1. It was a good speech. Reaction around the blogosphere and elsewhere seems to be dependent on how you felt about reform plans going in. If you were in favor, you thought it was terrific (warning strong language at the link); if you were against, you thought it was disingenuous.
2. The interesting question is how people who weren’t sure will react. By this I mean people who are anxious that reform will affect their health care in ways they don’t like. There is still the mixed message that created this anxiety in the first place. On the one hand, the President repeated “Nothing in this plan will require you to change what you have. “ Sounds like no big deal. On the other hand, he quoted Ted Kennedy as saying the plan “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” Sounds like a very big deal. Which is it?
3. The boorish Congressman who screamed “you lie!” at Obama during the address must have been confused and thought he was at a town hall meeting. But I’ve always thought it would be cool if we had a “Question Time” like they do in the UK. Presidents would have to face much more interesting and uncomfortable questions than they otherwise get, and it would make for a terrific spectacle. Obviously this wasn’t the time or place for that sort of thing. And if we ever do get an American Question Time, representatives will have to come up with better questions than “you lie,” too.
4. The President talked about “30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.” This is different from the 46 million “uninsured” he usually talks about. The Associated Press thinks the other 16 million are people who could buy or otherwise get coverage but choose not to, as compared to those who want coverage but can’t afford it.
5. I was surprised to hear the President give more than just a nod to the Facebook health care status update meme. I mean he quoted it directly: “in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.” This must be the first time a President has ever quoted something from Facebook in an address to Congress – it’s some kind of a milestone for social media. Thoughts on that meme are here.
6. The President talked about the uncompetitive insurance market, noting that “in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.” It sounds like he’s not just talking about the “public option” when he talks about creating competition in these markets. His idea of insurance exchanges and a federal health insurance regulator seem to be direct challenges to the state-by-state system of insurance regulation. It will be interesting to see the reaction of state insurance regulators to this speech.
7. I was right: the President didn’t talk about the three things I said he wouldn’t talk about. In fact, he said almost nothing about the delivery of care- it was all about how to pay for it.
8. The President got some laughs with his comment that he thinks “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.” He’s right, and there’s the rub. Whether and how that ironing out happens was the question before the President’s speech, and it’s still the question today.
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
Waxman’s committee resumed work Thursday, with the goal of finishing Friday, after a week-and-a-half delay caused by objections from fiscally conservative Democrats. That rebellion was quelled with an agreement Wednesday that would protect more small businesses from a requirement to provide insurance to their employees, and restructure a new public insurance plan so it could pay higher rates to doctors and other providers, among other changes.
What did the the other Democrats have to say about that?
“This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards,” 53 Progressive Caucus members said in a letter to House leaders Thursday. “Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable.“
Let me get this straight. In a world where Medicare and Medicaid pays less than cost, these Democrats want an option where doctors have the opportunity to lose money for every patient they take care of? If negotiated rates are unacceptable, exactly how is the Medicare rate acceptable. There is a reason why many Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries cannot find a doctor to take care of them. Because the non negotiated rates are unacceptable.
Perhaps our Congressmen and women would like the 300 million Americans to take a yearly vote on the value of their service to this country. No negotiation. Majority salary wins. You just may not like what your constituents are offering you. And you just might quit. How’s that for unacceptable.
I love the Internet. It has a way of bringing people closer together. I saw Governor Howard Dean at a town hall meeting in Washington D.C earlier this month. He’s a dynamic speaker. I wanted to ask him some questions, but the place was packed, so I couldn’t get close to him. Not to be deterred, I emailed Governor Dean in hopes of getting a response to a couple of my questions. He not only responded to my email, he agreed to an interview for my blog. See, the Internet really can bring people closer together. I want to thank Governor Dean for stopping by Nurse Ratched’s Place to talk about healthcare reform.
Question: What is your take on the state of our healthcare system? What do you envision for our system, and how do we get there from here? Can America really afford a public option plan?
Answer: Our system is in disarray. We need a system in which the American consumer has real choices, including allowing people under 65 to sign up for Medicare, which is what the public option will look like. That way people can get affordable insurance which can never be taken away, which can’t be denied, and which will follow them through every job, every loss of job, and every move. We can’t afford NOT to have a public option.
Question: How flexible is the public option: will a person be able to move between the public option and private options as their needs and circumstances change?
Answer: People will be able to move back and forth between the public option and private insurance plans as they see fit, up to once a year.
Question: Given your unique perspective as a physician, can you tell us one aspect of the public option that you like and one aspect that you might not be happy with?
Answer: As a physician I would sign up for the public option at once if it is cheaper than what I have now. I would definitely sign my twenty something kids up; it would give them insurance for life at a reasonable cost no matter what they were doing and where they were living.
Question: One of my nursing coworkers wanted me to ask you this question. How will healthcare reform impact nursing workforce issues? Will we see mandated caps on salaries, and how will healthcare reform impact nurse to patient ratios?
Answer: Workforce issues are not addressed in any of the health care options being discussed in Congress. Most Democrats I know favor nurse/patient staff ratios to protect quality of care.
Question: Preventative healthcare is a key component in the healthcare reform debate. What are your thoughts on a proposal that would make the Chief Nurse Officer of the United States Public Health Service the National Nurse? In your opinion, would establishing the Office of the National Nurse have any impact on health promotion or on healthcare reform?
Answer: As a lot of people know, I am a huge supporter of the Office of National Nurse, and since Congress has been slow to act, I am hoping some changes can be made directly by HHS while we await more complete action by Congress.
This event is a landmark in how we get discussion and debate going in the 21st century. We are communicating with the grass roots, with medical bloggers here in this room and across the country.
Let me tell you this: I don’t want government interfering in the relationship between doctors and patients…and I don’t want insurance companies interfering either! I want a vibrant health care market that lets patients choose the health care options that are right for them and their loved ones. I want a free market democracy that puts patients first. We can have this, and I’ll say something more about that in a minute.
Right now Congress is rushing through a health care overhaul that goes in the opposite direction. It’s important to analyze the relative financial costs and benefits of these proposals, but our greater challenge is not the dollars and cents. It goes to the issue of continuing the tradition of excellent health care that medical practitioners now provide. It’s about the equal dignity of each human person…and the future of America as a free society. The American character, and the principles of freedom & democracy which protect & preserve it, may be lost beyond recovery if Congress chooses the wrong path on health care reform—the path down which I believe the Obama Administration seems determined to lead our country.
Public health has always been a government priority. Our Constitution’s Framers saw every individual as having a “right of personal security” which includes being protected against acts that may harm personal health. This right is part of the natural right to life, and it is government’s very purpose to secure our natural rights to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness.
Now here is where believers in big government make their big mistake. The right of each person to protection of health does not imply that government must provide health care. The right to have food in order to live doesn’t require government to own the farms and raise the crops. Government’s obligation is normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets to thrive. Societies with economic freedom almost always have a growing abundance of goods and services at affordable costs for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this test – and I’d argue today’s health care delivery is an example – government should not supply the need itself. It should correct its own interventions and liberate choice and competition.
We know from survey after survey that a vast majority of Americans are personally satisfied with the quality of their own health care. The problem is really with health care delivery, which is growing too costly and leaving many people without coverage. The proponents of government-run health care claim there are only two alternatives: either enact their plan or do nothing. This is false. Government bureaucracy is not the answer to insurance company bureaucracy.
An authentic solution to the problem of affordability should be guided by the principles of moral and political freedom… respect doctor and patient privacy…restrain spending…and channel the energy of our free market system, not dry it up. There is no lack of sensible alternative solutions proposed by Republicans to put patients first. Senators Coburn and Burr, and Congressman Nunes and I have offered one, called “The Patients’ Choice Act.” It’s an example of how to eliminate government-driven market distortions that exclude many from affordable health care delivery. More uninsured Americans can be covered by spending current dollars more wisely and efficiently than by throwing trillions more at the problem. Our health care delivery alternatives are based on timeless American moral and political truths.
In essence, we believe that the dollars and decisions should flow through the individual patient, not from the government. I want to see a market where providers truly compete against each other for our business as consumers and patients – not a bureaucratized system where health care providers vie for government favor as patients wait in line. Read more »
My Interview With President Obama On Health Care Reform
I met President Obama yesterday. I interviewed him at the White House about his proposals for health care reform. But naturally, as we greeted each other, I asked about his throwing out the first ball at the All Star Game the night before.
“Were you nervous about bouncing the ball?” I asked. He grinned. “I will say it’s actually nerve-wracking,” he said. “When they hand you the ball, there are just a lot of things that can go wrong.” I found that to be a perfect metaphor for his assuming the Presidency of the United States and attempting to overhaul the health care system.
The biggest news from yesterday’s interview: President Obama has changed his position from the campaign trail and now believes that health care insurance should be mandated for all Americans, with a hardship exemption.
Dr. LaPook: Ultimately, philosophically, do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?
President Obama: I have come to that conclusion. During the campaign, I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come. I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption. If somebody truly just can’t afford health insurance even with the subsidies that the government is now providing, we don’t want to double penalize them. We want to phase this in, in a way that we have time to make sure that coverage is actually affordable before we’re saying to people “go out and get it.”
The interview went very smoothly and fairly predictably until we reached the following exchange:
Dr. LaPook: You’ve said that if doctors have the information, they’ll do the right thing. And generally, I like to — I’m a physician and practicing — I think that’s true. But actually, there are a lot of times when that’s not the case. For example, angioplasties — elective angioplasties, where you open up a clogged artery in the heart. It turns out that about 30 percent of them are unnecessary, that they’re done and you try to open up an artery of the heart, but really it’s no better than medication, and doctors know this, but they still order them.
President Obama: Why are they still ordering them, do you think?
I will admit that he took me by surprise by turning the question on me. Suddenly I was not in a one-way interview, I was in a conversation. Politics aside, it was clear to me that he was listening and he was curious.
Dr. LaPook: I think that because they believe — there’s this thing about — if an artery’s closed. It’s got to be better if it’s open, and it turns out that’s not true. So they have on the one side their intuition as a physician, in their bellies, and then there’s the evidence-based medicine that we talk about, and they clash a lot at times, so how do you make that doctor do the right thing or give him the right incentives?
President Obama: I have enormous faith in doctors. I think they always want to do the right thing for patients. But I also think, if we’re honest, doctors, right now, have disincentives to making the better choices in the situations you talked about. If you are getting paid more for the angioplasty, then that subconsciously even might make you think the angioplasty is the better route to take. And so if we’re reimbursing the physician not on the basis of how many procedures you’re performing but rather how are you caring for the patient overall - what are the outcomes - then I think you start seeing some different choices. And at the very least, you’re not taking money out of physicians’ pockets for making the better choice. So it’s a combination of better information and then, I think, a different system of reimbursement that says, “let’s look at the overall quality of the care of the patient.”
My conversation with President Obama illustrates a crucial focus of the current healthcare debate: figuring out if the American people are getting their bang for the buck when doctors order tests, perform procedures, and prescribe medications. The current buzzwords among doctors and politicians are “evidence-based medicine” (is there proof that something works?) and “comparative effectiveness” (if there’s more than one way to do something, what works best?). An Institute of Medicine workshop about evidence-based medicine began today in Washington, with the following listed as “issues prompting the discussion”:
. “Health costs in the United States this year will be about $2.5 trillion—nearly 17% of the economy.
. The United States spends far more on health care than any other nation, 50% more than the 2nd highest spender and about twice as high as the average for other developed countries.
. Overall health outcomes in the United States lag behind those achieved in other countries.
. Consistent with the per capita figures, many researchers studying the nature of U.S. health expenditures feel that 20% of our expenditures do not contribute to better health.”
Expert groups are currently trying to establish guidelines for reimbursing health expenses based on clear results from well-designed clinical studies. The problem is that for many medical issues, there is no definitive, evidence-based approach. Clinical medicine is often based on inexact, immeasurable tools such as intuition and experience. As doctors, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for the twenty-year study to be completed. We have to treat the patient now, as best we can, without perfect information.
In the absence of definitive data, we will need to account for clinical judgment in an overhauled health care system. What will happen when the doctor suggests something the insurance company says is not indicated? Opponents of a public option for insurance warn about the danger of having a bureaucrat in between the patient and the physician. But that threat already exists in the current system every time an insurance company decides whether to approve a claim. Wendell Potter, former head of Public Relations for Cigna, recently told
Bill Moyers about Cigna’s decision to deny a liver transplant to a 17-year-old girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, even though her doctors at UCLA had recommended the procedure.
A public-relations uproar forced Cigna to reverse its decision; the company subsequently explained its reversal as an exception, saying the surgery was approved “despite the lack of medical evidence regarding the effectiveness of such treatment.”
Ms. Sarkisyan died hours after Cigna’s decision, without having received the transplant.
A critical flaw in the current system - and one that must be addressed in any overhaul - is that the same people who refuse to pay for a recommended course of action are the ones who consider the appeal of that decision. And, lo and behold, they usually end up agreeing with themselves! In more than two decades of medical practice, I have spent countless hours trying to get various services covered by payors. One encounter - when I tried unsuccessfully to get a stomach-acid lowering pill approved for a patient who needed it -ended up as an example of twentieth-century frustration in
Letters of the Century.
Yes, our current health care system is not sustainable and we do need an overhaul. But there is no “exactly how” and we cannot afford to wait for one. There are so many nuances to the moving target of health care and so many unknowns that it is impossible to create a perfect solution on paper. I’ll settle for an imperfect solution that addresses the most important problems first and represents the best efforts of our most thoughtful experts. But it should not be set in stone. It must include provisions to mature gracefully into versions 2.0 and beyond.
Those on the left will pretty much sacrifice everything to attain their goal of universal coverage.
But, in this well-reasoned piece by conservative economist Tyler Cowen, expanding coverage won’t necessarily control costs, which is a more imperative issue. The bandied about means of cost control, such as electronic medical records, cutting provider payments, and preventive care, all will have little nor no impact in controlling costs.
Take physician reimbursements, for instance, a favorite target of health reforms. According Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, a favorite son among policy wonks, cutting physician pay by 20% would only reduce spending by 2%.
Furthermore, under the current payment system, simply cutting provider reimbursements will only give more of an incentive to do more procedures to make up for lost revenue.
The hard truth is that care will be rationed, and that’s something the Obama administration is unwilling to admit. Indeed, as Mr. Cohen writes, “if we aren’t willing to take even limited steps to conserve resources, we shouldn’t be spending any more money elsewhere.”
Cost control first before universal coverage, and therein lies the central contention of the debate.
And the worst case scenario, as progressive blogger Ezra Klein correctly surmises is, “that the final bill will include a pricey expansion of coverage paired with a speculative and uncertain set of cost controls.”
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
Even with the soaring popularity of our new President, and the general feelings of goodwill projected toward him by Americans and non-Americans alike, and despite the fact that the party he leads holds large majorities in both houses of Congress, and despite the general agreement by both political parties and by all the major stakeholders in the healthcare universe that the time has finally arrived for substantial reform, one gets the sense that Mr. Obama is losing some of the initiative on his healthcare reform plan.
Some of the leaders in the Democratic party (who, really, are the only ones who count) have balked at the price tag that has been attached to the Obama proposals (estimated currently at $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and most admit this projection uses the rosiest of assumptions), and now they’re balking as well at the much-desired (by the Obama administration, at least) “public option,” the Medicare-like insurance plan for all.
Worse, new schemes for healthcare reform - schemes which differ in fundamental ways from the Obama proposals - seem to be springing up all the time, and furthermore, many of these new proposals seem to be taken seriously by the press and by members of Congress. Even if none of these new plans ever ends up going anywhere, the mere fact that people in positions of authority are calling for them to receive honest consideration is a strong indication that the Obama plan might not come to a vote any time soon.
It is also a sign that Congress might be balking a bit, preparing to break sacred protocol, and actually preparing to subject any healthcare reform bill to careful consideration and debate prior to voting on it. Such action would be in stark contrast to the now-standard practice - honed with the TARP bill, the first (and one prays, only) stimulus package, and (in the House) the Cap and Trade bill - of voting on major legislation without a single congressperson taking the time to read it.
It seems clear (to DrRich at least) that the administration’s overarching strategy is (while invoking a sense of ultimate urgency), to ram through all of its incredibly high-cost policy initiatives, before the general sense of crisis and panic among the populace dissipates, and before sober reflection reveals to us that we’re already hamstringing our posterity with crippling debt. (Our motto: What’s our posterity ever done for us, anyway?) So any delay can only spell trouble for the Obama health plan.
Fortunately, DrRich is here to reassure the Obama administration that the thing is still well in hand. While the road may be a bit bumpier than you might have hoped, it still leads where you want to go.
To see why, one simply needs to consider for a few minutes those alternate reform proposals now circulating amongst policy wonks. DrRich will briefly describe three of these alternative proposals, ones that seem to have gained at least some traction, and which may on the surface seem to be quite good (and thus the most threatening to the Obama plan). Then he will demonstrate why these plans simply cannot work.
The Healthy Americans Act, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), requires that individuals buy private health insurance that at a minimum would offer “Blue Cross standard” care. Individuals would be able to afford this insurance (which will be available to all regardless of age or medical history) because everybody would get a big raise (by statute) when their employers no longer have to buy it for them. People earning less than 400% of the poverty level would receive government subsidies to purchase their own insurance. The Wyden plan has the great advantage of having been “certified” as being budget-neutral by 2014 - so “officially” it would be a trillion or two cheaper than the Obama plan over the next decade.
The Patients’ Choice Act, sponsored by four Republican Congressmen (Coburn, Burr, Ryan and Nunes), also places ownership of health insurance in the hands of individuals, instead of the employers. Individuals will buy their own insurance, which will be available to all, and which will be available through one-stop shopping via state-run “regional insurance exchanges.” Families will recieve a tax credit of $5700 ($2300 for individuals) to purchase this insurance, and those with low-income would receive further subsidies. Those who do not make an active insurance choice will be automatically enrolled in a private plan paid for by the tax credit.
And finally (finally for this blog post, at least), there is Bob Laszewski’s proposal, the Health Care Affordability model. Laszewski is a noted healthcare blogger and well-respected policy expert, and accordingly, his proposal is being taken quite seriously by some members of Congress. Laszewski is so smart and his proposal is so detailed that one with DrRich’s limited capacity has difficulty getting through the whole thing. But essentially he proposes to have the feds set formal cost-cutting targets which every private health plan must meet. Those who fail to meet these targets will lose their tax advantages (i.e., companies that continue to provide their products will no longer get tax deductions). Clearly, this will provide a strong incentive for insurance companies to meet those cost targets, and healthcare costs will, accordingly, eventually come under control. Lazsewski emphasizes that his proposal is not really a stand-alone plan, but can be attached to any other plan that’s out there. It will simply give insurance companies the added incentives they need to actually cut costs.
Now, DrRich is not opposed to any of these plans. In fact, he rather likes the Wyden plan and the Republican plan, because they both place the consumer in charge of choosing his/her own health insurance, and they provide for better competition among insurance products within the marketplace.
But alas, all of these alternate plans (and any plan that relies on private insurance) are doomed. The reason is simple. As DrRich has pointed out several times in the past, health insurance companies are no longer interested in providing health insurance. You can’t institute a healthcare reform plan that relies on private insurance - no matter how logical and wonderful that plan might otherwise be - when the insurance companies are all desperately seeking an exit strategy.
People, listen up. The health insurance companies just don’t want to play any more.
Private insurance companies have had 15 years of more-or-less unfettered free-reign to institute any efficiencies they want to. They entered the fray in 1994 (after vanquishing with extreme prejudice the Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform) with great confidence and enthusiasm, cheered on (initially, at least) by the public and by public officials alike. In the ensuing years they’ve tried all kinds of legitimate ideas for reducing healthcare costs, such as managed care, gatekeepers, clinical pathways, disease management programs, pay for performance, wellness programs, medical homes, and even a ruthless consolidation of the industry to achieve “efficiencies of scale.” They’ve also tried sneaky and underhanded ideas for reducing cost, like cherrypicking patients, making specialty care as inconvenient as possible, browbeating PCPs into zombie-like compliance with care directives, refusing to cover expensive-but-effective services, and cancelling the policies of tens of thousands of patients after they get sick, based on trumped-up technicalities. They’ve tried everything short of dispatching teams of Ninjas in the dark of night to slaughter their most expensive subscribers in their beds.
Yet the cost of healthcare continues to skyrocket, entirely unabated. And despite annually increasing their premiums by more than 10%, insurance companies can see that they have no prospect of long-term profitability.
The insurance companies have shot their wad. They are in despair, entirely bereft of ideas. They want out, and they are now working their exit strategies as hard as they can.
The last thing they want is for Congress to adopt the Wyden plan, or the Republican plan, or the Laszewski plan, or any plan that relies on THEM to figure out how to get healthcare costs under control. They regard such a prospect with the same enthusiasm you’d get if you told a battered, shell-shocked WWI doughboy to leap from the trenches one more time, and trudge through bullet and shell, across 200 yards of mud, blood, barbed wire and bodies, to attack that same machine gun nest once again. Somehow they just don’t believe that, this time, the results will be any better.
This is why the insurance companies are “complicit” with the Obama plan. The Obama plan offers them, at worst, a graceful exit strategy that they can break gently to their shareholders, over time. With luck, they may end up with a long-term business as claims processors for a government plan. They may even get one last windfall in profits, from government-supplied insurance premiums for some of those 47 million uninsured. At the very least, the Obama plan won’t expect them to control the cost of American healthcare. Indeed, the Obama plan expects them to be completely incapable of competing with its public insurance option.
The Obama plan will allow the health insurance companies to stay in the relative safety in their trenches, hunker down, and await the armistice. Any alternate reform plan that hopes to be successful will need to offer the insurance industry a deal at least as sweet.
So as the move toward healthcare reform begins to bog down, President Obama still has an ace in the hole: the insurance industry has nowhere else to go. The support Mr. Obama enjoys from that industry is offered not out of mere political expediency, but out of utter necessity. The undying support of the insurance industry will likely make the administration’s healthcare reform plan unstoppable.
DrRich is glad to have been able to ease the administration’s concerns as their hour of darkness approaches.
My apologies to James Carville. I plagiarized his tagline because the insurance industry has forgotten about sick people during our national healthcare debate. I remember when nurses and insurance companies use to get along with each other. Back in the 1960s, these nurses even took time out of their busy schedules to pose for one of their ads. We took care of patients at the bedside, and the insurance companies paid the hospital bill. It was as simple as that, but then things started to change. It began with three little letters—HMO.
Insurance companies are spending a lot of time and money trying to scare people into opposing President Barack Obama’s ideas on health care reform. They are especially working hard to torpedo the public option plan. That plan would allow you to keep your own private health insurance policy or buy affordable health insurance through a public plan. Insurers are going all out to make you hate this idea by making claims that aren’t true. They are saying that the government is going to ration health care by dictating which doctor you can see, and by making you wait weeks to see a specialist. Ironic isn’t it? The insurance industry is already doing these things to patients everyday via their HMOs. We wouldn’t even be having this debate if they were playing fair in the first place.
Insurance companies make their money a couple of different ways. They rack in the bucks by not insuring people who are sick, a practice known as cherry picking, and by not paying out claims. They also make money by cutting out competition. This is the real reason why insurers are trying to muscle Uncle Sam out of the insurance business. Medicare administrative costs are equal to about 2 percent of what it pays out to providers. For private insurers the ratio over expenses to payments is typically over 15 percent. Why the big difference? Insurance companies have high overhead. Their CEOs take home mega-million dollar paychecks, they have to take care of their shareholders, and they have to pay for fancy ads that convince consumers that they will have health coverage when they really need it. They need those fancy ads. Insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny our claims, but I digress. Competition between private companies and a public plan would hit insurance companies right where it hurts—in their wallets. Fewer customers in private plans means less profits, and less profits, up to 20 to 30 percent by some estimates, means fewer martini lunches for those at the top of the corporate food chain. To make matters worse, those greedy folks who make money by NOT paying for care would have to lower their profit margin on the customers they do keep in order to compete with the government.
I’ll never forget the day that I learned about HMOs. I came into work and found red dots on the side of a few patient charts. My head nurse told me that the dots were put there to prompt doctors to discharge patients as soon as possible so that the hospital and the insurance company could make more money. That was twenty-five years ago and the system has been in freefall ever since. Year after year, nurses are voted as the most trusted profession in America in Gallup’s annual survey of professions for their honesty and ethical standards. We are patient advocates, and we never put anything above what’s best for our patients. That’s why I’m putting my seal of approval on President Obama’s public health insurance plan, and so are the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the SEIU. The insurance companies want your money. Nurses want to take care of their patients. We want all Americans to have affordable, high-quality healthcare.
But we know that nurses never cause doctors to have headaches, so that can’t be what’s happening.
Ha!
Trust me, there have been a few doctors over the years that have given me major headaches and I have no doubt that I have been the impetus behind a few MD migraines myself!
**********
The guy in the Anacin ad must be doing what I’ve been doing for the last two days.
Trying to get a grip on healthcare reform.
That alone is enough to give you a migraine.
There is so much information and conjecture and opinion and debate, it is difficult to know where to start.
Who gets covered? What gets covered? Who pays? Who decides the charges? Who decides the fees? Who has an agenda: political, financial or otherwise? Private or public plan?
And the most important question of all: Who is fighting for what is best for the patient?
Because, when all is said and done, WE are “the patient”.
*****
Okay, so I’ve come up with some foundations; these are things that I feel must be at the heart of any health care reform debate:
1. Every citizen must have health care coverage.
2. Every citizen needs to own their health care coverage.
3. There should be a choice between private and public plans.
4. Every citizen must be able to choose between a private or a public plan and switch between as necessary.
5. Each plan must cover basic health care: physicals, screening, immunizations, well care.
6. Each plan must cover chronic or catastrophic illnesses. (Diabetes, asthma, MS, cancer – just a few examples)
7. After basic health care and chronic/catastrophic illness, each citizen should be able to choose how they want to be covered. I have heard this called the “cafeteria plan”.
*****
Gee, I don’t ask for much, do I?
We don’t have to invent the wheel here. Other countries have gone before us; there are models of universal coverage we can study.
The operative word here is “study”. Take what is good, understand what does not work and use that knowledge to form a unique form of universal health care that meets the needs of the citizens of the United States.
*****
Probably the easiest way to tackle health care is from a personal angle.
I just found out what my COBRA payment would be if I left my job tomorrow.
I’m hoping my jaw heals before I go to work on Thursday.
But that’s a topic for the next post.
*This blog post was originally published at Emergiblog*
Dr. Bryan Vartabedian - Blogs: Parenting Solved and 33ChartsTwitter: Doctor_V
Well you’re in for a treat. I had the good fortune of coralling them for a healthcare reform discussion, lead by Dr. Bob Goldberg of CMPI-Advance. Bob’s recent Op-Ed at ABC can be viewed here. I was going to provide a synopsis of what they said, but then - that would spoil the show!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
I interviewed Captain Steve Blankenship, the Managing Director of Veterans Initiatives at American Airlines.
Warning: fopen(/var/www/vhosts/exobi.com/subdomains/betterhealth/httpdocs/wp-content/ics-importer-cache/55d2dd18318d998e993637988c55373a.ics) [function.fopen]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /var/www/vhosts/exobi.com/subdomains/betterhealth/httpdocs/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-ics-importer/ics-functions.php on line 236
Error opening /var/www/vhosts/exobi.com/subdomains/betterhealth/httpdocs/wp-content/ics-importer-cache/55d2dd18318d998e993637988c55373a.ics
Well, apparently they call a nurse!
