Having insurance does not mean you get health care

There’s no question the Accountable Care Act needs work – everyone agrees on that.

So let’s talk about the specifics – what needs fixing, why, and how can we get those fixes passed.

First, let’s understand how bad our current system is. Some who want to repeal and/or replace the ACA continue to publicly state we have “the best health care in the world.”

While that may – or may not – have been true at some point, it is increasingly clear that the US health care system is not anywhere close to best in class. A study done by the Commonwealth Fund compares our system to those in ten other industrialized countries, with sobering results.

Here are key findings:

  • Adults in the United States are far more likely than those in 10 other industrialized nations to go without health care because of costs, have trouble paying medical bills, encounter high medical bills even when insured, and have disputes with their insurers or discover insurance wouldn’t pay as they expected.
  • One third (33%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared to as few as 5 percent to 6 percent in the Netherlands and the U.K.
  • One-fifth of U.S. adults had major problems paying medical bills, compared to 9 percent in France, the next highest country, 2 percent in the U.K., 3 percent in Germany, and 4 percent in the Netherlands.

One finding is particularly scary: “Although the uninsured were at highest risk for skipping needed care, working-age U.S. adults with below-average incomes who were insured all year were significantly more likely than those with above-average incomes to go without needed care because of costs and have serious problems paying medical bills — nearly half (46%) went without needed care and one third had one bill problem, double the rates reported by above-average income insured adults.”

You read that right – having insurance does not mean you get health care, and if you do, you still have to pay a substantial portion of the bill out of your own pocket.

The study examined health care and health insurance in eleven countries, all with much lower costs than the US — a differential that undoubtedly helps them compete in international markets. As globalization continues, American companies will find the disparity in health care costs will be a growing problem, diminishing their ability to compete with companies from Germany, Japan, Korea, and Switzerland.That said, ACA is anything but perfect. Let’s start our discussion with something that isn’t in the bill: Medicare physician payment reform.

Fixing Medicare’s horrendously broken physician reimbursement scheme known as RBRVS is critical. Congress has to come up with a long term solution that:

a) better recognizes the primary importance of primary care

b) incentivizes outcomes rather than pays for piece work

c) is less likely to be abused by Congressional cowardice and ineptitude

A big part of the solution is already in place – the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This from California Healthline:

Beginning in 2014, IPAB must recommend Medicare spending cuts if the program’s growth rate exceeds the average of the consumer price index and the Medical Care CPI. Barring congressional action to make equivalent cuts, IPAB’s recommendations would become law. The board would exempt decisions affecting hospitals and other provider groups until 2020, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that IPAB still could hold down Medicare spending by $15.5 billion between 2015 and 2019, according to a new report from Stephen Zuckerman of the Urban Institute.

A good start to be sure, but just a start. And note that we’ve still got to wait ten years before IPAB can address hospital costs, ten years that will likely produce significant inflation driven by technology, utilization, and price increases. We’re already seeing hospitals successfully thwart the new severity-adusted DRGs through more sophisticated coding…

Instead, we should move up IPAB’s effective date by at least a year, and ideally two for physicians and perhaps seven years for facilities.

If we are serious about deficits, then let’s get serious. What the new Congress does about IPAB will tell us a lot about whether it will live up to the oft-voiced commitment to reduce government spending.

What does this mean for you?

Watch what Congress does about physician payment reform. If this isn’t addressed in a meaningful, comprehensive, and sustainable way than there’s little chance Medicare costs will be controlled until IPAB goes into effect.

Joseph Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates, and blogs at Managed Care Matters.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

email

  • Doc99

    We return inevitably to Fast, Cheap and Good – Pick Two.

    • gzuckier

      Actually, we’ll be lucky to get one.

  • jsmith

    As the old saying goes, if you want to get there, you really shouldn’t start from here.
    At bottom, the US HC system reflects our cultural preference (or at least the cultural preference of those who have a say in this society) that we are not our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. Hence, relatively poor population health statistics. If this cultural preference is not changed, we will forever lag other advanced countries in this area. But we will have lower taxes. Reasonable people will differ on the merits of the trade-off.
    The details of payment reform, laws, etc. are merely epiphenomena, the results of the basic philosophical position of this society. They keep pundits busy but do not change the fundamentals.

  • SmartDoc

    I remember the old Soviet Russia Workers’ motto:

    “You pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.”

    Updating this for 2011 Medicaid/Medicare:

    “You pretend to reimburse us, we pretend to provide treatment.”

  • Muddy Waters

    Is anyone else TIRED of discussing this? We all know how to fix the problem if logic prevails, but it never does. That’s politics. All we will do is spin our wheels until the system collapses around us.

  • soloFP

    The fast clinics, staffed by NPs and PAs, are popping up all over my area. Patients want it all for the $70 price, although the clinics usually alacarte the labs and vaccines to raise the bill. One place would get the patients in with $35 well child checkups or 2 for $50. They made up the difference by offering vaccines at higher prices than the going rate of the HMOs.
    A trend across the last two years is high deductible and increasing copayments for primary care. At $30 or more for a copay, the established patient pays more than I get from the insurance company for a level 3 visit. The deductibles for the average office visit price of $56 in my area also keep patients from scheduling appointments.

    My office spends more time trying to collect higher copayments and deductible than 10 years ago and patients complain about paying more, yet my fee schedule has been flatlined for the last three years.

  • D Brown

    SmartDoc,
    I teach in an inner-city school, and almost all of my students are Medicaid patients. And should they show up in your office, you PRETEND to treat them? This is wit you are eager to share?
    I urge you to retrain for some field besides medicine – hedge fund manager perhaps.

  • Jimdit

    Until the focus of Healthcare is changed from Health Insurance to the delivery of healthcare nothing will change. Health Insurance is not Healthcare! Health Insurance may have made since in the 1940′s when the risk was spread across all players but today the Insurance companies selectively insure the young and healthy and deny coverage to those in most need of treatment. The ACA attempts to level the playing field but the only reaal solution is a Single Payer System.

  • http://www.talktoyourunconscious.wordpress.com BobBapaso

    Better than the Single Payer System would be the Everyone Payer System. Health Care Savings Accounts for everyone. Then we could all get what we think is worth the cost instead of what the single payer thinks it can afford.

    • Jimdit

      BobBapaso,

      Maybe a health savings account would be fine for you or I but what about the masses living on a shoestring that don’ have money for the bare necessities. Do saving accounts make sense for the millions of uninsured? During the 2008 Presidential campaign I researched the Healthcare reform issue.
      Here are the results. Not much has changed; I believe the number of uninsured is down to 43 million.

      United States Healthcare
      James Ditkowsky, MS 2008

      ABSTRACT
      ___________________________________________
      Background
      As we speed toward the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, 46.5 million Americans do not have access to health care because they lack health insurance. Those Americans that have insurance coverage see their benefits shrinking and premiums, co-pays and deductibles rapidly rising. Americans’ widespread dissatisfaction our health care system has led many reformers to advocate a universal national health insurance system.

      Method
      Critically examine the current state of the U.S. health care system; including insurance centric structure, administrative cost, a brief history of medical insurance, and values in regard to health care, the logic of today’s health care structure and the pros and cons of single-payer universal health care.

      Results
      Our current system works only if the Insurance companies make a profit. Consumer Reports recently reported that in 2006 the six largest health insurers collectively posted almost $11 billion in profits. The U.S. health care system is in crisis with insurance benefits shrinking and premiums growing so fast that many are being shut out of the system entirely. Our Current Health care system, with profit driven insurance companies at its central core, is a relic of the past that is being perpetuated through the political power of those that are making a profit by denying millions of Americans quality health care they need.

      Conclusion
      Health care is becoming a major political issue and there seems to be growing support for some type of universal health coverage. The implementation of universal coverage is fraught with difficulty. Many people hold differing core values in regard to the issue of health care as a human right and whether ensuring that right is a legitimate function of our government. The insurance and drug industry have strong political influence to keep the status quo. The battle for Universal health care will be a battle of values and politics rather that policy.

      46.5 million (17.9 percent) non-elderly people were uninsured in 2006.
      Nearly 20% of uninsured Americans are children – 8.7 million children. The number of uninsured children has increased 11.7% from 2004-2006.1

      More and more working families are finding care and coverage unaffordable with nearly 25% of Americans reporting that they could not pay their medical bill.2

      2 million Americans annually filed bankruptcy that, were caused by medical illness or medical bills. The really sad part of the figure is that three-quarters of the people with medical bankruptcies had health insurance when their illness started.3

      The 2008 presidential race has brought the issue of healthcare reform front and center. All the candidates have their proposed cures for the dysfunctional US healthcare system. I will attempt to analyze the logical basis of these proposals as broadly as possible.

      The current system in the United States looks at health care as a free market commodity with each individual responsible for securing health care for themselves and their families; usually through some type of health insurance policy. The individual must work to obtain the commodity of health insurance. Just like any commodity the more money you have the better quality you can procure for yourself. The insurance companies act as a middleman in the procurement of health care with the sole objective of making a profit. If they can not make a profit on an insurance policy they do not offer it or they subjectively raise the price until they envision a profit on the coverage. If an individual cannot afford coverage it is their own fault. They have failed in their individual responsibility to earn it. It’s not the fault of the market or insurance companies.

      Most of the presidential candidate’s proposals maintain the idea that our health care problems can best be remedied within the commodity based health insurance economic structure. The proposals all involve insurance companies and their right to broker health care and make a profit. All involve different mechanisms to provide economic help to purchase insurance. They equate health insurance with health care, which it is not.
      There is a wide spectrum of values that immediately divides voters into two camps: on the one side are those that believe in the right of all people to quality health care and on the other side are those that believe individuals are responsible for their own health care and must work to obtain it in the market place. Between the two ends are plans that combine elements of both values.
      This paper is too short to examine the ethical foundations of health care so I will precede on my personal belief that access to high-quality health care is a right of all people and should be provided equitably as a public service rather than bought and sold as a commodity.
      In 2006, the nation’s six biggest private health insurers collectively earned almost $11 billion in profits.4
      Health insurance was created between 1929 and the late 1940 to help offset the rising cost of health care. The Insurance model was based on insuring all customers and spreading the risk and cost among all customers5. Employment-based health insurance came into prominence during World War II. Wage and price controls were in effect and good employees were difficult to find. Employers offered employees health insurance coverage as non-wage benefits in order to attract employees,
      Much has changed today as more employers cut back on the rising cost of insuring their employees and insurance companies operate by providing as little treatment to as few individuals as possible and by offering coverage to as few sick people as possible, while collecting premiums from as many healthy people as possible. As long as Health Insurance companies operate to maximize profits in this way health care in this country will not improve.
      It seems logical to remove insurance companies as the central conduit through which American health care is administered. The only health care plan that cuts the insurance companies from the health care equation is the single-payer health plan. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of single payer health plans.
      First it should be understood that National Health Insurance is not necessarily single-payer. Some countries have NHI and have a multi-payer system. Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. All Americans would be covered for a set of services defined by the government. Patients would have free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would retain autonomy over patient care. The NHI program would pay each hospital a monthly lump sum to cover all operating expenses. Investor-owned hospitals would be converted to not-for-profit status and their owners compensated for past investment. Health care providers would be compensated in one of three ways: fee-for-service, salaried practice in institutions receiving global budgets, and salaried in group practices. 5

      Health care delivery, as with Medicare, would remain largely private. Doctors would not work for the government, and hospitals could either be privately or publicly owned. Private insurance companies could offer supplemental insurance for benefits not covered by the public system. The cost of single-payer insurance would be covered by administrative cost savings, increased taxes on individuals and or businesses. The increase taxes would be offset by the saving from not paying insurance premiums. 6
      Looking at the positive side of a single-payer system the most obvious benefit is universal coverage that is totally portable; not being tied to any employer. Administrative cost would be greatly reduced and doctors and hospitals would have very little uncompensated care for taking care of patients that can’t pay their bills. The potential for cost controls is much greater than the current system because cost controls could be applied throughout the entire system. Bulk purchasing and efficient allocation of resources is another big possibility with single-payer insurance. Medicare has shown this in the past.
      Critics of the single-payer concept object to the high degree of centralized government control. They see the potential for mismanagement by incompetent government bureaucrats. Some people like the option of choosing insurance plan that best suits their needs but under single-payer there is a single universal plan for all. There is the potential for underfunding by a recession or a hostile administration. Finally, it would be extremely difficult politically to implement. There would be strong opposition from the drug and insurance companies. Insurance companies would have to downsize or close and the transition to a single-payer system would be difficult. There also is a cultural sentiment against a government controlled health care system that many stigmatize as socialized medicine. Finally, there is always resistance to higher taxes, even if the taxes are offset by savings on insurance premiums.
      Our current market-driven approach to health care has created insurance companies that are driven by profits and compete, not by offering better quality or lower prices, but by avoiding the sick or “high risk” customers and insuring the young and healthy7 (Recommended reading-The Rainmaker (John Grisham) 1995, Fiction based on reality, Life and death struggle with the fictitious Great Benefit Insurance Company)
      It is clear that there is no solution to the health care problem that does not have some disadvantage. As I stated at the beginning of this paper, one must examine their values to decide what the system is that has advantages that outweigh its disadvantages.
      If your belief is that access to high-quality health care is a right of all people and should be provided equitably as a public service rather than bought and sold as a commodity, then a single-payer system makes the most sense to you. This is my belief. Further research on the implementation of a single-payer system would be interesting.
      If you believe health care should be like any other commodity in a free market system under private control then a system like tax credits might be the solution for you. Health insurance reform would be an area of study to see if any insurance reform could make this solution practical.

      1 Findings from the Commonwealth Fund biennial health insurance survey, Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY (2006) April S.R. Collins, K. Davis, M.M. Doty, J.L. Kriss and A.L. Holmgren, Gaps in health insurance: an all-American problem
      2 D.U. Himmelstein, E. Warren, D. Thorne and S. Woolhandler, Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy Health Affairs–Web Exclusive February 2 (2005)
      3 Harvard Medical School Office of Public Affairs http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/
      4 New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 6 (1993): 400–403 Himmelstein, and J.P. Lewontin, “Administrative Costs in U.S. Hospitals

      • anonymous

        You put a lot of work and research into your paper, but it still sounds like your assumption is that health insurance should function as prepaid health care, the way it is now. What some of us are proposing is that health insurance should be actual insurance (i.e. high deductible, used only for catastrophic events) the way auto and homeowner insurance is now. If someone proposed that the government should tax everyone to provide basic catastrophic insurance for all, I for one would agree. The rich can buy riders if they do not believe the basic is good enough for them. For the routine visits and labs, pre-tax HSAs are a good solution, especially if we no longer have to worry about the use-it-or-lose it problem at the end of each year. Then we can save that money in the account if we have a good healthy year to prepare for the possibility we might have a bad, high-cost year in the future. Again, we can use taxes to fund the accounts of the poor if we think this will cause them to seek routine care to prevent a catastrophe.

        • http://www.talktoyourunconscious.wordpress.com BobBapaso

          “…Accounts for everyone…” implies the government would have to subsidize those for the poor. But if everyone contributed what they now pay for health insurance, enough people would die with a surplus, that an inheritance tax on this could fund the poor, and the rest could go to their heirs HSA or IRA or education.

          • anonymous

            Good suggestion. Being able to transfer unused funds to heirs’ HSAs might encourage prudent use, especially at the end of life, where we spend a lot of money on treatments that help very little.
            This is what we need, people contributing bits and pieces to design a new program.

  • http://advocateyourself.blogspot.com Cheryl Handy

    Shame on you, Muddy Waters. We most certainly should not be tired of discussing the topic of “Having insurance does not mean you get health care.”

    How is that fact even acceptable in the United States that a person can have private insurance and be denied life saving medical care?

    I have private insurance. I pay about a high premium because I have a history of cancer. I have osteomyelitis (bone infection), dead tibia. Every day I lose bone marrow out of a draining sinus in my leg.

    Despite my repeated efforts, I cannot find a surgeon to save my leg (and if the infection becomes septic), my life.

    I am not sure why I cannot get medical care – except that the original surgery failed and every time I go to another surgeon for medical care the original surgeon sends a letter stating that I am non-compliant and a bad patient.

    I am actually a good patient. But even if I was a “bad patient,” does that mean the medical community leaves me to suffer and die?

  • http://hotmail.com Art

    In any profession, when practitioners get old, tired or feel they are not acheiving their goals, they take more time off or chose to do other things. When governments push them to do more for less it usally tends to make them feel older, more tired and more likely to do other things like retire or semi-retire. This is especially true for professions like those in healthcare where there are and will remain critical shortages of Doctors and nurses and any licensed ones can earn as much working less hours than they have been able to do in the past.

    Moving up hospital requirements, when hospitals will be the provider of last resort will hurt not help, while everyone stops to realize it takes 10 years to make a doc, and one bad day for a doc to say “screw it! I don’t need Medicare and Medicaid”. And half of the docs won’t deal with government having already gotten to the point where they no longer have to work – at least not full time. I wonder how many docs are at that point today, and if the Supreme Court will ask them what their intentions are before deciding on the healthcare plan that is presumed to end all our problems!

    In reality, it doesn’t make any difference what the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court does; as we don’t now and perhaps never will have enough professionals willing to volunteer to work for less to save people who do nothing to aid their own health. If they had, or if consumers do, we would have enough doctors and healthcare costs would abate: that is if we also end the waste, fraud and abuse that cost us $900 billion a year.

    The good old supply and demand always seems to level out things in thsi World, and will do so here as well.

  • http://advocateyourself.blogspot.com Cheryl Handy

    Art –

    The fallout from frustrated physicians is that they resent patients. And then patients resent physicians. And the resentment has gone beyond entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid). It is palpable with the issue of ObamaCare.

    Physicians are not an interchangeable commodity. But with each government entitlement program that mandates physician reimbursement at insulting levels, it is inevitable that physicians will perceive some patients as annoyances.

    Physicians must feel horrible when they look at patients as a dollar amount instead of a person.

    The problem is that the physicians’ perception of patients as being an annoyance and a waste of time has gone beyond entitlements: The title of the post was: “Having Insurance Does Not Mean You Get Healthcare.”

    Those of us (like me) who struggle to pay for private insurance so that physicians do not consider us an “entitlement annoyance” are also denied medical care.

    Many physicians are just getting to a point where they get paid by medical device companies or pharmaceutical companies and their hospitals.

    Those physicians apparently don’t want patients regardless of whether the insurance is private or an entitlement.

  • IndiePsychNp

    I completely agree that a single payer system is the solution and that private insurance with HSA’s would be just that for most Americans: catastrophic. However, there is a generational financial disparity among health care providers that reimbursement rates of current Medicare rates and undoubtedly any single payer reimbursement rates set up by the current generation of “stakeholders” would not take into account, It is apparently in 1996 that medical school tuition rates sky rocketed. The current
    resident comes out with minimumn$150K in debt. The soon to be retiring cohort of physicians, political decision makers, and 1/3 of the population wanting to collect Medicare expecting to find providers to be threre to take of them do not factor this into to any of their discussions of single payer, health care reform or Medicare cost reductions. Those left behind to do the care taking may be forced to say no to some reimbursement plans simply because they must pay their $2000-3000 monthly student loan payment as well as support their families, etc. Older providers and foreign medical graduates don’t have these concerns.
    Without loan forgiveness, and a change in the cost of medical, nursing and allied health education a single payer system will not work.

Trending