Tuesday, September 22, 2009

US Healthcare Reform challenges

One of Barack Obama's goals as president is healthcare reform. Unfortunately, there is a lot of opposition to reform, from many different fronts. Some people have specific, reasonable problems with some parts of proposed plans; others don't want "socialism"; still others think that the government should not be involved with healthcare at all.

On top of this, there is a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about. The most prominent example is Sarah Palin (remember her? If you don't, lucky you. She was the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the last election. She didn't get in.), who stated that a government run healthcare plan would include 'Death Panels' to decide who lives and who dies, based on societal worth. She used her baby, who has Downs' Syndrome, as an example of someone who would be killed. She does, of course, completely miss the fact that insurance companies already have "death panels": claims adjusters who will find any way they can to cut off your insurance if you become unprofitable.

Conservatives also like to point to that popular boogieman, taxes. "Obama wants to raise our taxes!" is an easy debate killer in some circles; people totally miss the fact that a government system will most likely cost less, will not turn you down, and that the increase in taxes will most likely be small compared to the saving made by not having to pay insurance companies.

Opponents also point to problems with other countries' universal systems, particularly Canada's, as a way to scare the ignorant; They completely ignore the fact that Canadians love their system and rank it as one of the things that make them most proud to be Canadian.

Roger Ebert wrote a wonderful column that summarises a lot of the reasons for reform. I'll finish with a quote from the column:
"I believe universal health care is, quite simply, right. It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it. A nation is a mutual undertaking. In a democracy, we set out together to do what we believe is good for the commonwealth. That means voluntarily subjecting ourselves to the rule of law, taxation, military service, the guaranteeing of rights to minorities, and so on. That is a cheap price to pay."

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Universal health care vs. insurance

Universal healthcare is something that is implemented in almost every Western industrial country, with the glaring exception (for now) of the US.

The basic idea is simple: The government realizes
  • That the economy is better off if everyone is able to work at their absolute best, and that people can only do that if they're healthy, and if they know their family members are also not about to die
  • That having people die because they can't pay for treatments that exist and could help them, is totally not cool*
  • That illnesses don't discriminate - the rich and the poor can both get cancer, for example, equally easily, but the treatments are so expensive that only the rich can afford them
With these realizations, the government decides that it would make sense if everyone could afford medical care - both doctors visits to catch problems early, and more advanced treatments so that problems that do arise can be sorted out. So they say, "Let's push taxes up a bit to cover the cost, and then pay for whatever healthcare anyone in the country needs!"

Implementation differs in every country, but in general it works well.

Some other advantages are:
  1. Lower medical costs - since government is paying, it can negotiate directly with drug companies for mass discounts on drugs. PHARMAC does this in NZ.
  2. Better public health - since people can afford to get to the doctor early to catch problems before they become serious
Critics usually argue that:
  1. There are long wait times for some procedures
  2. Taxing everyone is not fair, since many people will go their entire life without needing the services they're paying for
  3. It is wasteful, since hypochondriacs will take advantage of the system and go to the doctor for the slightest little issue
(1) is sometimes true, based on need and available facilities. (2) is a matter of opinion. (3) is true, and some systems take steps to mitigate it. Taiwan, for example, requires a small co-pay for each visit to a medical facility. When I needed a cyst in my knee taken out, I had to pay NT$200 (NZ$8) for the doctor's visit and referral, then NT$400 for the surgery at a different hospital, then NT$200 for a follow-up visit. It is very affordable for most people in the country, but serves to prevent many frivoulous visits to the doctors.

In a very basic nutshell, that's what universal healthcare is.

Insurance is the model used in the US: you pay X amount per month, and the insurance company will pay for your treatment when you need it, in theory.

Insurance works well for cars: Not every car will be involved in an accident, and it is possible to prevent car accidents to some extent by driving carefully. There is thus less risk, and so premiums can be quite low for good coverage.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is much riskier: Most people will get sick, and will need to claim from their insurance. Medical costs can also run into the millions of dollars in some cases, and as a result, premiums have to be higher.

Insurance companies also have a profit motive: every cent not paid to policyholders is another cent of profit, so companies may hire people to find ways to deny policyholders' claims if they get too expensive.

That's universal healthcare and insurance according to my understanding having lived in countries with both types of systems.

* They probably word it a bit differently though :-P

The US Situation

The present US healthcare system is a mix of awesome and awful. In terms of treatments available and quality of facilities, the US performs very well; people from all over the world travel to the US to take advantage of its facilities.

Unfortunately, however, the US falls over when it comes to the accessibility and affordability of its health services. The most telling statistic[PDF]: 62% of people who go bankrupt in the US do so because of medical costs. Even more damning: 78% of those are people who had health insurance.

Also interesting: People in the US spend on average $4500 each per year on healthcare - more than any other country - and yet get worse results in terms of life expectancy than most other countries (source).

George W. Bush famously said that America has no problem with access to healthcare:
"I mean, people have access to health care in America, after all, you just go to an emergency room."
Technically, this is absolutely correct - if you go to a hospital's emergency room, the hospital is legally obliged to treat you (eventually). Unfortunately, it is also absolutely wrong:
  • Emergency rooms are for emergency treatment, such as car accidents, shootings, and so on. They should not be clogged up with people who have headaches.
  • Emergency rooms are expensive: yes, you will get treated. But then the hospital will send you a bill, and will continue to hound you for payment, eventually taking your life savings, your house, and your ability to feed your children.
  • Leaving illnesses until they're serious enough to warrant an emergency room visit can allow simple problems to fester and turn into huge, expensive, life-threatening infections.
The American government provides a range of health services to its citizens: veterans get excellent coverage through Veterans' Affairs; the elderly can take advantage of Medicare; Medicaid is available for a minority (about 60% of the poor are not covered by it, according to Wikipedia) of people who are unable to afford health insurance. All of these programmes are very popular; people who are on them resist any change to them.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the US have no access to these programmes and have to resort to private health insurance. Policies can cost around US$12000 (about NZ$18000) a year for a family, and you have a very good chance of having your coverage dropped if you actually need it. From the linked article:
"Rescission is rare. It affects less than one-half of one percent of people we cover. Yet, it is one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our current system."
(Assurant CEO, Don Hamm)
But:
"If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette."
(Taunter Media, July 28 2009)
Which means that, when they most need it, Americans are likely to lose their ability to pay for their own care. Horror stories abound about insurance companies refusing to pay for people's care, given the tiniest excuse.

Another issue with health insurance is the 'pre-existing condition'. That means that, if you want to get insurance but are already sick, you are not covered for that sickness. If you had a cancer scare, say, when you were young but were cleared, then get insurance, then actually do get cancer, your insurer could easily drop you because of this condition. It means, essentially, that once you're sick, you're on your own. You have no option but to pay, and pay, and pay, until you are bankrupt.

Essentially, then, the system is such that you need insurance, but have no guarantee that your insurance company will pay if you need it.

Getting Started

I don't have health insurance. I don't have an employer, but if I did, they might provide it. If I could afford it, I could buy it. I'm not particularly worried though.

The main reason for that is that I live in a Western country that is not the United States of America.

I've had accidents and I've been sick. I ride a motorcycle a minimum of 80km per day to get to and from class - a fairly dangerous way of getting around. But the thought of how to pay for any potential accidents is the furthest thing from my mind: I know that, if I turn up at a hospital, I'll be treated. I won't be rejected because I don't have a large bank balance or for a 'pre-existing condition'.

If I get sick, I can go to any doctor I choose. Ones closer to my home will be cheaper, but none will bankrupt me.

The government pays for most of the healthcare I need; I pay tax into the system, as does everyone else. If I need a specialist, I may have to wait a bit if my case is not urgent; if I don't want to wait, I can pay for a private specialist.

Americans reading this will by now probably be having one of two reactions:
  • Wow - I wish I could have that, I can't afford to keep paying $500 a month for insurance.
  • OMG SOCIALISM!
To the first group, I wish you could have this kind of system too. The country I live in recognizes that keeping me healthy is morally and economically the right thing to do. More on each of those aspects in later posts.

To the second group, Yes! It is Socialism. Socialism was one of the reasons I chose to live here. Socialism is not, however, necessarily a bad thing: many Americans seem to think that Socialism = Communism, and is therefore bad; that if America adopts a system that has any level of Socialist policies, everyone will be required to submit to death panels and wear Hitler mustaches. We'll get to how ridiculous this is in a later post, but basically, Socialist policies can be compatible with, and can even enhance, the free and democratic ideals that America says that it values.

This blog will look at some issues related to government provision of healthcare, in the context of the contentious 'debate' going on in the USA at the moment.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

References

More material related to this topic is available on my del.icio.us page. Here are APA references for sites specifically referenced in the blog:

12 Must Knows about Health Care for Migrants In New Zealand. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://www.emigratenz.org/healthcare-migrants-newzealand.html

"Taunter" (2009). Unconscionable Math. Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/

United States Bureau of Veterans' Affairs (2008). VA Health Care Eligibility & Enrollment. Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/

Krugman, P (2007). The Waiting Game. New York Times. Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=2&hp

Health Care Spending: Large Differences, Unequal Results (n.d.). Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php.

Himmelstein D, Thorne D, Warren E, Woolhandler S. (2009). Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:Results of a National Study. Americal Journal of Medicine, Vol 122, No 8, August 2009. Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf

Ebert, R (2009) I'm safe on board. Pull up the life rope. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 23 September 2009 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/im_safe_on_board_you_can_pull.html