After listening to the debates and the House debating and finally voting to approve the Articles of Impeachment I can actually say that I am embarrassed for we Americas and our Country. We all look like such fools! I say this because I have read critically the transcripts of the phone call that President Trump made to the President of Ukraine, listened to the witnesses in the case and have found no credible data to support an Impeachment. But how can one argue with the Hate of the party that lost the 2016 election? But on to discuss additional information on healthcare.
Michael Rainey of the Fuscal Times reported that a CT scan of the abdomen typically costs more than $1,000 in the U.S., but the same procedure in the U.K. costs $470, while in the Netherlands it costs just $140. Those numbers come from a new report, released Tuesday by the Health Care Cost Institute and the International Federation of Health Plans, that compares private insurance health-care prices in the U.S. to those in a sample of other wealthy countries – and finds that the U.S. is just about always the most expensive.
“The median prices paid by private insurance for health care services in the United States was almost always higher than the median prices in the eight other countries included in the iFHP study,” the report says. “Figure 1 [below] shows the prices paid for medical services in each country as a percent of the US price.”
Note that U.S. prices are marked by the red dots. In almost every case, the prices in other countries are just a fraction of the U.S. price. (Avoid getting cataract surgery in New Zealand, apparently.)
The report also looks at drug prices, and finds that with only one exception, prices in the U.S. are the highest in the group. Harvoni, used to treat hepatitis C, costs $4,840 in South Africa and $12,780 in the Netherlands, but it costs more than twice that ($31,620) in the U.S. Similarly, a Humira pen, used to treat arthritis, costs $860 in the U.K., but $4,480 in the U.S.
“Drug prices for most countries were less than half the US price for most of the administered and prescription drugs included in the study,” the report says.
Writing about the report Tuesday, Vox’s Dylan Scott said that high medical prices in the U.S. have many causes, but one in particular stands out: “The US is still the wealthiest country in the world. It’s home to the world’s leading biopharmaceutical industry. It tends to have the most cutting-edge treatments. All this contributes to higher prices here than elsewhere. But one big and unavoidable culprit is the lack of price regulation.”
American health care is a farce
Rick Newman reported that the cost of private health insurance is skyrocketing. Medicare will run short of money soon. About 28 million Americans still lack health insurance.
Are your elected officials on it? NOPE! Why should they be. They get generous coverage through a choice of plans and enjoy taxpayer subsidies covering most of the cost. So they’ve taken care of themselves, which is the only thing that matters in Washington.
Wait, that’s not quite correct. Republicans are also determined to keep hacking away at the Affordable Care Act, now in place for 9 years. A GOP lawsuit—backed by the Trump administration—claims the entire ACA is unconstitutional, because in 2017 Congress repealed the penalty for people who lack insurance. It’s a convoluted argument, yet an appeals court recently upheld part of the case and sent the rest back to a lower-court judge, to assess which other parts of the ACA to kill. The law isn’t dead yet, and it might ultimately survive, but it could take the Supreme Court to rescue the ACA from its third or fourth near-death experience.
So here’s the story: There’s a health care crisis in the United States, with millions of people lacking care and many millions more facing costs that are rising far faster than their incomes. Health care costs are devouring both the family and the federal budget. And many workers stay in jobs they’re not suited for simply for the health benefits. Yet Republicans are trying to take care away from about 18 million Americans, and repeal the ACA’s prohibition against denying coverage to people with preexisting coverage. Their answer to giant problems of access and affordability is to make coverage even harder to obtain and drive up costs even more.
The Democrats have answers! Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to annihilate the private insurance system and create a government program, Medicare for All, which would be 15 times larger than the ACA Republicans hate so much. Sure, that’ll work. In response to obstinate political opposition, peddle a fantasy plan that generates even more furious resistance. And tell voters you refuse to compromise because it’s more important to stand for the right thing than to actually accomplish something that could improve people’s lives.
There are better ideas out there. Democrats such as Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar favor enhancements to the ACA and a new public option that would provide coverage to nearly all the uninsured while leaving private insurance in place, for those who want to stick with that. It will never get Republican support, since Republicans favor the law of the jungle over government aid. But a Bidenesque plan could happen in the unlikely event a few reddish states grow momentarily sensible and elect a few pragmatic Democrats, including a majority in both the House and Senate.
If that doesn’t happen, we can look forward to posturing on both sides that will fool some voters into thinking politicians care, without accomplishing anything likely to help. The Trump administration is pushing a new plan that would allow states to import prescription drugs from Canada, which enforces price controls that make drugs cheaper. Great idea, as long as Canada has no problem diverting drugs meant for Canadians back to America, where many of the drugs come from in the first place. Why doesn’t America just impose its own price controls? Because pharmaceutical companies own Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other members of Congress, who won’t let it happen. So Trump is hoping more principled Canadian legislators will help Americans gets cheaper drugs made in America by American companies.
At least you’ll be free of all these worries once you turn 65, and Medicare kicks in. Except Medicare is going to run short of money starting in 2026, and will eventually be able to pay only about 77% of its obligations. So here’s the real health care plan: Don’t get sick until you turn 65, and then, get just 77% as sick as you would have otherwise. Or just move to Canada.
Pros and cons of private, public healthcare
A study by Flinders University found that the rising cost of private health cover and public hospital standards raise concerns among heart patients to obtain the best outcomes.
In one of the few direct comparisons, medical researchers in South Australia have analyzed data from pacemaker and defibrillator implant surgeries in all public and private hospitals in New South Wales and Queensland between 2010 and 2015 to make an assessment of medical safety outcomes, including infection levels and mortality.
Overall the outcomes were quite similar, says lead researcher Flinders cardiologist and electrophysiologist Associate Professor Anand Ganesan, who joined other Flinders University and University of Adelaide researchers in a new article just published in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Internal Medicine Journal.
“There is growing community interest in the value of private health insurance and, to date, there are few head-to-head studies of the outcomes of care in public and private hospitals to compare the same service with adjustments for differences in patient characteristics,” says Associate Professor Ganesan, a Matthew Flinders Research Fellow and National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellow.
“We believe our results are of community interest for patients to assess the value and benefit of private health insurance, as well as for policymakers who decide on resource allocations between the public and private healthcare systems.”
He stressed that further “head-to-head” studies are needed across all major medical procedures to provide patients and clinicians in both the public and private system with the most up-to-date safety information.
The population level study of pacemaker complications found few key differences in overall major safety issues, although there were slightly higher infection rates in public hospitals but slightly lower acute mortality rates compared to the private hospital system.
This could be connected to the greater number of older, frail patients relying on private health cover—and greater number of people in the public system—although further studies were needed to explain these differences.
Associate Professor Ganesan says more regular comparative assessments of public versus private hospital care quality are very important, particularly for Australian health consumers.
Australia’s hospitals account for more than 40% of healthcare spending with a cumulative cost exceeding $60 billion per annum. Hospital care in Australia is delivered by a combination of 695 public (or 62,000 beds) and 630 private sector hospitals (33,100 beds).
The research paper, “Complications of cardiac implantable electronic device placement in public and private hospitals” has been published in the Internal Medicine Journal.
Budget watchdog group outlines ‘Medicare for All’ financing options
So, one of my oppositions to the program Medicare for All has been the question as to financing the program. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) on Monday released a paper providing its preliminary estimates for various ways to finance “Medicare for All,” as the issue of how to pay for such a health plan has taken center stage in the Democratic presidential primary.
“Policymakers have a number of options available to finance the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All, but each option would come with its own set of trade-offs,” the budget watchdog group wrote.
The issue of how to pay for Medicare for All — single-payer health care that eliminates premiums and deductibles — has become a key discussion topic in the Democratic presidential race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the top tier 2020 hopefuls, recently said that she would release a financing plan for her Medicare for All proposal after being criticized by some of her rivals in the primary race for refusing to give a direct answer about whether she’d raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the massive health care overhaul.
CRFB said most estimates find that implementing Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over 10 years.
“How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications,” the group wrote.
CRFB provided several options that each could raise the revenue needed to pay for Medicare for All. These included a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent surtax on income above the standard-deduction amount, a 42 percent value-added tax, mandatory premiums averaging $7,500 per capita, and more than doubling all individual and corporate tax rates.
The group estimated that Medicare for All could not be fully financed just by raising taxes on the wealthy.
CRFB also estimated that cutting all nonhealth spending by 80 percent, or by more than doubling the national debt, so that it increased to 205 percent of gross domestic product, could finance Medicare for All.
The group said that the financing options it listed could be combined, or that policymakers could reduce the cost of Medicare for All by making it less generous.
“Adopting smaller versions of several policies may prove more viable than adopting any one policy in full,” CRFB wrote.
CRFB said that most of the financing options it listed would on average be more progressive than current law, but most of the financing options would also shrink the economy.
Out-of-pocket costs for Medicare recipients will rise in the New Year
Dennis Thompson reviewed the future costs of Medicare since the Democratic primary discussion seems to point to Medicare or All. He noted that the standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B would rise $9.10, to $144 a month, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced.
The annual deductible for Part B also will increase $13 to $198 per year, CMS said.
Both increases are relatively large compared to 2019, when the Part B premium rose $1.50 a month and the deductible $2 for the year.
“This year there’s an unusual tick up in the Part B premium that could be a real concern for people living on a fixed income,” said Tricia Neuman, director of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicare Policy.
The Part B premium increase will affect people enrolled in original Medicare as well as those who are covered under Medicare Advantage, said David Lipschutz, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
“One thing I definitely wanted to make clear is that the increase in the Part B premium itself also applies to everyone on Medicare Advantage,” he said. “People on Medicare Advantage have to continue to pay the part B premium.”
Some, but not all, Medicare Advantage plans cover the Part B premium as part of their package, Lipschutz added.
The annual inpatient hospital deductible for Medicare Part A is also increasing to $1,408 a year, up $44. In 2019, the increase was $24.
These cost increases will wipe out much of the 1.6% cost-of-living (COLA) increase for Social Security benefits in 2020, CBS News reported. The COLA amounts to about $24 extra a month for the average retiree.
Medicare Part A covers inpatient hospital stays, nursing facility care and some home health care services. Part B covers doctor visits, outpatient hospital treatment, durable medical equipment, and certain home health care and medical services not covered by Part A.
Unless Congress acts, the prescription benefit in Medicare Part D also will start drawing a lot more money out of the pockets of seniors taking pricey drugs, the experts added.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a provision that limited how much a senior with Part D would pay out-of-pocket after reaching a “catastrophic coverage” threshold, Neuman and Lipschutz said.
Once they reach that threshold, seniors pay 5% of their prescription costs. Until then, they pay 25% of the costs for brand-name drugs and 37% of generic drug costs.
But that ACA provision expires this year. When that happens, the catastrophic coverage threshold will jump $1,250, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates. People will have to pay $6,350 out-of-pocket before reaching the threshold.
“There will be a jump up in the threshold, which means that people with high drug spending will have to pay more before they can get this extra help,” Neuman said.
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have bills in the works that could address this Part D increase, but it’s hard to predict whether Congress will be able to cooperate on a solution, Neuman and Lipschutz said.
“No matter what your allegiances are, everyone agrees something should be done about the high cost of prescription drugs,” Lipschutz said.
It’s not all bad news, however.
Folks with Medicare Advantage are expected to pay lower premiums, even with the increase in Part B, according to the CMS.
On average, Medicare Advantage premiums are expected be at their lowest in the past 13 years, and 23% lower than in 2018, the CMS said.
Medicare Advantage enrollees also will have more plans to choose from. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average beneficiary will have access to 28 plans, compared with a low of 18 in 2014.
Original Medicare is the traditional fee-for-service program offered by the federal government, while Medicare Advantage plans are an alternative provided through private insurance companies.
Medicare beneficiaries spent an estimated $5,460 out-of-pocket for health care in 2016, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. About 58% went to medical and long-term care services, with the remainder spent on premiums for Medicare and supplemental insurance.
So, the ultimate question is :
Equal health care for all: A philosopher’s answer to a political question
The University of Pennsylvania staff asked the question-Should access to health care, especially in life-threatening situations, depend on whether you can afford it? Absolutely not, says Robert C. Hughes, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, who compared health care systems in the U.K., Canada, and Australia. He writes about this question and other issues in a recent paper titled, “Egalitarian Provision of Necessary Medical Treatment.”
Hughes identifies two key features of an egalitarian health care system. First, he argues, it would protect people’s liberty to ensure that access to money does not decide if people get the health care they need. Second, it would promote stability and encourage people to be law abiding. “The central finding of [my research] is that it’s morally necessary to make sure that people’s finances don’t affect their ability to get truly medically necessary treatment,” he says.
Hughes favors universal health care coverage in the U.S. Further, in order to ensure that everybody has access to the medical care they need, he says one option is to eliminate private health insurance for coverage provided under “Medicare for All,” the solution that Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed. Hughes explores what legislators, the pharmaceutical industry, and other health care providers could do to ensure a fair health care system where private parties don’t get to decide who is eligible for what treatments.
I mentioned my embarrassment and disappointment in our political system we all have to give thanks for all the good things in our lives. As Christmas approaches we all should reflect on the good in our lives and enjoy the Holiday including family and friends. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Kwanzaa! And I hope Santa leaves coal in all the stockings of our politicians who can’t even do the job that we the voters asked them to do when we voted them in. Oh, how you are making a mockery of the system in the games that you all are playing!
I have been avoiding the discussion regarding single payer system, what it is, how it would work and what are the consequences, etc.? More to come!