Pages

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Health Care Reform Articles - May 4, 2014

The Stealthy, Ugly Growth of Corporatized Medicine

Tuesday, 29 April 2014 10:24By Yves SmithNaked Capitalism | Op-Ed
Yves here. We’ve written a great deal about Obamacare, since it epitomizes so much about what is wrong with contemporary America: the use of complexity to mask looting, the creation of two-tier systems, the crapification of the underlying service, which in this case is vitally important to society as a whole.
But Obamacare also needs to be recognized as a big step forward in a process that was already well underway, which is to convert the practice of medicine from a patient-oriented to a profit-driven exercise. This is perverse because medicine is so highly valued that medical practitioners almost always enjoy high status and at least decent incomes in most societies. And in societies undergoing breakdown, being a doctor is about the safest place to be, provided you can manage to avoid becoming aligned with the wrong warring faction.
But what is going on in the US is a type of under-the-radar enclosure movement. Doctors historically have been small businessmen, either operating solo or in a group practice. But big corporations see their profits as another revenue opportunity, and have become increasingly adept at making it so hard for them to operate independently that becoming part of the corporatized medicine apparatus looks like the least bad of the available options.
We warned last year that current institutional efforts to regiment doctors undermine the caliber of medical care. It has become distressingly common for HMOs and other medical enterprises to have business-school trained managers putting factory-style production parameters on doctor visits. Outside of foreclosure mills, it’s hard to find similar approaches in other professions.
Doctors are already being told of the Brave New World that is about to be visited on them. One account came from Whole Health Chicago. The writer, Dr. David Edelberg, describes a recent presentation by a large insurance company. They’ve apparently been hosting similar sessions with physicians in the Chicago area in large medical practices. Here are the key bits (emphasis original):
The speaker at these evenings is always a physician employed by the insurance company. His/her title is medical director (I begin to think there must be dozens and dozens on their payroll) and he always begins by reassuring the audience that he was in clinical practice himself so he understands something of what physicians–especially primary care physicians–are facing. I view this physician more as a “Judas steer,” the animal that leads an innocent but doomed herd of cattle through the slaughterhouse corridors to the killing floor.
• The health industry hopes that individual medical practices and small medical groups will ultimately disappear from the landscape by being financially absorbed into larger groups owned by hospital systems.
And here’s what you as patient should expect:
Physicians are expected to spend a limited amount of time with each patient, and are encouraged to see as many patients as possible during a workday. The insurance companies, sometimes with the token cooperation of a few physician-employees, create vast books of patient-care guidelines to which they believe their physicians must be “accountable” (remember this word, it will crop up again). These guidelines might mean documented Pap smear and mammogram frequency, weight management and exercise, colonoscopies for patients over 50, and getting that evil LDL (bad cholesterol) below 99 by any means possible…
If the chart audit system discovers that a physician, for whatever reason, is an “outlier”–that she’s either not following the guidelines exactly or not getting the results anticipated for her patient population—she’ll be financially penalized. A quick example of what might occur: if your LDL is 115, you may be on the receiving end of a statin sales pitch from your doctor, not because bringing it down to 99 will improve your longevity, but because your refusal to do so will impact her financial bottom line.
Now how are doctors being forced into this horrible position? The big one, as the update below states, is cost pressures. I guarantee one big source is the cost of dealing with insurers, both government and corporate. One culprit is Medicare, but I strongly suspect you see similar patterns with private insurance.

Ask Well: Triglycerides and Heart Disease


 

Are high triglycerides an independent risk factor for heart disease? My overall cholesterol is about 150, although the ratio could be better.

Reader Question • 58 votes
A
High levels of triglycerides — a type of fat that circulates in your bloodstream — can signal an increased risk of heart disease, but not always. It depends on why they are elevated in the first place, said Dr. James A. Underberg, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and the director of the Bellevue Hospital Lipid Clinic.
The American Heart Association sets the normal threshold for triglycerides at 150 milligrams per deciliter of blood. Some people have a genetic disorder that causes their levels to climb above 1,000, which puts them at risk for complications like pancreatitis, “but they don’t seem at risk for heart disease,” Dr. Underberg said.
Triglycerides can also rise as a side effect of certain medications, as well as from obesity and increased alcohol consumption.
Many people with Type 2 diabetes or at risk for it have a syndrome called “diabetic dyslipidemia” characterized by high triglycerides and a low concentration of “protective” HDL cholesterol. Levels of LDL, or “bad” cholesterol, may be normal in these people, but often they have a plethora of small, dense LDL particles that contribute to inflammation and raise heart disease risk.
While some studies cite high triglycerides as an independent risk factor for heart disease, others suggest it is hard to separate the impact of triglycerides from other factors. In a large analysis of studies published in Circulation in 2007, for example, researchers found a strong association between high triglycerides and coronary heart disease. But taking into account factors like HDL levels weakened the association between triglycerides and cardiovascular risk.

When It Comes To Health Care, There Are 2 Americas, And These Maps Are Proof

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Health Care Reform Articles - May 1, 2014


There’s a last chance for 70,000 to gain health coverage, and reasons against it don’t stand up

Republicans in the Maine Legislature have one last chance this year to deliver on health coverage for the state’s poorest residents.
On Thursday, when the House and Senate reconvene to take up a slew of vetoes from Gov. Paul LePage, lawmakers will have two veto letters before them nixing separate plans to expand Maine’s Medicaid program under the federal Affordable Care Act.
It’s long past time for lawmakers to take up the federal government on its offer to assume nearly all costs of expanding coverage to tens of thousands of Maine adults without children who are newly eligible for Medicaid under the federal health care law — if only Maine lawmakers agree to it.
We’re not naive enough to expect a dramatically different result on an issue that’s crossed these same legislators’ desks five times. But we’re not willing to let two more opportunities to insure 70,000 low-income Maine residents — so they can responsibly manage chronic conditions, access cost-saving treatments for addiction or visit a doctor without breaking the bank — pass by unnoticed.
One of the two pending Medicaid expansion proposals, from House Speaker Mark Eves, D-North Berwick, would use federal assistance so low-income childless adults could, starting in July 2015, purchase qualified private insurance coverage through Maine’s online health insurance exchange. (They would receive conventional Medicaid coverage until then.) The 15,000 parents who would qualify for expanded coverage would receive conventional Medicaid coverage.
The legislation is modeled after a bill passed in neighboring New Hampshire, which cleared a Republican-controlled Senate. The approach of using Medicaid expansion funds to buy private insurance was spearheaded in Arkansas under Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe and a Republican legislature.
The bill Eves has proposed isn’t perfect. Research has repeatedly found that health spending is higher overall with private insurance than with Medicaid. Other research has shown premiums and significant cost-sharing responsibilities have caused low-income enrollees to withdraw from health insurance coverage.
By relying on private insurance, Eves’ bill runs those risks. However, the bill leaves many details to be determined after it becomes law, meaning a deliberately designed, well thought-out program can mitigate those risks.
Predictably, LePage and his allies have latched onto yet another spurious argument to undermine support for yet another Medicaid expansion proposal meant to address Republican concerns about the expansion of a public health insurance program.
LePage declared in an April 17 news release that the Arkansas expansion model “is suffering enormous cost overruns into the millions of dollars,” and that state’s taxpayers will be responsible.
Indeed, Arkansas officials negotiated per-person budget caps with the federal government to secure approval for using Medicaid expansion funds to purchase private health insurance. And those costs have run ahead of projections in the first months of the program.
paper cited by LePage, from the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, claims spending could exceed negotiated projections by $6.6 million-$16.6 million this year if current trends persist.
But Arkansas taxpayers only are liable if Medicaid expansion’s costs exceed projections over a three-year term, giving Arkansas officials more than two-and-a-half years to rein in costs. One way they’re doing that is by restricting add-on benefits many private plans offered in the first year.
In addition, the terms of the deal Arkansas struck with the federal government grant the state flexibility to adjust those cost projections upward to more closely match actual costs.
While Medicaid expansion opponents continue to try to instill budget-busting fears in policymakers’ minds, a revised analysis from the Congressional Budget Office actually projects that, overall, states will assume a smaller share of the expansion’s costs than the office previously projected. They’ll end up spending 34 percent less between 2015 and 2024 than previously thought, according to the analysis.
As with past expansion attempts that have passed the Maine Legislature, the reasons against this expansion proposal wither away upon closer inspection. Meanwhile, the budgetary clock ticks down on a unique chance to provide life-changing health coverage to 70,000 people at minimal cost.


Maine Legislature Sustains Veto of Medicaid Expansion Bills

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine lawmakers have failed again to override Republican Gov. Paul LePage's vetoes of bills that would expand Medicaid under the federal health care law.
The Senate voted 21-14 in favor of overturning LePage's rejection of Senate Democratic Leader Troy Jackson's Medicaid expansion bill, falling three votes short of the two-thirds majority support it needed to survive.
The House also voted 94-53 to sustain the veto of Democratic House Speaker Mark Eves' bill. It would have directed Maine to seek permission from the federal government to use the Medicaid funds to provide private health insurance on the federal exchange.
Democrats say the failure to expand will leave thousands without access to affordable coverage. But LePage and GOP lawmakers say the expansion will be too costly.


The Canadian health care system I disparaged

Single-payer regime up north represents a better way

By Wendell Potter
The Center for Public Integrity, April 28, 2014
When I returned home after a two-week speaking tour of Canada and began catching up on news about Obamacare, I was angry and upset, and not just at politicians and special interests that benefit from deception-based PR tactics. I was — and still am — mostly angry and upset with myself. And I know I always will be.
Over the course of a two-decade career as a health insurance executive, I spent hours and hours implementing my industry’s ongoing propaganda campaign to mislead people about the Canadian health care system. We spread horror stories about “rationed care” and long waiting times for medically necessary care. Our anecdotes were not at all representative of most Canadians’ experiences, but we spent millions of dollars to persuade Americans that they were.
At every stop between Halifax and Vancouver this month, I explained how the United States had achieved the dubious distinction of having both the most expensive health care system on the planet and also one of the most inequitable. While Canadian lawmakers in the 1960s were implementing a partnership between the federal and provincial governments to create the country’s publicly funded universal health insurance system — known as Medicare — our lawmakers in Washington were establishing America’s own single-payer Medicare program, but only for folks 65 and older and some younger disabled people. Congress also created the federal and state-administered Medicaid program for the nation’s poor.
Ever since, most of the rest of us have had to deal with private insurance companies and pay whatever they felt like charging us for coverage. Canadians are also paying more for coverage these days because of medical inflation and an aging population, but not nearly as much more as we in the U.S. are paying. Just about everybody in every audience I stood before gasped when I told them that health insurance premiums in the U.S. increased 131 percent between 1999 and 2009 — the main reason why 50 million of us were uninsured at the end of the last decade — and that by 2013 the average employer-based family policy cost $16,351.
At one stop in Toronto, I was asked if there was anything about the U.S. system that Canadians should consider adopting. I was stumped. I noted that while we had some of the world’s best doctors and hospitals, they were in many cases off-limits to millions of Americans, many of whom were uninsured because of preexisting conditions that made them “uninsurable” in the eyes of private insurance companies.
Later, on reflection, I realized I should have mentioned some aspects of our Medicare system and our other single-payer program — the Veterans Health Administration — both of which consistently out-perform private insurers in customer satisfaction surveys.
http://www.pnhp.org/print/news/2014/april/the-canadian-health-care-system-i-disparaged

The Problem With Free Health Care