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

 

Obama on the Employer Mandate: ". . . never mind"

The Obama administration quietly announced on Tuesday that there will be a one-year delay—until after the 2014 midterm elections—in the implementation of the employer mandate, the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide them with health care coverage or pay a fine. The decision leaves intact the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to have health care in 2014 or pay a tax penalty. Employers get a reprieve, but not workers.

The New York Times quotes Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health policy at George Washington University, as follows: “I am utterly astounded. . . . This step could significantly reduce the number of uninsured people who will gain coverage in 2014.” It's hard to say at this point how many people will lose coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are 230,000 firms with 50 or more employees who do not offer health insurance, employing about 1.4 million workers. It's unlikely that many of them will voluntarily offer coverage with the penalty for noncompliance removed. It's even possible that some companies that currently offer health care will drop it in 2014.

What will happen to those workers? They will be required to find coverage on their own or pay a fine. Those who do will most likely pay more for comparable insurance. One of the arguments in favor of the employer mandate is that businesses can negotiate a cheaper group rate than workers can obtain on their own. Those workers with lower incomes—$88,000 or less for a family of four—may be eligible for government subsidies, which is why some critics are complaining that this decision will cost the government money. However, the whole issue of subsidies quickly becomes very complicated. For example, people who would have been eligible for Medicaid under the ACA, but whose states—like Pennsylvania—rejected Medicaid expansion, will not be eligible for any subsidy, even though others in their states with higher incomes will be. We won't know until after the fact how many Americans will lose coverage, and therefore, how many will die, as a result of this action.

Photo by seiuhealthcare775nw

It seems likely that this decision will help to reinforce a central part of Obama's legacy: his reputation as a wimp who caves in easily to political pressure. Of course, in this case, the pressure came from a powerful source—U. S. corporations with 50 or more employees.  These are the “corporate persons” who control both mainstream political parties—who, in effect, run the country.

Newspaper accounts attribute the postponement in part to threats from companies hovering around the 50 employee mark to lay off full-time workers or not hire new ones in order to avoid the employer mandate. But that threat is unlikely to go away next year, especially since Obama has caved in several times on various provisions of the law. Republicans, sensing weakness, are again calling for repeal of the ACA. It's certain to be an issue in the 2014 Congressional elections. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' advocacy group, is rolling out an aggressive new advertising campaign next week attacking Obamacare. “We think that once we incorporate the new bullet points about how the president is already delaying key aspects of the law, it will be even more effective,” said Tim Phillips, the group's president.

Of course, it was a huge mistake to ever merge health insurance with employment. Dave Steil, President of Health Care for All PA, has written about how inconvenient the employer mandate is for businesses. It may discourage the creation of small companies. It introduces needless and expensive complexity into the system—which is one of the things businesses are now complaining about. It distorts labor markets, for example, by giving employers reasons to discriminate on the basis of age, income and health status. It reduces individual choice, since your employer determines your coverage. It encourages employers to meddle in their employees health decisions, for example, by refusing to cover abortion. It reduces tax revenue, since the cost of coverage is tax-exempt. This in turn encourages overly generous coverage for highly paid employees—the kind that pays $100 a month for gym memberships. All of these problems could have been avoided with a single payer system that provides uniform coverage for everyone.

Update (7/12/13):

Not surprisingly, Republicans are trying to exploit the obvious unfairness of postponing the employer mandate but not the individual mandate. House Speaker John Boehner asked, "Is it fair for the president of the United States to give American businesses an exemption from this health care law's mandates without giving the same exemption to the rest of America?  Hell no, it's not fair." Republicans are calling for cancellation of the individual mandate as well, knowing full well that this will bring down the entire ACA. You can't have guaranteed issue—health insurance available to all regardless of preexisting conditions—without the individual mandate.

This latest Republican gambit is outrageously hypocritical. They bend over even further for corporate America than the Democrats. And just yesterday, Boehner and his gang once again ground their heels into the faces of the poor by refusing to fund the food stamp program.

You may also be interested in reading:

New Op Ed from State President Dave Steil

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor:  "Drop Dead!"  Part 3.  What Medicaid Expansion Would Mean to Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's New Fiscal Year Without Expanded Medicaid

Via: The Advisory Board Company

The Fiscal Year (FY) begins every July 1 in every state, the Federal FY begins October 1.  This year the legislature passed and the governor signed a $28.4 billion budget.  The Republican controlled State Senate voted 40-10 to include Medicaid (sponsored by House Republican Dan Moul of Adams and Franklin county) expansion in the budget (where the federal government would pick up 100% of the tab for the first three years).  These Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in voting yea:

Baker
Browne
Corman
Erickson
Greenleaf
Gordner
Mensch
Pileggi
Rafferty
Scarnati
Smucker
Tomlinson
Vogel
Waugh
Yaw

However the House voted 108-94 to remove and recommit this amendment (with Rep. Moul voting yea) to the Public Welfare Code with Gov. Corbett still declaring his opposition.  All Democrats plus two Republicans (DiGirolamo and Harkins) voted nay.  

The Pennsylvania Health Access Network promises that the battle is not over.  Their arguments for Medicaid expansion are very similar to those for Single Payer.  If some Republican legislators can be persuaded to vote for Medicaid expansion, maybe they can on Single Payer.  This is a good case of the level of polarization in the PA legislature.

**Update**

MSNBC's Chris Hayes talks about Gov. Corbett's refusal to support Medicaid expansion.  He interviews the head of the National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics about it's effect on the poor. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

**Related Posts** 

Medicaid Expansion Update

Legislature Polarization and Single Payer Prospects

National, State, & County Uninsured Estimates

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

The Western PA Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare will be holding a vigil this Friday, July 5 and every other Friday.  It will be led by Ed Cloonan and details are below.

JOIN WITH US TO STOP THE ASSAULT ON   

         SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE! 

FRIDAY PICKETLINE/VIGILS

        

      Senator Bob Casey’s Office

      Regional Enterprise Tower

         425 Sixth Avenue

         Pittsburgh 15219

             12 Noon – 1PM

                     June 21

                     July 5

                     

              

                                                          

                                                           ·         Real wages have fallen since 2008, corporations are sitting on a record cash hoard of upwards of 1.78 TRILLION dollars and corporate profits after taxes were 1.7 billion last quarter, yet both major parties want to gut Social Security and Medicare.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/  

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-growing-corporate-cash-hoard/ 

·         Democrats in the US Senate are a majority and can stop these cuts to essential programs!

·         ELIMINATING THE CAP ON THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS NOW SET AT $113,700 WILL HELP ELIMINATE ANY SHORTFALLS FOR DECADES

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14725/the_ss_austerity_battleship/

·         OVER 70 % OF THE PUBLIC STRONGLY REJECTS ALL PROPOSALS TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14725/the_ss_austerity_battleship/

·         CALL OR WRITE SENATOR CASEY AND DEMAND THAT HE TAKE A PLEDGE TO VOTE  AGAINST ANY CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

WASHINGTON DC – 866-802-2833 ---- PITTSBURGH 412- 803-7370

Sponsored by:

Western PA Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare

www.WPa Singlepayer.org

Save Our Community Hospitals

PA Green Party

For more information:

Ed Grystar egrystar@aol.com 412-215-4141

Tony Buba bolex12@yahoo.com 412-351-4808

New Op Ed from State President Dave Steil

Health Care for All PA President Dave Steil has written an OpED in the Bucks County Times that can be read here.

Affordable alternative

Better care at a lower cost

Health care, its delivery, quality, coverage and cost is the most perplexing and challenging issue facing the business community today. There is nothing more important to a business in the management of its operations than knowing the cost of each component of those operations.

When it comes to health care protection for employees, however, those costs are difficult to understand and to control, especially for small business owners who wear many hats and must deal with day to day challenges while still finding time to ensure that the long term plan is also in place. As a small business owner, my struggle to find a balance between those responsibilities is ever present.

Since World War II health care has principally fallen upon the shoulders of business. That means that it was discretionary for business owners to provide or not provide health care to employees. Frequently, that meant a hard working individual had to depend on the employer’s health care plan being a major beneficial component of the business cost and competitive structure. When the plan failed to be beneficial, the employer was free to drop employee health care. As costs rose and competitive conditions changed, many business owners did just that. Often it was imperative for the business to remain viable.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, businesses are, for the first time, required to provide health care to their employees. Businesses smaller than 50 employees are exempt but their individual employees must now buy insurance to cover themselves and their families.The total impact of these changes to the health care system is not yet known to business owners, but are much feared.

More and more business owners are asking the question, why is health care still our responsibility? Why do we continue to perpetuate a seventy year old system that is costly and leaves many hard working people without health protection of any kind? Business owners know their products and services. They are not schooled in health care administration. But, if we accept that question then we must ask, if not business, then who?

There are in reality only two answers to that question. Either every person must provide for his or her own health care protection or it must become a core function of government, just as is education. In fact government already provides close to 50 percent of all health care, through Medicare, Medicaid, Military (including VA) and government employees.

Many will reject this option without ever looking at the facts. That is regrettable and intellectually dishonest. In fact, now there is now solid data to support the concept of a State of Pennsylvania managed health care system that would cover all Pennsylvania citizens for most health care related needs.

An economic impact study (EIS) just released by Health Care 4 All PA, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, clearly demonstrates that health care can be provided to all citizens at much lower cost than is already being paid by business and individuals. Known as the Pennsylvania Health Care Plan (PHCP), administered by the state, it would provide comprehensive health protection by removing the significant costs associated with insurance based and directed coverage. The cost of the plan would be paid for by personal income and payroll taxes, but at a lower rate than is already being paid for health services.

For businesses there are many added benefits directly reducing the costs of doing business:

• Lower direct costs than the cost of the insurance based system Reduced Workers Compensation costs 
• Reduced cost of general liability insurance 
• Elimination of costs to administer the insurance plan by the business 
• Equal ability to compete for employees in the job market 
• Increased ability to compete in the international marketplace 
• Elimination of legacy costs for providing retiree health care 
• Less confrontational collective bargaining 
• Clear and identifiable costs for budgeting purposes 

Legislation to adopt the PHCP presents an historic opportunity to overcome the complexities and uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act and to put Pennsylvania in the forefront of advanced and enlightened health care. Nothing else that we could accomplish would create a business climate as economically attractive as the PHCP.

This is not just a health care management plan, but a major job creation engine. If the business community rally’s behind this proposal it will happen, because we, collectively, carry a powerful voice.

David Steil, Lower Makefield, is a small business owner and a former member of the state House of Representatives.

**Related Posts**

Tom Tangretti Posts a Letter to the Editor in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Single Payer

Dave Steil on Kate Loving Shenk's Radio Show

Surpeme Court Decision on Gene Patenting Can Affect Drug Prices

In a surprising decision the Supreme Court unanimously (with the opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas) ruled that human genes cannot be patented by companies that discover them to solely profit off of the research.  This is one of the things that keep name brand drug prices high.  

Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, was once asked by CBS anchor Edward R. Murrow who owned the patent.  He said "The people I would say. Could you patent the sun?"  There was plenty of scientific progress when greedy corporations did not drive the process. The great polio scare of the 1950's was contained successfully as a result.

**Related Posts**

An Explanation of Washington Post Graphs on the Cost of Procedures

New Time Magazine Article on Healthcare Costs with Stewart Discussion

Evergreening

Bending the Health Care Cost Curve

On One Hand . . .

A Friday report from the Medicare Board of Trustees shows that there was a slowdown in the growth of Medicare costs in 2012. The Medicare trust fund is now projected to last until 2026, two years longer than previously estimated. Medicare spending is now growing at the historically low rate of 1.7% per year. Of course, a decline in the rate of growth doesn't mean the problem is solved. Costs are still going up. But at least they are heading in the right direction. The report attributes the decline in costs to a combination of the current recession, which is causing people to cut back on health care, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the authors of the ACA, points out that there are two types of cost control embedded in the ACA, payment reductions and what he calls “structural and incentive changes.” The two primary payment reductions affecting Medicare are:

• Reduced payments for Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance in lieu of traditional Medicare. It costs the government 14% more than Medicare even though it doesn't produce any better outcomes. That 14% is presumably being pocketed by the private insurance companies, and the government is taking it back.
• Reduced payments to Medicare providers, i.e., hospitals, home care agencies, etc. Emanuel says these organizations have profited from increased productivity in recent decades, but have not passed these savings on to the consumer. Therefore, Medicare is paying them less.

In short, the ACA made $716 million in automatic cuts to the Medicare program in 2012.  This chart shows that these two payment reductions account for the bulk of these Medicare cuts. They are the primary reason for the slowdown in the growth of Medicare spending.

The structural and incentive changes include things like bundled payments, where Medicare pays a fixed rate for an episode of care rather than fee-for-service, and Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can make specific treatment recommendations in order to reduce excess cost growth. Most of these changes are several years away.

These cost controls are an important positive changes, since they have reduced costs without eliminating benefits to Medicare recipients. However, they're only a fraction of the amount that could be saved if the country were to move to a single payer system. First of all, they only affect Medicare, which insures 17% of Americans. Secondly, they are relatively modest cuts when you consider the excess profits currently being taken by hospitals and insurance companies.

The bottom line is that these data seem to show that the ACA is working in controlling Medicare costs, but it is only a modest first step compared to what we could and should be doing.

On the Other Hand . . .

Elisabeth Rosenthal has a long article in the Sunday New York Times about the high cost of medical care in the U. S., similar to the February Time feature by Steven Brill. Her article focuses on colonoscopies, presumably because it is a vivid metaphor for what the for-profit health care system is doing to all of us. However, her chart shows several common medical costs in which the average U. S. price tag is as much as 25 times higher than the price in other countries.

The sub-heading of the article says, “Colonoscopies explain why U. S. leads the world in health expenditures,” but they do no such thing. Merely listing the costs of medical procedures does not explain why those costs are so much higher in this country. Most of Rosenthal's argument is a tautology: Prices are high because prices are high. The closest she comes to offering an explanation is buried in the nineteenth paragraph:

A major factor behind the high costs is that the United States, unique among industrialized nations, does not generally regulate or intervene in medical pricing, aside from setting payment rates for Medicare and Medicaid, the government programs for older people and the poor. Many other countries deliver health care on a private fee-for-service basis, as does much of the American health care system, but they set rates as if health care were a public utility or negotiate fees with providers and insurers nationwide, for example.

Of course, she manages to make this point without mentioning the poisonous words “single payer,” which all the other countries cited in her article have. But the Medicare data show us what could happen if the government were to take a more active role in combating greed in the health care system.

You may also be interested in reading:

A New Time Magazine Article on Health Care Costs with Stewart Discussion

An Explanation of Washington Post Graphs on the Cost of Procedures

Medicaid Expansion Update

Legalized Bribery