Health Care Reform Articles - September 3, 2024

Saving Private Practice Summary: The American Medical Association (the AMA) is pleading with Congress to save teetering independent medical practice. Of course, one ask is higher pay. But equity and lower administrative burden are right up there. Is organized medicine finally supporting single payer? Is private practice collapsing? Congress can help stem the tide AMA By Tanya Albert Henry Aug 23, 2024   It’s time for lawmakers to recognize the threats to independent medical practices and time to take “immediate and decisive actions” to stop driving physicians away from private practice, the AMA told Congress.   “The fabric of our health care system, woven with the dedication and expertise of these practices, is unraveling under the compounding pressures of unsustainable financial models, burdensome regulations and systemic inequities,” the AMA said in a statement submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee (PDF) for its hearing entitled, “The Collapse of Private Practice: Examining the Challenges Facing Independent Medicine.”   The AMA urged Congress to pass comprehensive legislative reforms that create: Equitable payment models. Reduced administrative burdens. Expanded support for rural and underserved areas. A health care infrastructure secured from emerging threats.   Re: The Collapse of Private Practice: Examining the Challenges Facing Independent Medicine STATEMENT of the American Medical Association U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means May 23, 2024   The American Medical Association (AMA) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following Statement for the Record to the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means as part of the hearing entitled, “The Collapse of Private Practice: Examining the Challenges Facing Independent Medicine.” The AMA commends the Committee for addressing this critical issue that threatens the very existence of private medical practices. The AMA is fighting tirelessly to combat the financial and regulatory challenges that jeopardize the survival of these practices. The situation is dire and multifaceted, involving not only the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, but also drastic cuts in physician practice payments relative to inflation, surging practice costs, and overwhelming administrative burdens. These payment reductions and burdens are forcing more and more physicians to either close their doors or merge with larger health care systems, severely limiting competition and patient choice. While the pandemic has amplified existing financial pressures and highlighted the urgent need for continued legislative intervention, the relentless cuts in physician practice payments present an immediate and existential threat to private practices.   CONCLUSION  The AMA implores Congress and all stakeholders to recognize the imminent and severe threats to independent medical practices. The fabric of our health care system, woven with the dedication and expertise of these practices, is unraveling under the compounding pressures of unsustainable financial models, burdensome regulations, and systemic inequities. We urge immediate and decisive action to correct the course with comprehensive legislative reforms that ensure equitable payment models, reduce administrative burdens, expand support for rural and underserved areas, and secure our health care infrastructure against emerging threats. The AMA and physician community stand ready to work with Congress to preserve the legacy and future of independent physician practices, ensuring that they continue to provide high-quality, personalized care to all communities across the nation. This is not just a call for action; it is a plea to safeguard the heart of American health care before it is too late. Comment by: Don McCanne For well over half a century, the AMA has seemed to be opposed to government involvement in health care such as through a national health care program like single payer Medicare for All. Although the original Medicare program was accepted because it did provide coverage to all of our senior citizens, including those previously unable to afford medical care, there was some reluctance because of concerns about the government being involved in ensuring adequate funding and appropriate regulatory oversight. There was still strong support for private funding through cash payments or private insurance, especially employer-sponsored plans. There was also the recognition of a need for funding care for the truly indigent, such as Medicaid and other government programs. So what has happened to this system that the AMA refused to replace with a comprehensive system for everyone? The physicians believed that, as long as they remained in control, they could continue to practice on their own terms, taking good care of the physicians, even though the patients may not have fared as well without more comprehensive government oversight. But look at what has happened as they encouraged the private sector to maintain and expand control of health care in America. Private equity has moved in and managed to convert the primary mission of the health care system from maintaining the health of the patients to placing the creation of individual wealth of the owners as the highest priority. The private insurance industry has been particularly adept at gaining control of the medical-industrial complex with a private regulatory system that is designed to move those health dollars to their own coffers. The physicians who believed that they could continue to practice on their own terms have now found out that their terms are being dictated to them as they have actually been placed in a position of themselves being chattel that are bought and sold by this nefarious industry. Now how does the AMA feel about the government being involved in the provision of health care? The system is such a disaster that has created a massive burnout of the profession that they are actually going to Congress – the government! – to plead that the government finally does something about it. It is interesting that most of the requests are not simply to increase their net income, but also to make the system work better by creating an environment in which physicians are more comfortable in caring for their patients. Many of the these proposed changes will create a health care environment that does improve care for the patients as well. You see, though physicians want a system that works well for them, they are not opposed to a system that works well for the patients. As you examine the list of improvements that the physicians are requesting (See Statement to Congress), you can see that the list could be readily modified to create a system that works well for both physicians and their patients. And we already know that enacting and implementing a single payer Medicare for All system would be the most effective for all parties concerned. We really do want the government involved, and the AMA has now opened the doors as they stand ready to work with Congress. As they say in their Statement to Congress, “This is not just a call for action; it is a plea to safeguard the heart of American health care before it is too late.”

Opinion | To Fix Health Care, We Need to Look Beyond Medicine Nicholas Kristof, September Dawn Bottoms - NYT - August 16, 2023 Americans are among the least healthy people in the rich world, and among the most likely to die early. Patients often suffer needlessly from diabetes, resulting in persistent wounds on the feet. Such wounds lead to amputations of toes and feet, and sometimes to death. The United States is a global leader in avoidable amputations. All this unnecessary suffering is a disgrace. But we know how to make things better. How Do We Fix the Scandal That Is American Health Care? Nicholas Kristof Photographs by September Dawn Bottoms Mr. Kristof is an Opinion columnist reporting from Greenwood, Miss. Ms. Bottoms is a photographer from Oklahoma whose work focuses on mental illness, family and poverty. This is the third in the series “How America Heals” in which Nicholas Kristof is examining the interwoven crises devastating parts of America and exploring paths to recovery. It’s not just that life expectancy in Mississippi (71.9) now appears to be a hair shorter than in Bangladesh (72.4). Nor that an infant is some 70 percent more likely to die in the United States than in other wealthy countries. Nor even that for the first time in probably a century, the likelihood that an American child will live to the age of 20 has dropped. All that is tragic and infuriating, but to me the most heart-rending symbol of America’s failure in health care is the avoidable amputations that result from poorly managed diabetes. A medical setting cannot hide the violence of a saw cutting through a leg or muffle the grating noise it makes as it hacks through the tibia or disguise the distinctive charred odor of cauterized blood vessels. That noise of a saw on bone is a rebuke to an American health care system that, as Walter Cronkite reportedly observed, is neither healthy, caring nor a system. Dr. Raymond Girnys, a surgeon who has amputated countless limbs here in the Mississippi Delta, one of the poorest and least healthy parts of America, told me that he has nightmares of “being chased by amputated legs and toes.” “It starts from the bottom up,” Dr. Girnys said, explaining how patients arrive with diabetic wounds on the foot that refuse to heal in part because of diminished circulation when blood sugar is not meticulously managed in a person with diabetes. Dr. Girnys initially tries to clean and treat the lesions, but they grow deeper, until he has to remove a toe. When more wounds develop, he takes off the foot in the hope of saving the rest of the leg. New wounds can force him to amputate the leg below the knee and perhaps, finally, above the knee. After that, Dr. Girnys said, the patient is likely to die within five years. A toe, foot or leg is cut off by a doctor about 150,000 times a year in America, making the United States a world leader of these amputations. I’ll be blunt: America’s dismal health care outcomes are a disgrace. They shame us. Partly because of diabetes and other preventable conditions, Americans suffer unnecessarily and often die young. It is unconscionable that newborns in India, Rwanda and Venezuela have a longer life expectancy than Native American newborns (65) in the United States. And Native American males have a life expectancy of just 61.5 years — shorter than the overall life expectancy in Haiti. Where people live longer than Americans Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, United Nations Note: Life expectancies are for those born in 2020 for the United States and 2021 internationally. Countries with fewer than 20 million people or where data quality was questionable were excluded. But there are fixes, and three in particular would make a huge difference: expanding access to medical care; more aggressively addressing behaviors like smoking, overeating and drug abuse; and making larger societywide steps to boost education and reduce child poverty. One reason to believe that we can do better on health care outcomes is that much of the rest of the world already does. This is the third essay in my series about how we can better help the millions of Americans left behind. We in journalism mostly cover problems: We typically write about planes that crash, not planes that land. But this series aims to offer solutions to challenges our nation faces. A Superpower Where Many Citizens Die Young A starting point is to avoid the myopia of Russia when it experienced a drop in life expectancy beginning in the 1980s and a rise in “deaths of despair.” Leaders took comfort in Russia’s status as a military superpower and a standout in the sciences and performing arts; they blamed individuals’ lack of personal responsibility for the deaths. They didn’t understand that when so many people are sick and struggling, the ailment is deeper than individual weakness. Americans sometimes blithely boast of the best medical care in the world, and there is some truth to that. I have a friend who is alive today because of the success of immunotherapy to fight stage IV cancer. Our health technology and cutting-edge medicine is superb. Yet whatever the quantity and quality of our bone saws, the tragedy is that they are so often needed. America’s health crisis is most evident among low-education and low-income Americans, notably people of color and particularly men. “The poorest men in the U.S. have life expectancies comparable to men in Sudan and Pakistan; the richest men in the U.S. live longer than the average man in any country,” researchers with the Opportunity Insights team at Harvard concluded. But while the gaps we focus on have to do with mortality, there are also enormous gaps in quality of life. “It’s very rare that I’ve got somebody in that has just one health problem, or in for a wellness visit,” said Yvonne Tanner, a nurse practitioner in the Mississippi Delta town of Itta Bena, with a population that is largely poor and Black. “Everybody that I see is already very, very sick.” Most have multiple diagnoses, she said, of hypertension, diabetes, arthritis and more. Tanner choked up and her eyes welled as she told me of a patient she had just seen, a 47-year-old woman with poorly managed diabetes whose legs were severely swollen. The woman didn’t know why; Tanner did. It was end-stage kidney failure. That patient, who has teenage children, has a job, but it’s not clear how she can keep it while getting three sessions of dialysis each week. Type 2 diabetes, the kind that is linked to diet and inactivity, used to be called adult-onset diabetes but now affects children as well — and it encapsulates American ill health. It reflects the brilliance of soda companies and fast-food companies at marketing their products — in ways that are good for corporate profits but disastrous for American health. Type 2 diabetes often strikes the poor and marginalized who live chaotic lives without insurance, seek cheap calories in food deserts and struggle to manage budgets and insulin levels. The upshot is often dialysis, amputations and disability. Statisticians have tried to calculate what they call “healthy life expectancy” in a population — the number of years an average person in a country can live a normal life, before amputations, dialysis, blindness or other setbacks. In the United States, that is just 66.1 years, shorter than in Turkey, Sri Lanka, Peru, Thailand and other countries that are much poorer. My dad was an Armenian refugee who fled Romania and was thrilled to settle in America; now Armenia and Romania both have longer healthy life expectancy than the United States. One Step Forward: Expand Access to Care Here’s a simple step to improve access to health care: Expand Medicaid. Ten states, including Mississippi, still have not done so even though nearly all the funds would come from the federal government. Partly as a result, some hospitals are cutting back services in Mississippi and are at risk of closing. A cartoon in Mississippi Today recently showed a patient asking a doctor, “How long do I have, doc?” The physician replies: “Longer than this hospital.” Even much poorer countries manage to provide universal health care. I visited hospitals recently in the West African nation of Sierra Leone, which mostly provides free prenatal care without any complicated bureaucracy, so 98 percent of women get some prenatal care — which appears to be a hair higher than in Florida. Granted, Florida medicine is far more sophisticated than that in Sierra Leone, but that may not matter for those outside the health care system. Dr. Kim Sanford, an ob-gyn in the Mississippi Delta, told me about a 74-year-old woman who came in recently to have an IUD removed. She had had it inserted after her daughter was born 46 years ago and hadn’t seen a gynecologist since. Some 28 million Americans lack medical insurance. An even larger number of Americans — 77 million — lack dental coverage. Cost is often the argument against expanding access to health care. But it’s hard to understand how just about every other advanced country can afford universal care and the United States can’t. And consider that 94 percent of Americans with substance-use disorder do not get treatment, even though this pays for itself many times over. Our policy often seems driven less by cost considerations than by indifference, even cruelty. Improving access to health care can also take other forms, such as improving outreach and increasing diversity in the ranks of health workers. Researchers have found, for example, that Black patients have better outcomes with Black doctors. Rethinking Health Behaviors Those of us on the left have mostly been fighting to increase health care coverage, and that’s important. But outcomes are driven not just by access or socioeconomic status. Hispanics lack health insurance at high rates, yet have a longer life expectancy than white Americans and often a lower maternal mortality rate. Part of the explanation for this “Hispanic paradox” may be strong families, community support systems and healthy behaviors. Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, has found that behaviors — such as smoking, eating habits and exercise — affect life expectancy even more than access to health care. One crucial fix, in short, is to influence health behaviors. This is difficult but not impossible. Just since 2005, the share of American adults who smoke has dropped by almost half. And America’s teenage birthrate has plummeted by an astonishing 77 percent since 1991, partly because of comprehensive sex education and increased access to long-acting contraceptives. One step that might reduce consumption of sugary snacks is a soda tax, modeled on the cigarette tax. Such taxes are regressive but seem effective at reducing consumption of harmful products. More fundamentally, though, self-harming behaviors arise from a context. The genesis for this series was a crisis in behavioral health in my hometown in rural Oregon, where more than one-quarter of the children on my old No. 6 school bus are now dead from drugs, alcohol and suicide. Looking back, the central problem was the same as in many working-class communities across the country: the loss of good union jobs followed by despair and loneliness — and the arrival of meth and opioids. It was poverty, but a poverty of purpose as well as of the wallet. It was a hopelessness that sabotaged marriages and sapped self-esteem and self-care. In talking to doctors and nurses over the years, I’ve been struck by how often they mentioned that men are reluctant to get preventive care or treatment. They say that when men do come in, it’s often because they’re nudged by their wives — but as the institution of marriage has crumbled in working-class America, there often aren’t wives to save their husbands’ lives. Researchers tried to calculate how many people poverty kills each year in the United States, and their estimate was 183,000 — many times the number of homicides annually. Dr. Thomas Dobbs, the dean of the school of population health at the University of Mississippi, wrestles daily with health consequences of inequality, including syphilis that is now spreading rapidly. I asked Dr. Dobbs what he would most like to do to improve health outcomes, and I assumed he would name some medical interventions. “Desegregate schools and fix criminal justice,” he said. “That’s what I would do.” The point is that America’s health dysfunction is rooted in a broader national dysfunction, including deep intergenerational poverty and despair. The medical system can efficiently amputate a foot, but an improvement in self-care of diabetes sometimes requires an injection of hope and improvements in education, job training, earnings and opportunity. This is important because in America our problem is not just that people die in their 70s rather than their 80s. Dr. Steven H. Woolf of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine has found that because of guns, suicides and accidental deaths, child mortality in the United States is rising rather than falling — in a way that he doesn’t believe has any precedent in the past 100 years. As a result, notes John Burn-Murdoch of The Financial Times, in any class of 25 American kindergartners, one child on average will die by middle age. Dr. Yasmin Cheema, a pediatrician in the town of Clarksdale in the Delta, told me of the obesity and diabetes she sees even in children. A 10-year-old boy recently fainted in her waiting room; it turned out that he was in shock with undiagnosed diabetes. Dr. Cheema called 911. After telling me the story, Dr. Cheema stepped into the next room to do a physical on a 14-year-old boy. He weighed 295 pounds. A Model in the Mississippi Delta One model effort to reach young people and address behaviors in the Mississippi Delta is the Delta Health Alliance. It has helped build a wellness center in the town of Leland, with a gym, yoga classes and an on-site nutritionist who teaches how to cook healthy meals. The Delta Health Alliance tries more broadly to address the “social determinants of health” that sometimes lead to obesity, smoking and poor health outcomes. This means supporting education beginning with pre-K, promoting mentoring, organizing job training and much more. “We realized we could help a lot of 50- or 60-year-old diabetics, but that’s not fixing the problem, the generational poverty problem that starts when kids are born,” said Karen Matthews, president of the Delta Health Alliance. The alliance tracks metrics closely, and its approach seems to be reducing poverty and improving health outcomes. It’s as essential an investment in health as CT scanners. More broadly, we know how to cut child poverty, because we’ve done it: The United States cut it by almost half in 2021, largely with the refundable child tax credit. But Congress allowed the program to lapse, and child poverty is rising again. Some may scoff that short life spans are a result of personal irresponsibility, such as eating too many sugary snacks, exercising too little or abusing alcohol. It’s true that personal choices shape our health, but so do our collective choices about expanding Medicaid, extending the child tax credit, providing adequate drug treatment and educating people about health choices. If we believe in personal responsibility for others, we should accept collective responsibility for ourselves. It would have been unimaginable even a decade ago that Bangladesh could overtake an American state in life expectancy. That is a reflection of our choices, personal and collective, and we can do better. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. September Dawn Bottoms is an award-winning documentary photographer based in Oklahoma. Her work focuses on mental illness, family, poverty, and the intersection of the three. A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 20, 2023, Section SR, Page 8 of the New York edition with the headline: How Do We Fix the Scandal That Is American Health Care?. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html?pgtype=Article&action=click&module=RelatedLinks-

Percentage Of Dentists And Dental Practices Affiliated With Private Equity Nearly Doubled, 2015–21 Kamyar Nasseh, Anthony T. LoSasso, and Marko Vujicic  Health Affairs - August, 2024 Abstract Over the course of the past twenty years, private equity (PE) has played a role in acquiring medical practices, hospitals, and nursing homes. More recently, PE has taken a greater interest in acquiring dental practices, but few data exist about the scope of PE activity within dentistry. We analyzed dentist provider data for the period 2015–21 to examine trends in PE acquisition of dental practices. The percentage of dentists affiliated with PE increased from 6.6 percent in 2015 to 12.8 percent in 2021. During this period, PE affiliation increased particularly among larger dental practices and among dental specialists such as endodontists, oral surgeons, and pediatric dentists. PE-affiliated dental practices were more likely to participate in Medicaid than practices not affiliated with PE. Future research should investigate whether PE’s role in dentistry affects the affordability and quality of dental services. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00574?utm_campaign=august+2024+issue&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_hxjHtvmLTSX_RuQdZnDbgfYQzqqEtBWc6XkNKHnZJIuB3lgjO25X04Xd0U3nXKkbHIyF7WnCw8SSIYachxwMzeMnC6g&_hsmi=321725027&utm_content=hat+8+26+2024+journal&utm_source=hat&journalCode=hlthaff

Letter: Recall Frances Perkins’ support of national health insurance

The proposal, reported in the Press Herald Aug. 8, to designate the Frances Perkins home in Newcastle a national monument, would honor a truly great American, the architect of the great labor reforms of the New Deal. Less well known – because they were unsuccessful – are Perkins’s valiant efforts to establish national health insurance.

In every generation, going back more than a century to Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Era, there have been serious proposals to institute some form of universal health care in America. Despite their popularity, they have always been thwarted by special interests, most prominently the American Medical Association, one of the nation’s most powerful lobbying forces. It would be natural to assume that the AMA must hold the public’s health and well-being to be its paramount interest, but this has not always been demonstrated in its behavior over the years.

Nevertheless, there is hope. The AMA, under pressure from its student membership, may be softening its opposition. And, of great significance, the Maine Medical Association last year released a major policy statement urging “federal health care reform that provides universal coverage through either an adequately funded single-payer system or a combination of private and public financing where the federal government has, at minimum, regulatory powers over health care delivery to protect consumers and providers from private profit-driven motives.”

We can be proud of our doctors here in Maine for their leadership on an issue so important to all of us. Frances Perkins would be very pleased.

Michael Bacon
Westbrook

 

Letter: The time for a single-payer system is now

Letter: The time for a single-payer system is now

I recently read the article in the Press Herald by Joe Lawlor about surprise bills for emergency room visits (“Surprise bill for emergency room visit highlights hospital fee debate,” August 10). I’m commenting not so much about the fees or the legislation that was mentioned, or attempts to regulate them, but more about the impact on individuals in a health care system where insurance companies create financial burdens to so many with high deductibles, rates and denials that are charged.

Our health care system of providers is wonderful. Our health care system of insurance is broken and needs to be replaced by a single-payer system, like Medicare for All. Under such a system, hard-working Mainers would not be subject to fees like those described in the article. These fees would be subsumed under the global budget for the hospital, negotiated each year with the government based on the prior year’s experience. The individual referred to in this article would not only have not gotten the surprise of the added fee, but would also have had no out-of-pocket deductible.

Mainers cannot afford the current high-cost system. It’s time for our state and country to find the path to universal health care. Please contact our legislators at the state and federal levels and tell them it’s time for action.

William Keller
Windham

https://www.pressherald.com/2024/08/20/letter-the-time-for-a-single-payer-system-is-now/ 

Letter: Single payer could help health system woes

It was saddening to read of the financial difficulties Northern Light Health is having and to learn that services many depend on might be curtailed. As an advocate for universal health care, I can’t help wondering whether a simple, single-payer system might provide some financial stability to institutions like Northern Light.

The most familiar single-payer plan is U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act. Under this plan, the government (the single payer) would fund institutions like hospitals according to a global budget negotiated each year based on the prior year’s experience. The advantage to the hospital would be certainty on the revenue side. Cost projections, of course, would have less certainty, so there would have to be provisions for dealing with unexpected cost overruns.

A single-payer plan ought to reduce administrative costs significantly. (It is estimated that 30 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative overhead.) There would no longer be separate billing for individual hospital stays or emergency room visits. It would be unnecessary to itemize every bandage and catheter. Surprise bills and facility fees, the source of much angry complaining, would be a thing of the past.

Many studies have shown that a single-payer system would significantly reduce the national health care expenditure, and the many advantages to the consumer are widely appreciated. But there have been few studies to quantify the benefits to providers. Such studies would be of great value as we debate the health care reforms we so desperately need.

Michael P. Bacon

Westbrook

Letter: Universal health care will save money in the long run

Portland Press Herald - September 3, 2024

I read with interest the Aug. 25 Sunday Telegram article by Stephen Murphy (“Hospital horror story a symptom of a more serious disease”), another in a continuing tale of our dysfunctional system of health care.

Mr. Murphy discusses the ways in which Medicare Advantage plans (MAP), provided by private insurance companies, distort the cost of care. I’m sorry to report that I am currently on a MAP, and I chose it because it was so much less expensive than traditional Medicare (to me, in the short term, that is). I had a nagging pain, and my PCP approved physical therapy. I had seen the physical therapist about the same injury five years ago, and she ultimately recommended that I have a C-scan to determine if my injury was more substantial. Getting to the C-scan required three separate referrals and medical appointments until I finally had the permission slip required by my Medicare Advantage plan. Less expensive for me? Maybe in the short term. A more expensive system of health care? Definitely.

If health care were provided as a basic service in our country, as it is in every other developed country in the world, there would be no such thing as slicing and dicing people into risk pools in order to maximize profits and, simultaneously, deny care. Studies have shown, over and over again, that providing health care to all would benefit our country immeasurably and would cost us all less.

Beth Franklin
Cumberland Foreside

https://www.pressherald.com/2024/09/02/letter-universal-health-care-will-save-money-in-the-long-run/