Category Archives: Political Inaction

One System; Two Divergent Views

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost Structure, Divergence, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Innovation, Innovative Care Models, Investing, Investment, Investments, Leadership Vision, Lobbyist, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Political Inaction, Politics, Private Equity, Regulation • Leave a comment
One System; Two Divergent Views

Healthcare is big business. That’s why JP Morgan Chase is hosting its 42nd Healthcare Conference in San Francisco starting today– the same week Congress reconvenes in DC with the business of healthcare on its agenda as well. The predispositions of the two toward the health industry could not be more different.

Context: the U.S. Health System in the Global Economy


Though the U.S. population is only 4% of the world total, our spending for healthcare products and services represents 45% of global healthcare market. Healthcare is 17.4% of U.S. GDP vs. an average of 9.6% for the economies in the 37 other high-income economies of the world. It is the U.S.’ biggest private employer (17.2 million) accounting for 24% of total U.S. job growth last year (BLS). And it’s a growth industry: annual health spending growth is forecast to exceed 4%/year for the foreseeable future and almost 5% globally—well above inflation and GDP growth. That’s why private investments in healthcare have averaged at least 15% of total private investing for 20+ years. That’s why the industry’s stability is central to the economy of the world.

The developed health systems of the world have much in common: each has three major sets of players:

  • Service Providers: organizations/entities that provide hands-on services to individuals in need (hospitals, physicians, long-term care facilities, public health programs/facilities, alternative health providers, clinics, et al). In developed systems of the world, 50-60% of spending is in these sectors.
  • Innovators: organizations/entities that develop products and services used by service providers to prevent/treat health problems: drug and device manufacturers, HIT, retail health, self-diagnostics, OTC products et al. In developed systems of the world, 20-30% is spend in these.
  • Administrators, Watchdogs & Regulators: Organizations that influence and establish regulations, oversee funding and adjudicate relationships between service providers and innovators that operate in their systems: elected officials including Congress, regulators, government agencies, trade groups, think tanks et al. In the developed systems of the world, administration, which includes insurance, involves 5-10% of its spending (though it is close to 20% in the U.S. system due to the fragmentation of our insurance programs).

In the developed systems of the world, including the U.S., the role individual consumers play is secondary to the roles health professionals play in diagnosing and treating health problems. Governments (provincial/federal) play bigger roles in budgeting and funding their systems and consumer out-of-pocket spending as a percentage of total health spending is higher than the U.S. All developed and developing health systems of the world include similar sectors and all vary in how their governments regulate interactions between them. All fund their systems through a combination of taxes and out-of-pocket payments by consumers. All depend on private capital to fund innovators and some service providers. And all are heavily regulated. 

In essence, that makes the U.S. system unique  are (1) the higher unit costs and prices for prescription drugs and specialty services, (2) higher administrative overhead costs, (3) higher prevalence of social health issues involving substance abuse, mental health, gun violence, obesity, et al (4) the lack of integration of our social services/public health and health delivery in communities and (5) lack of a central planning process linked to caps on spending, standardization of care based on evidence et al.

So, despite difference in structure and spending, developed systems of the world, like the U.S. look similar:

The Current Climate for the U.S. Health Industry


The global market for healthcare is attractive to investors and innovators; it is less attractive to most service providers since their business models are less scalable. Both innovator and service provider sectors require capital to expand and grow but their sources vary: innovators are primarily funded by private investors vs. service providers who depend more on public funding.  Both are impacted by the monetary policies, laws and political realities in the markets where they operate and both are pivoting to post-pandemic new normalcy. But the outlook of investors in the current climate is dramatically different than the predisposition of the U.S. Congress toward healthcare:

  • Healthcare innovators and their investors are cautiously optimistic about the future. The dramatic turnaround in the biotech market in 4Q last year coupled with investor enthusiasm for generative AI and weight loss drugs and lower interest rates for debt buoy optimism about prospects at home and abroad. The FDA approved 57 new drugs last year—the most since 2018. Big tech is partnering with established payers and providers to democratize science, enable self-care and increase therapeutic efficacy. That’s why innovators garner the lion’s share of attention at JPM. Their strategies are longer-term focused: affordability, generative AI, cost-reduction, alternative channels, self-care et al are central themes and the welcoming roles of disruptors hardwired in investment bets. That’s the JPM climate in San Franciso.
  • By contrast, service providers, especially the hospital and long-term care sectors, are worried. In DC, Congress is focused on low-hanging fruit where bipartisan support is strongest and political risks lowest i.e.: price transparency, funding cuts, waste reduction, consumer protections, heightened scrutiny of fraud and (thru the FTC and DOJ) constraints on horizontal consolidation to protect competition. And Congress’ efforts to rein in private equity investments to protect consumer choice wins votes and worries investors. Thus, strategies in most service provider sectors are defensive and transactional; longer-term bets are dependent on partnerships with private equity and corporate partners. That’s the crowd trying to change Congress’ mind about cuts and constraints.

The big question facing JPM attendees this week and in Congress over the next few months is the same: is the U.S. healthcare system status quo sustainable given the needs in other areas at home and abroad? 

Investors and organizations at JPM think the answer is no and are making bets with their money on “better, faster, cheaper” at home and abroad. Congress agrees, but the political risks associated with transformative changes at home are too many and too complex for their majority.

For healthcare investors and operators, the distance between San Fran and DC is further and more treacherous than the 2808 miles on the map. 

The JPM crowd sees a global healthcare future that welcomes change and needs capital; Congress sees a domestic money pit that’s too dicey to handle head-on–two views that are wildly divergent.

Every American family basically pays an $8,000 ‘poll tax’ under the U.S. health system, top economists say

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cost Management, Economist, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Life Expectancy, Physician, Physician Compensation, Physician Practice Management, Physician Workforce, Political Differences, Political Inaction, Politics, Status Quo, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/07/every-american-family-basically-pays-an-poll-tax-under-us-health-system-top-economists-say/?utm_campaign=post_most&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Princeton economist Anne Case speaks about “deaths of despair” in the United States at the American Economic Association's annual meeting in San Diego this past weekend. (Heather Long/The Washington Post)

America’s sky-high health-care costs are so far above what people pay in other countries that they are the equivalent of a hefty tax, Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton say. They are surprised Americans aren’t revolting against these taxes.

“A few people are getting very rich at the expense of the rest of us,” Case said at conference in San Diego on Saturday. The U.S. health-care system is “like a tribute to a foreign power, but we’re doing it to ourselves.”

The U.S. health-care system is the most expensive in the world, costing about $1 trillion more per year than the next-most-expensive system — Switzerland’s. That means U.S. households pay an extra $8,000 per year, compared with what Swiss families pay. Case and Deaton view this extra cost as a “poll tax,” meaning it is levied on every individual regardless of their ability to pay. (Most Americans think of a poll tax as money people once had to pay to register to vote, but “polle” was an archaic German word for “head.” The idea behind a poll tax is that it falls on every head.)

Despite paying $8,000 more a year than anyone else, American families do not have better health outcomes, the economists argue. Life expectancy in the United States is lower than in Europe.

“We can brag we have the most expensive health care. We can also now brag that it delivers the worst health of any rich country,” Case said.

Case and Deaton, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, made the critical remarks about U.S. health care during a talk at the American Economic Association’s annual meeting, where thousands of economists gather to discuss the health of the U.S. economy and their latest research on what’s working and what’s not.

The two economists have risen to prominence in recent years for their work on America’s “deaths of despair.” They discovered Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 have been committing suicide, overdosing on opioids or dying from alcohol-related problems like liver disease at skyrocketing rates since 2000. These “deaths of despair” have been especially large among white Americans without college degrees as job options have rapidly declined for them.

Their forthcoming book, “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism,” includes a scathing chapter examining how the U.S. health-care system has played a key role in these deaths. The authors call out pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, device manufacturers and doctors for their roles in driving up costs and creating the opioid epidemic.

In the research looking at the taxing nature of the U.S. health-care system compared with others, Deaton is especially critical of U.S. doctors, pointing out that 16 percent of people in the top 1 percent of income earners are physicians, according to research by Williams College professor Jon Bakija and others.

“We have half as many physicians per head as most European countries, yet they get paid two times as much, on average,” Deaton said in an interview on the sidelines of the AEA conference. “Physicians are a giant rent-seeking conspiracy that’s taking money away from the rest of us, and yet everybody loves physicians. You can’t touch them.”

As calls grow among the 2020 presidential candidates to overhaul America’s health-care system, Case and Deaton have been careful not to endorse a particular policy.

“It’s the waste that we would really like to see disappear,” Deaton said.

After looking at other health systems around the world that deliver better health outcomes, the academics say it’s clear that two things need to happen in the United States: Everyone needs to be in the health system (via insurance or a government-run system like Medicare-for-all), and there must be cost controls, including price caps on drugs and government decisions not to cover some procedures.

The economists say they understand it will be difficult to alter the health-care system, with so many powerful interests lobbying to keep it intact. They pointed to the practice of “surprise billing,” where someone is taken to a hospital — even an “in network” hospital covered by their insurance — but they end up getting a large bill because a doctor or specialist who sees them at the hospital might be considered out of network.

Surprise billing has been widely criticized by people across the political spectrum, yet a bipartisan push in Congress to curb it was killed at the end of last year after lobbying pressure.

“We believe in capitalism, and we think it needs to be put back on the rails,” Case said.

 

 

 

Northwell CEO Urging Healthcare Providers to Mobilize for Gun Control

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Advocacy, American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Hospital Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), Call to Action, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Corporate Responsibility, Leadership, Leadership Conversation, Mental Health, Political Inaction, Public Health, Public Inaction, Public Safety, Shareholder Primacy, Universal Background Checks • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/northwell-ceo-urging-healthcare-providers-mobilize-gun-control

Image result for Gun Control

The prominent executive is pushing beyond a letter he released last week and is now seeking to rally his peers around solving what he sees as a public health crisis.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

‘All of us have allowed this crisis to grow,’ he wrote in a letter published Thursday in The New York Times.

Healthcare CEOs should put pressure on politicians without resorting to ‘blatant partisanship,’ he said.

Northwell Health President and CEO Michael J. Dowling isn’t done pushing fellow leaders of healthcare provider organizations to take political action in the aftermath of deadly mass shootings.

Dowling addressed healthcare CEOs in a “call to action“ published online last week by the Great Neck, New York–based nonprofit health system. Now he’s published a full-page print version of that letter in Thursday’s national edition of The New York Times, while reaching out directly to peers who could join him in a to-be-determined collective action plan to curb gun violence.

“To me, it’s an obligation of people who are in leadership positions to take some action, speak out, and prepare their organizations to address this as a public health issue,” Dowling tells HealthLeaders.

Wading into such a politically charged topic is sure to give some healthcare CEOs pause. Even if they keep their advocacy within all legal and ethical bounds, they could face rising distrust from community members who oppose further restrictions on firearms. But leaders have a responsibility to thread that needle for the sake of community health, Dowling says.

“I do anticipate that there’ll be criticism about this, but then again, if you’re in a leadership role, criticism is what you’ve got to deal with,” he says.

Dowling argues that healthcare leaders have successfully spoken out about other public health crises, such as smoking and drug use. But they have largely failed to respond adequately as gun violence inflicts considerable harm—both physical and emotional—on the communities they serve, he says.

“It is easy to point fingers at members of Congress for their inaction, the vile rhetoric of some politicians who stoke the flames of hatred, the lax laws that provide far-too-easy access to firearms, or the NRA’s intractable opposition to common sense legislation,” Dowling wrote in the print version of his letter. “It is far more difficult to look in the mirror and see what we have or haven’t done. All of us have allowed this crisis to grow. Sadly, as a nation, we have become numb to the bloodshed.”

His letter proposes a four-part agenda for healthcare leaders to tackle together:

  1. Put pressure on elected officials who “fail to support sensible gun legislation.” He urged healthcare CEOs to increase their political activity but avoid “blatant partisanship.” The online version of his letter links to OpenSecrets.org‘s repository of information on campaign contributions from gun rights interest groups to politicians.
  2. Invest in mental health without stigmatizing. Most mass murderers aren’t “psychotic or delusional,” Dowling wrote. Rather, they’re usually just disgruntled people who let their anger erupt into violence, which is why firearms sales to people at risk of harming themselves or others should be prohibited, he wrote.
  3. Increase awareness and training. Individuals shouldn’t be allowed to buy or access certain types of firearms “that serve no other purpose than to inflict mass casualties,” he wrote. Healthcare leaders should support efforts to spot risk factors and better understand so-called “red flag” laws that empower officials to take guns away from people deemed to be a potential threat to themselves or others, he wrote.
  4. Support universal background checks. In the same way that doctors shouldn’t write prescriptions without knowing a patient’s medical history to ensure the drug will do no harm, gun sellers shouldn’t be allowed to complete a transaction without having a background check conducted on the buyer, Dowling wrote, adding that a majority of Americans support this idea.

The letter notes that the U.S. has nearly 40,000 firearms-related deaths each year and that several dozen people have died in mass shootings thus far in 2019, including 31 earlier this month in separate shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

Corporate Responsibility

The way for-profit companies think about their relationship with the communities in which they operate has been shifting for some time. The most recent evidence of that shift came earlier this week, when the influential Business Roundtable released a revised statement on the principles of corporate governance, responding to criticism over the so-called “primacy of shareholders.”

The 181 CEOs who signed onto the new statement said they would run their business not just for the good of their shareholders but also for the good of customers, employees, suppliers, and communities. There’s some similarity between that updated notion of corporate responsibility and the sort of advocacy work Dowling wants to see from his for-profit and nonprofit peers alike.

Every single organization has a social mission, and large organizations that have sway in a local community have a responsibility to the community’s health, Dowling says.

“A healthy community helps and creates a healthy organization,” he says.

One major factor that may be pushing more CEOs to take a public stance on politically sensitive issues—or at least giving them the cover to do so confidently—is the generational shift in the U.S. workforce. Although most Americans overall say CEOs shouldn’t speak out, younger workers overwhelmingly support such action, as Fortune‘s Alan Murray reported, citing the magazine’s own polling.

Dowling says he has received hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls from members of Northwell Health’s 70,000-person workforce expressing support in light of his original letter published online last week.

“The feedback has been absolutely universal in support,” he says.

But Which Policies?

Even among healthcare professionals who agree it’s appropriate to speak out on politically charged topics, there’s sharp disagreement over which policies lawmakers should enact and whether those policies would infringe on the public’s Second Amendment rights.

The group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) rejects the premise of Dowling’s argument: “Firearms are not a public health issue,” the DRGO website states, arguing that responsible gun ownership has been shown to benefit the public health by preventing violent crime.

Dennis Petrocelli, MD, a psychiatrist in Virginia, wrote a DRGO article that called Virginia’s proposed red flag law “misguided” and perhaps “the single greatest threat to our constitutional freedoms ever introduced in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” His concern is that the government might be able to take guns away without any real evidence of a threat.

While gun rights advocates may see Dowling as merely their latest political foe, Dowling contends that he’s pushing for a cause that can peaceably coexist with the constitutional right to bear arms.

“You can have effective, reasonable legislative action around guns that still protects the essence of what many people believe to be the core of the Second Amendment,” Dowling says. “It’s not an either/or situation.”

Others Speaking Out

Dowling isn’t, of course, the only healthcare leader speaking out about gun violence.

On the same day last week that Northwell Health published Dowling’s online call to action, Ascension published a similar letter from President and CEO Joseph R. Impicciche, JD, MHA, who referred to gun violence in American society as a “burgeoning public health crisis.”

“Silence in the face of such tragedy and wrongdoing falls short of our mission to advocate for a compassionate and just society,” Impicciche wrote, citing the health system’s Catholic commitment to defend human dignity.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) each issued statements this month calling for public policy changes in response to these recent shootings, continuing their long-running advocacy work on the topic.

American Hospital Association 2019 Chairman Brian Gragnolati, who is president and CEO of Atlantic Health System in Morristown, New Jersey, said in a statement this month that hospitals and health systems “play a role in the larger conversation and are determined to use our collective voice to prevent more senseless tragedies.”