Everything is becoming more unaffordable, but health care may lead this list!

A Mar 23, 2026 NY Times article, “When voters talk about ‘affordability’, many point to health care”, emphasizes how big a deal this is to the American people – and for those who consider this finer point -- American voters. Lots of things have been becoming increasingly unaffordable, so why should health care be different? Housing is ridiculous, and if you live in one of the larger cities in this country, it may well be out of reach. The Times had another piece the same day, “How a Family of 3 Lives on $500,000 on the Upper West Side”, and apparently it is not that easy. In most of America, a family of 3 making a half-million dollars a year, would be rich, but in New York City (and it is similar or worse in San Francisco, Boston, LA, San Diego, DC, etc.) you’re living in a one-bedroom apartment (near Central Park, though) and trying to save up for something bigger, made more difficult by the $4200/month you pay for childcare for your one-year-old, more than the $3900 yoy pay in rent. Doing the math, those two expenses come to less than $100K a year, so they should still have money left, but I guess other things cost a lot as well.

Food is another big issue; even more than housing it is a necessity (there are, sadly, too many unhoused people but no one can go too long without food) and it is a real issue. I had a friend who was from Colombia, and decades ago he observed that he could understand how people could be homeless in the US, but not hungry. Unlike in his country, where housing was cheap and food expensive, you could get a dozen eggs for $1. Well, recently in many places a dozen eggs were above $6. Whatever you think about eating meat, it has become a rare luxury for many families. And gas? Thanks to the US/Israeli attacks on Iran (I take a deep breath and don’t offer more comments) and Iran’s response, gas prices have shot up. I see articles about it being up 20-30%, but where I live in Tucson, AZ it was $2.79 before the attacks and in the same stations is now $4.45 or more (that is about a 60% increase!) The administration has also cut back incentives for non-gasoline cars as they want to push oil and gas – whoops! Since public transportation is so lousy in many places, people depend on cars to get around and get to work when they have a job.

So, with those 3 things – housing, food, and gas (4 if you add childcare) costing so much, it is pretty salient that the people in the Times article single out health care as a main concern about affordability. And, as I have often written, its unaffordability has been increasing and increasing and increasing. Health insurance premiums are up, and for those who receive it through their employers the percent that the employee must contribute is also up. Deductibles are up. Co-payments are up. And even when you pay all that – and frequently people cannot – you may well not get the care you need because insurance companies have ratcheted up their delay-and-deny game, hoping you will give up and not appeal when they deny you coverage for or require your doctor to get “prior authorization” for something you really need, keeping you away with algorithms that stymie your doctors. Or, maybe they completely deny payment because you went to the “wrong” hospital, one that is not in your (really, their) network. Maybe because you were, well, really sick!

Or you could have Medicaid and find that that, as bad as it was, is being cut. Or even more, is cutting you out entirely! Or you may have had health insurance that you could almost afford as an individual through the health insurance exchanges set up by ACA (Obamacare), but now find that subsidies have been cut and there is no way you can continue to afford it. Or maybe you live in a state that never expanded Medicaid (which was the way the ACA sought to cover those too “rich” for Medicaid but too poor to afford insurance on an exchange), and so you have been without access to care for years. Or, maybe are already dead.

Or you could have “traded in” your Medicare, a single-payer program for senior and some disabled people, for “Medicare Advantage”, an insurance company product that sounded great at the start but puts you right back in an HMO, where you have limited providers and the insurance company can deny you coverage. Or, just to be sure that we are not letting anyone out of being screwed, you can have opted for traditional Medicare and find out that the new WiSER program is allowing companies to use AI-based algorithms to deny care in 6 states (so far)!

Wendell Potter’s substack “Health Care Un-Covered” published With CVS’s Vertical Empire Under Threat in Tennessee, the Company Threatens to Leave on the same day (Mar 23) helps explain the reason. While the headline is somewhat optimistic (that the state of Tennessee is trying to reign them in) the real importance is the description of that vertical integration of CVS’ empire, in which they control not just local pharmacies and the health insurance giant Aetna, but also the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), Caremark, which is now its largest cash cow! It’s a great deal for them, as they pay themselves, and have little competition from small agencies. They do have competition from UnitedHealth, which owns the PBM OptumRx and the provider group Optum, and CIGNA, which owns ExpressScripts, (which Potter explains Just Got Sued for Racketeering), so it is not an monopoly, just an oligopoly with a small number of players. And not one of those players is at all interested in your health. They are entirely focused on their bottom lines, as I discussed on Feb 26, 2026 in The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.  

The Times article emphasizes the political conflict between Republicans, who have been responsible for all the cuts and are trying to make it worse, acting exactly as if their goal is to hurt and kill lower-income people, and the Democrats who are trying (unsuccessfully so far) to block cuts to ACA and Medicaid, and perhaps place some limits on Medicare Advantage. But most “mainstream” (read “corporate”) Democrats are severely limiting their suggestions to, basically, returning to Obama-era goals. A significant minority of Democrats in both the House and Senate have signed on to cosponsor the Improved and Expanded Medicare for All bills that would move the US into the mainstream of healthcare in all wealthy countries by completely covering everyone for everything (see Yes, Rep. Van Drew, there IS a solution!,  Dec 30, 2025)! If that happened, the US would no longer be a standout for bad, paying 2-3 times what other countries pay and having worse health outcomes – and, as described above, moving in the wrong direction.

I don’t think that most Democrats are opposed to your receiving quality healthcare at a reasonable price (not sure about Republicans) but they get lots of money from these insurers, PBMs, and health systems. They need to hear from you!

The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That the US health system is (to quote the opening of an important book*) “broken”, is obvious to almost everyone. It’s a mess. Even calling a “system” is probably incorrect. It costs a tremendous amount of money, generally 2-4x per capita what any other wealthy country spends, and generates far worse public health outcomes (even before the wackadoodle RFKJr became Secretary of HHS) such as longevity, disability-adjusted-life-expectancy (DALE), infant mortality, cancer survival, and almost all other measures. It also is very difficult to access, just getting to see a doctor, as well as financially. This situation has long been true for the poor and much of the working class. It is getting worse as low-income people lose access to Medicaid because of cuts to ACA subsidies or because they live in a state that never expanded Medicaid, and for rural people who are both, on average, older (and thus more likely to have health problems) and poorer. Over time it has increasingly become something that affects working class people, as insurance companies raise their rates, employers become stingier with paying premiums, and, very importantly, as the power of unions has been dramatically eroded by a society concerned only with corporations making the most possible money. It is critical to remember that the health insurance benefits employed workers gained resulted from the struggles of unions, never from the generosity of corporations.

The days of “Cadillac health plans” for unionized workers are long gone, and they are finding themselves in the same pool of too many people seeking too unavailable health care at too unaffordable costs. The new Trump administration plan for the ACA will make things much worse; it may offer lower-cost plans in terms of premiums but with enormous deductibles (‘New A.C.A. Plans Could Increase Family Deductibles to $31,000’, NY Times, Feb 26, 2026). So if you get sick and need care, you’re really screwed, and if you don’t you’re paying insurance premiums for nothing!

And now even those in privileged economic positions, who have money and sometimes even personal access because they are doctors, are finding themselves struggling to access care. People can’t find doctors, especially primary care doctors like family physicians and general internists who can manage their health and the input from various specialists. When they can find them, it is hard to get an appointment. It is very difficult to talk to them, or get a message to them, or speak to anyone who works for them who has any clinical knowledge or understanding. Some people say “I have a good doctor, they respond to my calls, or I can communicate on a health portal,” but these grow fewer. I know physicians who have real difficulties! They need supplies for their insulin pumps, but the insurance companies require notes from their doctors, and it is almost impossible to reach them. I know health care professionals who have heart problems requiring them to wear machines recording their heart rhythm over time, who must wait in lines stretching out the door to see their cardiologists. This is bad, not because they are better educated, wealthier, or health care professionals, but because it is bad for everyone. These people, at least, be able to afford to get a “concierge” doctor who they pay out of pocket, but clearly this is not a solution for most folks. 

We are in the grips of a perfect storm, with insurance companies raising their rates and finding reasons to deny care, a shortage of doctors in many areas, both geographic and by specialty, especially including primary care, with doctors having such speed-up of their work that they scarcely have time to see their patients not to mention respond to calls or notes. We have federal and state governments cutting back public benefits, including not only Medicaid but also Medicare and the VA. Doctors no longer work for themselves where they can make decisions about how to run their practice, and balance work and income, but for giant hospital “healthcare” systems and private equity investors interested only in profit.

Well, you know, maybe “perfect storm” is the wrong analogy. That phrase implies that the bad situation you find yourself in is the result of several unrelated events that come together coincidentally at the same time. This is not the case in the health care crisis. While a lot of things seem to be happening together, they are all manifestations of one single thing:

THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That's it. That is 100% of the problem. A lot of effort is spent trying to transfer blame between blameworthy players, with insurance companies saying providers are too greedy, providers saying insurers don’t pay enough. And everyone blames the pharmaceutical industry and even components of that industry – drug manufacturers, giant retail pharmacies, and “PBMs”, the middlemen between drug companies and insurers – blaming each other. But this “it’s not me, it’s them” is all a load of crap. Yes, sometimes one part of the “healthcare” industry is doing better financially than another, sometimes one corporate behemoth puts another out of business, but what is never a major consideration – and I put forward it should be the only consideration – is what improves the health of the American people, as individuals and as a whole. You, the “patient”, the sick person who needs care, is the one player in this whole thing whose interests are not getting the consideration they deserve – which should be ALL of it.

The growing trend, which is the proof of all of this, is the “vertical integration” of the components of the system. This means that the same company is the insurance company, the provider, the drug supplier. It feeds itself sucking out your money at every turn while denying you the care that you need. Several recent posts on the “Health Care Un-covered” substack detail aspects of this, including ‘The Economic Exploitation of Independent Physicians by Insurers’, and recently ‘2025: Big Insurance’s $1.7 Trillion Year’ which shows that while they ARE making these outrageous amounts (from YOUR pocket, whether directly in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles or premiums paid by your employer in lieu of higher wages) the bosses THEY answer to, the sharks on Wall St., are harassing them to do more, charge more, deny more care, because it isn’t enough; they aren’t making enough  profit! They need more!

I said at the beginning of this piece that “almost everyone” realizes that our healthcare system is a mess, and I think this is true. Certainly, those profiting from it, all those insurance companies and health systems and private equity companies and drug companies, know it. They love it. They’re making out like bandits, one might be tempted to say, if only bandits could begin to compete with them in cupidity, heartlessness, and immorality.

The truly infuriating thing is that our governments are in the practice of enabling them, of enhancing their power, of increasing their profits (see, for example, the gargantuan efforts to move US seniors out of traditional Medicare, an efficient and cost-effective single-payer plan to Medicare Advantage, which puts them back at the mercy of insurance companies; see for example Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!, Oct 25, 2025). Most legislators and their health pundits who are not the out-and-out-on-the-take corporate enablers that characterize the Republican party are the somewhat-less-but-really-still-on-the-take corporate enablers of the Democratic party!

We regularly hear from even somewhat progressive (not to mention the right-wing) think tanks and academics and legislators that it would be impossible to change the system to truly benefit the health of the American people, and not the pockets of big corporations, even though it has been done in every other wealthy (and many less wealthy) countries in the world. The key change here is to take the profit (or most of the profit, or the possibility of generating ever more profit) out of the health system. The problem is simply NOT that people use “too much” health care and cost too much money; the problem IS simply that insurers and big health systems and Wall St. and drug companies MAKE too much money and are taking the money we pay for health care out of health care!

The only people who are going to speak for the health care needs and interests of the vast majority American people are those people themselves. Demand of your politicians that they commit to single-payer improved and expanded Medicare for All, demand that they pursue policies that actually get more primary care doctors out in practice by decreasing the payment prejudice for subspecialists and banning completely the corporate practice of medicine.

And if they don’t, vote them out!

 

*Joshua Freeman, Health, Medicine, and Justice: Designing a fair and equitable healthcare system, Copernicus, 2015.

More residency slots: Good, but not going to solve the primary care shortage...

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, recently announced that it will be funding an additional 440 residency positions in 135 hospitals in 37 states. This is a good thing, and a step in the direction of reducing the glaring shortage of physicians in the US. CMS already funds most of the residency positions, something which is probably not intuitively obvious to those not involved in post-graduate medical education, but it is so even if it is not clear why (as opposed to, say, Congress directly appropriating such funding). This is important because while you are a doctor (physician) on graduation from medical school, you can’t obtain a license to practice anywhere without residency training (e.g., family medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, etc.). Thus, past efforts to increase the number of physicians by increasing the number of medical schools (or the class size in existing medical schools) fail, because the residency pipeline has been static. It has only, perhaps, decreased the number of international medical graduates filling those positions. 

CMS further states, per this piece in MedPage Today, that 2/3 of those slots will be in primary care and psychiatry, two areas in which the shortage of physicians and other clinicians is particularly acute. This is also good, but will continue to have limited impact, at least until we see exactly which specialties are getting those positions. “Primary care” is not a specialty in which there is a residency; usually the term is used to include family physicians, general pediatricians, and general internists (as well as those general practitioners who completed only one year of post-graduate training, ie., internship, when that was sufficient to receive a license). The problem is mostly with internal medicine. After completion of a 3-year internal medicine residency, the large majority (about 80%) of graduates go on to complete a fellowship in an internal medicine subspecialty (cardiology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine, endocrinology, etc.). They do not practice primary care. In addition, about half the remainder become hospitalists, caring for people in the hospital only, leaving only a small number of internal medicine residency graduates to practice primary care. While many pediatrics graduates also sub-specialize or become hospitalists, the percents are much lower. On the other hand, about 90% of family medicine graduates practice outpatient primary care. In addition, it likely includes OB/Gyn which is not primary care.*

It would be good if we could get an accurate accounting. There are “general medicine” or “primary care medicine” residency programs among the internal medicine programs which produce higher percentages of primary care outpatient practitioners -- but still not all, or even close to the 90% of family medicine. We need to know if the new CMS positions that are designated “primary care” include internal medicine; if they do, obviously the output, the number of new outpatient primary care doctors, will be significantly lower. Why should they be unclear about this? It is in the interests of many institutions to keep it fuzzy. Medical schools have long reported on the percent of their graduates entering primary care, and they have included all those entering internal medicine (and sometimes OB/Gyn or even Emergency Medicine) as well as pediatrics and family medicine, inflating the percent that is ostensibly primary care. This practice has been called “the Deans’ lie”. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), quoted in the MedPage Today piece, has a similar reason to obfuscate the truth; their members are those same medical schools (and the teaching hospitals associated with them) and their leaders, both in AAMC and in the individual schools, are overwhelmingly non-primary-care subspecialists.

One of the main reasons for the shortage of primary care physicians, and thus this purposely-inaccurate effort to paper over the dearth of them, is that, while physicians overall make much more than the average person, there is a great disparity in income between the specialties, often being 4-5 times as much for certain specialists as others. The shortage of primary care physicians and psychiatrists that this change is making a small effort to rectify is very likely because pediatricians, family physicians and psychiatrists are on the low end of the physician income scale. The table below, from “PhysiciansThrive.com”, is one example, although it may actually understate the income of the top specialties.

 

 

The lowest-paid physicians are doing well compared to most Americans, but they often come out of school with $250K + debt, which is, of course, owed with compound interest. The income gap between specialties has to be narrowed, and some studies suggest that if primary care physicians made 70% of what other specialists do, money would largely cease to be an issue in student specialty choice. But how could we do that? Isn’t it really complicated?

Well, not as much as you might think. A recent installment of the New York Times feature “The Ethicist” responds to the question from a reader “Should I Feel Bad About Joining a Concierge Medical Practice?”. This in itself is a complex, but separate, question. However, the Ethicist notes in their response that one of the reasons it is hard to find a primary care physician is that 

‘Medicare, which effectively anchors compensation levels throughout the health-care system, reimburses physicians according to “relative value units,” and those are largely determined by an advisory committee dominated by specialists. Procedures are valued more than conversations.’

I was surprised to see this addressed in this column; while it is absolutely true, it is rarely discussed. The comment makes 3 points which together drive the income disparity:

1.     CMS sets reimbursement rates for Medicare, but it essentially drives all reimbursement as insurance companies use Medicare rates (or multiples of them) to determine their own payments.

2.   These Medicare rates are set by “relative value units”, or RVUs, so that some sort of equivalence can be made. For example, how many comprehensive examinations by a primary care doctor or assessments by a psychiatrist or chest x-ray interpretations by a radiologist is worth one gall bladder removal by a surgeon or joint replacement by an orthopedist? This is essentially dividing up a pie of set size; when one “gains” another “loses”.

3.  While CMS sets these RVU ratios, they usually rely upon the recommendations of a little-known group called the “RUC”, appointed by the AMA. As the Ethicist notes, this committee is overwhelmingly specialists. And, so, not surprisingly, the distribution of the pieces of the pie tend to favor those specialists, and, indeed, procedures are valued more than conversations. And “conversations” kind of minimizes the communication between people (patients) and their primary care doctors, as people’s stories greatly inform both the diagnosis and the best treatment (and the one the patient is going to accept and follow through on), and are essential for the patients to know what is going on. And presumably interactions with psychiatrists are more than simple “conversations”. (I have written about the RUC several times, including Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal, Jan 26, 2014 and Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!, July 23, 2025.) 

So there is a clear-cut way to fix these disparities: CMS simply needs to adjust the RVU basis, increasing the value of “conversations” and really thinking and assessment and decision making relative to procedures. Of course, this means the highest-paid subpspecialists would make less than they do now, and so they are going to fight it, as are their organizations and groups like the AAMC. But really, even if they take a significant cut, they are a long way from the Food Bank!

The question is: Will CMS do this? Pressure from you, the people who can’t get into a doctor, is definitely going to help!

 

*Primary care is comprehensive care of the needs of the patient, with referral to specialists when needed; internists and geriatricians and pediatricians limit the ages of their patients but they provide comprehensive care for them. While some women only see an OB/Gyn, they only provide care for a woman’s reproductive tract, not comprehensive care.

 

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 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