Developments In Domestic and Global HIV/AIDS Strategies

The White House recently released its HIV/AIDS strategy to reduce the number of new infections in the United States by 25% over the next five years.  During a press conference, President Obama observed that “[t]he question is not whether we know what to do, but whether we will do it.  Whether we will fulfill those obligations… to prevent a tragedy.”  Those obligations primarily concern reducing the number of new infections through HIV prevention programs, increasing access to and quality of care for those living with HIV, and decreasing HIV-related health disparities.  Right now there are 56,000 new infections in the United States every year.  Approximately 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV, but 1 in 5 don’t know it.

Advocates have criticized both the administration and Congress for failing to adequately fund HIV/AIDS efforts at home and abroad.  A recent AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) “Who’s Better on AIDS?” advocacy advertisement unfavorably compared President Obama’s track record to that of President Bush.  (In 2003, the Bush administration implemented the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a multibillion dollar initiative which has proved successful in lowering the AIDS death rate in Africa, though not the rate of HIV infection).   Michael Weinstein, President of AHF, told CNN that:

“when you see what this administration has done on AIDS, you have to give them very low grades.”

Obama has “consistently underfunded AIDS” programs, Weinstein said.  The president “did not mention the word AIDS for the first five months of his administration.  This national AIDS strategy has been worked on for 15 months, [and] I think it could have been done in 15 minutes.  There’s nothing new in it.”

Weinstein [also] criticized the administration’s intention to redirect money to those groups at greatest risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.  “It’s not good to pit one group against another and it’s unnecessary,” he said.  “The bottom line is that we should be seeking to get all sexually active people to get an HIV test.”

Some recent Canadian research also suggests another bottom line: treating people with HIV reduces the number of new infections.  And there the treatment is free.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently presented its findings that heterosexuals living below the poverty line ($10,000 or less) in American cities were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as their higher-income neighbors.  The statistics translate to 1 in 42 people (the national average is 1 in 222 people).  Most studies focus on sexual orientation, race, and/or intravenous drug use.  None of those factors were included here though.  Kevin Fenton, a CDC HIV/AIDS expert, said that “HIV clearly strikes the economically disadvantaged in a devastating way.”  Researchers found that the risk of spreading HIV came from a lack of access to medical care and unawareness of infection.  Dr. Carlos del Rio, Chair of Global Health at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, frames the issue differently as “[y]ou can talk about ‘Can we decrease the HIV burden in the United States?’  I would say, ‘What can we do to decrease poverty in the United States?’”

The 18th International AIDS Conference took place last week in Vienna, Austria.  Policymakers, researchers, advocates, and persons living with HIV met to draw attention to the epidemic and assess the global response to it.  According to the Associated Press, Julio Montaner, President of the International AIDS Society and Chairman of the Conference, opened the event by pointing to how:

the G-8 group of rich nations has failed to deliver on a commitment to guarantee so-called universal access and warned this could have dire consequences.

“This is a very serious deficit,” Montaner said.  “Let’s rejoice in the fact that today we have treatments that work … what we need is the political will to go the extra mile to deliver universal access.”

With the global economic crisis in full swing, AIDS activists are concerned about developed countries reducing their foreign aid, including funding for AIDS assistance.

In its annual report released last week, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that global AIDS spending has “flattened.”  Although public and private sources contributed $15.9 billion in 2009, the amount was $7.7 billion short of the estimated $23.6 billion needed to combat AIDS in low and middle-income countries.  Contributing governments included the U.S. (58%), United Kingdom (10.2%), Germany (5.2%), the Netherlands (5%), France (4.4%), and Denmark (2.5%).  The report noted that “without U.S. funding, international AIDS assistance from donor governments would have significantly declined between 2008 and 2009.”

Virginia, the First State to Challenge the Health Care Law in Court

Effective 2014, as part of the new health care law, most U.S. citizens will be required to obtain some type of health care insurance or be hit with a tax penalty.  This federal mandate is part of an effort by the Obama administration to use the penalty (or tax) to prevent uninsured Americans from shifting their $43 billion in healthcare costs to others.

However, this mandate did not sit well with some states, as many have filed suits seeking to invalidate the law.  Virginia was the first to butt heads with the federal government in court.  In a two-hour hearing, the federal government and Virginia both made their arguments before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson.

The NY Times reports that Judge Hudson, “who was appointed by the first President George Bush, questioned both sides aggressively and said he would rule within 30 days. The judge predicted that the challenges to the health care law ‘will at some point in time define the outer boundaries’ of federal regulatory power.”

Although the hearing primarily concerned the issue of whether Virginia had legal standing to bring this claim, part of that analysis requires the court to look at the likliehood of the party seeking standing to have the injury alleged redressed. The requirements for standing are nicely stated in “The ‘Lectric Law Library“:

Standing. The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

The state here would seem to bear the burden of showing, among other things, that any harm that may or may not be experienced by its individual citizens is a concrete and particularized harm to the state itself. As for the crux of the issues beyond standing, The NY Times reports:

[States'] central argument is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to allow government penalties on Americans for refusing to buy a product, or as Virginia’s lawsuit puts it for “an absence of commerce.”

“We’re saying you can’t draft someone into activity so you can regulate him,” Virginia’s solicitor general, E. Duncan Getchell Jr., told Judge Hudson.

Mr. Getchell said the Justice Department’s defense of the law “evinces hostility to federalism.” He called the law “a radical, radical claim of power” that, if upheld, would allow the federal government to require citizens to buy most any commercial product in the name of advancing the national interest.

Ian H. Gershengorn, a deputy assistant United States attorney general, countered that the insurance requirement fitted well within the Supreme Court’s parameters for Congressional regulation of interstate commerce. A choice not to obtain coverage, he said, is not inactivity, as Virginia and the other state plaintiffs claim, but an active decision to pay for future medical care out of pocket.  Because many Americans cannot afford the cost of surgeries and hospitalization, their choice to go uninsured shifts the uncompensated cost of their care to hospitals, taxpayers and commercial policyholders.

Despite Virginia’s efforts to protect the interest of the state and its citizens, not everyone in Virginia is pleased with the state’s action to nullify the new health care law.  Some citizens of Virginia seemed more concerned about affordable health care than state’s rights.  As one small business owner puts it, “…seems to me that our attorney general and our current administration are putting politics first and are not taking care of the citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia.”

The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cucinelli “said at a news conference after the hearing that the state has “a better than even chance of prevailing” at each step along the way to the lawsuit’s ultimate destination: the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Judge Hudson’s comment, that “the health care law ‘will at some point in time define the outer boundaries’ of federal regulatory power,” is interesting in this context. It seems to denote a question, even if not answered at this time, as to where the line lay.

Professor Mark Hall, in posts here at HRW and later picked up by the Washington Post and New York Times, would beg to differ with Mr. Cucinelli (and perhaps Judge Hudson). Professor Hall’s posts appear below:

Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance?

Are The Attorneys General’s Constitutional Claims Bogus?

photo credit, kjd via Flickr

Everybody in the Pool — High Risk That Is

By Labinot A. Berlajolli

Individuals with pre-existing medical conditions may now begin applying for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Under the recently passed health care law (PPACA), the government set aside $5 billion to fund the plan from July 1, 2010 through Jan 1, 2014. Money is expected to be allocated based on each state’s population as well as its costs. Although, HHS officials said they might shift funding among states if the new $5 billion program to cover the uninsured runs out more quickly in some states than in others.

To qualify for coverage, individuals must be U.S. citizens or legal residents, have been denied coverage because of a preexisting medical condition, and have been uninsured for the past six months.  Administration officials said people who apply by July 15 will begin receiving coverage by Aug. 1.   States were required to let HHS know by April 30 whether they wanted to use federal grant money to set up a high-risk pool.  As of now, 21 states have chosen to join the federal run pools and 29 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to go it alone.  The 21 states that have chosen to opt into the federal plan are: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.  Several of the largest states operating their own plans, including California, Illinois and New York, are not expected to begin enrollment until August. The administration expects that all states will begin enrolling people by the end of the summer.

Joining the plan will not be cheap. The Los Angeles Times reports that premiums, as well as benefits, are expected to vary greatly from state to state, with some plans charging as little as $140 a month and some as much as $900 a month. Independent experts, on the other hand, estimate premiums will average around $400 to $600 a month.

However, serious questions remain about the new risk pools.  Specifically, whether the $5 billion allocated will be enough. Many experts expect the $5 billion to run out well before 2014 because of high demand. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has estimated that the $5 billion will last for only two years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the funding is not enough to cover all eligible participants, and that the administration will have to limit enrollment to only 200,000 people through 2013, though there are roughly 12.6 million with pre-existing conditions, according to the Miami Herald.   Others who advise Congress and the administration have warned the funds could be exhausted as early as the end of 2011.

Those interested in applying for the high-risk pools may visit the newly launched website, healthcare.gov, for more information and instructions on how to apply.

Petro-spills, Public Health, and Trade Secrecy

Is BP (and the government) performing an unauthorized experiment on public health and the environment? That’s the unsettling conclusion one might draw, given the use of dispersants in the Gulf.

As Tom Dickinson’s excellent Rolling Stone article describes the issue,

On May 14th, two days after the first video of the gusher was released, the government allowed BP to apply a toxic dispersant that is banned in England at the source of the leak – an unprecedented practice in the deep ocean. “The effort should be in recovering the oil, not making it more difficult to recover by dispersing it,” says Sylvia Earle, a famed oceanographer and former NOAA chief scientist who helped the agency confront the world’s worst-ever oil spill in the Persian Gulf after the first Iraq War. The chemical assault appeared geared, she says, “to improving the appearance of the problem rather than solving the problem.”

Now we are learning that the some of the dispersants had “no toxicity studies” done to support their use, and we cannot even find out what is in them:
Read more

IT PASSED!

In what is surely a watershed moment in American social and political history, the Health Reform bill passed on Sunday, March 21, 2010. In the company of historic enactments such as  Social Security and Medicare, the bill passed, 219 Yea, 212 Nay. The bill required 216 votes to pass.

Republican members of the House voted en masse against and vowed to further obstruct enactment of the bill through any means at their disposal.

To say that the battle to pass a health reform bill was long and arduous is not to engage in hyperbole. The debate raged on throughout the year, with a raucous and often maddening to and fro in an attempt to reach at first bipartisan consensus, and then just critical mass in a parliamentary sense.

To say, however, that the passage of this bill is an end to the battle to bring about health care reform is to miss the point. It is, I believe, a first but crucial step in what must be an ongoing effort. The bill encompasses well over a thousand pages; like anything that large it will have to be adjusted as need requires. The health care system is, perhaps, today one step closer to being just that– a system, as opposed to just an ill-fit hodgepodge of perverse incentives and dysfunction.

Last year, as President Obama took office, considering health care and national productivity, I wrote that

One of the first national health lessons this country received came on the heels of World War I.

“With the United States’ entry into the battle, hundreds of thousands of military personnel were drafted and trained for combat. After the war was fought and won, statistics were released from the draft with disturbing data regarding fitness levels. It was found that one out of every three drafted individuals was unfit for combat and many of those drafted were highly unfit prior to military training. Government legislation was passed that ordered the improvement of physical education programs within the public schools.”

“During the period from September 1917 through November 1918, records show that 2,801,635 men were inducted into the Army. Out of the approximately 10,000,000 registered men, roughly 2,510,000 were examined by local draft boards. During the first 4 months of mobilization, roughly one in three men were rejected on physical grounds, but the rejection rate dropped to one in four during the following 8 months.” (p. 149)

Having put forth the effort to remedy such, we were better physically prepared when it came time to fight World War II. We will be fortunate if some cataclysmic event does not lead us now to some statistical reckoning of our “unfit” and “extremely unfit” as regards our national productivity.

I do not point this out as a means of suggesting that we need to actively prepare ourselves for some form of larger global military conflict. But perhaps in some ways the “event” has already occurred, and only the reckoning remains. In his inaugural address President Barack Obama entreated us:

“Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).”

“America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

He’s right. We must “come forth to meet it.” We cannot turn back and we cannot falter as we struggle to deliver this hard won gift of freedom to future generations. And it would be best if– as we brave these icy currents in this winter of our hardship– we were not sick. And if we were sick, that we all had doctors. And if we all had doctors, that they were not too busy filling out paperwork designed to frustrate them. As we learned through World War I, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to squander our physical and intellectual capital.

And now, on March 21, 2010 we have come further forth to meet that challenge. It is reckoned that because of the enactment of the bill an additional 32 million people will now have health insurance. That is 32 million people who can see a doctor when they get sick. 32 million people who mostly will not show up in emergency rooms in a critical and costly condition which they could have avoided had they merely gone to a doctor sooner.  32 million people who stand a far better chance of not having to declare bankruptcy related to medical costs. And 32 million people who will not contribute to the shameful amount of deaths each year attributed in this country to a lack of health insurance.

A good start.

Reform Rodeo

1. The Final Push: Kaiser Health News compiles the latest news stories detailing the final push that is underway by Democrats and the White House to try and pass their comprehensive health reform plan.

2. Rep. Paul Ryan: Ezra Klein interviews Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin; the two discuss the economic impact of the Democrats’ health reform plan.

3. Abortion: Tim Jost does a yeoman’s job of laying out the differences between the House and Senate bills regarding abortion funding.

4. Health Summit Redux: Ewe Reinhardt discusses the lessons learned from the Health Summit.

5. Health IT: John Halamka covers the new HITECH-related NPRM that HHS recently released. The newest NPRM deals with the process of certifying EHR systems under the CMS’s incentive-based framework for meaningful EHR use.

6. Health IT Review: For those trying to catch up on health IT developments, Computerworld has a critical yet thorough account of the high speed push towards EHR adoption.

7. Isn’t That Nice:  A feel good story about the The Oracle of Omaha  and Dr. Atul Gawande.

Obama, Health Reform, Plan B

Interesting article in the Washington Post worth taking a quick view. According to WaPo:

Increasingly, the White House appears to favor having the House pass a version of the measure that cleared the Senate with 60 votes in December. The Senate would then pass changes to the bill to satisfy some demands of House Democrats. That Senate vote would take place under a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation, which requires 51 votes rather than 60.

It remains unclear whether Democrats have enough votes within their ranks for this strategy to work. At the same time, it is only “one option” the president is considering, a senior White House official said Sunday.

In addition, the Washington Post points out that White House adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle “said on Sunday she thinks Democrats will secure enough ayes on the measure and signaled that the administration could be moving toward trying to pass it along party lines.”

The Wall St. Journal’s Health Blog points out, however, that there may be some difficulty in implementing such a plan:

But the process of keeping enough Democrats in line for even a simple majority is tricky: House members in particular still like their bill better than the Senate version and the changes they seek from the Senate also aren’t a sure thing before the House votes.

The President is expected to unveil his strategy later in the week.

Of Summits, Nadirs & Reconciliation

There are any number of places to find recaps and summations of the Health Care Reform Summit. This article from AP’s Erica Werner, “Obama, GOP agree on some health areas,“ outlines the commonalities and differences; this article from AP’s Charles Babington, “Obama, GOP fail to reach accord on health bill,“ focuses more on the apparent failure of the process. Perhaps the two articles display a glass half-full/ half- empty rift within A.P. as well.

Seemingly, the one aspect of the health care and the health care finance system Democrats and Republicans agreed most strongly on is that the glass is, euphemistically stated, half- empty. The fundamental disparities between the two groups, however, become apparent as soon as the discussion moves towards how to fill that glass. Notably, the Republicans have strongly espoused that the year’s worth of work represented by the House and Senate bills be “scrapped,” or, in the words of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, “start over with a blank piece of paper.” The Senate bill runs 2400 pages.

But perhaps the most significant thing which happened today at the summit is what was not said. When Republicans repeatedly asked for reassurances that Democrats would not circumvent the parliamentary procedure of the filibuster with the parliamentary procedure of reconciliation, the Democrats, including President Obama, declined. In doing so, the Democrats reserved for themselves the ability to pass a bill with a simple majority in the Senate (51 votes) instead of the 60 votes it would require to overcome a filibuster.

As WaPo’s E.J. Dionne put it:

Obama sent a very strong signal toward the end of the summit: He wants a bill even if the only way to get it is through the reconciliation route. “I don’t think that the American people are interested in the process inside the Senate,” Obama replied in response to Sen. John McCain’s criticism of the idea that the Senate might try to pass a bill with fewer than 60 Senate votes. Most Americans, Obama said, believe in “majority rule.” So they do.

I have already written about my own constitution based questions and misgivings regarding the filibuster as practiced in modernity–wherein Senators need not go through the arduous task of actually holding the floor with non-stop speech. Where arguably, the day-in and day-out de facto supermajority requirement for the Senate to pass legislation begs the question: Yes, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings….” but what happens when the rule of procedure swallows the law?

Ezra Klein writes:

According to UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair, about 8 percent of major bills faced a filibuster in the 1960s. This decade, that jumped to 70 percent. The problem with the minority party continually making the majority party fail, of course, is that it means neither party can ever successfully govern the country.

But perhaps this can all be reconciled.

Reform Rodeo

1. Principle or Posturing (or both)? –Kaiser Health News discusses the sudden plea from certain Senators for a reintroduction of the public plan into the Senate’s bill.

2. Starting From Scratch? — The Hill highlights polling indicating that many Americans favor scrapping the health bill and starting over, an option that President Obama has repeatedly said is not an option.

2a. Presidential Preemption? — Interestingly, the New York Times details the possibility of Obama posting his own health reform bill on the Internet ahead of the much-hyped health care summit. Could Obama use his “new” bill as evidence of a “fresh start” to appease Republicans?

3. Back to Basics — Maggie Mahar details the longstanding debate about whether health insurance actually saves lives.

4. Scoop on Standards — Dr. John Halamka, a physician who serves as CIO of Beth Israel Hospital and Chairman of the Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) at the ANSI, shares his thoughts on the vocabulary standards that will come to be the Esperanto of HIT.

5. HIT Funding — On Febuary 12th, the first $1 billion of federal funding for HIT promised under the HITECH Act was made available, with $10.6 million going to Massachusetts for the creation of a health information exchange.

6. Health Reform “Casualty”: The New York Times reported that former Congressman-turned head of PhRMA Billy Tauzin is resigning.  Betting on the passage of health reform, Tauzin offered billions in concessions to the White House in exchange for, among other things, favorable patent exclusivity periods for pricey biologics.

7. Health 2.0 — The Health Care Blog reports on the purchase of online pain management company ReliefInSite.com by PatientsLikeMe.com–the popular patient web site which claims to be the  “leading online community for patients with life-changing diseases.” Don’t be to surprised to see further growth of similar “Health 2.0″ websites that seek to take advantage of the increasing digitization of health care delivery and research.

8. The Science Behind Reform — Stephen Novella at Science-Based Medicine revisits the question of the effectiveness of colonoscopies.

Obama’s Plan for a Health Care Summit and the Unenthusiastic Response

Last week, President Obama announced plans to hold a bipartisan health care summit to push forward on health care reform and to give both sides an opportunity to discuss ideas for health reform legislation that will be able to garner enough votes for passage.  While President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders want to use the health care proposals that have already passed in the House and in the Senate, Republicans say that they are unlikely to vote for a bill unless the current proposals are scrapped and the process is started afresh.  It seems like Americans, once again, may be left watching the theatrics of the health care reform debate without actually being the focal point of it.

Some conservative Congress members have already responded to the President’s invitation publicly to make their steadfast positions known.  Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said this past week that he was not willing to discuss a “health reform package that spends money we don’t have.”  He added that “House Republicans have offered the only plan that will lower health care costs.”  If that is true, it is likely attributable to the fact that the House Republican bill would cover only 3 million uninsured Americans, compared to the Democratic House bill which would  insure an additional 36 million Americans.

On Monday night, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Oh.) joined Cantor in submitting a letter to White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, which said that the Republicans were not willing to come to the table unless certain prerequisite questions were answered.  You can see the whole letter here.  In the letter, Cantor and Boehner express their non-support for reform that the American people themselves are not supporting; the basis for such being the recent Republican Senate win in Massachusetts.

Exactly what are the citizens of American thinking about health care reform anyway?  CNN reported on Tuesday that nearly two-thirds of Americans want Congress to persist in passing health care reform legislation.  The poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey, also indicates that Americans blame both Democrats and Republicans on their unwillingness to compromise.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius herself is quoted as saying, “When people look up close at the personal activities of Congress they are confused and disgusted with the whole process and too afraid that whatever is going on can’t possibly be good for them or their families.”

Many believe that the idea for the health care summit was to address the back-door processes that led to American distrust and to make it all more transparent.  Still, there appear to be more differences between the conservative version of reform and the liberal version than points of reconciliation.  Though the prolonged tug-of-war between both sides does not seem like one that might be resolved in a day of convening, the summit is, perhaps, at least a start.

And, while the political contenders decide what to do about the summit, the health reform stalemate has presently-occurring repercussions. Many hospitals, which were holding on to the hope of reform, are now at the point where downsizing their health systems is thought to be the only step left.  Hospitals all around the country have been seeing more and more uninsured patients, and with no one to cover the full cost of services, the hospitals providing unreimbursed care are said to be further sinking into debt– and must therefore cut staff as well as services.  On the individual level, Americans are also finding it difficult to  keep up with the costs of health care, and while many forgo insurance, those that cannot due to chronic illness or necessity of care are finding the cost further prohibitive.

It would make sense, then, that Americans do want reform.  Andrew Rubin, Vice President for Medical Center Clinical Affairs for NYU Langone Medical Center and radio show host for HealthCare Connect, says that one of the underlying reasons why Americans are reluctant to give support for legislation is their lack of understanding of what is happening, not because they do not want to see change.  Let’s hope that the proposed health care summit will be used to clarify issues for Americans who do need and want health care, instead of for just another political brouhaha.

The Tragic Sense of Health Insurance Reform

It looks like there are now 60 votes behind the “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, and the set of amendments to it released today. For the sake of this post, I will assume that this Senate bill will basically be the template for health insurance reform.

Given all the twists and turns of this debate, I’m sure there still will be some important changes (even though holdout Sen. Ben Nelson has been promised a “limited conference” in exchange for supporting it). But today’s announcement does strike me as a turning point in the debate. It’s time to reflect on a growing divide between “realists” in the Democratic party and more idealistic progressives.

Democratic Divisions

Ed Kilgore of The New Republic describes the divide over the Senate bill as follows:

[O]n a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. . . . [T]his is not the same as the conservative “privatization” strategy, which simply devolves public responsibilities to private entities without much in the way of regulation.

[I]n the health care reform debate, the Obama administration pursued legislation that utilized regulated and subsidized private for-profit health insurers to achieve universal health coverage. This approach was inherently flawed to “single-payer” advocates on the left, who strongly believe that private for-profit health insurers are the main problem in the U.S. health care system. The difference was for a long time papered over by the cleverly devised “public option,” which was acceptable to many New Democrat types as a way of ensuring robust competition among private insurers, and which became crucial to single-payer advocates who viewed it as a way to gradually introduce a superior, publicly-operated form of health insurance to those not covered by existing public programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Now that the public option compromise is apparently no longer on the table, and there’s no Medicare buy-in to offer single-payer advocates an alternative path to the kind of system they favor, it’s hardly surprising that some progressives have gone into open opposition . . . . To put it more bluntly, on a widening range of issues, Obama’s critics to the right say he’s engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector.

Glenn Greenwald is one of the most forceful progressive voices on the issue, offering a multifaceted indictment of dominant Democrats’ coziness with a series of corporate interests:

The health care bill is one of the most flagrant advancements of . . . corporatism yet, as it bizarrely forces millions of people to buy extremely inadequate products from the private health insurance industry — regardless of whether they want it or, worse, whether they can afford it (even with some subsidies). In other words, it uses the power of government, the force of law, to give the greatest gift imaginable to this industry — tens of millions of coerced customers, many of whom will be truly burdened by having to turn their money over to these corporations — and is thus a truly extreme advancement of this corporatist model.

One finds this in far more than just economic policy, and it’s about more than just letting corporations do what they want. It’s about affirmatively harnessing government power in order to benefit and strengthen those corporate interests and even merging government and the private sector. In the intelligence and surveillance realms, for instance, the line between government agencies and private corporations barely exists. Military policy is carried out almost as much by private contractors as by our state’s armed forces. Corporate executives and lobbyists can shuffle between the public and private sectors so seamlessly because the divisions have been so eroded. [links omitted]

If one judges the bill purely from the narrow perspective of coverage, a rational and reasonable (though by no means conclusive) case can be made in its favor. But if one finds this creeping corporatism to be a truly disturbing and nefarious trend, then the bill will seem far less benign.

Chris Hedges concurs (in his book Empire of Illusion), dismissing “proposals to require insurance companies to use more income from premiums for patient care or link payment with reported quality” as “unworkable.” He favorably cites physicians John Geyman and Steffie Woolhandler, who think health reform as it now stands is a doomed effort to keep a failing system on life support. Yet many on the left are standing behind the Senate bill, embracing it as what Sen. Harkin called a “starter home” with a good foundation for future additions.

Realism and Idealism in an Increasingly Ungovernable Nation

There has been a lot of talk about a Niebuhrian “Christian realism” in Obama’s foreign policy–a willingness to deploy force and otherwise questionable means to accomplish worthwhile ends. The health reform bill strikes me as another iteration of these endlessly complex, ethically ambiguous moments. The political opposition to the public option has been so intense that those pursuing universal coverage have been forced to bargain with (and even become identified and intertwined with) the very entities they are trying to force to act responsibly. In this topsy-turvy world, where an anti-system opposition refuses to responsibly deal with problems that most developed nations addressed decades ago, Democrats and the Obama administration must cut deals with moneyed interests (whose influence over politics grows apace as a “conservative” judiciary continues to gut campaign finance regulation).

But abstractions can only go so far in describing this bill. I just want to give a counterintuitive spin to two bits of journalism on health reform, to prefigure what I’m sure will be months and years of unintended consequences (some good, some bad) flowing from this bill.

1. Pilot programs: Atul Gawande has pointed to a hodgepodge of pilot programs in the Senate bill as one of the best reasons to support reform efforts. Like many physicians, Gawande is attracted to the organic development of “best practices” in cost control, instead of top-down imposition of a general theory:

Where we crave sweeping transformation . . . all the current bill offers is those pilot programs, a battery of small-scale experiments. . . . The bill tests, for instance, a number of ways that federal insurers could pay for care. Medicare and Medicaid currently pay clinicians the same amount regardless of results. But there is a pilot program to increase payments for doctors who deliver high-quality care at lower cost, while reducing payments for those who deliver low-quality care at higher cost. There’s a program that would pay bonuses to hospitals that improve patient results after heart failure, pneumonia, and surgery. There’s a program that would impose financial penalties on institutions with high rates of infections transmitted by health-care workers. Still another would test a system of penalties and rewards scaled to the quality of home health and rehabilitation care.

Other experiments try moving medicine away from fee-for-service payment altogether. A bundled-payment provision would pay medical teams just one thirty-day fee for all the outpatient and inpatient services related to, say, an operation. This would give clinicians an incentive to work together to smooth care and reduce complications. One pilot would go even further, encouraging clinicians to band together into “Accountable Care Organizations” that take responsibility for all their patients’ needs, including prevention—so that fewer patients need operations in the first place. These groups would be permitted to keep part of the savings they generate, as long as they meet quality and service thresholds.

The bill has ideas for changes in other parts of the system, too. Some provisions attempt to improve efficiency through administrative reforms, by, for example, requiring insurance companies to create a single standardized form for insurance reimbursement, to alleviate the clerical burden on clinicians. There are tests of various kinds of community wellness programs. The legislation also continues a stimulus-package program that funds comparative-effectiveness research—testing existing treatments for a condition against one another—because fewer treatment failures should mean lower costs.

There are hundreds of pages of these programs, almost all of which appear in the House bill as well. But the Senate reform package goes a few . . . steps further. It creates a center to generate innovations in paying for and organizing care. It creates an independent Medicare advisory commission, which would sort through all the pilot results and make recommendations that would automatically take effect unless Congress blocks them.

None of this is as satisfying as a master plan. But there can’t be a master plan. That’s a crucial lesson of our agricultural experience. And there’s another: with problems that don’t have technical solutions, the struggle never ends.

I agree with all of this, but I want to add one more dimension to the “neverending struggle”–the very interest groups that are supposed to be reined in by pilot programs are likely to do their best to alter, influence, or limit those programs over the coming years. One need only look at the sad and convoluted history of gainsharing pilot programs (merely adumbrated here) in order to get a sense of how, as the “rubber hits the road,” various lobbies will be storming veto points in order to undermine experimentalists’ efforts. This is not to say that pilot programs are a sham–I am about to publish a book chapter with the subtitle “A Plea for Pilot Programs as Information-Forcing Regulatory Design.” I just want to temper the technocratic optimism at the heart of Gawande’s worldview with a touch of the skepticism driving progressives like Greenwald and Markos Moulitsas.

2. Cuts in Medicare Home Health Care: Now here is an aspect of the bill that I at first felt offended by. Doctors, insurers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies all appeared to be making at most modest concessions in the final bill. But home health care, staffed by some of the most vulnerable workers, was to be slashed. If anything appeared to fit the Greenwald storyline of rapacious private interests shifting public burdens onto the unfortunate, it seemed to me, these cuts would fit the bill.

Yet once one digs in a bit to this story, more complexity emerges. According to one of the speakers on this podcast of the Diane Rehm show, over half of the “extraordinary patient” payments in the program are made in Miami-Dade County alone. It’s hard to get upset with a long overdue crackdown in the Ponzi State. Many other apparent abuses were mentioned in the podcast, as well as in this discussion on the NYT website. After sorting through all the commenters’ underlying empirical data, I may still come back to my original diagnosis of brutal, bareknuckle pluralism as the driving force behind home health care cuts. But I can’t justify that level of cynicism currently.

Concluding Thoughts on the Tragic Dimensions of Moving Forward

The personal is always political, and rarely is this more the case than in health policy. As with abortion and the draft, the law of health care financing directly impinges on the body of the citizen, determining fundamental opportunities for individuals. Despite all of my reservations and disappointments, in the end I am for this bill for a very personal reason: I cannot imagine how my family would have afforded treating my mother’s ailments over the past decade without the private and public insurance she has continually been covered by.

Earlier this year, I had hoped to be a larger part of the academic legal debate on health reform. But my mother broke her back in early September after falling off a scale in her bathroom, and I am her primary caregiver. Attending to her has taken up much of my free time since then. It’s hard to explain how much pain this incident has caused her, and how it has disrupted her life. All I can say is that I cannot imagine how stressful this incident would have been if she were one of the 46 million uninsured. Without question, her 3 weeks in the hospital, four weeks in rehabilitation, and related care, would have bankrupted her (and nearly bankrupted me). Millions of people may end up in such a situation–without coverage, battered by fate, and broke–if progressives in Congress stand on principle (or dubious constitutional arguments) and torpedo the bill.

Nevertheless, I also realize that this immediate victory, like 2009’s stabilization of the financial system, may be a Pyrrhic one for the Democratic Party. It entrenches the power of one more sector of America’s overweening FIRE industries (finance, insurance, and real estate). I’ve recognized the potential of private insurers to rationalize health care, but that potential is rarely realized. I am very worried that just as “GM hired a thousand lawyers, and Toyota hired a thousand engineers” in response to the Clean Air Act, private insurers will plow new revenues attributable to an individual mandate into endless lobbying to hollow out the terms of “minimum creditable coverage.” They will certainly devise clever tricks designed to drive away the 5% or so of the population that accounts for 49% of medical expenses. If pervasive regulatory capture occurs, the “reform” will be an albatross around the necks of Democrats for years.

“In their determination to avoid Harry and Louise, they’ve become Thelma & Louise.” That’s the verdict on the Obama Administration from a Democratic strategist tweeted by horserace reporter extraordinaire, Chris Cillizza. Although it’s a characteristically snide and smug observation from The Village, I think this bon mot has some chance of coming true. Like most of the conventional wisdom excrudescing from Beltway pundits, it’s less a reflection of reality than a narrative our entrenched political class enacts. The “politics of reform” will be endlessly refracted in DC media celebrities’ halls of mirrors, where a 24-hour news cycle is always hungry for “backlash.” The lazy conventional wisdom has already coalesced around a narrative of Obama-as-Icarus, perpetually mistaking his cautious incrementalism as a seamless web of socialism.

The real tragedy here lies in a struggle for the soul of the Democratic party–between idealists like Greenwald, Hedges, Woolhandler, and Kos, and the DLC/Brookings “realists” who’ve dominated the official Democratic response to the financial and health care crises. The sclerotic Senate’s supermajority rules have put the realists in the driver’s seat, and idealistic progressives have been left with little more than the power to refuse the bill that Reid & Co. craft. Idealists want an FDR-style rejection of what TR called the “malefactors of great wealth,” and they also want to see the millions of Americans without health care coverage given some semblance of a safety net beyond the bankruptcy courts. But we cannot have both. As Martha Nussbaum writes in The Fragility of Goodness (speaking generally about such quandaries),

We are considering [a] situation[], then, in which a person must choose to do (have) either one thing or another. Because of the way the world has arranged things, he or she cannot do (have) both. . . . He senses that no matter how he chooses he will be left with some regret that he did not do the other thing. . . .

Aristotle speaks of a captain who throws his cargo overboard in a storm in order to save his own and other lives. The man sees all too well what he must do, once he grasps the alternatives. . . .And yet he was also attached to that cargo. He will go on regretting that he threw it into the ocean–that things turned out so that he had to choose what no sane person would ordinarily choose, throw away what a sane person would ordinarily cherish.

By passing this reform bill, Democrats will jettison whatever “populist” credentials they once had, opting instead for an early-twentieth-century “progressive” vision of technocratic alliance between corporate and government experts. However many disastrous missteps the FIRE industries make, this is the only arrangement that the media will credit as responsible governance. We’ll commence an endless argument (read: notice and comment rulemaking and subsequent administrative adjudications) over what constitutes an adequate baseline of coverage, what is the fair share of revenue for middlemen like insurers, and what regulatory infrastructure can best vindicate the entitlements (and impose the burdens) specified by the bill. But the fundamental victory of reform–the national commitment that no one should have to choose between death or bankruptcy when confronted with a serious illness–will also endure. The tragic paradox is that the Democrats can only achieve this great cultural and ideological victory by becoming identified with the very interests that only they are willing to confront.

Taking the Fraud Out of Medicare Expansion

One of the ways the Obama administration hopes to pay for health care reform is through policing Medicare fraud.  It is estimated that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) spends $60 billion a year on fraudulent claims.  According to Senator Grassley of Iowa, the federal agency received warnings of fraud by watchdog organizations, but did not respond to most of them; these warnings fell upon the CMS’s shoulders under the Bush Administration.

A report by the Department of Health and Human Services finds that much of the fraud in the Medicare Prescription Benefit program could have been avoided through better management of the companies that were hired by the federal government in 2006 to investigate and monitor the fraud.  Grassley notes that the companies, called Medicare drug integrity contractors or Medics, were essentially a waste of money because they were never given the proper information to perform the audits.  The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration did not allow for the audits by Medics to proceed until its final few months in office.

Under the current model, scams to get Medicare reimbursement for non-existent services are easier than one might think.  Just this past July, a couple who owned a medical business was indicted for submitting false reimbursement bills to the CMS for power wheelchairs that they claimed had been lost or destroyed during Hurricane Katrina.  Other scams include medical suppliers billing Medicare for equipment that was never given to patients, creation of fake medical supply companies, and acceptance of illegal kickbacks for referring Medicare patients to unneeded services.

Solutions to fraud, however, are not as clear-cut as one might wish.  For example, there is a worry that over-policing the CMS will lead to valid claims being denied at greater rates. Also, enforcement and punishment are issues.  Some health care companies have been able to escape criminal prosecution by paying restitution amounts for the fraudulent claims.  Finding restitution to be an insufficient deterrent to would-be fraudsters,  Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wants to see scammers put behind bars. But there is also something to be said for the realization that the “Arthur Anderson solution” is really no solution at all.

Another interesting aspect to consider here is that the CMS finds that provisions of the House bill intended to reduce Medicare fraud will not save all that much money.  In spite of this (or perhaps because of it) many of our leaders have demanded that some action be taken to reduce Medicare fraud– even Sarah Palin says fraud is an issue.  One hopes that the Obama administration will learn from its predecessor’s mistakes (if in fact they be such) when it comes to creating watchdogs such as Medics, but then muzzling and not feeding them.

Obama’s Speech on Health Care Reform, In its Entirety

In case you missed it, courtesy of MSNBC

Amusing Ourselves to Death, Health Care Edition

As health insurance reform hopes entered a downward spiral in August, a squad of Monday morning quarterbacks blamed Democrats for mismanaging the debate. Turning his attention from the finance to the insurance industry, Matt Taibbi is particularly withering:

There [are] now so many competing ideas about how to pay for the plan and what kind of mandates to include that even after the five bills are completed, Congress will not be much closer to reform than it was at the beginning. “The president has got to go in there and give it coherence,” [former Labor Secretary Robert] Reich concluded.

But Reich’s comment assumes that Obama wants to give the bill coherence. In many ways, the lily-livered method that Obama chose to push health care into being is a crystal-clear example of how the Democratic Party likes to act — showering a real problem with a blizzard of ineffectual decisions and verbose nonsense, then stepping aside at the last minute to reveal the true plan that all along was being forged off-camera in the furnace of moneyed interests and insider inertia.

There are some aspects of the Senate HELP Bill that bear out Taibbi’s cynicism, and I expect more in the Gang of Six’s handiwork. But Taibbi misses the forest of reform for the trees of venal interest group grabs that are embedded in any modern legislative process. (Can he really say that even Baucus’s bill, the worst proposed so far, is so bad that it’s worse than the status quo?)

And can we please back up a bit and consider how industry giveaways develop “off-camera?” Professor Timothy Jost, one of the most authoritative, knowledgeable, and diplomatic voices in the health reform debate, has this to say about the media coverage of health insurance this summer:

I have explained how the bill works at a number of public meetings in recent days and have uniformly met the same response, “no one has laid this out for us before”. The media has done a terrible, an abysmal, an inexcusable, an unethical job of covering reform. They have completely abdicated their job of informing the public in favor of becoming an entertainment industry. The media have attended only to the politics, the controversy, the nuts, and the absurd, and have done almost nothing to let the public know what is at stake and what the legislation does. Consequently, the American people uniformly confess to being confused.

What could bring clarity? Paul Krugman, indispensable in so many other areas of contemporary political debate, offers this frame. He proposes Obama say the following:

“We’re going to make sure that every American has access to the same insurance deals big employers get. We’re going make sure that no American can be denied coverage at a reasonable rate because of previous medical history. And for those Americans who find it hard to afford essential insurance, we’ll provide financial aid.”

“Now, there are a few things we’ll need to do to make this work. We’ll have to require that all large employers either offer coverage to their workers or pay into a fund that helps them get their own insurance. We’ll sign people up for insurance now, even if they’re healthy, because it’s not fair to others if you wait until you’re sick to join the system. And we’ll keep the insurance companies honest by offering people the choice of buying their insurance directly from a public plan.”

“Let me be honest: this won’t come free. But this plan will give Americans the fundamental security of knowing that for the rest of their lives they and their families will have the health insurance they need, insurance that they can’t lose.”

Krugman also addresses the thorny issue of the public option, arguing that it’s crucial to balance an individual mandate to have health insurance with an option to join a public plan. It should be easy for America’s “vast middle class” to see the benefits here, if Obama can break through the carnival of death panel-talk that the media has seized on this summer.

Risk, Reward, and Rationality in the Health Care Debate

I agree with Andrew Koppelman’s analysis of resistance to health insurance reform. But Red America’s implacable opposition to the plans now debated in Congress has deeper ideological roots in a love of risk. As Thomas Edsall has observed, “A problem for Democrats … is the long tradition in the US of … venerating risk … and of a deep commitment to untrammeled individualism.”

Even more frustrating for Democrats, the left’s hard-won victories to reduce risk have left many people assuming that they can’t gain much from reform. Consider four “backstops” that leave many people unworried about losing insurance:

1) Bankruptcy: Republicans worked hard to water down bankruptcy protections during the Bush years. Nevertheless, these laws still protect many consumers. As health law expert Timothy S. Jost writes, “Ultimately, the federal bankruptcy code must also be seen as our federal catastrophic health care program.”

2) Medicare: Thanks to LBJ and an overwhelming Democratic majority in the 89th Congress, the elderly already have access to federal health insurance, and are wary of any coverage expansion that could drain resources from the program. Here the GOP’s anti-spending and family values wings have formed a pincer movement that has whiplashed Democrats. First, fiscal conservatives used CBO’s dubious cost estimates to demand “real savings” to pay for reform. Dreaming of bipartisanship, Obama’s technocrats seized on the Dartmouth studies to argue that up to a third of all medical spending, including Medicare, is wasted, and that reform of the delivery system could rationalize that spending. At that point the GOP’s “family values” wing associated reform with death panels, rationing, and “pulling the plug on grandma.”

3) EMTALA: Can a relatively well off person “rationally choose” to be uninsured? As Jost notes, as of 2004, “many of the uninsured are in fact reasonably well-off—8.4% are from households that earn $75,000 or more per year.” To the extent this group is calculating the costs and benefits, it’s likely counting on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) to force hospitals to “screen and stabilize” those who come to their emergency rooms. Of course, once you’re stabilized, the duty to care is over, but few people think very clearly about what it is like to slowly (and stably) die of cancer while the only effective treatments are too expensive to pay for.

4) Medicaid: Finally, we come to another element of the social safety net many people think they can fall back on: Medicaid. Benefits aficionados know that only the categorically eligible can rely on it. Some reform proposals would replace the “numerous statutory and regulatory pathways for establishing eligibility” with a simple income test. But for now, those among the populace who just assume that Medicaid covers all the poor may believe they would have little to gain from reform even if they did face crippling medical bills. (They’re probably also unaware of Medicaid’s pitifully low reimbursement rates–but more on that later.)

None of these so-called backstops will help everyone, all the time. But one can imagine a risk-loving, red-blooded American wanting to roll the dice on them rather than endure the type of bureaucratic assessments and applications that will gradually poke and prod the uninsured making between 133% and 400% of the poverty level toward buying their own coverage on an exchange. Indeed, under the Senate HELP Committee’s proposal, a family making 400% of the poverty level could be responsible for paying up to 12.5% of their income in premiums, for insurance that leaves them liable for paying $11,600 in out of pocket expenses. That’s a worst case scenario of paying 26% of income for health care–better than bankruptcy, but potentially tantamount to the same thing in a country where the bottom half of the population has virtually no net worth. (And that cost-sharing estimate assumes the medical component of the CPI does not increase.)

The really appealing goal of reform–a strong public option that would be part of an exchange open to all–appears to be more of a bargaining chip than a firm commitment for the Obama Administration. Strategically, if your goal is to get “something” through Congress, this makes a great deal of sense: Republicans and some waivering Democrats think a public option smacks of socialism. But as a political matter, it is draining support for reform. People can understand a public option, and building support for it might have been as decisive to Democrats’ fortunes as FDR’s reformulation of the American social contract in the 1930s. Sadly, Obama’s technocrats appear more attracted to wonk-talk like “bending the cost curve” than the forceful moral case for collective responsibility for health. Only the President can correct that course. It takes an ideology to beat an ideology.

X-Posted: Balkinization.

Next Page »