30 April 2007

28 proposals to the 208 Commission

A smart healthcare provider in Boulder, Colorado, has summarized all 28 of the healthcare proposals that the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform is considering.

The fact that there are 28 proposals is in itself amazing. At one of the early commission meetings a staff person reported on similar commissions in other states. Illinois got nine proposals, so did California. Washington got more, but they weren't calling for comprehensive proposals, as is the Colorado commission.

You can find the 28 proposals submitted to the 208 Commission here.

This woman works with one of the proposers, but notes that these are her own impressions — and she says that they may not be fair, since she's working from descriptions of the plans, rather than reading each and every plan. She shares her biases up front: "I think of 'premium assistance' to individuals or small businesses r the 'uninsurable').

"Many mentioned the desirability of “medical homes” of some sort, which would serve to coordinate care for patients.

"Many would increase reimbursements to Medicaid and/or Medicare providers to address the problems of inadequate access to providers. Also mentioned frequently were incentives for healthy choices, and some pay-for performance suggestions. A couple of proposals suggested limiting profits that insurance companies make."

So, cribbing from her notes, here are the 28, organized, as she organized them.

Types of Proposals

Predominately Single-Payer

Colorado Health Services, submitted by Health Care for All Colorado and signed on to by the Colorado Nurses Association, OWL, and the Physicians for a National Health Program. Publicly owned, not-for-profit insurance company, administered and governed as public utility. Negotiated provider fees, no co-pays to begin with. Private coverage will be a choice above standard benefits.

Comprehensive Health Advancement Plan for Colorado, submitted by retired University of Colorado professor Edwin McConkey. This is a modified single-payer with emphasis on health advancement rather than insurance. There are financial incentives for healthy lifestyles and training of professionals in high needs areas. It creates a new agency with state wide governance, public funds, set fees for providers.

Colorado Complete Healthcare Reform, submitted by PULSE. Expands Medicaid to all residents in a program called MediColo but allows insurance companies to operate in Colorado for up to five years. There would be a no-fault system that separates compensation from accountability which would reduce malpractice costs. Its medical home is a team of MD, nurse, social worker or counselor and advocate.

Colorado Comprehensive Care Coverage, submitted by Savant Solutions. Its state-run, paperless, profitless, models are Medicaid, VA, Kaiser and European countries. It would begin with a pilot project with four phases. An oversight group such as Savant, would serve as a procurement team requesting RFPs, getting bids, selecting them.

Colorado All Care, submitted by Nathan Wilkes. Healthcare delivery remains the same but funding would be through taxes. Reimbursement rates to providers would be set; there would be no co-pay or deductibles; all prescription, dental, vision, mental health, and long term care would be covered.

Universal Capitation Plan, submitted by Stuart Zisman. This single-payer plan is similar to HCAC proposal except that it's run by elected providers and consumers, with local assessments of needs and consumer choice of fee-for-service or a capitated-rate (recommended) plan.

Single-Payer with market component

Colorado Balanced Choice Health Care Reform, submitted by Balanced Choice Health Care, Inc. Ivan Miller's plan offers universal coverage, public funding, single-payer with a constant option of interchanging a two-plan system that allows for providers to set their own fees and for consumers to have cost conscious treatment choices. Spending on the two plans would be regulated by a mandatory funding split that adapts to market forces to ensure enough resources go to the standard plan to maintain quality care. There would be a focus on transparency, automatic enrollment (with opt-out possibilities if they have equivalent or better health insurance) so all residents are covered regardless of employment or income status, simplified paperwork and procedures, and relief for employers. Financial assistance for low income or catastrophic health expenses.

Predominately Subsidizing Private Insurance

A Comprehensive Health Care Plan for All Colorado Residents, submitted by Barry Bode. This comprehensive reform proposal would subsidize health, disability and life insurance.

Comprehensive Health Care Plan, submitted by Club 20. This plan mandates individual purchase of basic “Tier I” coverage as in Massachusetts. It uses value ranking procedures as in Oregon, which is a transparent way of limiting or rationing treatment. The plan states that the healthcare “...solution is less about need for new ideas and more about need to accept reality.”

A Plan for Covering Coloradans, submitted by the Committee for Colorado Health Care Solutions. This plan creates the Colorado Health Insurance Purchasing Authority, a quasi-governmental agency to standardize six to ten insurance benefit packages, assist with purchases of insurance, manage the insurance “pool” with community ratings and guarantee issue. The proposer believes that national policy is necessary. This plan has aspects of single-payer and expanding public coverage but remains a broker/ regulatory agency to oversee private insurance.

Solutions for Healthy Colorado, submitted by the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters. This proposal would institute state-sponsored outreach for those eligible but not enrolled in public programs; insurance companies must guarantee issue “Core Limited Benefit Plan” with sliding scale premium subsidies; and mandated individual purchase to address the “voluntarily uninsured.” Plan lacks details.

Better Health Care for Colorado, submitted by the Service Employees Union (SEIU) and the Colorado Association of Public Employees. This plan would bring Medicaid-funded premium subsidies to purchase insurance; establish a clearinghouse to help small business purchase health insurance and offer private insurance products rather than mandating insurance. It would create a “culture of insurance” and extend coverage to 96 percent of residents. Recipients would have choice of managed care plans. It does provide long-term care plans and urges improved access to affordable housing so long-term care consumers can live independently.

Individual Based Insurance System Combining Free market Principles with Appropriate Role for Government, submitted by the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce. This plan mandates individual purchase of “maintenance tier” insurance not tied to employer. There would be a Massachusetts-style health connector portal and search engine that provides healthcare purchasing consultants. There would be group pools for catastrophic insurance that is re-insurance funded by contributions from the maintenance policies. The free market moves responsibility from managed care to the individual and eliminates inefficiencies. There is a heavy emphasis on HIT and incentives. A statewide system of clinics funded by the state, business gifts, and non-profit donations would serve the uninsured/minimally insured.

Universal Colorado Health Insurance Plan, submitted by Joseph Roddy and William Yancey. This plan would “fine tune the industry with regulation to... serve the entire population...” It puts people into groups of 10,000 with identical demographics so that the premium price is the same for everyone. Insurance companies decide how many groups to compete in. Providers are exempt from malpractice claims.

Combination of Expanded Public and Subsidizing Private

Uninsured Action Plan, submitted by Anthem BC/BS (Wellpoint). This plan expands CHP+ and Medicaid; subsidizes private insurance; increases managed-care; and “minimizes administrative costs by building on existing systems.”

Connecting Care and Health for Colorado, submitted by Colorado Consumer Health Initiative (CCHI), also signed by Health Care Policy and Finance, Division of Insurance, Department of Public Health and Dept. of Human Services. This government-run plan limits the profits insurance companies can make. It standardize benefit packages in both public and private markets and mandates individual purchase with limits of 5 percent of income for out-of-pocket costs. It builds on employer-sponsored plans with subsidies and/or reinsurance and consumer protections.

Healthy Colorado Now, submitted by the Coalition for the Medically Underserved. CCMU builds on our existing system but develops a new insurance plan for the working uninsured, funded by employer-paid payroll fees, which does provide premium assistance if necessary. This may be private insurance.

Community of Caring, submitted by the Colorado Community Health Network, Colorado Children’s Campaign, Colorado Access, and Colorado Behavioral Health Council. This plan calls for mandated individual insurance purchase with subsidies for individual and small business insurance purchases. A “quasi-governmental” entity creates a public-private partnership to purchase coverage for all Coloradans (except ERISA) and it expands public programs. They propose a “Safety Net Stabilization Program” which provides enhanced reimbursements to providers certified to meet needs of distinct populations.

Phased Approach to Universal Coverage, submitted by Kaiser Permanente. This plan expands public programs as funds permit, and creates policy and administrative infrastructures.

Additional but not Comprehensive Proposals

Improving Our Health Care and Condition, submitted by the Colorado Foundation for Medical Care. This plan would provides foundational elements essential to quality and functioning of health care systems.

System to Ensure Medical Home—Health Outcomes Measurement and Evaluation Consortium, submitted by Health TransPharmacy Care Fund. This proposal provides information on available resources, access to pharmacy savings program and subsidies.

Neighborhood Nurse Practitioner Clinics Mandating private health insurance “is absolutely the wrong approach [it] is the problem, not the solution” so neighborhood groups of 500 households would join a clinic for $25/month and receive unlimited free office visits with nurse practitioners. The $25/month would pay for a NP, part-time office staff and overhead, which is low because it operates out of a residence. Insurance would cover catastrophic care.

Free-market, Affordability and Individual Rights, submitted by Brian Schwartz. The fault for unaffordable healthcare lies in third party payments that delete personal responsibility

A Simple Health Care Solution, submitted by Monte Uyemura, MD. This proposal would make it illegal to sue providers and would eliminate physician shortage. In exchange providers could not refuse to see patients for inability to pay. It calls for major medical and HSAs to reduce paperwork.

Colorado Health Coverage and Jobs Solution, has no name on the submission. It requires insurance firms having government contracts to offer a plan comparable in price and benefits to Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

Telemedicine and Data management Systems for Improvement of HC Coverage Costs, submitted byEnigami Systems. This patent-pending protocol is a plan in which consumers' symptoms are telephonically assessed on a daily basis using interactive voice response system that can be viewed graphically on the web-site by the consumer. This addresses inadequate accountability; allows provider to change treatment plan and allows insurer to do utilization reviews and provider rating scales

The Option to Die in Peace, submitted by Bart Windrum. This proposes expanded hospice-type education and care for at-home deaths.

27 April 2007

208 Commission in the Post

Jim Spencer, news columnist for the Denver Post, wrote a great column today about Colorado's (208) Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform's task of finding the best three to five of 28 proposals for comprehensive reform that they've received.
None of the proposals assumes people are not entitled to treatment if they cannot pay retail. The hardest question the commission must answer is the private/public mix in the provision of health care. Still, no one argues for the status quo.
Spencer interviewed Service Employees International Union's Colorado point man for health care and Dr. Rocky White, an Alamosa physician, conservative rancher, and Health Care for All Colorado board member. Both SEIU and Health Care for All Colorado submitted proposals to the commission. Rocky was lead author for HCAC's proposal. Spencer described Rocky's proposal as being, "the simplest, most progressive and most controversial of the commission's proposals."

Spencer got right to the heart of the problem when he quoted an advisor to SEIU, who said that what is easiest to administrate — single-payer — may be hardest to approve politically.

This advisor helped Mitt Romney come up with the Massachusetts scheme, which is ticking away — before it even begins — with costs overruns and inadequate plans that people will be forced to buy. "Republicans support the subsidized purchase of private health insurance," he told Spencer.

That is such a mystery to me — but it must be related to what our friend Jack Long says: People are either scared of the wealthy or of the government.

So they'd rather go with inefficiencies that is on course to bankrupt individual families and the government as well, all in the name of free markets. Except if the government is subsidizing private insurance, they're not free markets. Bush's Health and Human Services secretary, Mike Leavitt, recently said that government's role in healthcare should be to "manage markets." If that's the case, why not manage them right, and take private insurance out of the game?

Walking the talk

An angry woman not long ago demanded to know if Health Care for All Colorado's president, Dr. Elinor Christiansen, was a Medicare recipient, since Dr. Christiansen believes in a government solution to the U.S. healthcare crisis — as in so many other industrialized countries.

Of course, said Dr. Christiansen.

The exchange struck me as odd -- that this woman thought she was likely to score a point here, that she thought a 70-something retired physician wouldn't be signed up with Medicare.

Are there really a lot of seniors who decline Medicare? Even well-off seniors?

The other side of this coin comes in a letter to the editor today to Seacoast Online. Responding to someone who is against single-payer, Rich DiPentima writes, "Lastly, I assume since Mr. Brighton is so scared about putting his health care choices in the hands of a federal bureaucrat, that when he turns 65 he will decline Medicare and keep his ability to make his own choices with his private insurance overseer. Good luck and most importantly, good health."

Now that is a good question.

24 April 2007

One size does fit all

We now know part of the health insurance industry's talking points regarding what's the matter with U.S. healthcare: It's that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to health insurance.

What a crock.

How does one size not fit all? Which one of us doesn't want care when we're sick or injured? This was the answer that the journalist bought in the New York Magazine article on "the young invincibles" and here's a reporter for the Indy Star giving a platform to Wellpoint to make the same point.
Jude Thompson, president of individual markets for WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer, said the traditional one-size-fits-all approach to marketing insurance no longer works.
"That's one of the big reasons why we're where we are today with the uninsured," he said. "Companies need to change the way they are talking about insurance and offer different products with different price points. We need products that resonate with the different age and income groups and hit the mark with people who can and want to purchase insurance."
What Jude is talking about, of course, is actually "the choice" to pay less for a higher deductible and catastrophic coverage only — which hardly makes insurance more cost effective. It's still "playing the odds," just as people without insurance do. It still essentially takes people out of the risk pool, meaning that someone with a chronic condition who needs care will certainly be left in a market where that care is unaffordable — unless the government picks it up.

And that is OF COURSE the end game for the health insurance industry. They'll insure all the healthy people, and the government can take care of all the sick people. What a deal.

Don McCanne, former president of Physicians for a National Health Program, had a good post on this today. Sign up for those posts through this link from the PNHP website.

23 April 2007

Paul's birthday

I've been being an aunt in California. Babies are wonderful and exhausting. I have wanted to be with the baby and Sarah every moment.

Paul's birthday was 21 April, and we went to the "Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine," in Pacific Palisades. It's a lovely place, dedicated by Paramahansa Yogananda in 1950. Paul and his friend Robin had gone there together several times. The baby was entranced by the water. Not really the sight of the swans or the many turtles or enormous koi, but just the sight of the water. She fussed when Sarah left the water's side.

Some of Gandhi's ashes are here.

17 April 2007

Kick the bums out

This would be why Sen. Chris Dodd should not have a chance at the White House. He shamelessly pandered on the insurance industry's behalf for cash and cheap political points at the time of the Clinton reform attempt. We've got to grow longer memories so that politicians can't get away with crap like that.

Single-Payer: Go for it!

Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, "an organization launched by 100 prominent Americans to expand the national debate about America's economic future," has a terrific post at TPMCafe on healthcare reform.

He makes the excellent point that even if you believe that single-payer isn't realistic, we should still go for it. That tactic puts the insurance companies on the defensive, where they'll be more amenable to a modicum of justice, less arrogantly certain that greed should be unlimited when it comes to their own profits.

Hickey quotes Clinton, saying it sounds to him as though she's figured out that the American public is outraged by the health insurance industry, and that she won't suffer politically by going after them (except, of course, in the all-important race for cash). "Now this kind of populist rhetoric is also useful if she is planning to go for a wimpy and dangerous Wyden-style plan that essentially gives all our public subsidies to the insurance companies – while pretending to regulate them," he cautions.

Hickey likes Jacob Hacker's plan, which takes us to single-payer in stages, as I understand it. I haven't read the plan, but I have read The Great Risk Shift, an important book worth the time.

Hickey also quotes Matthew Holt, from an earlier post on the discussion at TPMCafe:
My essential fear though, is that we’ll only get to some kind of compromised quasi-universal coverage system that doesn't really cover everybody, keeps a role for a private insurance industry operating under the wrong incentives, and looks like welfare for the poor. In that case this whole cycle will start again, and in about 15-20 years when we go into a more violent collapse—then we will end up with Soviet-style rather than Danish style socialized medicine. And we ought to be able to do much better than that.
Well said.

There are a number of posts on healthcare reform through the TPMCafe's book club discussion on Jonathan Cohn's new book, Sick.

One of the best is a comment to Cohn's post, "Un-compromising Positions." Cohn also praises Hacker's plan, although he caveats, "One risk in embracing such a compromise plan is that it will let stand a wasteful, poorly designed system that will keep generating unnecessarily high costs. But I’m not sure that, politically speaking, we can cover everybody and deal with the system’s inefficiencies all at once."

Which is probably why I haven't read the plan. I keep hearing it's a compromise, and if we begin with a compromise we'll be compromised.

Here's much of that great comment to Cohn's post:
... if you went car shopping and found...

Volkswagon Jetta - $20,000
Toyota Camry - $15,500
Volvo S40 - $18,250
Chevy Impala - $44,800

...you would say 'What a rip-off for the Chevy Impala!' and look on the invoice and laugh at all the comically overpriced features and poor relative performance and choose ANY of the others - even though the others are very different.

Now substitute OECD per capita health care costs (2003).

Germany - $2,938
Japan - $2,249
Sweden - $2,745
United States - $6,711

That's the same price spread the cars. The US has fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospital beds, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, and more uninsured people than Germany, Japan, and Sweden and we spend more than twice as much.
There are so many other good posts and comments to this discussion that it's hard to read them all — or find them all. Don McCanne had a good one last week that I wanted to link to, and now I can't find it. If TPMCafe has all the connected stories in one place, it's a place I don't know about.

16 April 2007

Blackout on the truth

The National Education Association supports single-payer, universal healthcare. Who knew?

And that's the point. We didn't know. The media has effected such an effective blackout on single-payer that it seems like a silly, socialist, pie-in-the-sky idea. Then you dig in a bit and find out that the former head of Caterpillar has said single-payer's what we need, it's the only thing that makes sense; you find out that Ford Motors' former CEO has said much the same thing; that the nurses associations are for it and that the NEA backs single-payer.

But common wisdom still would have it that anyone who thinks single-payer is the solution to our healthcare Catch-22s is unrealistic — when in fact it's unrealistic to think that anything other than single-payer will contain costs and provide healthcare justice.

That doesn't mean that rich people don't get more healthcare under single-payer systems. That's just life. Rich people will always get more. As it turns out, however, more isn't always better. Too bad for them. No doubt when they figure out how to stay young for 50 extra years it won't be covered. That's fine — we're just looking for a normal life-span, like not dying at age 45.

I talked with a woman (we'll call her Julie) from Pueblo, Colorado, tonight. Julie's worried sick about her mother's health. Her dad gets health insurance through the government because he's disabled. He makes $7 and some change an hour. Julie says her mother's salary always supported the family, and that her mom has always gotten her own healthcare through a clinic for the indigent. Now Julie doesn't know what to do, because her mother is sick. Julie herself is a single parent, a junior in college on a scholarship that doesn't pay for her mother's healthcare.

Julie says that politicians keep talking about covering the kids. Good, she says, but it's not enough. "What are people supposed to do between the ages of 18 and 65?"

Julie says that she's heard the horror stories about people having to wait for surgery in countries that have healthcare justice, but that she's talked with people from Britain and elsewhere, who tell her it's not like that at all. "They say it's us that have the crazy system."

12 April 2007

Tom Tomorrow in a bad mood

If you believe that a free-market health insurance system makes sense...

Ezra on patient incentives

Maggie Mahar wrote yesterday on perverse incentives for physicians that drive up costs; Ezra Klein writes today in American Prospect about perverse incentives for patients.

This again offers Bush & co. an opportunity to take real facts and twist them so they'll become ammunition for their class warfare against the middle class. C'est la vie, I suppose. Iron can be used for good — plowshares, say — as well as being potential death dealers as swords. We shouldn't turn our backs on the stuff.

Klein writes that RAND's 15-year study showed that "gold-plated" healthcare coverage that gave 40 percent more care than basic coverage offered no better outcomes.

This is actually an argument in favor of single-payer. Denver Dave of HC Talk has mused that the average person, when thinking about single-payer, pictures U.S. healthcare being a finite entity that he or she has a part of through his or her insurance. If we split the pie differently in order to give some of that healthcare to people who have none now, that seems to mean that he or she would have less.

The RAND study shows that less can be better. What's more, the study also showed this: "The only exception was for the poor, whose health outcomes were hurt by cost-sharing and improved by more generous plans."

Further showing that denying healthcare to the poor (and increasingly to the middle class) is foolish, Klein links to this:
The New England Journal of Medicine... compared Medicare patients who faced heavy cost-sharing for pharmaceuticals with those who had nearly unlimited benefits. The seniors with cost-sharing cut back on pharmaceutical spending (and thus, use) by about 31 percent. The results? More visits to the emergency room, more hospitalizations, and higher rates of death. And the upshot of all this is that the costs incurred by the deterioration in health completely erased the savings from the cost-sharing.
Klein agrees with cost-sharing by patients except for chronic conditions where generous care has been proven to pay for itself and more.

"One-size-fits-all high deductible policies associated with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) require costly tax breaks for the most affluent while unnecessarily increasing financial and health risks for low- and moderate-income families," Klein writes. He instead likes a plan from his favorite economist, Jason Furman at the Hamilton Project, who has come up with a system that he claims could save 30 percent immediately by charging co-pays adjusted by income.

Of course the only realistic way to do that would be through a single-payer system.