Category Archives: universal health care

Health Reform Updates

Posted on by
2

It’s another big couple of weeks in the push for health reform. During his press conference today, President Obama said that health care reform is not a luxury but a necessity. He clarified again that those with private insurance who are happy with it can keep it, but also made it clear as forcefully as I’ve heard him that unless major reform happens, they won’t be able to afford those plans in years to come.

As the lead up to Wednesday night’s “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” special on ABC continues, I saw Obama’s emphasis on containing cost in today’s press conference telling. After all, last week was a tough one for the push for reform, with many fearing the $1 to $1.6 trillion price tag associated with proposed bills would spell the end.

In the middle of the speculation about health reform’s demise and sticker shock came the announcement that Senator Max Baucus (chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) and the country’s pharmaceutical companies reached an agreement to help close the coverage gap under Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program, which enrolls some 27 million elderly patients. Prior to this agreement, Medicare recipients paid the full price of brand-name drugs once they reached $2,200 in medication expenses and until they hit an upper limit of $5,100—an expensive and problematic “doughnut hole.” In a press release from the White House, President Obama said “The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors. This deal will provide significant relief from that burden for millions of American seniors.”

You can watch President Obama discussing the prescription drug agreement here:

The agreement will result in an estimated $80 billion in savings over the next several years. According to PhRMA, “Under this proposed new legislative program – which represents the first important step in health care reform – America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies have agreed to help close the gap in coverage. Specifically, companies will provide a 50 percent discount to most beneficiaries on brand-name medicines covered by a patient’s Part D plan when purchased in the coverage gap.”

The savings are undoubtedly significant for the seniors struggling to pay for bills. They are small relative to the overall price tag of health reform, but a confident, emphatic stance from the Obama administration in the midst of all of this speculation is a good sign right now for anyone invested (and really at this point who isn’t, despite which side you might stand on?) in health reform.

I won’t see tomorrow night’s program—I’ll be in a plane, trying really hard not to catch anything since I do that like it’s my job—but I look forward to reading about it. As recent events illustrate, it should be an…interesting evening.

Talking Health Reform with President Clinton

Posted on by
4

“I’ll be surprised if we don’t get health care reform,” President Clinton said yesterday.

I should note two things about that statement—first of all, coming from someone with such an informed view of the situation, it is encouraging. Secondly, I didn’t get that quote from a press release or a conference call. I was actually sitting next to Clinton in a conference room where a few other bloggers and I had the chance to converse with him about health care, clean energy, and some of his projects at the Clinton Foundation.

Now, since most of my conversations take place in my home office with a speaker phone, a digital recorder, and frantic attempts to keep the dogs from barking and none of them typically involve sitting with a former leader of the free world, clearly this was an amazing experience.

Given its traction right now it was no surprise that we spent a lot of time discussing health care and health reform. As a resident of Massachusetts and a rare disease patient,
I came prepared with questions about primary care shortages with increased access to insurance as well as the treatment of existing chronic diseases.

Perhaps the comparisons between the current push for health care reform and Clinton’s efforts in the 1990s are inevitable, but the overriding sentiment I got yesterday was that yes, things really are different now. For one, Clinton noted the political and psychological landscape the Obama administration faces is much different. Disparate groups like health insurance companies, small businesses, and many other groups with different stakes in the debate are more willing to collaborate.

More tellingly, as Clinton said, “everything is worse now.” I know many readers of this blog can attest to that fact. Fifty million Americans remain uninsured, and as I mentioned to a fellow blogger before the meeting started, those who are underinsured often face calamitous situations. Adjusting for inflation, we have two-thirds of the disposable income we had when Clinton left office, and health care costs have doubled.

We’ve heard much of this before—our system is the most expensive but has poor outcomes; for our economic and physical health, reform is imperative; better prevention and care now means a healthier nation down the road. The real challenge is to change the way health care is delivered while still keeping costs down. It sounds so simple and yet so daunting at the same time, doesn’t it?

The Clinton Foundation is heavily involved in HIV/AIDS care in developing nations, and in discussing some of these initiatives the President mentioned the reluctance governments have to set up stable health care systems that account for malaria, TB, and the other very real health threats that end up affecting so many. As he said that, it occurred to me that our own switch from an acute, reactive system to a preventive, proactive system is no less significant and necessary. A piecemeal approach will not do it.

One of the most common concerns raised about Obama’s public option relates to Medicare reimbursements. (Of course it is the purchasing power of that potentially enormous patient population that many hope will curb health costs with more competitive private rates.) Anyway, an interesting distinction Clinton made is that reimbursement is not the problem; inefficiency is. It makes sense, but when I hear people talking about Medicare and modeling the public insurance option after it, so often the conversation stalls at reimbursements.

Related to this, when pointing to successful delivery models in Green Bay, WI and other places, President Clinton acknowledged that health care is both “an art and a science.” A viable public option would need to be outcome-based if we’re to reach a goal of more efficient care.

Obviously there are many compelling reasons to embrace outcome-based treatments. For “clinically interesting” patients like myself, I hope a revamped health care system really does still leave room for the “art”—more often than not, that has made all the difference for me.

(Stay tuned for more posts from this event, but I need to add that not only does President Clinton read blogs and turn to them for information, he has also read Mountains Beyond Mountains and is friends with its main character, Paul Farmer—if you’ve read my post on narrative medicine, you know how fanatical I am about that book. If you care about public health and health disparities, it is an absolute must-read. But don’t just take my word for it, take President Clinton’s as well.)

Talking Health Insurance

Posted on by
4

So a few days ago I watched the Talking Health webcast on health insurance, presented by the Association of Health Care Journlists, The Commonwealth Fund, and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

I listened both as a journalist interested in how to cover this controversial issue, as well as patient with an obvious vested interested in health insurance reform, and the discussion did not disappoint on either count.

For the purpose of this post, I’ve decided to highlight some of the points/questions I think matter most to readers and patients with chronic illness—after all, a key to managing chronic diseases and preventing disease progression is having health insurance that covers medications and appropriate treatment therapies. And, as the NYT’s Reed Abelson, one of the four panelists, pointed out in talking about stakeholders in this debate, patients are the most obvious source but are not well represented.

Do we really know what the difference between public and private insurance is? While some people do, and they usually equate private with better care when they do, many consumers aren’t sure what the public option really entails. According to panelist Cathy Schoen, senior VP at The Commonwealth Fund, context is important here. She says the type of plan usually mentioned in national reform would offer for the first time to people under 65 a plan that is similar to Medicare, one that could compete with private care. The goal of this type of plan is to provide better access and control costs, and consumers would have the choice to keep their existing (private) insurance or choose this new public option. The public option would be standardized across the country and wouldn’t change much over time.

Bruce Bullen, COO of Harvard Pilgrim, a nonprofit managed health care organization in New England, points out some of the pluses and minuses with public vs private insurance: For example, private insurance companies focus on customer service, network building with doctors, and are inherently local/regional, while public ones are more standardized, easily understood, more regulated and perceived to be more equitable.

Other benefits and drawbacks we should consider? The public plan would offer lower premiums, which is attractive to consumers. At the end of the day, we need to control soaring health care costs; advocates of the public plan point to its purchasing power as an advantage, since it would be purchasing for such a large population. Its economies of scale and lack of a need to market itself are also positives. Since healthier competition usually means cost would come down, the public plan could potentially be cheaper. As we know, private sector rates are higher ($12,600 is the avg family premium), but Bullen contends that well-organized plans like HPHC have such mechanisms where they can be quite competitive with public rates.

But is it possible for private plans to compete with public options? At 20-25 percent cheaper than private plans, Bullen says probably not, pointing out that these savings do not mean the public plan would control health care costs. If we’re making the comparison to a Medicare-type system for people under 65, consider that providers often can’t live on what Medicare pays so they move to private insurers for competitive rates. The cost and quality problems that are so widespread now would continue. Also, consider if providers are asked to sign on for less, would they? Or would the government mandate participation?

Whether through a public plan or a private one, Cathy Schoen asserts that we need to be paying for care differently. To do this, we should harness the technology we have but do so with clear outcomes in mind and in the right circumstances. Appropriate technology requires more incentives, which we don’t have right now. In essence, we need to ask: Is it better, and do we have to pay as much for it?

More thoughts on public plans:The term public plan means different things to different people. Some key variations within that term include a federally sponsored new plan to market or a plan that piggybacks with Medicare. It’s the sponsorship that is critical. Medicare uses private claims payers and pools risk, and one of the biggest fears and strengths of the public plan is that it pools risks.

What can government do if doctors refuse to treat people with the public option? Cathy Schoen agrees this is a critical issue, especially since it’s known that Medicare pays far too little for primary care. The public plan would have to come in with competitive rates and if everyone was insured rates between the two wouldn’t be as different because right now we’re already paying for those who don’t have care at all.

Would the public plan become dumping ground for sickest people? Schoen says it is a risk in a reformed insurance market where no one could be turned away or told they are too sick. Things like age variation where a 50-year-old could say “don’t ask me about health status just sign me up” would help combat this, but we still have to worry about risk selection; as soon as you have competing plans, no matter the name of them, this is still a concern. The way to address it is by rewarding plans.

How will public plans affect the innovation US is known for? According to Bullen, it will negatively impact innovation. One of hallmarks of private care is responding to consumer needs and giving answers that work. That’s a big tradeoff—public plans have other strengths, like standardization and equity.

Anyway, these are just some summarized snippets I felt brought up compelling points on both sides. While it’s a huge issue and has everyone talking, there are so many details, variables, and benefits/drawbacks involved in any type of reform that it’s helpful to hear some of them explained in accessible terms. The terms “public option” or “universal health care” spark so many competing emotions and definitions, from some people imagining hybrid plan like we have here in Massachusetts to conjuring up a single-payer system more comparable to Canada or the UK. For what it’s worth, I found the discussion of a public plan similar to Medicare but for younger people a helpful way to frame the inevitable comparisons between private and public insurance plans.

(As an aside, the second segment with the LAT’s Noem Levy and Reed Abelson was great, so if you’re a writer wondering how to find sources for this and what other questions to consider, definitely check it out.)

3rd Summit Conversation: Interview and Insights on Health Care Reform

Posted on by
2

If you’ve read recent headlines, scanned online sites, listened to President Obama speak at recent news conferences, or followed the flurry of Twitter updates and Facebook status messages, then you know that health care reform is a topic reaching across all types of media.

And with good reason, given the huge economic toll rising health care costs places on us, not to mention the quality of life issues involved for people without access to care or access to appropriate care.

Obviously, health care reform is not a new topic on this blog. A few months ago I wrote about the consensus-building Summit talks sponsored by The America’s Agenda Healthcare Education Fund. Today, April 7th, is the third Health Care Summit Conversation, hosted by Tommy G. Thompson, former Wisconsin governor, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and Republican presidential candidate, together with the University of Wisconsin School of Law. Click here for streaming video of the event.

The point of these talks is to bring high-profile individuals from all different stakeholders involved in reform together. In a sense, the fact that individuals from across the health care spectrum (politicians, policy experts, health care providers, labor leaders, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, etc) are engaging in these kinds of talks proves there is consensus: everyone agrees something must change, and that now is the time to do it. These conversations focus on how we can actually make that happen.

I tend to focus on the patient aspect of health care reform since it is what I live with every day, so I was interested in the opportunity to speak with Summit panelist David Y. Norton, Company Group Chairman, Worldwide Commercial and Operations of Johnson & Johnson this morning.

Given that chronic disease accounts for 75 percent of all health care costs and this is a chronic illness blog, you can probably figure out what topics I centered our conversation on. Here are some highlights:

On the best ways to reform how we approach patients with chronic disease—“There is no holistic view of the patient,” he says, pointing to our current fragmented nature of health care delivery. Whether it’s hospital care, medication, doctor appointments, etc, a more collaborative and holistic approach would not only reduce costs but increase health outcomes.

Related to this notion of holistic care is the medical home, with its emphasis on quality primary care. In addition, he feels that electronic medical records will help ensure information is shared “evenly and equally” with relevant parties.

He echoes the sentiments expressed by many right now that shifting our focus from acute treatment to incentives for wellness and prevention would make a big difference. “We currently reward treatment on fee-for-service basis, therefore the more tests you, you get paid more. But that’s necessarily quality care, so we need to focus on prevention and wellness.”

Co-pays are a disincentive for patients, particularly those with chronic diseases, since increased co-pays shift the burden of cost to them. People who don’t take their drugs see doctors more, end up in hospitals more, and end up accruing more health care costs later.

In terms of wellness initiatives and incentives, Johnson & Johnson already has a “very active program” for its employees. It includes a smoking cessation program, financial incentives for employees, healthier food options in the cafeteria, in-house fitness centers, etc. The annual savings in employee health costs is about $400. While there are other private companies doing similar things, Norton believes “we need to change the health care system to incentivize those patients in the private system and the public system to address prevention and wellness.”

On treatment of patients with rare/genetic/existing chronic disease (you knew I’d ask!)—Fundamentally, the goal is for affordable access to quality care for all citizens, and he believes pre-existing conditions should not exclude anyone from getting that quality care. More specifically, he points to stem cell research and other innovations as keys to eliminating or alleviating certain diseases.

(An aside: as a rare disease patient I would love to see even more innovative drugs come down the pipeline—can we agree we have enough nose sprays and acid reflux pills and look to sound policies that encourage the research and development of drugs that tackle smaller and rarer disease populations? Like much of this, it’s a collaborative effort.)

On the role pharmaceutical companies have in health care reform: Norton mentions that currently, pharmaceuticals account for 10 cents of every health care dollar spent. He sees improved patient education—better knowledge of their medications can lead to better compliance and less cost down the road—and physician education as important parts of reform.

(As another personal side note, check out this recent Boston Globe article on major changes in consumer education being proposed by the FDA. )

As he mentioned earlier, drug innovation is another essential component, as are policies that help patients who need medication access affordable prescriptions.

* * *
Any type of consensus involves different parties with different agendas, priorities, and perspectives. Getting them altogether is the first step; seeing results that accommodate everyone’s needs is much more difficult. Be sure to check out the Summit Conversations and hear what David Y. Norton, Tommy Thompson, and a diverse group of other panelists are saying about health care reform.

2008’s Year in Review and Looking Forward

Posted on by
3

This time last year I was homebound and pretty sick, and all I could do was think about how glad I was to not be in the hospital. Apparently not much changes, because it is New Year’s Eve and I find myself several days into a battle to avoid being an inpatient—and extremely grateful to be able to type from home.

But to say not much has changed in 2008 would be a big understatement, both personally and publicly. Looking back over this year’s posts and this year’s headlines, I find that perhaps inevitably, there is some overlap.

Of course, 2008 was the year of my first book, and I found myself thinking a lot about writing, language, and the power of narrative medicine. I did lots of things I’ve never done before, like radio interviews and book readings, and some things that were all too familiar (hello, canceling highly anticipated plans due to various plagues…). Now, I’m looking towards the next big project.

In the larger world of health care, health policy and economics, there was the same blend of highs and lows that made their way into my world. Massachusetts made great strides in terms of universal health care (despite some complications), and 2008 was an election year in which health care and the female vote mattered. As exciting as moving in a new direction is, of course it’s also tempered by serious economic woes, job loss, and even everyday expenses are more of a burden.

Whether it’s hope in the future president, hope for a new job or a steady job, hope for health insurance or housing, hope for a family or a diagnosis or simply the hope for more good days than bad, may 2009 be a year where we hold onto the highs and where the lows even out, a year of hope for our futures.

(As a seasonal aside, visit me here for simple tips for a healthy New Year!)

Primary Care and Chronic Illness–The Update

Posted on by
1

Awhile ago, I wrote about the challenges of primary care when you are a patient with multiple (and rare) diseases…Or, as my friend Lyrehca says, when you are “clinically interesting.” I have specialists for several different body systems and they each provide fantastic care, but I don’t want to bother the lung guy with the GI problems, or the rheumatologist with the allergic reaction.

So, I embarked on a quest to find a primary care physician. I wanted my new doctor to be in the same hospital as all my other doctors, and finding a group that still accepted new patients proved daunting. Life, the book, and work got busier, and I let the search slide a bit. Then this summer I came down with mesenteric adenitis and was shuffled between specialists and eventually sent to the hospital. I came home re-committed to finding a primary care doc, someone who could have fielded that problem, and put my name down for an appointment five months down the road.

Well, that initial appointment recently happened, and it feels good to have someone coordinating all the moving parts of my care. My new doctor and I clicked; I felt comfortable talking with him, and I appreciated that he’d already become familiar with my case and had been in touch with my other doctors. Since they all work in the same system, they all have access to my latest test results and notes, and I’ve never had such efficient, streamlined care. The new doctor noticed some unusual lab results no one else had looked at—because they didn’t fall under their realm—and followed up on them. We made some important decisions about diagnostic tests for other problems, and I feel good about moving forward.

It’s been almost 20 years since I’ve had an official primary care doctor, and I told him I was worried about contacting the appropriate person for certain infections. Those of you with more experience negotiating this balance between primary care and specialists, do you have any feedback?

“With all you’ve been through you know your body best. Just trust your instincts,” he said. Sounds like a plan, indeed.

On a less personal level, I’d also like to circle back to the issue of universal health care in Massachusetts. As I mentioned before, part of the primary care shortage and the several months’ wait many patients find when they try to make an appointment is an unintended consequence of providing insurance to more people…and of course people without prior access to health insurance and preventive care are often most in need of primary care physicians. Anyway, according to this recent post on WBUR’s Commonhealth blog, Massachusetts now has the lowest rate of uninsured citizens in the country. This is wonderful news—now, let’s try and make sure each of those citizens can get an appointment!