Dark Times for Public Health and Healthcare: Will the insurance industry fix itself?

It’s an exciting time for both health care and public health! Anything goes, and almost anything is, or will in the near future! On the public health front, we have the nomination by President-elect Trump of Robert Kennedy, Jr. to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has long been what is generously called a “vaccine skeptic” and his lawyer, Aaron Siri, has sued the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the approval of the polio vaccine. Although the NY Times article says ‘Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Siri insists he does not want to take vaccines away from anyone who wants them. “You want to get the vaccine — it’s America, a free country." This is disingenuous. If the FDA approval is revoked, nobody will be able to get it.

I have written recently about the importance of vaccines, especially polio and measles, in preventing disease and death (Raw milk, vaccines, and RFK, Jr: Some dates worth remembering, Nov 15, 2024). A series of letters to the Times in response to the Siri article make clear the risk. Read them; they address the science, the controlled trials of polio vaccine, the experience of those who were doctors and children during previous polio epidemics, and touchingly, the experience of dancer Tanaquil LeClerq, wife of choreographer George Balanchine (short answer: no vaccine, polio, and paralysis). In regard to other vaccines, we can read in the Times ‘Tiny Coffins: Measles Is Killing Thousands of Children in Congo’ and imagine it happening in the US as a result of Kennedy’s anti-vaccine actions. Kennedy calls his movement “health freedom” and says that he will give infectious diseases a “break” (whatever that means), but in fact, as described by Gregg Gonsalves in The Nation, RFK Jr. Is Giving Infectious Diseases a Promotional Tour.

I posted on Facebook that I have heard people say “kids get too many shots”, and asked “then which preventable disease do you want your child to die of?” One comment I got from a colleague was that the problem was not that kids get too many shots, but that too many kids get shot! The most recent killings, in a Christian school in Madison, WI (15-Year-Old Girl Identified as the Shooter in a Wisconsin School) were at least the 323^rd this year in the US! THIS is an epidemic, the extent of which people in most other countries cannot imagine, and, like many of us, wonder what will be done about it. Sadly, the answer is going to be very little, if anything; we may be closing out the statistics for deaths from school shootings in 2024, but nothing suggests that 2025 will be any better.

On the healthcare front, things are not getting better. The anger at the health insurance industry exposed by the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was deep, broad and well-justified, as I wrote in Murder of a Health Insurance CEO: People HATE the companies and the people who run them (Dec 8, 2024). Study after study continues to appear providing evidence that more and more people have inadequate, unaffordable, or no health insurance. The Commonwealth Fund recently published a report that shows Hispanic/Latino Adults Lack Adequate, Affordable Health Insurance Coverage,

and that this led to their having real trouble accessing health care. The breadth of this lack goes far beyond Latinos.

Maybe we can come up with a solution! I think I have already indicated several – mainly instituting a single-payer universal national health insurance program. Or, until we do, capping the amount of out-of-pocket costs a person can have to a reasonable number ($1000?). And limiting the profits of health insurers, or the ways in which health care providers (e.g., hospitals mainly, but also nursing homes, doctors, etc.) act to make money, whether technically profit or “non-profit”, at the expense of people’s health.

Others have entered this discussion. In a remarkable Op-Ed essay in the NY Times on Dec 13, UnitedHealth Group’s CEO Andrew Witty (Brian Thompson’s boss, who makes more than $20M a year) wrote The Health Care System Is Flawed. Let’s Fix It. Unfortunately, what is remarkable about this article is that the Times chose to run it at all, since it makes no significant suggestion on how to “fix” it, certainly none that would threaten UnitedHealth’s profits. It mostly displays the Times’ complicity in an effort to focus away from the righteous fury of the American people with the health insurance industry.

USA Today reports on Seven reasons why Americans pay more for health care than any other nation, and it gets most of them right. (Reason 1: Lack of price limits, Reason 2: Hospitals and doctors get paid for services, not outcomes, Reason 3: Specialists get paid much more ‒ and want to keep it that way, Reason 4: Administrative costs inflate health spending, Reason 5: Health care pricing is a mystery, Reason 6: Americans pay far more for prescription drugs than people in other wealthy nations, Reason 7: Private Equity.) There are a few others, but it is a good list. Despite that, however, it doesn’t come up with a meaningful, comprehensive solution to them, or any of them. Indeed, it ends up quoting the Witty piece referenced above, "We know the health system does not work as well as it should, and we understand people’s frustrations with it,” rather than having any kind of answer. Like, say, universal non-profit health insurance, limits on hospital system (and physician) incomes, and banning private equity and other for-profit players from the health system!

Maybe it is asking a lot for insurance companies, largely the perpetrators of this massive scam that is bleeding the entire US economy, to come up with a “solution”. But USA Today, Commonwealth Fund, and others that do such a good job of identifying the problem should be able to take the simple next step to recommending the fix. In what is to me an amazingly open (if entirely disgusting and reprehensible) acknowledgment of their agenda, CNBC reported back in April 2018 that Goldman Sachs, the huge investment bank (Jamie Dimon, CEO) raised the question (discussing biotech research) ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’.

!!??

Actually, it’s a good question. Maybe the answer is “no”. Most ethical physicians I know (and it is the vast majority who are ethical) have always said something like “I look forward to the day when we can put ourselves out of business”. Investment banks and other forms of private equity, and the insurance companies like UnitedHealth and the providers that they control, do not see this as a positive. Maybe it is refreshing to see such a stark portrayal of the problem? Or not.

But I, and I believe most Americans, would rather see diseases and the people who have them cured, and would be happy to see the profits of any of these profiteers, privateers, just plain ganevem, and the salaries of their C-suite execs and Boards, disappear.

Raw milk, vaccines, and RFK, Jr: Some dates worth remembering

Some dates worth remembering:

1862: Louis Pasteur discovers the eponymous process of pasteurization (based on work done by Lazzaro Spallanzani 100 years earlier), first used in beer and wine, but most importantly in milk. As the process is gradually introduced (the first US state required it in 1947, the federal government for interstate commerce in 1973). It took a while, but with its introduction the frequency of serious and often life-threatening infections coming from unpasteurized (= “raw”) milk, including streptococcus, typhoid, typhus, and TB, among others, dramatically decreased. Health was improved.

2024: The US President-elect, Donald Trump, announces that he will nominate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who advocates the drinking of unpasteurized milk, to the cabinet post of Secretary of Health and Human Services.

1952: During the last major polio epidemic in the US, a friend comes to visit our family on a Saturday to see my new baby sister. On Monday, she comes down with polio and spends the rest of her life in a wheelchair. My parents are worried about their children having been infected, more about the greater risk to 3-year-old me than the baby, as polio in infants was uncommon. I do not get clinical polio (see * below) and soon thereafter receive both the Salk (injection) and later the Sabin (oral) polio vaccines. During this decade I also come down with clinical cases of measles, mumps, German measles (rubella), and chicken pox. The last was quite unpleasant, but I didn’t die and had no significant after-effects. The vaccine against measles (and mumps and rubella) were released in 1963. The rates of these diseases, especially measles which caused the most deaths, plummet. Most measles outbreaks since have been in populations in which people did not immunize their children, notably in 2019 among Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn.

As a young doctor at a public hospital in the 1970s, one of the common and feared infections we saw in the pediatric emergency room was that caused by the bacteria Hemophilus influenza b (not the same as the virus influenza). It commonly caused ear infections, but also very serious meningitis, and, most scary to us, epiglottitis, in which the epiglottis, the piece of tissue in your throat that prevents you from breathing in food, swells very large very fast and can completely cut off a child’s breathing unless a breathing tube can be placed in time (and it is difficult with the swelling). In 1985, the vaccine against H flu b was introduced, and these infections and deaths almost disappeared. Varicella (chicken pox) vaccine was not released until 1995, and the rate of those infected (and then later infected with shingles, a resurgence of the same virus, known as Varicella-Zoster) plummeted. Before the vaccine was released, about 4 million cases of chicken pox, with over 10,000 hospitalizations and 100 deaths, occurred (mostly among children) annually in the US.

2024: The US President-elect, Donald Trump, announces that he will nominate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who believes all vaccines are bad and should be avoided, to the cabinet post of Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The difference between individual and public health is important, and bears repeating.  For the individual, getting a disease (infectious or not) is 0% or 100%. If something happens to “one in a million” people it is very rare (including serious reactions to vaccines, which do not, incidentally, include autism) but if you are the one, it is 100% for you. On the other hand, if something affects 99% of people, but you are in the 1%, you are lucky. Public health looks at trying to prevent (or contain, if they are infectious) diseases by looking at the impact of disease, or preventive measure (e.g., vaccines, pasteurization) on the population**. Pointing to individual exceptions (“my grandfather drank a quart of whisky and smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100”, or “we drank raw milk all the time and we’re healthy”) does not change that unless an subgroup that is not susceptible can be identified (e.g., biological males do not get cervical cancer – although they still should be immunized against HPV as they can transmit it). Some things may decrease the risk; those drinking raw milk direct from the cow on their farm are at lower risk of infections than those who consume it after it has been shipped and had days, or longer, to become infected. Folks who are skeptical of modern medicine often emphasize “prevention”, but this is not a magic incantation. Vaccines are one of the few things we have that actually prevent serious disease. Also avoiding foods that have a significant likelihood of being infected – tainted meat, shellfish, water infected with sewage (water remains the largest cause of death, through infant diarrhea; the main reason commercial campaigns to replace safe breastfeeding with formula that needs to be rehydrated are terrible), or raw milk.

Human progress is not unidirectional. There are often steps backwards, motivated by misinformation, financial gain, fantasies, (some people’s interpretation of) religious beliefs, political gain, and others. The appointment and confirmation of Kennedy would be a big step backward. The implementation of the policies he advocates will take us back more than a century.

There is a – very important – place for evidence and truth.

 

*Even though poliovirus infects almost everyone exposed who is susceptible, not everyone who is infected with poliovirus gets clinical polio; it is about 10%. Measles, on the other hand, also infects almost 100% of susceptible people, and virtually everyone infected gets clinical disease.

**It is worth noting that even the practice of one-on-one clinical medicine is based on applied epidemiology, the science of studying disease in populations. Why we may suspect a certain condition in a person with certain symptoms is because, in a population of people who are similar and who have these symptoms, these are the common causes. Same for treatments: we don’t say “well, the last person I saw with diabetes responded well to insulin, but you’re a different person, so let’s try digitalis.”

 

Lower life expectancy in the US: A reflection of racism, classism, and social inequity

One of the things that most fuels self-deception is imagining that we should be living, or maybe even still live, in what we imagine was a better past. Of course, the past was not always better – in fact, it was overall, for most people, worse – but our minds repress the bad and remember the good from when we were children, as I have discussed in my other blog, “Life, the Universe, and a Few Things” (Brooklyn Nostalgia, August 21, 2011). Sometimes there is a conscious effort, a movement if you will, to block out the really bad things that have happened in the past not only from our individual memory but from our history books and schools. Clearly, this is happening now with regard to the primary founding evils in US history, extermination of the indigenous inhabitants (Native Americans, Indians) and slavery. That these were real is incontrovertible. That they were horrific, inexcusable, and must be remembered both to honor the victims and prevent recurrence should be obvious. But the effort to suppress teaching of this history, parallel to suppressing teaching about the Holocaust (which is not suppressed in Germany) is ongoing, vicious and wrong. To add insult to injury, advocates are adopting the language of microaggression, justifying their racist efforts to whitewash history with ostensible concern for “making white children feel bad about themselves”.

This is, in addition to every other evil and reprehensible aspect of it, also a way to divert those children – and their parents – from knowing and worrying about the things that they should be worried about, such as climate change and nuclear war. And the incredible inequities in American society (not to mention the world!) that have actually led to terrible social and individual outcomes. For example, the drop in life expectancy in the US. Yes, drop. People living shorter lives than they used to. Due in part to the COVID pandemic, but due in the US more to the vast inequities in wealth, social support, access to health care, jobs, use of harmful substances (such as alcohol, opioids, and tobacco) and every other determinant of health. What this has to do with self-deception and living in the past is the false idea that things are always, automatically, better in this country, the USA, a belief that persists in the face of evidence.

Of course, some things were, in fact, better in this country for earlier generations, some of whose members are still alive and sentient. America may not have always welcomed its immigrants, even those from Europe, and viciously and continuously repressed and oppressed members of many minority groups (particularly Natives and the descendants of Black slaves), but in the first half of the 20^th century, major parts of life were often better here for poor people than in many other countries. This was even more so after World War II, when the economies of most of the rest of the developed world were destroyed but the US' was intact, with no wars fought on its soil. This resulted in great success for US manufacturers (no competition!) and other benefits. One was life expectancy, due in large part to better nutrition. In the second half of the 20^th century it was widely observed that children of immigrants were bigger than their parents, because from infancy they were better nourished. Then, even later, at the end of that century and into the 21^st, some of the major causes of premature death saw a decline, mainly tobacco use.

But the premature death rate in the US is going up, life expectancy is going down. An important paper, published in 2014 in the Annual Review of Public  Health by Mauricio Avenando and Ichiro Kawachi, ‘Why do Americans have shorter life expectancy and worse health than people in other high-income countries?’, provides extensive documentation and discussion, including a supplement with several tables comparing life expectancy among different countries (a representative one, Female Life Expectancy at 40, is reproduced here).

 

While it has long, forever, been true that the life expectancy of underserved minority populations was less than for white people, the decrease in life expectancy for the “majority” group was shockingly revealed by data provided in 2015 by economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, “Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century”, and has been demonstrated for larger and larger portions of the US population. As I noted in this blog (Rising white midlife mortality: what are the real causes and solutions?, November 14, 2015) this was a shock for those who held to the belief that it was only true for minorities (and in perverted way, found this reassuring). Indeed, while the life expectancy for Black Americans was and is still shorter than for whites, it was slowly rising while for many whites (of course, especially lower-income whites) it was dropping. Case and Deaton, noting the large increase in mid-life death (kind of an oxymoron, but meaning “middle age”) attributed this to “deaths of despair”, specifically due to opioids and suicide. On November 29, 2019 I wrote about an article by Steven Woolf and Heidi Schoonmaker, “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017” (Decreasing life expectancy in the US: A result of policies fostering increasing inequity), and I noted that, amazingly, women in lower income groups born in 1950 had shorter life expectancies than their mothers born in 1920!

Woolf and his colleagues RK Masters and LY Aron have recently come out with a new publication looking at life expectancy in the US and other OECD countries for 2019-2021. (Note: at the time of publication, the paper, in medRxiv, had not been peer-reviewed). They found that the pandemic shortened the life expectancy in almost all countries, but

US life expectancy decreased from 78.86 years in 2019 to 76.99 years in 2020 and 76.60 years in 2021, a net loss of 2.26 years. In contrast, peer countries averaged a smaller decrease in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 (0.57 years) and a 0.28-year increase between 2020 and 2021, widening the gap in life expectancy between the United States and peer countries to more than five years.

In addition, ‘The decrease in US life expectancy was highly racialized: whereas the largest decreases in 2020 occurred among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations, in 2021 only the non-Hispanic White population experienced a decrease in life expectancy.’ So while in 2020 the most vulnerable populations took the greatest additional hit from COVID, by 2021 they were slowly recovering, while white populations continued to lose life expectancy.

So why? This may be cognitive dissonance for the self-deluding, or racist, or narrow-minded, or those who think “America is always better”, but it is true. And the reasons for it are the inequities of American life, much of which is detailed in the Avenando and Kawachi paper, as well as Masters, Aron, and Woolf. We do not have universal health insurance, and we do not have universal access to health care. Even many “insured” Americans have very poor insurance, many Americans do not have geographic or physical access to health care services, and thus many people forego health care altogether or until it is too late. Our infant mortality rate is far higher than that of comparable countries. We still have large numbers of people who are “food insecure”, which often means chronically hungry and undernourished, not to mention those who are “housing insecure”, often homeless. And we have phenomenal income inequities which have grown tremendously since the 1980s Reagan assault on the social safety net. A paper by economists Emanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, widely covered, shows examples of this: since 1982 the wealth of the 0.00001% (18 families!) has increased from 0.1% to 1.2% of all US wealth.

 

Just from 2009-2022 the wealthiest American has gone from $40B to $265B, while average income has decreased from $54,283 to $53,490, and the minimum wage ($7.25/hr) has stayed the same! So the US remains an outlier, with great social and economic inequity, poorer health, and shorter (and decreasing) life expectancy. You can believe what you want in terms of political and social theory, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences.

I find these consequences, completely unnecessary, intolerable.

Public Health, Abortion and Childcare: US far behind other countries

On October 3, I wrote about the viciously restrictive Texas (anti-) abortion law, The Texas Abortion Law is contrary to women, to science, and to human values. Texas is not the only state with such restrictive laws; in my own state, Arizona, a very restrictive abortion law has been passed by the legislature and signed by Republican governor Doug Ducey that makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman “just” because it has a genetic defect (including those incompatible with life, or worse, yet, compatible with a short life full of suffering). While a US district court judge has enjoined the law, Arizona’s attorney general, Mark Brnovich, has asked the judge to allow him to continue to enforce that law while his appeal is pending. That could mean, of course, felony convictions for physicians. This follows the Supreme Court, in a “shadow docket” ruling, declining to invalidate that law despite a prior US Court of Appeals ruling that did so.

These actions by Republican-controlled states are all predicated on the assumption that the Supreme Court will soon invalidate Roe v. Wade and take away any Constitutional protection for women seeking, or doctors or others providing, abortions. This may well happen with a case on the agenda for this year challenging Mississippi’s draconian law virtually outlawing abortion. That this is a distinct possibility is because of the success of the Republican party and Sen. Mitch McConnell in ensuring that The Former Guy, Donald Trump, was able to appoint 3 justices to the Court, first by preventing President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland (the current US Attorney General) on the specious grounds that it was the last year of his term (while there were over 9 months left), and then going ahead and then entirely hypocritically approving the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett just a week before the election, which Trump lost. Thus we have a Supreme Court with 6 Republican justices of which Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., is the least reactionary – but no longer a swing vote. Many, including Coney Barrett (referred to by NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd in her recent piece “The Supreme Court v. Reality” (Oct 9, 2021) as “Lady Handmaid’s Tale” for her advocacy for some of the repugnant and misogynistic practices described in Margaret Atwood’s book and the later TV series, strongly opposed to abortion. It is, of course, worth remembering that large majorities of the American people favor retaining the rights in Roe v. Wade, and that in some circumstances (such as rape and incest and a threat to the life of the mother) that support is overwhelming. Not, however, on GOP legislatures or on the Supreme Court.

Much of the support that exists in the US for overturning Roe v. Wade, and in general opposition to abortion, justifies itself by claiming abortion is murder, that they are only advocates for helpless fetuses, whom they call “babies”. There are undoubtedly many in their ranks who are consistent in their opposition to killing, opposing the death penalty and war (the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago comes to mind, and perhaps the current Pope Francis), but the vast majority of them, including all these legislators and SCOTUS justices, are not. And, indeed, their concern for babies and children only extends back from birth to conception, not forward from birth. We got you to there, they effectively say, but then you’re on your own. Or your parents are. This country is the meanest, using the word in both its senses, unkind and stingy, of all wealthy countries in providing support for infants, children and their parents. No box of baby necessities as in Finland (available for sale in the US, but provided by the government in Finland) . No requirement for parental leave. No guarantee of health insurance coverage, not to mention adequate coverage. No support for childcare. This one is the subject of a dramatic graphic included in the NY Times demonstrating how much countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development spend per child on early childhood care. The mean is $14,436. The second-lowest, Israel, is $3,327. Hungary spends twice that, Lithuania is over $8,000 and Slovenia over $11,000. The “poor” US comes in, as in virtually all measures of caring for its people, last, at $500. Well, you know, it costs a lot to provide care for its least needy; for the billionaires who need tax cuts.

This, of course, does not bother the majority of the Supreme Court. They are not looking for consistency. They are looking for two things: 1) to enact their political agendas, and those of the Presidents who appointed them, and 2) to have people ignore #1 and lash out at people who point it out, painting themselves as victims.

Meanwhile, thing as better on the health front in the small Central American nation of Costa Rica, as described by surgeon and health care pundit Atual Gawande in the New Yorker (‘Costa Ricans Live Longer Than We Do. What’s the Secret?’, August 23, 2021). In a country with a “per-capita income is a sixth that of the United States—and its per-capita health-care costs are a fraction of ours—life expectancy there is approaching eighty-one years. In the United States, life expectancy peaked at just under seventy-nine years, in 2014, and has declined since.” This latter fact has been described in great detail in recent years, particularly in the work of Anne Case and Angus Deaton (in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century”, and discussed by me in Rising white midlife mortality: what are the real causes and solutions?, Nov. 14, 2015). Costa Rica, in 1970, had an infant mortality rate of 7%. By 1980, it was only 2%. “In the course of the decade, maternal deaths fell by eighty per cent. Part of the change is due to improvements in access to medical care, a characteristic of middle-income countries such as Costa Rica as well as most (obviously excepting the US) upper-income countries.” This points to the second big reason, and the focus of Gawande’s article, the emphasis on public health, on the health of communities, on interventions (and spending money) on things that improve the health of all people, in great contradistinction to the US focus on providing medical care for individuals.

Public health in the US is grossly underfunded, as has been apparent since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Well, it has long been apparent to those who thought about those things. The emphasis in the US is on individual medical care, and this is what is discussed by those who have power and those who fund them, and of course the mass of journalists and pundits.This is a failure of those who should be providing accurate information, but it is also the fault of our people’s willingness to deny a problem until it is right in their face. Many Americans do not even take the preventive measures that are easily available to them (the COVID vaccine, for some reason, comes to mind) and many others are unable to avail themselves of screening and early treatment because of a lack of money or decent health insurance and so end up in extremis and grateful for whatever invasive, expensive, and often unlikely-to-be-successful medical care is available. But, as I have said before, it is less common for people to wake each morning and be thankful that they don’t have cholera because they have clean water.

It is not that the American people are stupid or have the wrong values. If a large majority support Roe v. Wade, and much larger majority believes everyone has the right to health care and that we should have a universal health insurance system. And a huge majority (about 88% including 77% of Republicans) believe that drug costs are too high, that the reason is that drug companies make too much money, and that Medicare should be able to use its clout as the nation’s biggest insurer to negotiate drug prices. Also, while we’re on it, that all children should have an excellent education, and that childcare and parental leave are truly important priorities.

But we don’t have that. We don’t have the “Finnish baby boxes”, and we don’t have universal health insurance, and we don’t have requirements that all health insurance cover everything needed, and we don’t have childcare or parental leave or excellent education for all our children or a decently supported and effective public health system or even the ability of Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Of course the poster child for opposing this latter while her constituents favor it is my senator from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, who has gotten a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry. Do we think that is part of it??

The only solution is to vote them out. Make supporting public health and universal health care and affordable drugs more important to re-election than opposing abortion rights.

"Values" based care: Public Health, Primary Care, and Medicare for All

Recently, a class of undergraduate freshmen I teach debated the issue “Health Care is a Human Right”. Although we later determined that most of them personally supported that statement, the “no” team did a good job marshalling the arguments of opponents, often citing those of libertarian think tanks such as the CATO Institute (originally founded as the Charles Koch Institute, in case that helps), which identifies itself as promoting "free markets and individual liberty”. This includes identifying health care as a “commodity” and opposition to health care as a right (and thus to universal health coverage) as an infringement upon individual liberty. Essentially these two concepts boil down to the idea that the individual is free to decide what kind of health care they want, or don’t want, and what kind of insurance coverage they want, or don’t want, and can use their money (or not) to purchase this commodity (health care) as opposed to another (I don’t know, say a bass boat).

The hole in this argument is wide enough, though, to drive a bass boat through. It is that not everyone has such a large amount of disposable income that they have the financial options to make such decisions. An old point about commodities having to do with cars, when most Americans bought American brand cars, is that some folks can buy Cadillacs and others Chevrolets. But of course, even if we update this to Beemers and Kias, there are a huge number of people who are buying used cars – often old “junkers” – to try to get to work and shopping. And there are those who can’t afford to buy, insure, and run any car at all and are reliant on public transportation. If there is any public transportation where they live. People without a lot of money (often despite working multiple jobs, even those making quite a bit more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour -- last raised in 2009 when $7.25 was equivalent to about $9 today) make regular trade-offs on what they will spend their money on. Rent? Food? Clothes for the kids? Heat? Electric bill? Gas for the car to get to work, if they have a car? Health and medical care are rarely right up there at the top unless they are actively ill. Indeed, often even chronic diseases don’t get adequately managed, with medications for common conditions such as diabetes and hypertension stretched out. This family – and to a greater or lesser extent, this is probably true of the majority of families – is trying to figure out how to juggle absolute necessities, not luxury goods. The students arguing the “anti” position gamely tried to respond to such concerns, but learned that, outside the walls of conservative think tanks, Congress, state legislatures, and country clubs, there is a limit to the effectiveness of continually repeating “individual liberty” and “commodities”.

Paying for the cost of health care is a real juggling act for the government, although for a different reason from the one the families above are doing. It is balance between wanting to spend less money and continuing to support the profits of health care corporations such as insurance companies, hospital systems, and drug makers. The rational solution to this problem is to decide that it is not the government’s business to guarantee the often obscene profits of such private corporations, but rather to spend the money on whatever maximally increases the level of health of the American people.

This should include at least two major changes: first, a national health insurance plan (such as “Medicare for All”, recently reintroduced with major improvements by Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Debbie DIngell) that ensures that everyone is covered – everyone, all in one plan, no exceptions by age, disease, etc.), and second, a massive and continuing re-investment in public health, the need for which should have been made clear by the COVID pandemic. Historically in the US, in Democratic and Republican administrations, funding for public health is about 1% of the health budget, with the rest going to individual medical care. When we have a crisis, we bemoan the lack of public health infrastructure for a while, but then it recedes. Yet this is the most important component of keeping us healthy. Fighting an active enemy (like COVID) can garner support, while maintaining programs of prevention absent an obvious crisis gets less. How often do we wake up and say “I’m glad I don’t have cholera today because we have clean water and sewage”? And, yet, recently folks in Mississippi and Texas can count themselves lucky that their lack of water did not come with cholera or another infectious disease.

Instead of such wholesale reimagining we have had programs like “value-based care” for Medicare, adopted with the ACA (“Obamacare) in 2010. When this was first rolled out, I was enthusiastic because I misunderstood it – I thought it was about providing care based upon values, presumably decent human values. Sadly, I was wrong. It was about spending less money. Did it work? To do what? If the goal was spend less, yes, to some degree (see Austin Frakt in the NY Times Upshot Oct 9, 2019, “more singles than home runs”). One of the big goals was to substitute “value” for “volume”. Paying for volume, the number of patients seen, was the accepted way to pay doctors. But what does paying for value mean? This whole issue is reviewed by Dr. Don McCanne in his “Quote of the Day” for March 17, 2021 “Policy community hung up on ‘volume to value’”. Dr. McCanne reviews the recent article “The Future of Value-Based Payment: A Roadmap to 2030” from the University of Pennsylvania on the topic, but in his comments he notes that

“All health care has “volume” – time, effort and resources devoted to health care. Volume varies tremendously depending on the clinical situation. Think of management of a common cold as opposed to management of severe multiple injuries in an accident. Can payment schemes ignore volume? Of course not. Volume is built into the problem.”

Here is a volume/value solution that I have discussed before but will now say clearly: Revise the way that physicians (and other providers) are paid so that family physicians and other primary care doctors make at least as much as those providing subspecialty care. This is the third step to add to universal health coverage and investment in public health. When I go to a shoulder orthopedist for the pain in my shoulder, that is the ONLY PROBLEM they deal with. Not BP, not abdominal pain, not my cold -- not even the arthritis in my knees.  My PCP would deal with every problem on my – and all their patients’ -- problem list (to greater or less extent, depending upon severity and acuity), and thus rarely has enough time for any on person. If you go to the cardiologist, and mention that you have knee pain, they say "I don't do knees; here is a referral to the orthopedist". And you go to the orthopedist, they make a recommendation, you come back to the cardiologist who says "I don't do knees; whatever they said". So, for the subspecialist, referral is a time saver.

But if you come to a PC doc and say your knee hurts, they make some diagnostic and treatment suggestions. After examining your knee, maybe ordering imaging and lab, and thinking about it, if they think it might need surgery, they might refer you to the orthopedist. Then you go and the ortho says "maybe surgery", so you come back and ask your PC doc’s opinion, so they read the whole consult and review the films and think about it and discuss it with you. Result: referral for a PC doc makes MORE work.

And they get paid less.

PC docs need more time with everyone, and thus fewer patients each day/week/year. How much money should they make? I don't care, pick a number, but it should be able to be earned by seeing no more than half the number of visits that they currently do. People's complaint is ALWAYS about not having enough time with the doctor.  

So, increase funding for public health, develop a universal single-payer health insurance system, and pay PC docs at least as much per hour or patient as the highest-paid subspecialist in the outpatient setting. 

Now we begin to have “value”!

Whence, and whither, family medicine: will it have role in improving our nation’s health?: Part 2

The 25th J. Jerry Rodos Lecture, presented at the 30th Annual Conference of Primary Care Access, Kauai, April 8, 2019:

Part II: More whence, and some whither family medicine

Family medicine introduced many great things to medical education. We had non-physician faculty in our departments and residencies, psychologists and educators, unheard of then. We valued education, and realized that just being a good doctor was not the same as being a good teacher, so created faculty development programs, including fellowships, often supported by Title VII grants. Our Board required recertification from the beginning, and no one, not even those who created it, were immune, or “grandfathered in”. Many of these innovations (if not the “no grandfathering”) were adopted later by other specialties, although not always crediting the discipline family medicine. And many specialties have not adopted them yet, still to their shame.

But, in the US, family medicine is still somewhat on the margins. It never completely took over as the centerpiece of the health system, not as in Canada or the UK. Much of the opposition has been regional, especially in the NE, and in cities where there were already plenty of doctors who did not want to give up control – or money (remember that word, money, we’ll be coming back to it). Of course, then, as now, most pundits who comment on medicine – actually, on all things – are, at least relatively, well to do. Poor people often adopt such attitudes as “specialists are better”, because they assume that what the rich have is better (bigger houses, better cars, certainly better doctors), although those of us who went to medical school know that that is not necessarily true. Our classmates who wanted to become elite subspecialists caring for the rich did that, and those who wanted to serve the needy did that, and it had little or nothing to do with class rank or skill. Of course, the obstacle to poor people getting what the rich get is, well, they don’t have, and so their doctors wouldn’t make, enough money!!

The small-town white picket fence practice, of Marcus Welby and many fathers and grandfathers (less commonly mothers or grandmothers) of current FPs, such as many of those portrayed in Fitzhugh Mullan’s book ‘Big Doctoring’,[1]

may be mostly gone, but that model was long the darling of the RRC; those of us working in inner-city training settings often felt that the rules were written for someone else. 

Other issues confront us, sometimes divide us. Should the future of family medicine be about “full scope” practice, including caring for children, delivering babies, hospital work, emergency care, musculoskeletal care? Or should it be limited, specialized even (OB, geriatrics, sports medicine)?  Should we be using the term primary care or family medicine? What about general internal medicine? Pediatrics? GIM has pretty much abandoned the field, since 80% of IM graduates become subspecialists and over half the remainder become hospitalists. Should we just stop saying “primary care” and insist on “family medicine”?

Most of us recoil at the oft-heard-from-medical-students idea that GIM is family medicine without the OB and pediatrics. We think that there is a conceptual basis for our specialty that has to do with caring for the whole person and caring for them in the context of their lives, families and communities. Despite the concerns of the young Josh Freeman, this context is critical. The pediatrician cares about the health of the child she cares for, and likely that of the adult that child will become. The family physician also cares for both, but more concretely than the pediatrician experiences the health issues that adults face that often have at least part of their roots in their childhood experiences. In addition, the family doctor cares for that child’s family, and knows, for example, that the child’s mother is not just “mom” (I hate that usage!) but someone with their own problems, maybe a hard job, maybe not enough money, maybe a troubled relationship, maybe caring for her own parents, maybe with her own health issues. I have often said that if clinical sciences have associated basic sciences (like psychology for psychiatry, and anatomy for surgery) then anthropology is the basic science for family medicine because it examines people in the context of their families and communities.

Family medicine is also comprehensive, per se, by its nature. I was once able to recruit an anthropologist to our department because she wanted to work in that comprehensive context, and public health/preventive medicine didn’t really offer it. Preventive medicine is seen by some as holistic, but it segments just as medical specialties do: I do smoking, you do seat belts, she does bicycle helmets, he does violence. But the family physician has to address them all. We can’t say “wear your seat belt” but ignore “stop smoking”! Or, is that what we want FM to become? Geriatricians and sports medicine and women’s health? Hospitalists and ambulists, nocturnists and weekendists? (By the way, that anthropologist went on to help run the AAFP’s national research network.)

Sometimes the issue of how family physicians practice is formulated as a conflict between lifestyle and scope. Is that true? Maybe. Maybe it is good to not take call, or too much call, or have to round in the hospital or have to get up to deliver a baby in the middle of the night. But it may also be true that for a well-trained family doctor, 8-5 clinic patients can become drudgery. Sometimes teaching helps. And what about the issue of lifestyle vs lifestyle? People want to move to and practice in cool places to live, with a lot going on, stimulating cultural events and good educational systems. But these places may pay less money and cost more to live in. Besides your practice, do you want to be San Francisco poor or Nebraska well-to-do? That old white picket fence family doc may have had no conflict, but now young people do.

There have been lots of changes in the health system in my lifetime. Family medicine was created in the 1960s and grew to adolescence in the 1970s. In the 1980s we had lots of promise; Nixon pushed for HMOs, and in the 1990s we had gatekeepers – and different opinions about whether that was good or bad. Our best resident matches were in the late 1990s; no student wanted to be an anesthesiologist because they were afraid of not getting a job. But now ….

One study showed a student entering an anesthesiology residency can expect to make $7 million more in their lifetime than one entering family medicine. In this country. When I was in Denmark a few years ago I visited a rural family practice. In conversation, the doctor mentioned his daughter was married to an anesthesiologist. Tied to my own country’s norms I joked that at least he wouldn’t have to worry about being supported in his retirement. Oh, he replied, in Denmark family doctors make more than anesthesiologists!

Is it all about money?

We have a health system that fails to focus on the health of the people. We have almost abandoned the concept of public health. Indeed, the currency of the term “population health” is more than a semantic difference. Population health can be narrowly defined to be any population – the population of your practice, say -- and it can and does often leave people out. The people who are hard to care for, or don’t make money for us, or mess up our statistics.  Public health requires us to look at the WHOLE public. Eew! How messy!

---

[1] Mullan, Fitzhugh. Big Doctoring in America: Profiles in Primary Care. Millbank. 2002.

Why don't we spend more on public health? It is harder to see the bullets we dodged -- and then there is profit.

“It Saves Lives. It Can Save Money. So Why Aren’t We Spending More on Public Health?”  (New York Times, May 28, 2018). Actually, this is a terrific question. As so often, it is complicated. Let’s start with the benefits that authors Aaron E. Carroll and Austin Frakt describe. First, there are vaccines. They eliminated smallpox and virtually eliminated polio in the United States. They have dramatically reduced the rate of common childhood illnesses including measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, and Hemophilus influenza (H. flu) infection. They have the potential for essentially wiping out cervical cancer through immunization against HPV, and liver cancer (as well as many forms of chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis) through vaccines against Hepatitis B.

A huge public health intervention is making our environment safer. This means having good sewage and clean water, and lead-free gasoline and cleaner air. These changes have saved far more lives, and improved health much more, than all of the individual medical care interventions combined. If you have traveled abroad, especially to less developed countries, you know how important these are. Indeed, better sanitation, as well as better surveillance and treatment, have dramatically reduced other infectious diseases that were once terribly feared, notably tuberculosis. And inspection of our food supply, restaurant and otherwise, are another very important part of public health.

The other big public health measure is education. Of course, education can be and is provided to individuals by health professionals as well as populations via public service education, but it is major nationwide public health efforts that have made a big difference. These include the huge decrease in cigarette smoking, and the greater safety of automobiles and their exhausts. Cigarette smoking used to be ubiquitous (see any WW2 movie) and in what would shock young Americans today, widely practiced in restaurants and even college lecture halls. Today that is unimaginable, and smoking in most places is aberrant, with less than 15% of adults currently smoking and most of those trying to quit. Car accidents are still a major cause of death and injury, but deaths from cars are way down. Almost none of this is related to people driving more safely and almost all of it to safer design of cars (think seat belts, air bags, engines that collapse down instead of back in a collision) and roads. Lead poisoning of children is way down in most places in the US thanks to lead being banned from gasoline and paint.

There are still many challenges on the public health front. Reducing the rate of chronic diseases though education around eating huge numbers of empty calories still have a long way to go. The terrible infectious disease epidemic of recent decades, HIV, has been greatly reduced by treatment, but until there is a vaccine, high-risk sexual behaviors persist. The opioid epidemic is killing more and more people, and it is only through societal approaches that this is going to be reduced.

The epidemic of gun death is not abating; many studies and articles in the press have recently discussed the increase in the suicide rate, often prompted by recent high-profile suicides such as those of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain (How Suicide Quietly Morphed Into a Public Health Crisis; 5 Takeaways on America’s Increasing Suicide Rate, ). While neither Spade or Bourdain used a gun, guns are the cause of death in at least half of suicides, and suicide far exceeds homicide in terms of numbers of gun deaths. Those who believe it is not the availability of guns that causes deaths from both causes, and other methods could be used to kill oneself or others, are simply wrong. Easy availability of guns, far more effective and efficient at killing oneself or others than any other method, absolutely has been demonstrated to increase both homicide and suicide. Suicide by gun is over 90% effective; by drugs less than 5%. “Successful” suicide rates are far higher in high gun states (e.g., Montana) than in low-gun states (e.g., Massachusetts). Homicides are also more common where guns are at hand. And, in regard to school and other mass shootings, while you can kill someone with a knife or a baseball bat, but it is hard to commit mass murder with them.

So, why do we not spend more on public health? Why do we spend so much more on what is, from a societal point of view, much less effective individual health interventions, and less than 5% of that on public health? One reason, of course, is that when each of us is sick, we (usually) want treatment, as much as possible, especially if there is a chance that it could cure us, or at least ease our suffering. This is understandable, and it is tied to the fact that we have much greater awareness of treatment of something ailing us (curing our infection, relieving our pain) than of not having disease because of the presence of public health practices. As I would tell students, how often do we wake up thankful that we do not have cholera because we have a clean water supply? Indeed, when we find that the water in Flint, MI, is contaminated with lead, we are shocked because we assume our water is safe; when we find an E. coli outbreak from a restaurant, we are shocked because we assume our food is safe.

There is also, unsurprisingly, the issue of the money that to be made. The provision of public health is rarely a big profit center, and it is usually, therefore, done by government – local, state, and federal. Individual health care, however, is a huge money-maker for insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, nursing home companies, and on and on. All that money – over $3.3 TRILLION by recent estimate -- spent on your and other individuals, while it may (or may not) have a salubrious impact on you, is going into someone’s pocket. On the flip side, public health interventions often reduce profit, especially when they are very effective. The struggle against tobacco, which killed more people than any other cause by far, was fought long and hard by the tobacco companies (currently now plying their wares in the less-developed world).Each of the changes to cars that led to the great increases in safety was fought by the industry. Today, we continue to see tremendous opposition to rules that make our environment (air, water) clean and safe; sadly, under the current administration, many of these rules are being rolled back, which will absolutely decrease our society’s health.

I guess I also need to address the people who believe that vaccines are unsafe. They are a major threat, and presumably haven’t seen children dying of measles, of the suffering of chicken pox and mumps, of the morbidity from H. flu infections of the middle ear (my students have never seen it!) or deaths from H. flu epiglottitis. Yes, there can be minor side effects from some vaccines, but the benefit is overwhelming.

Finally, as always finally, it is the poor and disenfranchised who suffer the worst. While sometimes we have the perverse satisfaction of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in well-to-do communities, anti-vaxxers unconscionably campaign in immigrant/refugee communities telling people to not vaccinate their children. The poor and minority city of Flint suffers a poisoned water supply. The oldest, cheapest houses are likeliest to have peeling lead paint and be located near polluting factories and dumps. Tobacco and junk food manufacturers advertise most heavily in minority neighborhoods. And, of course, the murder rate is highest in poor and minority communities.

Good medical care for individuals is valuable when it is needed, and could be less expensive. Public health measures are even more valuable and cost-effective. We need to increase the money and effort spent upon public health interventions, and certainly not scale them back.

Benjamin Franklin said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s true, and is a great argument for greater investment in public health.

Black men being killed by police: A public health epidemic

“Let’s do it to them before they do it to us,” was the line with which Sgt. Stan Jablonski (played by Robert Proskey) dispatched his troops on the old TV show Hill Street Blues. When Sgt. Jablonski replaced Sgt. Phil Esterhaus (on the death of actor Michael Conrad) they had to come up with a replacement for Esterhaus’ “Let’s be careful out there”. Perhaps the show’s writers felt it was ok coming from the shorter, pudgier actor than the 6’6” Conrad, but it has a very different meaning and very different connotation, an “us against them”.

Presumably the “them” was bad guys, not the regular folks that the police were supposed to be there to “protect and serve” but now, 30 years after the show went off the air, we realize how much this was, sadly, prescient. I am not going to recite the names of all the black men – and children – killed by police in recent years, including Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Philando Castile, but it is an epidemic. Yes, more white people have been killed by police than black in both 2016 and 2017 – about twice as many – but the proportions are way off given that just over 12% of the population of the US is black. And what has been even more graphic is the lack of convictions, and frequently even prosecutions, of the perpetrators.

If these deaths were not at the hands of police, but rather had a different cause – an odd virus that struck down black men when being confronted by the police, or a very selective alien attack, we would not hesitate to call it an epidemic and search for the cause. But this issue is political, it is personal, it is an “us” against “them”, raising the issue is seen by many to be attack on the police, who heroically and at great risk to themselves protect us from evil. Certainly, the Governing Council (GC) of the American Public Health Association (APHA), by far the largest public health association in the nation, did not choose to identify the killing of black men by police as a public health epidemic when it voted, 65%-35%, against a resolution so designating it at the recent meeting in Atlanta. The resolution had been introduced a year before, and sent by the GC back to the authors to make changes to the language, which was done. But it was not sufficient.

If it was the language, felt, for example, to be denigrating to police, that was the issue, members of the group could have introduced and passed amendments to correct it. This point was made (after the vote) by APHA immediate past President Camara Jones, MD MPH PhD. But it was not the issue; the GC (and thus, the APHA) did not want to take a stand identifying the killing of black men by police in the United States as a public health epidemic. Speakers against the resolution cited personal but irrelevant concerns like “my brother is a policeman, and he is a good man”, as well as saying “the data is not sufficient to make the case that it is an epidemic”, which is patently false. The vote was portrayed as a scientific decision, but it was clearly a political one, a decision by the overwhelmingly white group to put their fingers in their ears, their hands over their eyes, and shut their mouths rather than standing up and saying “this is a problem”.

Many of these killings have been of people (usually men, but sometimes women or children) who were not involved in committing crimes. They result from the heightened suspicion police hold of black people in general. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably white. Just before the vote, I was at an session at the meeting discussing police violence against black men. Most of the group was minority (predominantly black) and were relatively young public health professionals, students, and junior faculty in schools of public health. A couple of speakers introduced the issue, but then opened the floor. One by one, in random order, unrehearsed, person after person in the group talked about their fears and their experiences; these were not prepared in advance, but slowly came out, one giving rise to another. A government employee noted that she had two young sons, and worried about their safety. Another woman, a public health professional, noted that her flight to Atlanta departed at 5:30am, so she’d left her home in a mostly-white suburb at 3:30am to go to the airport. She was followed by a police car all the way into the city. Another woman, a professor, talked about driving to a neighboring state and being followed by a police car that eventually stopped her for no reason or violation; in the process the officer asked “if you’re a teacher, why aren’t you in school?” The stories went on and on, from the mouths of professional people, most of them, in fact, women. 

Although many people would disagree, often virulently in with this age of Trump giving loud voice to aggrieved white men, being white in America is a privilege. It is a privilege of not thinking that you will be followed by police, or pulled over by them, or subjected to inappropriately probing questions by them. It creates an illusion, obviously held by the majority of the GC of the APHA, that it is mostly criminals, or “probably-criminals”, or people who look like they might be criminals, who are followed by, stopped by, and sometimes killed by police. But that is not the experience of black people in this country, not the black men shot by a police officer who makes up a story about being threated, nor of the middle-class professionals who told their stories at that APHA session. It is not the experience of the young woman who drove me to the Atlanta airport from the conference; in talking she said she had a 3-year old son and I asked if she feared for his safety not just from gangs but from police. In response she said she did, and pointed to a button hanging from her rear-view mirror and said “my uncle was killed by the police 3 years ago”. I don’t know what occurred with her uncle beyond what she told me, but I suspect it is not fate, coincidence, or Kismet that caused my driver to have her own story to tell, but rather the ubiquity of this experience among black people in America.

What about the police? Don’t we have to worry about the safety of the people who risk their lives each day to protect us? What about the fact that there are many (if not enough) minority police officers? To identify the current situation, not only the killings but the very real sense of most black people in this country that they do not have the same rights as whites, that they are, by definition, “suspicious” because of their color, does not require denigration of all police officers. Indeed, the families (especially male family members) of black police officers, and even the officers themselves when off-duty, experience the same indignities (and worse) as other black people.

It does mean that the idea that a police officer’s first loyalty is to other officers rather than to the community that they “protect and serve” must be very narrowly construed. Rather than a “thin blue line” of brothers (always, it seems, brothers, not sisters), it means that we should have tighter standards for police, excluding those who are overtly and viciously violent and racist. It means better training in identifying a situation in which you see through your prejudice and not through reality, and how to de-escalate. It means that when an officer kills a person innocent of a crime, it is not enough for other officers to have not “done it”; they must, if they were unable to prevent it, disclose it and discourage it and, yes, testify against the perpetrator. Police officers who do so are not “traitors”, they are heroes who allow the force to be thought of as we want to think of them.

The fact that even the most respectable and middle-class black people have to fear interactions with police (even when they are the ones who have called them!) is a societal scandal. The enormously disproportionate killing of black men by police is an epidemic, and like all epidemics we must identify it as such, find the cause, and treat it.

Even the APHA should be able to acknowledge that.

Trump's "bad doctors": mostly greedy and bad for the public's health

My recent post, Doctors and health reform: maybe they do stand for health!, March 25, 2017, lauded the positions of many medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) for their positions in opposition to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Trump-Ryan bill that never even got to a vote, and apparently was never even available to House members to read before the vote was scheduled.  But I also pointed out some “bad” doctors, defined as those who advocate policies that are bad for the health of the American people. They argue that they are really for health, but this means mostly health care, especially medical care, for those who can afford it. There is no small tinge of racism as well as classism in these positions, because poor people and minorities are those most likely to be left out, and because, well, these perpetrators don’t care.

The prime example I cited was Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, who, as a representative from a wealthy suburban Atlanta House district, continuously railed against the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as well as, in fact, Medicare. Dr. Price is an orthopedic surgeon, and my essay noted that this specialty is over-represented in the cohort of opponents of expansion of access, possibly because their high average income puts them in an elite economic group, and many are more concerned with their self-interest than the health of the overall population. Price was not the only bad doctor I mentioned; I also cited the “tone-deaf” comments of Rep. Roger Marshall of Kansas, an obstetrician-gynecologist. “Tone deaf”, of course, is a mild and polite term for his racist, classist comments, summarized as “the poor just don’t want health care”. Tone deaf, by the way, is also the term commonly used to describe the demeaning commercialization of the Black Lives Matter protest movement evident in Pepsi’s commercial featuring Kendall Jenner, now mercifully withdrawn. That was a result of the strong and sustained protest of a large number of people, especially on social media.

Price and Marshall are abetted by the non-physician politicians in Congress and the administration who also would deny health care to a lot of people, and even, through changes in Medicare and Medicaid, make the coverage of many people who now feel moderately secure in their insurance status greatly at risk and much more expensive. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Vice President Mike Pence met with the “Freedom” Caucus of the House to discuss just how regressive a health care bill would have to be to get their support. Pretty bad, it turns out. Its chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows of NC, is quoted by the NY Times as saying “Lower premiums have to be our first and only priority. By repealing community rating and the essential health benefits, it allows for lower premiums across the board.” Well, lower premiums are something everyone wants (except probably insurance companies) but there are different ways to get there. “Repealing community rating” means that insurers would no longer have to cover people who have chronic disease and are often older (and, ironically, often Trump and Freedom Caucus voters) at the same rates as less sick people. Those people would not have lower premiums; their premiums would either be fantastically higher, as they were before the ACA passed (and when many of them were without coverage) or be altogether unavailable. This is not something that the vast majority of Americans want. Similarly, “essential health benefits” are, well, essential. Like, for example, maternity care, and preventive health care. The fact that Rep. Meadows used that word and didn’t replace it with some euphemism, illustrates how tone-deaf he is.

But not all doctors who I would characterize as “bad” are reactionaries who are trying to figure out how to deny health care to the American people. Some are just traditionally greedy, seeking to fill their own pockets with as much money as possible. This is not a problem limited to the right; even folks who are progressive on social policies can be guilty of “going where the money is”. An excellent example is Trump’s nominee to head the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb. Gottlieb, like many researchers, has been highly paid (at least on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars) by drug manufacturers. Gottlieb assures us that this will not affect his decision making at FDA, and that he can be trusted, as in the title of the NY Times article of April 5, 2017, in which he “deflected” criticism. While some Democrats, like Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, noted that he had ‘“unprecedented financial entanglements with the industries he would regulate,”’ Republicans like Lamar Alexander of Tennessee agreed with Dr. Gottlieb that “his experience with the pharmaceutical industry would be an asset in regulating it.” This is terrific tortured fox-guarding-the-henhouse logic, like having Goldman Sachs financiers regulating Wall Street, or petroleum company flaks running EPA (which we, in fact, have). This concept worked fine on “It Takes a Thief”, but not so much in real life.

Taking huge amounts of money from drug companies may be morally reprehensible (or not, depending on your view; in mine it is), but more concerning are the positions that Gottlieb has taken. While he is open (he says now) to lowering drug prices by importing drugs from Canada, something Trump has occasionally voiced support for, he has previously written against it (when he was in the pay of the drug companies). The issue is what the policies pursued by the FDA, HHS, CMS, and the overall Trump administration and Congress regarding the people’s health will be. Disrespect for preventive care (“essential services”) and environmental pollution bodes very poorly for public health, as the core principle of “cut benefits” does for medical care. And, as always, the most vulnerable – from poverty, age, illness, geographic region – will suffer the most.  It would be really good if we could count on doctors like Price, Marshall and Gottlieb to protect the health of the people, but don’t count on it. We are going to need huge public protest, at least as big as those that ending up canceling the Pepsi commercial.

Well, it could be worse. Another physician, Dr. Bashar al-Assad, is gassing his own people with chemical weapons. And there was also Dr. Josef Mengele. So far, none of Trump’s nominees are in that league.

The cost of health care: insurance companies, high-profit and low value care

We know that health care in the US is incredibly expensive. Those who read about health policy from a variety of sources (perhaps including this blog) know this in terms of data – our per capita cost is 50% more than the second highest-cost nation (Norway), twice what most comparable (rich) countries spend, and almost 3 times that of the United Kingdom. But you don’t have to be a policy wonk to know that health care is expensive; you just have to be a consumer who is trying to buy health insurance and is seeing their premiums go up – and their out-of-pocket costs (deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance) go up as well. All those other countries cover everyone, equitably, despite spending so much less money (and those that spend more, like Norway, have especially good coverage). Not so here.

“My premiums are more than $600 a month, which is more than our mortgage payment,” a cancer survivor quoted by the New York Times in its August 14, 2016 article by Robert Pear “Health insurers use process intended to curb rate increases to justify them”, said. “I am grateful that the Affordable Care Act is here for my family, but I am disappointed by its limitations. All I want is a plan that makes our health care affordable, but it doesn’t exist.” She is likely to be disappointed, because this was not how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was set up, and unless control of Congress changes dramatically, we probably will not see a fix. ACA passed because it guaranteed continued profit for insurance companies, and this has led to both the rate increases and out-of-pocket cost increases we have seen. Insurance companies can do this because the law allows them to ask for premium hikes when they are not making “enough” money. Essentially, ACA requires the American people (subsidized by the federal government if they are poor) to ensure private insurance companies are profitable. Because they believe that they have not been permitted to jack up rates “enough”, some companies (Humana, United, Ætna) are leaving the exchanges in many places.

While other counties make sure everyone is covered by some national health insurance (a national health service in the UK, a single-payer national health insurance system in Canada, and highly-regulated multi-payer systems in many other European countries such as France, Germany, and Switzerland), we have tried a patchwork that leaves many people out (e.g., the undocumented, poor people in the 19 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid), and encourages others to buy policies on the health insurance exchanges based solely on their cost. This is examined in a story by Reed Abelson in the Times from August 12, 2016, “Cost, not choice, is top concern of health insurance customers”. It notes that people who are healthy and young but don’t have employer-based health insurance are either buying the cheapest policies available on the exchanges or “particularly those not eligible for generous subsidies, are shunning plans altogether, finding all of the prices too high.” When they don't buy insurance, it messes with the insurance company model of offsetting costs for sick people with the premiums paid by healthy people, the reason for increasing premiums. And many other people, neither young nor healthy, are also buying the cheapest policy they can find because they can’t afford the cost (and maybe can’t understand the details); for these folks, it is not the insurance companies that pay the financial price, but themselves, when they get hospitalized or otherwise need costly care and discover that their “insurance” is inadequate (the technical term here is “crap”).

And this is just the health insurance contribution to high health care cost. Also very important is the cost of the care itself, particularly high-tech, high-cost care, provided to many Americans (at least those with good insurance coverage). This is driven, at least currently, by the fact that in most places, where insurance companies pay providers by piecework (“fee-for-service”), high-cost is also high-profit for providers, both individual physicians and the large institutional providers (hospitals and health systems) that often employ them. This blog, and a variety of exposés in many news articles including in the Times (particularly the work of Elisabeth Rosenthal) have given example after example of such incentives driving both the kind of care delivered and the cost of that care. In the worst instances, this is the result of rapacious greed that provides unnecessary care at very high cost. In many other settings, the opportunity for profit subtly (I hope) tips the scales toward providing high-cost, high-profit services rather than just as good, or almost as good, alternatives. But there are even more insidious drivers of cost; these are in the “everyday tests”, such as those done for screening, that in themselves, one by one, don’t seem to be excessive but multiplied by the number of people receiving them cost a lot (and make a lot of money for providers). The practice of ordering such tests is often driven by advocacy groups, providers in certain specialties and relatively small numbers of people with a specific condition who think everyone needs to be tested for it.

A good example is screening for lipid disorders (basically, high cholesterol) in children. Yes, some children have a genetic disorder which means that they should be tested and treated, but the vast majority do not and screening them (barring a history of familial hyperlipidemia or very early heart attacks) should not be done. It is not recommended by either the US Preventive Services Task Force or the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), nor by the UK National Screening Committee. This example is discussed in an outstanding editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine by Thomas B. Newman, Alan R. Schroeder, and Mark J. Pletcher published on August 9, 2016, titled “Lipid screening in children: Low-value care”, preceded by the tagline “Less is more.” The authors contrast the USPSTF and AAFP recommendations to those of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH, endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommends it. The authors of the editorial demonstrate the amazing lack of cost-effectiveness for this screening test, and note that is only because USPSTF does not consider cost-effectiveness that it gave the test an “I” (insufficient evidence to recommend for or against”) and not a “D” (recommend against testing).

But the most important point made in the editorial is that our recommendations for testing – and how to spend our healthcare dollars – are individually focused, and virtually ignore (and thus dramatically underfund) those interventions in public health and the social determinants of health that would truly make a major difference in the health of millions of Americans. The authors say it extremely well:

Tackling major public health concerns such as climate change, poverty, obesity, and gun violence is likely to yield high-value solutions, and many advocate policy and community-level interventions that might achieve such solutions. Meanwhile, other segments of our health care establishment continue to try to solve health problems by doubling down on individual-level health care solutions that tend to be low in value...The need for clinicians and leaders to focus on sustainability and health care value has never been greater, and it is likely that policy and community-based interventions will get us there much more quickly than adding more clinic-based interventions that have low value and are wasteful of resources and clinicians’ time.

We need to take this advice to heart. It goes way beyond lipid screening in children. It means supporting interventions that actually  improve the health of the public on a large scale. And, as always, “support” is spelled M-O-N-E-Y.