If this health plan is 'socialism,' we need more of it -- latimes.com

 

If this health plan is 'socialism,' we need more of it

As Obamacare's exchanges take shape in California, true, transparent, capitalistic competition will be seen among insurance firms, going toe to toe to win consumers.

David Lazarus

6:18 PM PDT, May 23, 2013

So this is what socialism looks like: Private companies competing for people's business in an open marketplace.

Californians got their first glimpse Thursday of what insurers plan to charge for coverage to be offered next year to about 5 million state residents who don't receive health insurance from employers.

In southern Los Angeles County, for example, Health Net is charging $242 a month for one of its plans. Blue Shield is charging $287 and Kaiser Permanente $325 for the same coverage.

For the first time, consumers are in a position to make an informed decision about health insurance. They can opt for the lowest-priced plan or they can factor in other considerations, such as personal convenience.

Insurers, meanwhile, are going toe to toe to win customers, keeping prices as low as possible and stepping up quality of service.

Amazingly, the sky hasn't fallen and the world as we know it hasn't come to an end.

Critics of Obamacare have long warned of the dire consequences of reforming the U.S. healthcare system. The federal Affordable Care Act constitutes a government takeover of healthcare, they have said. We might as well be living in Cuba.

In reality, what we're seeing is some much-needed sunlight being cast upon a market that for too long has operated largely in the shadows, denying consumers the information they need to make choices about medical treatment.

Private insurers will have to meet minimum standards for coverage when they begin open enrollment in October, allowing people to compare apples to apples for the first time when shopping for individual or family policies.

Insurers also will have to post their prices in a clear and easily accessible fashion, introducing a long-absent element of competition to the market.

"It will be a one-stop shop for selecting policies," said Devon Herrick, a healthcare economist at the National Center for Policy Analysis. "That should make things a lot easier for people."

If this health plan is 'socialism,' we need more of it -- latimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

Stunning Healthcare Overture from Bipartisan Group of US Senators - 2007

Healthcare Legislation in This Congress? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

I followed Ezra Klein's link to this letter from 10 Senators, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, written just two years before President Obama took office! Read it, as it is stunning how far the Republican Choo Choo has gone around the bend.  [Courtesy USNews.com and Michael Barone.]

Now Wyden and nine other senators, five Democrats and five Republicans, have sent the following letter to Bush. Very interesting.

In addition to Wyden, the letter was signed by Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Robert Bennett of Utah, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and John Thune of South Dakota, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

The text of the letter follows:

February 13, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:

As U.S. Senators of both political parties we would like to work with you and your Administration to fix the American health care system.
Each of us believes our current health system needs to be fixed now. Further delay is unacceptable as costs continue to skyrocket, our population ages, and chronic illness increases. In addition, our businesses are at a severe disadvantage when their competitors in the global market get health care for "free."
We would like to work with you and your Administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would:
1)Ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.
2)Modernize Federal tax rules for health coverage. Democratic and Republican economists have convinced us that the current rules disproportionately favor the most affluent, while promoting inefficiency.
3)Create more opportunities and incentives for states to design health solutions for their citizens. Many state officials are working in their state legislatures to develop fresh, creative strategies for improving health care, and we believe any legislation passed in this Congress should not stymie that innovation.
4)Take steps to create a culture of wellness through prevention strategies, rather than perpetuating our current emphasis on sick care. For example, Medicare Part A pays thousands of dollars in hospital expenses, while Medicare Part B provides no incentives for seniors to reduce blood pressure or cholesterol. Employers, families, and all our constituents want emphasis on prevention and wellness.
5)Encourage more cost-effective chronic and compassionate end-of-life care. Studies show that an increase in health care spending does not always mean an increase in quality of outcomes. All Americans should be empowered to make decisions about their end of life care, not be forced into hospice care without other options. We hope to work with you on policies that address these issues.
6)Improve access to information on price and quality of health services. Today, consumers have better accessto information about the price and quality of washing machines than on the price and quality of health services.
We disagree with those who say the Senate is too divided and too polarized to pass comprehensive health care legislation. We disagree with those who believe that this issue should not come up until after the next presidential election. We disagree with those who want to wait when the American people are saying, loud and clear, "We want to fix health care now."
We look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner in the days ahead.

Skyrocketing costs! Competetive disadvantage! Universal access to health care! Class warfare! Inefficient US health care! Wellness! Prevention! Cost effectiveness! Compassionate end of life care! Expanding palliative care services! Health care in the US is broken!

Who knew Jim DeMint was a socialist before he was a Tea-Partier?

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican turn against universal health insurance

The Republican turn against universal health insurance

In 2007, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina sent a letter to President George W. Bush.

DeMint said he would like to work with Bush to pass legislation that would “ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.”

Read that closely. DeMint does not say he wants legislation that would ensure all Americans have “access” to coverage — the standard rhetorical dodge of politicians who don’t want to oppose universal coverage, but also don’t want to do what’s necessary to achieve it. He says that he wants legislation that ensures all American actually have coverage. He says that without making sure every American has coverage, “the health care system cannot be fixed.” For good measure, DeMint wants to achieve this “while protecting current government programs.”

It is amazing how crazy - and mean-spirited - conservatives have become. None of that WWJD girly nonsense for the new conservative movement.

Sphere: Related Content

To Fix Health Care, Help the Poor - NYTimes.com

To Fix Health Care, Help the Poor - NYTimes.com:

IT’S common knowledge that the United States spends more than any other country on health care but still ranks in the bottom half of industrialized countries in outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality. Why are these other countries beating us if we spend so much more? The truth is that we may not be spending more — it all depends on what you count.

In our comparative study of 30 industrialized countries, published earlier this year in the journal BMJ Quality and Safety, we broadened the scope of traditional health care industry analyses to include spending on social services, like rent subsidies, employment-training programs, unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, family support and other services that can extend and improve life.

We studied 10 years’ worth of data and found that if you counted the combined investment in health care and social services, the United States no longer spent the most money — far from it. In 2005, for example, the United States devoted only 29 percent of gross domestic product to health and social services combined, while countries like Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark dedicated 33 percent to 38 percent of their G.D.P. to the combination. We came in 10th.

What’s more, America is one of only three industrialized countries to spend the majority of its health and social services budget on health care itself. For every dollar we spend on health care, we spend an additional 90 cents on social services. In our peer countries, for every dollar spent on health care, an additional $2 is spent on social services. So not only are we spending less, we’re allocating our resources disproportionately on health care.

Our study found that countries with high health care spending relative to social spending had lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than countries that favored social spending. While the stagnating life expectancy in the United States remains at 78 years, in many European countries it has leapt to well over 80 years, and several countries boast infant mortality rates approximately half of ours. In a national survey conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, four out of five physicians agreed that unmet social needs led directly to worse health.

It is also well understood in the public health communities that health has far more to do with overall poverty than access to health care, per se. But we have this hard headed approach in America to "punish" the "undeserving" poor. Therefore we shoot ourselves in the foot economically in order to feel better about our "values."
- Sent using Google Toolbar

Sphere: Related Content

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker:

A damning look by Atul Gawande at the way we pay for medical care in America. The final three paragraphs of this must read article.

"Something even more worrisome is going on as well. In the war over the culture of medicine—the war over whether our country’s anchor model will be Mayo or McAllen—the Mayo model is losing. In the sharpest economic downturn that our health system has faced in half a century, many people in medicine don’t see why they should do the hard work of organizing themselves in ways that reduce waste and improve quality if it means sacrificing revenue.

"In El Paso, the for-profit health-care executive told me, a few leading physicians recently followed McAllen’s lead and opened their own centers for surgery and imaging. When I was in Tulsa a few months ago, a fellow-surgeon explained how he had made up for lost revenue by shifting his operations for well-insured patients to a specialty hospital that he partially owned while keeping his poor and uninsured patients at a nonprofit hospital in town. Even in Grand Junction, Michael Pramenko told me, “some of the doctors are beginning to complain about ‘leaving money on the table.’ ”

"As America struggles to extend health-care coverage while curbing health-care costs, we face a decision that is more important than whether we have a public-insurance option, more important than whether we will have a single-payer system in the long run or a mixture of public and private insurance, as we do now. The decision is whether we are going to reward the leaders who are trying to build a new generation of Mayos and Grand Junctions. If we don’t, McAllen won’t be an outlier. It will be our future."

I went to the Dartmouth Atlas web site myself and found this interesting tid-bit:

I think it fits in well with the ethos described in Gawande's article.

It is much easier to continue aggressive treatment rather than spend time having an honest discussion about the benefits and burdens of continuing treatment.


Thanks to whoever put the link up on the Howard Dean Webinar tonight!



UPDATE: This recent Archives of Internal Medicine article is particularly apporpriate:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/169/10/954

This also, perversely, can make the hospital statistics in mortality look good, as well. As an intensivist, I can get almost ANYONE out of the the ICU and subsequently out of the hospital if I ignore the true outcome for the patient and the family: additional suffering, minimal prolongation of a life at its end, and so on.

My colleagues who do practice best EOL practices know that our ICU and hospital mortality numbers suffer, but I have no doubt that having honest discussions with my patients and families is the right thing to do. You may have heard this for your patients, “Thanks for the straight talk, Doc,” or “Nobody talked to me about my prognosis before.”

Of course, this is not new information, but we still need to do better as physicians:http://www.chestjournal.org/content/128/1/465.full?ck=nck

Sphere: Related Content

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: uwe reinhardt & tsung-mei cheng | PBS

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: uwe reinhardt & tsung-mei cheng PBS

Wow. I can't say enough about this interview. It is so on the mark in so many ways, and it is a pleasure to hear knowledgeable people discuss comparative international healthcare like this.

There are great bits on the real meanings of "socialized" medicine, vs socialized insurance, the German (!) perspective on the dignity of every person, the Canadian perspective on humanism, the leadership of Tony Blair turning around a system on the rocks, how terrifically well America does in training its healthcare providers (especially doctors), but the best is Reinhardt's take on "Consumer Driven Healthcare", quoted here:

We've heard some people have proposed that a solution for America is something called consumer-driven health care. How does it work? What is it?

... Well, the name "consumer-driven health care" at this time is a deceptive marketing label. What we're really talking about is an insurance policy with a very high annual deductible -- up to $10,500 per family, and less for an individual -- and then coupled with a savings account into which you can put money out of pretax income; you don't have to pay taxes on such income.

Now, this has the advantage ... that people faced with this deductible will think twice before going to the doctor for trivial issues or drugs they don't need, etc. But of course the problem also is that they may not go when they should or may skimp on the drugs they should be using, like a blood pressure drug, so that one would have to be solved by saying preventive services will have first-dollar coverage. So you could solve that problem.

But then what I argue is, yes, it may have the economic effect of cost control, because you then would have to know the prices different doctors charge, and hospitals and pharmacies, and something about the quality. And that information at this time exists only in a few areas. The insurance companies are beginning to work on Web sites that will give you that, but it's still very primitive and fairly unreliable information. So that is why I compare it really more like thrusting someone into Macy's department store blindfolded and say, "Go around; shop smartly." ...

The other problem that I see with it, though, is it has ethical dimensions to it that people don't appreciate. If I make anything tax-deductible, then a high-income person in a high tax bracket saves more than a poor [person]. So supposing a gas station attendant and I each put $2,000 into a health savings account, and we get a root canal -- about $1,000, just the drilling. It costs me about $550 because I'm in the 45 percent bracket. The gas station attendant may, in fact, not pay federal income tax because the income is so low but may only pay Social Security, so he saves 8 cents on the dollar. So a root canal will cost me $550; will cost him $920. ...

Secondly, think of a family of two professionals, each making $140,000, close to $300,000 income, and they have, say, a $5,000 deductible. Would they deny their child anything that they think the child needs over a lousy $5,000? ... But think of a waitress who makes $25,000 with a $5,000 deductible, and her kid is sick. It will certainly make her think twice. She's likely to say, "Maybe not." So therefore we're asking the lower half of the income distribution to do all the self-rationing through prices. ...

And the third issue is this deductible. If you're chronically healthy, you don't actually ever spend as much as that; you have a tax-free savings account. If you are chronically ill, on five drugs, you're going to spend that deductible year after year. So the proposal is to shift more of the financial burden of health care from the shoulders of the chronically healthy to the shoulders of the chronically sick.

And I would say, imagine a politician coming to the people with a platform that I just described in ethical terms. ... You think that would sell? So they say, "We've got to find a better name. Why don't we call it consumer-driven health care?," and have all these deceptive labels that even George Orwell wouldn't have thought of. That is what I find troublesome. Yes, it's an approach to health care, but could you please describe it to the American people honestly, in all of its dimensions -- not just economics but information and ethics? And that's not done. ...

One answer he gave about physicians income left me with more questions that when I started:

Yes, American doctors get paid more, relative to average employees, than doctors in other nations; that is true. It's about five times average employee compensation, and in England it's about two, and in Canada it's about three. So that's certainly true.

Given the unprecedented income disparity in this country, it is hard to know what to make of these figures. Comparison to the median would have been more helpful, but I think the most interesting would be to see in which decile physicians place in each country. I will try to find that data.

This Frontline Website is a gold mine. Thanks to the indispensable CPB.

Sphere: Related Content

The New Yorker:THE MORAL-HAZARD MYTH

Highly recommended reading:
The New Yorker: PRINTABLES:
"THE MORAL-HAZARD MYTH"
by MALCOLM GLADWELL
The bad idea behind our failed health-care system.

PDF Version: www.gladwell.com/pdf/hazard.pdf

Sphere: Related Content