“It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.” –Simone Weil
Libertarianism is much in the news these days, as the political divide in the U.S. seems to widen almost before our eyes. Before providing a rough, notional definition of “libertarianism”, I should offer readers some caveats. First, I am not a political scientist, professional philosopher, or economist, though scholars in these fields have offered many pointed critiques of what is loosely called libertarianism (see references). Furthermore, as a psychiatrist, I am trained to diagnose individuals whom I have professionally examined. I am not in the habit of “diagnosing” movements, ideologies, or political groups; indeed, the idea of doing so is clearly outside the purview of medical or psychiatric practice.
Nonetheless, as a lecturer on bioethics and humanities, it is impossible for me to read the platform and proclamations of the Libertarian Party without drawing some tentative conclusions as regards the nature of this movement; its psychological underpinnings; and its ethical implications for the poorest and sickest among us—those sometimes referred to as “the destitute sick.”
I do not propose to “psychoanalyze” particular individuals, or to speculate on the motives of political figures who figure prominently in American politics. And, because the term “libertarian” has such a wide range of meanings, I will focus my attention on the official platform of the Libertarian party, which is very lucidly spelled out in a publicly-available venue (http://www.lp.org/platform). For the most part, I will deal with the Libertarian party’s position on health care and social support systems, while offering some tentative impressions on the “psychology” of libertarian theory.Continue reading…
The landslide Republican victory, in taking the House and electing some strong conservatives to the Senate, can be interpreted as a mandate to rein in government spending, and specifically to repeal ObamaCare, as these issues were clearly behind the large turnout. There is still a very real possibility the Supreme Court will find the “individual mandate” to buy private insurance unconstitutional. If this provision is thrown out, it’s hard to see how the law survives, since the mandate is needed to finance it.
Now is an excellent time to construct a conservative alternative vision for true reform of our health care delivery system. Since most current problems with the health care system stem from government, a conservative plan should seek to reduce its role.
It goes without saying that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be repealed since, like all the laws passed by this administration, it does precisely the opposite of what its name suggests. By massively increasing the health care bureaucracy at the expense of actual providers of care, it will make care harder to access and more expensive. Many physicians will take early retirement and the already great physician shortage will be exacerbated.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have proposed an entitlement spending reform plan that is striking both for its boldness and its left-right-coming-together origins. There are a number of interesting parts, but I want to focus on the three most important:
Medicare would, for the first time, be transformed into rational insurance. Beginning in 2013, all enrollees would be protected by a $6,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses; in return they would pay for more small expenses on their own.
After a decade, people newly eligible for Medicare would receive a voucher to purchase private insurance instead. The value of the voucher would grow at the rate of growth of GDP plus 1% (note: for the past four decades, health care spending per capita nationwide has been growing at about GDP growth plus 2%).
Medicaid would be turned into annual block grants to the states. The value of the block grants would also grow at GDP growth plus 1%.
Bottom line verdict: This is a good proposal that deserves serious attention. To guarantee its success, however, more needs to be done to (1) allow the private sector to control costs through economic incentives, competition and entrepreneurship and (2) allow young people to save for the growing share of expenses they will be expected to bear.
How Does This Plan Compare with the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Given that Ryan has been previously attacked by Paul Krugman and others on the left because of his ideas about voucherizing Medicare, a natural question arises. How does the Ryan/Rivlin slowdown in Medicare spending compare to the health reform bill Congress passed last spring — a bill supported by some of the very people attacking Ryan?
What if a Republican governor and a Republican legislature had the ability to implement their version of health insurance reform and the federal government would have to pay for it? It’s a great idea. And I’m thrilled to say that a bi-partisan bill has already been introduced in the Senate by Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., that would help facilitate exactly this end.
First, let’s review section 1332 of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to realize how states are already — at least eventually — given the ability to innovate in this manner. Here is a simplified summary:
A state may apply to the Health and Human Services secretary for a waiver of all or any requirements with respect to the insurance exchanges, mandates, and subsidies with respect to health insurance coverage within that state for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.
The secretary has to provide for an alternative means by which the aggregate amount of the tax credits and subsidies, which would have been paid on behalf of participants in the exchanges, would instead be paid to the state for purposes of implementing their own version of the law.
The secretary may grant a request for a waiver only if the secretary determines that the state plan will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined under the new law and offered through similar exchanges established by the states.
No one moves unless everyone moves, so no one moves.
Overcoming the penguin problem has a lot to do with creating expectations. A recent writing by Dr. James O’Connor in Physician Practice expresses a voice from the physician community that I’ve never heard before. His essay is entitled “Meaningful Use — Doctors Have No Choice”.
Physicians Have No Choice Other Than to Adopt EHRs?
Dr. O’Connor argues that physicians are effectively being forced into adopting EHRs. He cites facts and reaches a powerful conclusion:
OK, so technically, we do have a choice. We could stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients, accept cash only, give up our board certification (and thus usually hospital privileges), and move to a state (or country) that doesn’t impose EHR requirements. But is that really a choice? No.
While the effects of persistently high unemployment have surfaced in the shape of reduced consumer spending, shrunken tax rolls and a host of social problems, there is yet another harsh reality lurking in the shadows. Hospitals, already in precarious financial positions, are seeing their most profitable source of revenue fade away. Should the situation continue, even darker days for hospitals will surely be in store.
More than 150 million people in the U.S. rely on employer-sponsored health insurance to pay for the bulk of their medical costs. One of the more credible criticisms of health reform is the potential backlash against the employer pay-or-play provisions in the legislation, which could throw millions of today’s insured off their employer plans and into the streets with the chronically uninsured. Even if this did not occur, or at least not to a market-moving degree, it would be small recompense, literally, for hospitals relative to the boogeyman that no political party can legislate or filibuster in or out of existence at will: unemployment. Hospitals in our country rely on the privately insured and better-paying patients for approximately 35 percent of net revenue. Given the already compressed profit margins in the hospital industry, any deterioration in the supply of its best customers could seriously threaten the financial solvency and operational viability of many hospitals across the country. Health reform will not prevent this from happening. Reform targets the un- and under-insured and provides only a base level of coverage (Medicaid), coverage that traditionally add nothing to hospital margins and in many cases erode them.
There remains an unhealthy level of skepticism in the market as to whether or not consumers will use a personal health record (PHR). While a certain level of skepticism is healthy in any market, the level to which it is laid towards PHRs is unwarranted and likely more a function of ignorance then malicious intent. Following is a brief PHR case study that provides validity to the mantra that a patient who is provided access to their personal health information (PHI) via a PHR can become a more engaged patient in self-managing their health. What is particularly striking about this story is that it is does not take place in middle-class America, where many have targeted their PHR initiatives, but rather among the urban poor.
Empowering the Urban Poor to Self-Manage Their Diabetes:
In 2008, HUH received a grant from the Dept of Health, DC to launch a diabetes treatment program primarily targeting urban poor. As part of this grant, HUH launched a PHR initiative creating a patient portal using NoMoreClipboard (NMC), linking NMC to their clinical diabetes EHR, CliniPro from NuMedics. The PHR provides patients with access to their problem list, vitals (height, weight, blood pressure, BMI), medication lists, basic lab results, A1C results (can be charted for track and trend) and basic demographic information. While Dr. Nunlee-Bland stated that HUH has no reason not to provide patients with full access to all PHI, they have purposely kept the PHR simple and focused on the treatment of diabetes.
Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it. ~Richard Lamm
The day after a mid-term tidal wave of anti-incumbency sentiment swept through Congress resulting in the GOP reclaiming a controlling majority in the House and closer parity in the Senate, a seemingly contrite President Obama took personal responsibility for his party’s dismal showing at the polls. In a carefully worded conciliatory message, the President shared that, “the American people have made it very clear that they want Congress to work together and focus their entire energies on fixing the economy.”
Newly minted House Majority leader, John Boehner, subsequently reconfirmed that the GOP would not rest until Congress had reined in government spending. This would be partly achieved by deconstructing the highly unpopular and “flawed” Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a “misguided” piece of legislation that would actually increase costs for employers thereby reducing the nation’s ability to jump-start an economy that relies on job creation and consumer spending. In Boehner’s mind, government is not unlike the average American, overweight – it’s budget deficits bloated by the cost of financial bailouts, Keynesian stimulus spending and failure to discuss the growing burden of fee for service Medicare.
The President’s failure to acknowledge healthcare reform in his speech was interpreted by many as deliberate and only served to cement the perception that in Washington, it will impossible to have constructive dialogue around the imperfections and potential unintended consequences of PPACA. The White House’s resolve to defend its hard-fought healthcare legislation is likely to extend the polarizing partisanship that has come to characterize Congress. The impasse may very well spark a two-year period of bruising, bellicose finger-pointing over how to fix rising healthcare costs.
Many people forget that before Washington DC was our nation’s capital, it was a pestilential swamp, whose few hardy residents regularly succumbed to tropical diseases like malaria. It was virtually uninhabitable in the summer (some say it still is), and like Houston and New Orleans, really began to boom only after the advent of affordable air conditioning. It is also a political swamp, infested with lobbyists and special interests, and Washington “lifers” – commentators, political operatives, consultants, intellectuals and bureaucrats who outlive increasingly fragile Presidential administrations. The electorate despises Washington, and sends waves of “outsiders” (e.g. ordinary Americans) to drain the swamp.
Though President Obama signed it into law in March, the new Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a swamp creature. Written by an exhausted Congress, half beast, half plant, the ACA is a seething, octopus-like tangle of well meaning but opaque government projects intended to expand health coverage and fix the health system’s numerous problems. Far more than “insurance reform”, it sprawls over and touches virtually every corner of our $2.5 trillion health system, bringing change, uncertainty and a ton of taxpayer dollars. It also has sunk its taproots deep into the national treasury and extends its feeding tentacles to an obese and hungry industry that already claims 17% of the national wealth.
A new wave of Republicans are about to hit town, fired up by their stunning mid-term election victory and control over the House of Representatives. One of their campaign pledges is to kill the swamp creature. They will shortly charge off into the swamp to try and kill it, like the British army tried to kill Francis Marion. In doing so, they expose themselves to a whole bunch of hidden hazards, including the beast itself. Handled thoughtlessly, the Republican campaign against health reform could damage the party’s prospects in 2012, even if the economy continues to sputter.
If anyone ever doubted the extent to which Congressional committees could turn good intentions into a bureaucratic nightmare, they need only to look at PPACA’s premium subsidy provisions and their potential impact on insurance exchanges.
PPACA offers premium and enrollee cost-sharing subsidies for lower-income people not eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP as one of the three key components—along with liberalizing Medicaid income restrictions and requiring everyone to have coverage—of reform’s attempt to solve the affordability problem that’s led to fifty million Americans being uninsured.
How will the subsidy process work? It takes up 25 pages of the final reform legislation, so the following is a vastly simplified description. It’s also one that assumes that the final regulations will not deviate significantly from the law itself.
First, anyone wishing to be eligible for a subsidy must submit an application to an exchange. The application must include all information necessary to determine if the applicant is eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, as well as for the PPACA subsidies. (Massachusetts’ Connector—the prototype exchange—requires a 12-page page form to convey this information.)