Posts Tagged ‘business’

Forbes: Single Payer Is Good for Business

April 19th, 2012

You know something is up when a national business publication allows the words “single payer” and “socialism” to grace its pages – and in a good way. In his column for Forbes, “A Dose of Socialism Could Save Our States – State Sponsored, Single Payer Healthcare Would Bring in Business & Jobs,” Rick Ungar writes:

In what strikes me as the greatest combination since chocolate met peanut butter, it makes nothing but dollars and sense for clever state governments to shift to a single-payer state healthcare system as the key driver for attracting business to their struggling domains.

Ungar goes on to explain how single payer would benefit businesses, especially small businesses, by reducing labor costs and making them more competitive with foreign companies. He implores conservative state legislators to drop their ideological (and I would add, irrational) fear of creeping Communism, and be open to an idea that would spark economic prosperity. These legislators should listen.

But in America, ideology often trumps common sense – especially when that ideology provides some people a lot of money and power. Since the business community is so powerful here in America, it’s frustrating that more small businesses and corporations don’t join the Medicare-for-all movement. Businesses would rather not shell out the increasingly high cost of health care benefits for their employees. But you don’t see many businesses begging the government to take over the responsibility. You don’t see many of them using their powerful lobbyists to persuade conservative lawmakers to vote in favor of a public healthcare system. Instead, many businesses prefer to shove more and more of the costs onto their employees. Or they drop coverage altogether and create more uninsured people, which ends up shoving the costs onto taxpayers.

In America, anything that smacks of the dreaded “S-word” is to be automatically dismissed. In America, government is bad; privatization and profit are good. People are all forced to play the free-market game, even when it doesn’t make sense. If businesses can’t or won’t provide health coverage, then Americans should purchase private insurance in the open market (the more deregulated, the better), or they can just go without. A public healthcare system that will actually cover everyone and save money continues to be a non-starter. I hope more positive articles about single payer in the business press can change these outdated attitudes.

Sylvia@californiaonecare.org

Doctors should share in the sacrifice

June 14th, 2011

by brooklynbadboy

Whenever there is a debate about making cuts to education, both parties zero right in on teachers. But when the debate is about making cuts to health care, nobody zeroes in on doctors. A curious thing, wouldn’t you say? In both professions, the primary practitioners of the profession are seen as being ultimately responsible for the product. Educators are constantly put under pressure. They must accept cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, cuts in job security, cuts in funding for their ability to do their job. They must do more with less, always. But in the case of health care, doctors seem to escape any scrutiny whatsoever. In fact, any cut to their income no matter how insignificant, is always portrayed as doing irreparable harm to the health care system.
I’m going on the record: Doctors make too much money and they need to start taking it in the chin if we are going to get control of health care costs.

In 2007, Alex Berenson writing in the New York Times hit the nail on the head of this subject in his seminal article “Sending Back the Doctor Bill.”

Easy, liberals say. If Washington would just force cuts in prescription drug prices and insurance company profits, plenty of money would be left over to cover the uninsured. Conservatives prefer to argue that the answer lies in forcing people to pay more of their own medical costs. But many health care economists say both sides are wrong. These economists, some of whom are also doctors, say the partisan fight over insurers and drug makers is a distraction from a bigger problem: the relatively high salaries paid to American doctors, and even more importantly, the way they are compensated.

Berenson goes on to make the point that doctors in the U.S. make two to three times what doctors in Europe make. While primary care general practitioners in the U.S. have earnings comparable with Europe, the specialists are making a killing. A 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service compared the pay of doctors by adjusting for purchasing power of the local currency and found that American medical specialists are paid an adjusted average of $230,000 a year. General practitioners? $161,000. Nurses, who actually do the lion’s share of the real work? $56,000. In Germany, specialists make an average of $77,000. In The UK, $151,000. In Canada, $161,000.

I think we all agree doctors should be well paid. After all, it is an important profession that requires quite a bit of training. But do they really need to make $230k and up? No. Especially considering that specialists in other industrial nations that have lower health care costs and better health care outcomes seem to get by all right by paying their doctors a lot less.

To be sure, the insurance companies have always blamed the doctors for rising health care costs. The doctors, of course, blame the medical device companies and the pharmaceutical companies. All of them both blame government, of course. The truth is there is plenty of blame to go around. But the one group that seems to keep escaping accountability is doctors.

In 2009, during the heat of the health care debate, The New York Times published an article about this subject:

Many studies have shown that patient care and spending vary enormously from community to community, depending on local practices, which are largely determined by doctors.
The health care system has long been accused of emphasizing the quantity — rather than the quality — of care, giving doctors and other health providers incentive to order extra tests and procedures when they don’t improve the outcome. “It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession — a calling — to a business,” President Obama said of the system.

A lucrative business. Especially if you are a specialist. While doctors always have to second guess a procedure when payment comes from an insurance company, they never have to do that with Medicare. Medicare will always pay because Medicare doesn’t review the costs of procedure. What Medicare does do, very well in fact, is just fix the price lower than what can be expected from private insurance. On the one side, Medicare pays, but pays low. On the other side, private insurers pay high, but doctors may or may not get paid in a timely manner. (It’s another reason why a single payer system like Medicare works better, but that’s another debate for another time.) Under this system, doctors have every incentive to milk the system for all it’s worth, ordering as many procedures as possible and shifting Medicare’s lower payments to private insurance. Since private insurance may or may not pay depending on their profit schedule, doctors have every incentive do either deny care or throw as much car as possible out there to see what sticks. And it is especially milky for those with specialties. As Berenson notes in the article, the way doctors are paid is as much a problem as how they are paid.

Let’s get the doctors in on this “shared sacrifice” business. Reforms in the health care law to encourage more doctors to simply get a job rather than trying to run a business should help. Let’s put doctors on a good salary, with good health benefits and a good pension. If we are going to get health care costs down, it seems to me a quarter-million dollar specialist should be the person who should take the hit first. They’ll be just fine suffering though the indignity of 20% more than general practitioner’s six figure pay rather than 50%.

Originally appeared in the Daily Kos, May 29, 2011. Re-posted with permission.

My Healthcare Story – Ari Everford

June 7th, 2011

I’ve lived in California for most of my life. The only time I had consistent health insurance coverage was as a child growing up. Once out on my own after college, I have lived for 27 of the last 33 years without health insurance because I own my own business and cannot afford it. For the last seven years, that has meant no doctor visits, even when I haven’t felt well enough to go to work. Single payer, universal health care is a right of every person on this planet. Not a privilege. A right. Pass it.

Ari Everford

A Consumer By Any Other Name….

May 31st, 2011

by Pippa Abston MD, PhD, FAAP

Recently, Paul Krugman took on the use of the word “consumer” as applied to patients, in his blog post “Patients are not consumers” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1.  You should read it, and then come back here.

First, let me tell you that I agree with almost everything Mr. Krugman says.  It is indeed a travesty to treat medical care as a commodity.  I’ve written about that before.  As a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, I am working to bring about national health insurance, with lifelong medical care for all of us — everybody in, nobody out.  But I’d like to address a particular question Mr. Krugman posed, one he may have intended rhetorically: “How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as ‘consumers’?”

Because he never mentioned the original history of this usage, I’m going to guess Mr. Krugman doesn’t realize where it started.  I only found out a few years ago, when I became a member of NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness.  NAMI is an advocacy organization started by family members of persons with serious mental illnesses (SMI)– diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar.  In NAMI, I learned that “consumer” was a label patients chose for themselves back in the 1980′s.  Initially, it was part of the anti-psychiatry movement–some people even called themselves “survivors” of the psychiatric system.  Later, the term evolved into common usage among people who did seek traditional psychiatric care.

So why did they pick that word?  If you do not suffer from mental illness or have a family member who does (I don’t mean mild depression– I mean the illnesses people get committed to institutions with), perhaps you haven’t experienced the loss of dignity so commonplace for those with SMI.  In many ways, it is better today, partly through the efforts of NAMI– but some aspects remain the same.  Can you imagine being stripped of your belongings, forced to take medications with miserable side effects, and deprived of most freedoms the rest of us enjoy?  And having this treatment called medical care?  It is true that because severely psychotic people often don’t recognize their own illnesses, treating them without their consent may be the only way to save their lives.   The psychiatrists who deliver the unwanted but desperately needed care are often quite compassionate and empathetic.  None of which removes the degradation and humiliation entirely.  Or the anger.

Angry patients called themselves consumers for a very specific reason– to remind healthcare professionals who paid them.  It was a way of taking back a measure of autonomy and personhood, in the midst of a patronizing system.  Now, 30 years after the consumer movement began, organized groups of persons with SMI still proudly call themselves consumers, as they work to erase the misconceptions and stigma of their diseases.  When I posted a comment to this effect on Facebook, one person in the mental health field responded that she calls her patients “clients.”  Here’s my first question, and this one is definitely rhetorical– since when do we have the right to choose labels for other people?

Yes, the term consumer is distasteful in my mouth.  I hate the idea of my patients seeing me as some sort of saleswoman.  But  other than in my personal role as an occasional patient, I have no standing to criticize any word chosen by others to describe themselves.  I would be especially unwilling to attack usage by persons with mental illness.

Now for my real questions.   Has the word consumer simply been hijacked by insurers, grossly insensitive to the consumer movement history?  Or have patients themselves– those without mental illness–begun to see themselves as consumers too?   Will some begin to call themselves “survivors”, not of their illnesses but of our medical system? Perhaps physicians, by putting their bank accounts before the needs of their patients and failing to defend them against corporate insurer greed, have helped injure the very meaning of our profession.  Last year in a debate with two conservative doctors, I was aghast when one stood up and said “I am a businessman”, followed by loud applause from an audience of community leaders.  My response that I saw myself as a professional drew little interest.

Before we try to reverse the renaming of our patients, we need to listen.  In medical parlance, we need to take a real history.  If the people we care for in our offices believe they are consumers, our healthcare system doesn’t just need therapy.  It needs a heart transplant.

Re-posted with permission from Pippa Abston’s Blog.