The doctors say "start over" with Medicare For All

PHIMG

(814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-02-09 10:34 PM
Original message

The doctors say "start over" with Medicare For All

The doctors of PNHP say this bill is garbage. Here's why:

PNHP Talking points on the Mandate Plans

� The plan is completely inadequate in expanding coverage and
controlling costs. It is essentially an insurance industry bailout. Most
provisions to expand coverage don't even go into effect until 2013, after
which it still leaves at least 17 million Americans uninsured.
� The insurance industry hijacked the process: Private insurers get
millions of mandatory new customers and about $600 billion in taxpayer
subsidies. This will have the effect of making the health insurance lobby
even more powerful, and more able to hijack political processes in the
future.
� It forgoes over $400 billion annually in potential savings on overhead
and bureaucracy in the health system - enough to cover all 47 million
uninsured - by retaining profit-driven private health insurers instead of
replacing them with a streamlined, more efficient, Medicare for All
system.
� It makes private health insurance mandatory for middle-income working
people, forcing them to buy a defective product. It will become a federal
crime to be uninsured, with a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, starting
in 2013. Families of very modest means, at 200-400 percent of poverty,
will be required to spend an unaffordable 8-12 percent of their incomes
on insurance premiums if they don't have employer-sponsored coverage.
Since the plan institutionalizes different levels of benefits and allows for
skimpy plans (e.g. "bronze"), the mandated insurance may not even
cover their health needs.
� We will have a nation of underinsured families and businesses who will
be paying money they can hardly afford for health plans that will never
meet their needs. Globally, the U.S. economy will continue to be at a
competitive disadvantage.
� A Medicaid expansion will cover more low-income Americans, but
coverage gains - both in Medicaid and for people receiving tax
assistance to buy coverage - will be short-lived because the cost is
unsustainable as we've seen in several states that have attempted reform
in recent years.
� People in other developed nations all use some form of non-profit
national health insurance to get better care for less money. Their
average per capita cost of healthcare is about half what it is in the United
States, yet people in Canada and western Europe live about two years
longer and have lower infant mortality. As with our traditional Medicare
program, they have completely free choice of doctor and hospital. We
need to start from scratch with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer
approach.
On private insurers
� Private health insurance is an overpriced, defective product, and this plan
won't change that. The majority of Americans who face medical
bankruptcy start their illness with private health insurance, but are
bankrupted anyway by gaps in coverage, like co-payments, deductibles
and uncovered services.
� Individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty
($73,240 for a family of 3) are eligible for skimpy subsidies to buy
coverage through a new "insurance exchange." Families of very modest
means (200-400 percent of poverty) are still responsible for paying an
unaffordable 8-12 percent of their income towards health insurance
premiums.
� The plan bans denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions
(starting in 2013) and recissions (retro-active cancellation of coverage)
immediately. But insurers are still allowed to deny claims, and two
industry whistleblowers (Dr. Linda Peeno and Wendell Potter) have
testified before Congress that the industry is now so sophisticated in its
ability to deny claims, control care, and cherry-pick that these
protections are essentially worthless.
� Similarly, caps on out-of-pocket expenses (at $5,000 for individuals and
$10,000 for families) don't prevent medical bankruptcy because they
don't include expenses for uncovered services.
� Insurers are supposed to spend 85 percent of premiums on care, but
experience from Minnesota shows that insurers are able to circumvent
this rule easily by categorizing administrative expenses as "clinical" or
"quality improvement."
On Medicaid and community health center expansion
� The plan expands Medicaid after 2013 to additional low-income
Americans (up to 150 percent of poverty), which is good, but you don't
need this plan to expand Medicaid. Also, rising costs, and a lack of
funds for Medicaid at the state level, will quickly erode any gains in
coverage.
� The plan increases funding for community health centers, which again, is
good, but this could be done independently.
� The plan eliminates the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2014,
routing the beneficiaries into Medicaid (under 150 percent of poverty) or
into the purchase of private coverage), adding hassle and possibly
disrupting care arrangements for these children.
On the public option
� The public plan option is a sham. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, the premiums will actually be higher than premiums in
the private sector, and fewer than 2 percent of Americans will enroll. So
the public plan option will be an expensive, tax-funded subsidy to
private health insurance, because the public plan option will take the
sickest patients off their hands. It won't expand coverage or decrease
costs.
On the employer-mandate
� Starting in 2013, employers with payrolls over $500,000 are required to
provide coverage and pay a share of the premiums (72.5 % for
individual, 65% for family coverage) or pay an 8 percent payroll tax.
� Employers are not required to meet benefit standards until 2018, but
even then are only required to help fund the "lowest cost plan" that
meets the "essential benefits package," and so may offer very skimpy
coverage. The "basic plan" on the insurance exchange, for example, is
only required to cover 70 percent of benefit costs. As there are no cost
controls, coverage will deteriorate further, leading to a rise in
underinsurance nationwide.
� Millions of working Americans will continue to lack coverage. In
Hawaii, which has had an employer mandate since the 1970's, many
employers circumvent the requirement by hiring part-time employees or
using consultants. Also, small businesses are not required to provide
coverage (but receive a paltry tax credit for two years if they do).
On the insurance exchange and tax subsidies
� The plan creates a national insurance exchange, a marketplace where
individuals and small business would go (after 2013) to buy insurance. If
you have subsidized coverage, you would have to buy your insurance
through the exchange. Like the "Connector" in Massachusetts, the
exchange will add another layer of bureaucracy to the health system, and
an additional 4 percent overhead to every health plan.
� Subsidies for low-income people to purchase coverage will be
hopelessly complex, requiring verification of income, citizenship,
employer size, etc.
� Millions will have their subsidies change as they change or lose jobs.
Imagine finding a job, losing your insurance subsidy, then being laid off
your job and applying for a subsidy all within a year. How would this
work?
On evidence that this plan won't reduce the number of uninsured or
control costs

� The coverage gains from the plan won't last. What's happened in the
past when bills like this have passed in the states is that they run out of
money very quickly, healthcare is simply unaffordable, and then you
start to see the coverage expansions cut back. The subsidies shrink, the
Medicaid shrinks, and then you're back at square one, where you've
spent a lot of money and not made any progress. And we've seen this
over and over in the United States-in Massachusetts in 1988, in Oregon
in 1992, in Washington 1993-passed bills virtually identical to what's
being passed in the House right now, and there was no durable
improvement in the number of uninsured in those states. Healthcare was
not affordable ten years after those bills were passed.
� The Massachusetts plan is the model for this bill. Massachusetts
expanded Medicaid (which again, is good, but you don't need this plan to
expand Medicaid) and passed an individual mandate that makes it illegal
to refuse to purchase private health insurance. The fine is up to $1,068.
The plan has been very expensive. The state has opted to pay for that by
taking money from safety net clinics and hospitals, so that safety net
providers that care for immigrants, the mentally ill, people with
substance abuse, that provide primary care, they've seen their funds
shrunken, so that money could be handed over to purchase insurance
policies.
On the anti-abortion provisions
� The plan applies restrictions to policies sold through the insurance
exchange to undermine women's rights. It creates an insurance
exchange, a marketplace where you would go to buy your insurance. If
you have subsidized coverage, you would have to buy your insurance
through the exchange. And any insurance plan purchased through the
exchange would have to exclude coverage of abortion. So, for the first
time, Congress has stepped in and said that even with your own money,
with private money, it's illegal for insurance to cover abortion. It's a
tremendous step backwards for women's rights.

On prescription drug costs
� It fails to lower drug costs for the majority of Americans and those
unable to afford expense medications. Drugmakers have raised
wholesale prices on brand name drugs by 9 percent this year alone in
anticipation of reform.
� Biotech firms receive a windfall 12 year patent on new drugs.
� A very small share of the population, Medicare recipients who are in the
doughnut hole, will receive a discount on brand-name medications.
� The doughnut hole is reduced in size until it is eliminated in 2019.
� Overall, the pharmaceutical industry is thrilled with the bill, and Wall
Street has rewarded them by driving up the value of their stocks.
On undocumented immigrants
� Requires verification of citizenship to apply for subsidies for the
purchase of insurance. Thus, the plan mandates that non-citizens buy
insurance, but leaves it unaffordable for them.
Medicare Advantage Plans
� The plan phases out overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. It also
requires them to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on care, but as
shown in states like Massachusetts, insurers can easily circumvent this
rule.
Summary of commendable features - some may not make it into final bill
� Medicaid expansion (delayed until 2013) to about 10 million people
� Increased funding for community health centers (to double capacity over
time) and other community programs like home visiting programs.
� Increased funding for primary care health professional education
� Phasing out of doughnut hole in Medicare prescription drug plan by
2019 and Medicare Advantage plan overpayments
� Eliminating pre-existing conditions (2013) and recissions (2010)
� Extending health benefit tax benefits available to married couples to
domestic partners
� Extending parental coverage to children aged 26-27
� Progressive tax on the wealthy for funding instead of taxing health plans
that are comprehensive (so-called "Cadillac" plans)