Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 2

Please read Part 1 of this post before continuing.

Not surprisingly, there have been several criticisms of the Sommers, Long and Baicker study. Here are the main ones I've been able to identify so far, and my comments on each.

• It's too good to be true. The New York Times reports that experts are “skeptical of the magnitude and suddenness of the decline” in mortality. According to Dr. Joseph  Antos, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute, “Health care is a much more involved process—you don't just sign up and suddenly get well.” This objection, of course, does not explain the results. These researchers may be overlooking the fact that being without health insurance is a psychological stressor, the removal of which may have widespread health benefits.

• The results contradict those of the Oregon Medicaid study. A 2013 study by Baicker, et al., examined the effects of Medicaid expansion in Oregon using a randomized control group design. (The opportunity to sign up for Medicaid was determined by lottery.) Although this study found economic and psychological benefits of Medicaid, its effects on objective measures of health were disappointing.  Blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels were all lower in the Medicaid group, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, the Oregon study's sample size was too small to detect medically important health benefits. The Massachusetts study has many more particpants. If the same percentage decline in mortality observed in the Massachusetts study had been seen in Oregon, it too would not have been statistically significant. The two studies are not inconsistent. An important strength of the Massachusetts study is its larger sample size. Furthermore, it measured the effects of the entire health reform package, not just Medicaid expansion.

• It costs too much. Using the Sommers, et al., data, Cannon calculated that it cost Massachusetts $4 million per life saved. He argues that this is not cost effective. However, this assumes that the only benefit people received from Romneycare was when it saved their lives. It ignores the many health and quality of life benefits people receive from medical treatments for non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries. What is the value of a knee or hip replacement that allows a person to walk free of pain for 20 years? How do you measure the benefits to a family of avoiding bankruptcy and the loss of their home?

• Massachusetts is different from other states. Massachusetts is “whiter and more affluent” than most other states, but the matched comparison groups control for race and income. It could be argued that Massachusetts has a more effective health care system (more doctors, better-equipped hospitals) than other states. However, a convincing alternative explanation must explain not just lower mortality in Massachusetts, but all the results. Why did the mortality rate change from 2001-2005 to 2007-2010? Wouldn't a better health care system be expected to help people over 65 as well? As Sommers, et al., state in their conclusion:

Although we cannot rule out unmeasured confounders, it is challenging to identify factors other than health care reform that might have produced this pattern of results: a declining mortality rate in Massachusetts since 2007 not present in similar counties elsewhere in the country, primarily for health care-amenable causes of death in adults aged 20 to 64 years (but not elderly adults), concentrated among poor and uninsured areas and not explained by changes in poverty or unemployment rates.

Of course, health insurance is useless if there are no doctors or hospitals in your area. The quality of the health system may have interacted with health care reform to produce a better result in Massachusetts than would be expected in other states. This does not explain away the results, but it may limit our ability to generalize from them.

• More research is needed. This cliché is, of course, trivially true. However, it is unrealistic to expect definitive studies of effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), since it is being implemented simultaneously in all 50 states. There are no experimental and control groups, only before and after comparisons, the results of which can easily be dismissed as caused by other changes taking place in society at the same time. About the best we can expect will be comparisons between states that do or do not expand Medicaid. (Pennsylvanians will be happy to know that, thanks to Governor Tom Corbett and our legislature, future researchers will be counting the number of excess deaths in our state.) However, states that are not expanding Medicaid are already known to differ both economically and politically from other states. And while Medicaid expansion is an important provision of the ACA, it is only a part of it.

In short, the Sommers, et al., study may be the best that is available for the foreseeable future. Even conservative critics of health care reform are granting it grudging respect.  Megan McArdle stated, "(A)fter yesterday's report, I've revised the probability of 'huge benefits' [from health care reform] upward, and you should do the same."

You may also be interested in reading:

Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 1

Big News From Oregon:  Not All of It Good

The Coverage Gap:  The Real Failure of Obamacare

Romneycare:  The Bottom Line

Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 1

In 2006, Massachusetts implemented the country's first comprehensive health care reform (“Romneycare”). It made health insurance mandatory for nearly all citizens, expanded Medicaid to cover people earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and provided health insurance subsidies for people with incomes up to 300% of FPL. It became the structural model for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A previous study showed that Massachusetts residents reported themselves to be in better health following the implementation of Romneycare. A new study out this week shows that health care reform significantly reduced the mortality rate in Massachusetts compared to nearby states. This is the bottom line in health care research. It's good news not only for the ACA, but for single payer advocates as well, since single payer would further expand the number of people covered by health insurance and would presumably reduce the red tape and out-of-pocket costs that keep some people from using health care.

The study, by Drs. Ben Sommers, Sharon Long, and Katherine Baicker, is a quasi-experimental design. It lacks an important feature of true experiments—random assignmnent of participants to conditions—but attempts to compensate for this by using a matched comparison group that controls for most plausible alternative explanations. In this case, the experimental group was the citizens of Massachusetts. Each county in Massachusetts was matched with a comparison county drawn from a nearby state. The counties were matched for age distribution, race and ethnicity, poverty, income, unemployment, lack of health insurance, and their existing mortality rate. The authors compared the mortality rates of adults under 65 from 2001-2005 (prereform) to 2007-2010 (postreform). Here are the results.

• Mortality in Massachusetts declined 2.9% relative to the comparison group. This is equivalent to 8.2 deaths per 100,000 people, or one death prevented for every 830 people who obtain health insurance. The New York Times calculates that a national 2.9% decline in mortality among adults under 65 would translate to about 17,000 lives saved per year. Harold Pollack claims that the number is as high as 24,000 per year.
• Mortality “amenable to health care,” i.e., from causes such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes, declined 4.5% relative to the control group. Mortality from causes not amenable to health care was unchanged. See the chart below.
  
  

• Mortality among people over 65 was unaffected. This is to be expected, since senior citizens already had Medicare.
• Reductions in the mortality rate were greatest among counties with the lowest incomes and the lowest rates of insurance coverage prior to reform.
• As you would expect, the study also found significant increases in insurance coverage, access to medical care, and self-reported health in Massachusetts compared to the comparison group.

As health care expert Austin Frakt has noted, this study constitutes the strongest evidence yet that having health insurance can save your life. Nevertheless, the study is not without its critics. I will look at some of those criticisms in Part 2 of this post.

You may also be interested in reading:

Big News From Oregon:  Not All of It Good

The Coverage Gap:  The Real Failure of Obamacare

Romneycare:  The Bottom Line

The Coverage Gap: The Real Failure of Obamacare

Right now, the corporate media are focused like a laser on the “scandal” of the malfunctioning of the national health insurance exchange website. Although these glitches reflect negatively on the Obama administration, they are technical problems that will be fixed. They have nothing to do with the substance of the law. A more important failure is the number of people, particularly poor people, who will remain uninsured after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented. This is not the fault of the act as written, but is the result of the Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality and intractable opposition from Republican politicians.

An October study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that 5.2 million non-elderly adults living below the federal poverty level (FPL) will remain uninsured in 2014 because they live in the 26 states that—at the time of the study—had declined to participate in the Medicaid expansion. These states are concentrated in the South and West and are controlled largely by Republican governors and legislatures. About half of Americans, but 58% of America's uninsured working poor, live in those states. Pennsylvania is among them. Our Medicaid expansion status is uncertain, but even if the Corbett administration reaches agreement with the federal government on an expansion plan, it is unlikely to be implemented in 2014.

To review, of the approximately 30 million people who were expected to be insured for the first time under the ACA, fully half of them—the poorest half—were to be insured through Medicaid expansion. Traditional Medicaid is jointly administered by the state and federal governments. Federal law requires that all children be covered if their family makes less than the FPL. Children under six are covered up to 133% of FPL. The eligibility rules for adults are determined by the states. In most states, adults without children don't qualify no matter how poor they are. The income level at which parents with dependent children qualify for Medicaid varies from a low of about 20% of FPL in the least generous states to a high of 133% is the most generous states. (In Pennsylvania, it is 46%.)

The ACA expanded Medicaid by making everyone—children and adults—eligible for Medicaid if their family income is 138% of FPL or less. Since this is expensive, the feds agreed to pay most of the cost: 100% in 2014, dropping to 95% in 2017 and 90% in 2020. The ACA required states to implement Medicaid expansion. If they refused, the federal government threatened to withhold its contribution to traditional Medicare—about 57% of the cost. However, this clashed with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court's long-term goal of rolling back federal regulation of the states. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, the Supremes decided that the Medicaid expansion rules were coercive and that states may opt out. This denies medical care to many of the Americans who need it most, people who fall into the coverage gap.

The ACA provides subsidies, on a sliding scale, for people individuals and families whose income is between 100% and 400% of FPL. The coverage gap consists of those people, living in states that do not expand Medicaid, who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in their state, but whose income is below 100% of FPL, the level at which the subsidies kick in. This is illustrated in the chart below.

As noted, poor and uninsured Americans tend to be concentrated in the “red states” that are not expanding Medicaid. Twenty percent of the people in the coverage gap live in Texas, and another 15% live in Florida, followed by Georgia with 8% and North Carolina with 6%. At present, 6.8% of the residents of states that are participating Medicaid expansion are poor and uninsured, but 9.1% of the residents of the refusing states are poor and uninsured. The chart below shows the breakdown of the poor and uninsured by race, and shows that Medicaid expansion has a discriminatory impact.

	Live in States Expanding	Live in States Not Expanding
White	40%	60%
Black	32%	68%
Hispanic	51%	49%
Asian	70%	30%
Total	42%	58%

These are America's working poor. By occupation, the folks most likely to be poor and uninsured are (1) cashiers, (2) construction laborers, (3) housekeepers, (4) cooks, and (5) waiters and waitresses.

At the time the ACA was passed, single payer advocates noted that the ACA provided less than universal coverage. The largest excluded group is undocumented immigrants, but the ACA also excludes native Americans and people who are incarcerated, have a religious objection, or can prove financial hardship. To that we must now add 5.2 million working poor Americans, a target group that the ACA was clearly intended to help. These people are being left to die for lack of health care. It will be interesting to see whether they respond at the ballot box when they realize what their state politicians have done to them.

Single payer health insurance is needed now more than ever.

You may also be interested in reading:

A Clouded Vision, Part 1: The Stick  (See both parts)

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: "Drop Dead!"  Part 1  (See all four parts)

The Friday Morning Quarterback

A Clouded Vision, Part 2: The Carrot

Please read Part 1 of this post.

The Carrot

If the Obama administration agrees to the Medicaid "reforms" described in Part 1, then Pennsylvania will accept its gift of virtually free money. However, there is an important catch. People who make up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will be given this money to purchase private insurance policies through the national health insurance exchange. (Corbett refused to establish a PA exchange, so Pennsylvanians will be using the national exchange.) This means that people who would have been eligible for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now be exposed to all the disadvantages associated with the private insurance market, including copayments that are likely to be considerably higher than PA Medicaid's current copayments. An exception is made for people in this income group deemed to be “medically frail,” who will be allowed to enroll in PA Medicaid.

Moreover, there is ambiguity in the meaning of this proposal. Most of you probably know that private health insurance offering comparable coverage is significantly more expensive than Medicaid—about $3000 more per person per year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is possible that Corbett is asking the federal government to pay the full cost of these private policies, in which case it will be paying more for Medicaid expansion in PA than in other states. The other possibility is that Pennsylvanians will be given a sum of money comparable to the cost of Medicaid, and they will either have to pay part of the premium themselves or accept less comprehensive coverage. A similar plan proposed by Arkansas asks the federal government to pay the full cost of Arkansans' private insurance, but it's not certain if this is legal. If this is what Corbett is proposing, people from other states are being asked to pick up part of the tab for PA's more expensive private health insurance! Since conservatives claim to be concerned about the high cost of providing health care to poor people, this seems like an odd stance for them to be taking.

Not mentioned is the fact that adding so many low income people to the exchanges will almost certainly drive up the cost of insurance premiums for everyone, since they are likely to be in poorer health than the general population.

There is no timetable for when Corbett's plan will take effect, but since it was not submitted to the Obama administration until now, it's unlikely to be available in January 2014.

People who are committed to health care for all Pennsylvanians will find obvious drawbacks to Corbett's Medicaid “reform” package. It significantly weakens the Medicaid program. It increases costs and reduces benefits for the poorest Pennsylvanians, and is almost certain to result in less actual health care being received. The job search requirements are unnecessarily punitive in an economy that falls far short of providing full employment and seem designed to force Pennsylvanians to accept jobs that fail to provide a living wage.

The “expansion” component of the package is likely to drive a wedge between progressive groups. On the one hand, it's just more corporate welfare for the private health insurance companies, corporations that are almost certainly among Corbett's and the Republicans' more generous contributors. On the other hand, if the proposal is accepted, 500,000 to 700,000 working class Pennsylvanians who are presently uninsured will receive some health care. It won't be as good as what they would have received under the ACA, but many progressives will argue that something is better than nothing.

Compared to Medicaid expansion under the ACA, The two parts of Corbett's plan  represent a significant transfer of wealth from PA's poor and working class citizens to some of its largest and most profitable corporations.

Single-payer health care advocates are faced with a similar conflict to the one they faced with the ACA. Is half a loaf better than none? As the loaf gets progressively smaller, at what point do we withdraw our support and say, “No more!”?

Whether Corbett's plan will be implemented depends on whether it is accepted by the Obama administration. How “flexible” is the President willing to be? Similar plans have been advanced by Arkansas and Iowa, but Health and Human Services has not yet announced whether they will be approved. One feature of Corbett's plan that is unprecedented is the job search requirement as a condition of receiving Medicaid. Some states charge monthly premiums for Medicaid, but only for people with incomes above 100% of FPL. Are there any health care principles that Obama will not compromise? Having already moved pretty far to the right, Corbett's plan may seem to the White House to be just a baby step further.

Watch this space. Further details of the plan and data describing its financial impact are likely to become available soon. I will update this report as soon as they do.

You may also be interested in reading:

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: “Drop Dead!” (Part 1) (See all four parts.)

Medicaid Expansion Update

A Clouded Vision, Part 1: The Stick

With his reelection campaign coming up next year, PA Governor Tom Corbett is apparently no longer able to resist the pressure to accept Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Yesterday he unveiled the bare bones of a plan to expand Medicaid, while claiming that he is not. The plan lacks critical details and leaves many questions unanswered. It has not yet been accepted by the Obama administration, and should they not agree to it, it would fall through. It has, however, been endorsed by two powerful health care lobbies, the Pennsylvania Medical Society and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

The plan is called “Healthy Pennsylvania,” and is described in official propaganda as “Governor Corbett's vision” for Pennsylvania. Much of the plan is empty rhetoric, referring to health care policies that are already in place, or new initiatives that appear not to be accompanied by any proposed legislation. Some of the new initiatives—such as “reform” of the medical liability system—are not good ideas, but I'll save that argument for another day. Of the four documents the Corbett administration has released, those parts of the plan that refer to Medicaid reform or expansion are described most clearly in this document.

We can think of the plan as having two parts—the carrot and the stick. The stick is “reform” of PA's existing Medicaid program, which Corbett says is too costly. These changes have the effect of reducing Medicaid benefits to healthy adult recipients, and increasing costs for most recipients. The carrot is a flawed version of Medicaid expansion through private insurance, which Corbett insists is not Medicaid expansion at all. (He's right.) He will agree to expand health insurance availability if and only if he gets his way and the feds agree to his “reform” plan.

The Stick

PA's existing Medicaid program is one of the stingiest in the country. Healthy adults only qualify for Medicaid if they earn less than 46% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Children under six are covered up to 133% of FPL, and older children up to 100% of FPL. The aged, blind and disabled are also eligible up to 100% of FPL, but only if they have assets of less than $2000 per individual or $3000 per couple.

Corbett repeatedly refers to PA's Medicaid program as one of the most expensive in the nation. It's true that PA spends 34% more than the national average per enrollee. However, PA has fewer enrollees per capita than most other states. The chart below compares PA's Medicaid recipients to those of the US generally. PA has fewer healthy adults, who are the cheapest to cover, because of its strict eligibility requirements for this group. A higher percentage of its enrollees are seniors and people with disabilities, who require more expensive long-term care. Moreover, only 22% of PA's long-term care budget is spent on community and home-based care. The national average is 40%.

Here is what Corbett is proposing. To avoid confusion, remember that these “reforms” only apply to people who are currently eligible for PA's traditional Medicaid.

1. Changes in benefits. Proposed changes in benefits only apply to healthy adult recipients; benefits for children, seniors and people with disabilities will remain unchanged. Medicaid benefits are to be aligned with the benefits provided by private, commercial insurance available in PA's workplaces. What these benefits will be, of course, depends on what private policies they use as their standard. Will they more closely resemble the corporate executive package or the Wal-Mart package? They don't say. But since the goal of the plan is to save money, it is reasonable to assume that they are planning to reduce benefits below what Medicaid enrollees currently receive.

2. Cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is to be achieved by charging a monthly premium. The premiums begin for people who are above 50% FPL. These minimum premiums are not stated. However, they increase on a sliding scale up to a maximum of $25 per month per individual and $35 per household at 133% of FPL. Although it is not explicitly stated, presumably everyone, including children, seniors and the disabled, will pay these premiums. (Healthy adults are only covered up to 46% of FPL, so there would be no need for this cost-sharing plan if it only applied to healthy adults.) Premiums will be indexed to inflation, so they will go up each year.

3. Copayments. Medicaid copayments, which are not particularly high, are eliminated entirely, with one exception. There is a $10 copayment for “unnecessary” or “inappropriate”—as yet undefined—emergency room use. This latter proposal has long been part of the hospital lobby's wish list.

4. Work search requirements. Healthy adult recipients will be treated just like people who apply for unemployment. All working age, unemployed recipients will be required to engage in a job search through PA JobGateway program. There is a premium reduction—amount unspecified—for people participating in job training and work search.

5. Wellness programs. There is also a premium reduction—amount unspecified—for people who participate in wellness programs. Research has so far not shown wellness programs to result in measurable health improvements.

Corbett says his Medicaid “reform” package will result in “significant cost savings.” Will it actually save money? The monthly premium seems to be the only financially significant part of the package. Most of the rest of the plan only applies to healthy adult recipients, which limits its ability to save money, since so few current enrollees fall into this category.

Please read Part 2 of this post.

You may also be interested in reading:

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: “Drop Dead!” (Part 1) (See all four parts.)

Medicaid Expansion Update

No Medicaid Expansion = Higher Health Insurance Premiums

The Rand Corporation has published a study of the predicted effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on private insurance markets in 2014. Like several other recent reports, they conclude that the claims of ACA opponents that insurance premiums would increase dramatically are not justified. However, one aspect of their report is of special interest to Pennyslvanians. It concerns the effect of Governor Tom Corbett's decision not to expand Medicaid on the costs to those Pennsylvanians who purchase their health insurance as individuals—that is, who do not purchase health insurance through their employer. First, let's review a few facts.

• The ACA expands eligibility for Medicaid to all legal residents whose income is less than 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Medicaid is administered by the states. However, the federal government will pay the full cost of Medicaid expansion in 2014. The feds' share declines to 90% by 2020.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the ACA's Medicaid expansion was coercive, and that states can decide whether or not to expand eligibility for Medicaid beyond their current limits. Governor Corbett has announced that Pennsylvania will not participate in Medicaid expansion.
• Pennsylvania is currently one of the least generous states in providing Medicaid. Adults only qualify for Medicaid if they earn less than 46% of FPL. Children under six are covered up to 133% of FPL, and older children up to 100% of FPL.
• To encourage people to buy private insurance, the ACA provides subsidies, known as advance premium tax credits, to people making between 100% and 400% of FPL. The lower their income, the greater the subsidy.
• This means that Pennsylvanians making between 46% and 100% of FPL are screwed. No Medicaid and no subsidy means that most of them will be uninsured. They will simply die at a higher rate than they would if Medicaid were expanded. (See my earlier series of four posts for estimates of the effect of Corbett's decision on mortality in Pennsylvania. Here's part 1.)
• However, people making between 100% and 138% of FPL will be eligible for fairly generous subsidies. Many of these folks are currently uninsured. It is anticipated that most, though not all, of them will purchase private insurance.

The Rand study looked at the effect of the entry of this group—people between 100% and 138% of FPL—into the non-group private insurance market. They analyzed it in three states, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, chosen they said because these states were least likely to expand Medicaid. Rand estimates that the effect of rejecting Medicaid expansion in these will be to increase private insurance premiums by 8-10%. There are two reasons for this:

1. Extensive research shows that there is a positive relationship between income and health. The higher your income, the healthier you tend to be. Thus, people between 100% and 138% of FPL are sicker than the average adult and will require more medical care. This will drive up insurance premiums for everyone in the risk pool.
2. Not all of the people between 100% and 138% will try to buy insurance. Some will decide they can't afford it, even with the subsidy. When not everyone purchases insurance, adverse selection occurs. Adverse selection refers to the fact that sicker people are more likely than healthy people to buy health insurance. This adds further to insurance costs.

Rand is confident that premiums will go up, but admits that their estimate of 8-10% is uncertain, primarily because it's hard to predict what percentage of the people between 100% and 138% of FPL will purchase insurance. Unfortunately, they didn't include Pennsylvania in their analysis. My guess is that our premium increase will be less dramatic because we have a slightly lower percentage of poor people than the three states they analyzed.

You may also be interested in reading:

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: “Drop Dead!” (Part 1) (See all four parts.)

Medicaid Expansion Update

Sandy Fox campaigning to make TIAA-CREF more Socially Resposible on Healthcare

Sandy Fox, Co Chair of the Western PA Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare, has been campaigning for the educational retirement fund TIAA-CREF to divest from private health insurers.  Below is a press release from Healthcare-Now on her efforts.

TIAA-CREF shareholders meeting hears call to divest from ‘unethical’ private health insurers

Shareholder’s comments provoke response from company’s president

News release, Healthcare-NOW!, July 17, 2013

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Having suffered an earlier rejection by the leadership of TIAA-CREF of a shareholders resolution calling on the huge, nonprofit investment company to divest its funds from private health insurance firms because of the latter’s “unethical behavior,” a spokesperson for the divestment group took the microphone at the organization’s annual meeting Tuesday and urged just such a course of action.

Shareholder Sandra Fox, speaking on behalf of herself and others who have appealed to TIAA-CREF to divest its holdings in WellPoint and other giant health insurers, said such firms are not managed in an “exemplary and ethical manner” – a criterion for inclusion in the company’s portfolio – and therefore should be scrapped.

Going into to the meeting, Fox said: “The practices of these companies are anything but socially responsible. They make money by denying coverage, raising premiums, and increasing co-pays and deductibles, deterring patients from seeking care. Their everyday operations result in high overhead expenses, spiraling health care costs, worsening health, premature loss of life, and bankruptcy of countless Americans.”

Speaking from the floor to her fellow shareholders, she reiterated those points and stressed that the big health insurers have been repeatedly cited and fined by regulatory bodies and the courts for improper, unethical conduct.

Roger Ferguson, president and CEO of TIAA-CREF, who chaired the meeting, acknowledged Fox’s comments and said her group’s efforts had already made an impact. Ferguson said MSCI, its vendor for rating companies, had downgraded the stock of two health insurance companies based on the information her group had provided. He did not name which two companies they were.

Ferguson also said the dialogue on this issue would continue.

TIAA-CREF is one of the nation’s top financial services companies. It manages retirement, life insurance and other funds for people in academic, medical, faith-based and cultural fields. Its annual meeting was held today at its gated office complex in Charlotte.

Fox, a longtime social worker who lives in Pittsburgh, cited the findings of Harvard Medical School research and the congressional testimony of insurance industry whistleblowers to support her charge that private health insurers are not serving the public interest, but in fact are doing serious harm.

She is part of a larger national movement, the Divestment Campaign for Health Care, which is supported by Healthcare-NOW!, the national single-payer health care advocacy organization, and whose website is HealthCareNotWealthfare.us.

On their website, the group says the private companies should be replaced by a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system, which “would provide excellent coverage to all by taking the private health insurance companies out of the equation and putting the needs of patients before profit.”

-- 
Sandy Fox
Co-Chair, Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare
www.WPaSinglePayer.org

**Related Posts** 

 

Biweekly Vigil at Sen. Casey's Office to Protect Social Securtiy and Medicare

Ed Grystar on the Other Possibilities Network

 

My life was threatened by the multi-company, private health insurance system we currently have (repost from Joanne Tosti-Vasey's Blog)

Healthcare for All PA state Board Member and past PA Now President has written an article in http://civilrightsadvocacy.net/ on her own personal struggles with the insurance industry.  It is reposted here with her permission.  The name of the blog has changed to Healthcare for All PA PUSH to reflect that we are a chapter of the statewide organization.

Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) has reintroduced his National Health Care plan bill HR 676, “The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act.” I strongly support a universal national health care program such as HR 676. I also support any effort by any state to implement a state-based single-payer health care plan. Why?  For many reasons.

My life was threatened by the multi-company, private health insurance system we currently have.

I received a bone marrow transplant in 1989 from my identical twin sister. Although I had no problem finding a match, I had to jump through many hoops and barriers put up by the two health insurance companies covering my sister and myself. In the case of my insurance provider, I was refused coverage of the donor portion of the transplant because my twin sister wasn’t on my health insurance plan. In the case of my twin sister’s insurance provider, they refused to cover her portion of the transplant because she “wasn’t sick.” Then the hospital administration said that they would not perform the transplant until this conflict between the two insurance agencies was resolved with a guarantee of payment by either or both companies. And my doctors said that if the resolution did not occur rapidly, I would be dead within the year due to the seriousness of the form of leukemia that I had.
According to Health Care for America, health insurance companies profit by denying–not by providing–healthcare. Health insurance CEOs of the top 10 health insurance companies today typically enjoy an average of $10,000,000 in annual compensation–salary, bonuses, stock options, etc.

Back to my story. I went into battle mode against the insurance companies when I was told that they would let me die because of their bottom line and attempts to deny coverage. Because of the support and advocacy I had through the organization where I self-purchased my health insurance (the National Organization for Women), we were finally able to get me the life-saving transplant that I needed. And I am here today.
This experience is why I became an advocate for a single-payer health care system rather than the current system that allows private companies the ability to deny critical health care to “save” their bottom line for profit only.

Other Reasons why I support a Universal Health Care Plan at Either the National or State Level.

It is the ethical and moral to treat all people, regardless of economics or status when they are sick.

A 2009 article in the Journal of Public Health reports that approximately 45,000 people on average die each year due to lack of health insurance. One of the goals of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to reduce the number of people without health insurance, so that premature deaths from lack of coverage would also be reduced.
People will continue to struggle to receive health care coverage and treatment with both passage of the ACA and the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the ACA as constitutional while allowing states to opt out of the expanded Medicaid program for low-income people.
The Centers for Disease Control acknowledges that access to coverage will improve under the ACA. But that acknowledgement holds a caveat; they state, “Even after ACA is implemented fully, some persons eligible for coverage might go uninsured.” The ACA will not fully resolve this ethical and moral threat to peoples’ lives. 

Some states are threatening people’s health care and lives based on decisions either by their legislature and/or their governors.

These states place people who could have been covered under the Expanded Medicaid program in continued jeopardy since they will neither be able to sign up for Medicaid nor be able to afford private health insurance through the ACA’s health care exchanges. The 13 states that have already threatened the healthcare of their citizens are Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Five states – Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wyoming—are leaning towards opting out of coverage. Kentucky, New York and Oregon haven’t yet made their decision, but do appear to be leaning towards opting into full ACA with the expanded Medicaid coverage. All remaining 22 states plus the District of Columbia have opted into full ACA with the expanded Medicaid coverage.


Via: The Advisory Board Company
For the low-income people living in the 18 states that have either opted out of or are considering opting out of the expanded Medicaid coverage, nothing changes for them since most of these individuals will not be able to afford private health insurance in the new health care exchanges under the ACA.

A Single Payer, Universal Healthcare program would cover everyone.

According to predictions by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Commission on Taxation, we will we still have 30 million uninsured in 2023 under Obamacare. At the same time, health care costs for our nation, states, and families will continue to increase. A single-payer, universal healthcare program could cover everyone at lower cost. Everyone in and no one out regardless of income or health status.

The BETTER Alternatives: National and State-Based Single-Payer Plans

The plan introduced by Representative Conyers is basically an expansion of the efficient and cost-effective Medicare system currently used by the elderly and people with disabilities. Its overhead (all costs other than for healthcare) is much lower–and patient satisfaction is much higher–than under for-profit healthcare. And it would cover everyone regardless of their economic or health status without fear of an insurance company denying coverage to save their bottom line.

Similarly, legislation is being considered in about half of the states to create state-based single-payer healthcare programs. Some of these states’  legislatures have held hearings and/or had votes on universal healthcare. Vermont has already passed a law that sets in place the possibility of a single-payer healthcare program by 2017. 2017 is the year that the ACA—aka “Obamacare”—allows states to try other healthcare plans IF they cover at least the same number of people with at least the minimum coverage under the ACA.
Obamacare is now the law of the land. It is an improvement over what we had before 2009. It is also the basis from which we can work towards a comprehensive healthcare program. We could do it nationally, such as with HR 676. Or, like Canada, we can start at the state level.

So check out HR 676. See if your Representative is one of the 40 current co-sponsors. If not, meet with him/her, tell your personal story about why you support an expanded and improved Medicare for All, and ask them to co-sponsor the bill. If he/she is already a co-sponsor, ask your Representative to take the next step. They can hold a town-hall meeting on universal healthcare to hear from their constituents. They can also call on the chairs of the three committees reviewing HR 676 to hold Congressional hearings on HR 676. These three committees are the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the House Natural Resources Committee.
Also get active with your state-based single-payer organization. These local and state-based single-payer health care groups will let you know how can help with your state-based legislation. Healthcare NOW has a full listing of state- and local-based organizations. If your state does not have a single-payer chapter yet, contact Healthcare NOW at their national office in Philadelphia, PA; they can help you to organize a plan for your state.

All other “advanced” nations have already adopted comprehensive healthcare systems. All deliver better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost than the USA. Let’s get cracking. Let’s do it here in the US of A as well.

**Related Post**

Joanne Tosti-Vasey's Bone Marrow Transplant Story

The First Year of the PUSH Healthcare for All PA Blog

Your doctor, your choice

This is one of the slogans we believe in here at Healthcare for All PA.  It has been one year since we set up this blog.  The popular posts listed on the right are the top 5 for the last 30 days and since the blog began.  A more comprehensive list of the 10 most popular posts, out of 110 total, since the blog began, according to the built in stat counter, are listed below.

1.  Bob Mason's Letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

This one has received a lot of hits due to excellent writing by state VP Bob Mason on how the state Department of Public Welfare has dropped hospital care for newborns.


2.  Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn’t Have Health Care | The New Civil Rights Movement

While running for president last winter Senator Santorum denied that anyone dies due to a lack of health insurance.  This post got a big response as it debunked his statement.

3.  Healthy Artists Video on Bicyclists Injury

This video post received a big response among the Pittsburgh's cycling community.  It is pro Affordable Care Act which we acknowledge does some good but needs big improvements.

4. Special Screening of Tony Buba Documentary on Braddock Hospital Closing

There was a big turnout for the special screening of the documentary 'We Are Alive' in early November.  It is about the struggle to keep Braddock Hospital open and it's impact on the community.

5.  Mike Stout & the Human Union Band Concert 

The blog was used to promote the concert by Mike Stout's band to raise money for PUSH and the Thomas Merton Center.

6.  If Vermont Won't Have Single Payer What Will it Have?

This post which discussed whether Vermont's Single Payer plan is really single player.  also received a big response and was published in the Thomas Merton Center's New People.

7.  The Supreme Pennsylvania Medicaid Decision

There was a huge upsurge in traffic in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision which upheld the Affordable Care Act in June.  The initial euphoria was tempered by the part which allowed the states to opt out of Medicaid expansion.  



8. Moving Backward

Blogger Lloyd Stires did an excellent skewering of the plan Paul Ryan-Ron Wyden plan to fix Medicare.

9.  Dan Onorato's Happy New Year

Lloyd Stires also gave the activist community an important heads up as outgoing County Executive Dan Onorato, after losing his bid to be governor of PA, was given a lucrative job by Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield. 

There are many other posts of which we are proud.  Many of these are linked to in the posts above and the tags below.  We encourage you to check them all out as well as the battles promise to continue rage on over the affordable care act in the coming year and we will continue to PUSH for single payer in Pennsylvania.

10. New Census Uninsured Data Out: White & Female Rates Getting Worse in PA

gender	%2010	MOE +/- %	% 2009	MOE +/- %	% 2008	MOE +/- %
Male	13.3	0.3	13.3	0.3	11.7	0.3
Female	10.8	0.3	10.0	0.2	9.5	0.2

 
The Small Area Health Insurance Estimates or SAHIE from the Census Bureau show that the uninsured problem in Pennsylvania was spreading to women and whites while remaining steady in African Americans and Hispanics in 2010.  This is their most recent year available.