Discussing health care reform, without the hysterics

October 5, 2009

It’s no wonder people are frustrated by the debate over health care reform.

The issues are complex. None of the proposed solutions is perfect. And, more often than not, the arguments seem to dissolve into emotional oversimplification.

Besides, there’s a lot of money at stake. Whole business models have been built around the inefficiency of America’s health care industrial complex.

Last Thursday, the Lexington Forum hosted one of the better discussions I’ve heard on the subject.

The panelists were Dr. Michael Karpf, the University of Kentucky’s executive vice president for health affairs; Dr. John White, president of the Kentucky Medical Association; and Melodie Schrader, executive director of the Kentucky Association of Health Plans.

Some points of view weren’t represented, and the discussion lasted only an hour — not nearly long enough to do the subject justice. Still, it was enlightening.

Here’s what I took away:

The key issues are access, cost and quality. Some people want to change the entire health care system. Others want to preserve the status quo — or at least their current coverage or company’s profits.

But the key is figuring out how to control costs, maintain the quality of care and provide access to more of the millions of Americans with little or no access to affordable health care.

Karpf noted that a significant portion of uninsured Americans are young working people. That’s because employer-sponsored health insurance is becoming more scarce because of costs.

America has too few doctors, especially in small towns and rural areas. White estimated that Kentucky needs 2,300 additional doctors to meet national standards.

Many of us will have to give up something. Increasing access and controlling costs will mean people who have insurance now will have less freedom to choose expensive procedures that have little proven effectiveness.

They also won’t be free to forgo coverage. Schrader said the only way to guarantee that everyone can get access to insurance is to require everyone to have it.

Health care companies and insurers must give up some profits. For example, White said, Medicare Advantage programs — enacted during the Bush administration and criticized as government subsidies for insurance companies — should be eliminated, with the money going directly to pay for more Medicare patient care.

Malpractice litigation must be addressed. Republicans see tort reform as a panacea; Democrats dismiss it as insignificant. But the fact is many doctors feel compelled to order expensive tests and treatments of questionable value for fear they’ll be sued if they don’t.

A better balance must be found between protecting patients from medical malpractice and forcing doctors to practice costly “defensive” medicine.

We can’t be distracted by sideshows. For example, some reform critics warn that government bureaucrats will overrule doctors’ medical judgment. White said that is done too often now by insurance-company bureaucrats.

Another sideshow is the debate over coverage for illegal immigrants. As Karpf said, they’ll be treated one way or another to some degree — and somebody will pay for it. They’ll come to emergency rooms after accidents, when they are about to deliver babies or when suffering with serious illnesses or communicable diseases.

We must take more personal responsibility. Karpf noted that the health care economy now is based on fee-for-service, rather than prudent management. That encourages more spending.

Plus, he said, there’s not enough incentive for patients to live healthy lifestyles and make wise choices.

One key to lowering health care costs is to make the cost structure more transparent — and personal. People will use health care services more wisely if they see it’s in the best interest of their own pocketbooks.

Share/Save/Bookmark


A world view on America’s health care debate

September 1, 2009

The national debate over health care reform is clouded by ideology, distortion, old myths and misinformation, especially when it comes to the way health care works in other countries.

T.R. Reid, who for many years was a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post, tries to cut through some of those with solid reporting in his timely new book: “The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.”

Click here to read a Washington Post op-ed piece by Reid that gives an overview.  Click here to read Business Week magazine’s review of the book. Click here to listen to an extended interview Reid did with National Public Radio.

Share/Save/Bookmark


Fear “socialized” medicine? We’ve had it for decades

August 20, 2009

There’s a fascinating audio clip on YouTube. It’s from a 1961 phonograph record in which a politically ambitious entertainer named Ronald Reagan tries his best to scare people about “socialized medicine.”

The threat he warns about is legislation to create the program we now know as Medicare.

So here we are, nearly a half-century later, with talk radio entertainers and some Republican politicians trying their best to scare people about “socialized medicine.”

They see a threat in almost any meaningful reform of America’s inadequate health care insurance system.

Some of their scare tactics, such as baseless claims about plans for “death panels,” are truly outrageous. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin might actually believe some of the crazy things she says, but other GOP leaders who lend legitimacy to such hogwash are simply seeking political advantage. They seem to have no interest in improving health care; only in seeing President Barack Obama fail.

What makes the recent tone of the national health care debate so ridiculous is that Americans have had “socialized medicine” for decades, and it has worked pretty well.

The popular Medicare program that Ronald Reagan warned against — and later tried to deny he ever opposed — covers 43 million people who are disabled or age 65 and older. Then there’s government health care for veterans and insurance for public employees. Members of Congress have especially good government health care plans.

My biggest fear about health care reform is that we won’t get any. My biggest concern about Obama’s approach is that it isn’t ambitious enough, especially now that he seems willing to give up on a government insurance option.

There are many improvements that can be made in our current system with electronic medical records and various cost-containment strategies. But I think the long-term solution is some form of single-payer health insurance involving privately delivered medical care — like Medicare.

Why wouldn’t it work to open Medicare, or something like it, to more people? That could provide a safety net. Then, individuals or groups could buy supplemental private insurance if they wanted more coverage and could afford it, as Medicare recipients often do.

Every major industrialized nation except ours has some form of universal health care. Are the “socialized medicine” systems in Canada, Australia, Britain and other European nations perfect? Of course not.

But here’s what you see in the United States that you don’t see in those countries: millions of people with no health care coverage. That includes nearly 600,000 Kentuckians, or 14 percent of the state’s population, according to U.S. Census estimates.

Here’s what else you don’t see in those countries: Millions more people who are scared of losing health insurance coverage if they get sick or lose their job. People who can’t get coverage because of “pre-existing” conditions. And people who see their life savings depleted because they get sick.

You also don’t see businesses struggling to pay spiraling health care costs for employees and retirees while trying to compete in an increasingly global economy with foreign businesses that don’t bear such burdens.

Talk show entertainers and Republican partisans have done an effective job of whipping up the frightened, ill-informed citizens we see at public meetings and protests across the country.

But if they want to rant about “socialized medicine,” they should put their money where their mouths are.

Members of Congress who oppose a government health insurance option for citizens should give up their own government coverage. Let them try to buy a similar plan in the private market.

Then they, the media hacks and other self-described “freedom-loving conservatives” should march down to their local Medicare office and renounce their “socialized medicine” benefits, now and in the future.

Yes, I know. Fat chance.

Share/Save/Bookmark