Tag: Policy

PHARMA/POLICY/POLITICS: The FDA remains in tatters

Jun 27, 2005• 23

It’s time to dip into the murky waters of the FDA once more. This is a classic tale of politics intruding into an agency that should have science as its prime motivator. Here’s the story summarized so far.

The FDA has barely had a full time official commissioner since the start of the Bush Administration. Mark McClellan was officially head for a brief while in 2003, but he barely had time to look embarrassed on 60 Minutes when asked why Canadian drugs weren’t safe enough for Americans before he nipped off to the rather more rarefied atmosphere of CMS — where he’s much better suited.

Meanwhile before, after (and basically during) McClellan’s time at FDA, the acting commissioner has been Lester Crawford. Some cynics have noticed that there are a few clouds over Crawford. He was involved in some pretty close to the wind activities when he was in charge of Food Safety (ironically this weekend, there’s more suspicion about the Administration covering up a second case of Mad Cow). But more recently there’s been much fuss over both his personal affairs (i.e. was he or wasn’t he abusing his power to forward the career of a female colleague with whom he was having a close relationship) and, much more importantly, about his being behind the non-approval of Barr Labs’ Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Robert Steeves has written convincingly on Why Plan B went down. Essentially Crawford overruled a scientific committee which voted overwhelmingly that Plan B (an emergency morning-after contraceptive) was safe and effective. So it won’t go on the market. Of course, any time you hear anything to do with "safety" in reproductive health care in this country, your ears should prick up. There are allegations that information was withheld from the Senate Panel investigating this. Whether that’s true or not, David Hager the physician who apparently has Crawford’s ear and was a one of the few dissenters on the panel, appears to be a certifiable loon. Yup, he attributes all his research skills and influence to God and is not shy about telling the world about it. However, his ex-wife is not shy about telling the rest of the world about Hager’s at the least inhumane and at most criminal treatment of her — including paying her (at first) and then forcing her into types of sex that many on the Christian right probably think of as against God’s law and should be banned (although they all probably indulge in private…OK that’s my last direct slam on the Fundamentalists in this piece).

At any rate, it’s good to know that the future of contraception in this country is in such stable and rational hands. And overall of course the whole thing is a payback from Crawford to the Christian right for supporting his appointment.

As a result, three Democrats on the panel are going to hold up Senate confirmation of his nomination even though it got out of committee — even with Ted Kennedy supporting him. (Kennedy says that FDA needs a leader of some kind to remove uncertainty). The real joke is that one of those delaying his vote is an even more extreme member of the Christian right, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (ironically like Hager another ObGYN obsessed with sex, although in his case it’s rampant schoolgirl lesbianism) who thinks that the FDA should be printing warning labels on condoms because they aren’t effective enough preventing disease (and of course Coburn probably thinks that people shouldn’t be having sex anyway).

This might all be fun and games in an inside baseball kind of way if the issues at hand weren’t so damn important. Since the Vioxx scandal there is no trust of anything the FDA says about drug safety, and it’s fairly clear that the FDA leadership at least has basically been in PhRMA’s pocket. We’re now even getting whiff of a bigger scandal about the contentious link between mercury and autism. I won’t even pretend to look at the science behind that, but it’s safe to say that the Robert Kennedy article that has reignited this fuss wouldn’t have had nearly so much press if the FDA commanded more respect, and if the allegations that it covered up studies on behalf of the pharma industry — as essentially it did in the cases of Vioxx and Celebrex — weren’t so believable.

The final piece of the puzzle rest with now famed FDA whistleblower David Graham. With maverick Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley in his corner, he is taking aim at the newly appointed FDA safety panel. Essentially, instead of creating an external review board with the power to pull drugs from the market, the FDA has created an internal panel to which insiders like Crawford control all the appointments. FDA needs to be seen to be scientific and neutral, but that’s not happening. For example, the advisory panel that voted to continue sales of Celebrex and narrowly voted to allow Vioxx to return to market was shown to be filled with scientists with drug company ties, and that when they were excluded the tallied votes would have been very different. This may be what big pharma thinks it wants, but it’s not what is good for the country or for that matter for the future of big pharma. We need an FDA that is beyond reproach or politics.

Instead we have a series of government agencies, with the FDA being a prime example, where whistleblowers are needed to maintain standards of honesty and dignity; something our Dear Leader said he was going to bring back to the White House (ha, ha). And the whistleblowers are being treated pretty badly, even if they do have the protection of an influential Senator. (If you want more look at this article and editorial from PLoS about the treatment of whistleblowers)

Given that there are other Presidential appointments in deep trouble, and that a Supreme Court fight is about to start that will get nasty very quickly, one cynic has suggested to me that Crawford will be confirmed without a vote as a recess appointment. In any event, the politicization of every government agency has now produced a situation where the politicians, the bureaucrats and the industry are conspiring against the public. This is bad for business, bad for health care, and bad for America.

POLICY: Why health care costs so much

Jun 22, 2005• 11

This one is the cross-post from Ezra’s blog yesterday. I was going to do something different last night, but the wind was right and so I went paragliding instead! And it was great! I will have more on the FDA later today or tomorrow

Health Affairs (the essential peer reviewed health policy journal) has an article from the very well respected Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) which announces that the decrease in the increase of health spending has stalled (here’s the slightly more digestible press release). No kidding, the press release starts off with this line. See if you can get the gobbledygook here:

“The reprieve from faster-growing health care costs stalled in 2004 as costs per privately insured American grew 8.2 percent”

The good news is that nominal GDP growth (real growth plus inflation) was 5.2% in 2004, so health care costs (the 8.2%) were less than double that. So in the bizzaro world of American health care, it’s still something of a success when health care is expanding only are only a little under double the rate of the rest of the economy or less than three times the inflation rate. That’s why health care takes up 15% of the economy now when it was around 5% in 1970.

But the two key questions are a) do we have to spend so much more? and b) what are we getting for the money?

The short answer to a) is no, we don’t have to spend so much. Most other countries spend between 6% and 10% of their GDPs on health care, and some, such as Canada and Japan in the 1990s, actually reduced the share of GDP they spent on health care. The more complex answer to a) depends on what you think we ought to be spending our money on. Back in the time of Vietnam and the Cold War the US spent nearly 10% of GDP on “defense”. Now we spend money on frappuchinos and viewing pictures of Paris Hilton on-line. These are all political choices, and it’s clear that Americans view medical care as to some extent a luxury good that they are happy to spend money on. In her book Medicine and Culture the late Lynn Payer described the difference between the British stiff-upper lip, the French consternation about balance in the liver, and the American desire to operate on any patient who’d lie still for a moment, and she ascribed most of the difference in medical practice, and thus costs, to culture. More recently Uwe Reinhardt has shown that it’s not just culture but also prices — we pay our health care workers and supplier more than foreigners do and that’s a big factor in our overall larger costs.

The other factor that allows us to spend so much more is that there is neither a competent market mechanism that stops us spending too much, nor a central budget authority doing so. Market mechanisms work in one of two ways, either on average we just can’t consume more (i.e. pictures of Paris Hilton) or we can’t afford to all consume as much as we might possibly want (i.e. we can’t all afford Prada dog-caddying purses or whatever Paris carries her dog around in). In health care our ability to consume is essentially limitless, especially if we’re sick, and usually some other sucker is paying the tab. So we are dependent either on the producers of care to say “that’s enough” (which is the British stiff upper lip approach which results in what Americans call rationing and Brits call compassionate care for the sick and elderly), or on the sucker that’s paying the tab to cry “Uncle!”. Briefly (and this is a much more complex subject), because of our diffuse system of third party payment, none of the said suckers have either had the ability or the will to really reduce payment. And the producers here have always known that putting up their costs will result in someone ponying up. Even though as the prices go up more people get excluded out of the system on the margins, those who can stay in it will more than make up the financial difference. So costs go up, as we do more things with more technology at a higher price. And because not everyone is in the system, and there’s not one universal pot of money or line-item budget, or no effective consumer pricing mechanism (and there can’t be for reasons that I wont go into here), no one is there to cry “Uncle!”. Of course in other countries that’s usually the job of the other cabinet ministers who say things like, hey if you put all the taxes towards health care there’s nothing left for education, roads, invading Iraq or whatever. When Congress votes on a new healthcare bill no-one seems to care too much about that bottom line, as the Medicare Modernization Act cost fiasco proves. Note that this is not how Walmart governs relations with its suppliers.

The second question is harder to answer. In some ways it’s easy to say that we don’t do as well as other countries on several outcomes measures and that we’re not getting our money’s worth. On the other hand several of the things that used to kill people are now relatively easily surmountable — at a cost. And then there’s the paying for comfort issue. It used to be that if you had real heart trouble, you needed to have your chest cracked and have a full CABG. No fun. Now getting a stent put in is a relatively painless procedure that they don’t even put you to sleep for. Does that lower the bar on the decision to do invasive cardiology? Indeed. Does it cost more for the payer per individual? Probably, as in the end many of those stent patients need a by-pass anyway. Does it cost the payers and society more overall? You betcha. And the parking lots outside the cardiologist suites are filled with physicians’ Porsches as are those outside the executive offices at J&J and BSC.

Is that a good or a bad thing? Complex. In aggregate the cheapest thing is to let the heart (and therefore patient) go when it’s time, but we’re never going to do that. So should we restrict procedures to only those in real trouble, and only give them a CABG? Fine if you say so, but let me ask you two questions. What do you define as real trouble? And would you rather have a stent put in while you lie there listening to Lite jazz, or have your chest cracked?

And that uncertainty is what drives our system and drives that cost barometer up.

POLICY/INTERNATIONAL: More rubbish being talked about single payer and Canada by major newspaper columnist

Jun 20, 2005• 15

I had hoped that when the Boston Globe gave Jeff Jacoby a chance to rant about Canada and single payer, and THCB was able to call bullshit, that I wouldn’t have to repeat myself quite so soon. But to no avail. The Chicago Tribune gives a columnist called Steve Chapman, who incredibly enough worked for the liberal New Republic (although aside of that has a long list of writing for libertarian and conservative newspapers), a chance to spread way more disinformation.

It’s good to know that a serious newspaper can allow a leading columnist to write about Canadian health care using numbers about the length of Canadian waiting lists from hopelessly biased organizations like Fraser and Cato, but ignore the official statistics which indicate that Fraser is wrong on waiting lists by a factor of 4. And for that matter the average waiting lists quoted by Fraser of around 4 months for elective surgery aren’t that bad–yet somehow Chapman starts talking about two year waiting list because one orthopedic surgeon said so.

Chapman then goes on to cherry-pick different outcomes on cancer to show that American care is better. Of course he doesn’t bother looking at overall care in different countries. This article in Health Affairs did just that (and is one in a series). The result, as again commented on in THCB, is that overall there is no real advantage to being in America. We do worse on somethings and better on others, but the suggestion by the Canada bashers that we get what we pay for is well off-base. And we clearly pay a lot more than anyone else and the share of those costs borne directly by poorer Americans is much, much greater than that borne by poor Canadians (or poorer people in other nations).

And if you look at the Health Affairs study a little more carefully you come to the authors’ conclusions. Remember this is a real academic peer reviewed study, not some rubbish that Fraser Institute made up to suit its political agenda. Here are the conclusions:

Across multiple dimensions of care, the United States stands out for its relatively poor performance. With the exception of preventive measures, the U.S. primary care system ranked either last or significantly lower than the leaders on almost all dimensions of patient-centered care: access, coordination, and physician-patient experiences. These findings stand in stark contrast to U.S. spending rates that outstrip those of the rest of the world. The performance in other countries indicates that it is possible to do better.

There’s plenty wrong with Canadian health care–something I looked at in depth in my "Oh Canada" piece. I’m also pretty sure that it’s not a good model for America, whereas Germany, Holland, France or Japan might well be. But I really wish that if right-wing know-nothing columnists are going to write about this subject, that they’d either learn something about it themselves, or try to abstain from feeding at the research trough of totally biased organizations like Cato and Fraser. I suspect though that I’ll be wishing in vain for a while, but shouldn’t the Chicago Tribune hold itself to a higher standard?

POLICY: Now let’s remember a few basic things about Medicare, single payer, vouchers et al, with brief UPDATE

Jun 16, 2005• 13

Well either the doppelgangers are firing off or a few people have been reading this blog or the Jungian collective unconscious is working. In any event several of the issues about single payer versus vouchers that have been raised here have been echoed elsewhere. First Fuch’s co-author Zeke Emmanuel in a guest spot over at Washington Monthly in response to Kevin Drum (the host there) spends some time explaining how insurance organizations (plan sponsors, an intermediary layer, call it what you will) could actually provide some innovation and be allowed to compete over that, rather than risk selection.

May be so, but there are two obvious points. First, there’s no reason why competition amongst that intermediary layer need not be controlled by a single payer system — something like that is starting out in the UK now. My major point is that a quick Medicare-for-all legislative rush which puts us in one big risk pool is much more politically likely than an attempt to create a formula that gets us to perfect risk adjustment which Congress will pick to death while it’s legislated. Second, Emmanuel reckons that we won’t get to single payer without a national crisis (and I agree) but then he thinks that the voucher system is palatable enough to somehow sneak past the special interests in the absence of said crisis. I don’t think so. Significant universal insurance reform will be so difficult to do that it’ll need a national crisis. But then I’d call, say, 80m uninsured Americans a national crisis — or at least one that may show up politically if enough of the uninsured are male Republicans in the south –and we may well get there if current cost trends continue.

Zeke also reminds us that Medicare isn’t such a great program either, and I completely agree. Medicare is basically a welfare program for hospitals and providers, and soon to become one for drug companies too. It’s the fact that it doubles as a way to stop old people from being unable to afford hospital care and thus from dying in the streets that gives it such popularity. But that income protection for seniors part of it can be preserved while making the overall program better. First off, the amount of money paid to those provider organizations can be reduced (and will be), but they need to improve their productivity and stop delivering "flat of the curve" medicine (i.e. more money with no comparable output). Some hints in this direction include implementing some of the lessons from the Dartmouth crowd’s work on overuse of resources in ICUs. The other part about Medicare is that it can be used as a force for good and to foster innovation. With all its warts that’s what P4P is all about, and I don’t see why Medicare is worse at doing that than private health insurers, which anyway tend to follow its lead.

Finally, I’d like to remind all parties that the gulf between the universal insurance crowd and the single payer crowd isn’t so big, as they both have everyone covered and everyone in a single big risk pool (called America). And with some variations, the Europeans show us that multi "intermediary" systems such as the ones in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland can be very effective.

UPDATE: Jonathan Cohn, who seems to be giving it away over at TMPCafe these days instead of selling it at TNR, has some pretty sensible points to make about the eventual similarity between universal insurance and single payer. He doesn’t quite get to my logical conclusion — which is that we get to some type of government-funded quasi-competitive regulated market via an extension of Medicare’s single payer model — but I think he’ll be there eventually. And I think he’s in some agreement with me about the politics of all this. i.e. Life has to be really bad and this has to be done once and quickly…..Gramsci called that Fortuna et Opportunta, or waiting for the time to be right and then giving the right legislation (or revolution in his case) a big shove.

POLICY: Another dribble on the single payer versus voucher issue

Jun 15, 2005• 3

There’s an interesting set of six letters about Krugman’s article in the NY Times. One of the letters is way off base, suggesting that Medicare limits what doctors can and can’t do. Well I suppose compared to a cash paying gazillionaire that’s true, but anyone who knows anything about private health plans know that they are much tougher on limiting access to different types of care and different drugs than Medicare (not that it’s done without good reason sometimes, but as my other post this morning shows sometimes there may be no good reason). The writer wonders whether Teddy Kennedy would want to be on Medicare. Unless I don’t understand Senators’ health plans, I assume he already is, and Krugman surely will be if he doesn’t get assassinated by the loony right. It beggars belief how the Times can publish that sort of uninformed tripe which contains not one iota of evidence, but then again it never published my brilliantly argued rebuttal to a letter from AHIP’s President about a previous Krugman column.

But one of the other letters is rather more interesting. It says"

I find Paul Krugman’s column disturbing. If 72 percent of Americans want a national health insurance program but insurance companies have the power to override that majority, what does that say about the health of our democracy?

Where can we get insurance for such an ailment?

Glenn Alan Cheney, Hanover, Conn.

Basically Mr Cheney is right. People like his namesake the VP have proved time and time again that access to power can be bought by moneyed special interests — after all we still don’t know and probably never will exactly what went on in those meetings about the energy bill, but it’s pretty damn certain that Enron execs were writing US energy policy up until the moment that they just had to be repudiated.

However, I do have to take issue with the numbers quoted. Essentially Krugman is quoting a number that has stayed relatively constant in various surveys, and crosses party lines. The number is basically those who would in theory support universal health insurance. These numbers are though not very important. A much better number is those who answer the three part question Harris has been asking for 20 odd years. That question adds in the other part to "supporting universal insurance" by asking about the amount of change required in the system. The three answers are broadly a) very minor change required, b) substantial reforms required, and c) complete rebuilding required.

The important answer is how many people are looking for a complete rebuilding. Because if there isn’t a substantial group in favor of that, none of the reforms required to get to universal insurance can happen. That number tends to hover between 20% and 30% (and by the way it’s way higher here than in any other English speaking country, which gives the lie to those saying that foreigners dislike their systems as much as Americans dislike ours). During the early days of the Clinton Administration, the "completely rebuild" number got up to over 40%. More recently it also got into the higher 30s. But for an Administration or Congress to have the will to defeat the special interests on health care, that number needs to be in the 40s or even 50s and stay there for a while. We haven’t seen that, which is why we haven’t seen real reform.

It will come, but the question is, how long will it take for things to be bad enough to drive enough Americans into the "completely rebuild" camp?

POLICY: Single payer versus vouchers: somewhat missing the point

Jun 14, 2005• 3

In an op-ed called One Nation Uninsured Paul Krugman has given intellectual solace to all the single payer advocates out there and in his terms defined the serious argument in health poicy as being "between those who believe that the government should simply provide basic health insurance for everyone and those proposing a more complex, indirect approach that preserves a central role for private health insurance companies." Krugman is right in that this correctly excludes those avocating government-run health provision for all (and there aren’t really any of these) and the numerous HSA/individual account backers who still can’t do basic mathematics from the serious debate. (I’m having an offline conversation with a couple of these HSA promoters that may come to some resolution on that, but for now I still don’t see how giving money to healthy people doesn’t take it way from the sick ones who need it).

Krugman also puts some historical perspective to the analysis of why uninversal health insurance never passsed in this country. Yup, it’s the AMA that’s largely been to blame (and not just in 1945 either! They also helped stop it in 1917, 1933, 1965, 1971, 1977 and 1994 too). But Krugman largely ignores the doctors and says that it’s the insurance companies to blame. Jonathan Cohn moonlighting from his New Republic gig over at TMP gives some more detail about the failure of some parts of the supporting coalition to back the Clinton plan, and the success with which some parts of the opposition (notably the small health plans and their brokers) dumped tons of horse manure on top of the proposal – notably "Harry and Louise". There’s even been some comment from centrist Democrat Matt Miller suggesting that socialized medicine will finally really win support from big business.

This all apparently leads to a showdown between the voucher crowd, led by Vic Fuchs and Ezekiel Emmanuel, and the single payer advocates, whom Krugman is now supporting — although in several other forums like this months Harper’s he is backing the French model, which does have a mix of private pay, unlike Canada’s. The key question is whether or not you maintain a private insurance sector, and whether or not politically you’ll need the insurance industry’s support to pass the legislation.

Clearly the way health plans and providers interact today is a total mess. Witness this case in N.Carolina where the doctors are accepting the local Blues plan, but the hospital at which they are practicing isn’t. However, I actually think intellectually, there is room for independent advocates (e.g. plans) for patients to bargain or ally with providers, sort of like Enthoven’s vision of multiple competing Kaisers under managed competition. But in the end I think this is a false distinction in terms of practical running of the system. There is no infrastructure for that kind of competition between plans at the moment(i.e. over delivering better care not avoiding risk), and crafting the legislation to get to it is so complex that it’s unlikely to be possible to get us there from our current system.

So the question is, if we are to get to universal health insurance, what are the circumstances that will get us there. This is where the real lessons of the Clinton debacle come in. The legislation will have to be done in response to a genuine crisis, and probably be done in the early days of a new Administration with a new Congress. Waiting for 18 months for the First Lady to draft something with her buddies won’t cut it, not least because the crisis may go away. (That’s what happened in 1994 and that’s the real untold story of the Clintons’ failure).

In that case there’s probably no time to do anything more complex than to create a universal Medicare-for-all that takes in everyone, allows people to buy supplemental insurance at the margin to pay for nicer waiting rooms (as in the UK), and fixes prices for providers at the prevailing rate, with some tough caps in the out years to contain costs. That’s how we’ll get it done.

The real issue will be how does it get reformed to be a logical system beyond that. It’s taken the Brits 60 years to get to pay for performance, and we’re only just starting for Medicare. The real trick to get to better care will be the incentives to change medical care delivery, once everyone is in the same insurance risk pool, and payers and providers can’t run away from the cases they don’t want.

But, and this is a huge "but", the level of crisis that we need to be at to get this new Adminstration and new Congress elected to change the health care system will need to be very large indeed. I don’t think that we are anywhere close yet. Meanwhile we’ll meander around with HSAs, more uninsured and health care coming up on the 2008 radar, but not as a defining issue. So methinks the apparent optimism of some of my more liberal colleagues that something is gong to get done here just because GM is hurting understates the inertia in the system.

I’ll be writing more about the data behind the Clinton plan failure and what I think will constitute a crisis later.

POLICY: PRI has a blog, almost.

Jun 10, 2005• 13

Sometimes you just wonder how these press release lists get put together. The Pacific Research Institute, which with its fellow traveler organization the Fraser Institute, has been issuing nutty and just plain wrong "research" about Canadian health care for years, decided to start sending me press releases today. They now have their own blog (well it’s not alive yet but a press release is as good as, dontcha think?). The blog will explain why importing drugs from Canada is a bad idea and why paying more for drugs is a good idea.

Well as they’re nice enough to send me the release I went and looked at their annual report, and if you like pictures of Maggie Thatcher you should go look there too. It does worry me a little when Sally Pipes can only find Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum to quote effusive things about her health care work, but I guess you get praise where you can.

However, their press release also says that they solicit corporate contributions from the health care industry. No biggie, as I do that too (although I call it consulting work!), but you might get the impression that the "research" PRI conducts probably fits the views of certain parts of the health care industry very well. So well that I’m a little surprised PRI only manages to get 15% of its $4.1m budget out of the corporate sector–although it gets another $2m odd from "foundations" which may well be corporate-controlled ones too. But they’re not honest enough in the report to say who it is who’s coughing up.

What you really see from reading the report is that PRI has been somewhat effective in turning a small amount of money into either effective policy interventions or totally muddying the policy waters (take your pick). The end result is that whenever Canadian health care comes up, there is a loony cry from the right that manages to obscure a few basic facts, and makes sure that no rational conversation can be had here about real health reform. Even though the genuinely independent Lewin group showed that single payer would save money in California–a report that sank without trace. So to that extent, this little corner of the vast right wing conspiracy (in San Francisco no less!) is doing its job. Pity that PRI’s claim about individual freedom being the be-all and end-all don’t appear to have transmuted over to a stated position on the drug war or medical marijuana. Perhaps they don’t notice where they are. The Independent Institute, a more intellectually honest libertarian think tank across the Bay has no such qualms.

POLICY: Fuchs and Emanuel on vouchers

Jun 10, 2005• 4

In an article called "Solved!" Vic Fuchs (and new-ish partner) Ezekiel Emanuel go into much more detail about their plan for creating a VAT-funded voucher system for health care. I’m moderately in favor of vouchers for health care and education so long as they are indiscriminate between public and private institutions (i..e don’t take money from public schools and give them to private ones). In fact the best of all worlds would have no "public" provision of either education or health care, but a voucher system that was closely controlled to make sure that inequality of geography and class was corrected. In other words you’d get a more valuable voucher if you lived in the ghetto than if you lived in the suburbs, which would encourage health plans and schools to set up there.

Having said that, I don’t think that Fuch’s plan has much chance of success in the medium term because I don’t think that Americans care enough about universal health care. More likely will be some kind of incremental legislation, such as that being discussed in secret by Heritage, Families USA et al. As I’ve railed many times on THCB, if it’s not universal and compulsory, no system will work in either reducing costs or reducing the number of uninsured, because the producers can keep on putting the prices (and services) up and the net result will be more people unable to afford insurance. So an incremental approach will not solve the problem for which a solution is being demanded (which is rising costs for the middle class rather than uninsurance for the lower class).

So in the long run this incrementalism will lead to a single-payer government funded (and possibly provided) system, which will have a defined and fixed budget–and may be administered via a voucher system But it will take us a long time, or a national crisis to get there. Who was it who first told me that health care reform only happened in times of national crisis? Vic Fuchs.

POLICY: On Social Class and Health Care by the Industry Veteran

May 26, 2005• 7

A WEEK AGO, the NY Times ran
a front-page article presenting three case histories of people who sustained
MRI’s. The article by Janny Scott, “Life at the top in America isn’t just
better, it’s longer,” is part of an ongoing series examining the effects of
social class in the US. I highly recommend it to all THCB readers as the
real heart and soul of what health care analysis is all about, or at least
should be.It will come as no surprise that Scott finds social class
determines every aspect of each patient’s episode, “from the circumstances of
their heart attacks to the emergency care each received…It shaped their
understanding of their illness, the support they got…[and] their relationships
with their doctors. It helped define their ability to change their lives
and shaped their odds of getting better.” In the best traditions of
feature journalism, Scott supplies copious detail to illustrate that the
enormous treatment differences meted out to patients and the commensurate
outcome disparities varied according to social class.Just within the
realm of health care services, the same disparities apply to stroke, cancer,
diabetes, chronic viral infections (HIV, hepatitis C) and a raft of other
episodes and conditions. Of course, we could examine most of the other
issue areas at the core of contemporary life — education, retirement, child
care, leisure, on and on — and find in these that social class is also at the
root of discrepant life chances and life styles.The Times’s
article also underscores a point that you and I have both made on TCHB several
times, namely that the holy-of-holies under Reagan-Bush-Bush, the omnisciently
unregulated market, is a piss poor way of delivering goods and services that
have such enormous impact upon the length and quality of lives. Markets
stratify the public into segments, they often require long periods to
self-correct, and they tend to evolve in ways that subvert the very
preconditions for a market. Some of those market system shortcomings,
within moderate limits, may be acceptable for consumer packaged goods, luxuries
and certain other sectors. Health care is too important, however, to leave
in the hands of the oligopolists and plutocrats who run markets.

Policy: Another take on HSAs by Jib

May 24, 2005• 47

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent piece on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) this week, which almost sounds as though whoever wrote it read some of the comments in the threads here! No surprises in the conclusions : employers kind of like HSAs (go figure), employees are kind of confused (ditto) and some people are ending up paying a little bit more for their medical bills than they had reckoned on. BusinessWeek also has an article on the topic this week, which has a more positive take on HSAs, including some interesting wrinkles in place at one plan. Hat tip Ezra Klein.