Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Want High-Quality Universal Health Coverage? Fix Medicare First and Use It as a Model

By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted August 2, 2008.


By starting with Medicare and showing what can be done, reformers enhance their chances of winning the larger war.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article originally appeared on Health Beat.

Thanks to the unbridled rise in health care prices, Medicare is going broke. As I mentioned in a recent post, four years ago the Medicare trust fund that pays for hospital stays started to run out of money. In 2004 the fund began paying out more than it takes in through payroll taxes.

"Since then, the balance in the fund, combined with interest income on that balance, has kept the fund solvent. But in just 11 years, it will be exhausted," the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) reported in March. "Revenues from payroll taxes collected in that year will cover only 79 percent of projected benefit expenditures." And each year after 2019, the shortfall will grow larger.

Make no mistake: This is not an example of an inefficient government program spending hand over fist without caring whether it is getting a bang for the taxpayer's buck. As I discussed in that earlier post, health care prices have been climbing -- without a concomitant improvement in patient outcomes or patient satisfaction -- in the private sector as well.

Medicare Reform Could Pave the Way for National Reform

Before trying to roll out national health insurance, the next administration needs to address the structural problems that undermine the laissez-faire chaos that we euphemistically refer to as our health care "system." Otherwise, we run the risk of winding up with a larger version of the dysfunctional, unsustainable system that we have today. Ideally, the administration should make Medicare reform a demonstration project for high-quality, affordable universal coverage.

Let me be clear: Medicare reform does not preclude national health reform. To the contrary, by starting with Medicare and showing what can be done, reformers enhance their chances of winning the larger war.

Nor does focusing on Medicare first mean that the suffering of uninsured and underinsured Americans must be ignored. As part of Medicare reform, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program should be folded into Medicare, turning these "poor programs for the poor" into federal programs, expanding coverage and raising the fees for doctors who treat Medicaid patients.

Medicare presents reformers with a promising starting point. Politically, Medicare reform will be easier than a nationwide overhaul, simply because Congress recognizes that when it comes to Medicare, it has no choice. Legislators know that Medicare has reached a tipping point: They must do something.

This is why, earlier this month, the Senate flirted with political suicide by considering letting a scheduled cut in the fees Medicare pays physicians go into effect. On July 1, Medicare was supposed to slash physicians' fees, across the board, by an average of 10.6 percent. Physicians threatened that they would close their doors to Medicare patients. At the eleventh hour, legislators stepped back from the edge of the cliff.

But Congress knows that the problem has not been solved. Legislators will have to revisit the problem of Medicare spending early in 2009. Physicians' fees are scheduled for another across-the-board cut on Jan. 1, 2009. Everyone knows that this is a crude solution. Medicare pays primary care physicians too little, which is why, MedPac explains, 30 percent of Medicare patients looking for a new primary care doctor report difficulty finding one. Meanwhile, Medicare overpays other physicians for certain services. Dollars need to be redistributed; the net result could easily be a wash.

How Medicare Can Save Dollars and Lift the Quality of Care

But Medicare cannot contain runaway inflation simply by looking at how much it pays doctors. The program overpays drugmakers; it overpays device makers; it overpays private insurers who offer Medicare Advantage. In some cases, it overpays hospitals -- or squanders dollars on services that don't benefit patients, without giving hospitals the right financial incentives to provide more effective, safer care.

In its March and June reports, the Medicare Payment Commission has made a number of shrewd and imaginative suggestions for cutting waste in the system. First, Medicare should eliminate the windfall bonuses that it now pays Medical Advantage insurers (see "The Problems With Medicare Advantage").


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, health care, medicare, medicare reform

Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Screwed up health "care" system
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 2, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of my grown daughters -- a single, special-ed grade school teacher -- needed an emegency operation recently. The cost of her surgery and 10-day hospital stay was $200,000.

Fortunately, the hospital "wrote off" $150,000 and my daughter's insurance paid the rest.

Tell me something isn't wrong with our health "care" system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More screwed up than you think Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: More screwed up than you think Posted by: carbon-based
The system is too corrupt
Posted by: cjsm on Aug 2, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several years ago, my uncle became slightly ill, and also started suffering from mild dementia. I drove 50 miles from my home into St. Louis to try and help him get to a doctor. The first number I called was from a business card my Uncle had on his desk. Turned out this doctor was no longer treating him because he didn't take Medicare patients. I finally found his new doctor, and took him to his office. When arriving, I found an overflowing waiting room of mainly black patients. The doctor was foreign, and seemed nice enough. But he'd herd the patients in and out in a mode that seemed to be based on a mass production factory model. I didn't get the impression that the quality of care was very good.

We desperately need universal health care in this country. But, as you allude to in your article, it will be very difficult to achieve because the whole political system is corrupt. Any attempts to provide it will be corrupted by the politicians and lobbyists. This is the reason why socialism doesn't work, the politicians and special interests sabotage it for their own personal gain.

The only hope would be a president who wasn't corrupt and strong enough to stand up against the special interests and congress by appealing to the American people. Another Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt. I doubt Obama's that man.

I don't think any candidate like that could get close to the White House, since he would be smeared by the media and the other politicians. We really need a third party in this country an anti-corruption party. But again, since any such party would be smeared by the powers that be, its probably hopeless until things get a lot worse, until even the dumbest Americans realize both the Republicans and Democrats are crooks, and its stupid to keep voting these corrupt, lying politicians into office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The system is too corrupt Posted by: maggiemahar
Our corrupt political system blocks reform...
Posted by: jlohman on Aug 2, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of energy that can go into a project just to avoid doing the right thing.

The best, simplest, least costly, most effective thing we could do is expand what has been working so well for years, Medicare. You get sick, you get care, and the caregiver gets paid. Nothing could be simpler.

But follow the money and you’ll find why the politicians don’t like it a bit. They get their money from insurance interests.

"America will always do the right thing, but only after everything else fails." Winston Churchill

See more on health care and Medicare reform HERE

Jack Lohman
MoneyedPoliticians.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article. I particularly like the idea of negotiating bulk discounts with Big Pharma...
Posted by: mjabele on Aug 2, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....once we have a universal, single-payer system, this will bring down the cost of medications significantly, much as in Europe. Also, given that "marketing" will no longer have much effect, the whole apparatus of drug reps, gifts to physicians, and direct marketing to consumers will likely disappear.

Speaking as a primary care physician, I agree that Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for outpatient visits are too low - this is in fact the primary factor that drives us to schedule outpatients at 10- or 15-minute intervals, which most of us realize is too fast to do the kind of care that will actually lead to better "quality". A 15-minute visit usually encompasses no more than 5-7 minutes of "face time" with a patient - typically not enough time to do more than address one or two of the patient's concerns, or perform much more than a focused physical exam. It's very difficult to give adequate counseling to patients in such brief time "packets", or for patients to ask questions of the physician - perhaps explaining why compliance with prescribed therapies has been found to be so low in study after study. It's even more difficult, and sometimes frankly impossible with patients who "have a lot going on", to address other crucial prevention issues like diet, exercise, smoking cessation, alcohol/drug issues, sexual behavior, and cancer screening.

What I'm getting at is that "quality" would likely improve significantly if primary care physicians were straightforwardly reimbursed for their TIME rather than number of visits - doing so would certainly remove that incentive to "churn through" as many encounters as possible, and allow for more appropriate spacing/scheduling of clinic visits. Personally, I think 30-minute encounters are necessary for many if not most patients with multiple and/or chronic conditions, particularly for older patients in whom additional prevention issues also need to be addressed.

I'm well aware that there's a huge problem lurking within what I'm suggesting - i.e., that there's already a national shortage of primary care physicians, and that therefore "allowing" us to see patients in longer visits means, inevitably, that our "productivity" would decrease and patients' ability to find and follow up with a primary care provider might be even further reduced. With regard to this issue, I'm not entirely sure what to say, other than to point out - very sadly, I might add - that I've more or less conclusively decided to "retire" from primary care myself within the next several months, due largely to this "appointment churn" issue, and that I'm far from the only M.D. to do so. I've been on the "hamster wheel" long enough, and given that things don't look as though they're going to change within the foreseeable future, I need to make a career change while my sanity still remains intact.

Given the increasing tendency of primary care physicians like me to retire early, I think we need to focus on incentivizing young medical graduates to enter the field - a difficult proposition, I think, unless work conditions are improved. So far, the primary "incentive" that people seem to be focusing on is raising salaries for primary care physicians - highly ironic in my view, given that the general public often seems to resent physicians for their high incomes. The even GREATER irony, of course, is that this strategy doesn't seem to be working - graduates are still preferring to go into medical specialties, despite the fact that primary care M.D.'s are increasingly able in recent years to command higher salaries. Much of the reason for this is that young graduates perceive - quite correctly, I think - that the "work life" of a primary care physician has become so harried, unpleasant, and impossible to balance with a "normal" family life, that it's simply not worth considering as a career choice, regardless of recent salary increases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Reimbursing physicians for quality".....
Posted by: mjabele on Aug 2, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An excellent idea in theory, but be careful how you apply it in practice, or there may be unintended consequences.

I currently work at an inner city clinic, and see a LOT of patients with diabetes. I often have to work through a Spanish, Portuguese, or Cambodian interpreter during my 15-minute encounters with these patients, given my own language limitations, and this certainly slows me down in terms of obtaining a history as well as in giving follow-up instructions and counseling.

I honestly think, despite these limitations, that I give very good quality of care. Nevertheless, even so, I realize that many of my patients have their own limitations in terms of how well they can follow my instructions - adhering to a diabetic diet may be difficult for them given their financial constraints, opportunities to exercise regularly are more limited for individuals working two or three low-paying jobs, medication co-pays are often difficult to afford until pay-day rolls around, and transportation issues can make it difficult for people to keep their clinic appointments, or appointments with their ophthalmologist, podiatrist, or cardiologist.

What I'm getting at is that, given current socio-economic inequities in the US, measures proposed by some to assess the "quality of care" rendered to patients for conditions like diabetes - the average annual hemoglobin A1C level, for instance - may vary significantly between different patient populations due to reasons that have little to do with the dedication of the physician or, for that matter, the patient. Consequently, if you propose to reimburse physicians according to such measures, expect to see something of a trend - except for the most highly dedicated M.D.'s, there may be a tendency for providers to "opt out" of caring for more challenging patient populations, given that their reimbursements will very likely be lower no matter how dedicated or competent they are.

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what we want to encourage, particularly given the additional frustration for the provider that typically comes with caring for these kinds of patients, i.e., due to issues like the ones I already mentioned (language barriers, financial and socio-economic barriers to compliance). If anything, providers should be incentivized for taking care of such populations - but if this is done according to some arbitrary measure of "quality", we need to be really careful to define what that measure will be, and how it might impact on where providers choose to practice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good thoughts. Posted by: mjabele
Ideology Trap....
Posted by: CatDad on Aug 2, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter if expanding Medicare were more efficient....Doing so would be an open admission that the [alleged] "free market" has failed in America...

The Right will never, ever admit this regardless of evidence to the contrary. They even rejected SCHIP for children...so they sure won't do it for the rest of us.

Those in power benefit from the cartel of inefficient insurance giants....they're a gravy train of political contributions for both parties. There is no health coverage "crisis" for those who own and control the government...hence, they have little incentive to change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Times are Changing
Posted by: maggiemahar on Aug 2, 2008 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right--conservatives are ideologically committed to market solutions to healthcare.

And the truth is that while the market may work well in some areas, it does not work to create affordable, high quality healthcare. We've just spent about 40 years proving this.

But times are changing. It's likely that progressives will win more seats in Congress this fall--perhaps many more. The economy is going into the tank, and when that happens Americans tend to vote out whoever was in office at the time.

Even now, the recent Medicare vote (earlier this month) shows the conservatives and the lobbyists are on the run. The House voted against the for-profit insurers--and in favor of seniors and the AARP by a landslide. And then the Senate managed to put together enough votes to override a veto.

Some conservatives were very, very surprised.

I have no illusions.This will be a bare-knuckled political battle between conservatives and progressives who have very different priorities and values. That's why I don't think we'll get national health reform in the next few years. And I'm not interested in the type of reform that would come out of a
"bipartisan compromise." We would have to compromise too much.

But I do think thatif we dig our heels in, we can get real Medicare reform. Seniors can be a powerful lobby.

Moreover, I think we're ready for a pendulum swing. For 28 years we have had conservative government--punctuated by eight years of initially liberal, but ultimately centrist government.

Now, I think we're on the brink of a pendulum swing like the swing we saw when Reagan was elected president in 1980. Only this time, we'll be going in the other direction.

I've just written about why we'll be able to beat the lobbyists here: http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/07/in-a-post-origi.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

READY FOR A 150 PERCENT INCOME TAX INCREASE?
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Aug 2, 2008 2:31 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if no changes is done in the current Medicare system because of the Baumol effect and new medical inventions healthcare costs will rise dramatically, to expand Medicare and socialize the healthcare system is pure madness.

As it is the old system will demand tax increases of 150 %.

In Sweden were I come from our socialized Health care system will collapse by 2020 because of the Long Term Care bill for the baby boomers, taxes will have to be raised by 100 %, nobody wants to pay for it so we are now privatizing our system, the Baby boomers will have to pay for themselves. Is as it should be since they own 80 % of the wealth and 80 % of the income. Young working families with children and small business owners should not carry this burden.

If it was not so sad it is extremely funny that whilst Sweden is abandoning the untenable socialized healthcare system the US is talking about socializing its system. Unbelievable!
-----------------------------------------
READY FOR A 150 PERCENT INCOME TAX INCREASE?

For years, taxpayer advocacy groups have been sounding the alarm about serious spending problems facing the nation and the lack of attention elected officials are paying to this growing fiscal disaster. Now come projections out of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on what further delay means to taxpayers everywhere, says the Heartland Institute.

According to the recent CBO report:

Rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to rise substantially as a share of the economy.

If tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) remain at current levels, that additional spending will eventually cause future budget deficits to become unsustainable.

Therefore, the choices are limited- revenues must rise as a share of GDP, projected spending must fall, or both.

If tax increases turn out to be the preferred solution for resolving the spending problem, the toll will tremendous:

The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent.

The tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent.

The tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent.

The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.

Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would probably not be economically feasible, says the report. However, if action is not taken to curb the projected growth of budget deficits in coming decades, the economy will eventually suffer serious damage. At some point, policymakers will have to increase taxes, reduce spending or both.

Source: Jason Mercier, "Ready for a 150 Percent Income Tax Increase?" Heartland Institute, August 2008.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fact that
Posted by: willymack on Aug 2, 2008 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medicare is going broke is due to an all-out attack on all of Social Security. The neothugs won't rest until the whole system comes tumbling down. The drug and insurance industries MUST be nationalized, along with the crooked "energy" companies until such time as new laws and regulations can be put into place, aimed at stopping their theft. Then and only then should control of these industries be returned to their former owners, but with a VERY SHORT LEASH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems like a good place to start, but...
Posted by: Old Skeptic on Aug 3, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can guarantee that the big money interests, like Big Pharma and the insurance companies will be squealing like the proverbial stuck pig! After all, what's the use of having better medical care for more people if it has come out of the pockets of those who are now profiting from this screwed-up situation?

Still, I think it's worth doing. Medicare is a good place to start, and folding the other forms of federal/state insurance into it, such as Medicaid, SCHIP, etc., would consolidate the different programs under one administrative umbrella. This could make them all more efficient.

It will no doubt take some time to bring about a universal, single-payer health insurance system to the US, but it is the right thing to do, and we should get started on it once the White House and Congress have been cleared of the neocon vermin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Aug 3, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you sure that the trust fund is going for medicare and is not looted like the SS fund to pay for war?
If you stop funneling taxes to privatization and to the military , there is plenty for social programs.The US empire must contract for this to happen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» reply to ba Posted by: maggiemahar
Reply to Ready for 150 percent tax increase
Posted by: maggiemahar on Aug 3, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm afraid your post is filled with mis-information.

In March, I attended a healthcare conference in Berlin where Sweden's healthcare system was, rightly, lauded by many people, including a health care economist from the London School of Economics.

Outcomes are excellent in Sweden and despite the fact that it has one of the oldest populations in Europe, it has managed to keep healthcare spending level, as a percentage of GDP.

While at the conference I also did a long interview with Sweden's leading health care economist. Sweden is not privatizing.

Finally, you distort the CBO report. Peter Ortszag is talking about what would happen if no changes were made in Medicare. No one expects that to be the case.

Right now Medicare spending is rising 2% more than GDP growth each year. Compounded, year after year, that would be a huge problem. But to solve the problem we need only depress the growth curve in Medicare spending by 2 percent. This is perfectly doable--without rationing any effective care. It just takes a smidgen of political will and common sense.

And the aging of the boomers is Not the problelm. Over the next quarter century, the average age in America will rise just 3 years--to 39.

Only then, will aging begin to accelerate, and even then, boomers will age, just as they were born, over a couple of decades. We are not going to be suddenly hit by a tsunami of aged boomers.

Because you mis-state or distort so many facts, I can only assume that your post is driven by your ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]