Learning From Fungi
Of Medicine and Mushrooms
By JONATHAN REISMAN
ONE day after class, in a small, neglected patch of woods behind my medical school, I came upon a cluster of wild mushrooms. I had pushed through a tangle of poison ivy and other weeds ringing the school’s parking lot, drawn by a curiosity of what lay beyond. At first I thought the mushrooms were just another piece of plastic refuse driven by the wind into that spot, under a mixture of young maples and hemlocks.
Walking closer, I realized that what I was looking at was alive — a creamy, light-orange collection of fungi, each one poised slightly over the moist, shaded soil. I wondered if they were medicinal, hallucinogenic or one of the poisonous species I’d heard mentioned in toxicology class, a few bites of which can cause fulminant liver failure. Or perhaps they were edible.
I bought a field guide to wild mushrooms the following day and began studying it alongside my medical textbooks. Seeking out local experts and foraging websites, I began filling my head with information. I cultivated a forager’s eye, my sight and attention drawn to every wood chip pile and overwatered suburban lawn in search of edible fungi.
Most days, after exploring the human body in anatomy lab, I traded my scalpel for a basket and delved farther into the woods behind the parking lot or roved across other promising patches of land. I coveted the dazzling intuition and encyclopedic knowledge of seasoned foragers, marveling at their nonchalant certainty as they made life-or-death decisions about which mushrooms were edible. I wondered if I could ever make such decisions with comfort, if confidence would ever eclipse my anxiety.
A month or so after that day near the parking lot, I made my first positive mushroom identification. On a trip to New Hampshire, I found a cluster of orange mushrooms that, I was almost certain, were the same ones I had seen behind my medical school. Upon spotting them, a list of possibilities jumped into my mind — they could be the delectable chanterelle, the poisonous jack-o’-lantern, the false chanterelle or a species of Lactarius.
I noted that the mushrooms grew singly on the ground, rather than clumped on the side of a tree. I cut one off at ground level with a knife and picked it up to examine it more closely. Shaped like a tiny, delicate orange vase with the unblemished freshness of infancy, it had an underside lined with corrugated ridges flowing outward onto its flanges. I delicately lacerated the mushroom’s pale flesh with my knife and noted no milky, white latex bleeding from it. It smelled of humus and apricots.
I was confident these mushrooms were chanterelles, and, later, a delicious dinner with no ill effects confirmed my hunch. Such experiences slowly added up, and the number of edible species that I could confidently distinguish from their poisonous look-alikes grew.
My training as a physician, meanwhile, was progressing along similar lines, my head filling with disease descriptions and textbook medical facts. As medical school passed into residency, living patients replaced multiple-choice questions. Alleviating a patient’s suffering begins with the diagnosis, with giving affliction a name. More than just an inert label, though, the name brings with it an explanation and, hopefully, a solution. The diagnosis itself can bring comfort to nervous parents or patients with prolonged, unexplained symptoms, even when, as is often the case, the diagnosis simply states the obvious in Latin or Greek. I quickly learned that physicians make treatment decisions with widely varying amounts of diagnostic certainty, often quite little, as when urgent treatment cannot await further investigation.
Why We Allow Big Pharma to Rip Us Off
Rober Reich
According to a new federal database put online last week, pharmaceutical companies and device makers paid doctors some $380 million in speaking and consulting fees over a five-month period in 2013.
Some doctors received over half a million dollars each, and others got millions of dollars in royalties from products they helped develop.
Doctors claim these payments have no effect on what they prescribe. But why would drug companies shell out all this money if it didn’t provide them a healthy return on their investment?
America spends a fortune on drugs, more per person than any other nation on earth, even though Americans are no healthier than the citizens of other advanced nations.
Of the estimated $2.7 trillion America spends annually on health care, drugs account for 10 percent of the total.
Government pays some of this tab through Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But we pick up the tab indirectly through our taxes.
We pay the rest of it directly, through higher co-payments, deductibles, and premiums.
Drug company payments to doctors are a small part of a much larger strategy by Big Pharma to clean our pockets.
Another technique is called “product hopping” —making small and insignificant changes in a drug whose patent is about to expire, so it’s technically new.
For example, last February, before its patent expired on Namenda, its widely used drug to treat Alzheimer’s, Forest Laboratories announced it would stop selling the existing tablet form of in favor of new extended-release capsules called Namenda XR.
A Chorus of Voices for Children’s Health Insurance
To the Editor:
Re “Children’s Insurance at a Crossroads” (editorial, Sept. 22):
As leaders of medical, health and advocacy organizations dedicated to the health and well-being of children, we could not agree more that Congress should extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, for four more years.
CHIP works so well for children because it’s intended for children. Unlike many private insurance plans, which are based on the health needs of adults, CHIP offers benefits that are age-appropriate, including dental coverage and access to mental health and substance abuse services, which aren’t always covered by a family’s employer-sponsored insurance.
It is vital that Congress act in the lame-duck session to renew CHIP for four more years. Delaying action will cause devastating ripple effects, both for state governments as they approach their legislative sessions uncertain how CHIP will fare, and for the millions of children and families who will lose coverage or otherwise be left without an affordable option.
As the reforms to our health care system take hold, CHIP should continue as a stable source of reliable, affordable coverage that works for children. Without action from Congress, CHIP’s future is far from certain.
JAMES M. PERRIN
Washington, Sept. 22, 2014
Washington, Sept. 22, 2014
The writer is president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The letter was also signed by the presidents of the Children’s Defense Fund, the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Dental Health Project, First Focus and the March of Dimes.
Income Inequality and Rising Health-Care Costs
A worker who today makes $30,000 has had to forsake a 26% salary increase since 1999 as employer costs rise.
A new Kaiser Family Foundation survey reports that health-insurance premiums rose by a “modest” 3% in 2013. Even more modest, however, was the 2.3% growth of workers’ earnings last year. These figures merely illustrate a long-term trend of rising health costs eating away at wages. The real story is even more dramatic: Government data show that health costs are the biggest driver of income inequality in America today.
Most employers pay workers a combination of wages and benefits, the most important of which is health…
States Still Wrestle With Exchange Issues From Last Year
In Washington state, officials are still trying to resolve billing and computer issues related to 1,300 accounts. In Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick says the problem-plagued website is now fixed and ready to go when enrollment opens Nov. 15, but at an additional cost of $26 million. And in Minnesota, a new plan enters the MNSure marketplace.
The Associated Press: 1,300 Health Exchange Accounts Still Have Problems
As Washington's health care exchange prepares for its second open enrollment period, officials were still trying to resolve billing and computer problems involving about 1,300 accounts from the previous round of sign-ups. Exchange officials began with about 24,000 problem accounts that were detected as people started to use their insurance earlier this year. "We have made substantial progress," said Brad Finnegan, associate operations director for Washington Healthplanfinder, who said the remaining billing problems should be resolved this week. He does not expect the same problems to pop up during the next round of sign-ups that begin Nov. 15 (Blankinship, 10/6).
As Washington's health care exchange prepares for its second open enrollment period, officials were still trying to resolve billing and computer problems involving about 1,300 accounts from the previous round of sign-ups. Exchange officials began with about 24,000 problem accounts that were detected as people started to use their insurance earlier this year. "We have made substantial progress," said Brad Finnegan, associate operations director for Washington Healthplanfinder, who said the remaining billing problems should be resolved this week. He does not expect the same problems to pop up during the next round of sign-ups that begin Nov. 15 (Blankinship, 10/6).
WBUR: Health Care Website Fix Cost Mass. Additional $26M, Patrick Says
With the next open enrollment period set for Nov. 15, Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday said the state’s troubled health care exchange website is fixed, at a cost of an additional $26 million to the state, bringing the federal and state total to $254 million in information technology costs. The $254 million covers calendar years 2011 to 2015, and is $80 million higher than the original $174 million estimate to build the site, according to a Patrick administration spokeswoman. The state’s share of the cost is $42 million, up from the original $16 million. In a September report, The Pioneer Institute, a think tank critical of the state’s efforts, estimated that taxpayers will have spent $600 million to implement a new health exchange, on top of $540 million for a temporary Medicaid program to insure residents who were prevented from signing up for health insurance due to problems with the website (Dumcius, 10/6).
With the next open enrollment period set for Nov. 15, Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday said the state’s troubled health care exchange website is fixed, at a cost of an additional $26 million to the state, bringing the federal and state total to $254 million in information technology costs. The $254 million covers calendar years 2011 to 2015, and is $80 million higher than the original $174 million estimate to build the site, according to a Patrick administration spokeswoman. The state’s share of the cost is $42 million, up from the original $16 million. In a September report, The Pioneer Institute, a think tank critical of the state’s efforts, estimated that taxpayers will have spent $600 million to implement a new health exchange, on top of $540 million for a temporary Medicaid program to insure residents who were prevented from signing up for health insurance due to problems with the website (Dumcius, 10/6).
StarTribune: Meidca Makes MNsure Play In Rochester
Medica is launching a new health insurance plan in the Rochester area that offers lower premiums if people primarily get their health care from the Mayo Clinic. For years, insurers have blamed high costs at Mayo for above-average insurance premiums across southeastern Minnesota, but Medica says good care coordination by Mayo doctors will let the insurer charge less for the new product, called "Medica With Mayo Clinic." "Premiums long have been higher in the Rochester area, and that’s really been driven by the providers in that area," said Dannette Coleman, a senior vice president with Medica. The company’s new health insurance plan "allows a single care system to be accountable for your health and wellness, and better coordinate all the services that you’re receiving" (Snowbeck, 10/6).
Medica is launching a new health insurance plan in the Rochester area that offers lower premiums if people primarily get their health care from the Mayo Clinic. For years, insurers have blamed high costs at Mayo for above-average insurance premiums across southeastern Minnesota, but Medica says good care coordination by Mayo doctors will let the insurer charge less for the new product, called "Medica With Mayo Clinic." "Premiums long have been higher in the Rochester area, and that’s really been driven by the providers in that area," said Dannette Coleman, a senior vice president with Medica. The company’s new health insurance plan "allows a single care system to be accountable for your health and wellness, and better coordinate all the services that you’re receiving" (Snowbeck, 10/6).
Meanwhile, in news about Medicaid expansion -
Obamacare Enrollment: Second Year An Even Tougher Challenge
By Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby
KHN Staff Writers
Alva, 28, works part-time at a video store and is about to graduate from Cal State Northridge. Getting insured is about the last thing on his mind.
"It's not a priority," the television and cinema arts student said. "I am not interested in paying for health insurance right now."
The second round of enrollment under the nation's Affordable Care Act promises to be tougher than the first. Many of those eager to get covered already did, including those with health conditions that had prevented them from getting insurance in the past.
About 30 million to 40 million people remain uninsured in the United States, according to various surveys.
"When you look at those who remain uninsured, they are in many ways harder to reach," said Anne Filipic, president of Enroll America, a nonprofit group that signs up consumers for new health coverage. "This is really about doubling down and reaching those folks who didn’t get the message the first time."
During the inaugural round, computer glitches and other missteps delayed sign-ups and created a political backlash. Yet more than 7.3 million people purchased health plans through new insurance marketplaces and nearly 8 million low-income people enrolled in Medicaid. The massive effort helped to bring the nation's uninsured rate down to its lowest level since 2008.
This time, states and the federal government aim to renew the people they signed up last year as well as add about 6 million currently uninsured residents to the exchanges and 4 million to the Medicaid rolls, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
And there's a time crunch – the second round of open enrollment lasts only three months, about half the time as before.
Canceled Health Plans: Round Two
KHN Staff Writer
Thousands of consumers who were granted a reprieve to keep insurance plans that don’t meet the federal health law’s standards are now learning those plans will be discontinued at year’s end, and they’ll have to choose a new policy, which may cost more.
Cancellations are in the mail to customers from Texas to Alaska in markets where insurers say the policies no longer make business sense. In some states, such as Maryland and Virginia, rules call for the plans’ discontinuations, but in many, federal rules allow the policies to continue into 2017.
Insurers sending the notices to some customers include Anthem, one of the largest insurers in the country, Baltimore-based CareFirst, Health Care Services Corporation in Chicago, Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., Humana in Louisville, Ky., and Golden Rule, an Indianapolis subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.
One reason behind the switch is that insurers determined they can make more money selling plans that comply with the Affordable Care Act, often at higher premiums that may be subsidized by the government.
“They’re getting a lot more revenue, often for the same person,” said consultant Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive.
Last year, similar cancellation letters sent to more than 2 million customers created a political firestorm for President Barack Obama, who had repeatedly promised that “if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.”
In response, the administration encouraged states to allow insurers to extend existing plans, even if they didn’t meet the health law’s standards. Both states and insurers had to agree to the deadline extension and not all did.
It is unclear how many consumers might be affected by the latest round of cancellations, happening in the weeks leading up to Election Day, which could play into the hands of the law’s critics.
'The Health Care System Falls Apart When You're A Complex Patient'
KHN Staff Writer
Jeffrey Brenner doesn’t believe in blaming a person for showing up at an emergency room for a cold or an ear infection, even if the illness could have been treated in a doctor’s office at much lower cost. Instead, he faults the health care system, and he wants to prove that if providers, employers and insurers work together more effectively, that person will stop going to the ER.
Brenner, a 2013 MacArthur Fellow and executive director of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, is testing this theory with a randomized controlled trial.Findings are due out in 2016.
The trial extends what the Coalition has been doing for years in hospitals and primary care offices that serve the low-income neighborhoods of Camden, N.J. For the past decade, the nonprofit has worked to bring together hospitals, physician offices and other providers to create programs to better coordinate care for the high proportion of Medicare and Medicaid patients in the region. Brenner’s team flags patients with multiple hospital visits -- the so-called “super utilizers” -- and sends a care coordinator to their bedside. The goal is to find out why they went to the hospital instead of a doctor’s office. Then, a nurse, a health coach and a social worker meet regularly with patients, and determine how to address their continuing needs.
Employer health plans also have super-utilizers who rack up medical bills, prompting some employers to experiment with ways to control these costs.
Brenner recently spoke with KHN’s Lisa Gillespie about the trial and the work still left to be done. An edited transcript of that conversation follows.
Q: Can you explain the randomized trial? What are you trying to show?
By Reuters,
Posted Oct. 07, 2014, at 4:06 p.m.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the biggest private-sector employer in the United States, said on Tuesday it was ending health care coverage for tens of thousands of part-time workers to cut costs in a move that could prompt other companies to follow suit.
The world’s largest retailer said it will stop offering health benefits for employees who work less than 30 hours per week, a change that will affect 2 percent of its U.S. workforce of about 1.3 million, or some 26,000 people.
Coverage will be discontinued from Jan. 1, 2015. On that date, the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, will require all companies employing 50 or more people to offer health insurance to those working at least 30 hours per week.
Wal-Mart flagged rising health care costs as a problem in August, when it cut its annual profit forecast. It said more people than expected had enrolled in its plans and said its annual forecast for health care costs had increased by 50 percent.
“Like every company, Wal-Mart continues to face rising health care costs,” Sally Welborn, senior vice president of global benefits, said in a blog on the company’s website. “This year, the expenses were significant and led us to make some tough decisions as we begin our annual enrollment.”
The move came a week before CEO Doug McMillion and other top executives are due to address fund managers and analysts at an annual meeting for the investment community. Wal-Mart has been struggling to boost profits, with same-store sales flat or declining for the past six quarters.
Brian Yarbrough, an analyst at Edward Jones, said the decision by Wal-Mart could force other retailers to rethink their offering such benefits, especially given tough competition in the industry.
All retailers are “trying to cut expenses, to keep things lean,” Yarbrough said. “At some point you start looking across the board, and this is probably the next place to start looking at cuts.”
Wal-Mart said the move will bring it in line with many competitors.
Among others, Wal-Mart cited Target Corp., which said in January it will stop offering coverage to part-time workers, and Home Depot Inc., which said in September it will shift coverage for part-time staff to public exchanges.
Brian J. Marcotte, president and CEO of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers on health issues, said many companies decided before the enactment of Obamacare not to provide health care coverage to part-time workers.
“It comes down to these very competitive industries like retail and hospitality that operate with very tight margins and have to make difficult decisions on health care costs.”
He said in some instances, these workers would be eligible for a spouse’s health care plan or to participate in a public exchange. Depending on their income, they might be eligible for a subsidy.
Wal-Mart’s Welborn told a conference call that the company had not yet figured out how much it would save by cutting benefits. The company said in August it expected to spend $500 million on U.S. health care this year, up from its estimate of $330 million just a few months earlier.
Wal-Mart also said Tuesday it will increase premiums for all of its U.S. employees in 2015. Premiums will increase by $3.50 to $21.90 per pay period for the most popular and lowest-cost employee-only plans.
Health Law Drug Plans Are Given a Check-Up
By KATIE THOMAS
When the new health insurance exchanges opened for business one year ago, whether they would succeed was a matter of fervent debate. Who would sign up? Would they know how to use their insurance? And would a flood of seriously ill patients overwhelm insurers, sending premiums skyrocketing and dooming the new law?
Two new studies are beginning to answer some of these questions by looking at prescription drugs, one of the most common ways that people use their health insurance.
Among the main findings of both studies: Those who signed up for coverage through the exchanges were more likely to be treated for serious conditions like H.I.V. and hepatitis C compared with people who were insured through their employers. They tended to be older, although one of the studies, by the pharmacy-benefits manager Express Scripts, found that larger numbers of young and healthy people signed up as the March 31 enrollment deadline approached. More broadly, those who signed up through the exchanges filled prescriptions at about the same rate as people who had employer coverage.
Both studies show the new members of the exchange plans are eagerly using their coverage. “They are getting out there and they are accessing it — they are going to their doctor and they are filling medications,” said Julie Huppert, vice president for health care reform at Express Scripts, which examined a national sample of five million drug claims made by exchange-plan members between January and July of this year. Express Scripts, which administers the prescription-drug benefit for about 30 percent of exchange plan members, plans to release its findings on Wednesday. “That is great news for patients, as well as for the insurance carriers.”
Insurers, policy experts and others are intensely interested in the health of those who are insured through the exchanges because it may help predict whether the new system will prosper or fail. If people who sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act are sicker than expected — as many feared they would be — their expensive medical bills could lead to higher premiums and ultimately doom the law.
Some of the studies’ findings show that many of those who signed up did, indeed, have serious medical conditions. “We originally suggested this may be a sicker population,” said Michael Showalter, chief marketing officer at Prime Therapeutics, another pharmacy-benefits manager, which has about 17 percent of the exchange market and recently conducted a similar analysis of drug claims. “What I can tell you officially today is that this really is a sicker population.”
Minimum Wage and Overtime Protections Are Delayed for Home-Care Workers
With numerous states pushing for a delay, the Obama administration announced Tuesday that it would put off enforcement of its plan to extend minimum-wage and overtime protections to the nation’s nearly two million home-care workers.
A year ago, the Labor Department announced that the wage protections would take effect nationwide Jan. 1, 2015, but the department said Tuesday that it would not enforce the rule for six months — from Jan. 1 to June 30. For the second six months of the year, the department said, it would “exercise its discretion” in whether to bring enforcement actions against any employers that decline to pay minimum wage or overtime.
Under the new rule, home-care workers would have to receive the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and time and a half when they work more than 40 hours a week. Numerous states, already facing budget strains, complained to the Obama administration about the cost.
Fifteen states have state minimum wage and overtime protections for home-care workers; six others and the District of Columbia require that they receive at least the minimum wage.
In announcing the rule in September 2013, Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez said, “Almost two million home-care workers are doing critical work, providing services to people with disabilities and senior citizens,” yet they are “lumped into the same category as babysitters.”
The new rule ends a 40-year-old exemption from federal wage laws that treated these workers as companions, like babysitters, who did not qualify.
British pharmacy chain launches online drugstore for Maine consumers
by Jackie Farwell
A British pharmacy chain has launched an online drugstore in Maine, taking advantage of a controversial first-in-the-nation law that allows Maine residents to buy medicines from some foreign countries.
Touting “British drugs at British prices,” the Great British Drugstore sells brand-name prescription medications by mail order at prices up to 70 percent lower than in the U.S. The company plans to announce its Maine launch on Wednesday afternoon at a news conference in Portland.
“What we’re trying to do is target people who need to access medicines who can’t afford them,” said Mary O’Brien, managing director for Great British Drugstore.
Operated by the British pharmacy company Weldricks, an independently owned chain with 61 locations throughout the United Kingdom, the site targets only Maine consumers.
While some Canadian pharmacies already market to Maine residents under the landmark law, Great British Drugstore is the first U.K.-based company making a big push in Maine.
Passed in June 2013, the law allows Maine residents to buy prescription drugs from Internet pharmacies in Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Supporters of the law contend it will lower Mainers’ health care costs by providing access to less expensive medications. Mainers face the fifth-highest health care expenditures in the country, spending $8,521 per capita each year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
But last fall, several Maine pharmacy organizations joined with a major pharmaceutical trade group to challenge the law, arguing it jeopardizes the safety of the nation’s prescription drug supply and opens the door to counterfeit and tainted medications. The lawsuit lost steam in May when a federal judge dismissed PhRMA, a national trade group representing drug companies, as a plaintiff.
The suit has continued, however, on the basis that the law allows unfair foreign competition. The plaintiffs seek to ultimately invalidate the law, which took effect on Oct. 9, 2013.
Kenneth McCall, president of the Maine Pharmacy Association, a party to the suit, urged Maine consumers to view the new site with skepticism. The National Association of Pharmacy Boards estimates that 98 percent of online pharmacies fail to meet U.S. standards, he said.
“Are you getting what your doctor prescribed?” he said. “There’s no guarantee here.”
Maine Hospitals Frustrated by 'Re-admission' Penalties
By PATTY WIGHT
ELLSWORTH, Maine - Over the past week, Medicare has issued penalties to a record number of U.S. hospitals that re-admitted patients within a month of initial treatment. Fifteen Maine hospitals are included in that mix. It's the third year that Medicare has issued penalties under the Affordable Care Act as a way to increase the quality of care and lower costs. But hospital officials say the numbers don't tell the whole story.
One Maine hospital that saw its Medicare penalty jump this year is Maine Coast Memorial in Ellsworth.
"You know, in 2014, we had no penalty, and the year before that we had a relatively small penalty. So the abrupt change took us a little off guard," says Maine Coast Memorial spokeswoman Patricia Patterson King.
King says staff are evaluating why the hospital was unexpectedly penalized this year. One possible explanation for the sudden spike is that Medicare has expanded the number of conditions it evaluates for re-admissions. This year, chronic lung problems and elective hip and knee replacements were added to heart attacks, heart failure, and pneumonia.
Medicare also increased the severity of the penalties. In Maine Coast Memorial's case, the penalty amounts to a 1.77 percent reduction in payment for each Medicare patient. Jeff Austin, of the Maine Hospital Association, says that adds up to a lot of money.
Still working toward health care for all
By the Editorial Board
The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Oct. 6, 2014
A Republican hospital consultant and university teacher wrote a Sunday Gazette-Mail analysis saying President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of Americans without medical insurance from 18 percent to 13 percent, so far.
That’s great — but those figures would be laughable in Canada, England or other advanced democracies where the share of uninsured citizens is zero.
Most modern nations regard health care as a human right for everyone. Eventually, we hope, America finally will join other civilized places with a complete safety net.
Many studies have reported that the United States has the world’s most expensive medical care — but an inferior level of health. Life expectancy and infant mortality are worse in America than in most advanced countries.
We think a Canada-style, government-run, “single payer” system is best, because it covers all and has power to reduce costs. It wipes out the expensive overhead of for-profit insurance firms that seek technicalities to duck medical bills.
“Per-capita, we spent $8,508 for health care in 2011,” the Republican medical expert wrote. “Canada came in at $4,522. The average … developed nation spent only $3,339 per-capita.”
Calling Canada’s plan Medicare-for-all, he added: “With our fragmented system, we spend 17.7 percent of our GDP on health care. … Australia, for instance, spends just 8.9 percent.”
If other nations are smart enough to provide care for everyone at greatly reduced cost, America’s leaders should be intelligent enough to do likewise.
Ever since presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, Washington has dreamed of universal coverage. President Obama won a bold step in that direction. But conservatives resisted, again and again.
Someday, we hope — if Democrats gain enough seats in Congress — America will join the intelligent, compassionate countries that make health care a human right for all.
http://www.pnhp.org/print/news/2014/october/still-working-toward-health-care-for-all
The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Oct. 6, 2014
A Republican hospital consultant and university teacher wrote a Sunday Gazette-Mail analysis saying President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of Americans without medical insurance from 18 percent to 13 percent, so far.
That’s great — but those figures would be laughable in Canada, England or other advanced democracies where the share of uninsured citizens is zero.
Most modern nations regard health care as a human right for everyone. Eventually, we hope, America finally will join other civilized places with a complete safety net.
Many studies have reported that the United States has the world’s most expensive medical care — but an inferior level of health. Life expectancy and infant mortality are worse in America than in most advanced countries.
We think a Canada-style, government-run, “single payer” system is best, because it covers all and has power to reduce costs. It wipes out the expensive overhead of for-profit insurance firms that seek technicalities to duck medical bills.
“Per-capita, we spent $8,508 for health care in 2011,” the Republican medical expert wrote. “Canada came in at $4,522. The average … developed nation spent only $3,339 per-capita.”
Calling Canada’s plan Medicare-for-all, he added: “With our fragmented system, we spend 17.7 percent of our GDP on health care. … Australia, for instance, spends just 8.9 percent.”
If other nations are smart enough to provide care for everyone at greatly reduced cost, America’s leaders should be intelligent enough to do likewise.
Ever since presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, Washington has dreamed of universal coverage. President Obama won a bold step in that direction. But conservatives resisted, again and again.
Someday, we hope — if Democrats gain enough seats in Congress — America will join the intelligent, compassionate countries that make health care a human right for all.
http://www.pnhp.org/print/news/2014/october/still-working-toward-health-care-for-all
No comments:
Post a Comment