Hospitals and health systems: 6 trends and issues

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/strategy/hospitals-and-health-systems-6-trends-and-issues.html

Image result for healthcare trends and issues

This article discusses the current state and issues of hospitals and health systems for several different areas. First, this discusses types of hospitals and health systems. Second, it addresses what’s working and what’s not for health systems. Third, this discusses the mix of access, quality and cost as well as the shortages of different kinds of providers fourth. Fifth, this discusses policy issues and political issues. Sixth, we address threats and challenges.

1. 5,200+ acute-care hospitals. Currently, there are approximately 5,200 acute-care hospitals in the country. This number changes a little each year, with more closures than openings.

We view the landscape as one with seven core types of health systems. 

First, there’s what we think of as the very elite health systems, which are often academic medical centers. This usually includes the top 20 to 30 systems as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. These are typically great research institutions that provide great care in some of the most critical, life-threatening areas. This category may include hospitals like NewYork-Presbyterian, UChicago Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Northwestern Medicine and a number of other institutions that typically comprise the top 20 to 30 in the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Hospitals.

Second are regionally dominant systems. These systems are so important to a given area that they are often the focus point of care in said area. There are also situations where it’s very hard for payers and patients to go around these institutions — even if they wanted to. This might be an institution like Carilion Clinic or Sentara Healthcare in Virginia, Northwell in New York, Ochsner in Louisiana or NorthShore University Health System in the north suburbs of Chicago. It may be Advocate Aurora Health in the Chicagoland area and Eastern Wisconsin, Hartford HealthCare in Connecticut, Intermountain Healthcare in Utah and Idaho, and a number of institutions regionally strong in their areas.

A third type of system is the community hospital, typically the single- or two-hospital system. This could be rural, urban or suburban. Here, this may be a health system that has served as the core of primary care — and at one time tertiary care — for a community, but more and more has to have a certain reason for being, something that its really great at to remain relevant and open.

A fourth type of hospital is what we think of as a specialty hospital, usually built around a certain specialty like pediatrics, behavioral health, oncology or some other area. It is a hospital that has a specific focus and is just great at what it does, much like Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, which U.S. News & World Report has ranked as the No. 1 hospital in the country for orthopedics for the past 10 years.

National chains of hospitals and health systems make up the fifth type of system. This can be for-profit or nonprofit, and they come in a couple different varieties. First, they can pursue a strategy of being in lots of different markets, but regionally dominant in the markets they’re in. This has typically been the strategy for success. Second, they can pursue the strategy of having the most hospitals possible. This has typically not been a strategy for success. Market strength or market dominance and excellence in certain areas is far more important than having lots of different hospitals.

The sixth type of hospital that we think of as Kaiser Permanente. Here, we put Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente in its own category. It is a regionally dominant system in certain parts, but more importantly it is vertically integrated with its own insurance plan. This has allowed Kaiser to do things in the cost savings areas and the efficiency area that many other systems have not been able to do. We have also found over the last decade that it is much harder for other systems to replicate what Kaiser has done, in terms of fully integrating insurance, than expected.

The seventh category of hospital we think of as the safety-net hospital. The safety-net hospital can really be in any of the above categories. We largely think of safety-net hospitals as those that are serving a huge percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The safety-net hospital is a very important part of the fabric of American healthcare and the delivery system, and at the same time they often struggle to ensure they have the finances to make the system go.

2. What has worked the last 10 years? The three types of categories that have really worked the past 10 years are as follows.

First, one prescription for success has been to be regionally dominant. Whether a Novant Health or an Atrium Health, both based in North Carolina, or a system like Advocate Aurora in Wisconsin or ProMedica in Ohio, being regionally strong has been a prescription for success. It allows one to stack resources, invest in talent, invest in systems and get better and better.

The second prescription for success the last decade and for a long time is being an elite health system. As much as the world changes, these elite systems — whether Stanford Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic or UCLA Health — continue to be sought out for care and continue to recruit great physicians, researchers and providers. This may also include being elite in certain areas like Rush University Medical Center in Chicago in orthopedics, MD Anderson in oncology or a number of other actors that are elite.

The third type of category that has worked is clearly the Kaiser Permanente category. This is a situation where Kaiser is almost its own vehicle, led famously by the late Bernard J. Tyson. Over the years, Kaiser grew into being a great integrated system and was able to do things on the value-based side and make major investments to address social determinants of health that really no one else was able to do.

3. Access, quality and cost. There is constant discussion of access, quality and cost. As we look as things evolve, we see things as follows.

On the quality side, the American healthcare system seems to do a pretty good job of delivering pretty good care to a huge percentage of people. In essence, compared to other countries, the U.S. is providing care to more than 325 million people. While imperfect, it is pretty good. There are pockets of care in other countries that are certainly better and more advanced than it is here, but often in pockets versus an entire system.

In terms of access, the American healthcare system seems to be challenged in numerous ways. As shortages evolve, particularly among specialties and subspecialties, it is harder and harder to find access to the right type of provider when one needs that provider. Access can also be a challenge in many different ways for poor communities in our country and, of course, there is no quality without access.

A third issue in terms of the American healthcare system is cost. As costs continue to grow at a percentage higher than inflation, particular pockets of costs remain very challenging, specifically on the pharmaceutical side, technology side and labor side.

4. Shortages of doctors and allied health professionals. As we look at access challenges in the country, there is a perspective that it is very hard to solve without the minting of a great deal more of physicians and allied health professionals. Even as the ways care is delivered evolve, the physician shortage remains. We will see a shortage of up to nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032 as the population grows and ages and demand continues to grow faster than supply, the Association of American Medical Colleges.

There are different structural elements in place that make it hard to add on providers at a fast clip. For example, medical school, residency and fellowship take many years. In efforts to modernize medical education, there is a question as to whether that much education is needed. The American Medical Association is one body that is working with major institutions for accelerated programs, like a six-year model at University of California, Davis School of Medicine. The school offers a six-year path to practice — three years each of medical school and residency — in partnership with Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

As we look at our society, we probably need more incentive for people to go to medical school and graduate with medical degrees than are currently in place. The more one tries to attack some of benefits of being a physician, the harder it is to encourage the next generation to become physicians. In response, we do see a growing number of medical schools being opened, including those at Kaiser Permanente and Hackensack Meridian. We think this is absolutely critical. It is also critical that we develop more and more allied health professionals and those allied health professionals are largely able to practice at the top of their license.

Finally, there is this concept in medical school and in premed of “weed out” classes. We believe this is somewhat overdone and overemphasized, and many bright, talented people are weeded out that would be perfectly great physicians. As one resident at Stanford University School of Medicine put it, “Today we ‘weed out’ potentially wonderful doctors through a demoralizing maze of basic sciences that more often resembles the Hunger Games than a sensible recruitment process.”

5. Political polarization. In healthcare, and the hospital sector specifically, we see a great deal of political polarization. There are largely three different types of systems that people think about in terms of reform.

First, there is the “Medicare for All” perspective. While this would provide adequate “access” at a certain level for everybody in terms of health insurance coverage, there is concern from providers that reimbursement would be so low it would not encourage people to pursue medicine, thus flattening or denting the supply of physicians needed to provide the care that is needed.

Second, there is the concept of the “free market.” Here, the concept of a total free market and free market alternatives is somewhat illusory. In reality nearly 30 to 50 percent of most providers’ revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid. Thus, you are never really dealing with a free market in healthcare. There are free market incentives — like health savings plans and transparency — that can help, but one is not in total dealing with a free market.

Third, is the concept of a public option. One way to think about a public option is to think about it as akin to the post office. One can either go to the post office to mail something via the United States Postal Service, or one could use UPS or Federal Express. The idea of a public option is that you would not have to buy insurance from an insurance company. Rather, you could buy into the Medicare program through a public option. Washington signed a public option into law this past summer and will launch it in 2021, becoming the first state to test the policy.

Whatever the answer is for healthcare reform, it is clear that the general public prefers two things. First, they like the concept that you should be able to buy insurance regardless of whether or not you have a pre-existing condition. Second, a large percentage of the public seems to prefer that there be some sort of public option to access care.

6. Threats and challenges. Some the challenges healthcare systems face today are as follows.

First, the strength of payers and the power they hold, especially as they diversify and broaden their scope of business. Under the UnitedHealth Group umbrella, for instance, is Optum, the Advisory Board and Equian, among other arms. In 2018, Cigna acquired Express Scripts, CVS Health combined with Aetna, and Humana and private equity firms acquired Kindred Healthcare. Highmark, one of the largest insurers in the country, acquired the West Penn Allegheny Health System years ago. Each of these forays into technology, consulting, payment, pharmacy benefit management, post-acute care and provider spaces make health insurers more prevalent in the industry.

A second great concern is the growing number of access points that are providing threats to health systems and their margins and revenues. This may be things like the CVS’, Walgreens and Walmarts of the world, which are expanding the medical services and health hubs in their stores to provide consumers with an alternative access point for chronic conditions and routine care. This fall, Walmart even revealed plans to build its own healthcare workforce.

Third, powerful payers are developing provider networks and providing alternatives to health systems and their delivery systems. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, for instance, will launch a national provider network in 2021 that spans across 55 markets to help large employers better control medical costs.

Fourth is the total costs of bricks and mortar and labor that hospitals and health systems carry.

Fifth is the development of new types of insurance programs by companies like Haven, which is JPMorgan, Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon’s effort to serve their combined 1.2 million employees. Currently, commercial insurance and payments from employed people ultimately subsidize what hospitals and health systems receive from Medicare and Medicaid. Thus, if these efforts like Haven are successful at peeling off good-paying patients, this will have a big negative impact on hospitals and health systems.  

 

 

 

 

Warren’s path to Medicare for All is rocky

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-e30baa47-bebc-4081-81a6-cb96115c5e55.html

Illustration of Elizabeth Warren holding out a health plus.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s two-part plan to pass a public option as a transition into “Medicare for All” — and then full-blown “Medicare for All” a few years later — has revealed the difficulty of appealing to both the pragmatic and progressive wings of the party.

The big picture: Warren’s already being criticized by progressives for not being a “Medicare for All” purist, and because of the realities of governing, they may have a point: Passing two major health reforms in one term is unheard of.

  • “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation,” Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted on Friday.

Details: Warren’s transition plan — which she said she’ll try to pass within her first 100 days in office — would allow anyone over 50 to enroll in an “improved Medicare program,” and “every person in America” could get coverage through a “Medicare for All option.”

  • Coverage under the public option would immediately be free for children under 18 and families making 200% of the federal poverty level or less. Over time, it’d become free for everyone.
  • Then, by no later than her third year in office, Warren would push Congress to pass full-blown “Medicare for All.”

Reality check: The political capital that it’d take to pass Warren’s public option, even through a special procedure called “budget reconciliation” that’d allow her to bypass GOP opposition, would be enormous.

What they’re saying: “Passing one major piece of health care legislation with a knock down, drag out fight, followed by another one three years later, sounds pretty difficult,” said the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt.

  • A more likely scenario is that a public option would pass, and be given time to work. Depending on how that debate went, Medicare for [A]ll could be a rallying cry for a reelection campaign.”

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton: Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ plan would never get enacted

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/469407-hillary-clinton-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-would-never-get-enacted?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive%2011-09-2019&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

Image result for Medicare for All

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she does not think Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) “Medicare for All” plan could ever get enacted and that she backs a public option instead. 

“You just don’t think that that plan would ever get enacted?” interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Clinton at The New York Times DealBook Conference.

“No, I don’t. I don’t, but the goal is the right goal,” the former secretary of State responded.

“I believe the smarter approach is to build on what we have. A public option is something I’ve been in favor of for a very long time,” Clinton said. “I don’t believe we should be in the midst of a big disruption while we are trying to get to 100 percent coverage and deal with costs.”

Amid the raging health care debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, appears to line up more with former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who are pushing for an optional government insurance plan, rather than Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who are pushing government insurance for all.

Clinton, though, tried to shift the debate back to highlighting the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, pointing to the fact that the GOP is trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including backing a lawsuit currently in the courts to overturn the entire law. 

“Yeah, we’re having a debate on our side of the political ledger, but it’s a debate about the right issue, how do we get to health care coverage for everybody that we can afford?” Clinton said, noting the GOP is “in court right now to strike the entire law down.”

 

Other countries show Medicare for All doesn’t have to mean getting rid of private insurance

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-international-comparison/index.html?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=27ee43ca78-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_16_09_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-27ee43ca78-390702969

Image result for Other countries show Medicare for All doesn't have to mean getting rid of private insurance

Bernie Sanders often points to Canada and Europe as models for universal health care coverage.

But the Vermont independent senator’s “Medicare for All” plan differs substantially from the insurance systems that exist up north and across the pond. Canadians and most European countries have private insurance industries alongside their government programs.
One of the most controversial provisions of Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal is that it essentially eliminates private insurance — allowing the industry to only offer benefits for services that are not covered by the federal program, such as cosmetic surgery. More than 150 million Americans buy private policies through their employers, and tens of millions more purchase private insurance through Medicare Advantage or on the individual market exchanges.
Sanders has made Medicare for All a centerpiece of his 2020 presidential campaign. Rivals ranging from President Donald Trump to former Vice President Joe Biden, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, have gone the other way and argue that Americans should not be forced to give up policies they like. Sanders has defended his stance, slamming the private insurance industry for putting profits over patients.
But public and private insurance co-exist in Canada and many European countries. These developed nations require that everyone have coverage — with private insurance typically providing additional benefits, helping to pay out-of-pocket costs or allowing faster and broader access to medical providers. In some nations, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, residents satisfy their coverage mandate with policies from private carriers.
In many developed nations outside of the US, residents expect a lot from their health systems but they are conscious of the cost, said Chris James, an economist specializing in health care for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a consortium of 36 developed countries.
“It becomes a tricky political balance between those competing sets of demands,” James said. “They want more generous public provisions but they don’t want to pay too much more tax.”
How health care coverage works in other countries varies widely.
Canada, for instance, has a regionally administered public health insurance program, which is paid for by provincial and federal tax revenue, according to a 2017 report from The Commonwealth Fund. Patients don’t pay for hospital care and doctors’ visits. However, the universal program, known as Canadian Medicare, doesn’t cover outpatient prescription drugs, rehabilitation, home care, dental benefits, vision care and some other services. Some two-thirds of Canadians are covered by private plans, often through their employers, to cover these treatments. The insurers are mostly for profit.
England, meanwhile, has the very comprehensive National Health Service, paid for by taxes. Services are generally free, though there are some copayments for prescription drugs and some services, including dental care for most adults. Still, about 11% of residents sign up for private health insurance plans, which provide faster access to care, particularly elective hospital procedures, according to The Commonwealth Fund.
“They use it to jump the queue,” said Robin Osborn, senior adviser with The Commonwealth Fund.
The system is very different in other countries, however.
In the Netherlands, residents are required to buy private insurance, which is heavily regulated and paid for by payroll taxes paid by employers, premiums paid by enrollees, annual deductibles, copayments and general taxes. Lower-income folks receive government subsidies to help them afford the cost, James said. Some 84% of the Dutch also buy additional private coverage to pay for dental care, eyeglasses, physical therapy and other services, mostly from non-profit insurers, according to The Commonwealth Fund.
Germans are also mandated to have coverage. They can choose from more than 100 non-profit “sickness funds,” which covers a wide array of services, including drugs, physical therapy and dental work. Most are funded through payroll contributions that are split between workers and companies. About 11% of residents, mainly younger workers with higher incomes, opt out of this program and buy private coverage, which may offer a wider range of services with lower premiums, according to The Commonwealth Fund. Some of the private insurers are non-profit, while most are for profit.
Denmark, meanwhile, has a national health care system paid for mainly by income taxes, but 42% of residents buy additional coverage to help pay for prescription drugs, dental care and physical therapy, mainly from the non-profit Danmark, according to The Commonwealth Fund. Additionally, 30% have supplemental policies from for-profit insurers to give them expanded access to private providers.
“These systems each have carved out a role for private insurance,” Osborn said. “The universal coverage provides a comprehensive package of benefits that is generous. The private insurance, depending on the system, often enables people to get care that is either faster, has a slightly higher level of amenities or additional benefits.”
The Sanders campaign says that private insurers in other countries are very different from the American companies Sanders is fighting against.
“For the most part, for-profit, private insurance companies do not play a large role in other countries’ health care systems and, to the extent that they do play a role, they are tightly managed and kept in line by the government,” said Warren Gunnels, senior adviser to the campaign.

 

 

The Case for the Public Option Over Medicare for All

https://hbr.org/2019/10/the-case-for-the-public-option-over-medicare-for-all?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=27ee43ca78-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_16_09_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-27ee43ca78-390702969

How can the United States better control its health care costs and quality and still achieve universal coverage? The strongest choice is not Medicare for All, which would eliminate private insurance; it’s the public option, which would allow people to choose from Medicare or private insurers. But the public option can only succeed in controlling costs and quality and achieving universal coverage if it is implemented without the financing gimmicks that characterize Medicare.

In this article, we define the principles that can make the public option the legitimate and powerful competitor to private insurance firms and how this competition would expand access and improve cost and quality. But first we’ll clarify how extremely important the universal coverage is.

Universal Health Care Coverage: Life and Death Politics

Universal health care coverage is central to the physical, fiscal, and political well-being of a nation. Nowhere is that more evident than in the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, which  still has 28.3 million people without health insurance. Americans have literally died, gone bankrupt, become disabled, and stayed in dead-end jobs that offer insurance. And yet, despite the lack of universal coverage, the United States spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other nation and its quality of care is erratic. Even with its world-class resources and medical technology, it ranks the lowest among developed nations in avoiding preventable deaths.

Universal coverage has a long history in other developed countries. It began as primarily employer-based health insurance coverage in the 1880s in Germany, morphed into government-backed universal coverage in England in 1948, marched across Western and Eastern Europe in the ensuing 25 years, and then into Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Canada, making the United States the exception among developed countries. Finally, after 65 years and 12 presidents, the United States passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 to significantly reduce the 45 million Americans who did not have insurance.

The passage of the legislation was hard fought and its results, nine years later, are mixed. On the plus side, the ACA insured more than 20 million additional Americans, lowering the percentage of the U.S. population that was uninsured from 17% in 2008 to 10% in 2016, and fewer people have suffered financial shocks since being insured through the ACA. Although the data are early, it may help make Americans healthier.

But there are negatives too. The ACA’s slogan, “if you like your plan or doctor, you can keep it,” proved to be false for many. And 14.7 million of the more than 20 million were insured through Medicaid, the U.S. health insurance for the indigent, which the important Oregon Health Insurance Experiment found had no effect on health status (but it did have a positive effect on self-reported mental health status). Health care remains unaffordable to millions: Premiums for insurance purchased on ACA-related exchanges rose by a staggering 26%, which helps explain why unsubsidized enrollment declined by 2.5 million people between 2017 and 2018. Those newly insured who were not covered by Medicaid faced ACA policies with substantial deductibles of at least $1,400 for an individual or $2,800 for a family. Finally, the small numbers of insurers that agreed to participate in the ACA had little incentive to compete on price, lower out-of-pocket costs, or by offering a broad choice of providers.

So what the United States needs, and Americans want, are lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for health care, a sufficient number of competitive private insurers to honor the promise “if you like your plan or doctor, you can keep it,” and, as surveys reveal, no  exclusion for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits on benefits, and coverage for children up to age 26 on parents’ insurance.

The Medicare for All option, which would eliminate all private insurers, is clearly not the answer Americans want. They do not want to lose their private health insurance to a public bureaucracy or to pay its $3.2 trillion annual price tag in the form of higher taxes.

How the Public Option Can Cure the U.S. Health Care System

The aim of improving health care affordability, continued private insurance, and better access to quality providers can be achieved with the public option, but only if it is implemented with rates that reflect realistic underwriting and accurate and fair cost accounting.

The Medicare component of the public option is wildly popular: 85% of Medicare beneficiaries are satisfied with the federal program. And why not? Many doctors accept it, and the beneficiaries pay only a fraction of the cost, passing the rest onto future generations. The U.S. Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, gives away benefits to users whose value substantially exceeds what they pay. Each beneficiary on average receives $310,000 more in benefits than they paid. The unpaid bills — $37 trillion at last count — have been kicked down the road to future generations in the form of bigger federal deficits. The Galen Institute reports that Medicare’s annual deficits are responsible for one-third of U.S. federal debt.

Yet, Medicare’s enormous scale confers genuine administrative and purchasing efficiencies. Medicare spends up to seven times less than private insurers on administrative costs. It also pays hospitals 40% less and providers 2 to 3.5 times less than private insurers do for the same services. Some contend that providers merely shift Medicare and Medicaid’s unpaid charges to private insurers, but that charge has been refuted. Rather, it is plausible that these payments appropriately help to squeeze out the one-third of health care expenditures that many experts view as sheer waste.

The public option can take advantage of these efficiencies but only if it is implemented without the financing gimmicks that have artificially lowered the costs of Medicare at the expense of our progeny and that would allow it to unfairly compete with private insurers.

To assure that all insurers play on a level playing field, public-financing principles must conform to those of private insurers. For one, the public option’s expenses must be financed by current users, not future generations. In other words, it should be pay as you go, just like private insurance. The public option’s accounting also should include all its expenses, such as the unfunded liability for Medicare employees’ post-retirement benefits, which are often buried in some fund other than Medicare’s. It must also account for the cost of the money that American taxpayers and debt holders have invested in building Medicare’s infrastructure, including its buildings, equipment, and workers. After all, private insurers incur costs to build the infrastructure that allows them to market their products; yet, under current accounting practices, Medicare gets these assets for free. To keep it real, expert accountants would routinely audit the public option’s financial statements to certify that its expenses are accurately stated, just as they do for private insurers.

Private insurers will be forced to compete with the public option’s lower costs through improved pricing, service, and quality. They can offer, for example, low-cost policies that transport enrollees from high-cost states to high-quality, low-cost ones such as Utah. Or they can emulate Ashley Furniture’s sending an enrollee to low-cost Mexico for an orthopedic procedure, replete with an American surgeon who was paid three times Medicare’s rate payments to the patient of $5,000 plus all her travel and out-of-pocket costs. (For political reasons, Medicare cannot emulate policies that favor certain states or send its enrollees out of the United States.) To help the private insurers to compete, new legislation should allow bundling of health, life, casualty, disability, and any other products, as well as the ability to sell across state lines. This enhanced competition among insurers and providers would lower costs, thereby increasing access to coverage and likely improving the quality of care.

We personally believe that the United States would be better off emulating three European countries — Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands — which are lauded for the quality of their universal coverage health care systems and yet spend far less on them than the United States. These countries are fiscally much healthier than nations with government-run health insurance systems akin to Medicare for All. But the reality is this model is politically untenable in the United States because it relies entirely on private insurers and would require eliminating highly popular Medicare and giving people vouchers for buying private-insurance policies.

Americans generally like both private insurance and Medicare but universally deplore their costs. Medicare for All eliminates private insurers and increases taxpayers’ burden. The public option keeps private insurers and controls health care costs.  However, it will require legislative and governmental administrative backbone and independent oversight to assure that the public option achieves these goals legitimately — without resorting to Medicare’s financing gimmicks.