Universal health coverage would save money. And lives. And make life a lot better for people.

Two recent Gallup polls confirm long-standing problems with the US health system. Americans Sour on U.S. Healthcare Quality finds that 

For the first time in Gallup’s two-decade trend, less than half of Americans are complimentary about the quality of U.S. healthcare, with 48% rating it “excellent” or “good.” The slight majority now rate healthcare quality as subpar, including 31% saying it is “only fair” and 21% -- a new high -- calling it “poor.” 

It is important to read that carefully; it does not say that “for the first time in two decades, Americans find problems with U.S. healthcare”. It says that for the first time fewer than half rate it as “good” or “excellent”. And “a new high”, 21%, say it is poor. This is very significant because the opinion one has about healthcare varies tremendously depending on whether one has needed it or not. If you, and your family, have been healthy, and have rarely if at all needed anything other than, perhaps, immunizations or checkups, then you are likely to perceive the system as better. Even then, you probably had some difficulty getting an appointment, getting through to find out the results of any tests you had, and difficulty communicating in general. And it likely cost a lot. If you were just a little sick, it can be irritating, frustrating, and even risk your health to some degree. But if you are really sick, and especially if you need to be in the hospital, it is very unlikely that your experience was even “fair”.

This is something that a lot of people, and a lot of pundits miss. When you don’t need health care, everything is fine, and your insurance is good and pays for all of the nothing you use; indeed even being uninsured is fine. It is just that pesky problem of it not being fine when you need it. Like anything; you don’t regret not having a down coat on a balmy Spring day, or an umbrella when it is dry. There is an old story about a traveler coming across someone whose roof is leaking in the rain. The traveler asks why he doesn’t fix it. The man responds that when it is raining it is too wet to get up on the roof, and when it isn’t, “my roof is as dry as anyone’s.” This is fine as a joke, but not as  healthcare strategy. When you or a family member is in a car accident, or gets a cancer diagnosis, or needs major (or even minor) surgery, or your newborn needs to be in the intensive care unit, is not the time to start to think about your health coverage.

And, yet, that is what many people do, are forced to do, to depend upon hope and prayer. While for some this could be in part an issue of distorted priorities – health insurance is expensive and I could be buying a nicer house or a bass boat –this is not the usual reason. It is more often “health insurance is expensive and I need to pay the rent and buy food and put shoes on my children’s feet”. And if their budget allows them to actually buy health insurance, it tends to naturally be the one that the buyer can afford – and is often inadequate, and have high patient responsibility (co-pays, maximums, and other costs). Thus “having health insurance” deludes you (and many pundits and policy makers) into thinking that you have taken care of this issue. Until you need it.

Which brings us to the results of another Gallup poll, released at the same time, “Record High in U.S. Put Off Medical Care Due to Cost in 2022”. “The latest reading, from Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2, is the highest by five points and marks the sharpest year-over-year increase to date.” Not a surprise given the information above. You can put off going to the doctor for a checkup, or a cold, or a vaccine, or even for treatment for a significant chronic disease like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease – at least if is not bothering you too much – but it is not very wise, since ignoring such conditions is one way to get you really sick, and into the hospital, and maybe into intensive care, and maybe, even, die. However, since we don’t have a universal health program in the US, too many people simply cannot afford to get healthcare, especially anything that is costly. I am tempted to say that there is a price list, and, like buying a car or a house or a coat, you shop within your means. Except, of course, there is no price list, and you hardly ever know what a medical procedure will cost. And there are often no good alternatives to the expensive treatment; in this way it is definitely not like buying a perfectly functional, if less fancy, car.

A third important article was published in June 2022 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. “Universal healthcare as pandemic preparedness: The lives and costs that could have been saved during the COVID-19 pandemic”  by Galvani, Parpia, Pandey, and Fitzpatrick, estimates that during the pandemic a universal healthcare system would have saved 212,000 lives and $105.6B from COVID alone, in 2020 alone. This would have risen to about 338,000 lives through March 2022, as reported on in the Scientific American, and would have been on top of another $438B saved from other causes besides COVID. That is a lot of money. And a lot of lives. More than 100 times the number of lives lost in the World Trade Center attack. And (see the polls from Gallup) that is not counting the people who didn’t die, but could have. Who lost their health, their ability to work, their life savings, their ability to provide for their families.

So what is this “Universal Healthcare” thing? Some kind of pie-in-the-sky dream of liberals that would bankrupt the US? No, it is what they have in every other wealthy country in the world, and many that are not so wealthy. Those countries that don’t consider health and healthcare to be a consumer luxury, that consider it to be about people’s health rather than something for the private sector to profit from. Remember, that $105,600,000,000, and that $438,000,000,000 (2020 alone) is not going into the garbage. It is going to health insurance companies, and health care providers (by which we mean not only – or even mainly – doctors, but rather hospitals and “health systems”) and their suppliers, especially drug companies. This is detailed in the latest publication on this topic (regularly updated, and rarely improving) from the Commonwealth Fund. “U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes” shows that the US is the only wealthy country that does not guarantee health care coverage to all its people, and still spends 2-4 times as much as those other countries. The money goes, of course, to private profit. There is a name for this: corruption and graft. And words for it. Mostly obscene.

So why don’t we do something about it? We have tried – President Truman tried to get a national health insurance system in 1948. Defeated, sadly, with support from labor unions who thought it would undermine their success in getting health insurance through negotiations with employers (there’s a quaint memory). Medicare, a national health insurance system for seniors and the disabled, was passed in 1965 under President Johnson. So was Medicaid, a state/federal partnership to provide coverage for many (but certainly not all!) poor people. In 2010, under President Obama, ACA (Obamacare) was passed, which extended health coverage to many (but certainly not all!) of those left out, who were unable to afford individual health coverage but were not poor enough to get Medicaid (and in most states that is desperately poor!).  But nothing comprehensive, nothing that covers everyone, nothing that guarantees you won’t be broke and in debt at the end. Nothing that resembles the systems in any other OECD (i.e., wealthy) country.  Why?

Because private corporations make lots of money, from you, and from your employer, and from the government, and very much do not want that to go away. Indeed, as I discussed recently (Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!, January 20, 2023), the private sector is expanding its leech-like sucking of public funds through privatization of Medicare by programs like Medicare Advantage and ACO/REACH. And are willing to spend some portion of that huge amount of money on lobbying – and making contributions to – members of Congress, to make sure that their profits are maintained at the expense of the health and lives of the American people, not to mention their money.

It is  that simple. The health and lives of people vs. the profit of corporations. Don’t be fooled by liars or obfuscators. It is time to end this incredibly expensive boondoggle that costs the lives and health of so many of us. Write your Congresspeople and demand Medicare for All, or any form of completely universal healthcare, now.

Or sooner.

Are primary care practices prepared for complex patients? Is this even the right question?

The goal for our national policy should be that every person have the best health status that they can. One component of this, although certainly not all of it, is access to high-quality appropriate health care services. This means that people can receive the care that they need, when they need it, and do not receive unnecessary or harmful care. Access includes both financial and physical (geographic) access, and also access to high-quality care (see, for example, "Et qui vendit pellucidum", a recent blog post by my friend Dr. Allen Perkins).

One part of having access is that there need to be sufficient numbers of providers, appropriately trained and distributed to meet those health needs. It also means that those providers should have no reason or incentive to preferentially provide certain types of care rather than others, or care to certain people rather than others. Unfortunately, the profit motive skews this in the US; we have redundancy of profitable services like “cancer centers” and “heart centers” in major metropolitan areas, with hospitals competing for the same pool of patients, while in other areas even primary care is unavailable. We have excess capacity in some areas (every hospital, for example, needs an MRI or patients might go somewhere else, even if the number of MRI scans the population needs doesn’t justify it; providers prefer to take care of less-complex patients – a single joint replacement in an otherwise-healthy 45 year old with an athletic injury is more profitable than, and thus preferable to, doing a joint replacement in an 80 year old with multiple medical problems).

A recent survey of primary care providers in 10 countries by the by Robin Osborn and colleagues from the Commonwealth Fund, “Primary Care Physicians In Ten Countries Report Challenges Caring For Patients With Complex Health Needs”[1], published in the December 2015 issue of Health Affairs (only the abstract is available free on line) sought to determine whether primary care physicians (there are, at least in the US, other providers like NPs and PAs who are not physicians) feel competent to provide various types of care. The 10 countries were all wealthy and highly developed (Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States). All but the US have some form of universal health care, although the way that it is organized (e.g., single-payer government health insurance in Canada, a national health service in the UK, multiple non-profit insurers in several others) varies from country to country. In most countries, “primary care” meant family physicians or GPs, but in others (including the US), it also included general internists and general pediatricians.

The researchers found both similarities and differences by country in the percent of primary care practices that had confidence in their ability to adequately address population health needs, especially those that are increasing because of the aging of the population. For example, the confidence of these practices in managing patients with multiple chronic conditions was generally high (from 70% in Canada to 88% in Germany and the Netherlands; the US was at 76%). Fewer practices were confident in other areas, and there was greater variance. For example, 92% of practices in the Netherlands and 81% in the UK had high confidence in providing palliative care, while Sweden (25%), the US (41%), and Canada (42%) were much lower. Similar variations existed for other services (see table); for example, confidence in dealing with patients with substance use related issues were much lower (from 16% in the US to 41% in the UK).

The authors also surveyed whether practices had a number of characteristics that many experts think are important for being able to effectively and efficiently manage complex patients. These included use of electronic health records (European countries were ahead, but the US and Canada, late adopters, are catching up), team based care, after hours care not requiring visiting the ER (the US is very low), access of patients to their medical records (the US is very high as this is one of the criteria for “meaningful use” payments from the federal government), communication between different hospitals, specialists, and ERs with the primary providers (all over the board including in the US), and many other areas.

Of course, these surveys reflect the experiences of physicians in different countries, and are thus subjective rather than compared to some iconic “gold standard”. People do not know what they do not know, or haven’t experienced, or cannot even imagine; their experiences are context-dependent, and so cannot be directly compared. For example, the survey asked whether physicians thought that (their) “system works well; only minor changes needed”.  Only 16% of US doctors answered positively, with the high being in Norway, 67%. However, in the UK the number was also very low – 22%. How can we interpret that? In all of these countries, save the US, including the UK, everyone is covered. 78% of UK physicians may not believe that their “system works well; only minor changes needed”, but what would they think if the alternative was a non-system like the US where there are large numbers of uninsured people? Would they think that a better system? Probably not, but can’t tell from this data.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the survey does not look at whether there are a sufficient number and appropriate distribution of primary care providers to meet a country’s needs even when the practices are well-organized. It is my impression that the answer to this question is closer to “enough” in most of these other countries; I am certain it is not in the US. In our country, the financial rewards for subspecialization and the “lifestyle” (and sometimes financial) rewards for urban location are major determinants in our distribution of providers across specialties and geography. There are far too few primary care providers as a percentage of all physicians, and while family physicians are far more equitably distributed than other specialists, there are still big geographic disparities. Among the many “solutions” that have been suggested, I believe that only one will work: eliminate, or at least dramatically decrease, the income differential between primary care and subspecialties. This is not as far-fetched as it seems; as I have discussed before, high income for some specialists and procedures are not market-drive but are set by policy; Medicare sets these rates.

As far as geographic disparity is concerned, this is an issue that most effects primary care and a few other specialties (psychiatry, general surgery) since most subspecialists practice only in urban areas where there are sufficient populations to use their services. This also can be addressed by money: pay providers differentially more for more rural practice. We also need to provide financial resources to support these practices not only for income, but for wrap-around care. Support must be provided to these practices so that they can afford the capacity to care for the complex problems addressed in the survey.

A general practitioner from Denmark (not one of the 10 countries surveyed) told me about how his anesthesiologist son-in-law really liked his work. I chuckled about how much he must make. He told me no, actually in Denmark GPs make more. This is a good illustration of how our assumptions are context bound.

It is also the way we need to go in the US.

---

[1] Osborn R, Moulds D, Schneider EC, et al., “Primary Care Physicians In Ten Countries Report Challenges Caring For Patients With Complex Health Needs”, Health Affairs 34, no.12 (2015):2104-2112, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1018