Mamdani, universal health coverage, and the scandal of profits over healthcare

First, let me offer congratulations to Zohran Mamdani and the people of New York who elected him. While the news focus is on him, and of course he merits it, it is the “them” that is more important. New Yorkers showed that they want someone who stands with and for them, for their needs, for their ability to afford rent, and healthcare, and education, and food, rather than for the developers and billionaires and financiers (overlapping groups) who have long controlled the city. It should be a wakeup call to the finance-oriented Democrats, not to mention the Republicans who only stand for the oppression of people. Maybe he will be able to deliver on his promise of universal health care in the city, and maybe not, but what he, and they, have shown is that this is something people want. People most assuredly do NOT want the interests of insurance company profit to even be in the same discussion as a value in comparison to their health and healthcare, and they shouldn’t.

What is remarkable is the number of people in positions of power who do. This can, accurately, be attributed both to the financial support insurers give to politicians (and pundits) and the fact that they hang around with each other. Polls have shown that large majorities of Americans support universal health care, and the NYC election was another important such “poll”. But, in fact, things are going in the opposite direction for healthcare and the health of the American people. The party of Snidely Whiplash (PSW) is doing everything it can to make people’s lives worse. They have made it eminently clear that they don’t think all Americans should have health coverage by keeping the government shut down rather than talk about continuing the subsidies for ACA demanded by the Democrats. 

And remember that lots of things besides healthcare coverage affect health – access to adequate food is one of the main ones. So, because, I guess, the PSW so enjoys being mean, they have cut SNAP (food stamps) benefits dramatically, so that more children can go hungry. Twirl that mustache, Snidely! In Tucson, as around the country, food banks that are already overwhelmed will see huge increases in need. We just loaded up the car with boxes of food for the community food bank donated by members of our HOA. They were particularly heavy because of the cans of beans, tuna, chicken, and peanut butter donated especially because the food bank is often out of protein. Which, you may recall, people, and especially growing children, need! You see, grants for the food bank to buy this food from local farmers, which benefitted the farmers as well, have been cut off. Just when you thought we couldn’t be meaner, har har har! 

Government policies that cut aid for food and healthcare are terribly damaging to Americans’ health. Rural hospitals are closing because so many of their patients are covered by Medicaid, which has been dramatically cut. Telehealth programs that might have helped fill that gap are ending. If anyone still believed the private, for-profit sector (as opposed to the volunteer non-profit sector, like food banks) might step into help, they are doing the opposite. Recent insurance company actions have doubled down on limiting access to care, paying for care, and of course caring. Just a few recent actions detailed by Health Care Un-covered include ‘Coverage Without Care: The Cruel Math of Health Insurance Open Enrollment’ and  ‘UnitedHealth CEO Says Company is Cutting Thousands of Doctors Out of Network to Boost Profits‘. You thought it was already hard to find a doctor? The largest health insurance company in the nation doesn’t care; it does care about making more money! Remember that when you see their ads on TV!

Many people – well, pundits, not actual people – say the problem is people need to have jobs, to contribute to the economy. Others, perhaps (?) more well-meaning suggest people need more education about how to choose and navigate the health insurance system so they are not (or are at least less) screwed. Baloney. Read this story on the KFF site about Dr. Lauren Hughes, whose car was T-boned 20 miles from her home. She had injuries including a broken ankle, but the hospital to which she was taken was “out of network” for her insurance, and she ended up with a $64K bill! Dr. Hughes is a highly-educated, knowledgeable, skilled and experienced family physician, who also leads a health policy research group at the University of Colorado. She knows way more about how the system works than most people – heck, than most doctors! And she still was screwed (not just with the ones in her ankle)! Because of her knowledge, role, and indeed clout, and the support of others she was able to get most of the insurance company decision reversed, but good luck if it is you, or someone else who has less of all of those advantages!

The KFF piece is full of phrases that should infuriate, and nauseate, any decent human being, like “out of network”, “surprise billing”, “uncovered care”, “observation status”. These are all strategies (“gimmicks” would minimize their significance) to make more profit for insurance companies by denying you health care. Another recent Health Care Un-covered piece discusses ‘Where Do Our Health Insurance Premiums Go?’, and the answer is profits, stock buy-backs, lobbying, executive salaries. Not increasing coverage or access, decreasing rates; indeed, quite the opposite: as profits go up, so does consumer cost, while access goes down! In any other country, these phrases would be anathema. Every other country that can possibly be considered “wealthy” or even “middle income” (an international classification that almost any American would still see as “poor”) has universal health care. The concept that any person, not to mention a “well-insured”, educated, professional – physician! -- would have such indignities heaped on them and not receive the care they need as a right of their citizenship (and in many countries, even non-citizens) would outrage them. I would like to remind folks of two pieces I wrote long ago, both coincidentally related to films. One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France, is from 2012. It discusses the film Le Havre, and how amid the tribulations of being poor, worry about paying for necessary health care was not one of them. The other, from 2009, "Sick Around America": A little bit sickening, talks about TR Reid’s special “Sick around the world” and something from it that has stayed with me.

In each country he [Reid] asked how many of their citizens went bankrupt as a result of health care debts, and they all said none. The most dramatic response was from the President of the Swiss Confederation, a conservative who had originally opposed the Swiss program in the early 90s. “No one,” he boomed in his French-accented English, “why, it would be a national scandal!”

It should be a national scandal here; indeed, it is a scandal that, for so many it is not. The American people know this, and increasingly will be punishing politicians who do not care, or who, with a total lack of not only empathy but any moral or religious compass at all, put the financial profits of insurance companies above the health of our people, when in fact it should have ZERO weight.

Back in 1958, Harry Golden, a writer, humorist, and published of the Carolina Israelite wrote the best-seller “Only in America”. At the time, reviewers’ comments focused on his being a Southern Jew, and on his support for integration (the moral issue of that age). But it is sad to think that nearly 70 years later, “Only in America” refers to the lack of a universal health care system, unique among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the rich) countries.

It is long past time to change that!

Recalling an old post: Le Havre and not paying for health care -- in France

Sometimes I think about old posts, and how sad it is that things have not changed in the years since I wrote them. But, as with this one, from Jan 12, 2012, I enjoyed writing it, and highly recommend the film that inspired it, Le Havre.

 One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France

Open Enrollment Season for Medicare and Medicare Advantage: What you should know

This is an unusually long post, but I decided it was better to have all the information in one post rather to divide it into two. Hopefully you can find the part/s you feel of use to you.

It is Medicare re-enrollment season again, so it seems to me to be a good time to review some of the key issues seniors should consider when deciding to sign up for the same, or a new plan. I have written about Medicare and Medicare Advantage a number of times (e.g., “Insurers in trouble for the wrong reason: Wall St. wants them to rip you off for even MORE!”, Aug 22, 2024; Medicare Advantage: OK, it's bad for the country, but what about for me?, Dec 6, 2022) and have been critical of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, but I hope that this piece will be more informational. If you are Medicare eligible, You probably get a lot of “information” from both Medicare and MA plans at this time of year, the former providing nothing that could much help you decide (“it’s all good!”) and the latter not only assuring you that MA is the right thing, but that their MA plan is the best one for you. There are some things you should know, and consider, and I will provide some information and some opinions, trying to carefully label the opinions.

To begin with, it makes a difference if you are first starting on Medicare or are doing your annual re-enrollment (and perhaps changing plans). If you are starting, this is not necessarily the time of year when it happens; it happens whenever you turn 65. At that point, you are required to enroll in Medicare Part A, which is what covers inpatient hospitalization and is the only part paid for by the Medicare Trust Fund, funded by your Medicare deductions. If you are still working and are covered by an employer health plan, you do not need to enroll in Part B yet. Part B, which pays for doctor (and other clinician) fees and all outpatient care (including that rendered while you are actually in the hospital, even sleeping there for a night or two; this is a neat trick but not part of this discussion), is paid for by monthly payments by you, supplemented as necessary by general taxes. The “standard” monthly premium is now $174.70 (if your mean adjusted gross income, MAGI, as a couple is less than $206,000), but it can be decreased or eliminated for low-income people and is higher for high-income people thorough a formula called IRMAA (Income-related monthly adjustment amount). More of this financial information is here, from Medicare, and here from a private counselor. The IRMAA is based on your last tax return, so if you retire in 2024, it will be based on your 2023 return. If you think that you will make a lot less in retirement than you did in the last year you worked, you can appeal this, providing evidence that your MAGI will be less than it was before retirement. Anyway, you must enroll in and pay for Part B once you are no longer covered by your employer’s plan, and if you don’t you are subject to significant penalties.

There are two other letters, Part C and Part D. Part C is Medicare Advantage, about which more in a moment. Part D is the Medicare Drug Plan, passed under the GW Bush administration. It requires Medicare recipients to have such a plan, all of which are sold by private insurance companies, mostly the same ones that sell insurance to pre-Medicare people and also sell Medicare Advantage plans. It is good for them (opinion) as everyone is required to pay them a premium, and they work hard to pay out as little as possible, as do all insurance plans. (See my blog post Medicare Part D: Learn from my mistakes, Dec 13, 2022). I’ll just say now it can be confusing; you may want the plan with the lowest premiums, especially if you are not on drugs that require a high co-pay, but that is sometimes hard to figure out. You gotta do it, though.

Which brings us to the choice between Traditional Medicare (TM), a government funded system available to all eligible people (over 65 and some others with disabilities), and Medicare Advantage, which is not Medicare (despite the name) but a group of private insurance products paid for with Medicare dollars. In general, these are very similar to HMO or PPO plans for pre-Medicare customers. Both have advantages (no pun intended, by me, although the renaming of the program by Congress from Medicare+Choice is apparently an intentional effort to promote it), and disadvantages. A recent Associated Press article (‘Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications’ Sept 28, 2024) notes that MA benefits are becoming less and choice of plans fewer.

The advantages (OK, I’ll call them plusses) of MA plans include one premium, often completely covered by Medicare dollars with little or no out-of-pocket cost to the recipient, that includes coverage for Part A, Part B, and Part D. It also may include coverage for other things not covered by TM, including glasses, hearing aids, and gym memberships. It may or may not include mental health coverage, and if it does the character and quality of that coverage varies. It rarely if ever includes long-term care. While many of these extra benefits are kind of loss-leaders that cost the insurers little, the big plusses of MA are not needing to pay a Part B or Part D premium in addition, or to buy a Medicare Supplement (no letter code here*) to cover the costs incurred and not paid by TM to its recipients. The big cost for folks with TM is that it only pays 80% of approved charges for hospitalization, so if you have a hospitalization for something that Medicare decides it can be charged $1000 for (this is not what the hospital charges, which can and usually is several times more, but they have to take the Medicare-approved amount), it only pays $800 and you have to pay the $200. Or $2000 if the approved charge is $10,000. Or whatever. It can be and often is a lot, which is why people on TM should buy a Supplement plan that will cover the difference. But cost them more.

So, so far this looks like a win for MA plans over TM: one premium, no Part B or Part D premiums, no need for a Supplement plan to cover the 20%, and some extra perks. This is why they are often well-received by the folks who enroll in them, and what is pitched in their mailings and TV ads. There are, however, some potential (and frequent) minuses to MA plans, which may want to make you consider TM, plus a Supplement.

The key issue is that MA is a private insurance plan, not Medicare, and this can and does result in some limitations as well as some more surprising payment issues, like denial of payment. As I mentioned above, MA programs are like HMO and PPO plans, and this means a limited network of providers (hospital and doctors), usually in your geographic area. Unlike TM, which pays claims from providers on a per-episode basis at the rate set by Medicare, MA plans get your money up front and pays providers based on deals they have negotiated, which is why you are restricted in the places that you can get care (they ones they have the best deals with). This is important, and so it is critical for you to be sure that the places and people from which you get care are “in-network” for them. If you have a second home or travel a lot or spend time with family outside your home region, you want to be sure that you can get non-emergency care there, since MA plans are usually geographic. In addition, you might consider providers you think you might want to get care in the future if something bad happens. For example, many top hospitals that people seek out across the country if they have cancer or another dangerous condition, such as Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, and Sloan-Kettering, do not accept any MA plans, but do accept TM.

The thing is that these may not seem as important to you if you are 65 and relatively healthy and free glasses and hearing aids and gym memberships are nice, but they increasingly become issues as you age. Older people have more diseases than younger (even younger seniors) and use more care. Consider what your future might hold. If right now you just have a few aches and pains, and take a couple of medications that control some conditions, if you live you will get older and as you get older these are likely to get worse. Sometimes people in MA plans that are actually covering their expensive care can find the insurers urging them to switch to TM, since while those companies are happy to accept your premiums (or those Medicare pays on your behalf, which is, BTW, more than they allocate for TM patients) they are less enthusiastic about paying out large amounts, especially when it can go on and on.

The other big minus that comes from MA plans being private insurance is that they can, and often do, deny coverage for things your doctor has ordered. They can do that. If a procedure or treatment is Medicare-approved, TM simply pays it (although, in hospitalization, only 80%). MA plans, however, like other private insurance plans, can deny coverage for a variety of reasons. With some, denial is almost routine for anything expensive. You can appeal it, but most people don’t. And they can deny it again. And most people won’t keep appealing it. Relatively recent legislation requires MA to pay for any Medicare-approved treatment, but that doesn’t mean that they always do; they can deny on technicalities and even if they must pay fines, it is often considered “a cost of doing business” that is less than actually paying for your care.

So maybe get an MA plan when you are younger and healthier and then switch to TM when you need more care? In addition to this being exactly what the MA plans want – to cover healthy seniors and divest of them when they become expensive to care for, the other big issue is eligibility for and cost of Medicare Supplement (Medigap) plans. Under the law, if you take TM when you first start receiving Medicare, all those offering Supplement plans must offer them to you at “community rates”, that is, not adjusted for your individual health status. But if you sign up for an MA plan, and then a year or ten or 15 down the road decide you want to switch to TM for some reason (maybe you are unhappy with the providers available to you, and want to go to an institution that doesn’t accept MA, or are frustrated with the denials you receive for care that you and your physician think you need), you can at this re-enrollment period. But the “community rating” charge for Supplement plans no longer is required; those companies offering them (often the same ones offering MA) can do underwriting. This means that they can assess your current health status and risks and adjust their premiums upward based on it, or deny you coverage altogether. Since you are often making this change when you are older, sicker, and have greater risk, you may not be able to get, or afford, a Supplement. This is a serious consideration, both when you first get Medicare and in the early years of re-enrollment before you become very sick. And, if you live long enough, you probably will. So seriously think about the decision, including both current and potential future benefits and risk of harm.

Of course, and here is my big opinion, the whole idea of taking something that is GOOD, Medicare, which covers all aged Americans, and turning it over to the private sector to operate as a business where they get paid in advance and try to pay out as little as possible, is BAD. What we need is improved and expanded Medicare for All. Expanded means everyone in our country, not just seniors, are in the same plan; everyone from birth on has Medicare and we do not have a hodgepodge of different programs covering our population. All in it together. Improved means getting rid of all the negatives of the current TM program: paying for 100%, not 80% of approved charges, covering all necessary health issues including dental care, mental health care, and long-term care as well as glasses and hearing aids.

Wouldn’t this cost more? Well, cost whom? The outlay for actual health care for all those expanded and improved services would certainly be more, but the outlay for “health care” which includes profit for insurers, providers, and drug companies would be, for the government and for you out of pocket (unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford it) less. Think about that. Should money you pay, in taxes and out-of-pocket, for health care be used for providing health care to you and your fellow Americans, or should a major portion of it be used to generate huge profits for companies and pay their executives multi-million-dollar salaries?

Think about it.

*Another confusing thing. While Medicare Supplements (MediGap) plans are not as a group assigned a “Part” letter by Medicare, the various plans do have 10 different letter designations, A-D, F, G, K-N (no E, H-J). This is actually good and one of the very few rational and helpful things in US health insurance, as ALL plans of one letter have to offer exactly the same benefits; a K or an N plan from any insurer has to have the same benefits as from any other, so you can just choose the company by cost to you and service. Unfortunately, they do not get better or worse, or more or less comprehensive, as they progress through the alphabet; you have to read what each one covers. That would be asking too much!

 

Emergency services, COVID, and the health system: Your life could well be at risk

I recently had a very unpleasant health event, involving severe abdominal pain for most of a day and night, and many days of recovery. The details of my specific condition are not particularly important, other than to say it is a chronic, recurrent problem, resulting from an event decades ago; it could well need emergency surgery and can have serious results. The point is that I had to decide whether to go to the emergency room that night, and to discuss the issues, both personal and structural, that impacted that decision, and what it demonstrates about our healthcare system, made even worse by the stress of COVID.

Considerations on the side of “go to the ER” were 1) I was in a lot of pain that was lasting longer than it generally has (say twice a year), and wanted to not be, 2) I knew pretty well what was causing it and that, while it had happened before and usually resolved, it could also NOT get better and maybe require emergency surgery, or worse. Considerations on the side of “don’t go to the ER” were 1) it has usually in the past resolved, eventually, on its own, and 2) the idea of getting in the car to go to the ER, and then waiting to be triaged and seen, and maybe imaged, which was likely to take many hours, all while in such pain, was a very negative incentive. If I was going to be writhing in untreated severe pain, I would prefer it to be in my own bed than in the waiting room of an ER. Plus, COVID. Both because it has made the crowding and wait times in ERs and hospitals much worse than “normal”, and because being there increases the risk of exposure and infection. I happen to live in what is currently a “high COVID” state, but nowhere is a really “low COVID risk” area. As it turns out, I didn’t go, and by morning, after about 18 hours, the worst was past. This time. But it will happen again and I will again have to decide what to do.

As do many, many thousands of others, every day, in the US. For many people, a major concern is cost – because visits to the ER are costly for those with no or poor insurance (really a lot of people). Fortunately for me, I’m not in that group. For others, it is because of fear of finding out what the problem is, and that it will be something really bad that they don’t want to know about. That also wasn’t really my issue; as a physician who has dealt with this, I knew what the problem was. Unfortunately, that can make it worse, since my fears and realization of the possible outcomes are based in evidence and not just fear. For yet others, it is the expectation that because of who they are (not White, poor, poorly insured, not well-dressed, have a history of alcohol or drug use or mental illness, or something else that doctors tend to associate with making one of less value) that they will be pushed back in the line, not believed, have their stories discounted, and generally be treated badly. Not really me either, although my physician privilege is decreased now that I am retired in another city, and do not get to go to the ER in the hospital where I work every day and people know me. For a lot of people, it is a combination of these, synergistically making their experience, and expectation of that experience, worse.

In case there may be anyone who is skeptical about my saying it is likely to be hours of waiting even when one presents with an emergency condition and is obviously educated and “respectable” (as a physician or nurse), it happens, and is happening much more continuously in the Age of COVID, when facilities are completely stretched to their limit and resources and people who work there are stressed to the max. Just recently, the last few months, two people who are close to me and are healthcare professionals have been through this experience. One had acute appendicitis, and needed emergency surgery, and after waiting many hours at home before venturing to the ER, waited there for 7 more hours before being seen. Luckily, they are now OK. It was not a positive experience! The other had a similar serious need, a ruptured diverticulitis causing peritonitis. She also waited in excruciating pain for hours, despite the fact that she was accompanied by her husband, a physician from the community who has practiced here for decades who was reduced to screaming at staff before she got her necessary emergency surgery. (For the record, these two people and I are all “seniors”, but these scenarios can and do affect everyone; my initial crisis was when I was 40 years old.)

The best advice anyone can give me is “get an ambulance”; they’ll see you sooner than if you arrive by car. This may well be true, and it may be good advice for me or for any other individual who is not worried about an additional $2000 bill, but in no way addresses the systemic problems that obviously exist.

The first of these is the incredible stress put on the system and the individuals working in it, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, by the COVID pandemic. The burden on hospitals and healthcare workers has been phenomenal. In this sense, doctors and nurses and others on the front line are our heroes, as they are often portrayed. Yes, sometimes they can exhibit inappropriate behaviors. These can even be exhibited by folks in whom they rarely manifested before as a result of the continuous stress of working in the situation that they, and we as patients and as a society, find ourselves in. The governmental response to the pandemic, led by a federal administration who acted as if their intention was to do everything completely wrong, was shockingly inadequate. Yes, building new hospital capacity is possible and usually slow, but some localities did it, and yes, training and equipping more healthcare workers takes time. But there is no conceivable justifiable excuse for not having sufficient PPE, for example, months into the pandemic. This could only happen because of the worst possible management. Remember that this is the country that put a person on the moon 8 years after the first suborbital flight, that built the interstate highway system, that could assemble battleships in weeks during WW II, that has enough money to give trillions of $$ in tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. It only did not happen because of more than ineptitude; it happened because of an intent to do evil. We can hope that at least much of this can be reversed by a Biden administration.

The other big structural issue is our terribly designed and implemented healthcare nonsystem that discriminates against people based upon wealth and insurance status, race and ethnicity, age and pre-exisiting conditions, geographical location, and in appropriate allocation of resources that in the best of (non-COVID) circumstances sends a hugely disproportionate number of true emergencies (medical, surgical, trauma) to some hospitals while others have relatively low, and more mild, usage of their emergency facilities. It is also the fact that many people cannot get into see their primary care physicians promptly, or do not even have primary care physicians (or other providers, such as NPs) so end up waiting until they are severely ill and going to the ER. These are people who, if they get hospitalized, can be considered “primary care preventable” hospitalizations. That is, if they had been able to easily and promptly see a primary care doctor for their illness, and at least as important, had their chronic diseases effectively managed and controlled, would have not needed hospitalization – or emergency care. This needs another set of structural solutions. It needs, first off, a universal national health insurance system. Every single person in the country needs to be completely covered for every medical necessity, without copays, deductibles, etc., and we all need to be in the same program.  The pandemic has clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of employer-based coverage. It is long past time, if it ever was, for ideas of gradual piecemeal expansion of Medicare, ACA, Medicaid, etc. If everyone is not in the same system, it is not a possibility but rahter a certainty that some will get better care than others. Separate, the Supreme Court ruled in 1954, is not equal in education, and separate insurance systems cannot create equality in healthcare.

A universal health insurance system, such as Medicare for All, is not going to fix all of the things that I discussed above. We need to ensure that there are hospitals and ERs available to all people. We need to ensure that all hospitals are welcoming to all patients, and that there is a rational system of referral from smaller to larger hospitals.  We must ensure that there is adequate primary care capacity so that everyone can have a provider that they can see regularly, and promptly when needed, and do not need to access ERs for either primary care or for urgent conditions that could have been prevented by good primary care. And we need to make sure that there is adequate emergency capacity for all emergencies to be cared for emergently, and that ERs, and hospitals, and health systems, are designed and funded and run based solely on what best needs the health needs of the entire community, and not on what makes the most profit for the owners. A universal health insurance system is necessary but not sufficient.

We need all that, and need it yesterday.