Category Archives: Medicare for All

America Needs a National Healthcare System

Posted on by • Posted in Citizens United, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medicare for All, Profit, Profit Motive • Leave a comment
https://hartmannreport.com/p/america-needs-a-national-healthcare?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=302288&post_id=151470553&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

There’s only one person in this photograph/video of a recent G7 meeting who represents a country where an illness can destroy an entire family, leaving them bankrupt and homeless, with the repercussions of that sudden fall into poverty echoing down through generations.

Most Americans have no idea that the United States is quite literally the only country in the developed world that doesn’t define healthcare as an absolute right for all of its citizens. That’s it. We’re the only one left.

The United States spends more on “healthcare” than any other country in the world: about 17% of GDP. 

Switzerland, Germany, France, Sweden and Japan all average around 11%, and Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Norway, Netherlands, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia all come in between 9.3% and 10.5%.

Health insurance premiums right now make up about 22% of all taxable payroll, whereas Medicare For All would run an estimated 10%.

We are literally the only developed country in the world with an entire multi-billion-dollar for-profit industry devoted to parasitically extracting money from us to then turn over to healthcare providers on our behalf. The for-profit health insurance industry has attached itself to us like a giant, bloodsucking tick.

And it’s not like we haven’t tried.

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all proposed and made an effort to bring a national healthcare system to the United States. Here’s one example really worth watching where President Kennedy is pushing a single-payer system (as opposed to Britain’s “socialist” model):

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MQQhr9BcaaA?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

They all failed, and when I did a deep dive into the topic two years ago for my book The Hidden History of American Healthcare I found two major barriers to our removing that tick from our backs.

The early opposition, more than 100 years ago, to a national healthcare system came from southern white congressmen (they were all men) and senators who didn’t want even the possibility that Black people could benefit, health-wise, from white people’s tax dollars. (This thinking apparently still motivates many white Southern politicians.)

The leader of that healthcare-opposition movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a German immigrant named Frederick Hoffman, as I mentioned in a recent newsletter. Hoffman was a senior executive for the Prudential Insurance Company, and wrote several books about the racial inferiority of Black people, a topic he traveled the country lecturing about.

His most well-known book was titled Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. It became a major best-seller across America when it was first published for the American Economic Association by the Macmillan Company in 1896, the same year the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision legally turned the entire US into an apartheid state.

Hoffman taught that Black people, in the absence of slavery, were so physically and intellectually inferior to whites that if they were simply deprived of healthcare the entire race would die out in a few generations. Denying healthcare to Black people, he said, would solve the “race problem” in America.

Southern politicians quoted Hoffman at length, he was invited to speak before Congress, and was hailed as a pioneer in the field of “scientific racism.” Race Traits was one of the most influential books of its era.

By the 1920s, the insurance company he was a vice president of was moving from life insurance into the health insurance field, which brought an added incentive to lobby hard against any sort of a national healthcare plan.

Which brings us to the second reason America has no national healthcare system: profits.

“Dollar” Bill McGuire, a recent CEO of America’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth, made about $1.5 billion dollars during his time with that company.  To avoid prosecution in 2007 he had to cough up $468 million, but still walked away a billionaire. Stephen J Hemsley, his successor, made off with around half a billion.

And that’s just one of multiple giant insurance companies feeding at the trough of your healthcare needs.

Much of that money, and the pay for the multiple senior executives at that and other insurance companies who make over $1 million a year, came from saying “No!” to people who file claims for payment of their healthcare costs.

This became so painful for Cigna Vice President Wendell Potter that he resigned in disgust after a teenager he knew was denied payment for a transplant and died. He then wrote a brilliant book about his experience in the industry: Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans.

Companies offering such “primary” health insurance simply don’t exist (or are tiny) in almost every other developed country in the world. Mostly, where they do exist, they serve wealthier people looking for “extras” beyond the national system, like luxury hospital suites or air ambulances when overseas. (Switzerland is the outlier with exclusively private insurance, but it’s subsidized, mandatory, and non-profit.)

If Americans don’t know this, they intuit it.

In the 2020 election there were quite a few issues on statewide ballots around the country. Only three of them outpolled Joe Biden’s win, and expanding Medicaid to cover everybody was at the top of that list. (The other two were raising the minimum wage and legalizing pot.)

The last successful effort to provide government funded, single-payer healthcare insurance was when Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid (both single-payer systems) in the 1960s. It was a hell of an effort, but the health insurance industry was then a tiny fraction of its current size.

In 1978, when conservatives on the Supreme Court legalized corporations owning politicians with their Buckley v Belotti decision (written by Justice Louis Powell of “Powell Memo” fame), they made the entire process of replacing a profitable industry with government-funded programs like single-payer vastly more difficult, regardless of how much good they may do for the citizens of the nation.

The Court then doubled-down on that decision in 2010, when the all-conservative vote on Citizens United cemented the power of billionaires and giant corporations to own politicians and even write and influence legislation and the legislative process.

Medicare For All, like Canada has, would save American families thousands every year immediately and do away with the 500,000+ annual bankruptcies in this country that happen only because somebody in the family got sick. But it would kill the billions every week in profits of the half-dozen corporate giants that dominate the health insurance industry.

This won’t be happening with a billionaire in the White House, but if we want to bring America into the 21st century with the next administration, we need to begin working, planning, and waking up voters now.

When Profits Kill: The Deadly Costs of Treating Healthcare as a Business

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Excessive Executive Compensation, Executive Compensation, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Denials, Medicare for All, Private Equity, Privatization, Profit, Profit Motive, Public Interest, Public Trust, Single Payer Health System • Leave a comment
https://hartmannreport.com/p/when-profits-kill-the-deadly-costs-e1a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=302288&post_id=152812043&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The recent assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — the health insurance company with, reportedly, the highest rate of claims rejections (and thus dead, wounded, and furious customers and their relations) — gives us a perfect window to understand the stupidity and danger of the Musk/Trump/Ramaswamy strategy of “cutting government” to “make it more efficient, run it like a corporation.”

Consider health care, which in almost every other developed country in the world is legally part of the commons — the infrastructure of the nation, like our roads, public schools, parks, police, military, libraries, and fire departments — owned by the people collectively and run for the sole purpose of meeting a basic human need.

The entire idea of government — dating all the way back to Gilgamesh and before — is to fulfill that singular purpose of meeting citizens’ needs and keeping the nation strong and healthy. That’s a very different mandate from that of a corporation, which is solely directed (some argue by law) to generate profits.

The Veterans’ Administration healthcare system, for example, is essentially socialist rather than capitalist. The VA owns the land and buildings, pays the salaries of everybody from the surgeons to the janitors, and makes most all decisions about care. Its primary purpose — just like that of the healthcare systems of every other democracy in the world — is to keep and make veterans healthy. Its operation is nearly identical to that of Britain’s beloved socialist National Health Service.

UnitedHealthcare similarly owns its own land and buildings, and its officers and employees behave in a way that’s aligned with the company’s primary purpose, but that purpose is to make a profit. Sure, it writes checks for healthcare that’s then delivered to people, but that’s just the way UnitedHealthcare makes money; writing checks and, most importantly, refusing to write checks.

Think about it. If UnitedHealthcare’s main goal was to keep people healthy, they wouldn’t be rejecting 32 percent of claims presented to them. Like the VA, when people needed help they’d make sure they got it.

Instead, they make damn sure their executives get millions of dollars every year (and investors get billions) because making a massive profit ($23 billion last year, and nearly every penny arguably came from saying “no” to somebody’s healthcare needs) is their real business.

On the other hand, if the VA’s goal was to make or save money by “being run efficiently like a company,” they’d be refusing service to a lot more veterans (which it appears is on the horizon).

This is the essential difference between government and business, between meeting human needs (social) and reaching capitalism’s goal (profit).

It’s why its deeply idiotic to say, as Republicans have been doing since the Reagan Revolution, that “government should be run like a business.” That’s nearly as crackbrained a suggestion as saying that fire departments should make a profit (a doltish notion promoted by some Libertarians). Government should be run like a government, and companies should be run like companies.

Given how obvious this is with even a little bit of thought, where did this imbecilic idea that government should run like a business come from?

Turns out, it’s been driven for most of the past century by morbidly rich businessmen (almost entirely men) who don’t want to pay their taxes. As Jeff Tiedrich notes:

“The scariest sentence in the English language is: ‘I’m a billionaire, and I’m here to help.’”

Rightwing billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of the costs of society set up think tanks, policy centers, and built media operations to promote their idea that the commons are really there for them to plunder under the rubric of privatization and efficiency.

They’ve had considerable success. Slightly more than half of Medicare is now privatized, multiple Republican-controlled states are in the process of privatizing their public school systems, and the billionaire-funded Project 2025 and the incoming Trump administration have big plans for privatizing other essential government services.

The area where their success is most visible, though, is the American healthcare system. Because the desire of rightwing billionaires not to pay taxes have prevailed ever since Harry Truman first proposed single-payer healthcare like most of the rest of the world has, Americans spend significantly more on healthcare than other developed countries.

In 2022, citizens of the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare, the highest among wealthy nations. This is nearly twice the average of $6,850 per person for other wealthy OECD countries.

Over the next decade, it is estimated that America will spend between $55 and $60 trillion on healthcare if nothing changes and we continue to cut giant corporations in for a large slice of our healthcare money.

On the other hand, Senator Bernie Sanders’ single-payer Medicare For All plan would only cost $32 trillion over the next 10 years. And it would cover everybody in America, every man woman and child, in every medical aspect including vision, dental, psychological, and hearing.

Currently 25 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.

If we keep our current system, the difference between it and the savings from a single-payer system will end up in the pockets, in large part, of massive insurance giants and their executives and investors. And as campaign contributions for bought off Republicans. This isn’t rocket science.

And you’d think that giving all those extra billions to companies like UnitedHealthcare would result in America having great health outcomes. But, no.

Despite insanely higher spending, the U.S. has a lower life expectancy at birth, higher rates of chronic diseases, higher rates of avoidable or treatable deaths, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates than any of our peer nations.

Compared to single-payer nations like Canada, the U.S. also has a higher incidence of chronic health conditions, Americans see doctors less often and have fewer hospital stays, and the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians per person.

No other country in the world allows a predatory for-profit industry like this to exist as a primary way of providing healthcare. Every other advanced democracy considers healthcare a right of citizenship, rather than an opportunity for a handful of industry executives to hoard a fortune, buy Swiss chalets, and fly around on private jets.

This is one of the most widely shared graphics on social media over the past few days in posts having to do with Thompson’s murder…

Sure, there are lots of health insurance companies in other developed countries, but instead of offering basic healthcare (which is provided by the government) mostly wealthy people subscribe to them to pay for premium services like private hospital rooms, international air ambulance services, and cosmetic surgery.

Essentially, UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson made decisions that killed Americans for a living, in exchange for $10 million a year. He and his peers in the industry are probably paid as much as they are because there is an actual shortage of people with business training who are willing to oversee decisions that cause or allow others to die in exchange for millions in annual compensation.

That Americans are well aware of this obscenity explains the gleeful response to his murder that’s spread across social media, including the refusal of online sleuths to participate in finding his killer.

It shouldn’t need be said that vigilantism is no way to respond to toxic individuals and companies that cause Americans to die unnecessarily. Hopefully, Thompson’s murder will spark a conversation about the role of government and the commons — and the very real need to end the corrupt privatization of our healthcare system (including the Medicare Advantage scam) that has harmed so many of us and killed or injured so many of the people we love.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DzaxEt4L9II?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Foundational Steps Vital on the Road to Universal Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Healthcare Reform, Medical Debt, Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex (MFIC), Medical-Industrial Complex, Medicare for All, Pandemic, Physicians for a National Health Program, Profit Motive, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/foundational-steps-vital-on-the-road?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144470044&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“Incrementalism.” The word is perceived as the enemy of hope for universal health care in the United States.

Those who advocate for single-payer, expanded Medicare for all tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and we have advanced the movement while pushing back on incremental change. But the profit-taking health industry giants in what’s been called the medical-industrial complex are pursuing their own incremental agenda, designed to sustain the outrageously expensive and unfair status quo.

In recent years, as the financial sector of the U.S. economy has joined that unholy alliance, scholars have begun writing about the “financialization” of health care.

It has morphed into the medical-financial-industrial complex (MFIC) so vast and deeply entrenched in our economy that a single piece of legislation to achieve our goal–even with growing support in Congress–remains far short of enough votes to enact.

If we are to see the day when all Americans can access care without significant financial barriers, policy changes that move us closer to that goal must be pursued as aggressively as we fight against the changes that push universal health care into the distant future. Labeling all positive steps toward universal health care as unacceptable “incrementalism” could have the effect of aiding and abetting the MFIC and increase the chances of a worst-case scenario: Medicare Advantage for all, a goal of the giants in the private insurance business. But words matter. Instead of “incremental,” let’s call the essential positive steps forward as “foundational” and not undermine them.

The pandemic crisis exposed the weaknesses of our health system. When millions of emergencies in the form of COVID-19 infections overtook the system, most providers were ill-prepared and understaffed. More than 1.1 million U.S. citizens died of COVID-19-related illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control. 

For years, the MFIC had been advancing its agenda, even as the U.S. was losing ground in life expectancy and major measures of health outcomes. While health care profits soared in the years leading up to and during the pandemic, those of us in the single-payer movement demanded improved, expanded Medicare for all.  And we were right to do so. Progress came through almost every effort. The number of advocates grew, and more newly elected leaders supported a single-payer plan. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid proved that millions of Americans were fed up with having to delay or avoid care altogether because it simply cost too much or because insurance companies refused to cover needed tests, treatments and medications.

But as the demand for systemic overhaul grew, the health care industry was making strategic political contributions and finding ways to gain even more control of health policy and the political process itself. 

Over the years, many in the universal health care movement have opposed foundational change for strategic reasons. Some movement leaders believed that backing small changes or tweaks to the current system at best deflected from our ultimate goal. And when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, many on the left viewed it as a Band-Aid if not an outright gift to the MFIC. While many physicians in our movement knew that the law’s Medicaid expansion and the provisions making it illegal for insurers to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions would save many thousands of lives, they worried that the ACA would further empower big insurance companies. Both positions were valid.

After the passage of the ACA, more of us had insurance cards in our wallets and access to needed care for the first time, although high premiums and out-of-pocket costs have become insurmountable barriers for many. Meanwhile, industry profits soared. 

The industry expanded its turf. Hospitals grew larger, stand-alone urgent care clinics, often owned by corporate conglomerates, opened on street corners in cities across the country, private insurance rolls grew, disease management schemes proliferated, and hospital and drug prices continued the march upward. The money flowing into the campaign coffers of political candidates made industry-favored incremental changes an easier lift.

The MFIC now enjoys a hold on nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Almost one of every five dollars flowing through our economy does so because of that ever-expanding, profit-focused complex.  

To change this “system” would require an overhaul of the whole economy. Single-payer advocates must consider that herculean task as they continue their work. We must understand that the true system of universal health care we envision would also disrupt the financial industry – banks, collection agencies, investors – an often-forgotten but extraordinarily powerful segment of the corporate-run complex.  

Even if the research and data show that improved, expanded Medicare for all would save money and lives (and they do show that), that is not motivating for the finance folks, who fear that without unfettered control of health care, they might profit less. Eliminating medical bills and debt would be marvelous for patients but not for a large segment of the financial community, including bankruptcy attorneys.

Following the money in U.S. health care means understanding how deep and far the tentacles of profit reach, and how embedded they are now.

We know the MFIC positioned itself to continue growing profits and building more capacity. The industry made steady, incremental progress toward that goal. There is no illusion that better overall health for Americans is the mission of the stockholders who drive this industry. No matter what the marketers tell us, patients are not their priority. If too many of us get healthier, we might not use as much care and generate as much money for the owners and providers. Private insurers want enough premiums and government perks to keep flowing their way to keep the C-Suite and Wall Street happy.

More than health insurers

Health insurers are far from the only rapidly expanding component of the MFIC. A recent documentary, “American Hospitals: Healing a Broken System,” for example, explores a segment of the U.S. health industry that is often overlooked by policymakers and the media. Though they were unprepared for the national health crisis, hospitals endured the pandemic in this country largely because the dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff risked their own lives to keep caring for COVID-19 patients while everything from masks, gowns and gloves to thermometers and respirators were in short supply. But make no mistake, many hospitals were still making money through the pandemic. In fact, some boosted their already high profits, and private insurance companies had practically found profit-making nirvana. Patients put off everything from colonoscopies to knee replacements, physical therapy to MRIs. Procedures not done meant claims not submitted, while monthly insurance premiums kept right on coming and right on increasing. 

The pandemic was a time of turmoil for most businesses and families, yet the MFIC took its share of profits. It was pure gold for many hospitals until staffing pressures and supply issues grew more dire, COVID patients were still in need of care, and more general patient care needs started to reemerge.

We might be forgiven for thinking there wasn’t much regulating or legislating done around health care during the pandemic years. We’d be wrong. There was a flurry of legislation at the state level as some states took on the abuses of the private insurance industry and hospital billing practices. 

And the movement to improve and expand traditional Medicare to cover all of us stayed active, though somewhat muted. The bills before Congress that expanded access to Medicaid during the pandemic through a continuous enrollment provision offered access to care for millions of people. Yet as that COVID-era expansion ended, many of those patients were left without coverage or access to care. This might have been a chance to raise the issue loudly, but the social justice movement did not sufficiently activate national support for maintaining continuous enrollment in Medicaid. Is that the kind of foundational change worth fighting for? I would argue it most certainly is.

As those previously covered by Medicaid enter this “unwinding” phase, many will be unable to secure equivalent or adequate health insurance coverage. The money folks began to worry as coverage waned. After all, sick people will show up needing care and they will not be able to pay for it. As of this writing, patient advocacy groups are largely on the sidelines.

 But Allina Health took action. The hospital chain announced it would no longer treat patients with medical debt. After days of negative press, the company did an about-face. 

Throughout the country, even as the pandemic loomed, the universal, single-payer movement focused on explaining to candidates and elected officials why improving and expanding Medicare to cover all of us not only is a moral imperative but also makes economic sense. In many ways, the movement has been tremendously effective: More than 130 city and county governing bodies have passed resolutions in support of Medicare for all, including in Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta, Duluth, Baltimore, and Cook County (Chicago). 

The Medicare for All Act, sponsored by Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sanders (I-Vt.) has 113 co-sponsors in the House and 14 in the Senate. Another bill allowing states to establish their own universal health care programs has been introduced in the House and will be introduced soon in the Senate.

Moving us closer

The late Dr. Quentin Young was a young Barack Obama’s doctor in Chicago. Young spoke to his president-in-the-making patient about universal health care and Obama, then a state legislator, famously answered that he would support a single-payer plan if we were starting from scratch. Many in the Medicare–for-all movement dismissed that statement as accepting corporate control of health care. 

But Young would steadfastly advocate for single-payer health care for years to come and as one of the founding forces behind Physicians for a National Health Program. Once Dr. Young was asked if the movement should support incremental changes. He answered, “If a measure makes it easier and moves us closer to achieving health care for all of us, we should support that wholeheartedly. And if a measure makes it harder to get to single-payer, we need to oppose it and work to defeat that measure.”  Many people liked that response. Others were not persuaded.

But in recent years, PHNP has become a national leader in a broad-based effort to halt the privatization of Medicare through so-called Medicare Advantage plans and other means. A case can be made that those are incremental/foundational but essential steps to achieving the ultimate goal.

We must fight incrementally sometimes, for instance when traditional Medicare is threatened with further privatization. Bit by painful bit, a program that has served this nation so well for more than 50 years will be carved up and given over to the private insurance industry unless the foundational steps taken by the industry are met with resistance and facts at every turn. We can achieve our goal by playing the short game as well as the long game. Foundational change can be and has been powerful. It just has to be focused on the health and well-being of every person.

Sweeping health reform takes a back seat for this election cycle

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare for All, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Physician Compensation • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/79ecc69aca80/the-weekly-gist-december-15-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

After a presentation this week, a senior physician from the audience of our member health systems reached out to discuss a well-trod topic, the future of health reform legislation. But his question led to a more forward-looking concern: 

“You talked very little about politics, even though we have an election coming up next year. Are you anticipating that Medicare for All will come up again? And what would the impact be on doctors?” 

As we’ve discussed before, we think it’s unlikely that sweeping health reform legislation like Medicare for All (M4A) would make its way through Congress, even if Democrats sweep the 2024 elections—and it’s far too early for health systems to dedicate energy to a M4A strategy.

Healthcare is not shaping up to be a campaign priority for either party, and given the levels of partisan division and expectations that slim majorities will continue, passing significant reform would be highly unlikely. 

Although there is bipartisan consensus around a limited set of issues like increasing transparency and limiting the power of PBMs, greater impact in the near term will come from regulatory, rather than legislative, action. 

For instance, health systems are much more exposed by the push toward site-neutral payments. How large is the potential hit? One mid-sized regional health system we work with estimated they stand to lose nearly $80M of annual revenue if site-neutral payments are fully implemented—catastrophic to their already slim system margins.

Preparing for this inevitable payment change or the long-term possibility of M4A both require the same strategy: serious and relentless focus on cost reduction.

This still leaves a giant elephant in the room: the long-term impact on the physician enterprise. 

As referral-based economics continue to erode, health systems will find it increasingly difficult to maintain current physician salaries, further driving the need to move beyond fee-for-service toward a health system economic model based on total cost of care and consumer value, while building physician compensation around those shared goals.

More States Are Proposing Single-Payer Health Care. Why Aren’t They Succeeding?

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Medicare for All, Public Option, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System • Leave a comment

The Democratic presidential primary might feel like a lifetime ago, but one important storyline in that race was health care — specifically single-payer health care, or the policy that the government should offer universal health insurance to everyone in the country. The nomination of now-President Biden, who opposed single-payer health care during the primary, has put single-payer health care on the backburner nationally. But that hasn’t stopped the issue from impacting state legislators, who have introduced more single-payer health care bills in the last few years than ever before.

Health care policy researchers Erin C. Fuse Brown and Elizabeth McCuskey tracked the number of unique single-payer bills introduced in state legislatures across the country from 2010 to 2019, finding a sharp uptick in bills introduced since 2017. During each of those three years, at least 10 single-payer proposals were introduced, according to Brown and McCuskey’s research, for the first time since 2013. In total, state legislators proposed more single-payer bills from 2017 to 2019 than in the previous seven years combined. And for 2021, we’ve identified 10 single-payer bills that legislators introduced across the country, from liberal states like California and Massachusetts to more conservative ones including Iowa and Ohio.1

What do all these proposals have in common? They’ve all universally failed. In fact, Vermont, the only state that managed to pass single-payer health care in 2011, ended up shelving its plan three years later.

It makes sense why single-payer advocates have tried to take these fights to the states. States have traditionally been seen as the “laboratories of democracy,” and some advocates of single-payer health care have argued that liberal states could provide unique opportunities to advance single-payer health care. But as I’ll explain, passing single-payer health care at the state level is next to impossible, as states are particularly limited in how they can allocate federal and private health care funds. There is, however, evidence that Americans may have an appetite for a public option, or government-run health insurance that people can opt into at the state level. Three states (Colorado, Nevada and Washington) have already passed a public option. It’s not single-payer health care reform, but it’s possible that we might see more states adopt their own public-option reforms.

One big reason single-payer proposals haven’t caught on at the state level is because finding a reliable way to pay for such a program is challenging. Single-payer advocates originally envisioned a federal proposal that would cover all Americans under a more generous version of a preexisting program — that is, Medicare, but now for all. Doing this state-by-state would require each state to apply for waivers to divert federal funds used for Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act exchanges to be used for their own single-payer plans. And that’s tricky because the Department of Health and Human Services has wide discretion to approve or deny states’ requests, which makes any proposal highly dependent on the national political climate.

This isn’t just a theoretical debate either: Trump’s administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Seema Verma said in 2018 that she would deny waivers from states to create single-payer systems, while Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has expressed more favorable sentiments. Almost all single-payer proposals depend on these waivers and states don’t often have fallback plans for if this federal funding gets denied.

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which cover 54 percent of Americans, are another hurdle for states trying to pass single-payer health care. Federal law largely prevents states from regulating employer-provided health insurance, so states can’t just stop employers from offering their own health care benefits. The exact scope of this law has been litigated for decades, but suffice it to say that it’s successfully put the kibosh on many statewide health care reforms. Single-payer health insurance is particularly tricky as there’s no way to get everyone onto the plan without first changing how private insurance works. States have tried to address this through measures like increasing payroll taxes or restricting providers’ ability to accept reimbursement from private insurance plans. But the more elaborate these mechanisms get, the more complicated it becomes to implement — and the more people that could slip through the cracks.

Finally, another big financial barrier is that state governments have far less leeway than the federal government to increase budgetary spending. That means tax increases, which come with their own political challenges, are often necessary for states to secure the funding they need.

Take California’s single-payer proposal, which failed in late January. It would have required two-thirds of voters to pass a separate constitutional amendment to implement the necessary tax increases to pay for it. Concerns over tax increases also contributed to the demise of single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont. It’s true that a recent analysis of New York’s single-payer health care plan found that it would lower overall health care spending by 3 percent by 2031, but it would also require additional state tax revenue of $139 billion in 2022 — over 150 percent of the current state budget. Politicians facing the next election cycle may be leery of proposing short-term tax increases, even if the end result is long-term savings.

All of this creates a daunting picture for statewide single-payer health care. But the failures of single-payer doesn’t entirely close the door on health care reform, especially if these reforms are supplementing the existing system instead of entirely replacing it. Colorado and Nevada, for instance, successfully passed a public option in 2021, joining Washington, which passed one in 2019. Colorado’s success in advancing a public option is particularly striking, given that almost 80 percent of people voted against its single-payer proposal in 2016.

To be sure, though, efforts to implement a public option aren’t without their own challenges. In 2021, during its first year of implementation, Washington state’s public option struggled to enroll people and get health care providers to agree to lower payment rates. State lawmakers have tried to fix this problem by introducing legislation that would require more providers to participate and bring down premiums by increasing subsidies. Proponents have also cautioned that it might take years before the public option really gains a foothold with Washington state residents.

It’s not clear yet how successful these state-run public option plans will be, but it is possible that a public option may prove more popular than single-payer. For starters, while single-payer health care is popular among Democrats, the public option still polls much better among Republicans and independents. According to a Morning Consult/Politico poll from March 2021, the public option was roughly as popular as Medicare for All among Democrats — about 80 percent said they supported each. But support for the public option was much higher than support for Medicare for All among both Republicans and independents. Just 28 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of independents supported Medicare for All versus 56 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents who supported a public option.

Moreover, a public option may align more naturally with Americans’ existing views on the role of government in health care. Polls have long found that Americans still want a choice in their health care, even though they believe that providing health insurance to the uninsured is the government’s responsibility.

Ultimately, any health care reforms would be easier to implement on a federal level than a patchwork, state-by-state approach. But Washington, Colorado and Nevada remain important tests of state governments’ ability to implement a public option in lieu of action by the federal government. It’s not single-payer, but it’s still some of the most consequential health care reforms in decades — and a potential sign of where the debates over health care are heading.

As America’s physician demographics shift, so do doctors’ priorities

Posted on by • Posted in American Medical Association (AMA), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare for All, Physician • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/7788648545f0/the-weekly-gist-february-25-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

 A recent New Yorker article details the history of the American Medical Association’s (AMA) opposition to single-payer healthcare, and the grassroots movement that nearly changed its position in 2019.

Since its founding in the 1840s, the largest association of the nation’s doctors has wielded significant influence over healthcare policy, and has been the most effective opponent of several waves of progressive healthcare reform proposals across the last century. More recent changes in the demographic makeup of its physician constituents have begun to mirror the US population. A quarter of today’s practicing physicians graduated from foreign medical schools, and gender and racial gaps in medical schools have been reduced. Today, half of medical students are female, and half are people of color.

The Gist: The perspectives, needs, and politics of the physician community are changing. Younger physicians tend to be more left-leaning, and more are employees, rather than entrepreneurial business owners. While physician pocketbook issues historically dominated the AMA’s policy positions, today’s younger physicians are increasingly motivated by social justice concerns, leading to advocacy positions that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. 

Physician societies continue to move closer to endorsing more extensive healthcare reform policies, over trying to ensure economic protection for the profession—and in the long run, this shift in physician support could prove a key driver in increasing public approval of “Medicare for All” and other coverage reforms.

Would Medicare for All Increase Your Wages?

Posted on by • Posted in Employee Benefits, Employee Compensation, Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare for All • Leave a comment
Would Medicare for All Increase Your Wages?
Would Medicare for All Increase Your Wages? - YouTube

Medicare for All, which would extend health coverage to all Americans, has been a hot topic of debate in recent years. Researchers have looked into the many ways that a switch to Medicare for All might change our lives, and one of those areas of change might be wages. Employer provided healthcare is baked into our current system of healthcare, and there are a lot of studies that look at how employer paid premiums can depress wages, and how our paychecks might shift in a M4A-type situation.

Medicare shrinks racial disparities

Posted on by • Posted in Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Ethnic Disparities, Health Equity, Health Inequity, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare at 60, Medicare for All • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-e7fd6e45-1e14-4e91-86c9-68608573313d.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Medicare helps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities and close gaps in insurance coverage, a new study in JAMA Network shows.

Why it matters: This raises the possibility that expanding the program could further reduce health disparities — a timely idea, as Senate Democrats debate lowering the Medicare eligibility age and broadening its benefits, Axios’ Marisa Fernandez reports.

What they found: Medicare access at age 65 sharply reduced the share of Black and Hispanic people reporting poor health and poor access to care, but not mortality, the study notes.

  • Respondents were “significantly more likely” to be insured immediately after age 65 compared to before turning 65, and coverage increased more for Black and Hispanic adults than white adults.
  • Medicare eligibility alone doesn’t completely eliminate disparities among the elderly, suggesting other social determinants of health need to be addressed.

State of play: Senate Democrats have signaled that they’ll attempt to expand Medicare to include dental, hearing and vision coverage in the coming months.

  • Although lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 wasn’t included in their original proposal, Axios has reported it’s still possible that the measure gets included.

How would “Medicare at 60” impact health system margins?

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Policy, Health System, Hospice, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Medicare, Medicare for All, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Strategic Plan, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/26f8e4c5cc02/the-weekly-gist-july-16-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

An estimate from the Partnership for America’s Healthcare Future predicts that nearly four out of five 60- to 64-year-olds would enroll in Medicare, with two-thirds transitioning from existing commercial plans, if “Medicare at 60” becomes a reality.

In the graphic above, we’ve modeled the financial impact this shift would have on a “typical” five-hospital health system, with $1B in revenue and an industry-average two percent operating margin. 

If just over half of commercially insured 60- to 64-year-olds switch to Medicare, the health system would see a $61M loss in commercial revenue.

There would be some revenue gains, especially from patients who switch from Medicaid, but the net result of the payer mix shift among the 60 to 64 population would be a loss of $30M, or three percent of annual revenue, large enough to push operating margin into the red, assuming no changes in cost structure. (Our analysis assumed a conservative estimate for commercial payment rates at 240 percent of Medicare—systems with more generous commercial payment would take a larger hit.)

Coming out of the pandemic, hospitals face rising labor costs and unpredictable volume in a more competitive marketplace. While “Medicare at 60” could provide access to lower-cost coverage for a large segment of consumers, it would force a financial reckoning for many hospitals, especially standalone hospitals and smaller systems.

Reducing Administrative Costs in US Health Care: Assessing Single Payer and Its Alternatives

Posted on by • Posted in Administrative Costs, Health Policy, Medicare for All, Payer Contracting, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System • Leave a comment
Reducing Administrative Costs in US Health Care: Assessing Single Payer and Its Alternatives

Administrative costs in the US healthcare system are known to be higher than those in any other country, even than other countries with private health insurance systems. There also is widespread agreement the excessive US costs generate little, if any, value, and that they impose a tremendous burden on physicians. With administrative costs even for primary care services approaching $100,000 per year per physician, there is a growing recognition that reducing healthcare-related administrative costs is a policy priority.

Despite the longstanding concerns about these escalating costs, there is little understanding of what generates them and how we can reduce them. To the degree there has been any academic inquiry into administrative costs imposed on US providers, it has compared them to the much lower costs in other countries with nationalized systems. These comparisons are unflattering to the US system and are designed to encourage wholesale healthcare reform.

Our paper published in Health Services Research begins at the retail level, focusing on the specific administrative costs inflicted by our payment system on providers. We examine the complex contractual arrangements between insurers and physicians and measure the efforts that physicians must endure to get paid.  It then offers a simulation model to estimate how certain policy reforms would result in nationwide administrative savings.

Currently, each health plan and each physician or physician group (and each hospital) negotiates over a contract for services on a periodic basis. Our analysis examines three separate costs that result from this type of market structure: architectural costs (the enormous number of contracts that are generated annually to provide services to patients), contractual complexity (the difficulty of following all of the requirements of each agreement to receive payment), and compliance costs (the costs of not following the rules in submitting a bill).

Based on this framework, we ask two questions: First, what if physicians entered into simpler contracts with insurers? And second, what if physicians (who accept patients with many kinds of insurance) agreed to a single boilerplate contract with all insurers rather than individualized contracts with each insurer? Put more simply, what if contracts were simpler and standardized?

Our simulation predicts that simplifying contracts would reduce billing costs by nearly 50%, standardizing contracts would reduce those costs by about 30%, and both simplifying and standardizing contracts would reduce those costs by over 60% percent.

We then used the model to estimate administrative cost savings from a single payer “Medicare-for-All” model. Consistent with claims made by advocates for nationalized health insurance, we estimate that a Medicare-for-All plan would reduce administrative costs between 33-53%, largely by standardizing contracts. But these cost savings are less than those generated from standardizing and simplifying contracts within our current system of private health insurance because we modeled that a Medicare-For-All plan would retain Medicare’s complex payment models and have increased compliance costs compared to private payers.

We think this is good news. Though we find that a single-payer system will reduce certain administrative costs, we also find that reforms to our current multi-payer system could generate at least as great a reduction.

There might be benefits to pursuing national health reform, but we can reduce burdensome administrative costs through much simple and less disruptive paths.  The even better news from this study is that we can now have a more precise understanding of where administrative costs arise in our health system, and we have the means to evaluate the effects of other kinds of reforms. Understanding is the prerequisite to reforming.