Consumer experiences with health insurers: Not always good

I have often written about the particular burdens that people with no health insurance have accessing adequate healthcare. However, these problems affect Americans with health insurance as well. To look more into the experience of insured Americans, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) did an extensive poll on consumer experiences with health care insurance to understand

how health insurance works involves exploring how people feel about their health coverage, how affordable that coverage is, how they interact with their insurance provider, the problems they experience, and, critically, how insurance works for people when they get sick.

The findings often seem to be in conflict, but this is largely because different people are experiencing different things. For example, 81% of people surveyed (91% of those with Medicare) rated their insurance as “excellent” or “good”, but for those who described their own health as fair or poor, that satisfaction was down to 68% (still a large majority, but a lot lower). This is to be expected; insurance in general is something you hope to not use, and when things are going well and you don’t need it, it functions well (except for those premiums). When you have not had a fire in your house, or a car wreck, or a close relative die, your homeowner’s, automobile, or life insurance are working just fine. What matters is how they function when you have a need. And health insurance is different from other forms of insurance because, for a bunch of bizarre historical reasons, it is the common, routine and accepted method of paying for your health care, not something you buy hoping to never have to use like other insurances. And, yet, when you get sick, and need hospitalization, surgery, cancer treatment, etc., is when the rubber meets the road, and why sicker people are less satisfied.

Let’s spend a little more time with this. It doesn’t matter much if you are happy with your health insurance when you are well if it is not going to serve you when you need it.  While that could be never, it is unlikely; if you are young and healthy, you will get old – or get sick sooner. If you are middle-aged or older and are healthy, terrific – until you are not. You may ‘not have been sick a day in your life’, and that is good, but then one day, you find out you have cancer. Or are in a car wreck. Or a pretty-well-controlled chronic condition gets out of control. Being concerned about the minority of people and their health and insurance coverage is not just a matter of social responsibility (although that is important) because there is a great likelihood you will be too, one day. Maybe not soon. Or maybe soon.

 Remember also that, although this poll (and others) are one-time snapshots, the group of people who are sick is not static. Over time (say looking at it each year), some people who used to be in that group leave it – either through recovery or death. Others join it. This is how the magic of consultants work – hire us and the 1000 most costly people you had last year will cost you, as a group, less this year. Of course.

Going beyond this issue, the KFF poll found other seemingly contradictory information. Despite expressing a high degree of satisfaction with their health insurance, people also identified a lot of problems.

A majority of insured adults (58%) say they have experienced a problem using their health insurance in the past 12 months – such as denied claims, provider network problems, and pre-authorization problems.

Unsurprisingly, this rate was higher (about 2/3) among sick people, but was still well over half of those in good health. And, furthermore, only half of those who had problems with their insurance were able to resolve those problems to their satisfaction; a significant number of folks simply did not get the health care that they need. And these problems were even worse among some groups of people, such as those with mental health problems.

 

Trying to understand these seemingly contradictory findings can be hard, but clearly some horrible psychological factor is present which allows the American people to think something is “good” when it is not because their expectations have been so diminished. It is likely that some of this is “well, it’s not as bad as I was afraid it might be” or “it’s not as bad as what happened to my neighbor or cousin”. If you set the bar low enough, a lot of bad can pass over it. Note that the cycle of bad that affects Medicaid recipients even more than others – poverty makes illness greater, and makes it harder to get treatment and to recover, and illness increases poverty. To be “satisfied” with your health insurance should not require you to be without healthcare needs!

Good healthcare is something quite different. It is getting all the care you need (and none of the care you don’t need) promptly, efficiently, courteously, and affordably. It should not require long waits to get into see a clinician or to get into a hospital. There should be adequate staffing, both of medical professionals such as doctors and nurses and other staff necessary. There should be no out-of-pocket cost for medical services (or a very minimal one which can be waived for the poor). It should be paid for proactively by “social insurance” (such as traditional Medicare) and adequately funded for 100% of the cost (unlike, currently, traditional Medicare). This does not mean the wealthy should not pay more, but they should do so through higher taxes to support this health system, not when they are ill. The randomness of “you pay today because you got sick or injured, I don’t (until, maybe tomorrow, when I am)” should be abandoned.

Standards for approved drugs and procedures should be established by independent scientific panels whose members are forbidden from taking corporate dollars. Such standards may be more or less restrictive, but must be applied equitably to everyone regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Inequity has no place in healthcare.

And, of course, all profit-making must be eliminated. This means from both for-profit and ostensibly non-profit hospitals and other healthcare facilities like long-term care, insurance companies, device and drug manufacturers, and other parasitic leeches. Indeed, we could keep private insurance companies, provided they are adequately regulated – i.e., they must provide all the same benefits and must charge the same amount and not be permitted to make a profit. This would require them to compete on the only legitimate factor, customer service. Let the ones who don’t do a good job go out of business. This is more or less the Swiss model. There are several potential models, but all must include financial and service equity for all.

They should not be about being happy with your insurance because you didn’t get sick, or because they screwed you less than you feared they might!

If you want a little laugh, read this by Kendra Allenby from the New Yorker. But somehow, if you have ever been in the hospital, I don’t think you’ll laugh too hard because it will be too familiar.

Status Syndrome: an important determinant of health

This is a guest post by Linda French, MD, who is Chair of the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Toledo School of Medicine.

In a recent blog (Keeping immigrants and all of us healthy is a social task), May 19, 2013), my good friend Josh Freeman wrote about the social determinants of health. When I commented that arguably the most important determinant was missing from his list he suggested that I write this book review blog as his guest. While I had long ago read quite a few papers on the topic of social determinants of health and health disparities that addressed the material that Josh covered in his blog, for me it was an eye-opening experience to read a book a few years ago by Michael Marmot (2004), The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity[1]. I found Professor Marmot’s explanations to provide a unifying idea that resonated with me.

Everyone knows that wealthier people are on average healthier than poorer people. However, it doesn’t follow that wealthier countries, including the United State (US), are necessarily healthier than poorer countries. For example, three countries that I am rather familiar with, Chile, Costa Rica, and Cuba, have life expectancies and other population health statistics that are as good or better than ours despite huge differences in average wealth.

Professor Marmot’s thesis is that, after a minimal threshold, it is not so much absolute differences in material means that makes wealthier people healthier, but rather their perceptions of their social status within their reference group. To quote him,

“The remarkable finding is that among all of these people [i.e. the groups he studied], the higher the status in the pecking order, the healthier they are likely to be. In other words, health follows a social gradient. I call this the status syndrome.”

Professor Marmot is a British physician and epidemiologist from University College, London. His book carefully presents the evidence that it is the psychological experience of how much control you believe you have and your opportunities for full participation in society that is at the heart of social determinants of health.  He presents evidence from many countries and comparisons between them, and evidence related to individuals within different types of social hierarchies, and finally ends with evidence that countries with less inequality are healthier than those with more.

One example that he discusses in detail is that British office workers at the bottom of the office hierarchy have a higher risk of heart attacks than senior managers at the top, while just a generation ago popular wisdom was that highly successful “type A” personality people in stressful jobs were more prone to coronary artery disease.

Before reading his book I had seen some documentaries on primates that suggested that lower status animals had poorer health and reproductive outcomes and shorter lives on average compared with high status animals that was relatively unrelated to sufficient access to resources such as food. In addition I lived for a number of years in Chile as a young adult; my middle class income by Chilean standards was dire poverty by US standards. I was an American expatriate, a status  that was highly regarded in Chile, and also during some of those years I was a medical student. Despite the fact that I was really poor by US standards I was happy and healthy and my children also seemed as happy and healthy as US kids. After returning to the US I read some papers that included data to show that the generation of newly arrived Hispanic immigrants enjoy relatively good health outcomes, which deteriorate in subsequent generations despite the fact that the families have acquired more material wealth in absolute terms. No good explanations were included for the findings in those papers. After reading The Status Syndrome it made sense to me. The initial immigrants were probably using their country of origin as the social reference and subsequent generations had a US social frame of reference. I concluded that minority groups in this country have health disparities in large part due to the experiences of inequality and discrimination relatively more than due to absolute access to material means or even specific services - including health services.

In the latter part of his book Professor Marmot demonstrates that the countries with the best health statistics in the world are those that are both relatively wealthy and more equal. Examples of such countries are Sweden and Japan. On the other hand, countries at the other end of the spectrum present a reaffirming contrast. He spends the latter part of the book arguing for a political agenda in favor of reduction in social inequality.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, I highly recommend this book. It will transform how you think about the social determinants of health.

---

[1] Marmot, Michael. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. Owl Books. Henry Holt and Company. New York. 2004.

Keeping immigrants and all of us healthy is a social task

The Health Toll of Immigration, by Sabrina Tavernise in the May 19 New York Times, documents the decreased life expectancy and worse overall health that accompany immigration to the United States. Focusing on Mexican immigrants in the border city of Brownsville, Texas, but drawing on data about other ethnicities and even time periods, the article provides convincing data that descendants of people who immigrate from Mexico and other, poorer, countries, have, in general, worse health, greater rates of obesity and diabetes, and shorter life expectancies than their parents or those who stayed. The numbers are impressive:  “A 2006 analysis by Gopal K. Singh, a researcher at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Robert A. Hiatt, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, found that immigrants had at least a 20% lower overall cancer mortality rate than their American-born counterparts. Mortality rates from heart disease were about 16%  lower, for kidney disease 18%  lower, and for liver cirrhosis 24% lower.” It seems to get worse for later generations; “Elizabeth Arias, a demographer at the National Center for Health Statistics, has made exploratory estimates based on data from 2007 to 2009, which show that Hispanic immigrants live 2.9 years longer than American-born Hispanics.”

Some, perhaps most, of this is related to the prosperity of the US, and the easy availability of cheap, high fat, high sugar, high calorie food. One woman, who came to the US at 26 and has since developed diabetes, says she was amazed at seeing hamburgers as big as dinner plates; “I thought this really is a country of opportunity! Look at the size of the food!” Grueling work hours, both parents working (when both are here) make time for preparation of healthful food scarce, and more cash in their pockets allows the purchase of tasty-but-bad-for-you fast food. In addition, there is evidence of increased smoking and drinking as immigrants move into the US underclass, a group particularly targeted by marketing efforts for these substances of abuse.

Traditional diets for most people, including Mexicans, are based on food that is grown or found wild (vegetables, cactus) or bought in bulk (rice and beans). These are high fiber and low in empty calories. Robert Valdez, from the Department of Family and Community Medicine and Economics at the University of New Mexico, is quoted as saying “All the things we tell people to do from a clinical perspective today — a lot of fiber and less meat — were exactly the lifestyle habits that immigrants were normally keeping.” There is some evidence that there may be a genetic predisposition to diabetes in some Latinos, particularly Mexicans, as there is in American Indians; after all, Mexicans are largely a mestizo people with much Indian “blood”. Of course, these observations may be related; the natural diet of native peoples did not provide the environmental  factors (high calories, obesity) needed to trigger clinical diabetes, and so the genes for this did not “die out” as readily as in other groups. The same model is seen in South America; the remote Xingu Indians of the Amazon now have extremely high rates of diabetes where it never existed before the introduction of “white” food (used to refer to the color of the food as well as of the people who introduced it).

The other big factor is physical activity. While many immigrants work in physically demanding jobs, the prevalence of physical activity is not as great as for those living on farms in Mexico. One man talks about losing 75 pounds motivated by the image on the wall of his grandfather, who is 93 and still rides his bicycle every day. Yet, 4 of the 6 siblings of the grandson are obese and have diabetes. Another immigrant talks about walking in her early years in the US and feeling so conspicuous (“a bean in rice”) that she was afraid people would think she was here illegally. This has also been described in African-Americans moving from the agricultural (and very poor) South to a more prosperous, but sedentary, life in the North, and in most families a generation or two removed from farms, whatever their ethnicity. Concepts of what is “enough” food, what is a “good” breakfast or dinner for our children, did not change as quickly as lifestyles did. Our culture does not require physical activity as part of daily life the way farming, including subsistence farming, did, but we fed our children the same number of calories as we did (if we were prosperous farmers) or would have liked to, or more, because it is more easily available. Indeed, these changes are not limited to the US; things are changing for the worse (in terms of health) in Mexico as well; citing the fact that up to 40% of the rural diet in Mexico comes from packaged foods, “Researchers are beginning to wonder how long better numbers for the foreign-born will last.”

These are all factors in the “social determinants of health” – how we eat, how we exercise, how poverty grinds us down and how marketing of harmful substances like tobacco, alcohol, and high-sugar foods take their toll at even greater rates on the poor. This is not to romanticize rural poverty, of people, including children, having to do excessive physical labor in order to survive and thus burn up more calories than they consumed, or to minimize the difference between a rural/farming life which provided enough income to supply those calories and those in which malnutrition claimed lives and health. It is, rather, to point out that some of these terrible conditions ironically protected the health of its victims. This has been observed in the past; beri-beri occurred more in wealthy Chinese who ate hulled white rice than in the poor who ate the rice with hulls that contained the thiamine. In England in the early 20^th century alcoholic cirrhosis was a disease of the rich who could afford highly-taxed spirits, while workers drank watered beer. The image of the wealthy many as obese – and suffering from gout, "The disease of kings1" (all that high-protein food) persists in cartoons.

Dr. Arias, cited above, observes that the health status of immigrant families “…may indeed improve as they rise in socioeconomic status, which in the United States is strongly correlated with better health.” Of course, there is no guarantee that longer time in this country will cause a rise in socioeconomic status; the last decade shows a persistent decrease in the socioeconomic status of most Americans, despite a “recovery” measured by Wall St. stock prices. The answer is not to regress to rural poverty, but it is to address these social determinants. It is to build towns that encourage walking and other physical activity. It should be to make fresh, healthful food widely available. It should involve education in schools about healthful eating, not undercut by junk food available in machines. It should limit advertising for poisons such as tobacco and alcohol. It should make clean air and water a priority, and ensure everyone has access to good health care.

 It should be a no-brainer, but in the politics of the US today, it may not be. Charles Blow in his May 18, 2013 column “Resonance Resistant”, notes that “We all know that anything with ‘social’ in its name activates the conservative gag reflex.” This is crazy; we are social beings. We can do better, and we should.