THCB

Categories

Tag: Health policy

My Totally Wrong, Expert Predictions for Health Care 2025

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

January

In a blistering commentary, the American Medical Association’s flagship journal, JAMA, condemns the corrosive effect on patient care of the profit-seeking practices of health insurers. Separately, the organization announces that it’s selling the 13 journals in its JAMA Network to a private equity firm for $375 million “in order to enhance our mission of promoting the betterment of public health.”

February

Quickly following up on a campaign pledge to slash the federal budget, the Trump administration announces a radical consolidation of various entities at the Department of Health and Human Services. The new organization will be known as the Agency and Bureau for Children, Drugs, Explosives, Firearms, Families and Food (ABCDEFFF). Reflecting the new president’s strong personal preferences, “alcohol” will no longer be permitted in any agency name.

March

Bipartisan legislation demanding transparency from Pharmacy Benefit Managers dies in committee after industry executives explain that secret rebates to PBMs are like secret political action committee contributions to politicians: they allow you to loudly proclaim you’re an “advocate” for those supposedly paying you while actually serving the interests of those who are really paying you.

April

Pfizer announces that its once-a-day pill version of the wildly successful GLP-1 agonist weight loss drugs will shortly be submitted for government approval, and also that the company is moving its headquarters from New York to Louisiana, a state with a 40 percent obesity rate. Coincidentally, Louisiana is also the home state of Republican senators Cassidy and Kennedy, senior members of the Senate committees overseeing health care and all federal appropriations.

May

The new private equity owners of the JAMA Network say that all staff except one editor at each journal will be replaced by ChatGPT. A source at the private equity firm tells the Wall Street Journal that OpenAI won out over Gemini “because our CEO is a Leo” and over Claude “because nobody likes the French.”

June

Controversial right-wing firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, long the subject of rumors that she’s had cosmetic surgery, is diagnosed with a serious infection after an unspecified procedure. The House quickly schedules its first hearing on medical error in over two decades, but then cancels when the American Hospital Association points out the official term for what the Georgia Republican contracted was a “healthcare-associated infection,” so it’s entirely possible she accidentally brought the infection with her to the pristine hospital. Meanwhile, with House leadership telling Members they were free to vote their conscience, a resolution to send Greene a “Get Well” card passes unanimously after deletion of the word, “Soon.”

July

Following through on years of promises to reveal a “really great” replacement for the Affordable Care Act, President Trump on July 4 announces the “100-100-100” Make America Healthy Again plan. In keeping with the GOP’s advocacy for “skinny” plans with low premiums that encourage “consumers” to “comparison shop,” the plan will cover 100 percent of any medical bill for up to $100 a day for a premium of just $100 a month. Separately, Elon Musk tells a meeting of health insurance executives the plan can also replace both Medicare and Medicaid, enabling the federal government to cut spending by almost as much as the market capitalization of Tesla.

August

Before Congress recesses, a coalition of progressive organizations issues a press release declaring that all basic health services, whether provided by government agencies or the private sector, should be “available to the entire population according to its needs.” Shortly afterwards, the coalition is forced to make an embarrassing retraction after ChatGPT alerts the lone editor of JAMA that the coalition accidentally re-released a section of the report of the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, formed in 1927.

September

The Business Roundtable says its members are committed to improving the quality of health care for all employees because “quality health care is good business.” An 85-year-old freelancer for The New York Times notes that this was the exact title of a September, 1997 policy paper by a Roundtable task force in which an executive for Sears, which at the time operated over 3,500 stores, declares, “We believe that quality health care is lower-cost health care.” Sears currently has about a dozen stores.

October

Medicare Advantage plans step up their advertising expenditures after public opinion polls show that nobody anymore believes the portrayal of happy and healthy seniors playing pickleball instead of writing tear-soaked letters pleading for approval of hip surgery. The trade associations for hospitals, drug and device companies and PBMs call on Congress to provide greater oversight of greedy insurers. The editor of JAMA resigns after ChatGPT writes an editorial extolling the merits of MA plans run by for-profit companies.

November

The National Rural Health Association says that in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, its members will accept live turkeys in partial payment of the medical debts that now affect 99.99 percent of all Americans after passage of the administration’s “100-100-100” Make America Healthy Again plan. A KFF survey explains that the number is not 100 percent because Congress retained conventional health insurance for itself and top federal officials and because America’s billionaires had opted for self-pay.

December

A Washington Post editorial declares, “The bottom line is that if we want to contain spending, we will have to make critical choices about how care is delivered, to whom, and under what conditions.” Different chatbots differ on where that quote originally came from, but agree that if any humans believe the American public is ready to make critical choices, they’re hallucinating.

Michael L. Millenson is president of Health Quality Advisors & a regular THCB Contributor

The Healthcare Industry Needs a Course Correction

By STEVEN ZECOLA

The United States healthcare system has failed by any measure.

First, costs are out of control. For example, 17% of the country’s GDP is spent on healthcare. This percentage was less than half that amount in 1980. It is expected to continue growing to 20% by 2032. Seventy-five percent of these costs are attributable to chronic diseases.

Second, notwithstanding the highest percentage of GDP spent on healthcare of the top ten high-income countries, the US has the worst performance outcomes whether measured on life expectancy, preventable mortality through disease management, and even access to care through insurance coverage or other means.

Third, the agency overseeing the healthcare industry is the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is organized by functions such as Clinical Health Services and Behavioral Health Services rather than organized by disease management. The five strategic imperatives of its 4-year strategic plan do not contain benchmarks for improving the health status of the population, nor concrete steps to achieve the benchmarks. There is no mention of costs.

Fourth, the industry is huge and has many different components from healthcare providers to equipment manufacturers, to researchers, to pharmaceutical companies, to genetic companies, to insurance companies and so on. Over 16 million people are employed in the industry, with 60,000 in HHS alone. At this level of aggregation, leadership and management prowess becomes watered down and there can be no driving force for across-the-board improvements in disease management.

Fifth, the industry spends about $100 billion per year on R&D in pursuit of FDA approvals. The cost of this development translates into more than $2 billion per approved drug. Once approved, the drug effectively gains a barrier against unfettered competition. Independent analysts have estimated the costs of this regulatory scheme vastly exceed the benefits. Yet the FDA holds firm in its approach, given that its primary objective is safety.

Continue reading…

What will Harris mean for Health Care? – Not much

By MATTHEW HOLT

The Democratic convention wrapped with a fine speech from Kamala Harris, star power from the Obamas and Clintons, and a bunch of Republicans telling their ideological brethren that it was better to be a Democrat than a Trumper. More importantly no Beyonce/Taylor Swift duet–as we were promised by Mitt Romney.

There was a lot of talk about some aspects of health care. But overall if Harris wins, don’t expect much change to the current health care system. 

Why not?

First there’s the pure politics. The Dems need to win back the House (probable but not certain) and hold the Senate to pass legislation. Right now they have a 51-49 edge in the Senate. Most likely that goes to 50-50 as the Republicans will definitely pick up Joe Manchin’s seat in West Virginia. There’s a series of seats the Dems currently hold in close races (Montana, Ohio, MIchigan, Nevada, Arizona) that they’ll need to keep to maintain it at 50-50, and it’s hard to see any pickups from Republicans (perhaps Florida or Texas if you squint really hard). The good news is that Manchin (WV) and Sinema (AZ) will soon both be gone, so the Dems that will be there won’t be as difficult to persuade to follow a Presidential agenda. But that will still leave Walz as VP to do what Harris did and pass a bunch of deciding votes under reconciliation, which massively limits what the legislation can do–it has to be “budget related.”

Which leads us to what we have been hearing from Harris and her campaign about health care? We’ve heard a lot about issues that have impacts on health, specifically creating affordable housing and fighting child poverty, but little that is directly related to health care itself. Really only two issues stand out. Abortion and reproductive rights, and drug prices.

Clearly Harris will take a swing at reversing Dobbs and passing a national right to abortion. This will need either a packing of the Supreme Court (my favorite) or ending the filibuster or both. Either of these will be incredibly tough to pull off constitutionally and politically and will take huge amounts of political oxygen. Of course the cynics would say, the Democrats are better off leaving this as an issue to use to beat up the Republicans on. But if it gets done, womens’ and reproductive rights will only be back where they were in 2022. 

Regarding the cost of drugs, there will continue to be much justified bashing of big pharma, but the extension of insulin price controls is something that (eventually) the market via CivicaRX and others is getting to anyway. Meanwhile the IRA gave Medicare the right to negotiate drug prices and the results are not exactly earth shattering. For example, CMS says it’s negotiated the cost of blood thinner Eliquis from about $6,000 a year to under $3,000 This sounds good until you realize that the price is only that high because of patent games the manufacturer BMS plays in the US, and the price in the rest of the world is under $1,000. We’ll hear more about this as the price cuts come into effect, (although not till 2026!) and more drugs get negotiated, but overall this isn’t exactly an earth-shattering change.

Finally there’s already a guaranteed fight about extending the premium subsidies for ACA plans. These were first in the pandemic American Rescue Act, then extended in the IRA, but they currently are scheduled to end in 2025. It’s hard to imagine them not being extended further whatever the makeup of the Senate, assuming a Democratic House of Representatives. (A Marjorie Taylor Greene speakership does give me pause!). But again there’s nothing new here and the overall flavor of expensive premiums and high deductibles in the current ACA marketplace won’t change.

So what’s not going to happen? Virtually all the interesting stuff we were promised by Harris and for that matter Biden in 2020. You may have missed the one actual “policy-first” speech at the convention which came from Bernie Sanders. To be fair a lot of his agenda was already in the Biden legislation. That was no accident as Biden deliberately reached out to him in 2020 and 2021 and enacted a pretty radical agenda on infrastructure, climate, industrial policy and more. And when I say radical I mean milquetoast social democrat by European standards! But what wasn’t in that agenda? No Medicare for all, which Bernie ran on in 2019/20 and brought up again at the convention. Who else proposed that in 2019? Why, a certain Kamala Harris. That never made it into the Biden agenda. We didn’t even get legislation introduced about lowering the Medicare age to 60, which was a campaign promise. There’s been no conversation about any of this from Harris or from Biden before he withdrew. It’s just a bridge too far.

Which leads to the stuff that gets debated about in THCB and elsewhere as to how the system actually works. There’s been nothing about Medicaid expansion (or its continued contraction). No talk about reining in hospital consolidation. No mention even of insurers gaming Medicare Advantage or private equity buying up physician practices. Nothing about the expansion of value-based care.

What we can expect in a Harris administration is more of the same from CMS and potentially a slightly more aggressive FTC. That will mean continued efforts to veer slightly away from fee-for-service in Medicare, a few more constraints on the worst behavior in Medicare Advantage, and possibly some warning shots from the FTC about hospital monopolies. But the trends we’ve seen in recent years will largely continue. We’re not getting a primary-care based capitated system emerging from the wreckage of what we have now, and unlike the Clinton and even Obama administrations, there’s not even any rhetoric from Harris or Biden about how that would be a good idea.

So politically I don’t think the Harris administration will be very exciting for health care. And if the other guy wins, as Jeff Goldsmith wrote on THCB last month, expect even less.

ChatGPT Vs. Magic 8 Ball: Who Can Solve “The HealthCare Crisis”?

By MICHAEL L. MILLENSON

Long before ChatGPT, whose question-answering choices still remain somewhat of a black box, there was an equally mysterious, question-answering black ball. I decided to ask them each of them how to solve the cost, quality and access issues labeled for more than half a century as “the healthcare crisis.”

The hard, plastic Magic 8 Ball was invented in 1946, two years before a landmark Supreme Court decision spurred a boom in employer-sponsored health insurance. It catapulted into kid-driven popularity in the 1970s, the same decade that rising healthcare costs propelled “healthcare crisis” into the public vocabulary.

Magic 8 Ball and ChatGPT
ChatGPT is a “black box,” Magic 8 ball a black ball.

The healthcare crisis is still with us, as is Magic 8 Ball, which, thanks to current owner Mattel, can now be consulted either in person (i.e., by holding and shaking it) or online. With a fiercely fought presidential election campaign underway, I decided that pitting the black box vs. the black ball to answer crucial health policy questions would likely provide just as much clarity as wading through weasel-worded white papers.

Both ChatGPT (Cost to OpenAI: $400,000 per day to operate) and Magic 8 Ball (One-time cost: $14.99) were up for the challenge, though they acknowledged it wouldn’t be easy.

“Can you help me solve the healthcare crisis?” I asked. “Signs point to yes,” Magic 8 ball replied, in its typically pithy, understated manner. ChatGPT, on the other hand, took my question as an invitation to show off its artificial intelligence.

“Addressing the healthcare crisis is a complex and multifaceted challenge that requires a holistic approach,” ChatGPT began. Then, as if a Washington think tank had been crossed with an academic policy conference, the Large Language Model offered a very large helping of language. There were 8 “key strategies,” each of which contained three bullet points, and each of which, I was advised, “involves detailed planning, resource allocation, and collaboration among various stakeholders, including government, healthcare providers, insurers, and the public.”

Then there was this diss when I asked about its competitor. “It’s a fun toy,” sneered the chatbot (if chatbots could sneer), “but it doesn’t provide reliable or informed answers.”

I decided to home in on specifics.

“Is a government-run single payer system the right answer?” I asked. “My sources say ‘no,’” Magic 8 ball told me. ChatGPT was more positive, with caveats.

“A government-run single-payer healthcare system is one potential solution to the healthcare crisis, and it comes with its own set of advantages and challenges,” the chatbot replied. It added, “Whether it is the ‘right’ answer depends on various factors” – and then, once more, went on to provide a long list of relevant ones.

I decided to inquire about an approach with bipartisan support. “Is value-based healthcare the best way to control costs?”

“It is decidedly so,” said the Magic 8 Ball immediately. But ChatGPT, usually lightning quick, waited perhaps 20 seconds before not only responding positively, but presenting an overview and specific suggestions. There were 5 advantages and 5 challenges, plus 3 examples of possible strategies (accountable care organizations, bundled payments and patient-centered medical homes), all tied together with 5 considerations for implementation.

“Ultimately, VBHC can be a key component of a broader strategy to reform healthcare systems and achieve sustainable cost control,” ChatGPT concluded.

That pattern continued as I probed about the need for more effective financial incentives to reward high-quality, cost-effective care, a central component of VBHC. “It is certain,” Magic 8 Ball quickly agreed. ChatGPT, meanwhile, again paused for a lengthy period (by its standards) before responding “thoughtfully” (by human standards).

“Yes,” it said, “effective financial incentives are crucial for promoting high-quality, cost-effective care. Properly designed incentives can align the interests of healthcare providers, payers and patients, leading to better health outcomes and more efficient use of resources.”

The chatbot then listed 5 types of financial incentives, 5 key elements of effective incentive programs and three specific examples incorporating them.

Continuing the financial incentives theme, I asked whether health savings accounts could help. Magic 8 Ball simply replied, “Yes,” while ChatGPT carefully pointed out that while HSAs “offer some benefits, they are not a comprehensive solution to the broader health care crisis.”

Like politicians, both ChatGPT and Magic 8 Ball sometimes hedged. “Are hospital mergers good or bad for patients?” I asked. “Ask again later,” said Magic 8 Ball. “Hospital mergers can have both positive and negative impacts on patients,” responded ChatGPT, before presenting a long list of why either might be the case.

“Is private equity buying doctors’ practices good or bad for patients?” I inquired. “Concentrate and ask again,” evaded Magic 8 Ball, followed by an incomprehensible, “Most likely.” ChatGPT allowed that this was “a complex issue, with potential benefits and drawbacks for patients,” before going on to the kind of pro and con balancing act any politician might admire.

I decided it was time to cut to the heart of the matter.

“Will health care costs ever be effectively controlled in America?” I demanded.

Magic 8 Ball tried to spare my feelings – “Better not to tell you now”– while ChatGPT, in its elliptical way, pointed me towards the unpleasant truth. While the challenge was not “insurmountable,” answered ChatGPT, it would require a “multi-faceted approach” involving “strong political will, stakeholder collaboration, and continuous evaluation and adjustment of strategies.”

In other words, “No.”

Michael Millenson is President of Health Quality Advisors and a long time THCB regular, he’s also a Forbes columnist where this piece first appeared.

THCB 20th Birthday Classic: As I’ve always suspected, Health Care = Communism + Frappuccinos

• 1

By MATTHEW HOLT

Our 20th birthday continues with a few classics coming out. Back in 2005 I was really cutting a lyrical rug, and would never miss a chance to get that Cambridge training in Marxism into use. This essay about whether health care should be a public or private good has always been one of my favorites, even if I’m not sure Starbucks is still making Frappuccinos. And 18 years later the basic point of this essay remains true, even if many of you will not have a clue who Vioxx or Haliburton were or why they mattered back then!

Those of you who think I’m an unreconstructed commie will correctly suspect that I’ve always discussed Marxism in my health care talks. You’d be amazed at how many audiences of hospital administrators in the mid-west know nothing about the integral essentials of Marx’s theory of history. And I really enjoy bring the light to them, especially when I manage to reference Mongolia 1919, managed care and Communism in the same bullet point.

While I’ve always been very proud of that one (err.. maybe you have to be there, but you could always hire me to come tell it!), even if I am jesting, there’s a really loose use of the concept of Marxism in this 2005 piece (reprinted in 2009) called A Prescription for Marxism in Foreign Policy from (apparently) libertarian-leaning Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff. He opens with this little nugget:

“Karl Marx may have suffered a second death at the end of the last century, but look for a spirited comeback in this one. The next great battle between socialism and capitalism will be waged over human health and life expectancy. As rich countries grow richer, and as healthcare technology continues to improve, people will spend ever growing shares of their income on living longer and healthier lives.”

Actually he’s right that there will be a backlash against the (allegedly) market-based capitalism — which has actually been closer to all-out mercantilist booty capitalism — that we’re seen over the last couple of decades. History tends to be reactive and societies go through long periods of reaction to what’s been seen before. In fact the 1980-20?? (10-15?) period of “conservatism” is a reaction to the 1930-1980 period of social corporatism seen in most of the western world. And any period in which the inequality of wealth and income in one society continues to grow at the current rate will eventually invite a reaction–you can ask Louis XVI of France about that.

But when Rogoff is talking about Marxism in health care what he really means is that, because health care by definition will consume more and more of our societal resources, the arguments about the creation and distribution of health care products and services will look more like the arguments seen in the debates about how the government used to allocate resources for “guns versus butter” in the 1950s. These days we are supposed to believe that government blindly accepts letting “the market” rule, even if for vast sways of the economy the government clearly rules the market, which in turn means that those corporations with political influence set the rules and the budgets (quick now, it begins with an H…).

Continue reading…

Hey, Old Guys!

BY KIM BELLARD

OK, how many of you had on your women-in-power bingo cards that, in 2022, Sheryl Sandberg would be out at Facebook but Queen Elizabeth II would still be Queen?  It’s the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, marking seventy years on the throne.  She’s getting a lot of love for that tenure, but it makes me think, geez, some people just don’t know when to step away.

Perhaps what sparked my cynicism about the Queen was an op-ed by Yuval Levin, Why Are We Still Governed by Baby Boomers and the Remarkably Old?  Dr. Levin is, of course, referring to the U.S., and he’s spot-on about our governance problem.  But I think the problem goes further: we have too many old people running our companies and major institutions as well.  

Whether it is, say, healthcare, education, or the military, we’re so busy protecting the past that we’re not really getting ready for the future.

Continue reading…

Can Democracy Survive In The Absence of Health Care Security?

By MIKE MAGEE

In my course this fall at the President’s College at the University of Hartford, we began by exploring the word “right” at the intersection of health care services and the U.S. Constitution.  But where we have ended up is at the crossroads of American history, considering conflicting federal and state law, and exploring Social Epidemiology, a branch of epidemiology that concentrates on the impact of the various social determinants of health on American citizens.

What makes the course timely and relevant is that we are uncovering a linkage between health and the construction or destruction of a functional democracy at a moment in America’s history when our democracy is under direct attack.

This was familiar territory for Eleanor Roosevelt. She spent the greater part of World War II creating what she labeled in 1948 “Humanity’s Magna Carta” – aka the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR.)”

Embedded in the declaration was a much broader definition of health. It reads “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The Marshall Plan, for reconstruction of war torn Germany and Japan, embodied these principles, and successfully established stable democracies by funding national health plans in these nations as their first priority.

Although our nation signed the UDHR, it carried no legal obligations or consequences. In fact, the U.S. medical establishment’s bias was to embrace a far narrower definition of health – one that targeted disease as enemy #1. They believed that in defeating disease, health would be left in its wake.

In contrast, neighboring Canada took the UDHR to heart, and as a starting point asked themselves, “How do we make Canada and all Canadians healthy?” Where our nation embraced profiteering and entrepreneurship, leaving no room for solidarity, Canada embraced the tools of social justice and population health.

Continue reading…

Does Our Healthcare System Work for the Most Vulnerable Americans?

By DEBORAH AFEZOLLI, CARL-PHILIPPE ROUSSEAU, HELEN FERNANDEZ, ELIZABETH LINDENBERGER

“Why did you choose this field?” Most physicians are asked this question at some point in their early careers. We are geriatrics and palliative medicine physicians, so when that question is posed to us, it is invariably followed by another: “Isn’t your job depressing?”

No, our job is not depressing. We are trained in the care of older adults and those with serious illness, and we find this work very rewarding.  What truly depresses us is how many vulnerable patients died during the pandemic, and how the scourge of COVID-19 revealed the cracks in our health system. Never before in modern times have so many people been affected by serious illness at the same time, nor have so many suffered from the challenges of our dysfunctional health system. Our nation has now witnessed the medical system’s failure to take comprehensive care of its sickest patients.  This is something those in our own field observed long before the pandemic and have been striving to improve.

All of us practicing geriatrics and palliative care have had a loved one who has been challenged by aging, by serious illness, or indeed by the very healthcare system that is supposed to help them. As medical students and residents, we personally confronted these systemic deficiencies and wondered about alternatives for those patients with the most complex needs. We chose fellowships in geriatrics and palliative medicine because we wanted to try and make a difference in the healthcare that is offered to our most vulnerable patients.

During the New York City surge in the spring of 2020, we were front line workers at a major academic medical center. While the global pandemic took us all by surprise, our clinical training and passion for treating vulnerable populations left us feeling capable and ready to serve. Due to the urgent needs of overwhelming numbers of extremely sick patients, our Department was charged with rapidly expanding access to geriatrics and palliative care across our seven hospitals. We were embedded in Emergency Departments (EDs), hospitalist services, and critical care units.  We roamed the hospitals with electronic tablets and held the hands of dying patients, while urgently contacting families to clarify goals of care.  For those who wanted to receive care in the community, we scrambled to set up telehealth visits and coordinate the necessary support. Way too often we could not meet their needs with adequate services, forcing them to visit overwhelmed Emergency Rooms.

While we helped individual patients and eased some of the strain on our hospitals, our system was overwhelmed and mortality numbers continued to steadily rise. Within our hospitals, staff were redeployed to care for the most critically ill in the emergency departments and intensive care units.  In this frantic time, we were fortunate that our hospitals had sufficient medical resources to care for the sickest patients and for the staff.  However, the sub-acute nursing facilities (SNF) and long-term care facilities strained to protect their residents and their employees. Shortages of PPE, staff, space, testing supplies, and funding all contributed to the high mortality numbers we saw in many NYC facilities and across the nation. There were also limited resources allocated to delivering outpatient care in our patients living in the community.  The rapid shift to telehealth was not feasible for many of our older patients, and even when it was possible, the delivery of diagnostic and therapeutic care was limited and suboptimal.

Data now shows that older adults and those with underlying chronic illnesses were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing higher hospitalization rates as well as higher death rates. Although adults 65 and older account for only 16% of the US population, they represent 80% of COVID-19 deaths. Residents of nursing homes, the frail homebound, and older people of color were the hit the hardest. Thirty-five percent of the deaths in the US from March-May 2020 occurred among nursing home residents and employees. Nationally, over 600,000 nursing home residents were infected with COVID-19 and over 100,000 died from the disease. These data are underestimates and the death toll is likely higher. We cannot explain why older Black Americans were 1.2 times more likely to die than white Americans nor why the odds of dying from COVID were nearly two times higher for persons living in South Dakota as compared to Wyoming or Nebraska. Often, the paid caregivers for these vulnerable patients were themselves vulnerable underpaid women of color who were at higher risk of contracting COVID.

Continue reading…

Biden Should Extend a “Public Option” as a Message to “Health Care Royalists”

• 4

By MIKE MAGEE

In this world of political theatrics, with Democratic legislators from Texas forced into exodus to preserve voters’ rights, and Tucker Carlson rantings about Rep. Eric Swalwell riding shirtless on a camel in Qatar streaming relentlessly, Americans can be excused if they missed a substantive and historic news event last week.

On Friday, July 9th, President Biden signed a far-reaching executive order intended to fuel social and economic reform, and in the process created a potential super-highway sized corridor for programs like universal healthcare. In the President’s view, the enemy of the common man in pursuit of a “fair deal” is not lack of competition but “favoritism.”

To understand the far-reaching implications of this subtle shift in emphasis, let’s review a bit of history. It is easy to forget that this nation was the byproduct of British induced tyranny and economic favoritism. In 1773, citizens of Boston decided they had had enough, and dumped a shipment of tea, owned by the British East India Company, into the Boston Harbor. This action was more an act of practical necessity than politics. The company was simply one of many “favorites” (organizations and individuals) that “got along by going along” with their British controllers.  In lacking a free hand to compete in a free market, the horizons for our budding patriots and their families were indefinitely curtailed.

Large power differentials not only threatened them as individuals but also the proper functioning of the new representative government that would emerge after the American Revolution. Let’s recall that only white male property owners over 21(excluding Catholics and Jews) had the right to vote at our nation’s inception.

Over the following two centuries, power imbalances have taken on a number of forms. For example, during the industrial revolution, corporate mega-powers earned the designation “trusts”, and the enmity of legislators like Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, led the enactment of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

He defined a “trust” as a group of businesses that collude or merge to form a monopoly. To Sen. Sherman, J.D. Rockefeller, the head of Standard Oil, was no better than a monarch. “If we will not endure a king as political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life”, he said.   The law itself stated “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

Continue reading…

A Hamiltonian View of Post-Pandemic America

• 2

By MIKE MAGEE

“In countries where there is great private wealth much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals, but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?”

Those were the words of Alexander Hamilton published on December 5, 1791 in his “Report on the Subject of Manufactures.” He was making the case for an activist federal government with the capacity to support a fledgling nation and its leaders long enough to allow economic independence from foreign competitors.

Today’s “foreign force” of course is not any one nation but rather a microbe, gearing up for a fourth attack on our shores with Delta and Lambda variants. This invader has already wreaked havoc with our economy, knocking off nearly 2% of our GDP, as the nation and the majority of its workers experienced a period of voluntary lockdown.

Our leaders followed Hamilton’s advice and threw the full economic weight of our federal government into a dramatic and direct response. Seeing the threat as akin to a national disaster, money was placed expansively and directly into the waiting hands of our citizens, debtors were temporarily forgiven, foreclosures and evictions were halted, and all but the most essential workers sheltered in place.

Millions of citizens were asked to work remotely or differently (including school children and their teachers) or to not work at all – made possible by the government temporarily serving as their paymaster and keeping them afloat.

As we awake from this economic coma, many of our citizens are reflecting on their previously out-of-balance lives, their hyper-competitiveness, their under-valued or dead-end jobs, and acknowledging their remarkable capacity to survive, and even thrive, in a very different social arrangement.

If our nation is experiencing a trauma-induced existential awakening, it is certainly understandable. America has lost over 600,000 of our own in the past 18 months, more people per capita than almost all comparator nations in Europe and Asia. This has included not just the frail elderly, but also those under 65. In the disastrous wake of this tragedy, 40% of our population reports new pandemic-related anxiety and depression.

A quarter of our citizens avoided needed medical care during this lockdown. For example, screening PAP smears dropped by 80%. And so, Americans’ chronic burden of disease, already twice that of most nations in the world, has expanded once again. There will be an additional price to be paid for that.

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent Health System Dashboard lists COVID-19 as our third leading cause of death, inching out deaths from prescription opioid overdoses. Year-to-date spending on provider health services through 2020 dropped 2%, but pharmaceutical profits, driven by exorbitant pricing, actually increased, bringing health sector declines overall down by -.5% compared to overall GDP declines of -1.8%. The net effect? The percentage of our GDP devoted to health care in the U.S. actually grew during the pandemic – a startling fact since our citizens already pay roughly twice as much per capita as most comparator nations around the world for health care.

Continue reading…