MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I learned a lot from this article by Joshua Holland, published yesterday in The Nation. Good cautionary note for single-payer supporters such as me.
Comments
AmericanDreamer... good article...
Personally speaking...There is little debate that Representative John Conyers’s Medicare-for-All bill would be a very very heavy lift to properly introduce and implement. [see my comment here in Dag].
My main concern is that clear branding is of utmost importance. I have always felt that the terms National Health Care, Universal Health Care, Single Payer or Medicare For All are lacking in descriptive power.
Here's another good POV to read at The Nation.
Want National Health Insurance? Dump the Term
‘Single Payer’—and ‘Medicare for All’ Too
Guaranteed Lifetime Health Care For All
======
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 08/03/2017 - 3:11pm
Thanks for your comment and the links, OGD. GLHCA sounds a bit clunky to me but maybe you two are right and that's a better way to go. I do appreciate Ms. Lieberman's points.
My main takeaway from the Holland piece is one of appreciation that there are people like Jacob Hacker and Dean Baker who have the right goals firmly in mind but look to be taking the time and trouble to think carefully about various potential sequential (whenever I hear the word "incremental" used instead I find it hard to avoid a feeling that the proponent is advocating some 40 or 50-year process which I have difficulty accepting as necessary) steps that may be necessary if we are actually going to get there. There seems to me no question that there is considerable recent ferment on this issue that makes options previously considered off the table not only conceivable, but observable in state policy discussions now. Holland is doing a good job of putting the "be careful what you [think you] want: you may get it" message out there. I know I have been insufficiently attentive to the kinds of issues and concerns he raises.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/03/2017 - 5:30pm
Saving Medicare from Republicans who want to turn it into vouchers for Wall Street might get more votes. A buy in at 55 might be promoted.
by NCD on Thu, 08/03/2017 - 8:43pm
First good to see your name here again!
Second, I agree this is a very helpful piece, so thanks for posting it.
Third,.I am very heartened that a publication like The Nation can now feel that it's safe to publish something like this rather than omitting downside facts about Medicare in an attempt to do pro-Obamacare agitprop (which is in reality, basically Romneycare.) It is very heartening progress to have people on the left wanting to be factually educated about the upsides and downsides of all the systems rather than producing agitprop to fight the "repeal" wing of the GOP .
Fourth, the main fault I see in the piece is that I think he is too negative about doctors willing to take less money. I talk to all doctors I know and meet about the system whenever I can and pay a lot attention to what is going on with that in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest on this.
What is going on is that a lot of the boomer doctors, near retirement, are fed up about the whole system, including Medicare, everything about it. If they are tops in their field they are often so mad that many have basically gone "on strike" by not taking any insurance at all, just take out of pocket so they can see patients with much reduced staff and spend as much time on them as they wish
This is actually part of the reason other older doctors who still take insurance seem so overbooked. Especially the specialists, why it is so hard to get to see one "in plan." Because a lot of them have dropped out, won't even take Medicare. They'll provide a receipt so you can make a claim yourself, but they just want your credit card upfront.
For the younger ones who are no longer trained as gods and don't expect to be making as much money as their predecessors did--
(unless still going for the dough in plastic surgery--or specialized dentistry--what a money making racket the latter has become! Check out lists of top paid professions now and you will see jobs like periodontist and like on it.)
I see plenty of them taking salaried jobs with big conglomerates like Advantage Care Physicians in NY State where they no longer have to worry about doing any paperwork, none zip zero, they can just practice medicine along with Physician's Assistants and R.N.'s to do the routine stuff. So a lot more of them are already accustomed to the idea of salary and I see lots of doctors on "top doctors" lists doing that. They know it's the way of the future and that if they open their own practice instead all the overhead and forms will kill them, the conglomerate does all the arguing with insurers for them, and not only that, the regular hours allow them to golf more often.
I haven't seen any polls on it but I bet a majority of docs practicing today that are not going to retire soon are ready to accept a salary and also to have a union(s) bargaining with whoever is going to be paying those salaries. hey are all coming round to the idea of being salaried. You can even hear many of them rail against money-driven medicine, that's the way they are trained now, i.e. "we treat the patient not the test."
The drug cos. and medical device cos. are the ones that are going to be tough, not the service providers. Because they are thinking about stock value! And making a fortune for shareholders. And some of those shareholders are ordinary people contributing to money-driven medicine with their I.R.A.s or whatever investing in the "next big thing" in medicine.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/03/2017 - 9:54pm
Nice. Yes, we don't need to save the GOP from its Afghanstain just to go into our own Afghanistan. i'll take Manhattan.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 12:33am
Thanks for your support. I still have bad memories from arguing with a particularly vocal advocate for Obamacare on this site back when they were trying to pass Obamacare.
I'd like to add to and fine tune a bit more about the doctors issue.
Anyone who has tried to research when they need a specific kind of doctor should just realize where docs are at if they think of it from the docs' point of view. When you go to a site like ZocDoc, then you look to see what insurance plans the doctor accepts. You often get a list of like 20! If your insurance is on that list, you damn well better call their office to confirm that they still take it! Because all of them have to constantly negotiate with each and everyone of those insurance cos about reimbursements. They might get into an argument about one patient and when that happens a second time, they just decide to stop taking it when the contract comes up for renewal!
With Obamacare, this happens over and over and over. WITH ALL THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS, same thing. And most Medicare recipients have them, because they prevent you from having to pay substantial deductibles and co-pays. They do that how? By bargaining down providers' fees and putting all kinds of other requirements on the provider. By supposedly keeping Medicare patients "healthy" enough so they aren't accessing expensive treatments, so they can profit from what's left over. That which Medicare might have simply paid.
Now imagine as a doc having to do this day in, day out, with 20 or more different payers, many with different forms and different kinds of codes, rules, voice mail systems, attitudes....
There is actually a big for-profit race right now in tech development on offering software to downsize the labor issues involved. Here's just one example. Nobody has won it yet. Here's the organization where techies working on such things can get certified. The whole GOP Congress thing has probably thrown all those companies, that whole industry, into a scramble trying to figure out where to go next.
Doctors that have their own practices and other small providers simply must have lots of very knowledgeable staff to handle all of this for them. I can't imagine a single one liking this situation! Why would they? They went into practicing medicine.
The real problem of lost jobs and income here if one went to something more like a single payer system would be all those clerical who have spent years learning how to navigate all the insurance companies. If a doc can manage to hire someone very knowledgeable about that, they can take more insurance cos. and more patients. If they didn't have to do that anymore, those guys and gals' skills are unnecessary. Meanwhile, they got software salesmen bugging them all the time. Along with pharma salesmen trying to get their help getting their new product into the separate approved formularies for each and every insurance co. (There's even software for that--a university doc showed it to me the other day--where you look up if a drug is approved or not by each insurance co.)
From the docs side of things, if we stay with an Obamacare type system it would be better if there were fewer insurance cos. in the marketplace, bigger ones, less competition. This defeats the principle of Obamacare, where there's no upstarts challenging the bigger ones.
If the system is to stay like Obamacare or Medicare Advantage, without everyone using the same software and records and codes and rules about records, and those not continually changing, doctors are going to be unhappy and so are patients trying to get care.
Doctors definitely see this more than patients right now, but more patients will see it as they try to access. Right now here's what we have going on, we are only a few years in: a bunch of people who couldn't access anything at all happy to have bare minimum anything. It won't stay that way, when the primary care guy they have says: well we could solve your health problem, but there aren't any specialists of that type in your plan, or your plan won't allow it.
And make no mistake, all of this is going to affect all the people with employer provided plans! Many in them just don't realize it yet.
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 12:26pm
Thanks for your comments. I've shared this thread with a close friend who works as a health care reimbursement consultant (he advises and assists developers of medical products and procedures on how to navigate regulatory approval and reimbursement processes), thinking he, unlike me, might have interesting relevant experiences or observations on trends you are reporting. If he does offer any, with his permission I will share out on this thread.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 08/15/2017 - 9:51am
yes, please! that would be fantastic input because he has skin in the game.
I recently had a big learning experience with a new expensive prescribed drug where coverage was initially denied by my insurer, but approved after the doctor sent a "20-page fax" challenge to their ruling. The very same day this article came out @ the NYTimes explaining the incredible complexity of this situation:
Take the Generic, Patients Are Told. Until They Are Not.
exactly the kind of deals that your friend might be navigating.
I was extremely grateful that my doctor took the time to challenge for me. At the same time, I realized that because he is at a University clinic, it probably was to his benefit to do so, for other patients and for students to learn about the effects. But after reading that article, I wonder how much effect his challenge had as to the insurer considering his argument about patient's needs. Since I have a few providers mentioned in the article, including United Health and CVS Pharmacy, I am now suspecting it may very well have been this case instead: the doctor's challenge made them review their formulary situation and realize that it would be more profitable for them to take on coverage of this drug than to have them insist I try other things first.
There is always an ulterior motive, when everything is profit-driven in medicine (some here might remember Maggie Mahar at TPMCafe and her "money-driven medicine" posts?) the patient with the inside knowledge benefits greatly.
Edit to add: the doctor told me that the salespeople of this new drug had been very aggressive and that he knew that they were aggressively pursuing deals with all the insurance cos. He had a bunch of free samples, and because it helped me, he gave me all that he had to "tide you over." He said he had a software program that told him of all the insurer's formularies and that for mine, it was "green" on this drug. But I think the did not understand that all coverage was not the same under all of United plans, that I was on a special one. By the way, we are talking this price quoted to me by CVS for out of pocket self-pay: $532 per month. And they initially denied. Now I am thinking that doctor's challenge caused them to see that the United bosses up the ladder at the big corporate mother had made a deal with the manufacturer, with those aggressive sales guys, to buy the drug cheaply. Co-pay cost to me covered: $1 per month. Not only that, apropos of the NYTimes article:when the green light came through for me on the drug, CVS did not have to order this supposedly "expensive" drug for me, they had it in stock and I got it without having to wait.
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/15/2017 - 2:02pm