OP-ED

Confused, Conflicted, Clueless and Cranky

Taylor

Humphrey Taylor is Chairman of The Harris Poll.  Prior to joining Harris, Taylor worked in Britain where he conducted all of the private political polling for the Conservative Party and was a close adviser to Prime Minister Edward Heath in the 1970 campaign and subsequently to Margaret Thatcher. After a year of debate, in which health care policy was covered in the media almost daily, very few people are even moderately well informed about the details of the proposals for health care reform.  But many of them have strong opinions.  Most people, our data would suggest, are confused, conflicted, clueless and cranky: confused because of the complexity of the many issues that are on the table; conflicted because they often favor policies that are mutually contradictory; clueless because they don’t know, let alone understand, most of what is being proposed; and cranky because Washington has failed, yet again, to provide a health reform bill they like.

The mind-boggling complexity of the system and the proposed reforms provide plenty of opportunities to attack the proposals, however unfair or unreasonable they may seem to advocates of reform.  Critics say the proposed reforms would lead to a government take-over of the system, higher taxes, less choice, lower quality, higher unemployment and rationing.

Confused? One huge problem is that the American health care “system,” as it is euphemistically called, is fiendishly complicated.  Health insurance coverage is provided by Medicare, Parts A, B, C, D, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, employers and their insurance plans, the V.A., D.O.D., FEHBP, SCHIP, WIC, the Indian Health Service, community clinics, HMOS, PPOs, and the individual insurance market.  There are state regulated and ERISA plans.  Important federal government health care agencies include HHS, CMS, AHRQ , CDC and NIH.  There are solo, small and large practices, single and multi-specialty groups, and integrated medical systems.  Hospitals and doctors employ huge numbers of people at great expense to figure out how to get reimbursed by insurers, Medicare and Medicaid, and how to deal with uncompensated care.

Physicians are paid on a fee-for-service basis, by capitation, and by salaries, and can receive bonuses and pay-for performance incentives.  These payments come from thousands of different health plans, each with its own rules as to what is reimbursed and how.

Complexity of reform proposals

A benign dictator who wanted to reform the health care system might decide to scrap it completely and replace it with a simpler system that would be much easier to understand, much less expensive to manage and much easier to improve.  But most Washington watchers who understand the politics of health care policy believe that this is politically impossible.  Too many powerful interests are involved.  Therefore, most major reform proposals with significant support build on the system we have now rather than replace it.  They would keep employer-provided insurance, private sector health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, the V.A., the D.O.D., and the other third-party payers.  They would keep the many government agencies that manage and regulate different parts of the system.

And then, as if the system is not complicated enough, the congressional proposals would add more complexity, new agencies, and new regulations.  One or both of the House and Senate bills would create individual and employer mandates, with new subsidies for some employers and low-income individuals, reduced subsidies for Medicare Advantage, a “public option” to compete with private sector insurance, new taxes on “Cadillac plans” and the rich, the barring of medical underwriting based on health status (pre-existing conditions and recision), and health insurance exchanges.  Those proposals would encourage, expand and make use of electronic medical records, electronic prescribing, and other health information technologies, comparative effectiveness research, quality measures, price transparency, wellness programs, “medical homes,” patient-centered care, evidence-based medicine and outcomes research.

Another whole layer of complexity relates to the need for fundamental reimbursement reform.  Our 2008 survey of health care opinion leaders for the Commonwealth Fund found a large majority who believed that this is the most important step that needs to be taken to improve the efficiency of the system and quality of care.  Reimbursement reform means changing “perverse incentives” in the way that doctors are reimbursed, reducing fee-for-service payment and moving to bundled payments, payments for episodes of care, capitation or salaried physicians.  Experts argue that this would require many  more accountable care organizations (ACOs) and medical homes.

Are your eyes glazing over?  There are probably only a few thousand health care policy wonks who fully understand all the complexity of our system and of the proposed reforms.

What most people don’t know or don’t understand

In addition to the unbelievable complexity of the health care system and reform proposals, there are some simple and very important factors that most people do not think or talk about, and probably do not believe.

Most health care economists believe that present cost and coverage trends are not politically or economically sustainable.  They believe that we will have to make really tough choices as we try to satisfy potentially infinite demand with finite resources.  For how long can health care spending increase  2½ times faster than GDP?  How many more uninsured people will we tolerate?

Some political leaders and media seem to encourage this ignorance and the simplistic belief that if only their policies were adopted we could have it all – access to high quality care at an affordable cost with no new taxes, and secure access to all needed services for the rest of our lives.  Most people seem to believe that it would be possible for everyone to have access to all the wonders of modern medicine without much higher taxes or other costs.  Most people believe that insurers should insure anyone who wants insurance, without requiring the young and the healthy to buy insurance.  Adverse selection and moral hazard are not just incomprehensible insurance jargon; few people have ever thought about the concepts.

A recent Pew survey found that only two percent of all adults could correctly answer twelve very simple questions about politics (e.g., how many Senate votes are needed to break a filibuster; who, of four well-known politicians is the Senate Majority leader).  One can only speculate as to what percentage of the public would pass a similar test of “health reform literacy.”

Conflicted?

Most people believe that the health care system “has so much wrong with it that fundamental changes are needed.”  They believe health care costs too much and that everyone should have health insurance.  So where’s the conflict?  The problem is that many people tend to support contradictory positions.  They oppose cutting benefits but don’t want their taxes , their out-of-pocket costs, or their premiums to increase.  They believe that everyone should have affordable access to every test, treatment and procedure that they or their doctors want but don’t stop to think what this would cost or how it would be paid for.  They favor universal coverage but oppose an individual mandate.  They favor an employer mandate but don’t want to make it more expensive for employers to hire people.  They favor a “public option” but oppose a “government-run insurance plan.”  They believe every patient should have access to high quality care, but don’t think the young and the healthy should to have to pay for it.

Clueless?

It is tough to win public support for proposals when very large numbers of people are misinformed and believe many of the strange criticisms made by those opposing reforms.  In recent polls, two-thirds (65%) of the public believed that “the proposed reforms would result in a government-run health care system,” even though the reforms would greatly increase the number of people with private sector insurance. More than half the public believed that the proposed reforms would “reduce the choices many people have now” (55%), that health insurance would be “too expensive for many people to buy” (52%), or “would make it harder for many people to get the care they need “ (51%).  A 45% to 30% plurality believed that “the proposed reforms would hurt Medicare.”  And more than a third (37%) that the “proposed reforms would create death panels that would decide who should live and who should die.”

The public was split 41% to 41% as to whether health care would be “rationed,” and do not realize that we already ration care by reimbursing or not reimbursing it. Large minorities believed that “Medicare will be phased out” (32%), that the “plan promotes euthanasia to keep costs down (25%), and (where did this come from?) that “the government will be able to access individual bank accounts to help pay for services” (23%).

Cranky

The polls sometimes mislead their readers by suggesting that people already have opinions when they ask questions about the details of the policy.  These polls can be useful; they can test the public’s reactions to issues and policies and the language used to present them.  But reactions to a question do not mean that people actually had opinions on the issue (let alone understood it) before they were surveyed.  However, most people do have opinions about health care reform, even if they do not know much about what is being proposed.

What is striking now is the contrast between the large 78% majority of the public who thinks that “fundamental reforms are needed” or that the “system needs to be completely rebuilt” and the hostility to the proposed reforms.  Attitudes to proposed reforms seem to have much more to do with the popularity of who is proposing them than what is being proposed.  In September 2009, we found that a 53% majority thought that President Obama’s proposed reforms were “a good thing” while a 54% majority believe the proposals of the Democrats in Congress were “a bad thing.”  But what was the difference between their policies?  Since September, support for the president’s proposals has declined along with his job rating.  And while the Democratic proposals are unpopular, the Republican proposals (whatever they are) are much more unpopular.

In conclusion

The polling data underline the truth of the advice to “keep it simple, stupid.”  Unfortunately, the system we have now is absurdly complicated and health care reform could only be simple if we nuked the system we have and re-built it from scratch.  And that won’t happen.

Rhetoric trumps substance.  In the absence of a simple, comprehensible reform, it is easy to criticize any package of reforms.  People who are misinformed and have little understanding of what is actually being proposed often hold very strong opinions.

The introduction of Social Security and Medicare (which were bitterly opposed at the time) involved relatively simple concepts that could be explained to most people.  The health reform proposals now on the table, and some of those proposed in the past, cannot.   This helps explain why so many presidents, Democratic and Republican, have failed to pass substantial health care reform that would greatly reduce the number of uninsured and help contain costs.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

30
Leave a Reply

30 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
JPGFactcheckerMark ScovillePeterRobert Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Dennis
Guest
Dennis

Peter, Remember I’m talking about what polls well — not what works best. From a standpoint of what works best, I prefer single payer.
Regarding the German system — yes there is a govt. role (most of my facts come from T.R. Reid’s book), and of course, regulation will have to be a big part of any system.
But I suspect it would poll well in the US because the US actually has experience with non-profit health insurance (the old BCBS model), doesn’t sound like “socialism,” and in many ways resembles what we have today.

Wendell Murray
Guest

For those participants here who have not done so already I recommend reading anything by Prof. Reinhardt one of whose short essays in the NYTimes is referred to by Peter above. He not only has an excellent knowledge of most parts of healthcare systems in the USA and elsewhere, but he is a very good and amusing writer. The essay referred to is excellent and typical of the quality of his work. He also wrote sections of a report on NJ hospitals as the head of a commission appointed by then-Governor Corzine that is also superb.

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

Our government is too corrupt and morally bamkrupt, not to mention really bandrupt, to be doing anything but shrinking its Healthcare footprint.

Peter
Guest
Peter

“Germany’s has the distinction of being an insurance system run by not-for-profit groups that are highly competitive. Of all the “horror stories” out there, no one ever raises the German system.”
Dennis, you seem to imply the government is not involved in the regulation of German healthcare, not so.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/
Now you just need to convince the for-profit private healthcare industry (and non-profit BCBS) to reliquish control of healthcare pricing for the German model to work here.

Dennis
Guest
Dennis

“Canada’s system is the most applicable model for the USA, although all systems in comparably industrialized countries or less industrialized countries for that matter are worth looking at in depth.” True, except that Canada=single payer=government agency, and we know where that discussion leads some people to. (Yes, it’s like Medicare, but that gets lost on many people.) Germany’s has the distinction of being an insurance system run by not-for-profit groups that are highly competitive. Of all the “horror stories” out there, no one ever raises the German system. Again, I’m mentioning what polls well, not what works best. Unfortunately, all… Read more »

JPG
Guest
JPG

No doubt about it – our healthcare system as it stands is hopelessly complicated and confusing, and this is coming from someone that makes a living from deciphering the rules to maximize reimbursement. I am an independent, but the plan that makes the most sense to me is the voucher system provided on a means tested basis. People would be free to purchase the plan that makes the most sense to them, spending as much or as little as THEY chose. Everyone would be expected to participate, young and old, sick and well. How can this happen? Simple. If you… Read more »

Factchecker
Guest
Factchecker

“Bitterly opposed”: but Social Security passed the House 372-33, and the Senate 77-6. Medicare passed the House 313-115 and Senate 68-21.
The fact is that even the President’s own party is barely behind this fiasco of a bill, let alone the uninformed/confused/conflicted public.

Mark Scoville
Guest
Mark Scoville

Of course the public is confused. All public policy requires a balance between individual self-interest and the societal good. Striking the right moral balance is the responsibility of those who have chosen to act with integrity in public life. All the great unwashed are entitled to do is to cast a vote for the individual who they feel will balance their interests with the public good. A single-payer, public option is what the public wants and contradictions be damned, they will love and support it as soon as those opposed to it stop lying to them about why they cannot… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“But when some dogs are getting foigras and some people are getting dog food, there is an inherent instability built in, guaranteeing failure, distrust and unrest.”
Are Medicaid recipients getting “dog food” or “foigra”? (actually Foie Gras – archon would know, it’s French :>)
Which are the uninsured getting? Are employees getting company paid healthcare getting the Foie Gras, maybe twice because it’s tax free, and are those paying for it themselves getting some dog food, with some Foie Gras? Would that mean that a system of equal healthcare available to all eliminate the built in “instability, distrust and unrest”?

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

If the bill did not treat different populations as special, exempt from certain provisions, it would be easier for people to eat the dog food. But when some dogs are getting foigras and some people are getting dog food, there is an inherent instability built in, guaranteeing failure, distrust and unrest.
Not to meniton that Constitutional requirement for equal treatment under the law, but why should that bother this bunch?

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest
Margalit Gur-Arie

“If President Obama and the Democrats want to pass a bill that the American people can feel proud about, it has to be SIMPLE and effective.” That is like saying that NASA should be fixing the Space Shuttle with a screwdriver and wrench from Walmart, so we can all understand and feel proud of the Space Program. Or maybe we should start over and come up with a Space Craft spec that will not exceed 11 pages. And by the way, if it were possible (and it isn’t) to start fresh and completely ignore the current mess instead of trying… Read more »

Robert
Guest

“One huge problem is that the American health care “system,” as it is euphemistically called, is fiendishly complicated. Health insurance coverage is provided by Medicare, Parts A, B, C, D, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, employers and their insurance plans, the V.A., D.O.D., FEHBP, SCHIP, WIC, the Indian Health Service, community clinics, HMOS, PPOs, and the individual insurance market.” I agree 100%. The health care system itself is far too complicated for most Americans to understand even if they tried. And this health care “reform” bill is FAR too complicated too, and the people don’t understand it. It’s being picked apart by… Read more »

medinnovation
Guest

Humphrey Taylor’s lead-in is priceless, “Most people, our data would suggest, are confused, conflicted, clueless and cranky: confused because of the complexity of the many issues that are on the table; conflicted because they often favor policies that are mutually contradictory; clueless because they don’t know, let alone understand, most of what is being proposed; and cranky because Washington has failed, yet again, to provide a health reform bill they like.” To this I would add Senator Lamar Alexander’s explanation: “Our country is too big, too complicated, too decentralized for Washington, a few of us here, just to write a… Read more »

Wendell Murray
Guest

“a health care system similar to Germany’s”
Canada’s system is the most applicable model for the USA, although all systems in comparably industrialized countries or less industrialized countries for that matter are worth looking at in depth.
That along with consideration of the vast research done on topic for decades rather than this endless political and politicized nonsense about bills that barely change the status quo, albeit extend insurance coverage and perhaps get the ball rolling for further reform. Truly appalling.

Dennis
Guest
Dennis

I’d like to see you describe a health care system similar to Germany’s and see how it does in polls. I bet it would pass with flying colors. It’s a lot less expensive, too.