Healthcare and Public Health: Issues from 2024 will continue into 2025

As we end the year and begin a new one, what can we say was the most important health-related story of 2024, and what will be the biggest in 2025? Certainly, late in 2024 a huge story was the murder of Brian Thompson on the streets of New York. This was not in any way a random killing, but an assassination of someone the killer believed was responsible for hundreds or thousands of deaths in his role as CEO of UnitedHealthCare, the nation’s largest health insurer. As I discussed in my December 8, 2024 post ‘Murder of a Health Insurance CEO: People HATE the companies and the people who run them’, Thompson was guilty of presiding over a company whose role was to make money by collecting premiums and denying care. He also was guilty of having made this problem worse by bring in artificial intelligence algorithms, which had been shown to be wrong up to 90% of the time, to deny health care to his supposed customers – I say “supposed” because the only customers health insurance companies really have is their stockholders; the people they insure could be called “victims”. 

 Although much of the mainstream media tried hard to focus attention elsewhere – on the accused killer and his personality, on self-serving nonsensical essays like the one by Thompson’s boss, UnitedHealth Group’s CEO Andrew Witty run as a NY Times Op-Ed, etc. – the real story is the outpouring of fury at the health insurance industry from the great mass and majority of the American people. While most did not applaud the murder itself, virtually no one outside themselves and their paid punditry had anything good to say about US health insurance. Probably the overall public sentiment reflected that of Chris Rock: “He actually killed a family, a man with kids. I have condolences for the healthcare CEO. This is a real person, but sometimes drug dealers get shot.”

Another huge story, which will become even bigger in 2025, is the planned nomination by President-elect Donald Trump of profound enemies of public health to the positions responsible for ensuring that health. Foremost among these, of course, is Robert Kennedy, Jr. to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy is well-known as a vaccine “skeptic”, which essentially means vaccine opponent, and if he is confirmed as Secretary and is able to implement policies reflecting the positions he has long advocated, we will see the resurgence of many diseases long gone from American life with accompanying deaths, as I discussed on November 15, 2024 in ‘Raw milk, vaccines, and RFK, Jr: Some dates worth remembering’. Remember polio? Measles? I do, but most do not. Check out the numbers on this picture. This is an incredible threat to the public’s health.

But, ultimately, the real story of 2024 – and probably 2025, and sadly beyond – is the fact that the American people remain the only ones in the developed, rich or really even middle-income, world that do not have universal health insurance or care. This is what would prevent the crises, delays, denials, and deaths that the private health insurance industry heaps upon our population and that engenders the wrath of so many. Indeed, that wrath continues to grow because the people who are affected, either personally or through someone they love such as a family member, who realize the inexcusable evil that the actions of these companies inflict, grows over time. While only a small percent of the ostensibly insured will have a terrible event each year, with more years more people and families experience such terrible events. Also, of course, the practices of the health insurance companies become more restrictive and more draconian, leading to both more delays and denials and deaths and more out-of-pocket costs for more people. In other countries, this happens, essentially, very little or not at all. The following chart presents the dates when other countries implemented universal health care, and when they got rid of it because it wasn’t working. Look at it carefully and you might discern a trend:

The US has a higher mortality rate than many of these countries. Jim Kahn, in the Health Justice Monitor, makes an effort to quantify the extent to which health insurance (or lack of it) contributes to this. It is an estimate, but as he notes, whether 170,000 or 220,000, it is too much. And, more, we spend much more than all these other countries on what we call “healthcare” despite so much of it going to corporate profit, that the fact that there is any excess mortality due to lack of health insurance is even more intolerable.

This might come as a shock to many Americans, especially those who have yet to personally experience the delays, denials, and deaths that the for-profit health insurance industry heaps upon its victims, because we are regularly and consistently told by politicians and pundits that a universal health insurance system would be a bad idea, that it wouldn’t work for Americans. That it would be too costly. That it would limit our freedom. We need to recognize that this is not true. Few of us want to have the freedom to choose which insurance company takes our money and then tries its best to limit our access to care (although, if we can afford it, we might choose the one that does it least). What we do want is the freedom to choose the doctors and hospitals that we believe will provide us the best care for our health needs and have our insurance pay for it. Of course, this is not the freedom that they are talking about; what they mean is the freedom of insurance companies (and to be fair, many health care providers) to make as much money as possible, which is what would be limited in a universal government-run health insurance system. And, oh, by the way, provide the funds to pay for it. Imagine that our health care dollars, from our pockets and those of our employers and our government (from the taxes we pay; the large corporations and billionaires who own them don’t) could be spent on providing us with health care rather than lining corporate pockets!

There are actual examples of “single payer” health care in the US. Military retirees and families are covered by government-funded health insurance through the VA or TriCare. In the military itself, for active duty service members, health care is not only single-payer, it is government run. The other big example of single-payer available to Americans is traditional Medicare, for those over 65 or disabled. Medicare. The most popular government program since…Social Security. Under traditional Medicare, health care services are approved for people who need them and have them ordered by a doctor, not micromanaged for each individual with people (or AI!) denying them willy-nilly. In an alternative to Medicare, people can opt for enrollment in an HMO/PPO like system run by the same insurance companies that insured (and often screwed) them before they became eligible for Medicare, and have it paid for by Medicare funds. This program, misnamed “Medicare Advantage”, takes away the guarantees of traditional Medicare and puts you back a the mercy of those for-profit health insurance companies that have treated you so well before!

This is exactly what we don’t need – erosion of Medicare. We need Medicare to be improved, to pay for 100% of all needed medical care, and expanded to cover every American, cradle to grave, paid for by the money now going to insurance company and pharmaceutical and device company and health system profits. The reason to do it is because it would benefit people, remove the major cause of heartache, loss and bankruptcy in the US, and make us more secure and happy people. The reason not to do it is that these huge corporations would no longer be making their exorbitant profits by taking premiums and denying health care, and thus would not be able to make such large contributions to the legislators who should be acting, instead, for the American people.

What do you want? Maybe in 2025 it is time to let your legislators know!

 

A final thought from Bernie Sanders:

 

 

 

 

"Direct primary care" not the answer for our health system. Beware "Project 2025"!

My last post (June 27, 2024) was about the shortage of primary care physicians (as well as NPs), and the reasons why. To save you the time of (re?)reading it, here is the bottom line: It’s the money, stupid! Primary care physicians – and NPs – get paid a lot less than those working in subspecialties, for what is indeed very hard work, encompassing breadth (everything), depth (everything), and time. I also suggested that there was a relatively simple way to address the income disparity between primary care and subspecialty practice: having Medicare revise the criteria for payment, which affects not just Medicare but also the rest of us as most insurance companies base their reimbursement rates on Medicare’s.

There have been other suggestions on how to “help” primary care. One of them, which has been seen in many places across the country for years, involves having people pay extra money (usually in an annual or monthly fee) to their primary care doctors to supplement their income and to make them more available to their patients. This phenomenon has many names -- “concierge care”, “boutique care”, “direct primary care” -- depending both on the way it is structured (and the amount of the additional fee) and how the user wants to spin it – are they portraying it as good or bad?

One place where it is portrayed as good is in the Project 2025 document issued in April by the Heritage Foundation and its allies, Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. This document outlines an ambitious, far-reaching, and horrifying vision for the future of the federal government once “conservatives” take the White House back. It systematically goes through every federal function, and many agencies, detailing what should be eliminated or scaled back (mostly) or expanded (rarely, mainly tax cuts for the rich). It manifests a vision of America where the corporations and the richest individuals are even richer and more powerful than they are now and the “poorest” (meaning not just the poor but working people and the majority of those who consider themselves “middle class”) are even worse off.

How does this relate to primary care? One of their (many) plans for healthcare in this country, discussed in the Health Justice Monitor, is to “Remove barriers to direct primary care”. That the Heritage Foundation is for it should in itself be a warning. They like it because it is “free enterprise” and comes from a libertarian approach that basically maintains that it is good to sell (to people who can afford it) those basic things that everyone should have as a right. Also, like most (all?) things endorsed by these “conservatives” (who mainly wish to conserve privilege) it ignores the negative impact on those folks who cannot afford to buy it.

This is not to say that everything about direct primary care as it exists currently is bad. I know many doctors who chose it because it allows them to make a living, yes, but mostly because it permits them to more fully and completely practice the kind of medicine that they trained to do because they wanted to do it, manifesting the 4 C’s of primary care – comprehensive (more or less), first contact, caring, and continuous over time. Most of them had previous jobs where they worked for big health systems (and, increasingly, private equity companies) in which they were continuously pressured to work faster, see more patients for fewer minutes, and generate more income for their employers – a concept” familiar to manufacturing jobs called “speed up” that comes from literally increasing the rate of speed of an assembly line. By charging a (modest, in many cases – this is not about true concierge care where the charges can be $10,000/year or more) fee, they are able, they believe, to take care of most of their patients’ problems, do it compassionately, see them for long enough to do so, and be available to them when they need it. These are all good things, and like most of the doctors I know who are doing this, most of the people I know who go to them as patients appreciate it and think it is beneficial.

So, what is the problem? Well, obviously, it is not available to everyone, to those who can’t afford an extra fee, and already have a problem with their insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. Note that when Project 2025 says “DPC has faced many challenges from government policymakers, including overly exuberant attempts at regulation and misclassification,” the solution they propose is to ensure that the payments for it are not paid by insurance or health savings accounts. That many, most, people can’t afford DPC is the big objection to it, but there are also other problems. DPC hearkens back to the days of the old GP, where for a small fee (or a chicken) avuncular Marcus Welby could take care of all of your problems (of course, old Marcus somehow managed to stay in practice with only one patient a week). But medicine is not like that anymore. While I am a huge advocate for primary care, for family medicine, for comprehensive practice, providing all the benefits that modern medicine has available often requires more than the one primary care doctor can do. It may require specialists, both knowledge-based and surgical. It may require imaging (x-rays, CT, MRI, PET). It often requires laboratory tests and medicines. It requires other people and other resources.

Moreover, as reported in (among many places) a succinct and accurately titled Medscape Medical News article, July 2, 2024, “Better Access for a Few Patients Disrupts Care for Many”. With so few doctors (and NPs) entering primary care, the impact of those entering DPC further decreases the number of providers for those who cannot afford it. Adam Leive, one of the authors of the article on which this report is based (“On resource allocation in health care: The case of concierge medicine” J Health Economics, July 2023) is quoted as saying “Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker". This is the key point. The Medscape article also adds that ‘Leive's research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw non-concierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.’

Let’s get this straight. The Heritage Foundation’s support for DPC, and indeed elite concierge care, is because they are right-wingers whose agenda is all about further privileging the privileged and ignoring the needy. The large insurance and private equity companies who sponsor versions of DPC are doing it to make money. The primary care doctors who are engaged in it are (mostly) trying to make a living and provide quality care in miserable healthcare system (although not yet as miserable as the one Project 2025 envisions). These doctors are basically engaged in a “work-around” that does help some people, if not everyone, to have better access if not health outcomes.

But we don’t need a “work around”. What we need is a well-designed, single payer, comprehensive, cover everything, no co-pay or deductible, no necessary services that are not covered, health system. Improved and expanded Medicare for All!

Older adults cannot afford healthcare even if they are insured: Time for a new system!

Are health insurance companies the real enemy of Americans’ health? A strong argument can, and has been, made by myself and others that they are. More broadly, however, the enemy is all the companies that pursue making money as their primary goal, with providing healthcare a sideline (albeit a costly one). So many corporations are involved and responsible that it is hard to be sure that insurance companies are the main ones at fault. “Even” actual health care providers – mainly hospitals and “health systems” – try to squeeze out the poor and poorly insured and greatly prefer to deliver only the most high-profit-margin care. And, certainly, one cannot leave out the drug companies, making gigantic profits at the cost of our health (they remain #1 in profits, every year), or the less-well-known but also very dangerous “PBMs”, pharmacy benefit managers, who bundle our drug plans, and act as middlemen between the insurers and the drug companies and the providers. (You notice I didn’t say “consumer” or “patient”; they are no more than grist for the profit mill!)

But one can still make a strong case for insurance companies being at least a major cornerstone of the evil empire, sucking money out of government coffers, employer contributions, and, yes, your pockets, for the privilege of denying you care and padding their bottom lines. Long noted for their unwillingness to cover everyone, the insurance industry is moving the needle by providing poor coverage even to those it does insure. Two recent studies have looked at the financial burden on older adults provided by health care, one at those with private insurance and the other at those with Medicare.

The Commonwealth Fund looked at the coverage and costs for older-but-not-yet-Medicare adults 50-64 in ‘Can Older Adults with Employer Coverage Afford Their Health Care?’ by Lauren A. Hayes and Sara R. Collins (August 10, 2023). A majority of these folks have private insurance through their employers (55%) with higher income (>400% of the Federal Poverty Level, FPL) at 82% and low income (<200% FPL) at 22%. It wasn’t enough. More than half of low-income and more than 1/3 of middle income (200-400% FPL) people had difficulty paying their premiums and didn’t get adequate medical care because of the cost. Unsurprisingly, those worst affected were not only low-income but sick; the issue of paying for health care is greatest when one has health problems.

The Kaiser Family Foundation study, ‘Medicare Households Spend More on Health Care Than Other Households’, by Nancy Ochieng, Juliette Cubanski, & Anthony Damico (July 19, 2023) examined adults over 65, those on Medicare. They found – well, what the title says. Again, not surprising; older people are sicker, and sicker people use more healthcare (duh!) and it costs them more. While Medicare is a federal government program, there are still out-of-pocket costs associated with it. For hospital care (Medicare Part A, funded by your paycheck deduction), traditional Medicare (TM) pays only 80% of approved charges, which means sick Medicare recipients have to come up with the other 20% (which can be a huge amount of money) or have a Medicare-supplement policy to cover it, which of course costs additional premiums. Medicare recipients also have to pay a monthly fee for Medicare “Part B” (the “outpatient” portion) which usually is deducted from their Social Security payments. At least this is tiered, so higher income people pay more and lower income less (or sometimes nothing). Also they have to pay for a drug plan (Part D). 

About half of Medicare recipients are now in “Medicare Advantage” (MA) plans, which are essentially HMOs. I have written about them previously, but because they are not actually Medicare (although paid for with Medicare dollars) but private insurance, they have the ability to deny coverage altogether. They have good perks if you don’t need expensive care (often no co-pays, no 20% coinsurance, drug coverage so no need for a separate Part D plan, coverage for some things TM doesn’t cover like glasses and hearing aids) which make them attractive to healthier seniors. But while TM covers (if only at 80%) the things it says it covers, and doesn’t deny individuals, MA can and does. So while Medicare Advantage can be advantageous for some seniors, its greatest advantage is to the insurance companies.

Indeed, that some people are better off with one type of plan and others with a different one is both understandable and OK. But that the difference is whether you are sick or not is dangerous, since the non-sick can quickly become sick, especially if they are elderly. That we try to segment public opinion by pitting the sick against the not-yet-sick (“I’m doing ok, and can afford my premiums and healthcare, for now”) is what is truly sick, and intolerable. It is a marker of a reprehensibly designed system.

The authors of the Commonwealth Fund report have a number of suggestions for addressing the problems that they identify, all of which are tweaks to our current system, and, in the unlikely event that they were implemented, would immediately be “gamed” by the power players – the insurance companies and the health systems – to ensure that there would still be lots of people left out, lots of people suffering. Their suggestions do not entail scrapping the entire for-profit insurance system that strangles the health of our people in favor of an adequately-funded single payer system, but rather the creation of new programs, and new rules to try to limit the damage caused to the health of older Americans by a system that simply should not exist

Seniors can be attracted to MA plans because of the costs TM doesn’t cover, especially the 20% of hospital bills. Those in MA plans, as well as those “younger” – still employed – older people in employer-based insurance plans can be financially screwed because those plans are operating with the goal of making money for the companies, not ensuring health care. The fact is that both problems could be addressed together – by getting rid of the profits and costs of insurance companies, enough money could be saved to cover 100% of all health care needs for Medicare recipients. One could say this is “ironic”, if it weren’t for the fact that irony implies lack of intentionality, and this criminally flawed and abusive system is clearly intentionally structured.

Dr. Don McCanne, who reported on this in his recent “Health Justice Monitor”, writes

“Should that be the primary mission of our health care administrators? Of course not! Their primary mission should be to move health care to the people, the patients, all of the patients, and they need to use our health care dollars to do that. Our current system has demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that private administrators have been and always will be on the wrong mission, and we need to replace them with public administrators who will always pursue a mission for the public good.”

Yes. Stop trying to make deals with the devil. Those companies, including insurance companies, taking money intended to provide healthcare as salaries and profit are evil, and it is hard to think of the legislators and executive-branch functionaries who facilitate and enable this as anything else.

Our government should use its (ie, our) money to fund our promises for healthcare to our seniors, not insurance companies who pay them back with graft.