As the administration gears up to attempt a reform of the American health care system, we’re hearing a lot from some quarters about how President Obama wants to impose socialized medicine, how government bureaucrats will be making medical decisions instead of doctors. Yet, these claims are inflated at best, misrepresenting the proposed reforms, while ignoring the crisis in the present system.
America’s current health care system is broken. It’s way past being on life-support. As a nation, we pay more per person for medical care than any other industrialized nation while other nations far surpass us in outcomes. In simple terms, despite hearing that our system is the best in the world, the facts show otherwise — that we’re not getting our money’s worth. Infant mortality rates are often used as the indicator of a nation’s overall health. According to the CIA, the United States ranks behind 42 other countries, including not only all the industrialized nations of Europe and Asia, but also behind Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Slovenia (both former Soviet bloc nations) and even Cuba. Our infant mortality rate is double the leader (Singapore). Is it pure coincidence that a commitment to universal health care seems to be a common factor among the nations that surpass us in this metric? Probably not.
For at least four years, we’ve heard that the number of uninsured Americans has topped 45 million people, with some estimates placing the number at 47 million. A new report makes the shame of that even more clear. Some 87 million Americans went without medical insurance at some point during the past two years. That is an eye-popping number, especially when you consider that number compared to the total number of Americans under the age of 65, when Medicare kicks in. It represents 1/3 of the under 65 population. Medicaid covers those who fall below the poverty line. So that 87 million represents a huge percentage of people in the middle — people who are under 65 but not so poor that they receive publicly funded medical care. And it does not include the millions more who are underinsured — people who find that their insurance coverage is inadequate when a medical situation occurs. Medical bills are the single biggest cause of bankruptcy — greater than foreclosure. And with another nearly 700,000 American jobs disappearing in February, the number of uninsured Americans rises.
People without insurance but who do not qualify for Medicaid often forgo basic medical care. And preventive care is often the first thing to go. Trying to save money, they wait until the situation becomes an emergency. The result is that they are sicker and their care is costlier than it would have been had they sought care earlier. Hospital emergency rooms are closing due to the demands being placed upon them, putting ever more strain on those that remain.
Costs have escalated far more than can be explained by inflation alone. In this time of economic stress, the one bright spot is the relative health of for-profit health insurance companies.
During his campaign, and in the principles that will guide the reform efforts, President Obama repeatedly stressed that for those people who are satisfied with their current medical coverage and care, the reforms will not bring change. What he is proposing is a multi-faceted approach that will ultimately bring choices to the millions who are not satisfied — choices that will increase the number of people receiving employer-based coverage, additional choices within the private insurance system for those who do not have access to employer-based programs, and coverage for the remainder under a Medicare-for-all program. So, the fear-mongering about “socialized medicine” is a red herring. Many health care professionals and many Americans, perhaps even a majority, prefer a single payer system.
The most widely-heard criticism of the Clinton era health care reform proposal was that it removed choice from consumers. Remember those ads featuring Harry and Louise?
Another of the rallying cries of those opposed to the current proposal (and which began as part of the stimulus package critiques) is that bureaucrats — presumably government bureaucrats — would be making critical decisions about our care. Just how do these critics explain the insurance company gatekeepers? Are they not also bureaucrats making critical decisions about our care? Do the critics not see the connection? Or do they assume that the American public doesn’t?
Some years ago, my husband dislocated his shoulder on a ski trip to Canada. Following an overnight hospital stay, the services of doctors, nurses, an anesthesiologist, and all the related services including meals, medications, and splints, his bill came to $100. The hospital apologized, saying that were he a Canadian citizen there would have been no cost. Upon his return home, he submitted the bill to the insurance company, who initially refused to pay it because it was not itemized. When he called the hospital to request an itemized bill, he was informed that one night in the hospital, with all required medical services, cost $100 and that the hospital did not provide itemized bills. After much additional discussion, his insurance company covered the $100 bill.
There is a lesson in this. Many companies have learned that their employee travel costs were lower when they established a per diem rate for hotels, meals and incidentals based upon the destination rather than requiring employees to itemize their expenses. The difference? The time saved by this method more than made up for the possible savings achieved by itemizing. Is it unreasonable to think that the same would apply to medical costs rather than having to account for each and every aspirin and band-aid? Administrative costs for most insurance companies and HMOs run in the range of 30% — that means 30% less that can be actually spent on health care. Medicare’s administrative costs run a fraction of that at around 6%.
As employer-based coverage costs rise, companies are forced to drop plans altogether or to pass more of the costs on to their employees. Those people who have relied on private insurance find the premiums, deductibles and co-pays increasingly unaffordable while the amount of coverage declines. Additionally, many people with pre-existing conditions are unable to purchase private insurance at any price.
As the debate continues, we must be mindful that there are two very powerful interest groups who will fight like pit bulls to retain the current system — the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. We, the American people, will be watching.
Read Full Post »