Lies and cowardice screwing almost everybody's health care coverage

There is usually more than one way to look at a situation. Often referred to as “point of view”, it is good to consider this, particularly in personal relationships, as the way you see things might not be the way the other person does. In the Trump years most of us have become more aware of a different basis for disagreement, not based on different interpretation of the facts but upon different facts. This is not just a difference in emphasis-- you and I both believe X and Y are true, but I think X is more important than Y and you think Y is more important than X.

We are in a situation in which a large portion of the population believes lies are facts, believes that things that are not true are true. Of course, this has always been the case, like when most folks thought that the Earth was flat, or that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. These were definitively disproved, we know the truth, and yet there are other just as ridiculously incorrect beliefs (and, here, I except, for brevity, religion) that many people still cleave to. Heck, there are still flat earthers! I doubt that most of the leaders of the Republican Party or members of the administration in Washington – or even Fox News commentators -- actually believe most of these falsehoods (except Donald Trump, who seems too demented or stupid or isolated or all three to know), but they find them convenient ways of keeping the public’s attention focused away from what they are doing to benefit themselves and their buddies. This could be called the “Wizard of Oz” technique, and misdirection is a core part of most magic acts, but it is also a core component of fascist tyrannies.

These outright lies in the Era of Trump are incredible, both in number and the real impact on people. In the area of health, the focus of this blog, they have been amazing in terms of their scope and impact. Vaccines, among the few actual preventive things that medicine can do, have been attacked and criticized and completely wrongly said to cause worse problems than they solve. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is pure evil coming from RFK, Jr. and his team of loons. Yes, there are individual people who should not get one or more individual vaccines, because of a serious prior allergic reaction, or even worse a rare effect like Guillain-Barre, but for the vast, vast majority of children and adults vaccines are all good. They basically eliminated smallpox from the world, and essentially eliminated terrible killers like measles in this country – until a new movement endorsed by the Secretary of HHS brought them back. Your measles as a kid wasn’t too bad? Neither was mine. But lots of kids got sick. A bunch died. You never had measles because you’re too young? Because even your parents are too young? And you all had vaccinations? Sadly, maybe you’ll see it in your children. Mumps made people deaf and infertile, meningococcus dead or brain damaged, H influenza the same. Polio made people dead or paralyzed, in wheelchairs or in iron lungs. When I was a medical resident, we saw H influenza meningitis and epiglottitis, meningococcal disease, even some measles and polio. All eliminated by vaccines. Until we stop using them.

    

Smallpox                                Measles               Polio (in iron lung)

There are many, many other health disasters promulgated (it seems on purpose) by this administration. Eliminating or cutting back infectious disease surveillance – cyclospora, E. coli, salmonella -- anyone? Enjoying that? How about animal diseases? And funding for medical research – being heavily cut back especially for researchers that the administration doesn’t like.

But one HUGE area is health insurance, financial coverage for our medical care. I have written about the terrible US health care non-system which is designed to make money for private corporations (insurance companies, big hospitals and health systems, Pharma) instead of being designed to deliver the best actual health care for our people, and how it needs to be replaced by a system of covering everyone, as in every other wealthy country – improved Medicare for All. People need financial coverage because all those big corporations are owned by investors who demand ever-increasing profits, so the costs of the overall system (highest in the world by far), and to individuals, keeps going up.

Under the current administration, the opposite is happening. In a recent editorial in the NY Times, the cuts to coverage are enumerated and documented. The most dramatic of these are cuts to the Medicaid program and the subsidies for purchasing individual insurance on the marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “Obamacare”). The Medicaid cuts target the most vulnerable and needy, the poor and disabled, and the cuts to the ACA subsidies means that the poor-but-not-quite-poor-enough-to-qualify-for-Medicaid population that was finally insured through ACA will lose it. (If you want to know how poor you must be to qualify for Medicaid, you can look it up by state, but it is always very poor. When you look it up, remember that while many states tie eligibility to about 135% of the Federal poverty level, many others have much lower qualifying incomes.) This is really bad because it is going to kill people, is going to strain many physicians and hospital systems – especially those that cannot afford it, like rural hospitals – and create a lot of misery.

There are several other bad things related to health coverage that the Times does not even address. One of these is the aggressive promotion of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans for Medicare eligible people. These plans are not actually Medicare, a federal government run program, but private insurance products that use Medicare money (and gets paid more per patient than traditional Medicare, TM). On the one hand, if you get a good, comprehensive MA plan it can save you money (with TM you probably need to pay for a Medicare supplement and Part D plan as well as the Part B premium taken from your Social Security payment). But it can also have bad results because the insurance companies that run it can, and often do, deny payment for your care, just as they do for regular insurance.

Another health insurance problem the Times does not address is the fact that even in the best situations (in those states that chose to expand Medicaid and before Trump), the ACA did not cover everyone. Both this and Medicare Advantage are also areas not addressed by those making policy for the Democratic Party. It is not coincidental that the Times and that portion of the Democratic Party called (depending on where you stand) “centrist”, “moderate”, “Wall St.” or “right-wing” are similar, because both share a similar ethos. This is to be better than the GOP on a lot of social issues affecting individuals but to not threaten the basic status quo: corporate America making a lot of profit, and enriching its investors, at the expense of the rest of us, particularly but not only the poor, who get screwed out of medical care and/or bankrupted by the bills. Oh, and, by the way, if you one of the majority of people who have employer-sponsored health insurance, you’re still not safe. Costs for insurance to employers (with much or all of the increase passed on to employees) is expected to go up 11% in 2027!

The “centrist” branch of the Democratic Party does not support eliminating or strictly regulating Medicare Advantage, not to mention Improved (covering everything) and Expanded (covering everybody) Medicare for All. The same tired and inadequate reasons are given: “we can’t afford it” --- ridiculous given that every other wealthy or middle-income country does -- when what they mean is “we don’t want to alienate the billionaires who continue to support us”. They say that they need to “be moderate” because they don’t want to turn off independent voters, which results in policies that do not significantly help most regular people. Like Improved and Expanded Medicare for All (see the Jayapal House, HR 3069, and Sanders Senate, S 1506, bills) would.

We should be terrified of what the Trump Administration and GOP are doing, especially trying to disenfranchise voters before the election, and the huge cuts to our health care. But voters are not going to be excited by “Republican lite”; they need to hear about bold programs that will change their lives for the better.

We need more generalist physicians. And a new health system so that they can be effective.

We don’t have enough primary care physicians in the US to properly (or, often and in many places, even improperly) care for our people. We all need a primary care doctor, and some of us need specialists. But rarely does a specialist have the time, interest, or expertise to manage all of your problems, and also do the recommended preventive work. Unfortunately, primary care physicians rarely do either, especially when it involves managing the care delivered by many different specialists, who can be unaware of what treatments the other is recommending and of how it might conflict with treatment they are giving. Doing this properly takes a lot of work and time.

For example, you mention to your cardiologist that you have knee pain. They say “I don’t do knees; here’s a referral to an orthopedist”. They’re done. If you go to your primary care doctor, they will examine you, try to figure it out and maybe treat it. But if they refer you to an orthopedist, they will follow up, read the report, look at the x-rays, read the recommendation, and try to explain to you what it all means. In short, a specialist referring to another specialist saves time and work; a primary care doctor referring to a specialist generates more work for themselves.

But there are not enough primary care doctors to do this, and those that exist are not given sufficient time by their employers (most are employed by hospital systems or large groups, often owned by private equity) to do it right. Because – and this is the most important thing – these hospital systems and especially private equity are, like insurance and pharma companies, in the business of making money, and only incidentally providing health care. Yes, many doctors are also interested in making money, but this is not their only or primary concern.

So, because most doctors are employed, and because primary care doctors may work much more for much less money, we have a dramatic shortage of primary care doctors in the US. A recent issue of Your Local Epidemiologist describes this in some depth.

One approach to primary care is that which Sweden has adopted, as documented here by the Commonwealth Fund.

Sweden is aligning primary care access goals with physician workforce policy more explicitly. Rather than treating physician training as separate from care delivery, Sweden is using workforce policy as a tool to strengthen continuity, accessibility, and person-centered primary care. To support this goal, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare analyzed primary care workload and physician capacity, established a benchmark of one primary care physician per 1,100 residents, and issued recommendations to guide regional workforce planning toward that target.

The Commonwealth Fund notes that

The United States faces a similar problem. Although physician training strongly influences where physicians ultimately practice and what specialties they choose, federal graduate medical education (GME) financing remains largely tied to algorithms based on hospital funding patterns established decades ago. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services lacks authority to measure workforce outcomes associated with the nearly $21 million in Medicare funding that supports physician training. The result is a system that often produces workforce outcomes misaligned with patient needs, specifically not enough primary care physicians, general surgeons, and psychiatrists.

Commonwealth adds “Sweden’s recent reforms suggest a different model: define national access goals first, then align workforce policy around them.”

What a novel idea! Imagine figuring out what you are trying to achieve and then designing a system of achieve it! This is completely different from how health policy, including (or perhaps especially) physician supply and makeup is done in the US. (Well, except for for-profit companies who know what their goal is – make more money by any means necessary, which is never providing you with the best, most comprehensive and effective, or accessible, healthcare.) The system we use is to … do the same old thing. Pay subspecialists more, allow students to choose which specialty they want, and expect that somehow enough will choose primary care, despite the fact that they will make far less and often (not always, depending on the other specialty) works more, will almost be always employed by a large hospital system or group practice owned by private equity, and be on a hamster wheel of “productivity”, which means they cannot see enough patients, cannot deliver adequate care to the people they do see, and for themselves achieve limited professional satisfaction in having the control necessary to influence positively the health of their patients. 

As I have written before (e.g., Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid?, July 21, 2013; Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!, July 23, 2025 ), there is no mystery on how to change the income levels of primary care physicians relative to subspecialists. The Medicare payment “pie” is divided up between specialties mostly on the recommendations of an AMA-appointed group of physicians called the “RUC”, which is dominated by subspecialists. CMS, whichadministers Medicare, doesn’t have to follow the RUC’s recommendations, but usually does. And the RUC’s makeup of about 15% primary care physicians guarantees that primary care will be underpaid by Medicare. And, since almost all insurance company reimbursements are based on multiples of Medicare payment, this translates to the whole system. CMS could set up, or require the AMA to set up, a RUC that was, say, half primary care doctors!     

A word on the term “primary care”. While it has become the standard phrase in the US, and we can’t get away from it, it is not a great one. It was popularized by internists (adult medicine doctors) to distinguish those more properly called “general internists” from their internal medicine brethren who did mostly hospital work (“secondary care”) including intensive care (“tertiary care”), and then expanded to include general pediatricians and family physicians. Of course, family physicians are mostly all (90%) in what is now called “primary care”, and they (or the also commonly used “general practitioners”) are the mainstay of outpatient care physicians for the populations of most countries. Family physicians differ from other “primary care” physicians in that they are trained to provide comprehensive care for people of all ages, with all problems (referring when necessary) across the lifespan, including caring for children, old people, delivering babies, caring for folks in the hospital, in nursing homes, and doing lots of different procedures.

Unsurprisingly, it is hard to find even family physicians doing all these things now, except sometimes in rural areas where there are fewer physicians in other specialties. It has always been true that the privileges granted to family physicians have been largely determined by how much other physicians can make doing that work; many will be “first assistant” surgeons (fairly well paid) except when their communities have a glut of surgeons who “need” the work = income. Many years ago, it was discovered that only about 10-15% of graduating family medicine residents in Texas were interested in delivering babies in rural Texas; however, this was compared to 0% of OB-Gyn residents!

So let’s start with identifying what we want to achieve: enough primary care physicians, distributed broadly enough across the country in rural and urban areas, for every single person to have one. For those primary care (or family, or generalist) physicians to be paid enough relative to subspecialists that students are attracted to the field. For them to have enough time budgeted to manage complex problems and even more complex interactions between patients and other doctors. This is especially a need for older adults, who are most likely to be seeing multiple specialists for multiple problems. Relying on ERs or Urgent Care is a very poor and inadequate alternative.

That requires a complete reworking of how our health system functions. Covering everyone, such as by the improved and expanded Medicare for All system called for by the S. 1506 and HR 3069 bills, is an absolutely necessary part of this, but is not alone sufficient. We also need to restructure physician payment to encourage enough primary care that people can easily access it and it can be effective, implementing completely Starfield Four Pillars of Primary Care: [first] Contact, Continuity, Comprehensiveness, and Coordination (Starfield B. Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation, and Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992). If ANY of these are missing or incomplete, we have an inadequate health system – as we in fact do.

No messing about at the edges. No "reforms" that reform little. No saying we cannot afford universal health care, something every other developed country does, because our insurance companies need to make huge profits. No denying the need for an immediate steps to ensure an adequate primary care workforce because we don’t want to pay subspecialists less.

This must happen now, happen yesterday. There is no morally acceptable alternative.

 

                                       

"Take this, it's good for you!" Or maybe it isn't.

“Take this, it’s good for you!”

 You probably heard this growing up from your parents, or grandparents, or others, about lots of things. Medicines, foods, supplements, and even activities (“Do this, it’s good for you!”). You probably have continued to hear this from other people even if you are now grown: friends, family, people you have just met, and that most reliable of all sources, random posts (I was going to say “random people” until I realized that many or most of them could be bots) on the internet! So, should you take it? I mean, is it good for you?

I know my answer is going to be shocking: “It depends.”

On what? On a whole lot of things.

The whole idea that there is a general concept of things that are “good for you”, whoever you are and what you are hoping to achieve, is nonsense. What is good for one person – say an infant or a toddler – may well not be good for a middle-aged or older adult, and vice versa. And, of course, the most important question is “good for what?” What do you seek to have happen to you that this nostrum is “good for?” Do you even share the interest in achieving the end goal that the recommender presumably does? Lower cholesterol, lower weight, more muscle mass, stronger bones, having better balance or more stamina, improved sexual function, looking younger, better bowel movements, avoiding a deficiency disease like rickets, scurvy, or pellagra? Sometimes even cheap and easily available things from which big corporations or influencers do not make a lot of money, and that in fact do work well, are also unnecessary. Parents and grandparents may push things that their parents and grandparents told them were good for them, and they might have been, back once, but are not now. Back then, when our diets were often lacking in essential vitamins, scurvy, pellagra, and rickets were real issues in the US (and may still be in some parts of the world), but are not, generally, here now. In the not-too-distant past parents gave their kids castor oil, either as a treatment for a condition that the child might or might not have, like constipation or worms, but there are much better, safer, less unpleasant, and more effective treatments for both now. (That is not considering those who gave it as punishment!)

After you have answered the question of “good for what?” and decided that that “what“ is something you want to achieve or more toward, the next set of questions are “will it do that, does it actually work?”, “does it work for everyone the same or are there some groups of people (based on age, gender, health status, etc.) for whom it works better or not as well, and “what are the untoward effects that may, or even are likely to, happen, which may be far worse than the benefit?” Anabolic steroids, for example, do work to increase muscle mass, endurance, and power (see: sports stars) but also cause serious bad things (liver disease, testicular shrinkage, and a host of others). If it is legal and you are not competing in a sport where it is banned, it is up to you to decide whether the risk:benefit ratio is one you are willing to take (provided you are an adult, since in this area as many others, teens are poor judges of risk:benefit and do not have a good long view). Psyllium seed powders can be good for your bowels, lowering cholesterol, and helping to control your appetite, but some people have problems with the side effects. Testosterone, now being pushed by the Secretary of War who is competing with the Secretary of HHS and the President for being the administrations most macho ignoramus, can be good for some people who are deficient who should not be, but is far from a panacea that turns regular people into mindless Orcs (many medical professionals disagree, Doctors question evidence behind Pentagon testosterone plan). By the way, this is a good time to note the intrinsic contradictions in the “men’s health” movement. Its two big issues are prostate disease (especially cancer) and “low T”. Testosterone will not only make prostate cancer (or even benign prostatic hypertrophy) worse, blocking endogenous testosterone is the mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer. Oh, well, let’s see what it does for Pete Hegseth.

Some things generally are good for you. For example, age-appropriate vaccines are good for almost everyone (except those with known allergies to its components or previous severe reactions, by which I mean things like Guillain-Barre Syndrome, not a sore arm or short-term fever). Virtually all vaccines for children and adults (MMR, DTP, meningococcus, chicken pox, H. flu, influenza, Covid, shingles, polio, etc.) are really wonderful miracles that save thousands (sometimes millions, see: “Covid” and influenza) of lives, even more thousands or millions saved from serious morbidity, and with a very low rate of any significant negative effect. This is true. If you hear different information from your favorite TikTok star or Facebook friend, or Secretary of HHS, they are wrong.

Some things are generally bad for almost everyone, like taking dangerous drugs for unapproved indications (e.g., ivermectin for Covid), not to mention drinking or injecting bleach! The internet is full of recommendations for magic bullets that will cure whatever ails you or doesn’t even ail you but tells you it will or might if you don’t buy their solution. These claims are no more reliable than the clothes, makeup, hardware, and amazing items that will solve all your household worries. That is, some may be of value, for some people, in some circumstances, but often are not and even are dangerous, but all make money for those selling them (or in the modern world, selling their ability to influence others to the companies that make the products).

A big issue, it seems, is whether to take drugs, especially prescription drugs, manufactured by big, evil, pharmaceutical companies and heavily advertised by them, or to take “natural” over-the-counter drugs made by any-old-person or company and pushed by – any-old-person (or bot). Pharmaceutical companies are evil, as are most huge for-profit corporations (and they are usually the most for-profitable!) because their profits, not your health, is their main function. This does not mean that their products (or at least all of them) are not effective or safe when “used as directed”. They have two important characteristics non-prescription, even “natural” remedies, do not. First, they are tested, and approved after an extensive process, by the FDA (or were, before the FDA was decimated by the administration), which other remedies are not. Second, the doses are standardized, so you know what you’re getting. Even when plants (natural) are the basis for the drugs – say willow bark for aspirin – dosing is an issue. How much willow bark? From how old a tree? Growing in what setting? An aspirin tablet is standardized. Taking unregulated medication is akin to taking street opiates – you cannot be sure what, and how much you are getting. Plus, remember “natural” is not intrinsically good, safe, or protective. There are at least as many natural poisons as beneficial substances. If something you ingest, “natural” or manufactured, has a biologic effect that you desire, it also can (and likely does) have biologic effects that you do not desire (“side effects”, a term meaning biologic effects you don’t want). Testing and standardization are keys. Not that this in any way excuses the rapacious profit-taking of Pharma, but neither does it of those selling unregulated nostrums.

Finally, and I have said this before and will say it again, when thinking about whether something is “good for you” and whether you should take it, anything that sounds too good to be true probably is.