COMMENTARY | David W. Greenwald, M.D.: Citizens deserve universal health care | Opinion | timesleader.com – The Times Leader

COMMENTARY David W. Greenwald, M.D.: Citizens deserve universal health care Opinion timesleader.com – The Times Leader

A very nicely done speech making the case for single payer. Early on, I thought he was going to advocate for a more “sickness fund” or Bismarckian style system, but then he comes around nicely to advocating “Medicare for All” single payer healthcare.

I especially like the early reference to Jewish Law and its obligation for us to care for the sick. I don’t think this is at variance with any major religious or philisophical school of thought. Most religious people seem to accept the obligation, but will insist it rests within the church to meet it, refusing to consider it a societal obligation on ideological grounds.

So, a shout out to to Dr. Greenwald, another Pennsylvanian speaking out for the cause.

Jackson & Coker’s 2008 Physician Compensation Survey

Survey Results Page:

“Jackson & Coker’s 2008 Physician Compensation Survey”

Always interesting to see what people are making, and more interesting to see how they feel about it.

From my perspective, I will only offer that physicians, on the whole, work very hard and under very stressful conditions. I think we perceive others in our income range, and (horrors), those making loads more, as not having payed their dues as we have and continue to do…

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”

S.E.C. Backs Health Care Balloting – NYTimes.com

S.E.C. Backs Health Care Balloting – NYTimes.com:

“WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission, shifting its position, has told companies they must allow shareholders to vote on a proposal for universal health insurance coverage.

Shareholders, including religious groups and labor unions, have offered the proposal in an effort to draw the nation’s largest corporations deeper into a debate over the future of health care, fast emerging as one of the most important issue in domestic policy.

The S.E.C. has told Boeing, General Motors, United Technologies, Wendy’s International and Xcel Energy over the last several months that they may not omit the health care proposal from their proxy materials.”

An interesting approach. I am not surprised to hear many companies’ officers arguing that this is neither related to their business nor useful, but they are wrong on both counts. As the article points out, some major companies are already finally coming to grips with the fact that health care in the US is hurting their competitiveness and profitablilty, so it does matter to every business, no matter what your core business is. And it will become extrememly useful when companies’ managers finally get around to rejecting their juvenile, knee-jerk response that health care system reform is always bad, and that when the Fortune 1000 push an issue, the government listens. Of course, quite a bit of the Fortune 1000 have vested stakes in the status quo, but the vast majority of us have an interest in serious reform.

Report boosts bipartisan health plan – Yahoo! News

Report boosts bipartisan health plan – Yahoo! News:

“Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, the other sponsor of the legislation, said the report confirmed that the plan would not only cut health-care costs but actually save money in the long run.

‘I am convinced we can reach our goal to improve coverage and provide affordable, private health insurance to every American,’ Bennett said at a news conference with Wyden and other Senate supporters of the bill.

The so-called Healthy Americans Act would replace the current employer-based health insurance system with a system in which the government requires, subsidizes, and oversees a system of private health care plans that individuals select. The coverage would be guaranteed to be as good as that which federal employees receive, and the government would subsidize health care for people up to 400 percent of the poverty level.

The plan is paid for in part by changes to the tax code, including a new tax on employers of between 3 percent and 26 percent. Wyden labels the tax ’employer-shared responsibility payments’ and notes that they would replace money employers now spend to provide private health insurance for their workers.
The employer payments are expected to generate up to $100 billion a year in federal revenue.

‘Employers like this plan, and the reason they like it is because it cuts their current and future health care costs,’ Wyden said.”

Obviously, the torpedos are being loaded into the submarines already, but this may represent an opportunity for real reform and, although not single payer so much as Bismarkian/sickness fund style plan, I can live with it. And, more importantly, even many free marketeers can live with it, too.

Sen. Wyden’s press release is here, and it lists current Senate co-sponsors.

Six steps to bring about true health-care reform in Utah – Salt Lake Tribune

Six steps to bring about true health-care reform in Utah – Salt Lake Tribune:

Dr. Joe Jarvis of Utah has written a nice opinion piece for the Salt lake Tribune identifying six important areas to address in health care reform discussions. Some I have addressed here in the past, such as the Moral hazard myth. His number one is:

“Health underwriting: Every critically ill or injured person will be treated in our health system whether they have health insurance or not. Therefore, we should not waste resources trying to identify persons likely to have critical illness in order to exclude them by price or refusal from acquiring health financing. Community rating, guaranteed issue and risk-sharing will increase health system efficiency and eliminate the unfunded mandate that is cost-sharing.”

After seeing the Frontline Sick Around the World Program and web site, and also after attending the Single Payer Debate at Duquesne University earlier this year, it may be that the path to reform in the US might have to be the path of Bismarckian universal healthcare. It seemed that even the far right Fraser Institute’s spokesman at the debate was willing to grant that this might be a reasonable way to provide universal access in the US and not violating the hard charging laissezfaire types ideology too badly.

Speech assignment

In January we will have a new president. That means one of them will be promoting their health care plan from the White House and one of them from the Senate.

And Jeff Sherman will be our congressman and will have to work to decide how health care reform will proceed for the next 4 to 8 years.

You higher small-business people. Every year we get our annual health-insurance bill and our jaws drop. Some of us are paying for ourselves and our families only in some of us are doing our best to keep covering our employees without bankrupting our businesses. If you like me, you may find it tough enough to keep up with your quarterly tax estimates the least you know what to expect health-insurance costs are rising at astronomical rates and we can’t vote the CEO of mega health out of office for doing such a lousy job

Maybe his/Peabodybusiness is doing well enough that there is no big deal for him.

when you have all the money we spend in the US and divided among the 300 million of us who spend about twice as much per person is a typical European country or Japan or Australia area and a recent study showcased in the Wall Street Journal found as we may be wasting as much as $1.2 trillion a year of $2.2 trillion dollars a year we spend on health care . Don’t get me wrong I’m an intensive care doctor and I oversee minor gurgles everyday. Our high-tech care are cancer and heart care are second to none in the world. But neither is Belgium’s. Or New Zealand. Or Switzerland. Something’s got to give.

I can tell you what no bombs and Clinton’s proposals might look like, and they may be dead on right.. Change makes everyone nervous, but I can also tell you this if they look like they’re handed down from on high like the 10 Commandments, there are a lot of people who are going to do their damnedest to stop any change whatsoever good or bad. Peabody would be one of those guys. On the other hand if you support Jeff he knows we need change and he also knows change won’t happen unless we have a national conversation about what what Americans want what changes will work for America.

That’s why Jeff Sherman will be calling on the president for health care reform commission to bring together is only for POTUS can the best and the brightest to head a national conversation of healthcare

Okay other notes:

I’m really just add the parts about Kennedy, the best and the brightest, NASA was an administration and why don’t we have faith in government anymore, why does the commission sound like a joke to us and it should represent the best of America.

Interview with Dr. Calloc’h, of France’s Chambre du Medicine

Interview with Dr. Louis-Jean Calloc’h, Auditeur au Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins and Secrétaire-Génèral de l’Association Médicale Française and Director of International Affairs for the Chamber of Medicine of France

In France, “a ‘G-P Specialist’ is a G-P who practices and has a quite exclusive and verified good and permanent practice in general medicine. Not an other not referenced opposed verified practices: homeopathie, acupuncture, psycological-consultations. The others are simply G-P.”

Economic pressure is forcing physicians to become specialists. In the past in France you were able to go to any physician but there became restrictions on access to cost restrictions. The GP is still the gatekeeper. A patient is not allowed to go directly to a cardiologist or other specialist without using the gatekeeper function. This is a recent change.

Training is changing. In the past, it required approximately 8 or nine years of training to become a GP. It took two or three years after that to become a specialist. But now GPs are becoming specialists: I think he’s saying here that a GP can get additional training at the University to get further qualifications. It’s not clear to me the difference between GPs with a traditional training versus true specialists. It sounds like it might be that one becomes a GP specialist in cardiology and therefore sees more patience with party logic problems but they are still not true cardiologist specialists. And they still perform a gatekeeper role before the patients get to the true specialist. It sounds like the GP and the GP specialist both are in charge of handling the ministerial and medical record-keeping work in the system. Keeping the dossier, as Dr. Calloc’h says.

Dr. Calloc’h notes that patients can be put on the list, for example, of diabetics who require more advanced care. These patients can then go see an endocrinologist directly several times a year. There are limits to how many erect visits the patient can get. The idea is apparently to make the primary interface with a primary care physician can not a specialist. He specifically said that specialists such as cardiologist and endocrinologists do not perform primary care functions.

The GP is the person who interfaces with the single-payer entity. The GP also develops a care plan. This plan may specify a number of visits to a specialist. If the patient exceeds the number of visits they then have to pay out of pocket. There is a list of from 20 to 22 diseases that are specifically supposed to be managed with a plan by the GP. He gave several examples including hypertension and diabetes obesity and some others that I didn’t catch. It sounds like these patients that also signed a contract with some details of their management plan including specialist visits. Now here Dr. Calloc’h indicates that a specialists may actually act as a GP for some of these patients. He called it the “Reseau,” which is a kind of managed care contract. The réseau is a contract that the GP or specialist also signed with the single-payer and agrees to manage the patient. The Medical Society, Chambre Du Medicine, seems to be advocating for this approach, but the trade unions do not. The chamber also would rather see multiple players for more competition. It’s not clear to me what the competition would center around.

Dr. Calloc’h: “The “Assurance Maladie or CNAM” is so powerfull in France that, today, there is quite no economique competition with other public or prived medical care insurance. Only one entity to negociate with.”

Trade unions. It took a little while for me to figure this out, but the physicians have trade unions. So, when he was talking about trade unions, he was asked a talking about the physician trade unions who sound to me to be the advocates for the physicians on economic matters. As opposed to the chamber of medicine, whom he represented, who were more the professional watchdogs and ethical watchdogs. For the trade unions, the single-payer is a big problem because there is only one entity to negotiate with. This seems to be why they would like to see multiple payers.

Generally people pay the physician. Poor people get a card to excuse them from payment. If the patient is without means and has complicated multiple illnesses, apparently one has to appeal to the single-payer for credit on the card for more frequent visits etc. For the people who do pay, currently the fee is €22 but this will be rising this coming year. Interestingly, it sounds like the complexity or time of the visit is immaterial. He said a 4 or 5 minute visit gets the same fee is a more complicated visit. However the more you do, such as EKGs or blood work, the fees accumulate. He said something in here about the patient’s then getting reimbursed by the single-payer, but only about €17 for a visit. So this functionally works out to a five euro co-pay. Some patients buy supplementary insurance so that even that small co-pay is taken care of.

He makes the point that GPs are expected to be able to do everything except the most dangerous of procedures. He feels that this is asking too much and that some physicians make the mistake of being too proud and believing that they can do anything. And this is something that the chamber of medicine handles, and it’s role as what we would call a state Board of medicine. France has civil sanctions, administrative sanctions and penal [criminal?] sanctions. The Chamber of Medicine is responsible for the professional sanctioning. It is akin to a state Board of Medicine however it is run from within the profession and not from the state or national government. Complaints can come from patient to patient organizations or from other doctors. Apparently the complainants and lawyer decide whether something can be handled through sanctions or through civil law, which sounds like medical liability action. He says that he feels this is having a chilling effect particularly on young physicians who are now more worried about liability. He also indicates that this is slowing the activity of the Chamber of Medicine because of concerns with the civil liability aspect of the case. So where they might act quickly in the past they now are more circumspect and take more time to make a decision. Dr. Calloc’h feels the France is about 15 years behind where the US is regarding medical liability. He indicates that France now has lawyers who specialize in finding medical liability cases much as we have here in the US.

[Dr. Calloc’h has updated me that he thinks they have nearly caught up due to their new lawyers.]

Half of physicians in France are GPs. There are limited number of specialists. This is due to specific decisions made by the single-payer, apparently. The decision was made that too many specialist made care too costly and that this had to be stopped. Apparently the thinking was that too many doctors led to many prescriptions and too many prescriptions increased the cost of care. “So stupidly, they decided 15 years ago to make the big selection(?)”– not sure if he meant here about cutting training or something else.

And what of the most pressing concerns of physicians under the French system? The pressure of lawyers and prescription restriction. The first is obvious, the second simply refers to pressure to prescribe generics and formulary restrictions on expensive medications. And the patients are specifically asking for the newer, better medication. The single-payer keeps statistics on each physician and they know when you prescribe to many antibiotics for example. They will then send someone out to talk to you. If this keeps happening you can get an administrative sanction. This can then turn into an economic sanction where they single-payer will refuse to reimburse patients for their visits to you. Obviously this is fairly severe. It sounds like much of this takes place in the context of your position neighborhood and what others in your area are prescribing or not.

The Chamber of Medicine is apparently not allowed to advocate politically. Political advocacy therefore takes place either through the universities or the trade unions (and maybe the specialty societies?). There are trade unions for GPs and for specialists also. It sounds like you typically belong to your specialty’s trade union and its academic society.

I will keep updating this as I receive clarifications from Dr. Calloc’h.

Household Income, US Census Data

Household Income-2005–Part 1:
“Table HINC-05. Percent Distribution of Households, by Selected Characteristics Within Income Quintile and Top 5 Percent in 2006

[Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2007 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Numbers in thousands. ]

I always get confused when I hear people talking about middle income families/households, and it alwasy seems to me that if you are in the DC or other elite groups, $100K or even $200K puts you squarely in the middle class.

As you can see by the table (if you can’t read it, follow the link to the Census Bureau), the true middle, is between $37K and $60K for the true middle quintile and between $20K and $97K for the 3/5 in the middle.

Now, just to follow up on something I heard McCain (and the usual propogandists agains National Health Insurance systems of any kind) say is that you’ll be taxed to death. Now, if you are in the middle 3/5, and you are paying, for argument’s sake, $12K for healthcare (either out of your wages or paying it yourself), how, again, do you lose by adopting a single payer or Bismarck style insurance plan?

And I guess I learned something from Frontline and Uwe Reinhardt: I have to add “Bismarckian Insurance Plan,” to my categories/tags.

Cheers,

Sunday Forum: Medicare for all (“Australian Rules”)

Sunday Forum: Medicare for all:

“Some Americans believe that countries like Australia, Canada and nearly all of Europe have ‘socialized medicine.’ For many, it’s a vague concept that often conjures images of uncaring doctors, dirty government clinics, cracked plaster, crowded waiting rooms and really old magazines. And if you don’t like it — well, you can’t fight city hall.

But that’s just a dark fantasy. Australia has attractive offices and hospitals, great doctors, state-of-the-art care and, most importantly, quick and easy access to high-quality emergency care.

It’s not socialized medicine, it’s Medicare for all. You are born with it, you die with it and you get all the care you need in-between. Everyone has insurance, all the time.”

Dr. Flanders is a psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and does a nice job of contrasting healthcare in the US and Australia. I’ve written for the Sunday P-G, so I know they really limit the length of your column. I hope this means we can hear more from her in the future.