Category: Single-Payer

  •  

    CT Mirror: Lamont unveils plan to cancel billions in CT medical debt

    CT Mirror (2/2/23)

    Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont proposed on February 2 to purchase and forgive roughly $2 billion in medical debt owed by state residents. Along with similar proposals in other jurisdictions, the plan offers desperately needed relief from stress and fear to thousands of people who are struggling to pay their current outstanding medical bills. Unfortunately, these programs will do nothing to prevent millions more Americans from falling into the country’s healthcare financial meat grinder.

    Meanwhile, three major credit reporting agencies have decided to expunge paid-off medical debts and outstanding debt less than $500 from credit reports, and provide people a year’s grace period before adding new medical debt to credit reports.

    Like the debt forgiveness proposals, these credit decisions follow a wave of national publicity about the horrors of healthcare debt. In recent years, major news outlets, including the New York Times (e.g., 11/8/19, 9/24/22), Guardian (6/27/19), ProPublica (e.g., 6/14/21), National Public Radio (13/21/22), Kaiser Health News (9/10/19, 12/21/22) and CBS (4/28/21) have dug into the nightmares faced by tens of millions of Americans—both uninsured and with insurance—as they try to pay for the treatments and medicines they need to lead healthy lives.

    Compelling and consistent

    NYT: With Medical Bills Skyrocketing, More Hospitals Are Suing for Payment

    This New York Times headline (11/8/19) could have just as easily run in 2003 as in 2019.

    The stories are heartrending. Families’ lives wrecked financially by bill collectors and lawyers. Sick and injured patients’ health deteriorating due to mountains of debt and stress, with some providers even refusing follow up care until bills are paid. They highlight a set of corporate billing and collections policies and practices that turn a visit to a doctor or hospital into a years-long hell.

    Such investigations touch on common themes, including hospitals suing patients en masse:

    • “Ballad, which operates the only hospital in Wise County and 20 others in Virginia and Tennessee, filed more than 6,700 medical debt lawsuits against patients last year.” (New York Times, 11/8/19)
    • “The hospital that pursued Mr. Bushman, a 295-bed not-for-profit facility called Carle Foundation Hospital, is one of several that has at times employed debt collection tactics that are shunned by many other creditors. It has filed hundreds of lawsuits.” (Wall Street Journal, 10/30/03)

    Hospitals layering large interest payments on top of already crushing debt, and collecting through tactics like garnishing wages and seizing bank accounts:

    • “Barrett, who has never made more than $12 an hour, doesn’t remember getting any notices to pay from the hospital. But…Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare sued her for the unpaid medical bills, plus attorney’s fees and court costs.
      “Since then, the nonprofit hospital system affiliated with the United Methodist Church has doggedly pursued her, adding interest to the debt seven times and garnishing money from her paycheck on 15 occasions.”Barrett, 63, now owes about $33,000, more than twice what she earned last year.” (Guardian, 6/27/19)
    • “Tolson said she went to Yale-New Haven…to be treated for a staph infection. She had to stay at the hospital for eight days and got a bill for $9,000. She told the hospital she didn’t have a job or insurance and was told to seek welfare assistance. Because her husband had a small income, she didn’t qualify for state or federal assistance, she said.”She tried on several occasions to set up payment plans, but even with a job she wasn’t able to meet the payment schedule, she said. Her bank account was frozen, and when she called to discuss the problem the hospital’s agents were unwilling to budge on the issue, she claims.”‘I told them “I’m not working,” and they said “you should have thought about that then,”’ Tolson said. “Her bill is now $14,000.” (Connecticut Post, 12/17/03)

    Hospitals threatening and taking patients’ homes through liens and foreclosures:

    • “Heather Waldron and John Hawley are losing their four-bedroom house in the hills above Blacksburg, Va. A teenage daughter, one of their five children, sold her clothes for spending money. They worried about paying the electric bill. Financial disaster, they say, contributed to their divorce, finalized in April.”Their money problems began when the University of Virginia Health System pursued the couple with a lawsuit and a lien on their home to recoup $164,000 in charges for Waldron’s emergency surgery.” (KHN, 9/10/19)
    • “Still, the hospital administers strong legal medicine for cases of minor financial wounds. It presses for foreclosure for debts a fraction of a house’s worth. It pursued a $2,889.12 debt against a couple in Westville all the way to foreclosure, by which time fees and interest pushed the debt to $6,517.64.” (New Haven Advocate, 4/17/03).

    Nonprofit hospitals failing to offer patients charity care, sometimes in violation of state law or the hospital’s own internal charity care policies:

    • “Harriet Haffner-Ratliffe, 20, gave birth to twins at a Providence hospital in Olympia, Wash…. She was eligible under state law for charity care.”Providence did not inform her. Instead it billed her almost $2,300. The hospital put her on a roughly $100-a-month payment plan.” (New York Times, 9/24/22)
    • “The lawsuit also accused the hospital of failing to inform needy patients that the financial assistance was available and hiring aggressive collection agencies to go after patients who had not paid their bills.” (New Haven Register, 2/19/03)

    Patients skipping care or having providers refuse care due to debt:

    • “After a year of chemo and radiation…Penelope Wingard finally heard the news she’d been praying for: Her breast cancer was in remission. But with relief immediately came worry about her finances.”Wingard had received Medicaid coverage through a temporary program for breast cancer patients. When her treatment ended, she became uninsured.”Bills for follow-up appointments, blood tests and scans quickly piled up. Soon, her oncologist said he wouldn’t see her until she paid down the debt.” (KHN, 12/21/22)
    • “During Michael’s past admissions to the hospital, Margaret says, she asked staff members if there was some way to discount or waive the charges—figuring that Christ Medical, a nonprofit institution sponsored by religious organizations, might be inclined to help. But the answer, she says, was always no. So, as the hospital bills piled up on the dining table, Margaret lay awake at night, wondering how the family would crawl out from under the debt. On that April morning, as Michael kept insisting that it was ‘just the flu,’ she suspected that it was something more serious. But Michael wouldn’t let her take him to the ER, and eventually Margaret headed to work. When she returned that night, she found him on the floor, dead.” (New York Times, 12/19/04)

    The stories are compelling, consistent and comprehensive, exposing in detail the devastating consequences of a healthcare system that forces patients—some uninsured, others with inadequate health insurance—to assume unmanageable financial burdens for needed medical treatment. Based on analysis of large volumes of public records and interviews with dozens of victims, they include follow-up reporting on actions taken by hospitals in response to publicity, and legislative and legal actions in support of debtors. In short, everything good investigative journalism should be.

    Except for one problem: The second example in each pair above is 20 years old.

    An evergreen problem

    The first examples are drawn from work by the New York Times, Guardian and Kaiser Health News (KHN, recently rebranded as KFF Health News), which recently teamed up with National Public Radio for a series called “Diagnosis: Debt.” Along with the 2019–20 “Profiting from the Poor” investigative series published jointly by ProPublica and MLK50: Justice Through Journalism, these stories are part of a wave of recent medical debt coverage.

    WSJ: Jeanette White Is Long Dead But Her Hospital Bill Lives On

    Wall Street Journal (3/13/03)

    The second quotes, indistinguishable in the suffering of the profiled patients and the issues addressed, are from 2003–04, including a Wall Street Journal series by reporter Lucette Lagnado (3/13/03, 3/17/03, 4/1/03, 6/10/03). Lagnado’s work began in Connecticut, where Paul Bass, editor of the weekly New Haven Advocate, had dug into court records to reveal aggressive legal practices by Yale-New Haven Hospital in 2001. Lagnado spent months tracking down debtors and examining the same public records that form the basis for the latter-day stories.

    Then as now, follow-up stories show embarrassed individual hospital systems forgiving the debts of people named in the stories and many other current debtors, then usually promising to reduce the ferocity of their collection tactics (Wall Street Journal, 4/1/03; New Haven Register, 3/19/04; ProPublica, 7/30/19; KHN, 9/10/19; ProPublica, 9/24/19).

    MLK50: Profiting From the Poor

    MLK50 (4/28/20)

    Lagnado’s work in 2003 was recognized at the time by the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC as one of three finalists for the 2004 Selden Ring Award for Investigative Reporting.

    Sixteen years later, MLK50 founding editor Wendi C. Thomas won the Selden Ring Prize for her series jointly published with ProPublica. The two organizations shared a 2020 Loeb award for local reporting and a bronze medal from the Barlett & Steele Awards for Investigative Journalism, given by the Walter Cronkite School at Arizona State University. The same year, Kaiser Health News Jay Hancock and Elizabeth Lucas were Pulitzer Prize finalists for investigative reporting for their healthcare debt work.

    Medical debt, it turns out, is an evergreen problem, a perpetual source of torment for patients, prizes for reporters, and controversy over incremental, poll-tested policy changes that for two decades have failed to stem the flood tide of medical debt that is drowning millions of people. These gradualist approaches have, however, succeeded in deflecting attention from the only real solution to the problem—a national health insurance system like Medicare for All that would cover everyone, all the time, without holes in coverage that lead to catastrophic personal debt.

    Community outrage

    Quinton White

    Quinton White (Wall Street Journal, 4/1/03)

    Lagnado’s 2003 series appeared during campaigns against abusive medical debt collection in several states, including Illinois, California, Washington and Connecticut, where Lagnado’s initial iconic profile of Quinton White (Wall Street Journal, 3/13/03) chronicled his 20-year struggle with debt from his wife’s treatment at Bridgeport Hospital.

    White suffered nearly all the indignities hospitals impose on indebted patients. By the time Lagnado found him, White had seen the hospital attach a lien to his house and drain most of his bank account. Interest ballooned the debt; White had paid $16,000 of the original $18,740 over the years, but the Yale New Haven Health System, which had acquired Bridgeport Hospital in 1996, was pursuing him for an additional $39,000 in remaining principal, interest and fees.

    Prompted by community outrage at the tactics described by Lagnado, and in a series of reports from the nonprofit Connecticut Center for a New Economy (CCNE), local labor unions, a church-based grassroots movement, Yale University public interest lawyers and hospital patients built a campaign to take on Yale-New Haven and the statewide hospital industry.*

    Four lawsuits, a series of demonstrations with hundreds of people, a grassroots lobbying campaign and ongoing media coverage yielded progress. The Connecticut General Assembly passed a law cutting interest on medical debt to 5% and requiring hospitals to inform patients of available financial assistance and to stop collections against eligible patients. The law limited billing of uninsured patients to the actual cost of their care, and required hospitals to report on their collection activity. Under intense local pressure, Yale-New Haven Health went further than the new state law, settling lawsuits by removing thousands of property liens and forgiving more than 20,000 accounts worth millions of dollars in outstanding debt.

    The final lawsuit against Yale-New Haven was a class action focused on the practice of billing uninsured patients at wildly inflated “sticker prices”. Filed a year and a half after Lagnado’s first article, it was one of dozens brought against nonprofit hospital systems nationwide in 2004 by members of the Not-for-Profit Litigation Group, led by trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, one of the lead attorneys in the 1990s tobacco litigation. From the middle of 2004 through 2005, Scruggs’ firm drew blanket coverage across the US, with more than 200 local stories in more than 30 states, according to a search of the Nexis database.

    Historical amnesia

    NYT: Higher Bills Are Leading Americans to Delay Medical Care

    New York Times (2/16/23): Medical debt “began emerging as a much more striking issue last year.”

    However, by the spring of 2006, Scruggs’ suits had largely failed, and he would soon find himself in prison for bribing a judge in an unrelated case. With local hospitals agreeing to policy changes in Illinois and Connecticut, medical debt coverage shrank.

    The issue didn’t go away, of course; it simply attracted less media attention. However, according to veteran New York Times healthcare reporter Reed Abelson (2/16/23), concern about medical debt appeared mysteriously in 2022: “The inability to afford medical tests and treatment, a perennial concern in the United States, began emerging as a much more striking issue last year.” Perhaps Abelson, who has covered healthcare since 2002, forgot Jonathan Cohn’s 5,000-word New York Times Magazine essay (12/19/04) from 2004, prompted in part by the Scruggs class action cases.

    Telling the stories of millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined and even shortened by medical debt is an honorable exercise, and the spate of recent reporting does include a few new details. In particular, MLK50’s Wendi Thomas (6/27/19) interviewed judges who decide debt cases, giving readers a new level of detailed, often chilling insight into the attitudes of people who sometimes casually help attorneys for hospitals and collection agencies destroy patients’ families.

    Judge Betty Thomas Moore ordered a woman whose 11-year-old nonverbal autistic son wears diapers and eats only pureed foods to pay $130 a month instead of $30. The judge reasoned that her son and his two older brothers “could sacrifice so that their mother could pay more.”

    History of failure

    Beyond painful details and inspiring victories, most articles that offer a broader frame for the issue are plagued by bad habits common to corporate journalism: historical amnesia, a bias for treating individuals as “consumers” with primary responsibility for their own problems, and ideological blinders.

    NPR: What the White House's actions on medical debt could mean for consumers

    NPR (4/14/22): “There’s still the issue of consumers being able to afford to pay for healthcare. “

    As they have for 20 years, most policy-focused stories about medical debt lean heavily toward regulatory initiatives or legislative actions to take the sharp edges off of debt collection, or offer advice on how to avoid or manage medical debt (NPR, 4/14/22; KHN, 10/17/19; KRWG, 4/6/21). To the extent that wrap-up stories acknowledge the need for Americans to be covered by health insurance, reporters assume the only way forward is to build on the supposed successes of the Affordable Care Act through tiny increments of change. They treat Medicare for All, or any other credible scheme to cover all Americans with comprehensive health insurance, as an impossibility for the foreseeable future.

    Unfortunately, regulating medical debt collection tactics has an easily documented history of failure as healthcare policy. The 2003 Connecticut law, described by Lagnado (6/10/03) as “a breakthrough patient-protection bill,” addressed several of the key issues highlighted in reporting on healthcare debt. Yet the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reported that as of December 2020, 10% of Connecticut adults whose accounts the agency tracks had medical debt on their credit reports, with an average balance of $1,407 and a median of $508.

    The CFPB acknowledges that its data significantly understates the scale of the issue, because a lot of medical debt either never appears on credit reports, or is reported as general credit card debt. An analysis of the CFPB data shows that an average of 14% of American credit reports have medical debt on them. The Kaiser Health News/NPR collaboration kicked off with the publication of a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showing that 41% of adults in the US, or 100 million Americans, have medical debt.

    Burdened despite ‘breakthrough’

    So despite “breakthrough” legislation and additional internal policy changes at the state’s largest health system, people in Connecticut remain so burdened with medical debt two decades after a “breakthrough” that public officials feel the need to publicize the problem and take action.

    Record Journal: Sen. Murphy hosts listening session on medical debt in Meriden

    Meriden, Conn., Record Journal (12/10/22)

    In December 2022, US Sen. Chris Murphy (D.-Conn.), who was the Senate co-chair of the state’s Public Health Committee when the 2003 law passed, held a listening session on medical debt to allow people to air their suffering. Two months later, Connecticut’s governor promised to spend public money to retire as much as $2 billion in residents’ debts.

    Murphy and his Senate colleague Chris Van Hollen (D.–Md.) have introduced the Strengthening Consumer Protections and Medical Debt Transparency Act, to “protect consumers from medical debt.” Most of the proposal is lifted from 20-year-old laws in Connecticut and other states: capping interest at 5%, reporting on collection activity, determining the patient’s insurance status before collecting, requiring itemized bills. The bill would also give patients an additional six months after providers have determined their insurance and charity care eligibility before facing aggressive collections tactics.

    Similar laws in other states simply have not stopped medical debt from gnawing at the economic security and health of millions of families. In the CFPB analysis, Connecticut has only the 16th lowest percentage of credit reports with medical debt. The report includes a table of states that have policies to require hospital charity care or restrain aggressive collection tactics. Some of those states are among those with the lowest percentage of indebted patients; others, like New Jersey, Illinois, Maine and New Mexico, are not. Of course, what does line up with low levels of medical debt is health insurance. The CFPB study (3/1/22) notes that “medical debt is also more common in the Southeastern and Southwestern US, in part because states in those regions did not expand Medicaid coverage.” Indeed, 29 of the 30 states with the lowest percentage of credit reports with medical debt have adopted some form of Medicaid expansion.

    These laws do ease some existing patients’ terror and stress, by banning or reducing the use of horrifying tactics like wage garnishment, bank executions, foreclosure and even actual arrests for missing court dates. In the end, they don’t eliminate that stress, and won’t address the core failure of the US healthcare system to cover everyone with guaranteed health insurance.

    Post-ACA Progress Toward Universal Coverage

    Here’s a simple sentence you’ll rarely read in corporate media: The Affordable Care Act has failed. Its only measurable effect has been to shift a small percentage of the population from being uninsured to the ranks of the underinsured.

    According to the Commonwealth Fund, when the ACA passed in 2010, 56% of American adults age 19–64 were covered for the entire year with insurance good enough not to consider them underinsured. In 2022, 57% of Americans were similarly covered. After 12 years, millions of column inches and endless television news hours, there is little discernible difference in the core protections available to Americans against illness, injury, early death and, yes, medical debt.

    The Commonwealth Fund underestimates the scale of underinsurance: 32% of adults who were “insured all year, not underinsured” in 2022 reported problems getting access to healthcare because of cost. However, taking Commonwealth’s definitions at face value, at the current rate of progress, every single American adult can expect to be “insured all year, not underinsured” in about 515 years.

    How to cope with the Kafkaesque

    Fox Business: How to get rid of medical debt without damaging your credit

    Fox Business (3/3/21) notes that its advice to medical debtors is “sponsored by Credible—which is majority owned by our parent, Fox Corporation.” Credible is a “leading consumer finance marketplace” that “delivers a differentiated and personalized experience that enables consumers to compare instant, accurate pre-qualified rates from multiple financial institutions.”

    Not to worry. Major media outlets have us covered for the next five-plus centuries. Most US news sources, medical self-help websites, and even credit-reporting agencies Experian and Equifax have an article or two filled with advice for patients on fighting back against medical debt.

    If medical debt has crimped your reading budget, look for former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen’s Never Pay the First Bill: And Other Ways to Fight the Healthcare System and Win in your local public library. Or you can head over to his Allen Health Academy website, featuring a self-help curriculum called “The Never Pay Pathway.” For $3 a month, you get 16 videos on-demand, a certificate of completion and monthly newsletter. Coming soon, for $5 a month, you can get an app and a checklist for tracking your progress negotiating with your creditors, and for $7, companies get access to an employer-support forum, and workers who have debt (presumably because of the company’s lousy health insurance) can join a Facebook support group.

    The guidance has changed little in two decades: Study your insurance plan if you have one, to understand your deductibles and copays. Review your bills for inaccuracies. If you’re uninsured, apply for Medicaid or other public insurance programs, and ask your hospital for financial help. Fight your insurer if they don’t pay what they’re supposed to. Negotiate your total hospital debt down, bargain a lower interest rate, and set up a payment plan that you can afford. If you get sued, show up in court, prepared with a proposed payment plan. And so on.

    If it works, this is good advice. Most hospitals still bill uninsured patients at inflated prices. The vast majority of medical bills do contain errors. Patients frequently can negotiate to lower their total debt and interest rates dramatically and get on a payment plan. Hospitals do have charity care policies, however stingy or generous.

    The limits of consumer empowerment

    But consumer empowerment only goes so far. A study by Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer found that US adult workers already spend more than 13.7 million hours a week on the phone with their health insurance administrators. Some of that time is spent dealing with health insurance problems involving medical debt. However, most medical debt empowerment articles urge patients to research, review and negotiate discounted debt with hospitals, doctors and other providers.

    NPR: How to Get Rid of Medical Debt — Or Avoid It in the First Place

    KFF Health News (7/1/22): ” Do not expect this to be an easy process.”

    So, to “get rid of medical debt—or avoid it in the first place,” according to the headline on a widely circulated story by NPR reporter Yuki Noguchi (KHN, 7/1/22), patients must expect to spend even more time on the phone, studying bills, reading laws, regulations and policies, writing letters and going to court. In a nation where people have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, it’s not clear when they are supposed to find the time to read (assuming they’re fluent in English), make phone calls, gather their personal information and trudge off to the hospital to prove they’re worthily poor enough not to deserve torture.

    For the story, KHN and NPR “spoke with patients, consumer advocates, and researchers to glean their hard-won insights on how to avoid or manage medical debt.” Noguchi walked patients through the US healthcare nightmare step by step, from subscribing to an insurance plan through fending off collections lawyers, with empowering advice for each step.

    In real life, patients often can’t shop for hospitals like groceries or a new appliance. Patients go where their doctors have admitting privileges, get treated in facilities that are in their insurance network, or wind up in whichever emergency room an ambulance takes them to. If, after shopping, their discounted bills still far exceed their ability to pay, then what? Without real wealth or a high income, uninsured and underinsured people have relatively few choices that actually protect them from healthcare debt.

    Neither NPR nor any other outlet offers data on the efficacy of consumer empowerment as policy. If every single “consumer” dutifully followed every bit of advice, would the number of debtors shrink from 100 million to 10 million? 50 million? 95 million?

    And when these tactics do “work,” it’s not clear how much help they provide. KFF’s own survey (6/16/22) found that half of American adults couldn’t pay a $500 medical expense right away, and 19% would never be able to pay it off. In the end, if you can’t afford $500, how valuable is bargaining a $30,000 debt down to $10,000?

    Without comprehensive health insurance coverage, patients will wind up back in debt, or sicker and in more pain because they avoid care. MLK50’s Thomas (ProPublica, 6/27/19) framed her interviews with Memphis judges in part through the story of Raquel Nelson, who received treatment from the United Methodist Church-affiliated Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare system. Methodist’s lawsuit was Nelson’s third time as a medical debt defendant.

    Limiting future torture

    NYT: Medical Debt Is Being Erased in Ohio and Illinois. Is Your Town Next?

    “Is Your Town Next?” the New York Times headline (12/29/22) gushes. But the subhead acknowledges it’s just “a short-term solution.”

    This issue haunts reporting on what the New York Times (12/29/22) calls “a new strategy to address the high cost of healthcare.” RIP Medical Debt, a nonprofit organization founded by former debt collections executives, is working with public and private institutions like churches, state and local governments, and even a local ABC affiliate, using their own money to purchase outstanding debt and retire it.

    Most of this debt has already been written off as uncollectible by providers and sold to third party collectors, allowing RIP to buy it at a few cents on the dollar. In Connecticut, Governor Lamont proposes to give RIP Medical Debt $20 million in federal American Rescue Plan funds to retire up to $2 billion in debt.

    Ohio State Rep. Michele Grim, quoted in the Times story as a Toledo city councilor who helped organize a partnership between the city and RIP Medical Debt to cancel medical debts, told FAIR in a Zoom interview:

    This is the only country in the world that lets its citizens go bankrupt because of medical debt. States and locals see this as the simplest thing we can do, because we can’t fix our broken healthcare system.

    Toledo internist John Ross, a Franklin County Board of Health commissioner and past president of Physicians for a National Health Program, strongly supports the Ohio initiative, but also noted that ARP funding is a one-off. Without continued sources of financing, many of the current debtors whose debt will be forgiven, and thousands of others who lack adequate health insurance, will soon be burdened again by debt: “The next wave of debt is building as we speak.”

    RIP Medical Debt typically doesn’t buy debt until patients, providers and insurers have had a chance to pursue other sources of payment. That process usually takes about 18 months, according to RIP Medical Debt CEO Allison Sesso. Thus, at its very best, the Times “strategy to address high healthcare costs” boils down to this: If a local government scrapes together some money, and if your local hospital is willing to work with RIP medical debt, indebted patients may only need to spend 18 months struggling with medical bills—although once their current debts are paid, the next time they get sick, the cycle starts over. When the bar is low enough, even an unfunded possibility of limiting future torture to a year and a half looks like a victory.

    RIP Medical Debt leaders understand the limitations of their model. In an email exchange with FAIR, CEO Allison Sesso wrote:

    We know that RIP Medical Debt is not a holistic solution, but a stopgap that nonetheless provides a financial and emotional respite to our constituents. We understand both that debt relief matters to the individuals we help and that what we are doing is not fundamentally solving the problem.

    Distorted landscape

    NYT: Why Are Nonprofit Hospitals So Highly Profitable?

    New York Times (2/20/20): “It actually isn’t much of a surprise that nonprofit hospitals are often more profitable than for-profit hospitals.”

    In reality, local residents have already paid these debts many times over. Nearly 60% of acute care hospitals in the US are private tax exempt “charitable” organizations, whose mission statements typically include a commitment to caring for the poor, sick and injured. The “mission” entitles them not to pay federal, state and local property, income or sales taxes.

    In 2006, the Cook County assessor estimated that nonprofit hospitals owned between $4.3 and $4.5 billion worth of exempt commercial real estate in the county, representing up to $241 million in local property tax revenues, likely much higher today. Yet cash-strapped city governments are now spending public money to pay for debts incurred in these already heavily subsidized hospitals.

    Speaking from personal experience, it’s hard to imagine a more gratifying reporting outcome than seeing a powerful hospital corporation forgive suffering patients’ debts, or announce changes in policies toward all patients who can’t afford care. In 2019, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and the president of the University of Virginia publicly committed to changing UVA Health’s policies, the day after KHN’s expose (9/10/19) on the hospital system’s lawsuits and collections tactics.

    However, by ignoring the history of failed, narrowly targeted reforms; covering gimmicky strategies and pouring effort into the kind of consumer self-help that NGOs have been publishing how-to guides about for decades (e.g., Hospital Debt Justice Project, 2003); and indulging in ritual defenses of the Affordable Care Act, news organizations leave their audiences with distorted impressions of the policy landscape, undermining the power of their own high-impact reporting.

    Giving politicians cover

    Jennifer Bosco, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, told NPR (4/14/22):

    Ultimately, I think the problem of medical debt isn’t going to go away unless at some point in our country’s future, we adopt some sort of single payer or Medicare-for-All system. But I think that’s very much a blue-sky idea at this point.

    Apparently it’s a popular blue sky idea. In its story on RIP Medical Debt, the Times (12/29/22) noted that polling by Tulchin Research, the American Association of Political Consultants’ 2022 Democratic Pollster of the Year, found that “65% supported ‘Medicare for all’ and 68% supported expanding Medicaid.”

    It will remain a blue-sky idea as long as media keep giving politicians cover with the idea that urgently addressing the incremental Next Bad Thing will make a difference. Three years ago, the bad thing du jour was “surprise billing.” Surprise bills happen when an empowered consumer carefully studies the rules of their health plan and goes to a hospital in their insurance network, but unknowingly gets treated by a doctor that isn’t in their network, then gets socked with a huge bill that their insurer doesn’t want to pay.

    Consumer Reports: 5 Ways You Might Still Get a Surprise Medical Bill

    Consumer Reports (2/10/22)

    KFF polled the issue and found that 65% of people were concerned about surprise bills. Surprise bills affect insurers as much as individuals, so Congress passed the No Surprises Act, spawning a round of updates to consumer empowerment websites, and warnings about how the Act didn’t quite get rid of all surprise bills.

    People don’t get surprise medical bills because doctors are greedy, or because private equity firms bought some emergency physician practices, or because empowered consumers didn’t check their network carefully enough. Americans get surprise bills because they have insurance networks. They have to go to “in-network” providers because, unlike other wealthy nations, Americans don’t have a right to healthcare, providers don’t have an obligation to treat people who need it except in emergencies, and US healthcare prices are set in secret negotiations between powerful private actors.

    Insurers, doctors and hospitals wield network membership and rates as weapons in a high-stakes battle over market power. For empowered consumers covered through their jobs, this means that every year during open enrollment—assuming their health plan is even still offered by their boss—they get to “choose” whether to keep it, by poring over long lists of doctors and hospitals to see if they can still avoid bankruptcy while visiting the people who have healed and comforted them for years.

    They often can’t. In 2017, Morning Consult found that 15% of Americans had a doctor leave their network in just the previous 12 months, meaning they’d have to pay more—often much more—to continue their care with that doctor (Fierce Healthcare, 3/17/17).

    The new Next Bad Thing

    KFF: Five Quick Takeaways From a Yearlong Investigation of Medical Debt in America

    None of KHN/NPR ‘s takeaways (6/16/22) are new, or required a year to unearth.

    Medical debt coverage now frames deductibles as the Next Bad Thing. NPR and KHN (6/16/22) gave readers of their Diagnosis Debt series “Five Quick Takeaways from a Yearlong Investigation of Medical Debt in America.” There really are only four takeaways, as the first two basically say it’s a big problem. Two others are that medical debt is hard to pay off, and that “debt and illness are linked.” The final takeaway glances off the core issue:

    The KHN/NPR investigation finds that despite more people having health insurance—as a result of the Affordable Care Act—medical debt is pervasive. There is a reason: Over the past two decades, health insurers have shifted costs onto patients through higher deductibles, at the same time that the medical industry has steadily raised the prices of drugs, procedures and treatments. The 2010 healthcare law didn’t curb that.

    Nothing in the five takeaways is new, or required a year to unearth. Deductibles have grown much faster than inflation over the past two decades, which KHN’s reporters presumably know, since the primary source for the information is KHN’s own parent organization, the annual employer surveys done by the Kaiser Family Foundation—as FAIR (9/8/17) reported six years ago . More than a third of American adults have been telling the Commonwealth Fund (2003–18, 2020, 2022) that they skipped or delayed needed medical care in the past year due to costs since Lucette Lagnado first knocked on Quenton White’s door in 2003.

    By itself, limiting or eliminating deductibles is meaningless unless all of the tools for patient abuse are taken out of the industry’s hands. If deductibles are limited or disappear, patients can expect higher premiums, higher copays and heavier coinsurance. They will likely face even more intense shifts in their lists of “in-network” providers, as insurers try to wring profits from the market to make up for any minor losses.

    Timid sources, compromised coverage

    KFF Health News: ‘We Ain’t Gonna Get It’: Why Bernie Sanders Says His ‘Medicare for All’ Dream Must Wait

    Bernie Sanders (KFF Health News, 2/8/23): “What I ultimately would like to accomplish is not going to happen right now.”

    To some extent, corporate media debt reporting is constrained by its chosen sources. Democratic politicians don’t want to talk about universal coverage schemes; even Sen. Bernie Sanders says “we ain’t gonna get” Medicare for All (KHN, 2/8/23). NGOs like the National Consumer Law Center accept and repeat the “blue sky” expectation, even though Medicare for All and Medicaid expansion poll as well as limiting surprise bills, and very close to debt relief (KFF, 2/28/20; New York Times, 12/29/22).

    The NGOs that track medical debt and related trends reflect the conventional wisdom of what is politically possible. The Kaiser Family Foundation is a respected agenda-setting organization. When the authors of KFF’s Issue Brief (11/3/22) headlined “Hospital Charity Care: How It Works and Why It Matters” get to “Looking Ahead” at policy options, they offer a parody of Washington policy wonkery, with ideas appearing passively out of the ether:

    In the context of ongoing concerns about the affordability of hospital care and the growing burden of medical debt, several policy ideas have been floated at the federal and state level to strengthen hospital charity care programs.

    Evidently whoever “floats” ideas in Washington—apparently not KFF—is under the impression that universal, comprehensive health insurance doesn’t apply as a solution to medical debt.

    However, there are plenty of suggestions for encouraging or even requiring more hospital “charity.” The link-heavy two paragraphs include all the usual ideas, like reporting requirements and higher poverty thresholds for mandated charity care. There’s even a clever “floor and trade” suggestion, “where hospitals would be required to either provide a minimum amount of charity care or subsidize other hospitals that do so.”

    The closest thing to actual solutions are vague hints:

    State and federal policymakers have also considered several other options to reduce medical debt or increase affordability more generally, such as by expanding Medicaid in states that have not already done so, reducing healthcare prices through direct regulation or other means, and increasing consumer protections against medical debt.

    Direct price regulation, a standard feature of national healthcare systems around the world, triggers furious industry opposition. If KFF can find such a politically controversial idea “floating” somewhere, why can’t an idea with 65% polling support, and 120 voting cosponsors in the US House of Representatives at the time the piece was written (H.R. 1976), float past the authors? Like so many other sources, KFF seems firmly committed to achieving universal coverage—sometime in the next five centuries.

    Assumed political impotence

    ProPublica: Stop Suing Patients, Advocates Advise Memphis Nonprofit Hospital System

    What if in addition to not suing their patients for debts, as ProPublica (6/30/19) suggests, nonprofit hospitals directed their efforts toward creating a healthcare system that covers everybody?

    The most extraordinary aspects of the current wave of medical debt coverage are the assumed political impotence of the public, and the low expectations of reporters and NGO sources. Hospitals spend massive amounts of money lobbying against their own patients’ interests. When a major investigation is published, nonprofit systems are vulnerable, and NGOs and local community leaders can often shape the terms of the response.

    An embarrassed Methodist Le Bonheur system in Memphis announced a 30-day review of its charity care policies, prompting a ProPublica/MLK50 article (6/30/19) headlined “Stop Suing Patients, Advocates Advise Memphis Nonprofit Hospital System”:

    During the past month, MLK50 consulted with consumer advocates and legal experts around the country about how Methodist could reform its policies. For many, the top priority was to stop the lawsuits. Close behind, they said, was for the hospital to expand its financial assistance policy to include poor people who have health insurance but can’t afford their deductibles or co-pays.

    Not a single quoted expert said anything like:

    Of course they should stop suing people. But the very best thing Methodist Le Bonheur could do for its patients is withdraw from the American Hospital Association and spend what they were paying in dues to lobby for Medicare for All, or some other form of genuine national health insurance. Not only is it disgraceful that a supposed charitable hospital is suing patients and garnishing their wages, but they’re using money brutally extracted from impoverished patients to stop the government from guaranteeing those patients actual health insurance that would keep them out of debt forever.

    Similarly, if just a small percentage of the 100 million Americans with medical debt emailed their most recent collections letter to their senators and representatives once a month, with the simple message “National health insurance now,” that’s millions of messages. It takes less time than suing your hospital, and would certainly get congressional attention—it might even crash congressional servers. Five minutes. Once a month. Yet the only advice given to readers is “empowerment” to negotiate on their own with a multi-billion dollar corporation.

    A simple story

    Life Expectancy vs. Healthcare Spending, 1970-2015

    Americans pay much more for healthcare and yet die much sooner than citizens of other wealthy countries (Wikimedia Commons, 3/11/22).

    One of the few reporters who took the time to look at the history of medical debt in the US is KHN’s Dan Weissmann, who runs the Arm and a Leg podcast. Weissmann did a multipart series on the history of medical debt, pegged to an interview with former attorney Dickie Scruggs. The series offers a good look at the history of medical debt campaigns, but again the framing is absurdly narrow. Weissmann introduces Scruggs as the lawyer “Who Helped Start the Fight for Charity Care,” as if hospital charity is a goal that listeners should be satisfied with.

    In 2005, after local patients filed lawsuits against hospitals, the Bergen (New Jersey) Record editorial board (6/13/05) described the actual “fight”:

    America’s healthcare system is broken. The only way to completely fix it is a single-payer system, one that would end the inequities that cause people like Mr. Osso to be charged three and four times the rates that insurance companies or Medicare and Medicaid are charged.

    Two decades of failed reforms later, the idea of actually covering everyone in the US stimulates talk of a policy Long March in elite media. RIP Medical Debt CEO Allison Sesso told FAIR “that no one entity can change such a complex and opaque system as US healthcare…. RIP’s help is immediate—this matters because policy and systems change can take years.”

    US health care may be nightmarishly complex for patients and the people who heal and comfort them, but US healthcare policy is quite simple. There are two “entities,” comprising exactly 536 people, who could eliminate current and future medical debt tomorrow. Functioning models all over the world cover the conditions described in the stories above without turning patients into debt peons, at a fraction of what is spent in the US. The people with the power to do it just refuse to. End of story.


    *Disclosure: I was a source for reporting on debt in Connecticut. At the time, I was a researcher for the hospitality workers’ union now known as UNITE HERE, collaborating with staff of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). As noted in many stories, a member of our team, SEIU researcher Grace Rollins, researched and wrote the CCNE reports, and shared our materials with Lagnado and other reporters. I participated in planning for the rallies, and assisted with lobbying for the legislation that passed in 2003.

     

    The post The Healthcare Long March: Why Exposing Evils of Medical Debt Doesn’t Fix the Problem appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  • A registered nurse takes part in a rally outside the Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center on January 13, 2022, in Oakland, California, in response to a California Department of Public Health decision to let asymptomatic, COVID-positive health care workers return to work without isolating or testing.

    As the Omicron wave crests in the northeast, burned-out nurses across the country are again turning to collective action, including rotating walkouts and demonstrations, at dozens of hospitals across more than 11 states and the nation’s capital. As some hospitals teeter dangerously close buckling under the strain of a record high number of COVID-19 patients, nursing unions are urging a competent and comprehensive pandemic response — and calling out the role of for-profit health care in the burgeoning crisis.

    Registered nurses (RNs) across the United States are calling out ever-worsening conditions for both patients and health care workers, including dangerous under-staffing and weakening of federal COVID safety standards amid the Omicron peak, with the U.S., as of Monday, averaging over 790,000 new daily cases. The tally is likely an undercount, as many states did not release new data because of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday.

    Last week, RNs with National Nurses United (NNU) held a candlelight vigil outside the White House to commemorate colleagues who have died from COVID-19. They set out 481 candles to represent the 481 RN COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., which has the highest known COVID death toll in the world. According to NNU tracking data, more than 4,700 U.S. health care workers have died after being infected with COVID.

    Some hospital systems remain close to collapse as they struggle to provide care for 156,505 COVID-positive patients, according to data released Monday from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, surpassing records set during last winter’s Delta surge. The surge has meant some hospitals are halting non-urgent procedures and relying on National Guard personnel to fill in critical staffing gaps. On Friday, Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio mobilized more than 1,000 National Guard members to help with hospital staffing. President Joe Biden likewise deployed 1,000 military medical personnel to six states where hospitals are overwhelmed.

    RNs across the country are pointing to the hospital capacity crisis to push back against state and federal COVID safety protocol rollbacks, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), that further weaken COVID isolation guidelines and protections for health care workers.

    The CDC’s weakening of isolations guidelines has led to many hospitals and health care facilities compelling COVID-positive doctors and nurses to return to work. Hospital and clinic administrations have argued that such moves are the only way to keep their doors open amid skyrocketing hospitalizations.

    Nursing unions have criticized the Biden administration’s focus on protecting employers’ interests, which they say has hampered his administration’s pandemic response from being able to quickly adapt to new and predictable variants. While NNU President Zenei Triunfo-Cortez applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last week to uphold a Biden administration order requiring COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers at facilities receiving federal money, she said in a statement that vaccine requirements for health care workers must be just one part of a more competent and comprehensive federal pandemic response.

    Triunfo-Cortez said the recent Supreme Court ruling “should be a signal to the Department of Labor and [OSHA] to take the next necessary step — extending the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued last June until adopting a permanent standard based on it for health care workplaces.” Despite the emergence and rapid spread of Omicron in the U.S., the Labor Department allowed its ETS, which imposed mandatory requirements for health care employers on infection control protections, to expire last month.

    State and federal officials have called the expiration and similar moves necessary to keep hospitals staffed amid the Omicron surge, but many RNs are calling this argument a distraction, noting that the for-profit health care system artificially deflates staffing levels to protect hospital employers’ bottom lines. They are renewing calls to end the for-profit health care system altogether and move to a single-payer system. Under a single-payer system, NNU argues, hospitals could, and likely would, have been staffed-up such that facilities could safely weather the temporary loss of employees who were out sick.

    Profit-driven hospitals’ continual failure to invest in safe staffing is what’s creating the kind of dangerous working conditions driving nurses away from the profession at a time when they are needed most, unionized RNs say. “Nurses will tell you we are failing because we have led the interests of corporations and our hospital employers dictate our country’s response to this virus. Their goal is profit, not saving lives,” Triunfo-Cortez said during a press conference last week.

    NNU conducted a survey of thousands of RNs across the country from October to December, 2021. Of those who responded, 83 percent said at least half of their shifts were unsafely staffed. Sixty-eight percent said they have considered leaving their position. Immediately increasing staffing levels and growing the pool of available nurses is what’s needed to prevent rising burnout and resignations, the nurses’ union argues.

    Elizabeth Lalasz, an NNU union steward and registered medical surgical nurse at the Stroger Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, the flagship hospital of the Cook County Health System, tells Truthout that after her union struck last June, hospital management agreed to hire 300 additional nurses. That’s the kind of collective action that she says is necessary amid the Omicron surge.

    Lalasz tells Truthout that solidarity with other frontline workers in Chicago isn’t simply a choice for nurses but a necessity. Nurses realized that if they didn’t support the Chicago Teachers Union in its recent work stoppage across the Chicago Public School system, the city’s hospitals might be more overwhelmed than they already are, she says. “[Teachers] were [originally] asking to be remote until January 18, which would have helped us in the hospitals to bring down the volume of COVID patients,” Lalasz says. “That kind of solidarity, seeing that connection, I think is integral to us seeing how our struggle is tied.”

    She also echoed Triunfo-Cortez in identifying the for-profit health care system as the primary driver of unsafe staffing, noting, “When you’re for-profit, what you’re thinking about is that bottom line, like, ‘How can I cut a corner?’” In such a calculation, labor costs for nurses are seen as “expensive” — so those costs are lowered even when it’s unsafe to do so, she says.

    RNs Back Single-Payer in California

    The fight for both increased staffing and single-payer is heating up in California, where 18 unionized hospitals held actions last week amid Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) decision to let the hospital management force infected but asymptomatic health care workers back to work without isolation or testing.

    The moves come as Los Angeles County on Monday reported more than 31,500 new COVID cases — a nearly tenfold increase from a month ago — and as the number of COVID-positive patients in Sacramento County hospitals has reached a record pandemic high.

    But even as nurses with the California Nurses Association (CNA) and NNU condemned the governor’s actions, they also held demonstrations in favor of two bills before the California state legislature that would create a state-run, single-payer health care system.

    The first bill, the California Guaranteed Healthcare for All Act, Assembly Bill 1400, passed out of the legislature’s Assembly Health Committee in an 11-3 vote. The bill would do away with California’s for-profit health care system, removing private health insurance companies from the picture entirely. All Californians would be switched to a new universal plan called “CalCare” that would cut health care costs by eliminating insurance company overhead and profits while also forcing reductions in provider fees and drug prices.

    The bill’s outcome remains uncertain, as it would require passage of a separate funding plan outlining the largest state tax increase in history, estimated at $163 billion, which would need to be approved by voters in an amendment to the California constitution. The bills not only face skeptical Democratic assembly members, but also entrenched opposition from powerful lobbies for doctors and insurance companies. This comes as Governor Newsom unveiled his own $286-billion state budget plan that would allow undocumented people to sign up for Medi-Cal, the state’s health program for low-income Californians.

    CNA President Cathy Kennedy supported the single-payer health care proposal, highlighting inequities in health care access exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. “This for-profit health care system has cost lives, all so that a few health insurance executives can line their pockets,” she told the Guardian last week.

    Kennedy also took issue with Governor Newsom and the CDPH, telling reporters during a press conference that the decision to allow infected nurses back to work “doesn’t make any sense, and it’s unconscionable. Eliminating the isolation time and sending asymptomatic or exposed health care workers to work will guarantee more preventable transmission, infections, hospitalizations and death. By doing all of this, Governor Newsom and the CDPH are in effect guaranteeing more transmission…. Hospitals are supposed to be centers of healing, not centers of infection.”

    NNU’s Triunfo-Cortez likewise pointed out that, at the start of the pandemic, the hospital industry in California petitioned Governor Newsom and CDPH to waive the state’s minimum nurse-to-patient ratio standards, rather than opting to hire additional staff. The waiver was rescinded, she says, after the California Nurses Association pushed back. Yet, nurses in California continue to experience a staffing crisis even with the state’s stronger nurse-to-patient ratio regulations in place.

    That’s why passage of the single-payer bills, nurses say, is so critical. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11, which would establish a concrete package of taxes to pay for the CalCare plan, sets the new proposal apart from the state’s failed 2017 single-payer proposal. Voters, however, would need to pass the tax hikes, which may not happen until 2024.

    AB 1400 comes not only amid the Omicron surge, but also as more than 70 percent of the nation’s largest health insurers have ended COVID treatment cost waivers, exposing even insured and vaccinated patients to astronomical bills and potentially even financial ruin if they require treatment.

    “We’re here to emphasize, as we enter the third year of this deadly pandemic, that [the current pandemic response] is not sustainable,” said CNA and NNU Executive Director Bonnie Castillo during last week’s press call. “Nurses that have already given our all, we’re running on beyond empty. We need our employers and our elected officials at the federal state and local levels to give us protections based on science, not just what’s good for business. Nurses have been saying all along that if hospital employers, our elected officials in the public, don’t do what we need to do to control this virus, there may not be a nurse to take care of you when you are in that hospital bed. And I want to … [emphasize] that that day is here.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • There really is only one way to go, and we can only get there by all rowing in the same direction at the same time and forcing the Federal Government to enact, and fully fund, Single-Payer healthcare – Medicare For All.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • State-based is an unacceptable compromise and does not present a path to NIMA. The path sketched out by Dr. Firestone is one fraught with peril and almost certainly doomed to failure.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • Members of National Nurses United union members wave "Medicare for All" signs during a rally in front of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Washington, D.C, calling for "Medicare for All" on April 29, 2019.

    The United States is one of the richest countries in the world, yet its poverty rates are higher and its safety nets are far weaker than those of other industrialized nations. It is also the only large rich country without universal health care. In fact, as Noam Chomsky argued in Truthout, the U.S. health system is an “international scandal.”

    Why is the U.S. an outlier with regard to health care? What keeps the country from adopting a universal health care system, which most Americans have supported for many years now? And what exactly is Medicare for All? On the eve of scheduled marches and rallies in support of Medicare for All, led by various organizations such as the Sunrise Movement, Physicians for a National Health Program, the Democratic Socialists of America and concerned citizens throughout the country, the interview below with Peter S. Arno, a leading health expert, sheds light on some key questions about the state of health care in the United States.

    Peter S. Arno is senior fellow and director of health policy research at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and a senior fellow at the National Academy of Social Insurance. Among his many works is his Pulitzer Prize-nominated book, Against the Odds: The Story of AIDS Drug Development, Politics & Profits.

    C.J. Polychroniou: U.S. health care is widely regarded as an outlier, with higher costs and worse outcomes than other countries. Why are health care expenditures in the U.S. significantly higher than those of other industrialized countries? And how do we explain poor health outcomes, including life expectancy, compared to most European nations?

    Peter Arno: The short answer as to why the U.S. has the highest health care expenditures in the world is simply that, unlike other developed countries, we exercise very few price constraints on our health care products and services, ranging from drugs, medical devices, physician and hospital services to private insurance products. On a broader level, the corporatization and profits generated from medical care may be the most distinguishing characteristics of the modern American health care system. The theology of the market, along with the strongly held mistaken belief that the problems of U.S. health care can be solved if only the market could be perfected, has effectively obstructed the development of a rational, efficient and humane national health care policy.

    Despite the U.S.’s outsized spending on health care, its relatively poor health outcomes are beyond dispute. For example, in 2019, the U.S. ranked 36th in the world in terms of life expectancy at birth — behind Slovenia and Costa Rica, not to mention Canada, Japan and all the wealthy countries in Europe. This is not solely, as one might at first think, a function of racial and ethnic health disparities, as dramatic as they are in the U.S. A recent study found that even white people living in the nation’s highest-income counties often have worse health outcomes on infant mortality, maternal mortality, and deaths after heart attack, colon cancer and childhood leukemia than the average citizens of Norway, Denmark, and other wealthier countries.

    The relatively poor health outcomes in the U.S. require a more nuanced explanation based on income, wealth and power inequalities. These factors drive inadequate and inequitable access to health care. But they also undermine many of the social determinants of health, particularly for poor and vulnerable populations, which fall largely outside the health care sector. These include, for example, higher income, access to healthy food, clean water and air, adequate housing, safe neighborhoods, etc.

    Given the above facts, it’s important to ask: Why doesn’t the U.S. have universal health coverage?

    The simple answer is that the economic and political forces that profit greatly from the status quo are opposed to universal health coverage. It’s certainly not too complicated to implement such a system — nearly every wealthy country in the world has figured out how it can be done. Many academics and pundits point to surveys indicating that Americans are fearful of change and are satisfied with the status quo, in particular with their employer-based health insurance (which covers more than 150 million workers and their families). In part, these attitudes are understandable. Most people are healthy and thus are not faced with the inequities and indignities that befall those who become ill and must deal with the private insurance industry and a dysfunctional health care system. Additionally, the true costs of health care are often hidden from workers who receive their insurance through jobs in which insurance premiums are automatically deducted from their paychecks. Even less well understood is the fact that we all subsidize employers’ contributions to workers’ health insurance with more than $300 billion of our tax dollars (employer contributions are not taxed but are considered a line item in the federal budget). But public sentiment is changing as health care expenditures continue to outpace earnings. Over the past 10 years, insurance premiums have risen more than twice as fast as earnings, while deductibles rose more than six times as fast. And the even more rapidly rising price of prescription drugs has particularly captured the public’s attention. This is likely because prescription drug prices rose by 33 percent between 2014 and 2020, and the average price of new cancer drugs now exceeds $100,000 per year. There is also an increasing public recognition of the massive and growing medical debt burden. One recent study estimated that nearly 1 out of 5 individuals in the U.S. collectively had $140 billion worth of medical debt in collections in June 2020.

    You have done outstanding research on the economics and politics of AIDS. How did your background in AIDS research shape your views on health care and social insurance?

    My background in AIDS research, which began in the mid-1980s as the epidemic exploded around the country, highlighted a central weakness of American health care — if you become ill and lose your job, you frequently lose your health insurance. Thus, at the point when you need it most, you lose access to health care. This was driven by the private health insurance profit-maximizing model, the reliance on employment-based insurance and the lack of recognition of health care as a human right. The Affordable Care Act provided some mitigation but, with tens of millions uninsured today, these issues are still with us.

    Another dimension of American health care that came into sharper focus for me was the sheer power of dominant stakeholders, such as the pharmaceutical companies, to extract profits with little restraint. The clearest example of this is perhaps the relentless increase in drug prices, which one could argue began when the first AIDS drug, AZT, was marketed at $10,000 per year in 1987; today we have cancer drugs sold at more than 10 times that price.

    Medicare for All is now gaining traction in the U.S. What exactly is Medicare for All and how would it work?

    The term “Medicare for All,” as it is commonly known and described in congressional bills such as the Medicare for All Act of 2021 (H.R. 1976, which currently has 117 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives), is a short-hand expression for a universal, single-payer health care system. Essentially, this means that health care will be provided to all U.S. residents and a single payer — the federal government — will pay all bills. The Act’s summary states in part:

    Among other requirements, the program must (1) cover all U.S. residents; (2) provide for automatic enrollment of individuals upon birth or residency in the United States; and (3) cover items and services that are medically necessary or appropriate to maintain health or to diagnose, treat, or rehabilitate a health condition, including hospital services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, dental and vision services, and long-term care.

    The bill prohibits cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) and other charges for covered services. Additionally, private health insurers and employers may only offer coverage that is supplemental to, and not duplicative of, benefits provided under the program.

    The “single payer” aspect of Medicare for All has several crucial virtues. First, it would do away with the thousands of private claim processes that currently exist to service the private insurance industry, thereby reducing an enormous amount of bureaucratic waste that is estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars each year. At the same time, with the negotiating power given to the federal government, prices for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other medical expenditures could be brought under control. But most importantly, the single-payer approach is the most realistic approach to providing health care to all Americans.

    Medicare for All marches and rallies are taking place in scores of cities across the country on Saturday, July 24. In fact, there is ample evidence that most Americans already support universal health care. But can we have health care reform without reforming the political system?

    There is no doubt that the road to Medicare for All is an uphill struggle, given the array of political and economic forces that benefit from the status quo. However, the more than 50 marches and rallies around the country on July 24 reflect not only public support for transformative change in our health care system, but the type of movement building that is necessary to carry out this change. A complementary strategy, which could ignite a national consensus, would be a breakthrough success for a Medicare for All-type program at the state level, particularly in large states such as California or New York, where organizing efforts have been underway for several years. This could well have a cascading effect on other states and ultimately at the federal level. The common strategic thread for success at the state or federal level, is building a strong, popular social movement demanding universal health coverage for all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Illustration of USA health care in sickly condition even with Trump face torn away

    If the United States had death rates on par with other wealthy nations such as Canada and Japan, there would have been 40 percent fewer deaths attributed to COVID-19 last year. In 2018 alone, an estimated 461,000 fewer people would have died if the U.S. was as healthy as France or Germany.

    The failure to contain COVID in the U.S. confirmed that our approach to health care and public health is broken, and former President Donald Trump made a bad situation worse. That’s the message from a multidisciplinary commission of experts assembled to study the Trump administration by The Lancet, a longstanding medical journal that has publicly tussled with Trump over the course of the pandemic.

    Since 2017, the international team of 33 leading experts in clinical medicine, public health, epidemiology, community medicine, economics, nutrition, law, and politics has analyzed how the Trump administration’s policies impact our health. The result is a scathing and detailed new report that is an indictment of both Trump and a health care system that values profit over human life.

    The life expectancy in the U.S. began falling behind peers such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, according to Kevin Grumbach, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Fransisco and co-author of the report.

    “That is the turning point where health started falling in the United States compared to the other G7 nations,” Grumbach said in an interview. “We totally shifted to conservative and neoliberal policies, and that corresponds with the deteriorating health in the country relative to other nations.”

    Reagan instated policies that reduced the government’s role in health care and education and accelerated the concentration of wealth among the upper classes. Since then, life expectancy has dropped 3.4 years behind other wealthy countries and remains even lower among Black people and Native Americans. The report found that, before the pandemic, rates of midlife mortality among Black people and Native Americans were 42 and 59 percent higher, respectively, than for white people. People of color are more likely to die from COVID than white people, and the mortality gap between Black and white people has grown by 50 percent during the pandemic.

    “The disastrous, bungled response to the pandemic made clear how existing, longstanding racial inequities simply have not been addressed,” said Mary T. Bassett, director of the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University and a member of the commission, in a statement.

    Reagan’s neoliberal political philosophy stuck around under both Democratic and Republican administrations and created conditions for the rise of Trump. The report links health to trade liberalization that led to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, weakened unions and left many parts of the country to struggle economically. According to the report, Trump exploited anger among white voters over their “deteriorating life prospects,” and stoked racism and nativism to win the 2016 election.

    “That’s the epidemic that we’ve been struggling through, not just through four years of Trump, but 40 years of failing to create the conditions that make for a healthy society,” Grumbach said.

    As soon as he took office, Trump and Republicans in Congress moved to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which expanded health insurance for millions of people. The GOP’s signature achievement, a massive tax cut for the wealthy, opened holes in the federal budget that conservatives used to justify spending cuts on health and food assistance.

    While attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed spectacularly in Congress, the Trump administration used its executive powers to undermine the law. During the first three years of Trump tenure, the number of people with health coverage dropped by 2.3 million largely due Trump’s attacks on Medicaid, the program that provides health coverage to low-income people. About 760,000 kids and teens lost health coverage.

    Before the pandemic hit, the Trump administration proposed $920 billion in Medicaid cuts and was poised to require burdensome eligibility checks that would have pushed more people out of the program, according to the report.

    The Trump administration consistently favored corporate interests over public health when it came to climate and the environment and openly worked on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. The administration rolled back dozens of environmental regulations, allowing companies to spew more dangerous pollution into the air. Between 2016 and 2019, the number of deaths related to environmental and occupation hazards spiked to 22,000 after years of steady decline, according to the report. The administration also repeatedly attempted to suppress data showing the effects that pollution has on human health.

    The list goes on, but the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic stands out. Grumbach said Trump had already cut staff at public health agencies by the time the pandemic hit, severely weakening the nation’s response. Meanwhile, Trump consistently spread disinformation about COVID, providing a preview of his efforts to overturn the election he lost to President Joe Biden. Attempting to deflect blame for a botched COVID response, Trump attacked China and World Health Organization (WHO), even citing The Lancet in a blistering letter to the WHO. The Lancet’s editor stepped in and confirmed that Trump was lying.

    By October 2020, the U.S. had the highest death rate among 18 other high-income countries, both from COVID and other health problems.

    However, Grumbach said the problems exposed by COVID are bigger than Trump. Behind Trump’s bluster and weakness in the face of the virus is a neoliberal ideology that shapes our health care system and sets the U.S. apart from other nations, he said. It’s an ideology that values corporate profits over the lives of the vulnerable and sees health care as a commodity to be bought and sold rather than a human right. In such an environment, public health measures such as masking in public and providing health care to immigrants are subject to polarizing debate, even though they benefit everyone.

    The Lancet’s commission concludes that simply returning to pre-Trump era policies will not be enough to protect health. Grumbach said the entire system needs an “overhaul.” For starters, the U.S. should transition to a single-payer health care system like those set up in nations such as Canada that have better life expectancy. Polling shows that 56 percent of likely voters in the U.S. support Medicare for All, the single-payer proposal championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Support for a public option that would compete with private insurance is even higher, although many people support both.

    The commission recommendations go far beyond the health care system. A massive mobilization of resources — a Green New Deal — is needed to confront climate change, which poses myriad threats to public health. The U.S. spends 3.4 percent of its GDP on the military, but G7 countries with lower mortality rates only spend an average of 1.4 percent of GDP on defense. If the U.S. reduced foreign intervention and military spending to 1.4 percent of GDP, a massive amount of resources could be redirected to urgent social needs. Additionally, the war on drugs must come to an end, and new investments should be made in communities of color harmed by the criminal legal system and mass incarceration, according to the commission.

    “While the wealthy have thrived, most Americans have lost ground, both economically and medically,” said Steffie Woolhandler, who co-chairs The Lancet’s commission and lectures at Hunter College and Harvard. “The Biden administration must reboot democracy and implement the progressive social and health policies needed to put the country on the road to better health.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In 2021 the U.S. healthcare crisis has, again, reached a boiling point. It was already simmering in 2019 when the number of uninsured grew to 33 million. Covid then triggered a job crisis that added anywhere from 15 to 27 million to the ranks of the uninsured. The still-growing job crisis has pushed the number of uninsured near or beyond the 49 million uninsured that existed prior to Obamacare, whose goal was “universal healthcare.”

    It’s no surprise then that Medicare For All emerged, pre-Covid, as the most popular policy during the Presidential Democratic primaries. But after the Democratic Party organized, once again, to crush Bernie Sanders’ campaign, Biden tried to push discourse away from Medicare For All with plans to “improve Obamacare” a goal as ambitious as “patching up the Hindenburg.”

    The post Medicare For All Reaches The Crossroads appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.