Tag Archives: Single Payer

Single Payer Supported by Majority of Physicians

A shout-out to Dr. Don McCanne for posting the following article from Merritt Hawkins.

Merritt Hawkins
August 14, 2017
Survey: 42% of Physicians Strongly Support a Single Payer Healthcare System, 35% are Strongly Opposed
By Phillip Miller
A plurality of physicians strongly support a single payer healthcare system, according to a new survey by Merritt Hawkins.
The survey of 1,033 physicians indicates that 42 percent strongly support a single payer health care system while 14 percent are somewhat supportive. Over one-third (35 percent) strongly oppose a single payer system while six percent are somewhat against it. The remaining three percent neither support nor oppose single payer.
The results contrast with a national survey of physicians Merritt Hawkins conducted in 2008, which indicated that 58 percent of physicians opposed single payer at that time while 42 percent supported it.
In Merritt Hawkins’ experience, there are four reasons why a growing number of physicians are in favor of single payer. First, they are seeking clarity and stability. The fits and starts of health reform and the growing complexity of our current hybrid system are a daily strain on most doctors. Many of them believe that a single payer healthcare system will reduce the distractions and allow them to focus on what they have paid a high price to do: care for patients.
Second, it’s a generational issue. The various surveys that Merritt Hawkins has conducted for The Physicians Foundation in the past show that younger doctors are more accepting of Obamacare, ACOs, EHR, and change in general than are older physicians As the new generation of physicians comes up, there is less resistance among doctors to single payer.
Third, there is a feeling of resignation rather than enthusiasm among some physicians about single payer. These physicians believe we are drifting toward single payer and would just as soon get it over with. The 14% of physicians surveyed who said they “somewhat” support single payer are probably in this group.
Fourth, there is a philosophical change among physicians that I think the public and political leaders on both sides of the aisle now share, which is that we should make an effort to cover as many people as possible.
However, while single payer has gained acceptance among some physicians, it remains strongly opposed by over one third and strongly or somewhat opposed by over 40 percent. It is still a polarizing issue among physicians and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
So, if a majority of physicians support single payer, and they are the ones we should listen to when it comes to taking care of our health, and if a growing majority of Americans are coming around to this idea, then the only ones standing in the way are our politicians.
POTUS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and the medical-industrial complex of insurance companies, drug companies, and medical device manufacturers are all opposed and are preventing this nation from joining the rest of the developed world in providing health care to ALL its citizens.
And there is one more obstacle in our way: Wall Street investors and their clients who are funding insurance and medical companies, engaging in adverse selection and determining who lives and who dies. Who gets covered and who goes into bankruptcy.
They need to removed from the equation.

The Economist Explains it All: What the U.S, Needs to Do With Health Care

Thursday’s The Economist had the following article.

It explains what the U.S. needs to do to fix health care.

Our leaders in Congress, both Democrats, and especially Republicans should listen to what it has to say.

Medicare for All is not socialism, socialized medicine, or communism. But the status quo is health care capitalism, and has been a disaster.

Trump and the Social Determinants of Health

Here’s a little light reading for your weekend, courtesy of Patricia Illingworth, writing today in Health Affairs blog about the Social Determinants of Health and the take on it by the current administration.

Ms. Illingworth rightly points out that those below the poverty level and without a college degree, both whites and minorities, suffer more serious illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, as well as smoking, drinking and using illegal drugs more than those with college degrees.

She also states that cuts to education, energy, the environment, housing and urban development, among other social sectors, impacts health, and that if these social determinants are underfunded, people will need more health care. And now that the health care reform debate is stalled, the current POTUS is still trying to destroy the ACA, and has threatened members of his own party, including the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

Ms. Illingworth cites a study published by the Brookings Institution, that showed that “deaths of despair”—those associated with drugs, alcohol, and suicide—have risen significantly among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans without a college degree.

Living conditions, Ms. Illingworth reports, also affects rates of asthma, which are the leading cause of children’s visits to ER’s, hospitalizations, and absenteeism. And, it is more prevalent in poor and minority communities.

All of this is not surprising, since 1980, this nation has waged a relentless war against its poor and minority citizens. This war began the day Ronald Reagan took the oath of office and began dismantling not only the New Deal programs, but cutting back the programs created under the Great Society of the 1960’s.

With each successive Republican administration, as well as the rise of Republican power  in Congress since the ascension of Newt Gingrich to Speaker of the House, and in many states, especially in the formerly solid Democratic South, poverty and illness among the poor and minority, as well as whites have increased. And the loss of manufacturing and other support services jobs associated with manufacturing have resulted in the current opioid crisis, which only yesterday was addressed as a national emergency by the POTUS.

But Democrats are not without fault here too. Failure to stand up to the Reaganite Counter-Revolution, the pursuit of a failed “free trade” policy that has outsourced jobs or allowed companies to offshore jobs, as well as paying deference to the will of Wall Street and Corporate America, has brought us the current occupant of the Oval Office.

In the recent health care debate in Washington, many placed their confidence in moderate Republican senators to defeat the repeal and replace measures, but as Andrew Sullivan wrote four years ago in his blog, The Dish, “What Moderate Republicans?”, Sullivan says the following:

“There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past. This crisis is proving that more powerfully than even watching Fox. We need to see what is in front of our nose: a cold civil war has broken out between those properly called conservatives, defending the credit of the government, empirical reality, and adjustments to modern life and those properly called radical reactionaries declaring our current elected president and Senate as illegitimate actors, bent on the destruction of America, and therefore necessitating total political warfare, even to the point of threatening to destroy the global economy.”

The current architect of this destruction is not the man with the orange hair, but one Stephen K. Bannon, the former head of Breitbart. Bannon’s radical agenda is to destroy the “deep state”, and to create what Sullivan so rightly predicted four years ago, as he said above.

Bannon has been identified as a racist, anti-Semite, and has no business in the White House. Another member of this cabal is Stephen Miller, who a few weeks ago, revealed his true colors by openly defending restricting legal immigration, something that brought his family, and mine, as well as millions of others, to this country.

I could go on, but this post is about health care.

The main point is, we need to stop playing games with people’s health and do what other Western and developed countries provide to their citizens, health care for all.

If you don’t believe me, then maybe the words of a billionaire will convince you. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in America, and an astute and very successful businessman, unlike a certain neophyte politician, has said the following with regard to single payer.

“…government-run health insurance “probably is the best system” because it would control escalating costs. We are such a rich country. In a sense, we can afford to do it, … In almost every field of American business, it pays to bring down costs.”

It is time to give every American health care. Then we will see a vast improvement in the social determinants of health.

Another Scheme to Delay the Inevitable, part 2

Last week, I reported on an effort to create payer-provider partnerships, and said that it was another scheme to delay the inevitable move towards a Medicare for All, single-payer system.

Thanks again to Dr. Don McCanne for this week’s article from Modern Healthcare, on yet again another delaying tactic. This time it is from Congress, and while it purports to be “bipartisan”, it really isn’t, because they are very partisan in Congress today; partisan to the health care industry’s profit-making off of sick people.

Without further ado, here is the article in full:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170803/NEWS/170809957

IT IS HIGH TIME TO STOP WASTING TIME, WASTING ENERGY AND THE PATIENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH “SOLUTIONS” THAT ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE, NOT BETTER. IT IS TIME TO EXPAND MEDICARE TO EVERYONE, WITH NO BUY-IN, AND BE DONE WITH IT.

 

 

Another Scheme to Delay the Inevitable

After my last post on my personal health issue and the debate over the health care bills that now have been shelved, I thought I’d share with you the following article in its entirety that is just another scheme to delay the inevitable fact that we will need and have a single-payer, Medicare for All health care system.

The article came to me courtesy of Don McCanne, former President of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

Here is the article:

Healthcare Dive
August 2, 2017
Health reform driving payer-provider partnerships
By Les Masterson
Payers and providers have for decades stayed in their silos, leading to a more fractured and adversarial healthcare system. That relationship, however, is starting to soften for many in the industry. Payer-provider partnerships put the two groups on the same team in hopes of reducing costs and improving care and outcomes through sharing data and better communication.
A major driver of these partnerships is the move away from fee-for-service payments and toward valued-based payments and population health management.
The payer-provider partnerships popping up across healthcare vary in type, size, location and model. There are 50/50 joint ventures with co-branding, and less intensive partnerships like accountable care organizations (ACO), patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), pay for performance and bundled payments.
The first step in these partnerships is building trust between payers and providers.
Another key is communication. (Chuck Lehn, president of Banner Health Network) acknowledged that communicating across systems and platforms between two organizations and healthcare providers requires time, attention and resources.
Caring for the whole patient works best when payers and providers share data, so there is improved care management, better interventions and better analytics around population health.
The two sides can go much deeper into care for patients by going beyond claims. In partnerships, payers shouldn’t have to wait for claims to see how their members are doing and doctors shouldn’t have to hope that their patients tell them when they have received care elsewhere.
In addition to regular back and forth, payers and providers need regular meetings, whether monthly or quarterly, that focus on strategic issues about the partnership, said (James Leatherwood, marketing communications manager at Availity).
One barrier that still needs resolution in partnerships is moving providers away from phone communication.
Leatherwood said a more efficient way is a queue system. In this system, a provider could check the status of all claims and get alerts when they need to provide more information. The system would allow providers to look in one queue, update the claims information and then move on with their day. Payers would have their own queue and would get alerts when providers have questions. This would reduce phone calls and create immediacy.
Leatherwood said the healthcare system is stuck in a “chart chase” between providers and payers, and moving to an automated queue system would be a gamechanger.
“I think in the near-term what we’re going to see is larger healthcare providers are going to be more strategic, working directly with payers. The health plans are going to be more interested not just in working with the staff level, but executive levels,” said Leatherwood.
The third part of a successful partnership is aligning incentives that focus on keeping people healthy and creating a positive healthcare experience, said (Thomas Robinson, partner at Oliver Wyman).
Partnerships must provide patients the right incentives, integration, investment, insight and innovation to work with the plan to deliver improvements across cost, quality, outcomes and experience, said Robinson.
“The point of these partnerships is to create something new, rather than just building the same old offerings with a narrow network. Successful partnerships will take the opportunity to innovate around the product and experience now that the incentives, insight, investment and integration are all for it,” said Robinson.
Aetna and Banner Health agreed on the partnership in October 2016 and have been laying out the groundwork before its launch this month in Maricopa and Pinal counties in Arizona. The two companies hope to expand the program statewide ultimately.
To prepare for the partnership, Tom Grote, who became CEO of Banner/Aetna joint venture in May, told Healthcare Dive that Banner Health and Aetna have developed joint operating committees, including marketing/sales and population health, that include members from both organizations.
The partnership looks to improve consumer experience by fully integrating providers, Aetna and administrative services, while eliminating redundancies in care and administrative problems. Aetna and Banner Health expect streamlining care and services will lead to savings for patients and employers.
(Brigitte Nettesheim, president of transformative markets for Aetna) said the partnerships are about “each side playing to its strengths, aligning incentives and driving scale.”
(Tom Leyden, director II of the Value Partnerships Program at BCBSM) said providers want to be active participants in system transformation.
“This requires ongoing support from the payer and demonstrated evidence of practice transformation and clinic results from the provider community,” said Leyden. “Administration of these programs is an integral aspect of measuring performance.”
Leyden said the payer strives to make the programs as manageable as possible because physicians need to perform many administrative tasks on an ongoing basis. BCBSM regularly solicits feedback from providers during quarterly meetings and phone calls, emails, webinars and in-person meetings on what’s working, what’s not and what needs to be changed.
“If we keep the customer — the end user — in mind and build partnerships with that as our North Star, we believe we will have a more successful, efficient and collaborative health system,” said Grote.
McCanne says they are the ones who control the medical industrial complex, and are part of the problem with our health care system. I agree.
And finally, here is a video from MSNBC with Ali Velshi debating a GOP’er on single-payer and Canada. The GOP’er says Canadians flock to the US for medical care, namely surgery, but Velshi disputes that rather forcefully.
Until we get these defenders of the status quo removed from Congress, we will never have the kind of health care all other developed nations have.
Health care is not a business, health care is a human right.

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

Winston Churchill

“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

Winston Churchill

 

Veering away from the usual topics covered in this blog, I thought about some recent articles I saw about the attempt to repeal and replace, or to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the current political regime wants to do.

The first article, in yesterday’s [failing] New York Times, warned that repealing the ACA would make it harder for people to retire early. Those who retire early, before reaching 65, can get retiree coverage from their former employers, but not many companies offer that coverage.

Those early retirees poor enough could turn to Medicaid, and everyone else would have to go to the individual market. Without the ACA, health care coverage would be more difficult to get, cost consumers more where available, and provide fewer benefits.

According to the article, if the ACA is repealed, retiring early would become less feasible for many Americans. This is called job-lock, or the need to maintain a job to get health insurance.

This is one of the concerns the ACA was supposed to address, in that it would reduce or eliminate job lock. Repealing the law could, according to the article, affect employment and retirement decisions.

The second article, from Joe Paduda, also from yesterday, reported that improving healthcare will hurt the economy, and Joe lays out the arguments for doing something or doing nothing to improve health care and what effect they would have on economic growth.

For example, Joe states that healthcare employs 15.5 million full time workers, or 1 out of every 9 job. In two years, this will surpass retail employment. As Joe rightly points out, those jobs are funded by employers and taxpayers. He suggests that some experts argue that healthcare is “crowding out” economic expansion in other sectors, thereby hurting growth overall.

But Joe also points out that by controlling health care costs, employment will be cut, and stock prices for pharmaceutical companies, margins for medical device firms, and bonuses at health plans will also be affected.

So, if cost control and increasing efficiency works, these lost jobs, reduced profits, and lower margins, Joe says, will hurt the economy. The economy will suffer if the health care sector is more efficient, and since healthcare is also a huge employment generator and an inefficient industry, fixing that inefficiency will reduce employment and growth.

Thus, the title of this article, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

But wait, there’s more.

Yesterday, a certain quote has been making the rounds through the media. It was uttered by Number 45. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”

Yes, it is complicated and complex, but does it have to be so? If we consider the second Churchill quote above, and realize that the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and many other Western countries have some form of single payer, then one must conclude that it is only the US that has complicated and made too complex, the providing of health care to all of its citizens.

There are many reasons for this, which is beyond the scope of this article or blog, but there is one overriding reason for this complexity…GREED. Not the greed of wanting more of one thing, but the greed of profit, as one executive from an insurance company stated recently.

This brings me to the last of the articles I ran across yesterday. It was posted on LinkedIn by Dave Chase, founder of the Health Rosetta Institute. He cited a segment on the Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson program, in which Carlson interviewed a former hospital president who said that pricing was the main problem with the US healthcare system.

Mr. Chase does not solely rely on Carlson’s guest in his article, but cites other experts in the field as evidence that pricing failure is to blame.

If we are to except this as true, then it buttresses my point that the overriding problem is greed, for what else is the failure to control prices but a symptom of greed inherent in the American health care system, and something that does not exist elsewhere in the Western world.

Which brings me to Churchill’s first quote above. Since we Americans have tried the free market system of health care wanting, and have tried a reformed free market system, perhaps it is time to go all the way to a government-sponsored, Medicare for All, single payer system.

The bottom line is: we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. The question is, which is the lesser of two evils.

UPDATE: Here is Joe’s take on what will happen to the ACA in the next two years. I agree with his assessment.

Healthcare CEO’s Reject Single-Payer

There are many reasons why the US is the only industrialized nation that does not have a single payer health care system.

One deep seated reason has to do with the foundational value system of the US, from the time of the early settlers whose religious convictions lined up with the rising middle class of 17th century England’s economic values (i.e., the Protestant Ethic).

But another reason — at least for the foreseeable future — as my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda wrote a while back when talking about Bernie Sanders’ plan, is that the health insurance industry will not blow up their businesses and start all over from scratch.

To prove Joe’s point, Modern Healthcare.com published an article last week that explored the opinions of healthcare CEO’s on the ACA and the subject of single-payer health care.

Here are the key takeaways from the article:

  • the nation’s top healthcare leaders overwhelmingly back the ACA
  • support its goal of pushing providers away from fee-for-service medicine and toward delivering value-based care
  • while the Republican Party and its presumptive nominee continue to stand by their “repeal and replace” slogan, the sector’s CEOs overwhelmingly reject that idea, in large part because they are unimpressed with the GOP’s attempts to articulate what it would replace it with.
  • only a small group supports moving to a single-payer system, which has been a central theme of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
  • The overwhelming message from the survey, was that the next president and Congress should stay the course set by President Barack Obama and the ACA.
  • But healthcare leaders are also looking for the nation’s political leadership to reject complacency and look for ways to improve what they see as a far-from-perfect piece of legislation.

Here are the survey results, as published today by Don McCanne of PNHP:

The CEO Power Panel includes 110 top leaders of hospitals, insurance companies, physician groups, trade associations and other not-for-profit advocacy groups. The second-quarter survey on policy options that the next president and Congress might address attracted 86 respondents, a 78% response rate.

Future of ACA

Do you support Congress and the next president in:

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act?

2.3% – Yes

67.4% – No

29.1% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Expanding the ACA’s subsidized private insurance plan system to achieve universal coverage?

34.9% – Yes

15.1% – No

48.8% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Scrapping private insurance in favor of expanding an enhanced Medicare to cover the entire population (single payer)?

9.3% – Yes

61.6% – No

29.1% – It depends on the details

Other insurance issues

Allowing private insurers to sell individual and family policies across state lines under national rules that preempt state rules?

52.3% – Yes

20.9% – No

24.4% – It depends on the details

2.3% – No opinion

Expanding the use of health savings accounts to pay premiums and meet costs under high-deductible plans?

74.4% – Yes

11.6% – No

12.8% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Creating subsidized high-risk pools to cover people with preexisting conditions?

43.0% – Yes

16.3% – No

36.1% – It depends on the details

4.7% – No opinion

Medicare

Raising Medicare eligibility to age 67?

54.7% – Yes

23.3% – No

22.1% – It depends on the details

Expanding means testing within Medicare, such as higher co-pays or reduced benefits for high-income seniors?

50.0% – Yes

18.6% – No

30.2% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Moving to a universal Medicare Advantage system with a means-tested defined contribution (premium support) for seniors?

28.2% – Yes

20.0% – No

48.2% – It depends on the details

3.5% – No opinion

Gradually expanding Medicare to cover everyone over age 55 who doesn’t have private insurance?

21.4% – Yes

48.8% – No

28.6% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Delivery system reform

Taking aggressive measures to curb rising prescription drug prices such as allowing imports and authorizing the CMS to negotiate prices?

70.6& – Yes

9.4% – No

20.0% – It depends on the details

Repealing delivery system reforms such as value-based payment, accountable care organizations and the use of quality measures included in the Affordable Care Act?

03.5% – Yes

83.5% – No

11.8% – It depends on the details

01.2% – No opinion

So, it is apparent that as long as the health care industry continues to profit from the status quo, and supports the ACA, the likelihood of single payer will be remote at best, despite what the Sanders’ campaign seeks.

Things will only change when the entire system collapses of its own weight from complexity, waste, fraud, abuse, and excessive cost so that no CEO’s opinion will matter. People will demand a single payer system because no one will be able to afford having insurance.

The ancient Greeks, among other people, discovered the science of dialectics, or the study of change. Dialectics says that the seeds of change come from within, and that change does not happen until certain conditions are met, and change becomes inevitable. We are not yet at that point, but it is slowly moving in that direction.


 

I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.