Physicians for a National Health Program
In just a few days, Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin will sign into law what the media is calling “single payer health care reform.” But is it?
Vermont has certainly demonstrated more enthusiasm for a single payer approach than any other state. The Governor and key Democratic legislators have supported the concept, the state has a well-organized lobbying group in Vermont for Single Payer, and a state-funded study earlier this year estimated that a single payer approach could dramatically reduce health care costs. The major result has been passage in the past month by both of the state’s legislative chambers of the bill that Governor Shumlin indicates that he will sign.
So does this mean that Vermont is ready to upend its existing health care financing system and replace it with a French or British-style system? Not exactly.
The versions of the bill passed by Vermont’s House and Senate are each far, far more tentative than committed single payer advocates would wish, and have already been subject to scathing criticism by national single payer advocates. [PNHP note: The PNHP board's April 7 statement on Vermont, hardly "scathing," can be found here.] The bill provides for the creation of the legal framework of a public insurance program, to be called Green Mountain Care, but includes no funding mechanism, defines no benefit standards, is vague on the future roles of private insurers, and is silent on exactly how existing federal programs are to be incorporated.
What the bill does do is to establish the state exchange required by the Accountable Care Act, encourage experimental capitated payment structures, and create a Board for Green Mountain Care with responsibility for examining funding, benefit, and other issues, with recommendations to be submitted to the state legislature in 2013.
Even if the Board’s proposals are very strongly in favor of a single payer system, they will face some considerable obstacles to implementation.
Because the present bill’s approach to creation of a new system is to allow two years for development of recommendations, any implementing legislation will be delayed until 2013 at the earliest, giving opponents considerable time to organize and fund their fight. At the same time, whatever funding structure the Board recommends will inevitably result in some winners and some losers—who will almost certainly oppose the proposal—even if the net result is a gain for Vermont’s citizens.
While small businesses are expected to get coverage through the state’s planned exchange, and thus could be forced to participate in a future state-controlled single payer plan, larger employers present more of a problem. If a single payer plan could be shown to be less costly, such employers would presumably be willing to participate. If they are not persuaded of the merits of single payer, however, they could rely on ERISA law to keep their employees out of the new program.
The bigger obstacles, however, are likely to be at the federal level. The Accountable Care Act allows states to opt out of federal reform starting in 2017, but not before. (Although an earlier date has been proposed, it has limited support). The pooling of federal funds envisioned by Vermont’s single payer advocates would require negotiations with Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Public Health administrators, all in the face of opposition from lobbyists for insurers, providers, and businesses who fear the impacts of a single payer structure on their revenues and profits. And who would be willing to guess whether or not in 2013 the administration in Washington DC is favorable towards any kind of health care reform?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Obama Health Law Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies
Published by CommonDreams.org; written by Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein
When President Obama kicked off his health reform push, he highlighted our research finding that 2 million Americans suffer medical bankruptcy each year, promising to end this disgrace. Our latest figures warn that his reform won’t stanch the flow of medical debtors.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed by Congress in March 2010 was modeled after Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform plan – a plan that’s now been up and running for more than three years. So Massachusetts offers a preview of what to expect when the ACA is fully implemented in 2014.
Unfortunately, medical bankruptcies haven’t dropped much – if at all – in Massachusetts. When we surveyed bankruptcy filers there in August 2009, 53 percent cited illness or medical bills as a cause of their bankruptcy, a percentage that’s statistically indistinguishable from the 59 percent figure we found in early 2007. Indeed, because the total number of bankruptcies soared in 2009, the actual number of medical bankruptcies increased from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.
Why are so many people still suffering medical bankruptcies despite Massachusetts’ health reform? While only 4 percent of the state’s residents remain uninsured, much of the new coverage is so skimpy that serious illness leaves families with crushing medical bills.
For instance, the cheapest (and most commonly purchased) coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian through the state’s health insurance exchange costs $5,616. Yet, if you’re sick the policy doesn’t start paying bills until you’ve paid a $2,000 deductible. And even after that you’re responsible for 20 percent of the next $15,000 in medical expenses.
Little wonder that many insured families hit by illness are pushed over the edge financially by the double whammy of lost income and medical bills; 89 percent of Massachusetts families who suffered medical bankruptcy had coverage.
The insurance required under the federal ACA is no better than Massachusetts’ bare-bones plans. And as employers emulate this inadequate coverage, the race to the bottom leaves an increasing number of Americans UNDER-insured. Public workers are just the latest group to see their coverage downsized. What used to be called “health insurance” is now labeled “Cadillac coverage” – and reserved for those who drive Mercedes.
Because the ACA left private insurers in charge, it can’t offer Americans real protection against financial disaster due to illness. Too much is squandered on insurers’ overhead and the bloated bureaucracy they impose on patients, doctors and hospitals. Hence, even if reform works as planned, millions of families will continue to purchase private insurance in good faith, only to discover, too late, that it’s a defective product – an umbrella that melts in a downpour.
And the administration is weakening the modest consumer protections the bill imposed on private plans. It’s waived the minimum coverage standards for 1,040 plans covering 2.6 million Americans, including thousands of McDonald’s workers whose insurance covers only $2,000 in medical expenses annually. (The worker pays a premium of $728 for this faux coverage.) Meanwhile, insurers in Maine have already been exempted from the ACA’s paltry requirement that they spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care, with eight more states in line for similar exemptions.
While the ACA can’t live up to its “affordable care” moniker, a single-payer reform could save $400 billion annually on administrative costs, enough to offer every American first-dollar, comprehensive coverage. While U.S. insurers fight tooth and nail against the 20 percent limit on overhead, Canada’s single-payer program runs for 1 percent. (U.S. Medicare’s overhead is 3 percent.) Bureaucratic savings are a key reason why Canada can cover everyone and provide care at least as good as that received by insured Americans, while spending half as much per capita as we do.
We’ve lectured at seminars attended by hundreds of U.S. bankruptcy judges, where our medical bankruptcy findings are greeted by nods of recognition and an avalanche of heart-wrenching anecdotes confirming our statistical findings. The reaction was quite different at a bankruptcy seminar in Toronto early this year. None of the Canadian judges in the room could recall a single case.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. She is professor of public health at the City University of New York and visiting professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She is also a primary care physician at Cambridge Hospital in Cambridge, Mass. She worked in 1990-91 as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy fellow at the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Congress. Dr. Woolhandler is a frequent speaker and has written extensively on health policy. Dr. Woolhandler is a principal author of many PNHP articles published in the JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and other professional journals. She has also testified before Congress numerous times.
Dr. David Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, co-edits PNHP’s newsletter and is a principal author of PNHP articles published in the JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine in conjunction with Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. He is professor of public health at the City University of New York and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He serves as the chief of the division of social and community medicine at Cambridge Hospital where he practices primary care internal medicine, and also serves as co-director of the Center for National Health Program Studies at Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School.
When President Obama kicked off his health reform push, he highlighted our research finding that 2 million Americans suffer medical bankruptcy each year, promising to end this disgrace. Our latest figures warn that his reform won’t stanch the flow of medical debtors.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed by Congress in March 2010 was modeled after Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform plan – a plan that’s now been up and running for more than three years. So Massachusetts offers a preview of what to expect when the ACA is fully implemented in 2014.
Unfortunately, medical bankruptcies haven’t dropped much – if at all – in Massachusetts. When we surveyed bankruptcy filers there in August 2009, 53 percent cited illness or medical bills as a cause of their bankruptcy, a percentage that’s statistically indistinguishable from the 59 percent figure we found in early 2007. Indeed, because the total number of bankruptcies soared in 2009, the actual number of medical bankruptcies increased from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.
Why are so many people still suffering medical bankruptcies despite Massachusetts’ health reform? While only 4 percent of the state’s residents remain uninsured, much of the new coverage is so skimpy that serious illness leaves families with crushing medical bills.
For instance, the cheapest (and most commonly purchased) coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian through the state’s health insurance exchange costs $5,616. Yet, if you’re sick the policy doesn’t start paying bills until you’ve paid a $2,000 deductible. And even after that you’re responsible for 20 percent of the next $15,000 in medical expenses.
Little wonder that many insured families hit by illness are pushed over the edge financially by the double whammy of lost income and medical bills; 89 percent of Massachusetts families who suffered medical bankruptcy had coverage.
The insurance required under the federal ACA is no better than Massachusetts’ bare-bones plans. And as employers emulate this inadequate coverage, the race to the bottom leaves an increasing number of Americans UNDER-insured. Public workers are just the latest group to see their coverage downsized. What used to be called “health insurance” is now labeled “Cadillac coverage” – and reserved for those who drive Mercedes.
Because the ACA left private insurers in charge, it can’t offer Americans real protection against financial disaster due to illness. Too much is squandered on insurers’ overhead and the bloated bureaucracy they impose on patients, doctors and hospitals. Hence, even if reform works as planned, millions of families will continue to purchase private insurance in good faith, only to discover, too late, that it’s a defective product – an umbrella that melts in a downpour.
And the administration is weakening the modest consumer protections the bill imposed on private plans. It’s waived the minimum coverage standards for 1,040 plans covering 2.6 million Americans, including thousands of McDonald’s workers whose insurance covers only $2,000 in medical expenses annually. (The worker pays a premium of $728 for this faux coverage.) Meanwhile, insurers in Maine have already been exempted from the ACA’s paltry requirement that they spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care, with eight more states in line for similar exemptions.
While the ACA can’t live up to its “affordable care” moniker, a single-payer reform could save $400 billion annually on administrative costs, enough to offer every American first-dollar, comprehensive coverage. While U.S. insurers fight tooth and nail against the 20 percent limit on overhead, Canada’s single-payer program runs for 1 percent. (U.S. Medicare’s overhead is 3 percent.) Bureaucratic savings are a key reason why Canada can cover everyone and provide care at least as good as that received by insured Americans, while spending half as much per capita as we do.
We’ve lectured at seminars attended by hundreds of U.S. bankruptcy judges, where our medical bankruptcy findings are greeted by nods of recognition and an avalanche of heart-wrenching anecdotes confirming our statistical findings. The reaction was quite different at a bankruptcy seminar in Toronto early this year. None of the Canadian judges in the room could recall a single case.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. She is professor of public health at the City University of New York and visiting professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She is also a primary care physician at Cambridge Hospital in Cambridge, Mass. She worked in 1990-91 as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy fellow at the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Congress. Dr. Woolhandler is a frequent speaker and has written extensively on health policy. Dr. Woolhandler is a principal author of many PNHP articles published in the JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and other professional journals. She has also testified before Congress numerous times.
Dr. David Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, co-edits PNHP’s newsletter and is a principal author of PNHP articles published in the JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine in conjunction with Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. He is professor of public health at the City University of New York and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He serves as the chief of the division of social and community medicine at Cambridge Hospital where he practices primary care internal medicine, and also serves as co-director of the Center for National Health Program Studies at Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Doctors' group: Vermont health bill mislabeled 'single payer'
Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., president PNHP
David Himmelstein, M.D., co-founder PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., board member PNHP
Mark Almberg, communications director, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
The following statement was released today by the national board of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Health reform legislation initiated by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was recently passed by that state’s House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.
Many journalists and commentators have portrayed this bill as fully embracing the single-payer approach to reform. We write to clarify the views of Physicians for a National Health Program on the Vermont legislation.
We appreciate the enthusiasm for progressive health reform shown by Gov. Shumlin and the many dedicated single-payer supporters in Vermont. However, it is important to note that the bill passed by the Vermont House falls well short of the single-payer reform needed to resolve the health care crisis in that state and the nation. Indeed, as the bill moved through the House the term “single payer” was entirely removed, and restrictions on the role of private insurers were loosened.
In its present form, the legislation lays out in considerable detail a structure to implement Vermont's version of the federal reform passed in March of 2010, which would expand coverage by private insurers and Medicaid. However, it offers only a vague outline of the additional reform promised by the governor and Legislature at such time when states will be allowed to experiment with alternatives to the federal program in 2017 (or 2014, if the effort to move up the date succeeds).
The Vermont plan promises a public program open to all residents of the state in 2017, but even then it would allow a continuing role for private insurance. This would negate many of the administrative savings that could be attained by a true single-payer program, and opens the way for the continuation of multi-tiered care.
Within the public program, the plan would continue to lump together payments for operating and capital costs, allowing hospitals and the newly established Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to use funds not spent on care for institutional expansion. Meanwhile, those with operating losses would shrink or close even if they were meeting vital health needs. This would perpetuate incentives for hospitals and ACOs to cherry-pick profitable patients and services, and hobble the health planning needed to assure rational investments in new facilities and high-technology care.
Under the legislation, many patients would continue to face co-payments that obstruct access to care, and the bill makes no mention of expanding coverage of long-term care. The legislation fails to proscribe the participation of for-profit hospitals and other providers (e.g. ACOs and dialysis clinics), which research has shown deliver inferior care at inflated prices.
Finally, the bill offers no concrete funding plan or structure for the public program that it promises.
We applaud the sentiments expressed by the governor and legislative leaders and remain hopeful that the legislation’s rhetorical commitment to further reform will become a reality. We urge the Vermont Senate to address the shortcomings in the House bill.
Much work, including efforts to enact federal enabling legislation – and continued advocacy by single-payer supporters – will be needed in the years ahead to achieve Vermont’s goal of universal access to high quality, affordable care.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., president PNHP
David Himmelstein, M.D., co-founder PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., board member PNHP
Mark Almberg, communications director, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
The following statement was released today by the national board of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Health reform legislation initiated by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was recently passed by that state’s House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.
Many journalists and commentators have portrayed this bill as fully embracing the single-payer approach to reform. We write to clarify the views of Physicians for a National Health Program on the Vermont legislation.
We appreciate the enthusiasm for progressive health reform shown by Gov. Shumlin and the many dedicated single-payer supporters in Vermont. However, it is important to note that the bill passed by the Vermont House falls well short of the single-payer reform needed to resolve the health care crisis in that state and the nation. Indeed, as the bill moved through the House the term “single payer” was entirely removed, and restrictions on the role of private insurers were loosened.
In its present form, the legislation lays out in considerable detail a structure to implement Vermont's version of the federal reform passed in March of 2010, which would expand coverage by private insurers and Medicaid. However, it offers only a vague outline of the additional reform promised by the governor and Legislature at such time when states will be allowed to experiment with alternatives to the federal program in 2017 (or 2014, if the effort to move up the date succeeds).
The Vermont plan promises a public program open to all residents of the state in 2017, but even then it would allow a continuing role for private insurance. This would negate many of the administrative savings that could be attained by a true single-payer program, and opens the way for the continuation of multi-tiered care.
Within the public program, the plan would continue to lump together payments for operating and capital costs, allowing hospitals and the newly established Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to use funds not spent on care for institutional expansion. Meanwhile, those with operating losses would shrink or close even if they were meeting vital health needs. This would perpetuate incentives for hospitals and ACOs to cherry-pick profitable patients and services, and hobble the health planning needed to assure rational investments in new facilities and high-technology care.
Under the legislation, many patients would continue to face co-payments that obstruct access to care, and the bill makes no mention of expanding coverage of long-term care. The legislation fails to proscribe the participation of for-profit hospitals and other providers (e.g. ACOs and dialysis clinics), which research has shown deliver inferior care at inflated prices.
Finally, the bill offers no concrete funding plan or structure for the public program that it promises.
We applaud the sentiments expressed by the governor and legislative leaders and remain hopeful that the legislation’s rhetorical commitment to further reform will become a reality. We urge the Vermont Senate to address the shortcomings in the House bill.
Much work, including efforts to enact federal enabling legislation – and continued advocacy by single-payer supporters – will be needed in the years ahead to achieve Vermont’s goal of universal access to high quality, affordable care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)