It's all corporate now. Why do we stand for it?

"Sick. Help. That’s it!”

“John Q,” played by Denzel Washington, whose son needs a heart transplant which the insurance company has denied coverage for

 

There are still people in health care – admittedly mostly administrators and pundits and some doctors, highly-paid folks who think of themselves as “leaders” rather than “bosses” – who see the restrictions that the health insurance system places on people accessing health care as a good thing. They say that it keeps the lid on health care costs by limiting the use of “expensive and unnecessary” services by people who want “too much” of it. Luckily, for me, I no longer run into those with such views very often, and I like to think that there are fewer of them now.

These are often the same folks who supported, and continue to support, “managed care”, generally thought of as HMOs and PPOs, and their senior partner, Medicare Advantage plans (which are essentially HMOs or PPOs paid for with Medicare dollars). The techniques developed for restricting care in these plans have now been adopted by the health insurance industry overall. “Prior authorization”, which often means “delayed or denied authorization” has become one of the key strategies for restricting your access to health care services.

Restricting your access to health care is presumably not the specific intention of these practices. It would be mostly incorrect to portray health insurance executives as mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together, like Mr. Burns, the boss in “The Simpsons”, in pleasure at your pain. They are actually mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together in pleasure at the amount of money that they are making; your pain is incidental. I don’t know how many look like Mr. Burns.

HMOs, or what we now call HMOs, were not always money-grubbing deniers of care. Most of the early ones were consumer cooperatives (with the notable exception of Kaiser-Permanente, developed by Henry Kaiser for employees of his steel company, so he and not the insurance companies would make more money) like Group Health in Seattle, HIP in New York, and Ross-Loos in LA, designed to cut out the insurance companies so that members could get the same care for less money, or more care for the same money.  Without the profit motive in play, truly unnecessary care (sometimes that had been ordered by physicians or hospitals who stood to make money on it) could be avoided, and more necessary care provided. They often contracted with physician practice groups that were owned by the physicians themselves, rather than a corporation that violated the laws against corporate practice of medicine. Kind of vaguely socialist. Kind of good for people. Kind of quaint.

If you’re old enough, you may remember this kind of thing. In the 1980s the Reagan administration sought to expand them (naming them HMOs) as a method of cutting the cost of health care. Or, at least, cutting the costs that were expended in delivering actual health care. The plan involved encouraging insurance companies to buy up and establish their own HMOs, so it wasn’t too long before the reality of a consumer cooperative HMO was, in most places, history. Owned mostly by insurance companies, and increasingly with vertical integration, those dollars formerly “wasted” on providing “unnecessary” health care could now be turned into executive compensation and corporate profit. Some people may think this is a bad trade-off, that making money for corporations instead of providing health care for people is truly waste, but those holding such anachronistic and naïve ideas are wrong. At least in the opinion of those controlling the corporations! And their policy apologists.

This innovation was such a success (at making money) that it was expanded to a much wider base of health insurance. The old kind of insurance (often managed by the non-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield, before they became the for-profit Anthem), that covered people for their health care needs, did not try to beat them down with denials, paid a reasonable amount to providers, and took a reasonable fee for their work, gradually became a thing of the past. These were sneered at as “Cadillac plans” (only when the beneficiaries were union members, of course not when they were executives!)  losing hold with each successive series of union contract negotiations. The executives kept their solid gold Cadillacs while union members and other employees were pushed lower and lower down until their coverage became a shadow of what it formerly was, and they often found themselves denied the care they needed and used to get.

There is a little historical irony here, in that the labor movement sowed the seeds of its own destruction by making health insurance a contract benefit. After World War II, unions in other countries fought to make health care available to all people; in Britain the party that was elected to govern actually had “Labour” in its name and introduced the National Health Service. In the US, the government instituted wage and price controls, so, unable to bargain for higher wages, unions bargained for health insurance as a way to recruit members. It was good for the members, but not so good for the nonunionized workforce. And the bosses liked it too; employer contributions to health insurance are not taxed, whereas wages are. Anyone who thinks that that such things as employer-sponsored health insurance is a “generous benefit” that is not paid for by the employee through lower wages is wrong. So, while the poor and non-unionized ended up on their own, the US labor movement got its members health insurance, often excellent health insurance. For about 30 years.

Now it’s all owned by corporations, the whole shebang. Insurance, providers groups, pharmacies, nursing homes. Many of these corporations are insurance companies, like the biggest, UnitedHealth, which also owns doctor group Optum and pharmaceutical benefit (PBM) manager OptumRx. And I am sure that, while many practices went under because they weren’t paid as a result of a major cyberattack on United subsidiary Change Healthcare, United itself is doing fine, making $8.5B in the first quarter (after all, by not paying those practices, they got to keep their money in the bank paying interest)! Other corporations are owned by private equity funds, which don’t even pretend to have any interest whatever other than maximizing their profit. Indeed, these are arguably even worse since they are sometimes happy to destroy the companies (and thus the services they provide) if that makes them the most.

The idea that a significant part of the cost of health care is overuse of services by patients would be pretty funny if it were not so serious, and for the fact that any such overuse is dwarfed by the number of people not getting adequate care, paying too much (in premiums and deductibles and co-payments and lost wages) for care, or being unable to access care altogether. That is the big problem, and as always it is the lowest income (and disproportionately minority) people who are hurt worst.

And even if you do believe that overuse is a problem, there is no conceivable way that any half-sentient, half-decent human being could possibly believe that money going to corporate and private equity profits is not waste and is a better use than providing health care to people. It is amazing that there any who do, but they include a lot of folks being paid by them – including members of Congress.

So: tell your Congressperson that YOU don’t think so, and that money appropriated for health care for people should be use for that, not raked off by insurance companies and other corporations, and it is their job to make that happen!

More important than our circadian rhythm: Creating a society that is safe and has health care for all

The New York Times, in addition to covering world and local news, has a lot of “feature” type news, generally appealing to educated, urban, and often higher income people, especially in New York, who are a large percent of its readers. Obviously its Arts coverage reflects the enormous NY arts scene, but also frequently seems to be more in-depth, designed to appeal to an even smaller group. Similarly, while its health coverage often includes news and opinion pieces on the social inequities in health care, on community risks (such as gun violence), and on policy issues, it also includes pieces aimed at what might be called “individual health self improvement”, sometimes involving new(ish) research.

An example is the recent front-page piece on “Circadian Medicine”, that reports on research about following our “body clocks” to get the greatest health benefits from how we do things like eat, exercise, etc. It starts with a look at the effort to move toward permanent daylight savings time and how this affects our personal and work lives.  Of course, this is ultimately a sociocultural issue; the amount of light and dark each day is unchanged, but the question is when our particular area decides to do things. Farmers and ranchers, for example, do not work based upon the time it says on the clock. If we wanted to, we could work from 9 to 6 instead of 8 to 5 rather than changing the clocks.

What is actually more important about this piece, to me, is that it goes on to emphasize how individuals can (possibly) improve their health by choosing the correct time of day to do their health-inducing activities. It is thus yet another effort to look at what each of us can (provided we have the education, autonomy, money, and time) do to make our individual selves healthier. Maybe. Such emphasis is not wrong per se (except, of course, when it is wrong, as has been, for example, our obsession with taking vitamin supplements when we are not vitamin deficient, as see F. Perry Wilson on Medscape, “It’s official: vitamins don’t do much for health”). The real issue is that it is a distractor, in that it focuses upon something that is perhaps slightly beneficial for some people (or not) but will not have a major impact upon the health of the public or the populace, taking our attention away from focusing on the very many major serious things that do have a significant effect upon the health of the public, and that we, as a people, could do something about.

 Like what? Let’s start with some data that should be scary: Among wealthy countries, the US is the only one that has seen a leveling-off and decrease in life expectancy, as reported by “Our world in data”. I have reported on this trend several times previously (Lower life expectancy in the US: A reflection of racism, classism, and social inequity April 29, 2022, Decreasing life expectancy in the US: A result of policies fostering increasing inequity, November 29, 2019) and examined some of the various proposed explanations. Case and Deaton, among others, suggest that the increase in the death rate (particularly among less affluent whites) are “deaths of despair”, mediated through the use of substances (alcohol, tobacco, opioids and other drugs). No doubt these are major contributors, but there are also others. One that has many people very concerned, as it should, is the ubiquity of gun violence in the US. This is a major contributor to death rates in populations such as young males, where suicide and homicide are very important causes of mortality. Most of us can reel off the names associated with major episodes of mass shootings, especially school shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde, but these are the tip of the iceberg. An interactive story in the Times documents the 63 “mass shootings” (four or more people shot) in May 2022 alone, and there were 65 in June, and 25 in July -- and as of only July 8 when this was published! And this does not count the many more deaths where “only” one to three people were killed! In the wake of Buffalo and Uvalde, Congress finally passed a very weak gun law. It did break an impasse, but in the minimal amount of restriction it places on gun ownership and carrying, it reinforces the idea that “America is a gun”, as in Brian Bilston’s poem. Any other country with only one major mass shooting has reacted much more dramatically and effectively. While articles continue to appear, such as the Op-Ed of Patti Davis describing the reaction (in her) and lack of reaction (in the nation) to the shooting of her father, Ronald Reagan, 41 years ago, we still are in thrall to the gun lobby and to folks who truly believe that they are at risk if they don’t have and carry guns that they make it easy for those who are going to create major violence and death.

And what about when we get sick? We – Americans – are as a group less able to access care than people in those other countries because we don’t have universal health insurance or access. Dr. Aaron Carroll, in an Op-Ed on July 7, emphasizes the impact of health insurance deductibles, noting that it is not just the uninsured but the underinsured, for whom deductibles are a major obstacle (along with other inappropriately-designed out-of-pocket payments) who suffer from not being able to access medical care, especially in time. The numbers that he cites for deductibles, and for co-payments and co-insurance, are amazingly high, as is the impact that it has on the health of those affected. For example, “The good news is that the A.C.A. limits these [out-of-pocket expenses] in plans sold in the exchanges. The bad news is that they’re astronomical: $8,700 for an individual and $17,400 for a family,” and for people in Medicare drug plans “a simple $10 increase in cost-sharing, which many would consider a small amount of money, led to about a 23% decrease in drug consumption.”

The fact that it is the Medicare drug plan (Part D) that is cited here is not coincidental; it, along with both Medicare Advantage (Part C) and the newer REACH (formerly DCE) program implemented by CMS (the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) are the portions of the Medicare program focused on providing profit to investor-owned companies rather than health care to American seniors. A recent report by the Urban Institute on Geographic Predictors of Medical Debt, in Health Justice Monitor, shows, unsurprisingly, that those areas with the highest concentration of poor, uninsured and underinsured people, and people with chronic diseases have the highest level of debt. And the lowest level? Those areas with the highest concentrations of people over 65. This, of course, is the only part of the general US civilian population that has essentially universal health insurance, despite the efforts of the programs above to decrease or dilute it. Although this seems worth mentioning, the Urban Institute did not; maybe they thought it was obvious.

But in this country nothing is obvious to most people and needs to be pointed out.  This includes our legislators, federal and state, to whom often the only thing that seems obvious is who is contributing to them. With all respect, we need to be focusing less upon our body clocks and circadian rhythm and more on the things that made a real difference in our nation’s health.

We need to decrease the availability of semi-automatic guns with high-capacity magazines. We need government policy focused upon creating well-paid, good-benefit jobs that will decrease “deaths of despair” rather than maximizing corporate profit. And we need high-quality universal coverage and access to health care for all our people. What we do not need are more programs like Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, and REACH that channel public tax dollars to private enterprises as profit.

What we do need, we needed long ago, and we need it now.

What are the practical steps that we in medicine can take against racism?

This is a guest post by Seiji Yamada, MD, MPH & Gregory Maskarinec PhD, colleagues from Hawai'i

_________________________________________________________

In this essay, we discuss what we in medicine in Hawaiʻi can do about racism.

This NY Times opinion piece "It’s Not Obesity. It’s Slavery" by Sabrina Strings, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California at Irvine, decries the victim-blaming attribution of the disproportionate coronavirus risk among blacks to their co-morbidities. The essay starts off as follows: 

About five years ago, I was invited to sit in on a meeting about health in the African-American community. Several important figures in the fields of public health and economics were present. A freshly minted Ph.D., I felt strangely like an interloper. I was also the only black person in the room.

One of the facilitators introduced me to the other participants and said something to the effect of “Sabrina, what do you think? Why are black people sick?”

It was a question asked in earnest. Some of the experts had devoted their entire careers to addressing questions surrounding racial health inequities. Years of research, and in some instances failed interventions, had left them baffled. Why are black people so sick?

My answer was swift and unequivocal.

“Slavery.”

What Sabrina Strings is pointing out here is the importance of history and its legacy of ongoing structural violence. Interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on "Why COVID-19 hit black Americans so hard," Harvard School of Public Health Prof. David Williams notes that for every dollar of income made by white households, black households make 59 cents. For every dollar of assets owned by white households, black households own 10 cents, and Latino households own 12 cents.

The Academic Medicine article "Changing How Race Is Portrayed in Medical Education: Recommendations From Medical Students," outlines how American medicine was historically steeped in racism. We also have the historical legacy of the Tuskegee, a United States Public Health Service study in which 399 black men were observed for decades with their syphilis infections untreated. Who was the first to object? Dr. Irwin "Irv" Schatz, former chair of the University of Hawai`i Dept. of Medicine, in 1965.

Closer to us in the Pacific, we have the legacy of the Marshall Islanders, deliberately exposed to fallout radiation Project 4.1 of the March 1, 1954 Castle Bravo thermonuclear test, then subsequently subjected to human radiation experiments for which they gave no consent. 

That the Marshallese had their human rights denied in this way reflects how they were viewed as less than human. With regard to Utrik Atoll, in a post-Bravo 1956 research planning meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Advisory Committee on Biology and Medicine, Merril Eisenbud, the director of the AEC Health and Safety Laboratory, noted (as quoted by Barbara Rose Johnston 2007, 25):

They had been living on that Island; now that Island is safe to live on but is by far the most contaminated place in the world and it will be very interesting to go back and get good environmental data, how many per square mile; what isotopes are involved and a sample of food changes in many humans through their urines, so as to get a measure of the human uptake when people live in a contaminated environment.

Now, data of this type has never been available. While it is true that these people do not live, I would say, the way Westerners do, civilized people, it is nevertheless also true that these people are more like us than mice. So that is something which will be done this winter.

[Photo: Holly Barker, Bravo for the Marshallese]

 That migrants from Micronesia continue to be denied participation in Medicaid (Med-QUEST) also reflects how they continue to be viewed as the "other" - not deserving of the access to health care as the rest of us. Micronesians also experience racism within Hawai`i's health care system. (See "Discrimination in Hawai‘i and the Health of Micronesians and Marshallese" and "Chuukese community experiences of racial discrimination and other barriers to healthcare.")

The public policy is complemented by more overt racism. One of my Chuukese patients (a man with two jobs, while his wife worked another, but living out of their car) reported to me that he was stopped by the police, told to exit his car, and was slammed against the hood of his car by the policeman.

What are the practical steps that we in medicine can take against racism?

We need to address the systemic racism against Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.

We need to address the distrust that Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have toward the health system and its practitioners to improve access.

We need a health insurance system that includes Micronesians.

We must address the economic marginalization of people who work full-time but cannot afford a home.

We must address the catastrophic on-going military occupation of these islands.

This is a broad outline of the steps that must be taken. We call upon all involved in medicine in Hawaiʻi to make it a reality.

#BlackLivesMatter