All Health Care Articles

Most recent first.
Newsletter-Item number

 

40-1

Where Will The Sick Go Now?

The striking characteristic of American health care is not its cost—which is, admittedly, very high—but its disparity . You can watch the care gap widen right now in the Washington area.

On Wednesday, officials of the Prince George's County hospital network announced that the system was on the verge of shutting down. Majority African-American Prince George’s County in suburban Maryland is short on medical facilities and long on uninsured and indigent patients. Closing the county hospitals is not a negligible act. As The Washington Post said:

The Prince George's system treats 180,000 patients a year—many of them uninsured. Where would they go? What would happen to the 3,100 trauma patients a year taken to Prince George's Hospital Center's busy emergency room in Cheverly? And what about the 3,500 babies born each year at the hospital?

Although Prince George’s is not poor overall, it ranks high in accidents, homicides, infant mortality and diabetes, and, for the Washington Metro region, low in educational attainment.

See complete article HERE.

Hospitals that attract a high rate of Medicaid and noninsured are often forced out of business because they can't make ends meet. If we had a single payer system that would not happen. If all they had were Medicare patients, they'd do all right. They'd all get the same amount of dollars for treating the same amount of patients.


A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States -- Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent. Thanks to Dr. Don McCanne for this link to http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
 

The cost disadvantage of "Medicare Advantage" - The struggle in Congress over whether the government overpays Medicare Advantage plans (sometimes referred to as Part C) is really a struggle over the future of Medicare itself and whether there will be a future for publicly supported universal health coverage.

I know, many of you have a Medicare Advantage plan (an HMO or PPO) and want to hang onto it. For the price of a Part B premium, and, in some cases, a Part D premium, and maybe a little more, you have medical, hospital and drug coverage you're comfortable with, and it's all in one convenient policy, with one insurer.

If you were lucky, your doctors, labs, hospitals and other medical facilities that you use are in your plan's network. And although the referrals can be a bother and the co-pays add up, it seems less expensive and less complicated than having separate coverage from traditional Medicare, a Medigap policy and a Part D drug plan. That's why 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries have left Medicare for a Medicare Advantage plan.

So what's the problem? Why are so many Democrats in Congress and health care advocates unhappy with Medicare Advantage? One big reason is the cost. On average, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare pays the Advantage plans 12 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

This is an excellent piece for those considering changing from Medicare to Medicare Advantage. See complete article HERE.

Medicare Advantage is essentially Medicare contracted out to private HMOs. It would not be my first choice, and according to this article and other comments I've received back it is not a good choice at all. But I do have friends that use it and are happy, but they are also relatively healthy and don't cost them much. Clearly, if they had to abide ny the same guarantees of care that Medicare does, and it were not 12.5% more costly, it might be suitable.

 
April 21, 2007
Editorial

The New York Times

 

The Medicare Privatization Scam

If private health plans are supposedly so great at delivering high-quality care while holding down costs, why does the government have to keep subsidizing them so lavishly to participate in the Medicare program?

About a fifth of elderly Americans now belong to private Medicare Advantage plans, which — thanks to government subsidies — often charge less or offer more than traditional Medicare. As Congress struggles to find savings that could offset the costs of other important health programs, it should take a long and hard look at those subsidies.

The authoritative Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates that the government pays private plans 12 percent more, on average, than the same services would cost in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. The private plans use some of this money to make themselves more attractive to beneficiaries — by reducing premiums or adding benefits not covered by basic Medicare — and siphon off the rest to add to profits and help cover the plans’ high administrative costs.

Although the insurance industry insists that the subsidies are much lower and are warranted by the benefits provided, Thomas Scully, who headed the Medicare program for the Bush administration until 2003, told reporters recently that the subsidies were too large and ought to be reduced by Congress.

The largest private enrollment is in health maintenance organizations, which typically deliver care a bit more cheaply than standard Medicare and should not need their 10 percent subsidies, on average, to compete. The biggest subsidies — averaging 19 percent above cost — go to private fee-for-service plans, which are the fastest-growing part of the Medicare Advantage program. Unlike the H.M.O.’s, which at least manage a patient’s care and bargain hard with doctors and hospitals, these plans ride on the coattails of standard Medicare, typically providing access to the same doctors and paying them at the same rates. Thanks to the big subsidies they get, such plans are often a good deal for beneficiaries, charging less for the same benefits or adding benefits without raising prices.

The main losers are the beneficiaries in the standard Medicare program, whose monthly premiums are roughly $2 higher to help pay for the subsidies, and the taxpayers who pick up part of the tab. The subsidies also erode the long-term solvency of Medicare, which needs to rein in costs, not increase them with handouts to insurance companies.

When the Democrats first won control of Congress, it seemed possible that they might eliminate the subsidies — saving some $54 billion over five years — to finance a $50 billion expansion of a health insurance program for low-income children. But the insurance industry has mounted a furious lobbying campaign to head off any cuts.

Congress ought to eliminate the subsidies completely unless it is willing to subsidize the same benefits — at enormous cost — for the far greater number of people enrolled in standard Medicare. It is time to level the playing field and force private plans to really compete with traditional Medicare.

 

The NYT is absolutely correct. Taxpayers are paying 12.5% more for Medicare Advantage than for Medicare itself, and to an industry with the freedom to deny care when a member's costs get too high. That is, when they really need it.

Medicare Advantage is useful for only one purpose, to feed money to the insurance industry temporarily while we transition to a Medicare-for-all system. But the insurance industry will continue its $50 million in campaign contributions to keep Advantage alive. Whether your congressman is on the take or not CALL him or her and let them know that is not an acceptable alternative.
 

39-1

Be sure to sign up to the excellent Quote of the Day health care newsletter by Dr. Don McCanne on the PNHP website. He makes great comments at the end of each article (and I promise to steal from him when appropriate!). Thanks Dr. McCanne!

Also see health care articles galore at http://www.healthcare-now.org/news.php
 

Fighting The Pharma Goliath - Bill Scher - April 05, 2007

Bill Scher blogs for the Campaign For America's Future. He also founded the blog  Liberal Oasis.

If you watch a lot of CNN or MSNBC, you’ve probably seen the pharmaceutical lobby’s ads warning about “changes” to Medicare prescription drug program, because the program is “working.” (Then again, you might have heard a few notes of the off-the-shelf Muzak-folk music not good enough to be used in ads for Nexium or Lipitor, and tuned the ads out.)

See complete article and links HERE
 

Health Courts: The Way of the Future?

Barely one-half of all Americans are satisfied with their jobs, and only 14 percent of those who say they are content also say they are “very satisfied.” And workers in Maryland face some of the worst job commutes in the nation.

So Paul Barringer is a lucky man. As general counsel for Common Good, a national nonpartisan legal reform coalition, Barringer loves going to work every day. After bicycling into his Washington, DC, office from nearby Silver Spring, Maryland, he spends his time promoting an initiative he believes in: replacing our current approach to medical liability with administrative health courts.

See complete article and links HERE

 

Study finds lack of health insurance may be associated with increased rates of stroke

Date: 4/2/2007
Contact: Jerry Berger
Phone: 617-667-7308
Email: jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu

BOSTON – The lack of health insurance prompts people to forego routine physical exams and have a reduced awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and is associated with increased rates of stroke and death, researchers have concluded.

A study in the April issue of the Journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine found people without health insurance are more likely to forego routine physical exams and had a higher risk of being unaware of a personal diagnosis of high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol levels – all risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

See complete article HERE

Thanks to Dr. Don McCanne at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day for this link
 

Insurers to Get Higher Medicare Payments

Shares of some of the largest health insurers rose Tuesday after the government announced higher-than-expected payment increases for companies that operate private Medicare plans.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said late Monday that preliminary payments to companies that run Medicare Advantage programs will rise 3.5 percent for 2008. The payment boost, made to insurers for each Medicare participant they cover, is less than last year's 3.9 percent update, but above Wall Street estimates of a 2 percent to 3 percent increase.

See complete article HERE

What's this about private industry being more efficient than government? Medicare Advantage is an option Medicare patients have. They can sign up to a qualified HMO and receive additional services or less co-pays, but they give up physician and hospital choice.

New Urgency in Debating Health Care

Since Hillary Rodham Clinton’s effort to overhaul the nation’s medical system was rejected in 1994, most big employers have stayed out of the debate on health care reform.

But with their medical costs ballooning, top executives of large companies are starting to speak up again — and many are calling for a national approach to fixing health care. Few advocate a wholesale shift to government-directed medicine, but most are seeking broad changes in the employer-subsidized health system, which they regard as unsustainable in its current form.

See complete article HERE

 

Why should businesses embrace single-payer?

By Jack E. Lohman

The global marketplace requires a totally fresh look at how we provide health care in the U.S., but are business leaders really ready for it?

You would think so, at least the non-healthcare sector of business. But they must demand a comprehensive fix that is less complicated than what we have. Simplicity is beautiful and simplicity doesn't break. That's why single-payer health care makes absolute financial sense, as a look at the benefits and some common misconceptions will demonstrate:

·         It reduces labor costs by 10-12% (a 3% additional tax on wages versus today's 15% of wages for medical insurance).

·         It reduces liability and auto insurance costs, and reduces workers compensation costs.

·         It eliminates health benefits management costs and yearly insurance company and labor contract negotiations for health care.

·         It creates healthier personnel, reduces absenteeism, and eliminates employer health system complaints.

·         It reduces the need for part-timers, and provides easier recruiting (no pre-existing disease issues).

·         It eliminates employee health-related debt and personal bankruptcies.

·         It will expand the U.S. economy and business climate by freeing up family income to purchase needed products and services.

·         It is not socialized medicine, as are the VA, Bethesda Naval Hospital and other armed forces health care systems; it is a single payer system like Medicare.

·         All hospitals and physicians remain private and are paid under today’s guaranteed, fee-for-service and DRG programs (thus eliminating bad debt and cost shifting).

·         Medicare has no wait times or rationing of care -- and won't with proper funding.

·         100% of the population will be covered for the same costs we are spending today (no more Medicaid or BadgerCare costs, no more needless ER visits).

·         Any of the current non-profit insurance companies can competitively bid on the management of the system (WPS now administers Wisconsin's Medicare).

·         The current private insurance systems consume up to 31% of health care dollars to cover non-healthcare administration costs (marketing, broker commissions, high executive salaries, gatekeepers that deny care, actuarial costs, and high shareholder profits).

·         The equivalent single-payer administrative costs will be about 9-10% and will save money by eliminating the gigantic waste and duplications of the current system. The savings will offset the coverage of the currently uninsured.

·         Canadians have wait times on elective procedures because their system is underfunded. That's because they spend 10% of GDP compared to our 16%. Nonetheless, over 80% of Canadians prefer their system to ours. In a survey of 18,000 Canadians, only 20 came to the US for care.

What's not to like about that? The United States is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have universal health care, and we pay a hefty price for it. The World Health Organization has ranked us at 37th in efficiency and quality: we have 2 years lower life expectancy and 35% higher infant mortality because (in large part) we cover only 85% of our population.

We can do better, and it is time for business leaders to sideline their associations (who are conflicted with members who are health care providers), and do what's right for their company, the public, and the economy as a whole.

We cannot go another year with our antiquated health care delivery system. We must sideline the special interests and get this done today. There are two bills that should be supported: the Health Security Act proposed by state Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck Benedict (SB51/AB94), and the Improved Medicare For All bill by US Rep John Conyers (HR676).

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and volunteers for www.WisconsinHealth.org.  He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com

38-1

 

If your senator or assembly representatives are not listed, please call them today.

Here is the DRAFT bill. You may get a warning, but the files are safe.
Draft = http://tinyurl.com/yud7mr
Factsheet = http://tinyurl.com/27bg2u
FAQ = http://tinyurl.com/2gg9st

Click on the PDF below for the complete bill description.

2007   SENATE BILL 51   http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-51.pdf
Link to Bill History = http://tinyurl.com/2gutad

February 20, 2007 - Introduced by Senators Miller, Risser and Carpenter,
   cosponsored by Representatives Benedict, Berceau, Black, Boyle, A.
   Williams, Hebl, Parisi, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Zepnick, Sinicki, Hilgenberg,
   Fields, Kessler and Grigsby. Referred to Committee on Health and Human
   Services.

 

2007   ASSEMBLY BILL 94   http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB-94.pdf
Link to Bill History = http://tinyurl.com/26swze
 

February 22, 2007 - Introduced by Representatives Benedict, Boyle, Black, Hebl,
   Parisi, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, A. Williams, Zepnick, Hilgenberg, Berceau,
   Sinicki, Fields, Grigsby and Kessler, cosponsored by Senators Miller, Risser
   and Carpenter. Referred to Committee on Health and Healthcare Reform.
 

Pg1Ln1   An Act to amend 15.01 (3), 15.01 (4) and 59.17 (2) (c); and to create 15.07 (1)
Pg1Ln2   (a) 7., 15.07 (2) (n), 15.07 (5) (m), 15.07 (5m) (c), 15.20, 15.207, 20.430, 59.53 (25),
Pg1Ln3   62.09 (8) (cm) and chapter 152 of the statutes; relating to: establishing a
Pg1Ln4   publicly financed health care system for residents of this state, creating the
Pg1Ln5   Department of Health Planning and Finance, Health Policy Board, and
Pg1Ln6   regional consumer health councils, granting rule-making authority, and
Pg1Ln7   making appropriations.
 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584662

No 'health savings' scams; time for single-payer is now

By JACK E. LOHMAN

So what's the skinny on health savings accounts?

Anything having to do with "savings accounts" would seem like a hit, until you remember the garbage President Bush tried to feed us with his privatized Social Security plan. HSAs are just more of the same - privatized health care with a big up-front cost - and some legislators are behind a bill to make them more attractive through state tax breaks.

It's not that HSAs don't have at least some appeal. If you are wealthy, they make great tax shelters. If you are not, they will most certainly benefit the banks, credit card companies and bankruptcy attorneys when your health starts failing and they start collecting.

HSAs focus on money and are bad for health care. When patients must cover the first $2,000 to $5,000 of medical bills, they tend to deny themselves and their families care when it is most needed; early in the disease process. HSAs are designed to keep you away from the doctor, which they do very well, even when they shouldn't. Patients too often wait until treatments become more costly or diseases become untreatable. Or they die - which, after the attorneys finish, may be a welcome reprieve.

A RAND Corp. study demonstrated that when hypertensive patients had to pay part of the bill, they had a 10% higher death rate. Certainly if people die earlier we will reduce our health care costs, but that sounds too much like a Philip Morris study I once read. We can do better.

Even partial payment by the patient can be counterproductive, like co-pays, which usually cost more than they save. It was shown in a Kaiser Family Foundation study that mothers in low-income families will too often forego their blood pressure medicine to put food on the table, and then they have a stroke or heart attack or, worse, die. This sounds neither compassionate nor conservative.

So let's call HSAs what they are: an opportunity for employers to offload their health care costs to their employees. It is certainly cheaper to coax or force them into an HSA than it is to provide full medical coverage.

Why would politicians support HSAs over a system that would really work? Because the world is full of opportunities and theirs is to tap the insurance industry, which state legislators have done to the tune of $817,239, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign database. Democrat Gov. Jim Doyle didn't do too badly at $352,000, nor did my own Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) at the top of the legislators' list with $29,028. And when you add the cash from the banking, credit card industry and bankruptcy attorneys, well, you get the point. It's not a pretty sight. Plus there's the $1.4 million the health care industry makes in annual campaign contributions just to keep the system broken. Good things just never end, do they?

Better is a single-payer system that provides health care to 100% of the population for the same dollars we are spending today, as in the proposal by state Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) and state Rep. Chuck Benedict (D-Beloit). The Health Security Act does just that, and all state politicians should support it. This is a real solution they owe to the public, today.

They also owe the public something else: the Clean Money Elections bill as proposed by Madison Democrats Sen. Fred Risser and Rep. Mark Pocan. If politicians are to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers, and at $5 per taxpayer per year, it's a terrific bargain. Had this system been in place over the past decade, we'd have fixed the health care system long ago. Since the Republicans now claim that reform is high on their list, there is no reason for them not to aggressively support this bill.

Jack E. Lohman of Colgate is a retired business owner and author. He operates the Web site www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
 

Universal health plan could yield savings

Study: Spending could be cut by $60.7b per year

By Bloomberg News  |  March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Expanding government health insurance coverage to all Americans could reduce healthcare spending by as much as $60.7 billion a year, according to a study by a nonpartisan research center.

The estimated savings would include a $33.9 billion cut in the cost of prescription drugs, the New York-based Commonwealth Fund said in a report yesterday . The organization evaluated proposals introduced in Congress in recent years, including some that would allow everyone to enroll in Medicare, the government health insurance program that now serves older Americans and the disabled.

Congress and President Bush are debating what to do to help America's uninsured, about 47 million people. Polls show Americans are concerned about rising healthcare costs, which make up about 16 percent of total US spending.

"We wanted to highlight that there were feasible bills introduced to Congress over the past two years that would incrementally or more fundamentally expand coverage," Sara Collins, the fund's assistant vice president, said in a telephone interview.

The study examined 10 proposed plans and assumed each was fully in place in 2007. The research was carried out the Lewin Group, a health consulting firm based in Falls Church, Va.

The $60.7 billion in savings was based on legislation proposed last year by Representative Pete Stark, a Democrat from California, that would allow everyone to get insurance through Medicare or government-approved private plans under Medicare. Employers with 100 or more workers could keep paying for private coverage or contribute to a fund to have employees covered through the government.

Bush's healthcare proposal, calling for a tax deduction for health insurance, would cover 9 million people that are now uninsured and save about $11.7 billion a year, the study said.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

 


Don't miss this excellent piece in The American Prospect Online

The Wisconsin Way

 by Roger Bybee

For strategic lessons in pushing for progressive universal health care, look north.

Volcanic pressure is building up nationwide over soaring health care premiums and fast-shrinking coverage, but George W. Bush will surely plug up any eruption of reform at the national level during the remainder of his term.

What he can't prevent is the pressure already breaking through at the state level, which will likely intensify as the Democratic presidential candidates continually reinforce the reform message. As we've seen, even Republican governors in Massachusetts and California are implementing reform plans, though both of them carry profound flaws. Thus far, the efforts of Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger have garnered the most attention -- but progressives have reason to look closely at some very exciting developments in Wisconsin, where a major push for statewide universal health coverage is underway.

See the complete article at http://tinyurl.com/2byyf6

37-1

The Moral Hazard Myth ' Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point and writer for the New Yorker, provides interesting arguments on our health care system at http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html ''' or ''' http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/hazard.pdf for printing.

Why Does American Health Care Cost So Much? Ezra Klein writes about it at http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/why_does_americ.html and points to an excellent McKinsey study at Synthesis (PDF - 1.54 MB) or Full report (PDF - 5.75 MB). It claims that if physicians have a financial stake in the lab they order tests from, which includes their own internal labs, they are anywhere from two (2) to eight (8) times more likely to order a test than a doctor who is independent of the lab.

"The fee-for-service reimbursement system creates an incentive for physicians to see more patients. This is magnified by physician co-ownership of these facilities, which offers a strong incentive to self-refer cases - physicians who own imaging equipment refer between two and eight times more tests than their peers without equity interest. Furthermore, manufacturers of imaging and diagnostic equipment advertise to physicians the financial advantages of pursuing additional testing. Ultimately, the excess installed capacity (the US has three to six times more scanners than Germany, UK, France and Canada) with low utilization further increases the pressure to generate more demand in order to justify the investments made. The vicious circle is not easily interrupted by a reduction of reimbursement fees, since revenue levels can be maintained through incremental demand fueled by clinical discretion."

Ref: http://www.themonroetimes.com/v0305hue.htm

Huebsch is wrong on Health Care solution

By Jack E. Lohman

Rep. Mike Huebsch is absolutely correct when he says the health care system is broken. But his logic is reversed and he doesn't seem to accept that state politicians trashed the system when they lifted the certificate of need and allowed the so-called "free-market" to take control.

Moving to the for-profit, free-market system over the last decade is exactly the reason costs have increased at five times the rate of inflation, and we don't need more of the same. We also don't need employers offloading their health care costs to employees via Health Savings Accounts, or as Huebsch and George Bush calls them, "personal savings accounts."

The banks, credit card companies, and bankruptcy attorneys will have a field day with HSAs as they dangerously refocus the issue from providing needed health care to cutting care and costs. HSAs make sense only if you are young, healthy and wealthy. Read the code words and don't be fooled by right-wing rhetoric.

When patients must decide on the dollars they spend, they too often delay care until it is more costly to treat or it becomes untreatable. A RAND study demonstrated that when hypertension patients had to pay part of the bill, they had a 10% higher death rate. Most certainly if people die earlier we will reduce our health care costs, but that sounds too much like a Philip Morris study I once read. We can do better.

Understand this: there is no such thing as competition in the health care system. Period! Never has been and never will be, at least not in this decade. Most patients trust their physicians to do the right thing, and few will seek the lowest bidder. The vast majority of consumers are not equipped to second guess their physicians, though they should indeed research their diseases and potential treatments, and they should live healthier lifestyles.

Rep. Huebsch lambastes a government solution, but in fact every other system in the world that exceeds US quality and efficiency (which is the top 36 systems) are either total government or a combination public-private systems like Canada's. According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th, Canada ranks 5th and France is in first place with its Medicare-type of system. Longer life expectancy and reduced infant mortality are hallmarks of the systems better than ours, and we have 18,000 people per year dying because they lack health coverage.

Though not perfect '' because Canadian politicians have underfunded it and wait times exist for non-urgent procedures '' over 80% of Canadians still prefer their system to ours. Its costs are 10% of gross domestic product compared to our 15%, and ours is projected to rise to 20% in the next decade thanks to our free-for-all approach and turning it over to for-profit corporations.

If Huebsch really wants to fix health care he'll support the Medicare-for-all system proposed by Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck Benedict. Fund it properly and we'll have 100% coverage with no wait times, yet the same costs as today's. This is the most business-friendly and public-friendly approach possible, and it makes sense to everyone except those profiting from the current mess.

Contrary to the anti-government rhetoric, Medicare is the only part of our health care system that does work well. It treats the most costly of patients and the end-of-lifers '' it does so efficiently and without rationing '' and seniors are not complaining. I know because I'm one of them.

But at the very least Assembly Speaker Huebsch should let the Miller-Benedict bill receive a fair public hearing and not block its progress to a floor vote. And he and the other Republicans should start by refusing the $1.4 million the health care industry makes in annual campaign contributions, and start thinking about a real public solution instead.

Barring that public commitment, perhaps we could reconsider Huebsch's position if he and his cohorts first passed a law mandating health savings accounts for all state legislators. Let them experiment with their own families before passing it to the public.

President Rejects Health Care Proposal: WASHINGTON '' The Bush administration on Wednesday rejected key recommendations from a citizens' group asked by Congress to find out people's health care wishes.

Suggestions included guaranteeing health coverage for specific checkups and treatments and protecting consumers from high medical expenses. The group released its report Sept. 29 after hearing from about 6,500 people at 84 meetings.

See complete story HERE.

Income inequality and child mortality in wealthy nations: Relationships between income inequality and various health indicators have been the subject of much study and some controversy. We investigated associations between child mortality and income inequality amongst the wealthier OECD countries as well as changes in their relative child mortality rankings over time.

Conclusions: The results strengthen the existing evidence linking child mortality with income inequality in wealthy nations, and add to the evidence that sociopolitical factors are important in this regard.

See the complete report HERE.

Thanks to www.toomuchonline.org for this link.

 

36-1

 

NY Times coverage

Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public's domestic agenda, ranked far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values.

Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush's handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.

U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NEEDS....

Minor changes
8%
Fundamental changes
54%
To be completely rebuilt
36%
 

SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?

Yes
64%
No
27%

WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS?

Providing health insurance for all
65%
Keeping health care costs down
31%


PARTY THAT WOULD IMPROVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Democrats
62%
Republicans
19%
 


See complete article HERE and video at http://tinyurl.com/2x5asr and http://tinyurl.com/2kymxr

Complete results HERE

So it's up to the Democrats? I think they can do it, but will they? And if the R's stand in the way? Well, turnover time again in 2008!

But we have to be careful of political games. For example, the Dems could attach poison pills that make the bill untenable by all, and force the R's to block it. We will be monitoring this closely. Not to say we don't trust either party, but ......


In a private conversation with a state senator, he said he didn't sign on to SB51 because he felt the lack of co-pays and deductibles would drive costs through the roof. This is a common misconception. I wrote him the following:

"I have serious concerns about the lack of co-pays and deductibles in Mark's bill too, but for different reasons than yours. The main one is that legislators are going to see it as a public giveaway rather than for what it really is. You could amend co-pays into the bill and I'd support it just to get it passed, but in time you'll find that they cost more money than they save. Studies have shown that they deter care until that care is far more expensive to treat or becomes untreatable, so they have a long-term negative cost value. Some mothers even go without their blood pressure meds to save money, resulting in a costly stroke or death."

 

A health care solution everybody can love

By Jack E. Lohman

Here we go again. Health care is at the forefront and three state plans to choose from. Let's compromise on a workable and fair solution, because people are really dying for us to get this done.

According to the World Health Organization France is ranked #1 in health care. Better outcomes and lower costs, all with a public-private system and public-private funding. So let’s steal some ideas.

Let's establish our own state-run Medicare-for-all system, which is 20% co-pay or optional Gap insurance. We'll provide 100% vouchers to those under the poverty level and a 50% voucher if under twice the poverty level. Throw in 100% relief when a family is hit with a catastrophic illness, and let's develop a reasonable end-of-life solution (ie, automatic no-code on people over 90 unless the family is able and agrees to absorb future costs). Just 5% of the population consumes 70% of our health care, and most of that is by us old geezers.

Let's mitigate the overbilling and fraud by retraining those displaced from the insurance industry to a Medicare oversight commission. Even let private insurers bid on that since they will no longer benefit from the current inefficiencies. Let's have medical courts to lower tort abuses and excessive costs of defensive medicine, and give any punitive damages to the health care fund rather than to the attorneys and patients who have already been compensated.

I'd keep an option like Medicare Advantage. Even though it costs 12.5% more than Medicare, it gives patient’s other choices and private insurers a role. The private insurers can even bid on the administrative contracts.

The fraud in nursing homes and home health agencies must be eliminated and prosecuted, and we should pass a law that requires employees to be educated on the whistle-blower statutes and rewards. Let the employees provide the oversight, though with such a law I expect the owners to clean up their act fast.

Reimbursements in Medicare (or our version of it) should be increased to ensure top pay for good doctors. State sponsored rebates of health care educational costs should go to all resident students who finish in the top 10% of their class, providing they agree to a two-year state internship.
We also need a patient database for transparency of physician utilization, best practices, practice variations, medication conflicts, and etc, with patient names kept secure unless released by the patient for travel purposes. That software is already available, free, from the VA.

I don't like co-pays and deductibles, but it’s the only way to achieve political acceptance. Eliminating them is not a liberal giveaway, and in time we'll find that they cost more money than they save. Studies already show that they deter care until that care is more expensive to treat or becomes untreatable, so they have a long-term negative cost value. Some mothers even go without their blood pressure meds to save money, resulting in a costly stroke or death. We can do better.

What we have is not working and those standing in the way of change should be sidelined. This is the most business friendly and public friendly solution available, and even the insurance industry wins something here. It would reduce the maze of physician and hospital paperwork, and substantially reduce our excessive administrative costs. For the same dollars we spend caring for 85% of the population today, we could care for 100%.

Though initially we’d need the employers’ help in transitioning – say, with a payroll tax – we should phase them out over five years and make it 100% taxpayer funded. As it is employers just add their costs to their product price and we reimburse them at the cash register. We don’t need these middlemen because they don’t really reduce our costs, and by making them more profitable, more jobs would move to Wisconsin and fewer will leave. At least until other states catch on to us.

-- Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate, author of "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America" and founder of http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.

Cisco Health Management - “Measuring the benefits of online health management” - January 2007 -  A survey

See: http://austin.illuminas-global.com/cisco_health_management.htm

 

ACTION ITEM: Here's a cigarette tax that even smokers can like. Doyle wants to increase cigarette taxes by $1.25 per pack to (1) help insure 185,000 of 250,000 uninsured residents, and (2) send some of it back to smokers in the form of smoking cessation assistance. This is not just a fund-raising tactic. It is to slow the rate of new children smokers and to increase the rate that current smokers quit, and the smoking cessation assistance will help current smokers. It is also a public health issue, and it will help reduce health care costs and deaths in the future.

Register your support (or objection) by contacting your state senator and assembly person today. See:

Wisconsin State Assembly pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=assembly

Wisconsin State Senator pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=senate

 

Medicare scammers use billing to snare unsuspecting victims

And here's even more on Medicare Fraud

 

35-1

The Miller/Benedict Universal Health Care bill has been introduced as SB51 and AB94. (Thanks to Rich Bogovich I'll remember these by Hwy 51 and Interstate 94... Just gotta remember which is which.)

Please again contact you state senator and assembly person for support. Sponsors are Senators MILLER, RISSER and CARPENTER, cosponsored by Representatives BENEDICT, BERCEAU, BLACK, BOYLE, A. WILLIAMS, HEBL, PARISI, POCAN, POPE−ROBERTS, ZEPNICK, SINICKI, HILGENBERG, FIELDS, KESSLER and GRIGSBY. Referred to Committee on Health and Human Services.

Once again, if your senator or representative is not listed above, a quick email may yield reasons. I sent this to Darling and Jeskewitz:

I am obviously disappointed that your name was not on the list of sponsors. For the record, what health care proposal are you supporting.

An interesting paper presented at Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference (though it was done in 2001): http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Why is France's health care considered #1 by the World Health Organization? Read an excellent paper HERE.

* Medicare-for-all-PLUS (covers more procedures than does Medicare)
* Universal coverage without a single payer system
* Basic health care is a government run monopoly, private companies cannot offer competing services (why would anyone buy them anyway?)
* Their National Health Plan covers most costs and most services
* But co-pays are covered by private supplemental insurance (thus the public-private relationship)
* Provides 100% coverage of population
* No opt-out, but you can buy a heavier-than-normal supplementary plan. Spend to your heart's content.
* Funded partly by employers and partly by taxes
* Extra coverage is offset by substantially lower physician salaries (by 66%, US are 5.9 times average workers versus 1.9 in France)
* Patients pay physicians directly then recover costs from the health fund (thus they know the costs)
* Heavily controlled by government
* National fee schedule for reimbursements
* Both public and private hospitals, the latter with negotiated per-diem charges
* Hospitals provide all drugs for inpatients
* Escalating coverage as patients become sicker
* Co-payments, but they disappear after 30 days in hospital
* 2/3 of population is "fairly satisfied" with system
* Some geographic areas not as well covered as others
* Lower level of micromanagement of doctors than in US
* Strong price controls and capital controls
* Occasional physician strikes

Sources:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/93/1/31.pdf 
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/on_doctors_sala.html


CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER

Why Obama, Edwards, Hillary, Romney, Schwarzenegger Don’t Support Single Payer? It Would Mean the Death of the Health Insurance Industry, and Reduced Profits for Big Pharma (21 Corporate Crime Reporter 9, February 21, 2007)

The majority of the American people want a single-payer health care system – Medicare for all.

The majority of doctors want it.

A good chunk of hospital CEOs want it.

But what they want doesn’t appear to matter.

Why?

Because a single-payer health care plan would mean the death of the private health insurance industry and reduced profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Click HERE for the complete article.
 

Healthcare -- Reform Starts Here (from Grassroots Northshore)

Let's Do Something about It

Sunday, March 18th, 2007
Northshore Presbyterian Church – 4048 N. Bartlett/Shorewood
Doors Open at 6:00pm -- Program at 6:30pm
It’s time.

We are fed up with the rising cost of healthcare and people all across the state – and the country knows about it. Most importantly the seats in the state legislature are tipping in our direction.

So let’s talk about it.

I'm not sure if I can make it yet, but I highly recommend your attendance if possible. This is a good group.

Can doctors learn to love Electronic Medical Records? Yes, if:

http://trusted.md/blog/hippocrates/2005/12/15/can_doctors_learn_to_love_emrs_yes_if

 

34-1

WPR Interview - January 3, 2007 Joy Cardin and Jack Lohman on Universal Health Care - Click HERE

8:00 AM Joy Cardin - 01/03C

Universal health care is a top priority for state lawmakers... but what would it look like? Joy Cardin and her guest look at different universal health care plans in the works.

Guest: Jack Lohman, former health care executive. Author, “Politicians: Owned and Operated by Corporate America.” Executive director, Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition. Founder of the website, ThrowTheRascalsOut.Org

Recent newspaper articles:

Jack Lohman, Wisconsin State Journal (you may have seen this one already)
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/index.php?ntid=119334&ntpid=1

Sally Pipes at Wisconsin State Journal opposing view at
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/index.php?ntid=119335&ntpid=2

Sally is president and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, a right-wing think tank that receives support from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and it should surprise no one that she'd like to leave the free-market system just as it is. Well, with perhaps one change: She'd like the government out of the equation altogether.

The Health Care Racket

An excellent article in the NYT with these excerpts:

“Like denial management, however, marketing and underwriting cost a lot of money. McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm, recently released an important report dissecting the reasons America spends so much more on health care than other wealthy nations. One major factor is that we spend $98 billion a year in excess administrative costs, with more than half of the total accounted for by marketing and underwriting — costs that don’t exist in single-payer systems.”

and

“And this is just part of the story. McKinsey’s estimate of excess administrative costs counts only the costs of insurers. It doesn’t, as the report concedes, include other “important consequences of the multipayor system,” like the extra costs imposed on providers. The sums doctors pay to denial management specialists are just one example.”

See complete article at: www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/NYT_Health_Care_Racket.htm

A Health Care Plan So Simple, Even Stephen Colbert Couldn’t Simplify It

In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed tax cuts to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured. The next day, Stephen Colbert had this to say on his show on Comedy Central: “It’s so simple. Most people who can’t afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But if you give them a deduction from the taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they’re not getting back from what they haven’t given to buy the health care they can’t afford.”

See the complete article HERE
Health Spending Projections Through 2016: Modest Changes Obscure Part D's Impact

Growth in national health spending is projected to slow slightly from 6.9 percent in 2005 to 6.8 percent in 2006, marking the fourth consecutive year of a slowing trend. The health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016. Prescription drug spending growth is expected to accelerate to 6.5 percent in 2006. Medicare prescription drug coverage has dramatically changed the distribution of drug spending among payers, but the net effect on aggregate spending is anticipated to be small. [Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007): w242-w253 (published online 21 February 2007; 10.1377/ hlthaff.26.2.w242)]

Source: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.26.2.w242

 

Private Health Insurance Is Not the Answer
By Phil Mattera, Corporate Research Project. Posted February 23, 2007.

Why are we keeping a hopeless, for-profit health insurance system alive?

Funny he should ask that; it's called Follow the Money!

Source: http://www.alternet.org/stories/48371/ (Note that this is more of a history of how health insurance grew over the years as opposed to itemizing their costs to patient care.)

 

From a Blogger at http://www.alternet.org/stories/48371/

"I have spent a good part of my life in Europe and own property in France. It is a source of disbelief in those countries that the US has allowed ghoulish middle men to interpose themselves between a sick person and the physician who treats him or her. By what logic or right does a profit-grubbing insurance company middle man with no medical training determine what treatment is appropriate, what price is appropriate, what follow-up care is appropriate, what medication is appropriate? And all with his and his company's profit margin as his sole concern. This US system of providing health care is truly nuts at it core, and hugely expensive, but also hugely profitable for the insurance companies, obviously. Insurance companies are truly ghoulish enterprises which profit from the misfortunes and anxieties of the public. They are in the business of collecting premiums and serving their bottom line, and not in the business of paying out benefits and serving the public."
 

33-1

Insurance Broker Fraud: Think you're covered? Think again. Only wreckage remains when insurance agents breach trust.  "After an accident at work that could have killed him, Gary Davis of De Soto discovered that he had purchased bogus health insurance policies for his auto repair shop from an agent who shouldn’t have been licensed." Go HERE for story.

This is another part of our defective system that would be eliminated with a Medicare-for-all system.

Interesting. Now that Bush has given all of his tax breaks to wealthy campaign contributors, his new budget proposal is now reconciling the taxpayer losses with a $12 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid. That's my kinda guy!!!

1/8/2007

Universal Health Care Is Most Business Friendly

By Jack E. Lohman

With the vast majority of the public -- and even the "non-healthcare" business leaders -- supporting universal health care, why are our politicians not on board?

It makes every bit of financial sense for businesses to get out of providing health care and to turn it over to the most successful ever public-private venture: Medicare. As a Medicare patient I have the same coverage and physician choice I had before retiring. It's just managed by a single payer: WPS in Madison.

Don't think for a moment that single-payer is just another liberal giveaway; it is the most fiscally conservative way possible of financing health care for Wisconsin citizens, and Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck Benedict have a Medicare-like proposal on the table for consideration that deserves top consideration.

Medicare-for-all would do wonders for businesses by reducing labor costs by 15 percent; reducing worker compensation costs by 50 percent; and cutting their and everybody else's auto insurance rates in half. With these reduced costs they could add jobs in Wisconsin rather than sending them to other countries. Health care would no longer be a labor union negotiation and job changes would not involve gaps in insurance, preexisting disease exclusions or delays, or COBRA costs.

New jobs would mean new tax revenues, increased property values, and less unemployment, welfare and associated costs. New businesses will move to Wisconsin and old businesses will keep their doors open. And when businesses no longer have to add their health costs to the price of their product, we will see lower prices at the cash register and greater competitiveness against foreign products that aren't burdened with health care costs.

Who wouldn't like these single-payer benefits?

For one, the insurance companies that are currently reaping 20-30 percent of health care dollars won't like it a bit, and neither will the politicians who receive campaign contributions from health care interests. Nor will the board members that sit on both health care and non-health care corporate boards, though business associations that serve both factions owe it to the latter to sit this issue out. The conflicts of interest that stand in the way of good public policy abound.

If corporations are not willing to provide employee health care at least equivalent to Medicare, they should get out of the way and let the government do it. We don't want their inadequately funded solutions or a mish-mash of prohibitively expensive half-way measures. Or health savings accounts that are time bombs waiting to explode in credit card debt and bankruptcies.

Nor do we want an incremental approach that will not cover all citizens and is sure to fail. The public wants it done right and wants it done now.

Think about it. For the same amount of money we are paying to cover 85 percent of the public now, we could cover 100 percent under a single-payer plan like Canada's -- but without the wait times. Over 80 percent of Canadians prefer their system to ours. Their life expectancy is two years longer and infant mortality 35 percent less than ours -- mostly because everybody is insured under a single-payer plan.

Canada spends 10 percent of its gross domestic product on health care while we spend 15 percent of GDP and get less for it. They cover 100 percent of their people and we cover 85 percent and that is shrinking. Their administrative costs are 10 percent compared to our 20-30 percent. They have no wait times for urgent procedures, and those for elective care could be eliminated with a simple increase in funding by 10 percent -- to 11 percent of GDP. While their problem is funding, ours is systemic.

Businesses would fund our transition 100 percent but could phase out over a five-year period. But the sad truth is that ours is not a financial problem, it is political. Or should I say the only financial issue is the $1.4 million in cash that flows from the for-profit health care interests to our state politicians. Anything they can do to delay a fix or make it overly complicated and expensive is well worth their investment in politicians.

With new faces in the state Legislature we stand a reasonable chance of positive movement. And if we don't see it in solid health care and election reform, the voter's option in 2008 is a repeat of 2006: more firing of conflicted state legislators. We now know how that game is won.

-- Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate, author of "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America" and founder of http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.

Source: http://wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=6227  

New: Health Insurance Company Protection Act!

By Jack E. Lohman

Of all of our health care needs, government protection of insurance company mega-profits is not a needed reform. But that apparently won't stop President Bush, who has proposed an annual $7500 single and $15,000 family tax credit for citizens who are either unemployed or whose employer has dumped their health insurance. This would enable them to purchase directly to help insurance companies stay in the loop and retain their profits. Bush also made his usual plug for health savings accounts, for which Wall Street, the credit card industry and bankruptcy attorneys will forever be in his debt.

Tax credits are not the answer. We should be providing health care directly to the patient, not through employers or third-party insurance companies that drain resources.

Follow the money. These are taxpayer assets being given to the insurance industry for non healthcare services -- when instead, the insurance industry shouldn't be getting a penny of our health care dollars. They consume 20% of health care dollars yet provide absolutely zero health care benefits to the patient.

That's a shameful waste. We need administration; not insurance companies. We should totally eliminate the unnecessary costs that are consumed by marketing, salesman commissions, underwriting costs, huge executive salaries, and high corporate profits. None of these would exist under a single-payer system like Canada's. With a strong political will we could mimic Canada's system and extend health care to 100% of the public, and we'd spend the same amount of dollars we are spending today to cover only 85% of the people. To boot, we can do it without Canada's wait times! The money saved would be spent on more doctors and more nurses to serve more patients.

The state must implement a universal health care system, and the proposal by Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck Benedict provides the mechanism to bring health care to all residents by July 1, 2008. The logical approach would be to contract with an administrative service, like Medicare does with WPS in Madison, and today’s insurance companies would be candidates to serve the state in that capacity. But whenever waste is trimmed people are displaced, and some of those people can be used in administering the new program and others retrained for more critical jobs like nursing, medical technologists, and even by moving some into higher paying programming positions that will be needed to convert our massive paper-based medical records system to an electronic patient database to track practice variations and success rates.

There are other health care proposals, but none are as extensive and none are as simple. With added complexity comes costly administration, the very thing we must eliminate if we are to afford the system. With single-payer, the patient receives services and the administrator writes the check. It's that simple. We'd incorporate BadgerCare and Medicaid patients, and we'd cut worker compensation and auto insurance rates in half because the medical portions of those are handled by the universal system. And we'd not be hampered by federal laws that prohibit negotiating for lower drug prices, so our single-risk pool would enable us to maximize the economies of scale.

The Miller-Benedict proposal is not just the best system for the public, it is also the most business friendly proposal on the table. It will attract more companies and more jobs to the state than the others, and fewer businesses and jobs will be lost. Initially it would be funded by a payroll tax and the transfer of funds from the other systems it replaces.

What's not to like about that?

Our current problem is not funding, it is political. Some politicians claim that the government can't do anything right and they will fight to privatize the system. I'd probably buy that argument were it not for the fact that government-run entities cannot give campaign contributions and private corporations and their executives can. And they do, because the last thing in the world they want to see is our health care system made more efficient.

But it is time for politicians to put politics aside and do what's right for the state.


-- Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate, author of "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America" and founder of http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.

 

 

32-1

Report: The Cost of Privatization: Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans — Updated and Revised by the Commonwealth Fund

Medicare Advantage is a system of private HMOs that provide health care to Medicare patients under contract to the government, but now it has been found that its costs are 12.5% higher than Medicare would have spent itself. Who said the privatized free market would save money?

CT census: number of CT studies growing - HERE is the business to be in!

Health fraud suit is tossed - Couple wasn't duped by insurer, judge says. Go HERE for story.

They thought they had adequate insurance but didn't. That's how the free market works.

Let’s stop this Health Care nonsense

By Jack E. Lohman

It’s just a matter of time before health care is taken over by the business sector; and not just by providing expensive insurance to pay outlandish medical costs that have been increasing at 15% per year. That’s what we have today, and businesses are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more. 

Wisconsin’s business leaders are well positioned to pool their resources and create their own managed care facilities for employees, even buy their own hospitals if they want. They’ll control the costs because they control the money.

This would be, of course, all aimed at sidelining the for-profit health care interests that are currently bleeding the system, and the insurance companies that represent the 30% of administrative costs. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There is enough bad management and profit-taking to spread around to all providers of health care, including poorly run hospitals, physicians who order too many high-profit tests, and bankers and insurers pushing health savings accounts to get their piece of the national health care pie at the expense of the patient.

That pie now represents 15% of our gross domestic product and promises to reach 30% within the next decade. It is absolutely unsustainable, and it does not have to be that way.

Business leaders should not look to reduce health care costs, they should instead look at getting out of the health care business altogether. Whatever their costs, high or low, they are simply added to their product price and consumers reimburse them at the cash register. So let’s eliminate the middlemen and have the taxpayers pay directly. Let’s allow businesses to better compete with foreign products that do not have health costs built into them. Let’s keep the profits and jobs in the US, and keep and attract more businesses to Wisconsin in the process.

Notably, for the same 15% of GDP we are spending today to cover 85% of our population, we could serve 100% of the people through a universal health care system. Think “Canadian-style without the wait times!”

Canada provides 100% of its population with a Medicare-for-all system, and Canadians enjoy a 35% lower infant mortality rate, two years longer life expectancy, longer hospital stays, and more per-capita doctor visits, all at 50% lower costs (10% of GDP compared to our 15%). While their wait times for urgent care are the same as ours, zero, if they’d increase their spending by just 10%, to 11% of GDP, they could also match our wait times for elective procedures. Still, well over 80% of Canadians prefer their system over ours. What’s not to like about that?

Importantly, any universal health care system we create must be kept simple. Simple is less costly, simple works, and simple doesn’t break. It makes zero sense to make complex and costly compromises to satisfy the special interests, which is what we have done to date. It should instead be designed to maximize results, and the best approach is the Miller-Benedict universal health care bill.

But fixing the system requires political will, and that’s difficult to muster when the health care interests are giving $1.4 million annually to state politicians to keep the system as it is; expensive, inefficient, complex and dysfunctional.

Hopefully our new state legislature has politicians with enough wisdom to recognize that the fuse has been lit and they had best fix the system under their watch. If they don’t, 2008 is just around the corner, and we may have to throw a few more of the rascals out.

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner who lives in Colgate, and is the founder of ThrowTheRascalsOut.org and the author of the book “Politicians – Owned and Operated by Corporate America.”

 

31-1

An excellent video on Single-payer health care: Click HERE to play.

Another video describing health care costs, click HERE and HERE.

Health care for all: We need only the will

By Jack E. Lohman

The health care system is broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. We can fix the system overnight or we can make it a 10-year project, which the for-profit health care interests would like to drag it out to.

There are many areas that must and can be fixed, but simplicity is the key. Simple is less expensive and simple doesn't break. And the simplest system already exists; it's called Medicare-for-all. We don't need complicated insurance pools or anything else; we need to provide health care, and here's the best way:

• Single-payer delivery system: The simplicity of a Medicare-for-all system can provide health care to 100 percent of our population for the same money we are paying for 85 percent coverage today. Means-tested co-pays will help keep costs to a minimum. Transfer all Medicaid and BadgerCare patients into this single system.

Alternatively, find a mechanism to expand the medical systems for the military and veterans to replace our private sector health care needs.

• Who should pay for the health care system? The taxpayers rather than employers, though some phase-in will be necessary. We are paying now when employers add their costs to the price of their products and we reimburse them at the cash register. By eliminating the costly middlemen, we can cut the costs by a minimum of 30 percent.

We could help fund the system with a surcharge added to criminal fines and by diverting punitive damages from malpractice awards. A tax-free charitable endowment can also be established.

• Medical education: We could increase the availability of doctors and nurses by providing free college education to high school students who both rank in the top 10 percent of SAT scores and maintain college grades of A or B. Give those in the C range some debt assistance.

The better students should be allowed into the specialties and the poorer students required to serve longer internships and perhaps even be limited to lower level positions that cannot endanger patients.

• Universal IT: We must maintain all patient, doctor and hospital information in a highly secure universal health database. Start with the patient answering a lengthy on-screen health questionnaire, add the physician's diagnosis and treatment. The system can provide the physician a list of treatments provided by other physicians around the country and under the same circumstances, and alert the physician when medications are incorrect or will interact with other meds the patient is on. This will reduce practice variations, medical and prescription errors, and give the patient cost and quality of treatment transparency of the physician.

• Certificate of Need: We should require all major hospital expansions and purchases of high-tech equipment to be approved by a (re-established) CON board of review.

• Physician self-referrals: We should prohibit payment for tests using their own high-tech equipment ordered by physicians and clinics (because the tests become profit-making cash cows that result in over-ordering and wasteful spending under the current fee-for-service structure). Referring patient testing to well-equipped hospitals or independent labs has always worked well.

• Medical malpractice: We should replace the 12-person jury system on malpractice cases with a three-person panel staffed by retired (or at least non-conflicted) physicians and nurses. If guilt is determined, all awards should be set by this panel. Economic damages shall consist of the patient's out-of-pocket expenses, reasonable pain and suffering, and reasonable legal costs.

If punitive damages are to apply, they should not go to the patient, who has already received economic damages, but instead paid into the universal health care fund.

So now we will learn whether Democrats and Republicans can work together in the best interest of their constituents, or whether the $1.4 million in yearly campaign money from health care interests carries greater weight.

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and founder of www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. E-mail: jelohman@gmail.com


Published: November 16, 2006, The Capital Times
 

Drug Industry Is on Defensive as Power Shifts WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Alarmed at the prospect of Democratic control of Congress, top executives from two dozen drug companies met here last week to assess what appears to them to be a harsh new political climate, and to draft a battle plan. See complete article HERE.

 

 

30-1

As Drug Prices Climb, Democrats Find Fault With Medicare Plan - NYT - For big drug companies, the new Medicare prescription benefit is proving to be a financial windfall larger than even the most optimistic Wall Street analysts had predicted. But those gains may come back to haunt drug makers if Democrats take control of Congress this week. Democrats, who have long charged that the drug industry is profiteering at taxpayers’ expense, say they want to introduce legislation to revoke the law that bars Medicare from negotiating prices directly with drug makers like Pfizer for the medicines it buys. See complete article HERE.

Running on Empty: Healthcare As the Engine of the Economy - by Brian Klep