate that is 5.1 times that of whites.

Mass incarceration imposes a particular threat to health during the COVID-19 pandemic given crowding and poor access to health care in these facilities. PNHP has previously joined other groups in calling for immediate actions to safeguard the health of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic, including early release.

Racism is a public health emergency.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the deep inequalities in our health system, as Black Americans are more than twice as likely (and in some states seven times as likely) to die from the virus than whites.

“Racial inequities have, for too long, been tolerated and accepted as normal in this country,” stated Dr. Susan Rogers, president-elect of PNHP. “The overt brutality displayed by police makes this clear, but these inequities extend to health care, housing, and education.”

Compared to whites, people of color are more likely to be uninsured, face barriers to care, and suffer and die from preventable health conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Black families are also three times more likely to live in poverty compared to white families, and twice as likely to be food insecure, factors known to contribute to poor health.

PNHP is committed to fighting all forms of racial inequity, including the structural racism that puts Black people at substantially higher risk of police violence and incarceration, and a broken health care system that denies patients of color the right to health and health care.

Now more than ever we must speak out against all acts of racial injustice. Here are a few ideas for what you can do today:

  • Support racial justice organizations in your community with your time or financial resources.
  • Educate yourself about racial disparities in health care by exploring PNHP’s TOOLKIT on racial health inequities, which includes materials for hosting webinars, a guide for writing letters and op-eds, talking points, and materials to share on social media.
  • Commit to educating your colleagues on racial justice with this slide show and with tools for a Grand Rounds presentation.

Please join me in demanding an end the scourge of police violence, as well as racism and discrimination in all its forms.

Sincerely,

Adam Gaffney, M.D., M.P.H.
President

Eligibility Waivers to Leave Many With Costs From COVID-19

One more reason, now that COVID is causing so much unemployment, that we desparately need Medicare for All, with no qualifications other than US citizenship. We can give corporations and wealthy people billions in tax breaks, but not one red cent for people’s health care in a nationwide, single payer system that would have responded rationally and logistically to a pandemic, instead of as a “chaotic disaster.”

Health Affairs Blog

May 8, 2020

Medicaid Retroactive Eligibility Waivers Will Leave Thousands Responsible For Coronavirus Treatment Costs

By Paul Shafer  Nicole Huberfeld  Ezra Golberstein

The coronavirus pandemic has led to record numbers of American workers being laid off or seeing their hours and paychecks dwindle. The economy is on the brink of a deep recession, and waves of coronavirus infections may continue for the foreseeable future. Medicaid will be a crucial piece of the puzzle that helps to ensure access to health care while protecting people from further financial ruin. Yet, one of Medicaid’s key provisions has been weakened by recently approved section 1115 “demonstration projects”, commonly referred to as waivers, that eliminate or reduce retroactive coverage. These waivers will diminish coverage for thousands of people seeking testing and treatment for COVID-19 and other medical care.

Retroactive eligibility is a long-standing feature of Medicaid that covers health care expenses for three months prior to the application date, provided that the beneficiary would have been eligible during that period. Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a handful of states imposed narrow restrictions on retroactive eligibility, but these limitations were paired with expansions of eligibility and had exemptions for vulnerable groups. Recently, however, many states—including Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and New Hampshire—have gained Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approval for 1115 waivers that drastically limit or completely eliminate retroactive eligibility, though four have been stayed by courts or halted by states as part of litigation challenging the legality of those waivers that include work requirements (Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, and New Hampshire).

A core purpose of Medicaid is supporting people when they need help, which is why Medicaid has continual open enrollment and retroactive eligibility to cover the cost of care when those who are eligible aren’t already enrolled before a crisis. States should restore full retroactive eligibility immediately to protect thousands of newly-unemployed workers from even greater health and economic suffering.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200506.111318/full/

Mass Unemployment and COVID-19: What It Means for Health Insurance

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. and David Himmelstein, M.D. wrote yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine that many of those who lose, or already lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic have a lack of health insurance. Many did not have insurance before the outbreak, and now that they are unemployed, their employer-based insurance will end as well.

Here is the article in full:

Annals of Internal Medicine

April 7, 2020

Intersecting U.S. Epidemics: COVID-19 and Lack of Health Insurance

By Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH; David U. Himmelstein, MD

During the final week of March 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that a record number of workers—6.648 million—filed new claims for unemployment benefits. That beat the previous record of 3.307 million filings, which was set the week before, bringing the 2-week total to 9.955 million. This is just the beginning of the surge in joblessness due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A Federal Reserve Bank economist estimated that the ranks of unemployed persons will swell by 47.05 million by the end of June.

For many, job loss will carry the added sting of losing health insurance. Congress has moved to cover severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing for uninsured persons, but did not include provisions to cover treatment of COVID-19 (or other illnesses). The recent $2 trillion bailout bill offered no new health insurance subsidies or coverage.

Estimating Coverage Losses

We estimated the likely effects of current job losses on the number of uninsured persons by using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2019 Current Population Survey on health insurance coverage rates among persons who lost or left a job. The uninsurance rate among unemployed persons who had lost or left a job was 26.3% versus 10.7% among those with jobs. Applying the 15.6–percentage point difference to the 9.955 million who filed new unemployment claims last week, we estimate that 1.553 million newly unemployed persons will lose health coverage. This figure excludes family members who will become uninsured because a breadwinner lost coverage and self-employed persons who may lose coverage because their businesses were shuttered, but are ineligible for unemployment benefits. If, as the Federal Reserve economist projects, an additional 47.05 million people become unemployed, 7.3 million workers (along with several million family members) are likely to join the ranks of the U.S. uninsured population.

Coverage losses are likely to be steepest in states that have turned down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. In expansion states, the share of persons who have lost or left a job who lacked coverage was 22.1% versus 8.3% for employed persons—a difference of 13.8 percentage points. In nonexpansion states, the uninsurance rate among such unemployed persons was 38.4% versus 15.8% for employed persons—a difference of 22.6 percentage points. In other words, nearly 1 in 4 newly unemployed workers in nonexpansion states are likely to lose coverage, bringing their overall uninsurance rate to nearly 40%.

Our projections are based on differences in coverage rates for employed and unemployed persons in 2019, but there is little reason to believe that the predicament of unemployed workers has improved since then. Although many who lose their jobs are likely to be eligible for Medicaid or subsidized Affordable Care Act coverage, and some will purchase continuing coverage under COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act), the same was true in 2019. Indeed, the situation may be worse today because some laid-off workers probably gained coverage through an employed spouse in 2019, an option less likely to be available in the face of the impending massive layoffs.

Urgent Policy Needs and Longer-Term Solutions

With jobs and health insurance coverage disappearing as the COVID-19 pandemic rages, states that have declined to expand Medicaid should urgently reconsider. Yet, the high uninsurance rate among unemployed persons in Medicaid expansion states underlines the need for action in Washington. Tax revenues are plunging, and all states except Vermont are required to balance their budgets annually. Hence, only the federal government has the wherewithal to address the impending crisis.

Thus far, neither Congress nor the administration has offered plans to expand coverage. Some have suggested that the federal government cover COVID-19–related care for uninsured persons through Medicaid, but some states would probably decline such a Medicaid expansion, leaving many newly jobless persons—and the 28 million who were uninsured before the pandemic—without coverage. Instead, we advocate for passage of an emergency measure authorizing Medicare coverage for all persons eligible for unemployment benefits.

Although the COVID-19 crisis demands urgent action, it also exposes the imprudence of tying health insurance to employment, and the need for more thoroughgoing reform. A trickle of families facing the dual disaster of job loss and health insurance loss can remain under Washington’s radar. However, the current tsunami of job and coverage losses along with a heightened risk for severe illness demands action. A decade ago, Victor Fuchs forecasted that “National health insurance will probably come to the United States after a major change in the political climate—the kind of change that often accompanies a war, a depression, or large-scale civil unrest.” Such a major change may be upon us.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764415/intersecting-u-s-epidemics-covid-19-lack-health-insurance

Another Reason for Medicare for All

While all of you are working from home, perhaps you can consider what Marcia Angell says below in between doing your work and playing with the kids.

Santa Fe New Mexican

March 21, 2020

Why the U.S. failed the coronavirus test

By Marcia Angell

The coronavirus pandemic is the best argument for “Medicare for All.” As it stands, most Americans get health care only if we have insurance that will pay for it. If we don’t or we can’t afford the deductibles and copayments, too bad. Every other advanced country provides universal health care in a predominately nonprofit system.

What happens, then, when Americans develop a fever and cough? Are they likely to seek medical help, despite the hefty bills they are sure to receive, particularly if, say, the radiologist is out of network or the insurance company refuses to pay for some other reason? The new coronavirus, while highly contagious, is usually mild, so people with minimal symptoms might simply take their usual cold remedies while they go about their business and spread the infection widely.

The problem is that we treat health care like a market commodity distributed according to the ability to pay in an uncoordinated system with hundreds of commercial insurers and profit-oriented providers. Some 30 million people have no access to health care because they are uninsured, and millions more don’t use their insurance because the deductibles and copayments are unaffordable. In addition, insurers usually require patients to get their care within a narrow network of providers and exclude certain services.

The shortage of test kits for coronavirus stems from a related problem. Since there was no commercial market for them, they didn’t get made immediately. While we’ve converted health care into a market commodity, we’ve hollowed out our public health system, so it couldn’t do the job.

For all we know, the coronavirus may already have spread widely within the United States. Although it has been in other countries for more than two months, we have not really looked for it here. Until the last week in February, our premier public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, limited its diagnostic testing to symptomatic patients who had traveled to China or had contact with someone known to be infected. This is akin to looking for lost keys only under a lamppost.

The CDC probably could not have done better, given its lack of funding and governmental support. But ignorance is hardly a good public health strategy. Right from the beginning, we should have made test kits available to state and local public health agencies (as was done in Italy and South Korea). The only way to deal with an epidemic of this scope is with a universal health care system like “Medicare for All” and a strong, well-funded public health network.

The political opposition to “Medicare for All” is puzzling, since Medicare is the most popular part of our current fragmented system. In fact, many 64-year-olds can hardly wait to be 65, so they will be eligible. Why, then, do opponents of “Medicare for All” seem to believe that extending this popular program to everyone would be a sacrifice? Would a 64-year-old really prefer private insurance, with its networks and variable benefits, to Medicare, with its free choice of doctors and guaranteed benefits?

It’s true that taxes would have to increase to pay for “Medicare for All,” but the taxes could be as progressive as we wanted. For most Americans, they would probably be completely offset by the elimination of premiums, deductibles and copayments. In addition, the system as a whole would be far more efficient, because of the reduction in our gigantic overhead costs and the elimination of most profits. Most important, cost inflation would slow greatly, so that in a few years we would come out well ahead.

But as important as cost control is, my reason for favoring “Medicare for All” is primarily moral. Health care is not like ordinary consumer goods that people can choose to purchase. Illness is not a choice; it’s a misfortune. So why should people have to pay for it, as if they wanted it? Providing health care, just like providing clean water or police protection or basic education, is simply what decent societies should do. And during an epidemic, it protects all of us. The coronavirus pandemic powerfully underscores the need for a coherent national health system, in which we all pull together.

Marcia Angell is a member of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, and a former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. She will soon be a resident of Santa Fe.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/why-the-u-s-failed-the-coronavirus-test/article_cb92b8a6-694c-11ea-80b4-078d871fd2e9.html

If Not Now, When?

Don McCanne posted the following article from Health Affairs by Adam Gaffney, President of Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP). The full text and exhibits can be found at the link at the bottom.

Health Affairs Blog

March 9, 2020

Medicare For All: If Not Now, When?

By Adam Gaffney

The rise of Medicare for All has triggered mixed reactions.  Supporters see it as a cause for hope — the culmination of decades of research, education, and advocacy.  President Donald Trump, on the other hand, is dyspeptic, fuming in his recent State of the Union that single-payer would “bankrupt our nation,” and vowing not to “let socialism destroy American healthcare.”  A third group expresses sympathy for the goals of Medicare for All, and even acknowledges its policy merits, but sees the political obstacles as insurmountable — and advises that advocacy for such reform should be abandoned because it risks undermining beneficial, and more realistic approaches.

A clear-eyed assessment of institutional realities that will face the next presidential administration, Billy Wynn recently argued in the Health Affairs blog, should temper Democrats’ demands. He cautioned that Democratic victories in federal elections are far from secure; that Medicare for All may not be passable via budget reconciliation even if Democrats take the Senate with only a simple majority; and that Democratic legislators are, in any event, hardly unified in support of Medicare for All.  Similarly, John E. McDonough recently warned that comprehensive healthcare reform has, in the past, required an elusive “super-majority Trifecta” — Democratic control of the House, Senate (with 60-seats), and Presidency.  Even under such favorable conditions, he contends, our political capital might be better invested elsewhere.

While the hurdles are certainly formidable, steep political odds hardly compel us to abandon Medicare for All.  Indeed, advice to drop the push for such reform rests on a misunderstanding of the dynamics of political change.  History suggests that movements organized around ambitious demands can, over time, create the conditions for their passage — and that demands for radical change often advance, rather than undermine, the prospects for more incremental progress in the interim.  As important, the life-and-death urgency of single-payer healthcare reform – too often underemphasized by its critics – has the potential to bring together a coalition of supporters across cultural, geographic and even class lines.  It may, in other words, trigger a movement that could accomplish the unexpected.

The Dynamics of Political Change: Lessons from History

The institutional barriers that critics describe are real enough, and cannot be waved away.  But they are also not immutable: throughout history, energizing issues have changed political contexts.

Consider, for instance, the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  Democrats had been stymied since the Truman administration in their efforts to pass a public national health insurance plan, obstructed in part by members of Congress intent on accommodating the insurance industry. John McDonough is right to emphasize that, from a narrow perspective, a super-majority Trifecta made Medicare achievable.  1964 saw a historic electoral shift, that, as Ted Marmor has noted, all but “guaranteed the passage of legislation on medical care for the aged.”  But the achievement was only possible because people had been laying the groundwork for Medicare for years prior to the pivotal election.  Senior citizen groups, progressive activists, organized labor, and allies in the civil rights movement forced it onto the national political agenda, holding politicians feet to the fire year after year — a point made by Natalie Shure in the Nation.  Moreover, it required years of legislative efforts and coalition building to ready the ground for the final push. Had supporters not done so — had everyone waited to design and advocate for Medicare until the political chess pieces were in perfect position — the window would have opened, the window would have closed, and Medicare might very well not have come to be.

The same can be said for almost every sweeping political change in US history. The abolition of slavery, the reforms of the New Deal era, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and the legalization of gay marriage — none would have happened if reformers had patiently waited for the proper political alignment in the halls of Congress before envisioning, designing, and demanding change.  The 2020 elections may or may not cause a political earthquake on par with 1964, but it hardly follows from this that we ought to lower our sights.  After all, nobody can accurately predict when the pivotal shift will come.  We do know, however, that if we wait for it happen, we will already be too late.

The Urgency of National Health Insurance

(Use the link below to access this important section of the article.)

Medicare for All — unlike other reforms — would alleviate such widespread and unnecessary suffering not merely by covering the uninsured, but by eliminating financial barriers to care.  Rising costs from higher care utilization will be offset by large savings from simplifying administration. Indeed, a recent systematic review found that some 19 out of 22 economic analyses of Medicare for All predicted overall savings in the first year as a result of such efficiencies.  Transforming healthcare financing is what makes such an unprecedented coverage expansion economically— and hence politically — feasible.

The policy advantages of Medicare for All, in other words, aren’t mere minutiae: they are part of the force for political change.

Medicare for All: The Link Between Policy and Politics

Yet policy and politics are linked in another, more fundamental way.  The experience of illness and of medical care is almost universal.  This means that in the United States, encounters with our dysfunctional healthcare financing system are also near universal.  How many have never had a spell of being uninsured, dealt with an onerous copay or deductible, contended with a medical bill or collections agency, gone without needed care because of cost, or faced a denial of care from their insurer?  It is not merely uninsured Americans who have much to gain from single-payer reform, but also those with chronic conditions who pay a tax for their illness in the form of cost-sharing; those with Medicare coverage who lack dental and long-term care benefits; those with Medicaid who must hurdle administrative barriers to remain covered and face frequent “churn” out of the program, and who sometimes have inferior access to care.  Indeed, even those satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage know that they are but one sickness — and consequent job loss — away from losing it.

All of which is to say that at the end of the day, the vast majority of the nation could benefit from single-payer reform — and that fact makes it winnable.  Above all, however, we can be sure of one thing: not bothering to push for Medicare for All today will guarantee that it doesn’t happen tomorrow.

The author serves as President of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a non-profit organization that favors coverage expansion through a single payer program.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200309.156440/full/

Job Churn Benefit of Medicare for All

For those who believe that MFA would be a job killer, here is an article from the Economic Policy Institute that dispeals that belief.

Economic Policy Institute

March 5, 2020

Fundamental health reform like ‘Medicare for All’ would help the labor market

Job loss claims are misleading, and substantial boosts to job quality are often overlooked

By Josh Bivens

Fundamental health reform like “Medicare for All” would be a hugely ambitious policy undertaking with profound effects on the economy and the economic security of households in America. But despite oft-repeated claims of large-scale job losses, a national program that would guarantee health insurance for every American would not profoundly affect the total number of jobs in the U.S. economy. In fact, such reform could boost wages and jobs and lead to more efficient labor markets that better match jobs and workers. Specifically, it could:

*  Boost wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect money they are spending on health care costs to their workers’ wages.

*  Increase job quality by ensuring that every job now comes bundled with a guarantee of health care—with the boost to job quality even greater among women workers, who are less likely to have employer-sponsored health care.

*  Lessen the stress and economic shock of losing a job or moving between jobs by eliminating the loss of health care that now accompanies job losses and transitions.

*  Support self-employment and small business development—which is currently super low in the U.S. relative to other rich countries—by eliminating the daunting loss of/cost of health care from startup costs.

*  Inject new dynamism and adaptability into the overall economy by reducing “job lock”—with workers going where their skills and preferences best fit the job, not just to workplaces (usually large ones) that have affordable health plans.

*  Produce a net increase in jobs as public spending boosts aggregate demand, with job losses in health insurance and billing administration being outweighed by job gains in provision of health care, including the expansion of long-term care.

The upshot: M4A creates a small amount of manageable churn but increases the overall demand for labor and boosts job quality

The job challenge relating to a fundamental health reform is managing a relatively small increase in job churn during an initial phase-in period. Most Medicare for All plans explicitly recognize and account for the costs of providing these workers the elements of a just transition. This sort of just transition is far easier when health care is universally provided.

Besides this challenge, the effect of fundamental reform like M4A on the labor market would be nearly uniformly positive. The effect of a fundamental reform like M4A on aggregate demand is almost certainly positive and will therefore boost the demand for labor. The number of jobs spurred by increased demand for new health care spending (including long-term care) will certainly be larger than the number displaced by realizing efficiencies in the health insurance and billing administration sectors.

Finally, the introduction of fundamental health reform like M4A—particularly reform that substantially delinks health care provision from specific jobs—would greatly aid how the labor market functions for typical working Americans. Take-home cash pay would increase, job quality would improve, labor market transitions could be eased for employers and made less damaging to workers, and a greater range of job opportunities could be considered by workers. The increased flexibility to leave jobs should lead to more productive “matches” between workers and employers, and small businesses and self-employment could increase.

Fundamental health reform would benefit typical American families in all sorts of ways. Importantly, contrary to claims that such reform might be bad for jobs, this reform could substantially improve how labor markets function for these families.

https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/

Full report (13 page PDF):

https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/186856.pdf

Moderate Democrats Health Care Plans Fall Short

Listening to the Democratic debates since they began last year, I have been dumbfounded and angered that so many of the candidates running for President this year believe that some halfway measure to achieve universal coverage for health care is possible, if only voters would vote for them.

With the exception of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the rest of the candidates, those still running, and those who dropped out, advocate a public option or fixing the ACA. (see “Medicare for All and the Democratic Debates”) Their proposals fly in the face of study after study, article after article that firmly states that the only way to provide universal coverage at lower cost, and that will save money is Medicare for All.

They are trying to scare the American people with words like “Socialism” and suggesting that their taxes will go up, or that they will lose their employer-based or private health insurance.

As I have written in the past, there is a concerted effort on the part of the health care industry to defeat Medicare for All/Single Payer, and they have been targeting the Democrats to do so.

An article last Monday in The Hill by Diane Archer, senior adviser at Social Security Works states that twenty-two studies agree that Medicare for All saves money.

According to Ms. Archer, researchers at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine.

Every single study, they found, predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

In addition, all of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. As reported last year, even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank belonging to the libertarian Koch Brothers, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage

The key takeaway from the studies is that Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs.

This is because Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare for All system would save still more with implementation of global health care spending budgets.

None of the other Democratic candidates can make that assertion because their plans leave many uninsured and and keep in place the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to make huge profits from the health of the American people.

While I am no fan of Bernie Sanders as a candidate, and his recent dispute with the Nevada Culinary Union not withstanding, his goal is to cover every American with universal health care. Elizabeth Warren’s plan differs somewhat from Sanders’, but has a more reasonable time frame for implementation.

The inconvenient truth, folks is that Medicare for All will save money, will cover everyone, and will finally bring down the cost of health care so that no one has to go broke paying for it, or decide not to get medical care when needed because they can’t afford it.’

Those of you who are not physicians or in the insurance industry, or the pharmaceutical industry who pontificate on social media that Medicare for All is bad, are only delaying the inevitable. You consultants, analysts, researchers and other auxiliary industries to health care must see the truth staring you in the face. You are on the wrong side of the debate, and on the wrong side of history.

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.

Multiple studies show Medicare for All would be cheaper than public option pushed by moderates | Salon.com

For all those skeptics and naysayers who say we can’t afford single payer, Salon.com has an article from Saturday (see below) that dispels the notion that Medicare for All is too expensive.

Yet, bear in mind, that we are spending billions on two wars, raising the military spending budget, wasting money on a stupid wall that is falling down, and a host of other useless and wasteful spending that is running up the deficit, at the same time health care companies and pharmaceutical companies are raking in huge profits and returning questionable outcomes.

But go ahead, believe the Republican lies, libertarian fantasies  and moderate Democrats wishful thinking about a public option. You only have your health to lose.

Here’s the article:

Yale and Harvard researchers found that Medicare for All reduces costs while public option makes health care more expensive.

Source: Multiple studies show Medicare for All would be cheaper than public option pushed by moderates | Salon.com