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.

Guns good? Depends on what you believe. Guns dangerous? No question.

People like guns.

People hate guns.

People are scared of guns.

Guns are good for sport, like hunting animals.

Guns are good for war.

Guns are good for self-protection, in case “they” come for you.

Guns are good for going out and killing other people because:

·        They might otherwise come for you.

·        They are bad people because they are:

o   The wrong religion.

o   The wrong race or ethnicity.

o   Believe in abortion.

o   Are liberals.

o   Support restrictions on guns.

Guns are bad because they can be and are used for all of the reasons above.

Whether guns or good or bad or dangerous or not is irrelevant because “Second Amendment”.

If you like, substitute “automatic rifles” for guns in all or any of the above.

All the above are true.

There are definitely people who are terrified that “they” will be coming for them.  “They” could be the government (except when the government is on their side), or they could be, you know, “them”, the other.

Probably not for deer hunting; 30 or 40 rounds of high-power automatic rifle fire can really tear up the meat.

It could be post-apocalyptic, where they are, like Mad Max, fighting for survival. They believe that they need thousands of rounds of ammunition for all their guns (after all, ammo stores might not be open after the apocalypse) and high-capacity, high-speed automatic weapons are going to be more effective in protecting themselves and their families from, well, whatever.

Zombies. Or “them”.

If you believe this stuff, and your social circle and the sites that you frequent on the Internet completely reinforce these beliefs, there is no reason to doubt that it is true. Even if you used to not believe them. (Remember, perfectly rational people from the Midwest have moved to California and, after some time being among only Californians, have come to think that it is normative to believe in the healing power of crystals.)

If you do not believe this stuff, and your social circle and the sites that you frequent on the Internet completely reinforce your non-belief, you become convinced that the folks that do are both crazy and deluded. Which they may be.

If you think that these people watch too many movies and zombie TV shows, you’re right; the most important FACT is that there will be a much more limited number of people who are alive to duke it out after a nuclear war; let’s see, after nuclear winter, roughly ZERO!

If you think that there is a certain cognitive dissonance in thinking that people on the left are pansy snowflakes and also fearing that they’ll be coming after the heavily armed folks with the fears, you’re right, but so what?

Total logical contradictions have never been a problem for them in the past (see, e.g., “Donald Trump – Christian”).

There are a lot of folks in the “I need more guns and ammo” camp who are strongly opposed to mass murder, although there are pretty many (including in Congress) who are able to make arguments (sure, weird syllogisms, but hey…) defending folks who go to peaceful demonstrations with loaded weapons looking for other people to shoot. Charlottesville? Kenosha?

It is a “prevent defense”, I guess. There are even more who are opposed to slaughtering children in school (hardly anyone comes out specifically in favor of that), but are 100% against any proposal that might make it more unlikely.

Because, you know, if you make psychotic minors unable to purchase an AR-15 without a waiting period, the next thing will be government agents confiscating your deer rifle. Or Uzi.

No one is in favor of school shootings, but we have them almost every day. In every state. We look at the news, open the paper, hear our phones ding, and we see the newest one. And our Congress, and our state legislatures, all of whom are against school shootings, can’t seem to do anything to prevent them. Even though we – and they – know exactly what would do it.

Make guns very hard to get. Especially for young people. The brain does not fully mature until at least the mid-20s and the last part to develop is the frontal cortex where executive function and judgement reside.

Especially for automatic weapons.  Especially with those with histories of violence. Yes, crazies but mainly not them. Mostly those who have or have threatened to use violence. You see, shooting people, especially lots of people, that may or may not be crazy, but it is for sure violence. Any abuser of any kind, any barroom brawler, anyone who threatens violence.

But of course they won’t. Maybe because it would lose them votes, or maybe they just believe the same things. Maybe they believe their own stories.

But, you know, you can kill people with a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a garotte. Of course, it is not easy to kill a whole lot of people from 100 feet away with any of those.

I would be remiss to not mention suicide. They constitute the majority of gun deaths. Yes, suicide is an individual’s choice, but it is not necessarily an unchangeable choice. The “successful” suicide rate among teens and young adult males 16-24 is TEN TIMES higher in the states with the loosest gun laws as in those with the most restrictive. Are young men in, say, Montana more depressed than those in, say, Connecticut? I don’t know, but suicide attempts, especially in young people, are very often impulsive, and the easy availability of a gun makes that impulse easier to follow. And attempts at suicide by gun are much more likely to be “successful” (called lethality) than those by poison, or gas, or hitting yourself on the head with  brick. 

In the US it is often people in poor and minority communities who suffer the most random death. But it is older white men who commit suicide most. Often with guns that they had right there.

If you think we should make guns, especially automatic weapons, less easily available, especially to those most likely to use them for killing people, great. But lots of others do not agree. Of course, they include those most likely to use them for killing people.

 

The rest of the wealthy world could provide an example of what to do, but you know what? They are not Americans. A number of countries have higher gun-death rates than the US, mostly those at war (e.g., Ukraine) or in the midst of narco terrorism. We are not.

But we have a lot of guns, and that helps us make up the difference.

Killing our children: Guns, mortality and morality

There is really nothing to write about at this time other than the ongoing carnage in our nation as a result of angry young men (always men!) shooting up their schools, most recently (at least at the time of this writing) with the death of 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, FL. It is hard to write through the tears. This should not be going on. Many people have written pieces on the subject -- sad, or angry, or articulate, or all of these. One of the most moving appeared in the New York Times on February 18, 2018, by a man named Gregory Gibson whose son was killed in a school shooting 25 years ago. The online headline, “A message from the club no one wants to join”, is different from, and in this case is much weaker than, the print headline: “Why wasn’t my son the last victim?”

Why indeed? Twenty-five years ago. And since then, countless school shootings, and other mass murders (such as, if we needed reminders, the Las Vegas country music concert, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, TX) have occurred, and every parent, every family member, wants to know why the most recent prior child to die was not the last, instead of their child. People are terrified; a friend, a rational physician, embarrassedly admits to looking online for Kevlar backpacks for his children. He does international “mission” work and is taking his 14-year old daughter to Africa; when people ask him if he is worried about her safety there, he says “no”, but he is worried about her safety attending school two miles from his home in an affluent suburban community in the US. His day job includes being a leader for the quality program in his hospital, where he searches the actual data for root and contributing causes to problems; he wonders why this country cannot do the same for gun violence. Arizona Star columnist Dave Fitzsimmons expresses similar fears for his children.

This country could, but so far it shows no sign of doing so. Gibson quotes the author Chester Himes commenting on the lynching of 14-year old Emmett Till in 1955 that “The real horror comes when your dead brain must face the fact that we as a nation don’t want it to stop.” Himes was talking about lynching, but it is clear that the same can be said today, more than 60 years later, about school shootings. We don’t want it to stop. Because, if we did, we would do something about it.

Of course, we do, most of us. Various surveys, asking the question in different ways, find different percentages, but always large majorities, of Americans want stricter gun laws, often up to 90%. Even most people who are members of the NRA and/or are registered Republicans want limitations on who can buy guns based on mental illness and other criteria (always “me, and people like me”, but not the people like you) and some kinds of guns or gun modifiers (like “bump stocks”, used by the Las Vegas shooter to turn his AR-15 semi-automatic – and by the way almost all these shootings involve AR-15s) and armor-piercing bullets. No, the “we” who don’t want to stop it, in this case is, beyond a small minority of zealots, the even smaller minority of those who are politicians, in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and in our statehouses.

Why would they do this? Or, rather, not do anything about gun violence? Well, there is a small minority of this small minority who are, themselves, zealots whose interpretation of the Second Amendment is such that our dead children are just collateral damage in pursuit of the higher cause of unrestricted gun ownership. But, for most, opposition to even the most rational restrictions is tied to money, specifically to money from the NRA. A staffer for Jimmy Kimmel, Bess Kalb, looked at how much each of the Senators and Congresspeople tweeting their sadness and condolences took from the NRA, noting that “In the 2015-2016 election cycle alone, GOP candidates took $17,385,437 from the NRA,” (quoting a tweet from Republican National Convention chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel), and that “This is NOT counting the $21 million given to President Trump.” Another article documents the individual contributions, led by $4.4 million to Thom Tillis (R-NC, or, excuse me, R-NRA).

These legislators, and sadly even the President, when not crying their hypocritical crocodile tears and then voting with the NRA to kill any sort of gun reform, talk instead about the need to focus on mental health. This, by the way, is a good idea; the mental health system in this country is terrible; insurance companies cover it inadequately, those who are not insured and need public facilities find them cut back yearly, and there is no shortage of news stories focusing on a poor mentally-ill person pushed out of a treatment facility found wandering the street, or worse. Our jails and prisons have become our new mental hospitals, documented, for example, in this comprehensive Atlantic article from 2015, “America’s largest mental hospital is a jail”. However, it is not the diagnosed mentally ill who commit these murders and mass murders. Most such murderers do not have a diagnosis, although they probably suffer from “anger management disorder” (not in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), but “intermittent explosive disorder“ will be in DSM-V). This is important because it is the angry who commit these murders. An article in Slate by Laura L. Hayes from 2014,”How to Stop Violence; Mentally ill people aren’t killers. Angry people are”, contains this persuasive data:

80 to 90 percent of murderers had prior police records, in contrast to 15 percent of American adults overall. In a study of domestic murderers, 46 percent of the perpetrators had had a restraining order against them at some time. Family murders are preceded by prior domestic violence more than 90 percent of the time.

Hayes concludes that “Violent crimes are committed by people who lack the skills to modulate anger, express it constructively, and move beyond it.” Sadly, this also describes many of the most virulent opponents of gun control.

If anything could be even more sad than the fact that the mass killing of our children is tacitly endorsed through inaction by our political leaders, it is that it is only one face of the epidemic that is child mortality in the US. This January, Ashish P. Thrakar and colleagues published “Child Mortality In The US and 19 OECD Comparator Nations: A 50-Year Time-Trend Analysis” in the journal Health Affairs. The picture was bleak. The first sentence of their Abstract summarizes their findings: “The United States has poorer child health outcomes than other wealthy nations despite greater per capita spending on health care for children.” Guns are part of it, and the “social determinants of health”, a sanitized way of saying that in the richest country in the world there are millions of children with inadequate food, housing, warmth, safety, healthcare, and educational opportunities, are ultimately the other causes. We may be the richest country in the world, but we are also the most unequal in the developed world, and the increases in the wealth of the top 0.1% does not “trickle down” to those in need.

Indeed, even the outrageous and disproportionate child mortality rates in this country are not the whole story. As I have noted before (Rising white midlife mortality: what are the real causes and solutions?, November 14, 2015; Tom Petty, the opioid epidemic and changing structural inequities in the US, January 23, 2018) the US is the only wealthy country in which mortality rates are rising, a completely shocking finding since, of course, it didn’t used to be true. And this rising mortality is driven by the white non-Hispanic population (although, it must continue to be said, that the absolute mortality rate of minorities, and especially African-Americans, still exceeds that of whites), and more particularly, poor whites.

In a terrific effort to try to explain to the international community what is happening in the US, Steven Woolf recently wrote an editorial for the BMJ, Failing Health of the United States. He notes the causes of the increases in mortality (more than opioids, more than guns, although these are major contributors), provides data, and proposes solutions. “In theory,” he says,

…policy makers would promote education, boost support for children and families, increase wages and economic opportunity for the working class, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems.

Politicians need to address these issues, and they need to be made to do so. By us, the people they are supposed to work for, not the huge money contributors like the NRA. But we can only do this if we stay angry, and stay organized. We cannot heed calls to “not talk about this now” while families are grieving, because it will, based on history, not be very long before it happens again.

It is our job and we must take it on.