Repeal + Replace

The Arc of Justice in Healthcare

screen-shot-2017-01-12-at-2-36-05-pm

We all fear that phone call.  A medical report turns out the wrong way and life may never be the same.  When that call arrives we all have the same needs:  A doctor who cares, a place to go for treatment and the finances to afford what’s needed.  Starting on January 20th, some of my patients will join the 20 million whose lifeline to those fundamental needs becomes jeopardized.  

One of my patients facing this threat lost his job and health insurance during the 2008 recession.   Because he’s a diabetic and has a special needs son, no insurance company would sell his family a policy.   Why would they?   Diabetics and others with serious illnesses pose high risks for future health expenses.  Insurance companies make money by avoiding such risk.   After exhausting all the options, he sweated out 18 months with no coverage.   Finally, the roll-out of the California Exchange, funded by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), allowed him to buy an Anthem Blue Cross policy for his family.  

Do we really want millions of our fellow Americans to relive those nightmares?  We all benefit from the ACA’s fundamental commitment: That everyone deserves access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.  The policies guided by this principle moved us toward the achievement of universal coverage without changing the existing care of the majority of working families with employer based plans nor those with self-funded coverage.   

Two key features of the ACA make the difference for patients like mine.  The first, subsidized insurance exchanges, allows them to get coverage at prices negotiated for all.  This provides economies of scale in pricing and spreads the risks over a larger group, reducing the costs for higher risk individuals. The insurance premiums are subsidized by income to keep them affordable. 

The second key feature of the ACA, and the most controversial, is the individual mandate.  This provision requires individuals to purchase insurance or pay a fine.  Opponents consider the mandate an infringement on individuals’ freedom to decline coverage.  Despite the superficial appeal of the argument, no one in the United States actually declines coverage.  When uninsured individuals arrive in an emergency room with a severe illness or injury they receive treatment and the costs get passed on to the insured and to taxpayers.  Such “uninsured” individuals are free riders.  They enjoy catastrophic coverage paid for by others.  

Additionally, many free riders are young and healthy.  Their departure from the system, if allowed by a repeal of the mandate, would leave a sicker, costly population that would likely face unsustainable increases in premium costs.  We don’t allow individuals to opt out of auto insurance because it affects the public welfare.  Similarly, we should not allow free riders to opt out of health insurance and undermine the financial stability of the health system. 

The ACA isn’t perfect but almost everyone gets a fair chance at coverage.  Under the ACA the percentage of non-elderly uninsured fell from 18% to 10.5% as 20 million gained coverage.  Vice-President Elect Pence recently called for “an orderly transition…to a market based healthcare economy.”  The ACA includes market mechanisms, such as the markets for health plans on the exchanges and the markets for providers once insurance is purchased.  A purely free market approach, as the Vice-President seems to support, could never reach the level of coverage achieved by the ACA.  If markets are completely free, they price out individuals who lack sufficient resources.   Healthcare costs are so high that cutting off help from the ACA would deprive millions of needed coverage.   

As President-Elect Trump considers healthcare, he may want to consider the words of Martin Luther King, whose holiday precedes the inauguration by just four days.  “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  Part of that arc includes our social justice system and the safety net that protects patients like mine.  Americans never have made a commitment to public welfare and then reneged on it.  Despite their party’s opposition to the creation of Social Security and Medicare, incoming Republican administrations never threatened to withdraw existing commitments.  Instead, they supported bipartisan efforts to improve the programs.   The Trump administration should do no less.  

Members of the Trump administration and their congressional allies also should consider that most of them and their family members will someday also receive that call.   They should not threaten to deprive fellow Americans of the healthcare security they would want for themselves. 

The arc of justice in healthcare has been long indeed.  We will soon learn whether the Trump administration will choose to defer the progress of the arc of justice under the ACA.  In the long run they cannot stop it. 

<em>Daniel Stone, MD is the director of a multi-specialty group in Los Angeles.</em>

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

26
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
19 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
DJStonePeterPaul @ Pivot ConsultingLLChealthy dinner ideasNiran Al-Agba Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
pjnelson
Member
pjnelson

Regarding the numbers of citizens with ACA mediated health insurance, I am moderately unsure that the reported total number of citizens with continuing ACA health insurance is accurate. This comment is NOT intended to represent undue scepticism. The folks at ACA may be not be schooled on the origins of their data, and thus, the reporting of data is based on variously defined origins for their data. Historically, the INITIAL homelessness reporting of statistics by the VA and HUD were difficult to analyze since the origins of their data was based on alternate definitions of homelessness. Those issues were resolved… Read more »

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

I think this is a very good defense of the ACA/ObamaCare. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Frankenstein level deductibles, forcing everyone to pay for a hugely expanded list of services for all (not allowing folks to buy policies that fit their needs), and trying to coerce the young into paying for much of this. Good intentions notwithstanding, the ACA has run amuck. It will be challenging, but I think the new HHS head and the policy wonk Republicans (Ryan) will be able to come up with a replacement that works much better.

Peter
Member
Peter

“Frankenstein level deductibles, forcing everyone to pay for a hugely expanded list of services for all (not allowing folks to buy policies that fit their needs), and trying to coerce the young into paying for much of this.”

Paul Ryan says he wants to replace it with something better. I’m sure now we’ll get lower premiums with better coverage, smaller co-pays and deductibles, and still no caps and pre-exist inclusion.

Don’t you think this would be great Paul?

And what do you mean by “hugely expanded list of services”? Tell us what services should be optional?

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

Peter, Of course there are the 10 “Essential Health Benefits” now federally mandated….except for grandfathered plans. That is why my wife’s grandfathered plan monthly premium is still about 1/2 of those of our similarly aged friends….and we are very happy about the services we have and the lower premium. Yes, I do think people should have the right to choose what is covered in their plans. re mandates in general “Then there’s the fact that the act of mandating benefits alone will bring advocacy groups out of the woodworks to lobby for particular items and services, leading to arbitrary and… Read more »

Peter
Member
Peter

Paul, there is a good reason mandates are legislated into policies, they provide essential benefits whose cost is spread across the broader group. The risk is shared so that those who really need it can afford the coverage. What is wrong in America with lobby groups – I bet you support a few yourself? This whole country lobby’s for something. It’s up to political leaders to determine if the mandate is frivolous or not and they will be accountable to the voters. Tell me which of the “10 essential” benefits you would want not mandated. I can’t comment on your… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

Maybe instead of mandating specific benefits, all subject 5o lobbying, we could mandate a minimum actuarial value like, say, 50% as opposed to the 60% minimum (Bronze level) in the ACA. There has to be some definition of minimum creditable coverage either to satisfy a mandate to purchase insurance or establish subsidy criteria for people who can’t afford even minimum coverage.

DJStone
Member
DJStone

Hi, Paul. Thanks for commenting, but, as you might suspect, I can’t agree. In regard to “a hugely expanded list of services for all,” I think it’s worthwhile considering that no one ever knows the services that they’ll need in advance. Before the ACA, employers could buy bare bones insurance for their employees and, unless someone was a benefits expert, they had no idea what they were getting. I once had a patient find out that his insurance didn’t cover transfusions! Having a standard benefits plan allows consumers to compare apples to apples. They also have the piece of mind… Read more »

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

DS, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A few thoughts in response: 1. Agreed, an exclusion of transfusion coverage sounds kind of nuts. I don’t disagree with some sort of standards of coverage. My beef is that these are subject to lobbying and often include low value…or even harmful when overused….procedures/services. This is especially bad with state insurance mandates which require everyone buy coverage for things that have little or no evidence of efficacy. 2. You and many others have faith in the usefulness of annual exams as a good practice that saves money and aides health….an example you cite. My… Read more »

Allan
Member
Allan

DJ writes, “You can’t reduce the cost of the insurance if the care costs the same, ”

Your response is right on target. We need a complete shift in thinking, “incent patients to be prudent users/shoppers”. That is not what government has been doing and that is why every time government creates new programs to reduce spending the spending actually goes up.

healthy dinner ideas
Member

I have bookmarked this one will read it latter 🙂

Allan
Member
Allan

“Americans never have made a commitment to public welfare and then reneged on it.” 1)Americans never had an entitlement without some bipartisan support that the ACA totally lacked. 2)Americans were never given the time promised by the President to review a bill of this nature. 3)The President lied to the American people about his transparency and what the ACA would do. Any thoughts of bipartisanship regarding improvements in the ACA should have been considered when the bill was passed. Unfortunately, those considerations seem only to occurring now when the other party is in power forgetting how the bill was rammed… Read more »

Peter
Member
Peter

“1)Americans never had an entitlement without some bipartisan support that the ACA totally lacked.
2)Americans were never given the time promised by the President to review a bill of this nature.
3)The President lied to the American people about his transparency and what the ACA would do.”

Repugs never wanted to participate, their political strategy throughout the Obama term. They never wanted him to get credit for anything. They had full opportunity to contribute.

As usual you are wrong.

Allan
Member
Allan

“Repugs never wanted to participate” Such foolishness The facts are against you. Obama and the Democrats wanted to act in a dictatorial manner. They got what they wanted and they passed the ACA unfinished. Most of the major comments made explaining why Obamacare would fail have now been proven correct, but neither Obama nor the Democrats wanted to listen to anything constructive. Nancy Pelosi’s own words told us that the bill was not understood. “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” That tells us more about the stupidity of the passage of… Read more »

DJStone
Member
DJStone

Okay, Allan, I’ll take the bait.

Your comments don’t square with the facts. How has the ACA been a failure? When it passed, the Republicans called it the “job killing care act” and years later we’re under 5% unemployment with the 20 million more individuals covered. And, healthcare inflation in the last five years is a third less than it was in the previous five years and two thirds less than the five years before that.
(Source: Kaiser Healthcare Foundation: http://kff.org/health-costs/press-release/average-annual-workplace-family-health-premiums-rise-modest-3-to-18142-in-2016-more-workers-enroll-in-high-deductible-plans-with-savings-option-over-past-two-years/)

If this is failure, I’ll take some more of it, thank you…

DS

Allan
Member
Allan

DJ, For the most part ObamaCare’s big success was in increasing the numbers on Medicaid. Private insurance may have just returned to what it was a deade earlier. Premiums and deductibles have increased dramatically while networks have narrowed. More of the same is on the horizon and will get worse. The ACA is unsustainable. We don’t have true figures of how many are insured today because it appears gaming is occurring and people have been known to drop insurance after signing up. We can’t keep our doctors and we aren’t saving the $2,500 promised. As far as employment you should… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

I think Republicans will ultimately pay a high political price if too many of the 20 million or so people who got health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA via either subsidized exchange plans or expanded Medicaid lose it as part of legislation that repeals and replaces the ACA. If it were up to me, I would let the insurers return to medical underwriting and allow the young and healthy to buy low cost plans that reflect their low health risk. For those who can’t pass underwriting, either create adequately funded high risk pools or let insurers quote… Read more »

Niran Al-Agba
Member

Great suggestions and thoughts Barry. As always, I like the way you think. Price transparency is a huge part of primary care in the future!

Allan
Member
Allan

“If it were up to me, I would let the insurers return to medical underwriting and allow the young and healthy to buy low cost plans that reflect their low health risk.”

A very healthy change of opinion.

William Palmer MD
Member
William Palmer MD

Good, Barry. I agree with you (on most points) and Allan, below. Figuring our how to subsidize the poor and needy is a tremendous and interesting intellectual problem. There is not much to go on either…. when you think of the tools we have on hand to do this: tax returns, property records, past medical utilization, present medical diagnoses. You have to realize also, that we do not have to run health care as an insurance program. It can be run simply as an entitlement. Forget about how to make the insurers whole. Do the thing from taxes. I do… Read more »

Peter
Member
Peter

Barry, their plans are already low cost. The young don’t have to buy ACA policies, all they need is to be covered. How come they have not purchased insurance? Is it because of price or because they are invincible? How come most young people don’t invest in retirement? How come the ACA had a mandate? If young peoples income is low they get a subsidy – how much below that will people buy insurance?

Peter
Member
Peter

I think Republicans will ultimately pay a high political price if too many of the 20 million or so people who got health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA via either subsidized exchange plans or expanded Medicaid lose it as part of legislation that repeals and replaces the ACA.”

I wonder how many with subsidized ACA coverage voted for Trump and Repugs? According to Jeff’s article A LOT? How stupid can they be – voting against their best interests.

William Palmer MD
Member
William Palmer MD

Daniel, the copayments and deductibles are too high and it’s going to self destruct anyway, unless it is fixed. The Pubs are only keeping this runaway train from crashing, nothing else. You can’t have 70% actuarial values and expect people to go for these silver plans. The “value” of the plans is too low. This is what you want to improve in every service in health care….charge for value. Let us do this for the whole package synoptically.

There has been plenty of time to fix the ACA. It’s time for another set of hands to do the job.

Steve2
Member
Steve2

The GOP plans, for the most part, call for even larger deductibles.

Steve

Allan
Member
Allan

Can you mention those plans?

Peter
Member
Peter

“…the copayments and deductibles are too high and it’s going to self destruct anyway, unless it is fixed.”

Yes, let’s go to the deductibles and co-pays of non-ACA insurance that was available before ACA. I’m sure that will be refreshing.

pjnelson
Member
pjnelson

The law of unintended results will likely apply, driven inexorably and incessantly by is companion, Parkinson’s Law. However the transition is configured, the twosome will still apply, and our healthcare industry will still produce 60% of our nation’s annual Federal deficit. Unless….Oh, never mind!