Health Care Reform, Ms. Palin Weighs In

Finally, after all this time mucking around with boring and complex health care experts, a voice from the wilderness has weighed in in terms we can all understand. “Evil.” Ms. Palin actually used the word evil to describe the Health Care system she has fabricated to be the Obama Plan.

Conjuring up pictures of a thumbs-down bloodstained and leering (but decidedly Wonkish) Obama/Caligula “death panel,” Ms. Palin recently informed her Facebook followers with this “Statement on the Current Health Care Debate,”

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

This woman was slated to be a heartbeat from the presidency; she looks to get closer. She has over 700,000 “supporters” on her Facebook page.

The statement starts thus:

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

Without delving deeply into the merits of the argument (others have done so ably–there are none, this is make-believe coupled with demagoguery of the worst sort which also pretends that Private Insurers offer unlimited care at present– but for a very good point by point refutation you can look at any of these compiled over at Kaiser, or this fact-checker from ABC’s Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper), might I suggest a certain logical inconsistency even within the make-believe of Ms. Palin’s view? In her opposition to a Government or Public Option, she seems left with an option in which a Private Insurance Executive, concerned as he must be with Corporate Profits, would be more likely to extend payment for massive health care expenses to Grandma and Baby Trig than the spendthrift “tax and spend” Democrats she consistently describes as “fiscally irresponsible.” One might imagine a slightly better chance with Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy than with a Health Insurance CEO that made $467,000 PER WEEK last year –and wanted to do so again this year. No?

Martyrdom of Ten Thousand Christians, Albrecht Durer (1508)

If you read her post carefully ( I know, but perhaps you could humor me for a moment) what she seems to be saying is that in effect, the fiscal irresponsibility of the spendthrift Democrats in offering health insurance to all will itself lead to, and force, rationing. But the question then, of course, is this: rationing to whom and on what scale? Her premise it seems is necessarily that the absence of health care for some, at present, makes it possible for the unlimited healthcare of  many (i.e., in Ms. Palin’s make believe world, Private Insurers at present offer unlimited non-rationed Health Benefits to those who, at present,  have health insurance, but if the poor and uninsured are given access to healthcare, that will bankrupt the system and require limitations upon those who had formerly held unlimited access to care– or, in short, if the poor and uninsured get some, the presently covered will get less). How is that not rationing?

If rationing is the selective distribution of scarce resources via certain criteria–some form of merit or lack thereof–then rationing is exactly what happens under Ms. Palin’s make-believe model at present: the utilitarian calculus en masse. The distribution criteria, however, in Ms. Palin’s model, is money–which becomes a “death panel” in and of itself. A “communal standard” based on wealth. Simply put, in Ms. Palin’s world, she necessarily allows for that most efficient of instruments, the market, to decide who lives or dies.

Strangely enough, Ms. Palin’s world begins to look a lot like ours.

The 85% Solution and Health Costs

Reform may be bogging down over cost issues.

Blue Dogs and Republicans argue that the cost of reform is too high.  Attempting to predict what large expenditures set off fiscal responsibility alarms is chancy (Financial bailout? Iraq war? Health coverage for all?).   Public money should be spent wisely, but outrage at the scale of the thing — about $100 billion per year to bring equity and sense to a system that cost $2.4 trillion in 2008, and is projected to cost $4.4 trillion by 2018 — doesn’t scan well.  Time lines have been stretched.  The level of political energy has ratcheted up, with the President fully engaged, and business and the health industry  more publicly pushing back.

It may be time to think back to a catch-phrase of the last health reform period.  It was common at that time for objectors to assert that reformers were applying a 100% solution to a 15% problem — that is, that comprehensive reform was unnecessary to address a problem affecting “only” the 15% of the population without health coverage.  There are glimmers of a similar argument this time, with objectors asking whether it is worth it for the haves (taxpayers) to provide for the have-nots (the uninsured).  This argument would be flawed definitionally, as plenty of the working poor without insurance pay a higher total tax rate than better-off insured people.  More significantly, the message should be rejected on its merits: this round of reform is necessary for everyone, and not just the uninsured.

So, what’s the 85% solution?  The figure 85% pops up in a couple of interesting places in the health reform debate.  First, a NYT/CBS poll last month found that about 85% of Americans believe that the American health system needs to be “fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,” numbers that match well with an EBRI Issue Brief published earlier this month.  This number demonstrates the inclination of the insured to support reform.  After all, the other place the figure 85% pops up in insurance coverage rates — 85% of Americans are insured, and 85% of Americans recently told Gallup that their own health care as “excellent” or “good.”  In the sharpening public debate, progressives should keep this group in focus.  They’re empathetic toward the uninsured, but that empathy is doing too much work.  They should be engaged, in addition, by the fact that health reform is in their direct interest.  They need reform for at least three reasons: our system is fiscally unsustainable and will run off the rails in coming years without comprehensive reform; our system encourages procedure-driven medical practice that serves patients poorly, and even harms them; and the basis for competition in the private insurance market is less on quality and service, and more on seeking out “good risks,” driving into public programs or uninsurance those who most need care, inefficiently increasing taxes or health insurance premiums for the 85%.  Those rallying support for reform should pay heed to these issues.

Attention to an 85% solution is not in tension with covering the 15%.  Uninsurance kills people, and extending coverage to all is critical.  Most Americans clearly care about universal coverage, but the negative blitz will be intense, and it will be helpful to also emphasize that reform helps the 85% as well as the 15%.  Benefit to the 85% sometimes gets underplayed, allowing nay-sayers to create a divisive us-them dynamic.  Today’s reform efforts are necessary because the system is broken with respect to all participants.

All of the health reform draft bills address the key issues of cost, practice reform, and risk selection to greater or lesser degrees.  They could, of course, be improved in these areas. But too often, the debate tends to be reported as though sponsors are advocates only for the uninsured, while Blue Dogs and Republicans fight a rear-guard action to protect those with insurance.  If the struggle is so mischaracterized, reform is unlikely to pass.  We need reform that contains cost for all, restores incentives to practice humane medicine, and reduces as much as possible insurers’ incentives to avoid covering those most in need of care.  Below are some quick thoughts on comparative effectiveness analysis as cost containment, in this spirit.  I hope to touch, in coming days, on the need for reimbursement reform and for an end to insurance competition on the basis of risk.

Cost containment: Health Technology Assessment

There’s been a lot of talk about how to “bend the curve” of health care cost projections.  Containing cost increases helps everyone, of course.  It would be tragic indeed for Congress to expand coverage to all only to find in a few years that we can’t sustain the new program.  One important, and controversial, aspect of cost containment is comparative effectiveness research (CER).   CER is often demonized as rationing.  The Institute of Medicine’s recent work in this area defines this hobgoblin, however, in terms that seem positively pro-patient:

[CER] is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care.  The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels.

Shouldn’t we care about whether expensive new devices and procedures improve health?  The scare tactics should be taken on in two ways.  First, as the IOM makes clear, most CER is directed toward choosing the clinically appropriate alternative.  A second, rhetorically more difficult task, is to point out (as have both my colleague Frank Pasquale and economist Uwe Reinhardt ) that “rationing” is not a swear word, but rather a description of a method for allocating scarce resources.  The choice isn’t whether rationing to some degree will occur, but rather whether it will be done through a transparent process rather than on the basis of ability to pay — or on the basis of an insurer’s preference.

That good health technology assessment should be a concern for the 85% was made clear by David Leonhardt’s recent NYT piece on slow-growing, early stage prostate cancer.  Leonhardt describes the five forms of treatment commonly prescribed, ranging from “watchful waiting” to proton radiation therapy.  The price, he reports, ranges from “a few thousand dollars” to over $100,000.  Which works best?  No one knows.  Remember — the question posed by the article isn’t which produces the most QALYs per unit cost; rather, it reveals that there is no real scientific basis to choose among the options.  Shouldn’t we encourage research to allow us, and our doctors, to choose wisely?

Rationing or Cost Effectiveness?

Ordeal by the scales in Oudewater

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Scott Gottlieb, a former senior official with both the FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), warns that “Government Health Plans Always Ration Care.” Aside from recasting the same old aspersions about “rationing,” Gottlieb warns that if reform efforts can’t tame health care costs, the “government will turn to a less appealing but more familiar tool to cut costs: the regulation of access to drugs and medical services.”

Of course, “access” can mean many things. Theoretically, Americans have “access” to the best medical technologies in the world. But practically, most Americans-including those with health insurance-don’t actually access this type of care and couldn’t even if they tried. The bottom line is that every health insurer in the world, public or private, has to “ration” for the simple fact that health care resources are not unlimited. Only wealthy citizens truly have “access” to the best medical care money can buy, regardless of the country they live in or the health system they live under. That won’t change with or without major health reform.

Gottlieb is worried that reformers might formally embrace recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC), which currently has a broad statutory mandate to advise Congress on the Medicare program. He also warns that rationing is “a European import,” as if no health insurer in the United States has ever had to draw the line somewhere and decide what not to pay for. For example, Gottlieb warns about organizations like the Committee for the Evaluation of Medicines in France and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Germany. He doesn’t mention the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, but it drew similar scorn after the economic stimulus package funded comparative effectiveness research here in the United States. Gottlieb cautions that European countries “aren’t shy about rationing.”

Gottlieb is correct in one aspect: these organizations are prevalent in Europe. However, he misses three important points.

First, the countries in Europe that Gottlieb warns about spend considerably less than we do on health care (and don’t suffer negative health consequences for it).

Second, wealthy residents in pretty much all of these countries can purchase services and technologies over and above what the organizations that Gottlieb warns us about approve.

And third, we’re not exactly strangers to these organizations in the United States. Gottlieb is concerned about European imports, but he’s ignoring our home grown organizations, like the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which makes new technology assessments for Gottlieb’s old agency, CMS, and supports comparative effectiveness research. Or the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC), which also performs new technology assessments. In fact, it’s no secret in Washington that Medicare has long considered some amalgam of cost effectiveness and comparative effectiveness in its coverage decisions, even if nothing in the Medicare statute explicitly allows it to do so. (CMS has long stretched the definition of “reasonable and necessary” in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act to fit its fiscal realities, even if CMS or its precursor, HCFA, haven’t been successful in cementing cost effectiveness as a formal criterion, as evidenced through failed rulemaking in 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 4,302) and 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 31,124)).

And just as importantly, private insurers make cost and comparative effectiveness determinations too, either by following Medicare’s lead, as expressed through national and local coverage determinations (NCDs and LCDs), or by setting up their own new technology evaluation systems, like BlueCross BlueShield has with its Technology Evaluation Center. Though the offical duties and decisionmaking processes of these organizations differ, the health care community generally understands these decisions as implicitly factoring in cost effectiveness or at least clinical effectiveness-thus doing precisely what the anti-reformers like Gottlieb warn about.