Lessons from Vermont’s Health Care Reform — NEJM

 

Policymakers and stakeholders in other states can learn some lessons from Vermont regarding ACA reform. First, engaging stakeholders while providing transparency at each stage of reform builds support for transition efforts. Second, the adage “work smarter, not harder” applies to the enormous task of implementing health care reforms: a central board can coordinate all implementation efforts, reduce redundancy and bureaucracy, and improve transparency. Third, the development of a health insurance exchange presents opportunities for state-specific health care innovation. And finally, instead of resisting the inevitable federal reforms in the name of federalism, states may capitalize on federal financing opportunities to build new state health programs and realize cost savings.

Lessons from Vermont’s Health Care Reform — NEJM

Video Links: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

I did want to make these links available because they are really, really informative for the upcoming debate. The MP3s of these are still here.

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs WebCasts

September 12, 2008

“Access to Universal Health Care – Pt 1: Introductions, and Healthcare in New Jersey”
WM Video:
low high
RealVideo:
low high

Pt 1: WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS – Richard F. Keevey, Director, Policy Research Institute for the Region, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University – Daniel A. Notterman, MD, MA, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN NEW JERSEY – Senator Joseph Vitale, Senator and Chairman, Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, New Jersey State Senate – Heather Howard, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services – Christine Stearns, Vice President for Health and Legal Affairs, New Jersey Business and Industry Association

September 12, 2008
“Access to Universal Health Care – Pt 2: Healthcare Worldwide”
WM Video:
low high
RealVideo:
low high

Pt 2 UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WORLDWIDE – Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, James Madison Professor of Political Economy, Princeton University – Maggie Mahar, PhD, Fellow, The Century Foundation – Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, Chair, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health

September 12, 2008
“Access to Universal Health Care – Pt 3: Keynote”
Speaker(s): Len Nichols
WM Video:
low high
RealVideo:
low high

Pt 3 LUNCHEON SPEAKER – Len Nichols, PhD, Director, Health Policy Program, New America Foundation

September 12, 2008
“Access to Universal Health Care – Pt 4: Statewide Efforts”
WM Video:
low high
RealVideo:
low high

Pt 4 UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN THE NATION – THE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIENCE & OTHER STATEWIDE EFFORTS – Nancy Turnball, PhD, Associate Dean for Educational Policy, Harvard School of Public Health – Merrill Matthews, Jr., PhD, Director, Council for Affordable Health Insurance, Washington DC – Brian Rosman, Director of Research, Health Care for All

Health Care Reform Podcasts

5 Podcasts on Healthcare Reform found at the University Channel Web Site

Access to Universal Health Care Pt 1: New Jersey (Podcasts/Podcasts)
…Daniel A. Notterman, MD, MA, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN NEW JERSEY – Senator Joseph Vitale, Senator and Chairman, Health, Human Servi…

Access to Universal Health Care Pt 2: Worldwide (Podcasts/Podcasts)
Pt 2 UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WORLDWIDE – Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, James Madison Professor of Political Economy, Princeton University – Maggie Mahar, PhD, Fellow, The Century Foundation –

Access to Universal Health Care Pt 3: Keynote (Podcasts/Podcasts)
Pt 3 LUNCHEON SPEAKER – Len Nichols, PhD, Director, Health Policy Program, New America Foundation

Access to Universal Health Care Pt 4: Statewide Efforts (Podcasts/Podcasts)
Pt 4 UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN THE NATION – THE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIENCE & OTHER STATEWIDE EFFORTS – Nancy Turnball, PhD, Associate Dean for Educational Policy, Harvard School of Pub

How the Next President Can Deliver on Healthcare Reform (Podcasts/Podcasts)
…ive Vice President for Policy, AARP; Robert Moffit, Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation; Joanne Silberner, Health Policy Correspondent, National Public Radio (Sep 26, 2008 at the National Pr…

For this last one, I highly recommend watching the Video so you can see Uwe Reinhardt’s slides.

I will give them a listen soon, but didn’t want to lose the links…

Editorial – The Massachusetts Model for Health Care – Editorial – NYTimes.com

Editorial – The Massachusetts Model for Health Care – Editorial – NYTimes.com:

“The chief criticism, however, is that costs have risen faster than the original projections, forcing the state to raise its spending estimates for the current fiscal year from $472 million to $625 million and from $725 million to $869 million for next year. The shortfall occurred mostly because the state underestimated the number of uninsured residents and how fast low-income people would sign up for subsidized coverage. It is a warning to other states to keep projections realistic.

The key challenge will be to keep costs under control and find new sources of revenue while maintaining widespread support for the program. How well Massachusetts handles that challenge will determine whether its pioneering health plan falls into a financial pit or points the way toward universal coverage.”

Here are the Letters in response.

NJ: Universal health care momentum

Universal health care momentum

Article from Physican News Digest regarding the New Jersey plan for increasing access to health insurance. Uses a combination of programs as seems to be the current trend. Tries to make a patch work quilt to cover most citizens.

Interestingly, there is a quote from the Medical Society of New Jersey, who “developed a policy statement on principles of coverage of the uninsured. The policy states that New Jersey must take an active role in providing coverage for the uninsured.”

I will try to find out more specifics on the program and link to it here.

AMNews: June 2, 2008. Individual health insurance: Are mandates ready for prime time? … American Medical News

AMNews: June 2, 2008. Individual health insurance: Are mandates ready for prime time? … American Medical News:

“Last fall, Laura Allen didn’t think Massachusetts’ law requiring everyone to have health insurance would affect her life. She had a customer service job at a rubber stamp company that provided coverage.

But then the 42-year-old Easton, Mass., resident was told she would be laid off before the end of the year. And the new state law imposed a $200 tax penalty on anyone uninsured on Dec. 31, 2007.”

An overview of mandated insurance coverage from Massachusetts to California to the Federal proposal.

But scrolll way down for the public opinion table showing 68% support for mandated insurance:

“The majority of Americans favor the concept of requiring everyone to have health insurance, with government help for those who can’t afford it, according to a June-October 2007 poll of 3,500 adults.
Strongly favor 40%
Somewhat favor 28%
Somewhat oppose 12%
Strongly oppose 13%
Don’t know/refused to answer 7%

Source: Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey”

Drawing Lots for Health Care -[Oregon] New York Times

Drawing Lots for Health Care – New York Times:

“Last month, right after he had the heart attack and then the heart surgery and then started receiving the medical bills that so far have topped $200,000, Melvin Tsosies joined the 91,000 other residents of Oregon who had signed up for a lottery that provides health insurance to people who lack it.

Melvin Tsosies is among Oregonians who signed up for a health insurance lottery. “They said they’re going to draw names, and if I’m on that list, then I’ll get health care,” said Mr. Tsosies, 58, a handyman here in booming Deschutes County. “So I’m just waiting right now.”

Despite the great hopes of people like Mr. Tsosies, only a few thousand of Oregon’s 600,000 uninsured residents are likely to benefit from the lottery anytime soon. The program has only enough money to pay for about 24,000 people, and at least 17,000 slots are already filled.”

further down…

“Oregon once sought to serve a far larger population of those in need.
It has been more than a decade since the innovative Oregon Health Plan became a forerunner of state health care reform as it pursued universal health coverage. Conceived on a restaurant napkin in the late 1980s, the program had by 1996 reduced the number of the uninsured to about 11 percent of all residents, down from more than 18 percent in 1992. But then, early in this decade, the state endured a wrenching recession.
“Oregon was way ahead of everyone else,” said Charla DeHate, the interim executive director of Ochoco Health Systems. “And then we went broke.” “

Top o’ the world, Ma!

State (MA) health plan underfunded – The Boston Globe

State health plan underfunded – The Boston Globe:

“The state’s new subsidized health insurance program will cost ‘significantly’ more than the $869 million Governor Deval Patrick proposed in his 2009 budget just two months ago, the state’s top financial official said yesterday, after insurers were granted an increase of about 10 percent.

To close the gap, the Patrick administration has asked insurers, hospitals, healthcare advocates, and business leaders to propose ways to cut costs and raise revenue. During two closed-door meetings in the last two weeks, several dozen proposals have been put forward, including raising assessments on insurers, hospitals, and businesses. The goals are to solve the short-term funding problem for next year and ensure the long-term survival of the state’s near-universal health insurance initiative.

Leslie Kirwan, secretary of administration and finance, declined yesterday to discuss specifics of the proposals or the size of the budget gap, but said that without changes, the state doesn’t expect ‘to be able to live within’ the proposed budget.”

(Phila.) Evening Bulletin – Single-Payer Health Plan Considered

The Evening Bulletin – Inside Today’s Bulletin – 03/20/2008 – Single-Payer Health Plan Considered:

“Gov. Ed Rendell (D) chiefly advocates a different plan that would subsidize health insurance for roughly 800,000 state residents who lack it. A portion of the plan that would cover Pennsylvanians who earn up to 200 percent of the poverty income level passed the state House Monday. That measure alone would cost an estimated $1.1 billion by 2013.

The nonprofit Healthcare for All Pennsylvanians wants to go even further by backing a single-payer system, noting that all other industrialized countries have opted for universal health care.

‘Eighty-seven nations and our own Medicare system can’t be wrong,’ said Healthcare for All Pennsylvanians executive director Chuck Pennacchio. ‘In fact, they demonstrate clearly that the only proven method for delivering quality, comprehensive, affordable health care for all is through a single-payer model. In the case of [this legislation], health care delivery is to be publicly funded and privately provided. Everybody in, nobody out. Period.’

But the question remains: How much care will residents demand, and how much will they pay to acquire it?”

Most Minnesota doctors like single-payer health care, academic study finds | Twin Cities Daily Planet | Minneapolis – St. Paul

Most Minnesota doctors like single-payer health care, academic study finds Twin Cities Daily Planet Minneapolis – St. Paul:

“In his years as a physician, he has seen a sharp change in how physicians look at health care. “Having lunch with other doctors used to mean listening to conservatives griping about the government. Now lunchroom talk is that single-payer would be a good idea,” said Adair.

A recent survey through the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College found that 64 percent of Minnesota’s physicians support a single-payer system much like the Minnesota Health Plan. Another 25 percent said that health savings accounts were the way to go, and only 12 percent thought that the current system of managed care was adequate.

“I personally feel very angry and frustrated when I know my patients are not getting the care that they deserve,” said Dr. Elizabeth Frost, a supporter of the Minnesota Health Plan. “I hate saying to people, ‘you need this test or this study,’ all the while knowing they don’t have insurance and likely don’t have a lot of savings either.”

Of the reasons that a single-payer system is so attractive to the majority of physicians in Minnesota is that the current multi-payer, managed-care system often gets in the way of physicians’ ability to provide the care that they swore an oath to provide.”

The following point is also made:

“Because of [these] barriers people often under-use the system, “as opposed to the overuse that people erroneously cite as a significant problem in the current system,” said Settgast. “This under-use leads to unnecessary human suffering and also financial waste because the cost of caring for a patient with a stroke far exceeds the cost of effectively managing someone’s high blood pressure.”

Please click on “Moral Hazard” (along the right of this blog) to see more about that last point. But the bigger point is true in my expereince too: physicians are tired of this “system” we now have and are ready to take a chance on change. It would make an interesting poll for the AMA to undertake…

UPDATE: The findings section of the paper, from Minnesota Medicine.
Findings A majority of respondents (72%) were male with a median medical school graduation year of 1979. Nearly half (46%) practiced primary medicine, followed by medical specialty (35%), surgical specialty (12%), and general surgery (6%). More than three-quarters (79%) worked in a metropolitan setting, and nearly two-thirds (65%) practiced in a clinic.
Of the 390 respondents who answered the question about which financing system would offer the best health care to the greatest number of people for a fixed amount of money, 64% said they favor a single-payer financing system, 25% preferred HSAs, and only 12% preferred managed care (Figure 1). Figures 2, 3 and 4 offer a closer look at who prefers those financing structures by sex, geographic location, specialty, and type of practice.
A single-payer system was favored by women physicians over men (female, 76%; male, 59%; p=.003); more male physicians than female preferred HSAs (male, 30%; female, 16%; p=.004). The percentage of male respondents who favored the current managed care system slightly exceeded that of female physicians (12% versus 9%; p=.553).
Geographic setting was also significantly associated across the 3 choices. Urban physicians favored a single-payer system over their rural and suburban colleagues (71%, 60%, and 54%, respectively; p=.009). Rural physicians preferred HSAs over suburban and urban physicians (34%, 32%, 17%; p=.002). Managed care garnered less than 15% support overall, with 14% of suburban physicians, 12% of urban doctors, and 6% of rural respondents favoring it; p=.217). Thus, urban physicians had the most support for a single-payer system and the least for managed care. Rural physicians were relatively enthusiastic for HSAs but least supportive of managed care.
When looking at physicians’ responses across medical specialty, those practicing primary medicine most favored a single-payer system (74%); general surgeons least favored such a system (36%). Conversely, general surgeons most favored HSAs (55%), and primary medicine physicians least favored them (20%). Managed care found greatest support among physicians who practiced a medical or surgical specialty (17% each) and the least among those who practiced primary medicine (6%). Of those who favored managed care, the significant split was specialists over generalists (17% and 7%; p=.001).
Physicians also were asked who should be responsible for providing access to health care. Nearly all (86%) believed it is the responsibility of society through government to ensure access to good medical care for all, regardless of ability to pay. Only 41% held that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in medical care financing and delivery.
Using a regression model, we found that physicians who agreed that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure access to medical care were significantly more likely to favor a single-payer financing system (OR 13.51; CI 2.85, 64.15; p=.001). Those who believed the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing medical care were significantly less likely to favor a government-run system (OR 3.45; CI 1.35, 8.33; p=.009