Category Archives: Medicare

The Real Danger of Socialized Medicine by Niko Karvounis

Posted on by

Last week The Washington Post ran a good opinion piece by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at NIH (and brother of Congressman Rahm Emanuel) on the insidiousness of labeling any and all positions on health care apart from free market fundamentalism as being “socialized” medicine, doomed to failure.

Emanuel notes that “ ‘socialized medicine’ is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government…” As Emanuel rightly points out, none of the universal coverage proposals being debated in the U.S. today “can be characterized as socialized medicine. None calls for government ownership or control over U.S. hospitals, drugstores or home health agencies, or for making doctors employees of the federal or state governments.”

This is right on the money—maybe even more so than Emanuel intends. Opponents of “socialized” medicine are wrong three times over: not only do most reformers not want socialized medicine, but even European health care systems (often used as examples of socialized medicine) do not meet the criteria outlined above. Further, publicly-run health care carries with it some significant benefits that are evident right here in the U.S.

To dispel the myth of monolithic government-run European health care, look no further than Germany, where most of the population (88%) receives health care through “sickness funds"–non-profit, third-party pools of money devoted to health services. Sickness funds are built on the principle of “subsidized self-governance”: they receive public funding, but the funds must be financially self-sufficient (i.e. be able to govern themselves) and also allow a high degree of freedom on the part of patients and doctors (the former can choose their doctors and hospitals, and the latter have much flexibility in treatments).

Continue reading →

Race and Health Care: Dimensions of Inequity by Niko Karvounis

Posted on by

Yesterday I talked a little about segregation of patients by race in NYC hospitals, and noted how this is likely a problem repeated across the nation. Wonder no more: a 2006 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) analyzed about 719,000 Californians who had received a wide range of complex surgeries. The authors found that blacks, Latinos, and Asians were far less likely to get these operations done at high-volume hospitals, which tend to have better outcomes for complex surgeries. (After all, practice makes perfect).

If you’re white, you’re more likely to receive care at high-volume, better-performing hospitals. This is bad in and of itself; but unfortunately, discrimination continues beyond the level of medical institutions and into the level of individual doctors. A 2004 study in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the primary care experience of Medicare patients, specifically looking at 150, 391 visits by black and white Medicare beneficiaries for “medical evaluation and management who were seen by 4355 primary care physicians.” Here is what they found:

“Most black patients were confined to a small group of physicians (80 percent of visits were accounted for by 22 percent of physicians) who provided only a small percentage of care to white patients. In a comparison of visits by white patients and black patients, we found that the physicians whom the black patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians visited by the white patients (86.1 percent) and also more likely to report that they were unable to provide high-quality care to all their patients (27.8 percent vs.19.3 percent).

Continue reading →

HILLARY CLINTON’S NEW PLAN

Posted on by

   I have written two posts analyzing Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. You will find them on www.tpmcafe.com (where I am a contributor). You can comment there.

   

    

Jacob Hacker on “Sicko” –and Employer-Based Insurance

Posted on by

You know that Michael Moore’s “Sicko” is being taken seriously by the medical community when you see it reviewed in The New England Journal of Medicine. The issue that came online last week contains Jacob Hacker’s take on the film—as well as his prescription for national health care reform.

Hacker calls the first half of the film “ruthlessly efficient,” declaring that, “along with Al Gore’s global-warming warning, An Inconvenient Truth, Sicko may well be remembered as our generation’s Silent Spring or The Jungle — propaganda, in the best sense of the word, that pricks our collective conscience about problems that are hidden in plain sight.”

But as a political scientist (Yale) and New America Foundation fellow, Hacker is dissatisfied that, in the second half, Moore doesn’t offer a better solution to the crisis. This may be asking a bit much of Moore. My theory is that a film-maker, like any other artist, need only raise the right questions, (however abstractly), spurring his audience to think—and to imagine.

That said, Hacker’s point that Moore ignores the best model for reform by never mentioning Medicare is a good one: “He talks about the post office, the fire department, public education — but not the one public program that most resembles the ‘free universal health care’ he extols.

“That’s too bad,” says Hacker, “because the Medicare model is the not-so-secret weapon in the campaign for affordable health care for all. Today, many advocates of national health insurance have wisely started calling for Medicare for All’ rather than their old rallying cry, ‘Single Payer.’”

Hacker’s right. To many Americans, “single payer” evokes images of long lines—not to mention the Specter of Socialism. Medicare, on the other hand, represents the Promised Land –that point in time when you no longer have to worry about whether or not you have health insurance, or whether it will cover what you need. Medicare is hardly perfect, but not a few seniors breathe a huge sigh of relief when they finally find themselves in the warm embrace of the second-most-popular federal program in the U.S. (Social Security comes first.)

But Hacker doesn’t think we’re ready for “Medicare for All.” Instead, he suggests that “For now, the best step may be to require employers either to provide their workers with good private coverage or to enroll them, at a modest cost, in a new public program modeled after Medicare. Workers enrolled in this new public framework could be asked to pay a modest premium on top of employers’ contributions, based on their income, and they could be allowed to enroll in qualified private plans — as people with Medicare coverage can today. No doubt many employers would seize the opportunity to obtain inexpensive coverage for their workers, which would give the new public insurance plan a large, diverse enrollment and a great deal of leverage to contain costs and improve care.”

Continue reading →

Screening for Prostate Cancer: Before Medicare Pays, Patients Need to Know More About Risks

Posted on by

Roughly two-thirds of all men on Medicare are screened for prostate cancer. Most feel they have no choice. After all, this year more than 27,000 American men are likely to die of the disease. When men are asked about their fear of cancer, a survey from the Harvard Risk Management Foundation reveals that prostate ranks at the top of the list. Colon cancer, which kills roughly as many men in the U.S. each year, ranks number seven. There is something about prostate cancer that pushes buttons. No wonder so many men sign up for the “PSA” test which measures levels of prostate-specific antigen in the blood.
But the truth is that current research offers no proof that widespread screening and early diagnosis saves lives. What we do know is that patients who are tested and treated may suffer life-changing side effects that outweigh the uncertain benefits of early detection.

In June the National Cancer Institute made its position clear: “Screening tests are able to detect prostate cancer at an early stage, but it is not clear whether this earlier detection and consequent earlier treatment leads to any change in the natural history and outcome of the disease.” The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force agrees.

Continue reading →

UnitedHealth Care vs. the Kids

Posted on by

Wednesday night, the House voted 225–209 to pass a bill that would, in the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, “steal nearly $50 billion from Medicare Advantage, the innovative attempt to bring private competition to senior health care” in order to beef up the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a program that delivers health care to poor children.

SCHIP is scheduled to expire September 30; the House bill would renew the program while expanding it to include another 5.1 million children at a cost of an extra $50 billion over five years. The bill’s backers propose to fund the legislation by increasing the federal cigarette tax by 45 cents while simultaneously paring the premium that Medicare pays private insurers who provide Medicare to seniors. The goal of the bill, reformers say, is to ensure that all children in the United States have health insurance. The Wall Street Journal’s editors see things otherwise: “Democrats apparently want to starve any private option for Medicare,” the editorial concluded.

Rupert Murdoch hasn’t yet weighed in, so I decided to take a look at the proposal. Would the legislation really make it impossible for private sector insurers to continue to offer needed benefits to seniors?
I began by looking at insurers’ finances only to discover that the health care insurance industry is, in fact, facing rough weather ahead. While the cost of providing health care continues to climb, more and more employers are backing away from providing health care benefits for their employees. Others are raising premiums and co-pays to a point that some workers can’t afford to participate in the plans. This means that insurers are losing customers.

As a result, one might expect that insurers’ profits would be falling. One would be wrong

Continue reading →

Wall Street, Cancer and the FDA: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Only in America do physicians who evaluate new drugs need bodyguards. You may have read about the brouhaha surrounding Provenge, a vaccine designed to extend the lives of men suffering from late-stage prostate cancer. In March, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel voted 13 to 4 to recommend approval. The next day, shares of Dendreon, the drug’s sponsor, doubled. But shareholders did not celebrate for long. Two of the dissenting votes were cast by the panel’s two prostate cancer specialists: Sloan-Kettering’s Howard Scher and the University of Michigan’s Maha Hussain. And they did not just vote “no”—following the hearing, both wrote to the FDA arguing that Dendreon offered no solid evidence that Provenge works.
   
The FDA listened. And in May it told the company it wouldn’t approve the drug until it had more data. That is when the two oncologists began receiving threatening e-mails, phone calls, and letters. Many were anonymous

Continue reading →