Category Archives: Physicians

The Effects of Socialism on Healthcare and Healthcare Reform

39975971_1685066984956287_3032019853234929664_nIn the current discussions, a single word — “socialism” — seems to have triggered the most emotional responses, needlessly so.

As more and more of the Democrats campaigning for the Mid-Term elections tout Socialism I wonder if they have any idea of what socialism means and more importantly how it would impact health care. David Nash and Richard Jacoby, both physicians wrote in MedPage Today back in 2009 that the health care reform debate is, all too often, confusing. The subject is multifaceted and is generally not presented in a logical, orderly fashion.

One reason is that, when we approach an issue as large as health care reform, we tend to focus on the segments about which we have strong personal feelings. Emotions come into play, often vigorously, making objective discussion difficult or impossible.

Often, the basis for these strongly held beliefs is rooted in the misunderstanding of a principle, a definition, or how things work in the real world. Such understanding is fundamental to a logical debate.

In the current health care reform discussions, a single word — “socialism” — seems to have triggered the most emotional responses. It is used almost pejoratively as if it is the worst thing that could possibly happen in America.

Socialism is most commonly invoked when the healthcare reform discussion turns to whether or not we should have a government-funded public insurance option.

Simple definitions can help here. In capitalism, individuals own the means of production of goods and services. In socialism, the government owns them. Let’s look a bit more at what socialism really is. Look at Venezuela and their currency, the Bolivar, which has been devalued to 0.0000040 of the U.S, dollar! Wow!

Kimberly Amadeo stated at the beginning of the month that Socialism is an economic system where everyone in the society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or a public corporation where everyone owns shares. The four factors of production are labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources.

Socialism’s mantra is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.” Everyone in society receives a share of the production based on how much each has contributed.

That motivates them to work long hours if they want to receive more.

Workers receive their share after a percentage has been deducted for the common good. Examples are transportation, defense, and education. Some also define the common good as caring for those who can’t directly contribute to production. Examples include the elderly, children, and their caretakers.

Socialism assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. That nature hasn’t yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be competitive. Therefore, a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must support this basic human nature for these qualities to emerge.

These factors are valued for their usefulness to people. This includes individual needs and greater social needs. That might include preservation of natural resources, education, or health care. That requires most economic decisions to be made by central planning, as in a command economy.

Advantages:

Workers are no longer exploited since they own the means of production. All profits are spread equitably among all workers, according to his or her contribution. The cooperative system realizes that even those who can’t work must have their basic needs met, for the good of the whole.

The system eliminates poverty. Everyone has equal access to health care and education. No one is discriminated against.  Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers higher compensation to make it worthwhile.

Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

Disadvantages:

The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. It negates those within society who are competitive, not cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for their own gain.

A secondly related criticism is that it doesn’t reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. As such, it won’t be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

A third possibility is that the government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and claim power for itself.

Difference Between Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and Fascism

Untitled.Differences between Socialism,Some say socialism’s advantages mean it is the next obvious step for any capitalistic society. They see income inequality as a sign of late-stage capitalism. They argue that capitalism’s flaws mean it has evolved past its usefulness to society. They don’t realize that capitalism’s flaws are endemic to the system, regardless of the phase it is in.

America’s Founding Fathers included promotion of the general welfare in the Constitution to balance these flaws. It instructed the government to protect the rights of all to pursue their idea of happiness as outlined in the American Dream. It’s the government’s role to create a level playing field to allow that to happen. That can happen without throwing out capitalism in favor of another system.

Examples of Socialist Countries:

There are no countries that are 100 percent socialist, according to the Socialist Party of the United Kingdom. Most have mixed economies that incorporate socialism with capitalism, communism, or both.

The following countries have a strong socialist system.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: The state provides health care, education, and pensions. But these countries also have successful capitalists. The top 10 percent of each nation’s people hold more than 65 percent of the wealth. That’s because most people don’t feel the need to accumulate wealth since the government provides a great quality of life.

Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea: These countries incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Mozambique, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania: These countries all expressly state they are socialist in their constitutions. Their governments run their economies. All have democratically elected governments.

Belarus, Laos, Syria, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Zambia: These countries all have very strong aspects of governance, ranging from healthcare, the media, or social programs run by the government.

Many other countries, such as Ireland, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Belgium, have strong socialist parties and a high level of social support provided by the government. But most businesses are privately owned. This makes them essentially capitalist.

Many traditional economies use socialism, although many still use private ownership. There are eight types of socialism. They differ on how capitalism can best be turned into socialism. They also emphasize different aspects of socialism. Here are a few of the major branches, according to “Socialism by Branch,” in The Basics of Philosophy.

Democratic Socialism: a democratically elected government manages the factors of production. Central planning distributes common goods, such as mass transit, housing, and energy, while the free market is allowed to distribute consumer goods.

Curiously, socialism is rarely used to describe Medicare, Medicaid, and the various other government-sponsored plans that account for roughly half of the healthcare dollars spent in this country and that are bona fide examples of socialist services.

It should be clear to any objective observer that the U.S. is not a purely capitalist country. We have many government-run services — the military, highways, public education, the Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare to name a few.

Thus, the U.S. exhibits elements of both capitalism and socialism — a so-called mixed economy.

As has become abundantly clear through the recent financial crisis and subsequent government-sponsored rescue of the financial system, government spending shortened what otherwise would have been an extended economic downturn — when the private sector could not or would not do so.

So, a little government (read “socialism”) mixed in with our capitalism can be a good thing. Students of economics embrace “capitalism” because it has proven unparalleled in raising living standards for vast numbers of people and for fostering innovation. But, the conventional wisdom about capitalism is rooted in flawed logic that assumes free markets are inherently self-correcting. They are not. A capitalist system does not guarantee a good outcome.

What are the prospects for “market forces” to reshape our current health care system in a fashion that decreases cost and increases quality? For a market to work its magic, transparency about costs (which allows comparison shopping by patients) and information about quality (public reporting of quality measures in a standardized format) need to be widely available so that value can be assessed and delivered.

Clearly, these elements are not present in our current system and are not likely to be present for some time. Further, our current payment structures give patients little incentive to engage in “comparison shopping” or for providers to be efficient in delivering services. Indeed, providers are rewarded on the basis of quantity rather than quality or value of the services they provide.

The U.S. occupies the 37th place in the World Health Organization’s ranking of health care quality in industrialized nations. This, coupled with the fact that we pay almost twice as much as other countries for that level of care, suggests that our “capitalistic” healthcare system could use some “socialistic” guidance.

Who will provide guidance toward better outcomes in healthcare?

Historically, the government (in the form of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has led the way to cost and quality reform through various demonstration projects and programs involving “Value-Based Purchasing.” Private insurers have followed the government’s lead.

The premise of health insurance is that a risk pool with a large number of people reduces the cost of protecting any one individual from the consequences of a serious health problem. The larger the pool, the broader the risk is spread, and the lower the cost.

A federally provided public insurance option covering all Americans would spread the risk as broadly as possible. In fact, many Medicare services are administered currently by Blue Shield and other private insurance companies.

Combining a single large insurance pool with the private administration is a nice mixed economic insurance solution. Certainly, this is not as crazy a scheme as the status quo.

Why is Socialized Health Care Is Unjust?

Hadley Heath Manning looked more critically and healthcare in a socialized system. As she states, when the government runs hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare institutions, people get worse care for more money. Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is exceeding expectations and drawing large support from young and blue-collar voters. At the center of his policy platform is a plan to completely socialize the U.S. healthcare system, turning it into a “single-payer” program, or a single government fund that pays for all citizens’ health costs.

The argument for this kind of system is simple. Supporters say it will enable everyone to access health care and cost less than our current mix of private and public health expenditures. Most of all, they argue this system would be morally superior to others.

All of those claims are dubious, but the last is the biggest whopper. In fact, socialized medicine is immoral. It relies on coercion and results in shortages and long wait times, which means worse care. It is rife with inequality and inefficiency, leading to serious harms.

This Would Ratchet Up the Doctor Squeeze!                                                                 Consider how a socialized system would cut costs. Single-payer advocates brag that having one, the national fund for health costs would allow the government to “negotiate” health-care prices down because it would essentially have prevented everyone else from bidding to pay for them. In other words, the government would have control of an entire industry and be able to dictate the terms of work and trade for everyone within it. How is this morally superior to allowing free people to negotiate arrangements on their own?

We already see the bullying of providers in the single-payer systems that exist in the United States.

Unfortunately, America hasn’t had a truly free, market-based health system for decades. Many people feel the outsized power of insurance companies has allowed them to dominate and unfairly control doctors and hospitals. This is true: Insurance companies, thanks in large part to regulations from the Affordable Care Act, are consolidating and using their growing market shares to bargain, and perhaps bully, health-care providers and dictate the terms for everyone.

We already see the bullying of providers in the single-payer systems that exist in the United States, including Medicare. Doctors consistently complain about the ways Medicare makes practicing medicine hard, from bureaucratic paperwork and compliance burdens to low pay.

Socialism Means Force and Force Are Wrong!

In fact, each year more and more physicians opt out of the Medicare program altogether. It’s become so bad in Hawaii that legislators have proposed a bill that would force providers to accept Medicare or else lose their medical licenses! This is always the end of government-controlled health care: coercion.

As Dr. Jim Geddes, a trauma surgeon near Denver, CO, recently told Medscape.com, “The only way physicians can afford to participate in Medicare is that they get higher payment from commercial insurers. Single-payer advocates talk about ‘Medicare for all,’ but if Medicare were standing alone, it would fall flat.”

But at least some choice remains: Doctors today can still choose not to participate in certain plans or programs.

But at least some choice remains: Doctors today can still choose not to participate in certain plans or programs. If single-payer were the law of the land, no health-care provider could engage in his profession without having to bill the government, as the government would be the only payer for these services in most cases.

Health-care providers would be forced to accept a government-set price for their services. This would inevitably harm the quality of care we receive by locking in current ways of doing things instead of allowing people to try new ones and discourage people from pursuing grueling expensively learned work in the medical field because of low pay and bad working conditions.

We’ve seen how a similar standardized compensation system has worked for public-school teachers. It effectively punishes excellent teachers and rewards mediocre ones. It’s helped create a bifurcated education system, with private schools delivering higher quality to families that can afford to pay tuition on top of taxes, while too many families are left to attend low-quality public schools.

The same phenomena would take place in medicine. Under a government-dominated system, excellent health-care providers wouldn’t be rewarded and would suffer new burdens, while mediocre and even poor providers would receive the same payments as those that provide high-quality care.

Socialized Style Health Care Means Rationing and Shortages.

Patients too would suffer at the hands of a single payer, due to the rationing and shortages that always result when a government sets prices. That is, of course, unless you are wealthy and can find a concierge medical practice to sell you some special service. Single-payer systems always unravel, giving the rich a chance to buy superior care, and thus creating tremendous economic inequities in the system.

Single-payer results in implicit rationing, which manifests in long waiting lists for the desired service or treatment.

In fact, it may shock some single-payer advocates to hear, but the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that health outcomes are more strongly tied to income in Canada (already a single-payer system) than in the United States.

Single-payer would also lead to waste and great inefficiency, which can have serious health consequences. If the government sets a price for a certain service that is too high, providers may over-prescribe it and patients may over-consume it. If the government sets a price for a certain service that is too low, then too few providers will offer it, and there will be a shortage.

In a market system, higher prices signal shortages and give providers an incentive to adapt to meet people’s actual needs. In a government-based system like single-payer, patients always face the same price—zero—so the government has to limit what services are available to whom based on data. This is straight-up rationing.

But single-payer also results in implicit rationing, which manifests in long waiting lists for the desired service or treatment. Long waits, common in other countries with government-controlled health-care systems, can lead to inferior health outcomes. To be blunt, this means more pain and suffering. In some cases, this even means more death.

That was the case for Laura Hiller, an 18-year-old Canadian with leukemia who died in January for lack of a hospital bed. Numerous bone marrow donors were ready and willing to assist her, but because her hospital could only perform about five transplants per month, Laura died while waiting for her turn. Stories like this are not uncommon in countries with single-payer health-care systems.

So, a Better Idea: A Medical Free Market!

Surely there is nothing moral about this. Americans shouldn’t accept that either insurers or government must dominate the health-care market or set the prices and payments for everyone. Rather, we should reform our health-care system to give individuals more power and choice. Market competition would drive prices down without the need for coercion.

Patients should pay providers directly for any services that are routine and not catastrophic, and patients could carry low-cost insurance policies to protect them in the event of catastrophic health-care costs. This is how it works for house and auto insurance, which almost everyone can afford even though cars and houses are frequently as expensive as many medical services.

A direct-pay model would create an incentive for providers to offer more pricing information, and to compete with one another on price. Market competition would drive prices down without the need for coercion. Quality would go up, prices would go down, and, just as importantly, this would be a morally superior system free of the coercion and domination implicit in a government-run socialized system.                                                The level of freedom in research and medical commercialization matters greatly. It is a very large determinant of the speed with which future medicine arrives – and especially medical technologies capable of reversing the age-related cellular damage that lies at the root of frailty, degeneration, and death. At the moment, right this instant, the system is broken. The very fact that we have “a system” is a breakage; that entrepreneurs are held back from investment by rules and political whims that are now held to be of greater importance than any number of lives. Those decisions about your health and ability to obtain medicine are made in a centralized manner, by people with neither the incentives nor the ability to do well.

As is always the case, the greatest cost of socialism in medicine lies in what we do not see. It lies in the many billions of dollars presently not invested in medical research and development, or invested wastefully, because regulations – and the people behind them, supporting and manipulating a political system for their own short-term gain – make it unprofitable to invest well. Investment is the fuel of progress, and it is driven away by self-interested political cartels.

The situation is grim; the greatest engines of progress in medicine – the research communities of the US and other Western-style countries – are moving forward very much despite the ball and chain of regulation that drags them down. In the fight against the age-related disease, and aging itself, how much further ahead would we be if we cut those chains and restored freedom to research, manufacture, review and quality assurance of medicine?

Sadly, I do not see this happening in the near future; a long, but a hard battle lies ahead for advocates of freedom and faster progress in any field. We live in an era of creeping socialism, economic ignorance, and blind acceptance thereof. It’s almost as though no lesson was learned from the megadeaths, poverty, and suffering of the Soviet experience, and now as I pointed out what is happening in other countries like Greece and now Venezuela as we step a little at a time in that direction once more.

Free tuition for all NYU medical students – a $55,018-a-year surprise but a Possible Solution!

38940385_1662028083926844_2145790176754925568_nSo, finally, medical schools, or really one medical school, is looking at one important aspect of the cost of healthcare and an impediment to a sustainable single-payer system, affordable healthcare or whatever you may want to call health care for all and now with the midterm elections around the corner.

Joel Shannon of USA TODAY wrote that all current and future students enrolled in New York University School of Medicine’s MD degree program will receive full-tuition scholarships, the school announced Thursday.

The scholarships are granted independently of merit or financial need for all enrolled students, the university said. Sticker price for tuition at the school is $55,018 a year.

The school has an acceptance rate of 6 percent, according to Princeton Review.

Students will still be responsible for books, fees, housing and other costs. The school estimates those education and living-related expenses will total about $27,000 for a 10-month term.

“No more tuition … The day they get their diploma, they owe nobody nothing,” said Kenneth G. Langone, the board of trustees chairman for NYU Langone Medical Center. The center is named for Langone and his wife, Elaine.

“(Students) walk out of here unencumbered, looking at a future where they can do what their passion tells them.” The school announced the news in a surprise end to its White Coat Ceremony, where new students receive lab coats. NYU Langone says Thursday’s announcement comes as the medical community reckons with the moral impact of higher education costs.

Medical students who face debt burdens that can reach well into six figures may be more likely to pick lucrative specialties, which may not be in the public’s interest, a release from NYU Langone says. The cost can also discourage some students from pursuing a career in the medical field at all.

The increasing cost of higher education has sparked action from employers, politicians, and schools around the country. Often those efforts are focused on financial need, as in the case of a “debt-free graduation” program announced by Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in April.

The move—which it said was financed by the generosity of the university’s “trustees, alumni, and friends,” amounts to a reduction of $55,018 in annual fees, regardless of financial needs or academic merit. It does not cover living and administrative costs averaging $27,000 a year. So, it isn’t entirely free!!

“A population as diverse as ours is best served by doctors from all walks of life, we believe, and aspiring physicians and surgeons should not be prevented from pursuing a career in medicine because of the prospect of overwhelming financial debt,” said Dr. Robert Grossman, dean of the NYU School of Medicine.

In its statement, NYU also pointed out that high student debt was putting graduates off pursuing less lucrative specializations including pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the median debt of a graduating medical student in the US is $202,000—while 21 percent of doctors who graduate from a private school such as NYU face over $300,000.

“Our hope—and expectation—is that by making medical school accessible to a broader range of applicants, we will be a catalyst for transforming medical education nationwide,” said Kenneth Langone, chair of the Board of Trustees of NYU Langone Health.

Thursday’s announcement came as a surprise ending to the school’s annual white coat ceremony, which marks the start of first-year students’ medical careers. Those 93 students will benefit from the scholarship, along with 350 others enrolled further along in the program.

NYU said it is the only top 10-ranked medical school in the US to offer such an initiative and I believe that their acceptance rate is 6% of applicants!!!

Rising higher education costs have led some to question the value of college broadly. More than half of undergrads do not think the “value of a college education has kept up with the cost,” a July Ascent Student Loans study found.

5 Key Questions About NYU’s Tuition-Free Policy for Medical School

Beckie Supiano in the consideration of free tuition at NYU Medical School added with pertinent questions. In these days of near-universal concern about tuition prices and student-loan debt, colleges promote new affordability efforts pretty frequently. But when New York University announced on Thursday that it would offer full-tuition scholarships to “all current and future students” in its doctor-of-medicine program “regardless of need or merit,” it left college-pricing experts a bit stunned.

“It’s hard to fathom how you go from charging this high price to zero,” said Sandy Baum, a nonresident fellow in the Education Policy Program at the Urban Institute, who wondered if the program would even, be sustainable. NYU has said it would raise $600 million to endow the effort, which it estimates will cost $24 million a year.

Announcing that a program will be tuition-free is guaranteed to make a splash, said Lucie Lapovsky, a principal of Lapovsky Consulting and a former college president. “It’s a much clearer message,” she said, than a price cut or waiving tuition for particular students. “It’s a bold move.”

In its announcement, the medical school — among the top-ranked in the country — cast going tuition-free as a way to address two concerns: the lack of socioeconomic diversity among medical students, and their tendency to choose prestigious and well-paid specialties that don’t align with the need to provide basic health care in large swaths of the country.

Could NYU’s program move the needle on those problems? And what lessons might it offer higher ed more generally? Let’s consider some key questions.

Why don’t more institutions do something like this?

Plenty of commenters on social media wanted to know why other medical schools — or colleges generally — don’t stop charging tuition. The short answer? “If enough money drops out of a helicopter, they can,” said Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor of higher education at Seton Hall University. Few of the country’s colleges, he pointed out, have institutional endowments as large as the $600 million that NYU is raising just for this effort and my question is it sustainable in the future?

Few colleges have the same fund-raising opportunities, either, said Amy Li, an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Northern Colorado. The alumni base of an elite private university’s medical school has unusually deep pockets.

Another reason most colleges won’t waive tuition: They need this revenue to keep the lights on. Among the many data points, the federal government collects in its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System is one that looks at how much of an institution’s core revenue comes from tuition. Not many colleges could feasibly abandon that income stream, said Jon Boeckenstedt, associate vice president for enrollment management and marketing at DePaul University, who has analyzed those data.

“Harvard could,” Baum said. “It would sound great, but it wouldn’t be socially beneficial.”

Even the Harvards of the world use the tuition revenue they bring in, and they spend it on things that presumably make the educational experience they provide worthwhile to the many families that can and do pay full price to attend. They also offer significant financial aid to support their less-advantaged undergraduates. At such colleges, this category refers to family incomes that reach into the six figures.

But even a student paying full freight at Harvard is receiving a subsidy from the endowment, said Donald Hossler, a senior scholar at the Center for Enrollment Research Policy at the University of Southern California’s education school. Their tuition is expensive, but it doesn’t cover what the university is spending to educate them.

Endowments also come with strings, Boeckenstedt said: “People think of endowments as a big pool of money you can use to do whatever you want,” but most of the funds are set aside for specific purposes.

Could NYU’s announcement pressure other institutions to try something similar? Higher education is a competitive industry, so other top medical schools no doubt have taken notice. While they are likely to do something in response, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll try to replicate the program, experts said.

While elite medical schools are already out there asking for donations, NYU’s announcement might push them to consider raising money for an affordability initiative — which is bound to receive lots of favorable buzz — instead of launching yet another cancer-research center, said Boeckenstedt.

“It’ll be interesting to see if other schools jump on the bandwagon,” said Lapovsky, who suspects that other med schools will be inclined to show that they, too, are doing something to promote affordability.

The financial pressures of becoming a doctor weigh disproportionately on women and underrepresented minorities, she said. And those are two populations that medical schools may be especially keen to attract.

NYU’s program is expensive and hard to replicate, Baum said. If it had instead reduced the price for low-income students, the idea would stand a better chance of being adopted by more medical schools, much the way “no loan” financial-aid policies, in which loans are not included in the aid packages of some or all undergraduates, have become ubiquitous among elite colleges.

Colleges will probably also discuss the possibility of an undergraduate version of the program, Hossler said. But he doesn’t expect that to result in the birth of “no tuition” programs at the undergraduate level. A boost in financial aid, he thought, is more likely.

Is this the best way to spend $600 million? Baum, for one, was struck by the fact that, out of all the students it educates, NYU had decided to raise this much money to support medical students — a group that’s disproportionately likely to both come from and ends up in the high end of the income spectrum. After all, she pointed out, NYU often finds itself in the news for the significant loan burden faced by its undergraduates.

A $600-million effort could go a long way, she said, toward making their education more affordable. “You have to ask, from a university perspective, what their priorities are.”

Even if the goal were to help medical students, in particular, Baum said, NYU’s program is untargeted. There’s no requirement that students be low-income to have their tuition waived. An effort that raised $600 million for scholarships that low-income students could use at the medical school of their choice, she said, would do a great deal more to improve the profession’s diversity.

But it’s not as if the university got to decide its donors’ intentions, Lapovsky said. Given the apparent interest of big donors in supporting medical-school affordability, she said, this was “an exciting way to do it.”

When policymakers design a program that will use tax dollars, it makes sense to ask whether they’re using those dollars as efficiently as possible, said Beth Akers, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute. But that concern is not as pressing when private donors are putting their own money toward something they value.

Will this make the NYU medical school’s student body more diverse?

One medical school getting rid of tuition might not much change the socioeconomic diversity of the country’s doctors. Still, diversity is an important goal in its own right: Colleges argue that all students receive a better education when their classmates come from varied backgrounds.

But would NYU’s new scholarships make the med school itself more diverse? It could go either way. Going tuition-free could make diversity harder for NYU’s medical school to achieve, Hossler said. The school is bound to see an increase in applications and to receive applications from even more of the country’s top applicants. Whatever other factors its admissions process might consider, it’s not easy to turn away applicants with top grades and test scores, Hossler said. And for a host of reasons that may have little to do with ability, students from financially privileged backgrounds are more likely to have those.

Kelchen is more optimistic. With a larger pool of students to choose from and no revenue expectations, NYU’s medical school would have more power to shape its class as it sees fit. If it wanted to become more diverse, he thinks, it could.

A parallel can be found in elite colleges’ “no loan” policies. They come in two main flavors, said Kelly Rosinger, an assistant professor of education-policy studies at Pennsylvania State University, who has studied them.

Some colleges stopped packaging loans for all students, while others designed their programs for students with family incomes up to a certain cap. In neither case, Rosinger and her co-authors found did the programs do much to increase the enrollment of low-income students.

The universal programs, however, did bring in more middle and upper-middle income students. “I sort of worry,” Rosinger said, “about the same thing happening at the graduate level.” Enrollment at graduate and professional schools is already less socioeconomically diverse than at the undergraduate level, Rosinger said. “The barriers to elite education,” she said, “aren’t just financial.”

Perhaps NYU’s program could chip away at some of those other barriers, Lapovsky said. The university is now in a position to be able to tell younger students who assumed that medical school was financially out of reach that it need not be.

Will the decision change the career choices of NYU’s medical graduates? One thing NYU’s program does is send a signal that the medical school has an interest in its graduates’ paths beyond their prestige or earnings potential, Akers said. “Society can value things in a different way than the market values them.”

In its news release, NYU cited sobering statistics about medical students’ debt: 75 percent of them graduate in debt, with a median burden of more than $200,000. Such debt loads, some in the profession worry, push graduates into high-paid specializations at the expense of general practice.

NYU’s medical school is not the first entity to worry that starting out in that kind of hole might shape students’ career choices. “The federal government already has a program that’s supposed to help doctors go into general practice,” Kelchen said. “It’s called income-driven repayment.”

Indeed, Baum said, because of their high debt levels, many doctors will see a significant portion of their loans forgiven under the government’s income-driven repayment and public-service loan-forgiveness programs. Besides, she said, while $200,000 sounds like a lot of money, it’s dwarfed by the earnings difference between, say, pediatricians and neurosurgeons. Money is probably a factor in doctors’ decisions of what to specialize in, but education loans are just a small piece of that financial equation.

Our doctors are too educated. Should We Reform Our Education System?

Dr. Akhilesh Pathipati at Massachusetts Eye and Ear related his feeling on the education of our doctors. I had just finished an eye examination for one of my patients and swiveled around to the computer. It was clear that he needed cataract surgery; he was nearly blind despite his Coke-bottle glasses. But even before I logged in to the scheduling system, I knew what I was going to find: He wouldn’t be able to get an appointment with an ophthalmologist for more than three months. Everyone’s schedule was full.

Moments like these are far too common in medicine. An aging population with numerous health needs and a declining physician workforce has combined to create a physician shortage — the Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortfall of up to 100,000 doctors by 2030.

Policymakers have proposed many solutions, from telemedicine to increasing the scope of nurse practitioners. But I can think of another: Let students complete school and see patients earlier. U.S. physicians average 14 years of higher education (four years of college, four years of medical school and three to eight years to specialize in a residency or fellowship). That’s much longer than in other developed countries, where students typically study for 10 years. It also translates to millions of dollars and hours spent by U.S. medical students listening to lectures on topics they already know, doing clinical electives in fields they will not pursue and publishing papers no one will read.

Decreasing the length of training would immediately add thousands of physicians to the workforce. At the same time, it would save money that could be reinvested in creating more positions in medical schools and residencies. It would also allow more students to go into lower-paying fields such as primary care, where the need is greatest.

These changes wouldn’t decrease the quality of our education. Medical education has many inefficiencies, but two opportunities for reform stand out. First, we should consolidate medical school curriculums. The traditional model consists of two years of classroom-based learning on the science of medicine (the preclinical years), followed by two years of clinical rotations, during which we work in hospitals.

Both phases could be shortened. In my experience, close to half of the preclinical content was redundant. Between college and medical school, I learned the Krebs cycle (a process that cells use to generate energy) six times. Making college premedical courses more relevant to medicine could condense training considerably.

Meanwhile, the second clinical year is primarily electives and free time. I recently spoke with a friend going into radiology who did a dermatology elective. While he enjoyed learning about rashes, we concluded it did little for his education.

In the past decade, several schools have shown the four-year model can be cut to three. For instance, New York University offers an accelerated medical degree with early, conditional admission into its residency programs. The model remains controversial. Critics contend that three years is not enough time to learn medicine. Yet a review of eight medical schools with three-year programs suggests graduates have similar test scores and clinical performance to those who take more time.

Finally, we can reform required research projects. Research has long been intertwined with medical training. Nearly every medical school offers student projects, and more than one-third require them. Many residencies do as well. Students have responded: The number pursuing nondegree research years doubled between 2000 and 2014, and four-year graduation rates reached a record low. Rather than shortening training, U.S. medical education is becoming longer. The additional years aren’t even spent on patient care.

Done right, this could still be a valuable investment. Intellectual curiosity and inquiry drive scientific progress. But that’s not why most students take research years. I conducted a study showing that less than a quarter do so because of an interest in the subject matter. The most common reason was instead to increase their competitiveness for residency applications.

And because having more research published represents greater achievement in academic medicine, students are presented with a bad incentive to publish a large amount of low-quality research. Many of my peers have recognized this, producing more papers than many faculty members. It’s no surprise that there has been an exponential increase in student publications in the past few decades, even though a majority are never cited.

Medical schools need to realign incentives. This starts with the recognition that students can do valuable work even if it doesn’t end up in a journal. It’s time we get them out of school and in front of patients.

Another  Suggestion-Training U.S. doctors faster by cutting out college                                                                                                                               Abdullah Nasser, a neurobiology degree candidate at Harvard University related something the most foreign schools have found that the U.S.A. education for physicians is flawed. Consider two young people, similar in many respects. Both were outstanding secondary school students. Both wanted to help others. Both dreamed of becoming doctors and worked very hard to achieve that goal.

One took his SATs in high school and was accepted by his state university. He fulfilled his premedical requirements while pursuing a liberal arts degree in biology. After four years, he took the Medical College Admission Test and, following graduation, spent a year volunteering in rural Kenya to improve his odds of getting into medical school. He then applied and was accepted, matriculating as a first-year medical student at age 25.                                                 By that time, the second young person had already earned the right to have the letters MD after her name. In fact, she had graduated from medical school two years earlier and was well on her way to opening her own clinic. Over her lifetime, she can expect to practice medicine for four to five more years than her peer.    The only difference between them? The first person is American, while the second is British. Their stories are not the exception; they are the norm in their respective countries.

Medical degrees in the United States are being issued to older and older students. Data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges show that the percentage of first-year medical school students who are age 24 or younger has gone from 75 percent in 2001 to 50 percent last year. The average age of these first-year students in 2011 was 23 for women and 24 for men, a whopping five to six years older than our British friends — and most of the rest of the world.

A majority of the world’s countries, including Brazil, China, and Denmark, considers an MD to be an undergraduate degree. Five to six years after receiving their high school diplomas (or their national equivalent), students in these countries are seeing real patients while their U.S. counterparts are still struggling with verbal-comprehension passages on the MCAT. It is time for the United States to recognize the traditional pre-med path for what it is: a colossal waste of time and potential that is costing this nation millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Proponents of the status quo often argue that U.S.-educated doctors are renowned for their excellence and professionalism, but there is little evidence that earning an undergraduate degree before medical school produces better or more mature doctors. Put another way, there is no reason to believe that U.S. doctors are “better” than French, Finnish or German doctors — all of whom enrolled in medical programs straight out of high school. But there is some evidence that U.S. doctors may be worse. An international study in 2007 estimated the rate of medical errors in the United States to be higher than that in the six other countries examined: Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

Others might argue that U.S. high school graduates are not prepared for the international approach to medical training. But performance on Advanced Placement tests suggests a growing minority would be able to handle the medical school course load.

A reasonable, and relatively cheap, way to address the issue is to allow a two-stream medical education system: one stream — similar to what we have now — for college-graduate entry into medical school; and one that is slightly longer for students straight out of high school (say, five or six years). This sort of model has been shown to work in several countries, including Australia and Britain.

Some U.S. medical schools, notably including New York University’s, are revamping their curriculums and offering shorter paths to graduation. This is a change in the right direction. The hybrid approach too would allow the United States to catch up with the rest of the world and reduce the critical demand for doctors without increasing our reliance on doctors with degrees from other countries or pushing our medical schools to their limit and would decrease the cost of medical education. How important is that? Consider that when Bernie Sanders suggests that Medicare for All can be financed partially by reducing salaries to our practicing physicians!!

My prediction is that NYU, as well as other medical schools that adopt a tuition-free policy will not have the sustainable endowment for future classes and the state government, will be forced to shoulder the burden. And there go our taxes!!

 

Five Doctors and Surgeons Tell Us What They Really Think About Medicare-for-all and the Trump Administration Continues to Change the Present Medicare System!

38631154_1656169364512716_8196802800739418112_nSome doctors support single-payer health care — even if that means a lower salary. I’m wondering more and more, about who is Cookoo, Cookoo today?? I know that Bernie, Nancy and many of our politicians are crazy or Cookoo, but educated physicians?

Remember last week when I discussed the explanation that if we adopt Medicare for All that one of the outcomes of this system would be a reduction in physician salaries. Dylan Scott reviewed the feedback regarding the Medicare for All plan as he reported from the muscle of the health industry lobby — pharma, health plans, doctors, and hospitals — some of which is gathering to stop proposed single-payer systems.

The Hill’s Peter Sullivan had the report on Friday morning. The industry’s influence can’t be underestimated: It stopped Clintoncare. And, for better or worse, it was a boon for passing Obamacare that the industry mostly supported the legislation.

The industry’s disparate interests fight over a lot of issues, but Medicare-for-all unites them. That is going to be a factor if we get to 2021 with a Democratic Congress and president, and they decide to pursue single-payer health care.

That moment really might come. A sign times are changing: A Republican health care lobbyist called me recently to ask whether all-payer rate setting would be a better alternative to single payer, by causing less disruption. (I quibbled that you would need some kind of coverage component, given the moral urgency that is animating the left on health care.)

Still, a Republican almost endorsing price controls. That is a pretty strong indicator of where our health care debate seems to be heading.

Payment cuts for health care providers, if we eliminate private insurance and move everybody to Medicare rates, are going to come up a lot in this debate.

Those cuts are an easy thing for industry lobbyists to target and for Republicans to run ads on. Cuts could be overstated, depending on how much legitimate waste single payer can actually eliminate by consolidating the administration of health care, but the projections for Medicare for All plans are going to anticipate big cuts.

That explains the industry’s lobbying position. But the reality on the ground is more complicated than that. There are absolutely health care providers who support single payer. Quite a few of them sent me emails after I asked for their thoughts last week.

Here are some of the most interesting responses. From a registered Republican working at a next-gen gene sequencing company:

Medicare is, without question, the most reliable, most predictable payer that we deal with. And for somebody like me, it would be a dream to only have to deal with them. Yes, they are pretty heavily regulated. And yes, they have pretty strict guidelines for who to cover. But unlike other payers, who make life virtually impossible for smaller providers because they’re in the for-profit game (the not paying for care game), Medicare at least adheres to a clear set of rules. Other payers put up an endless set of traps against reimbursement, contracting, and other parts of the revenue lifecycle that add substantial cost to services and thus increase the cost to the consumer. I can say with near certainty that parties in my industry would provide services at a materially lower price and with more predictable out of pocket costs if every payer was as reliable and consistent as Medicare.

As such, I’m now, despite growing up a conservative afraid of such government largesse as “Medicare for all,” convinced that a single public payer, either as rate setter or as a true single-payer, is needed. In contrast, I remain a staunch defender of private medical care, where companies such as my own and our competitors do battle to increase quality and lower patient cost.

So I guess you could count me as pro-Medicare for all, a sentence I never thought I’d write 15 years ago.

From a retired neurosurgeon, who had also thought of himself as a Republican:

I practiced neurosurgery in Texas and retired 20 years ago. I started out as a pretty solid, but non-thinking, Republican, opposing perceived intrusions of Medicare into my practice. I read Himmelstein and Woolhandler’s NEJM articles and thought they were Harvard hippie Communists. Over time, I came to see that they were right, that we really need a universal health care system, as so many of my patients weren’t getting needed care. I was a bit embarrassed making as much money as I did and would have done it for half of that.

From a radiation oncologist of more than 20 years, in Chicago and for the military:

I left full-time medicine a few years ago after getting fed up with continuously fighting insurance companies for pre-authorization and for the right to practice medicine the way I was trained within the standard published guidelines. I now work part-time seeing primarily uninsured and Medicaid patients.

A 2011 Health Affairs study found that the average US physician spends nearly $83,000 a year interacting with insurance plans. And a 2010 American Medical Association Study found the average doctor spent 20 hours a week on pre-authorization activities. This has only gotten more expensive and much worse. Under a single-payer plan, this would be much easier and far less expensive.

In addition, we know that the major cost of malpractice coverage is for the continued medical care of the patient that was harmed. A single-payer system would ensure that any such patient would be covered for the rest of their lives and as a result, malpractice coverage would also be dramatically lower.

While reimbursement under a single payer plan most likely would be less, so would the headaches and administrative hassles and costs. And I would be able to see far more patients instead of being on the phone fighting with a case manager, while my office and malpractice coverage costs would be far less.

From a Texas oncologist still early in their career:

My general view of Medicare-for-all is that it would moderately contribute to remedying our health care spending problem, but by no means fix it.

My understanding is that the biggest savings would come from getting rid of the huge administrative dead weight in our private insurance system. However, that in and of itself would not fix the fact that billing rates are through the roof here in the US. Saving a few percents on overhead would be great, but MRIs and appendectomies are still going to cost 2x-4x here than in other OECD countries.

I am definitely heterodox among physicians in believing that our salaries (mainly among specialists such as myself) ought to be significantly lower. The greater bargaining power than a single, government payer might have could potentially rein in some of that.

On the other side, from an anesthesiologist intern in Chicago, fiscally liberal but socially conservative, who has some concerns about how single payer would handle Catholic hospitals:

The one part of a more single-payer system that worries me relates to the socially conservative opinions I have. I’m sure you have seen the series FiveThirtyEight has had the past week on the effects of Catholic hospitals coming to predominate in more rural areas and even some cities. (As someone who grew up in a small town, I can say the main healthcare provider in the area is a Catholic hospital.) I don’t fear a single-payer system would result in individual providers being required to provide services they individually oppose for religious beliefs.

However, I do worry about whether or not there would be requirements for Catholic hospitals to provide services contrary to Catholic teaching, generally surrounding abortion or end of life care, in order to be eligible for billing Medicare. I do presume a Medicare-for-All system would pass on a party-line vote with only Democrat support and could see them trying to expand abortion coverage–either directly in a law or through regulation like many abortion coverage issues have been changed–at the same time since that issue has also grown much more partisan in the past decade.

Again I believe that even these physicians fail to see reality. My question is are you willing to accept Medicare for All as the new health care system including the lower reimbursements and lower salaries, and when will it stop? Will the salaries see continual reductions to make the huge debt to continue the program? And how will the newly trained physicians pay off their loans and pay for their required malpractice insurance?

The real problem here is that these experts touting the Medicare for All programs is that they don’t realize that in order to make a universal health care/ single payer health care program to work tort reform and the cost of education of health care workers has to be part of the solution. If not the new program, whatever it is, will fail or become so expensive and expand out of control.

The solution to the health care crisis is not one factor but an equation that needs to have a solution to each factor!

And Trump continues to change the present system. Consider this article in USA TODAY:

Trump administration takes aim at the Obama-era Medicare program for 10.5 million seniors

Ken Alltucker of USA TODAY published a recent article of President’s Trump’s continued attack on Obama’s modification of the Medicare program.

The Trump administration on Thursday moved to tighten controls over an Obama-era health program by making doctors and hospitals take on greater financial risk for 10.5 million Medicare patients.

Seema Verma, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator who has been critical of the Affordable Care Act, said the changes are necessary because the Medicare program had “weak incentives” for health-care providers to slow spiraling costs.

Under proposed changes, hospitals and doctors would adhere to a more aggressive timetable to save money while maintaining the quality of care. Medicare, the federal health program mainly for adults who are 65 and over, projects the changes would save the federal government $2.2 billion over 10 years.

Untitled.Trump and Medicare changes

“Pathways to Success” shortens the maximum amount of time ACOs are not subject to performance-based risk to 2 years or 1 year for existing shared savings only ACOs.

“After six years of experience, we feel we know what works and what doesn’t,” Verma said. “We want to focus on delivering value for patients and taxpayers.”

Verma said, without changes, that the nation is on pace to spend $1 out of every $5 on health care by 2026, an unsustainable path that will harm families, businesses and the economy.

The Obama program, part of the Affordable Care Act, encouraged hospitals and doctors to band together as “accountable care organizations” to coordinate medical care and cut down on unnecessary tests and procedures. The idea is that if these organizations could deliver care at a lower-than-projected cost, they could collect bonus payments from the federal government.

However, CMS said that 82 percent of 561 accountable-care organizations chose a risk-free version of the program that provided little incentive to reduce spending. These organizations recouped savings if they cost Medicare less than projected, but they faced no financial penalty if they billed more than expected.

The upshot: Congressional Budget Office projections that the Obama-era program would save Medicare $5 billion through 2019 never materialized.

Under Verma’s changes, participants would be limited to two years in the risk-free version of the program. The current regulations allow these organizations to stay for 6 years.

The likely result will be hospitals and doctors dropping from the program.

CMS projects that nearly 20 percent of participants will drop out of the voluntary program due to the more aggressive timetable. However, an industry organization called the National Association of ACO’s predicts 71 percent will drop from the program.

The American Hospital Association said the proposed changes “ignores the reality” that hospitals are at a different point in transiting to this type of “value-based care.”

“The proposed rule fails to account for the fact that building a successful ACO, let alone one that is able to take on financial risk, is no small task,” the hospital group said in a statement. “It requires significant investments of time, effort, and finances.”

Verma also will require doctors and hospitals to notify Medicare patients if they are enrolled in such a program. Medicare recipients also could earn bonuses, such as gift cards, if they meet preventive care milestones, Verma said.

And now:

Well, this Fox & Friends Twitter poll on “Medicare for All” didn’t go as planned

Christopher Zara reported that in today’s edition of “Ask and Ye Shall Receive,” here’s more evidence that support for universal health care isn’t going away.

The Twitter account for Fox & Friends this week ran a poll in which it asked people if the benefits of Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would outweigh the costs. The poll cites an estimated cost of $32.6 trillion. Hilariously, 73% of respondents said yes, it’s still worth it—which is not exactly the answer you’d expect from fans of the Trump-friendly talk show.

Granted, this is just a Twitter poll, which means it’s not scientific and was almost certainly skewed by retweets from Twitter users looking to achieve this result.

At the same time, it’s not that far off from actual polling around the issue. In March, a Kaiser Health tracking poll revealed that 6 in 10 Americans are in favor of a national health care system in which all Americans would get health insurance from a single government plan. Other polls have put the number at less than 50% support but trending upward.

More on Medicare for All!