Does AI communicate better than real doctors? If so, why is that?

The New York Times recently ran an article titled “Empathetic, Available, Cheap: When A.I. Offers What Doctors Don’t”, which should be very concerning to the medical profession as it emphasizes three things that they are often not. But probably won’t concern the real decision makers in healthcare – the corporate owners, “health systems”, insurance companies, and private equity. After all, their concern is solely making money, and they are doing just fine, thank you.

The article indicates that AI seems to be responsive to and nice to people, and seems to show respect, concern, and empathy; “seems to” is important, because these are computer programs, not people, and they don’t have any feelings. Nonetheless, people feel better when they are addressed with respect, concern, and compassion. Even if it is programmed and not real. The truth is that doctors and other actual people do not always do so, for a variety of reasons. And they don’t even have the chance to if the patient cannot contact them, which is so common as to be routine these days

For many years, I told medical students that, while they had worked very hard to master the language of medicine, learning idioms, jargon, eponyms, and acronyms so they could fit in and impress their seniors, residents and attending physicians, regular people would not understand them if they spoke like that. They had to be able to translate that back into their first language, English (or whatever their vernacular was). This is an important skill, for without it people (“patients”) won’t understand what you are saying, and won’t know what is going on with them. And that is important. It takes effort, and it takes intentionality – you must want the person to understand what you are saying. That’s is true even if what you are telling them is bad news, something that will make them upset or unhappy.

I thought about this after a recent conversation with a couple of current medical students. I made the points above, about the importance of communicating in a way people can understand, and observed that, in fact, often people did not understand. This was based on, among other things, the number of times I had to try to explain to my patients, as a family doctor, what their specialist was saying. And the number of times I had to try to figure out, as a family member or friend, what my family member or friend’s doctor had been telling them that led them come away with what seemed to be an incorrect understanding of the situation. I have even said “If you assume that no one ever understands anything their doctor tells them, you will be correct a distressing percent of the time”.

The students agreed, but when they gave examples from their experience, I became more concerned.

A surgeon I worked with was unable to get all of the cancer out, but when telling the patient used all kinds of technical and unfamiliar terms, like ‘clean margins’. It was like they were trying to not lie, but to obfuscate what they were saying by talking in words and phrases that were technically true but not meaningful to the patient. I was left, after the surgeon had gone, to try to respond to the patient who asked me ‘What did they just say?’”

Obviously, this should not be the job of the medical student, but of the surgeon. And while it is tempting to say, “Well, they’re surgeons; communication is not their strength” (and while, as a family doctor, I like to think we are better at it), most or all doctors are guilty of this sometimes. (It is also true that it is even harder when you have to acknowledge that the bad news may, in fact, be the result of something you did wrong, but this is a separate area.)

I have recently had experience with close family members who had complications during procedures. One, during an endoscopy, had their blood oxygen level drop and had to have a breathing treatment afterwards, receiving a new diagnosis of asthma. This was upsetting, but at least they were told everything. Another, in a much more concerning episode, had major lung surgery. After the surgery, they had terrible, persistent pain which was not adequately treated. Several months later, visiting another doctor (not the surgeon), they were told that their oxygen level had also dropped severely, as a result of having a pneumothorax, a serious, potentially dangerous condition where air gets into the chest cavity and can partially collapse the lung. More relevant, it can be terribly painful. This might explain why the nurses, following their pain-management algorithms, did not give the patient sufficient pain medication. It is still not clear if they were told their patient had a pneumothorax, but it is definitely clear that the patient, my family member, was not told. They should, of course, have been.

There are a lot of potential problems with AI providing people medical information, some of which are discussed in theTimes article. For one thing, it could be wrong. It doesn’t really know you, and part of the reason that you are consulting the medical AI (or real clinician) is that you don’t actually know either exactly what is wrong with you, or how to put it in terms that will get you the correct answer to your question even if the AI is capable of getting the correct answer. Of course, sadly, the same can be true of real doctors, especially when you don’t actually speak to them; the article leads with the story of a person who wanted advice on how to increase the protein in their diet, and received generic – and unhelpful – answers from the physician on line (presumably a “patient portal”). For all we know, they could have been AI produced.

It would be much better – some of us would say essential – for doctors to communicate fully and honestly with their patients, using language that they can understand, even when the news is not good. And for them to be there, being, well, patient, while their patient tries to formulate questions, and answer them. But there are a lot of reasons that they don’t, or can’t.

A part of it may be that they are poor communicators, or uninterested in having their patients understand everything, especially if it could be embarrassing or take a lot of time. But AI doesn’t have that problem. It is not paid by the patient, and it has no set number of people it has to see in a given amount of time the way that real clinicians do. These actual clinicians often work in hamster-wheel conditions (time spent not only seeing patients but having to do electronic charting aimed at maximizing profit via upcoding as much as possible) which are not the fault of the doctor, but of their employers who are interested in “throughput” to make as much money as possible. Saliently, procedures are relatively well reimbursed but spending the time necessary to talk to a person to be sure that they completely understand what is going on is not. Of course, this is also part of the reason that there are fewer students entering primary care and more are entering better-paid procedure-based specialties.

Having a health care system that valued, and paid for, communication would be good. It would have to start with a system designed to maximize the health of our people, not corporate profit. Yes, there would still be some doctors who communicated poorly, and even made poor medical decisions, but those could be dealt with as individuals, rather than having them intrinsically encouraged by the system.

Doctors could and should do better, and maybe there is a place for AI. But there is no place for profit in healthcare.

Mamdani, universal health coverage, and the scandal of profits over healthcare

First, let me offer congratulations to Zohran Mamdani and the people of New York who elected him. While the news focus is on him, and of course he merits it, it is the “them” that is more important. New Yorkers showed that they want someone who stands with and for them, for their needs, for their ability to afford rent, and healthcare, and education, and food, rather than for the developers and billionaires and financiers (overlapping groups) who have long controlled the city. It should be a wakeup call to the finance-oriented Democrats, not to mention the Republicans who only stand for the oppression of people. Maybe he will be able to deliver on his promise of universal health care in the city, and maybe not, but what he, and they, have shown is that this is something people want. People most assuredly do NOT want the interests of insurance company profit to even be in the same discussion as a value in comparison to their health and healthcare, and they shouldn’t.

What is remarkable is the number of people in positions of power who do. This can, accurately, be attributed both to the financial support insurers give to politicians (and pundits) and the fact that they hang around with each other. Polls have shown that large majorities of Americans support universal health care, and the NYC election was another important such “poll”. But, in fact, things are going in the opposite direction for healthcare and the health of the American people. The party of Snidely Whiplash (PSW) is doing everything it can to make people’s lives worse. They have made it eminently clear that they don’t think all Americans should have health coverage by keeping the government shut down rather than talk about continuing the subsidies for ACA demanded by the Democrats. 

And remember that lots of things besides healthcare coverage affect health – access to adequate food is one of the main ones. So, because, I guess, the PSW so enjoys being mean, they have cut SNAP (food stamps) benefits dramatically, so that more children can go hungry. Twirl that mustache, Snidely! In Tucson, as around the country, food banks that are already overwhelmed will see huge increases in need. We just loaded up the car with boxes of food for the community food bank donated by members of our HOA. They were particularly heavy because of the cans of beans, tuna, chicken, and peanut butter donated especially because the food bank is often out of protein. Which, you may recall, people, and especially growing children, need! You see, grants for the food bank to buy this food from local farmers, which benefitted the farmers as well, have been cut off. Just when you thought we couldn’t be meaner, har har har! 

Government policies that cut aid for food and healthcare are terribly damaging to Americans’ health. Rural hospitals are closing because so many of their patients are covered by Medicaid, which has been dramatically cut. Telehealth programs that might have helped fill that gap are ending. If anyone still believed the private, for-profit sector (as opposed to the volunteer non-profit sector, like food banks) might step into help, they are doing the opposite. Recent insurance company actions have doubled down on limiting access to care, paying for care, and of course caring. Just a few recent actions detailed by Health Care Un-covered include ‘Coverage Without Care: The Cruel Math of Health Insurance Open Enrollment’ and  ‘UnitedHealth CEO Says Company is Cutting Thousands of Doctors Out of Network to Boost Profits‘. You thought it was already hard to find a doctor? The largest health insurance company in the nation doesn’t care; it does care about making more money! Remember that when you see their ads on TV!

Many people – well, pundits, not actual people – say the problem is people need to have jobs, to contribute to the economy. Others, perhaps (?) more well-meaning suggest people need more education about how to choose and navigate the health insurance system so they are not (or are at least less) screwed. Baloney. Read this story on the KFF site about Dr. Lauren Hughes, whose car was T-boned 20 miles from her home. She had injuries including a broken ankle, but the hospital to which she was taken was “out of network” for her insurance, and she ended up with a $64K bill! Dr. Hughes is a highly-educated, knowledgeable, skilled and experienced family physician, who also leads a health policy research group at the University of Colorado. She knows way more about how the system works than most people – heck, than most doctors! And she still was screwed (not just with the ones in her ankle)! Because of her knowledge, role, and indeed clout, and the support of others she was able to get most of the insurance company decision reversed, but good luck if it is you, or someone else who has less of all of those advantages!

The KFF piece is full of phrases that should infuriate, and nauseate, any decent human being, like “out of network”, “surprise billing”, “uncovered care”, “observation status”. These are all strategies (“gimmicks” would minimize their significance) to make more profit for insurance companies by denying you health care. Another recent Health Care Un-covered piece discusses ‘Where Do Our Health Insurance Premiums Go?’, and the answer is profits, stock buy-backs, lobbying, executive salaries. Not increasing coverage or access, decreasing rates; indeed, quite the opposite: as profits go up, so does consumer cost, while access goes down! In any other country, these phrases would be anathema. Every other country that can possibly be considered “wealthy” or even “middle income” (an international classification that almost any American would still see as “poor”) has universal health care. The concept that any person, not to mention a “well-insured”, educated, professional – physician! -- would have such indignities heaped on them and not receive the care they need as a right of their citizenship (and in many countries, even non-citizens) would outrage them. I would like to remind folks of two pieces I wrote long ago, both coincidentally related to films. One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France, is from 2012. It discusses the film Le Havre, and how amid the tribulations of being poor, worry about paying for necessary health care was not one of them. The other, from 2009, "Sick Around America": A little bit sickening, talks about TR Reid’s special “Sick around the world” and something from it that has stayed with me.

In each country he [Reid] asked how many of their citizens went bankrupt as a result of health care debts, and they all said none. The most dramatic response was from the President of the Swiss Confederation, a conservative who had originally opposed the Swiss program in the early 90s. “No one,” he boomed in his French-accented English, “why, it would be a national scandal!”

It should be a national scandal here; indeed, it is a scandal that, for so many it is not. The American people know this, and increasingly will be punishing politicians who do not care, or who, with a total lack of not only empathy but any moral or religious compass at all, put the financial profits of insurance companies above the health of our people, when in fact it should have ZERO weight.

Back in 1958, Harry Golden, a writer, humorist, and published of the Carolina Israelite wrote the best-seller “Only in America”. At the time, reviewers’ comments focused on his being a Southern Jew, and on his support for integration (the moral issue of that age). But it is sad to think that nearly 70 years later, “Only in America” refers to the lack of a universal health care system, unique among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the rich) countries.

It is long past time to change that!

Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!

It is Medicare re-enrollment season again. It began Oct 15 and runs through the end of the year. This is when, if you are dissatisfied with the Medicare plan that you are in, you can choose a new plan with which to be dissatisfied. I know this, if for no other reason, by the large number of pieces of junk mail telling me of the joy I will have if I enroll in this-or-that Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, not to mention the commercials blanketing television programs. I almost only watch live TV for sports, so I am seeing these on sports shows; I don’t know what it means that sports show ads target seniors. Maybe it’s just that ads on all shows target seniors; it is presumed that we are sitting around doing nothing but watching television so are an audience not only for Medicare Advantage but all kinds of “health” ads, ranging from those for incredibly expensive recombinant-DNA drugs (anything ending in “ab”, for starters) for uncommon conditions to the touting of ineffective (and possibly dangerous) nostrums. At least we don’t see as many ads for mobility scooters “at no cost to you” (albeit to the taxpayers) since some of the vendors went to prison. Unless they are soon to be pardoned, not an impossibility.

There is only one form of real Medicare, “Traditional Medicare” or TM. This is what you paid those Medicare taxes for that were recorded on all your paychecks, to fund the Medicare Trust Fund. Well, at least for Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient care and is what is covered by the Medicare Trust Fund. Medicare Part B, covering outpatient care (including outpatient procedures) is funded by general taxes plus monthly payments from recipients that are graduated by income (based upon the previous year’s tax form, so for the coming year, 2026, based on your last filed return which was for 2024). The base payment this year is $185/month, although subsidies may be available for low-income people. But while TM (unlike MA) does cover you for all Medicare-approved treatment, and it, not the hospital, sets the charge, it does not cover all of what it permits the hospital to charge you. For inpatient care, in particular, it will only pay 80% of whatever it has approved as what a hospital can charge. That is, if Medicare has approved a charge of $1000 for procedure X, it will only pay the hospital $800, and you are on the hook for the rest. So (if you can afford it) you should buy a Medicare Supplement (Medigap) policy to cover that. There are several types, but at least they are standardized benefit packages (labeled by letters A-N, except E, I, and J; these letters not to be confused with the Medicare Parts A, B, C, D). In addition, you are required to have a drug plan (Medicare Part D), which is an additional expense.

Besides being confusing, that is a lot of expense for TM: monthly payments for Part B, Part D, and your Medigap. On top of that it doesn’t cover all the things you may need or want, like vision correction (glasses; it does cover treatment of eye diseases and surgery), or hearing aids. That facilitates the marketing of Medicare Advantage (officially Medicare Part C), as intended: one easy monthly payment (which, depending upon the MA plan, may be completely covered by Medicare without out-of-pocket payments from you) covers it all – inpatient, outpatient, drugs, and glasses, hearing aids and even gym memberships! Why would you not want this?

I have written previously why you may not want MA (The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you! Sept 22, 2025, Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Need more -- and more threatened -- than at 50!, Aug 6 2025, and other older posts), which boils down to the fact that they are health insurance plans like the one you had, and can, and do, delay and deny coverage for individuals in order to save money (or, really, make more money!) They usually are HMOs or PPOs with a limited panel of doctors and hospitals for which they will pay. While the Medigap and Part D coverage you need with TM are also sold by the same insurance companies, these benefits are much more explicitly stated and required by law to be provided, although there are certainly efforts to get you to use cheaper drugs (usually not the “ab” drugs being advertised in the next commercial!) If you travel a lot, you may find that MA plans are often based in one geographical area. Also, many “destination” hospitals that people travel to in order to receive excellent care for conditions like cancer (eg., Mayo, MD Anderson) do not accept MA. To a large extent, having an MA plan is like having the insurance that non-Medicare recipients have, warts and all. There are reports (such as in Health Care Un-Covered) that, in addition to raising their rates and cutting benefits, MA plans will be “exiting certain markets” (the unprofitable, or really less-profitable-than-they-would-like markets), leaving residents in those areas without available coverage.

"Health Care Un-Covered", the substack founded by Wendell Potter, also reports on the new report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) “No Real Choice: How Medicare Advantage fails seniors of color”, that shows MA plans increase (rather than decrease, as they claim) racial inequity.

PNHP’s researchers found that communities of color are being steered into MA plans not because they’re better — but because they’re cheaper upfront. This dynamic, dubbed the “Gap Trap,” means that affordability is driving people into coverage that often denies care, delays treatment and locks them into narrow networks.

The old “cheaper up front but not once you get sick” gambit.

Plus, from the PNHP study:

·       Black, Hispanic and Asian/Asian-American beneficiaries are disproportionately concentrated in MA plans that score lowest on quality ratings, while white beneficiaries are more likely to live in counties served by higher-quality plans.

·       One study found that MA prior authorization requests were denied 23% of the time for Black seniors vs. 15% for their white counterparts.

·       Despite industry claims to the contrary, racial and ethnic health disparities in the United States are not being reduced by Medicare Advantage.

·       Studies show that Black enrollees are more likely than white enrollees to choose a 5-star MA plan when offered one. They’re just not offered them as often.

·       Racial minority enrollees in MA suffer from worse clinical outcomes and face barriers accessing best quality care because of restrictive networks and misaligned financial incentives. Black MA enrollees experience higher rates of hospital readmission compared to their white peers.

When is having insurance worse than not having insurance?

And, while we’re talking about the insurance that people not yet on Medicare and not eligible for Medicaid (ie., most Americans) have, it is (you may have noticed) getting more costly. At the present time the government is shut down over disagreement between Democrats and Republicans (including the administration) as to whether subsidies that made enrollment in health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually affordable should be extended. For those who are fortunate enough to have employer-funded health insurance and do not have to buy plans through the ACA exchanges (154 million people), KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) reports that covering a family of four now costs almost $27,000 a year, after two straight years of more than 6% increases, and 26% over 5 years. That is a lot, especially if the family is paying a hefty portion of it (often 50% or more) out of pocket.

It's not a good situation for people not yet on Medicare, not for those on Medicaid, not for those receiving subsidies to buy policies through the ACA, and increasingly difficult for those on Medicare or Medicare Advantage. How about we covering 100% of everything through Traditional Medicare, enroll every American of all ages in it, and fund it by not having to pay insurance companies?

Don't miss laughing at, and more important being informed by, this John Oliver video!

The greatest quality deficit? Physically destroying the health care system, and, oh yeah, the people it is supposed to serve

I have previously quoted from the important JAMA paper by Schiff, Bindman, and Brennan “A Better Quality Alternative: Single Payer National Health System Reform” (JAMA Sept 14, 1994, 272(10):803-808) the observation that “denial of care” is the “gravest of quality deficits”. It is generally hard to argue with this; if people are denied care they are not going to get quality care. While it can be argued that there are some forms of care that is worse than no care, this is clearly not what the authors have in mind. They are talking about the fact that people are denied appropriate care because they do not have money or insurance. More than 30 years later this still rings true, in an America that has not yet seen a health insurance system that covers everyone, as every other well-to-do country has, and indeed is even more threatened by cuts in the coverage that we do have. As I write, the federal government is facing a shutdown, with the Democrats in Congress demanding continued funding for those who received coverage from the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “Obamacare”) of 2010, while the administration and Congressional Republicans steadfastly refuse to consider this, arguing mainly the high cost. This demonstrates once again their complete inhumanity and heartlessness, in no small part because earlier this year they cut more than that from the taxes of billionaires.

There are many ways to deny care, and rolling back Medicaid expansion is one. Another is closing hospitals, and many, mainly rural, hospitals, have and will close as a result of these cuts. They can also make existing insurance harder to get and more expensive, as is regularly documented in Wendell Potter’s substack “Health Care Un-Covered” and many other venues. I will talk more about this in a future blog post. But another, really effective, way to decrease access is to destroy health care facilities. Much more efficient than starving hospitals for money by discriminatory, greed-focused funding is actively blowing them up, killing the providers, and eliminating the infrastructure for providing care for anyone, insured or not. This is commonly done during a process called “war”, in which a strategy often adopted goes beyond violating the Geneva Conventions by not caring for enemy combatants, but indeed targets the elimination of the civilian health care infrastructure. The Geneva Conventions provide for not attacking health care providers, for caring for the wounded based on need, not loyalty, and certainly respecting civilian health care (some references: Rule 25 on medical providers, International Committee on the Red Cross, World Medical Association, Wikipedia (Medical Neutrality), among many others). I learned about much of this decades ago from a surgeon who worked for the International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC) and HAD supervised one of its hospitals in Chechnya during the war there. It was this hospital which military combatants invaded, murdering four nurses. At the time, it was horrifying. Since then, such actions have become so common a practice in the 21^st century that, in itself, it almost refutes the idea that human beings have become more civilized over time.

While there are many places where combatants have used attacks on the civilian population and their health care facilities as methods of imposing their will, the attacks by the government of Israel on the healthcare facilities in Gaza stand out in their extent, persistence in the face of world opinion, lack of any sign of conscience, and contribution to genocide. I am not expert in war, but I know that you are supposed to try to not kill civilian noncombatants, and that you are not supposed to destroy medical infrastructure; these are war crimes. In Gaza both are happening; people’s houses and cities are bombed, thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and the facilities where they might go for care – for problems that occur in peacetime, of course, but far more for those inflicted on them by the military attack on them – are destroyed. On purpose. Repeatedly. As part of an immoral and illegal strategy to “win”, by killing or injuring as many as possible.

Israel, unsurprisingly, and its US supporters in the American Jewish Committee, deny this. They say that what they are doing in Gaza is not genocide, and that what they are doing in killing the people of Gaza as well as destroying its hospitals and other health care facilities and healthcare workers are not war crimes. Of course, what is happening is happening, but they are picking apart word, like the application of a particular term (“genocide”, “war crime”). I am also no expert on the definition of genocide (like, what percent of a group do you have to be trying to kill for it to qualify), but those who are most expert say that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide. No responsible independent body has even tried to justify what they are doing. The argument cannot be that “because we are Israel, what we are doing is ok, although it would be intolerable if anyone else did it especially to us”. Nor can it be that “no matter what we do, no matter how horrific or destructive, because we are a Jewish state, any opposition to it is anti-Semitism.” Of course, this position is without logic.

There can be no justification for the Holocaust, for any reason, for anyone. But just as the atrocities being committed by Israel do not mean “Hitler was right”, the fact that the Holocaust happened – and that there is serious anti-Semitism in the world today – does not justify those atrocities being committed by Israel. In true fascist tradition, the government of Israel is not only committing these atrocities, destruction of healthcare infrastructure and healthcare workers, killing civilians including children en masse and starving them, it is blocking international aid from coming to the people of Gaza. These flotillas of boats bringing aid, contrary to what Israel says, are humanitarian and the people doing it are brave and noble. The government of Israel, and those Israelis and non-Israelis who support its actions, are … not. Interested in knowing what is happening in Gaza? There are many sources, but here is a recent article from the NY Times, longstanding Israel supporter on the destruction of Gaza. Or how about the video, if you need visual evidence.

There are terrible threats to the health of the American people, longstanding and persistent threats from greedy and evil for-profit insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and PBMs and health systems and private equity. These have been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s hostility to covering all people, such as the cutbacks in Medicaid expansion from the ACA, an issue on which the Democrats have finally shown some spine although the GOP commitment to not spending the money in order to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest has led to a federal government shutdown. It is a very bad situation for many Americans, especially those with the greatest vulnerability.

But this is almost nothing compared to the attacks on health in many places, and particularly in Gaza. The purposeful destruction of cities where people live, mass murder of civilians, huge displacements of people, augmented by the destruction of the very facilities that might provide some treatment and succor, is without conceivable justification.

The authors of the paper cited at the beginning of this piece were, thus, not correct in saying that lack of access is the greatest quality deficit. That is true when there is a functioning health system and some people are excluded. Actively doing what is done in many wars, and what Israel is doing in Gaza, is a much worse assault on not just quality of healthcare but on health and life itself.

The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you!

While much about American health insurance is infuriating, starting with it treating the healthcare system as a vehicle for making money rather than providing healthcare, “prior authorization” (PA) is one of its most infuriating, and dangerous, practices. It means that before you can get the treatment your physician has recommended, indeed often before you can see the physician you want, the insurance company must authorize it. This practice is ubiquitous in commercial health insurance, including “Medicare Advantage” (MA), a program that allow an insurance company to collect the money allocated for you by Medicare. This means that if you receive a terrible diagnosis, such as lung cancer and your oncologist recommends a specific treatment, it is entirely possible that they will deny coverage for it, especially if your cancer is rare, or requires an expensive drug. You can file an appeal, but even if it is eventually granted, the process takes time, and meanwhile you are sick and your cancer is advancing.

But if you have Traditional Medicare (TM), this has not been a problem. TM covers virtually all doctors and hospitals in the country, covers most treatments, and does not subject the individual to PA, or decide that another (usually cheaper and possibly less effective) treatment, or even no treatment might be better for you. Or that a different doctor or hospital that is “in network” (for them) would be a better choice even if their track record is inferior. The absence of PA is a major reason why many health experts recommend TM over MA. 

Back in January, 2023 I wrote about the proposed ACO/REACH program at CMS (Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!), which would allow companies (many owned by private equity) to purchase primary care practices, and voilà!, all those doctors’ patients were now in the company’s ACO and subject to restrictions on their care, including PA, without having to do anything at all and thinking they were safe because they were in TM! The REACH name was dropped but the program still continues; a friend in northern NJ was just informed he is now part of an ACO because they have acquired his doctor’s practice!

And other assaults on TM and the patients it covers continue. If you live in Arizona, as I do, or in 5 other states (New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington), even if you have TM you will suffer the indignity and damage of PA as Medicare implements a 6-year “pilot program” called WiSER (Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction). No longer will you be able to get any Medicare-approved procedure from any Medicare-accepting doctor at any Medicare-accepting hospital (ie, virtually all doctors and hospitals). Medicare will contract with private companies that will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to decide whether you can get the treatment. As with ACO/REACH, you have no choice, as participation is “voluntary” by state, but not by individual Medicare recipient. Actually, then it is worse than ACO/REACH, which you could get out of by changing your primary care physician (provided you could find another one!); WiSER will require you to move out of state!

Maybe the AI algorithms know better than you or your doctor. After all, isn’t reducing wasteful and inappropriate services a good thing? If you believe that the high cost of health care is the result of your using inappropriate and wasteful services, you might want to consider that the companies Medicare contracts with to do the PA will be paid “based on a share of averted expenditures.” That is, they will be paid on commission, receiving a percentage of the money saved by denying your care! But that won’t affect their decisions at all, right?

In reality, the use of “inappropriate and wasteful services” by you and your family and friends is not the reason for the high cost of health care. The reason is the enormous administrative costs of the US healthcare system, including the huge amounts made by for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (and the eight-figure salaries of their CEOs and other executives), as well as health care providers (hospitals and health systems and the physicians, usually employed by them). This is a system found nowhere else among wealthy countries, every single other one of which comprehensively covers the care of all their people at much lower per-capita cost.

Bringing PA into Medicare is not “wiser”. It is the exactly wrong way to go. What we need is the expansion of Medicare to include everyone in the US, birth to death, and the improvement of that system by covering all health needs, including mental, dental, hearing, vision, and eliminating the 20% hospital co-pay Medicare recipients now are responsible for (and must buy Medigap insurance to cover). The “administrative costs” now being taken out of the “healthcare” system by companies would more than pay for it.

We would then have a system designed to provide health care for the American people, not profit for corporations. Imagine that!

 

adapted from a piece originally written to be a guest essay in the Arizona Star, but not published