Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › medical system, socio-economics: itza mess
- This topic has 8 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2020 at 1:01 am #118919znModerator
—
A New York Times investigation found that surviving the coronavirus in New York had a lot to do with which hospital a person went to.
Our investigative reporter Brian M. Rosenthal pulls back the curtain on inequality and the pandemic in the city.
podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?mt=2
==
Reading:
At the peak of New York’s pandemic, patients at some community hospitals were three times more likely to die than were patients at medical centers in the wealthiest parts of the city. Read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/nyregion/Coronavirus-hospitals.html
The story of a $52 million temporary care facility in New York illustrates the missteps made at every level of government in the race to create more hospital capacity. Read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/coronavirus-hospital-usta-queens.html
August 6, 2020 at 1:03 am #118921znModeratorOur Health Insurance System Was Not Built for a Plague
In ways large and small, it has become painfully clear that our health insurance system was not built to deal with a crisis like the coronavirus.
The system’s biggest failings are almost too obvious to state. Almost. There’s our ghastly uninsured rate, for instance. When you’re trying to fend off a global pandemic, it’s ideal that everybody in the country has some sort of health coverage so that they can get tested and seek treatment rather than become a vector for transmission. Before this whole debacle began, there were 28 million Americans without any coverage. And even those who were insured risked racking up thousands of dollars in medical bills if they stumbled into the wrong emergency room for a test.
Last month, the president finally signed a bill designed to make all coronavirus testing free, even for those without insurance. Crucially, it covered not just the diagnostic test itself but also the cost of a visit to the doctor’s office or the ER, which is often billed as a separate item. However, there are still ways patients can get trapped into paying, such as if they accidentally go out of network or get additional tests to check for other illnesses like the flu. And if someone actually ends up hospitalized with COVID-19? That too could become expensive. While a number of major insurers, such Cigna, Humana, Aetna, and UnitedHealth, have promised to waive out-of-pocket costs for their customers, those decisions don’t apply to self-insured health plans, where companies directly pay their employees’ health care costs. These kinds of policies cover the majority of Americans with job-based coverage, and it will be up to each individual company to decide whether to eliminate cost sharing for their workforce.
To put it another way: Despite Congress’ best attempt at an intervention, Americans could still end up in mountains of debt because they were victims of a plague.
Making matters worse, millions of Americans are likely losing the job-based insurance they relied on now that the economy is going into a deep freeze and layoffs are mounting. We don’t know the exact number of people who have been kicked off their coverage, but the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 3.5 million faced a high risk of forfeiting it over the last two weeks. That number is only going to grow.
Getting new coverage, unfortunately, could require jumping through a number of hoops, especially if your income is too high to qualify for Medicaid (in some states, unemployment benefits alone could put you over the limit) and you aren’t rich enough to afford the premiums on COBRA (really, who is?). Part of this is due to pure pettiness on the part of the Trump administration, which has refused to reopen healthcare.gov—the federal insurance exchange that 32 states rely on—for a special enrollment period. As a result, people who lost their jobs and insurance will have to submit extra paperwork to prove that they’re allowed to apply for Obamacare outside of the normal open enrollment period. As this is the first economic disaster that has led to mass layoffs since the exchanges started running in 2014, no one is really sure how long it will take to process those forms. Thankfully, most of the states that run their own marketplaces, including California and New York, have opened theirs back up, which should spare their residents a headache and reduce the bottleneck.
But that isn’t the only bureaucratic absurdity people will have to deal with. When Americans apply for Obamacare coverage, they are required to estimate their income for the coming year so that the government can calculate the insurance subsidies they are eligible for. If the number is vastly different from what they reported on their previous year’s tax return, they have to provide documentation explaining why. But most people who’ve just lost their jobs have no idea how much money they’ll earn for the coming year, because the economy has been shut down in order to fight a pathogen, and we have little to no idea when it will open back up. A lot of people are going to be blindly guessing; if they pick a wrong enough number, they’ll have to pay back some of their subsidies when they file taxes in 2021.
In the end, these hurdles are probably going to prevent some people from getting insurance, even though they need it. Paperwork has a way of tripping people up. During Thursday’s coronavirus press briefing, Vice President Mike Pence said that the White House is working on a plan to pay hospitals directly when they care for uninsured COVID-19 patients, apparently by purloining some money from the $100 billion medical supply fund Congress created. That does’t change the fact that newly uninsured Americans will still risk financial strain if they fall ill from anything other than coronavirus. It also means there will be less money left over to, you know, buy hospital supplies.
Our health insurance system is a rickety kludge, full of financial traps and bureaucratic headaches. Even in good times, it doesn’t function acceptably compared with what other rich countries enjoy. But with the coronavirus, its problems have become magnified, forcing Congress to play a game of catch-up that has failed to address the many holes. Many on the left have pointed out that a system like single payer would eliminate all of these troubles; people would have insurance, all the time, no matter what. But you don’t need “Medicare for All” to fix the issues we’re now grappling with. If Americans had truly affordable health insurance options that weren’t tied to their employers and always kept out-of-pocket costs low, it would be enough. But what do we have right now? Just like the coronavirus, it’s a public health nightmare.
US doctor in Canada: Medicare for All would have made America’s COVID response much betterAugust 6, 2020 at 1:05 am #118923znModeratorCorporate Media Ignores How Privatization of US Hospitals Explains Lack of Beds, Ventilators
The politics of healthcare and Covid19 provide ample reasons for anger—toward corporate healthcare and the corporate media so oblivious to their exploitation.The escalating total Covid 19 deaths in New York City and the frantic quest to obtain life saving medical gear has rightly captured media attention. New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s impassioned plea for more federal assistance and a need-based system for allocating aid among the states was covered by CNN and other major corporate media. Nonetheless, they omitted the backstory, the grave decline in NYC hospital capacity over the last two decades, continued and endorsed by leadership of both political parties.
Though much attention was focused on how short of ventilators, masks, and beds the hospitals were there was almost no attention to how the city fell ino this crisis. It was as though only the virus was to blame. Over many years now Medicaid and healthcare activists have made hospital closures an intensely contested issue. In the last two decades NYC hospital beds have gone from 73,000 to 53,000. Democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzales and guest Sean Petty, an emergency room nurse in the Bronx, point to the role that a market mentality creeping into private and even many nonprofit hospitals has played in this decline. “During the years Cuomo has been in office, the number of beds available per patient in the United States in many states has declined dramatically, mostly because hospital managers see empty beds as not money-making, so they want to reduce the number of empty beds as much as possible, so they staff fewer and fewer beds.” Beds in short are subject to the same just in time principles that govern any other supply chain in the modern market economy. Applying just in time metrics to all key resources purportedly maximizes efficiency.
Efficiency, however, is a concept that deserves more critical scrutiny. Writing in the Atlantic Helen Lewis argued: “The tech sector’s overarching philosophy remains bent towards treating the human brain and body like a machine that can be tweaked and perfected until it is running at peak efficiency,” the journalist Lux Alptraum wrote for Quartz in 2017. This is, however, a fundamentally inhuman philosophy. People aren’t machines. We are inherently inefficient, with our elderly parents and sick children, our mental-health problems, our chronic diseases, and our need to sleep and eat. And, as the past few months have demonstrated, our susceptibility to novel viruses.…
Humans and the ecosystems of which they are a part are volatile and not always predictable. The decision to forego back- up systems and ample inventories is analogous to a homeowner’s choosing not to insure his/her house because a fire is unlikely and insurance premiums consume after- tax income. Fortunately most homeowners don’t or are not allowed to think that way. In the public arena, however, things are different.
Governor Cuomo has been generally supportive of the neoliberal development model that includes tax cuts for business and fiscal austerity for the public sector to fund those cuts. He shares the centrist faith in markets as perfect information processing systems and strives to remove the public from active participation in such decisions. When the state budget mandated multi billion dollar cuts in spending for hospitals he attempted to deflect attention to his role by creating a commission comprised disproportionately of health industry insiders.
Those industry insiders seem to object even to discussion of this backstory. “Focusing on closed and consolidated hospitals does nothing to help the task at hand,” said Brian Conway, spokesman for the Greater New York Hospital Association. “All that matters is rising to the current challenge, and the hospital community is deeply committed to doing exactly that.
This is the familiar line of an institution in crisis. When the crisis is in full force now is not the time to explore its history. That would be fine except for two facts. Knowing how we arrived at this potentially catastrophic point is one key to a more humane resolution of it. Major media, including NPR, sadly have done little to explore the deeper background of the NYC shortages. Activists and alternative media must fill the void. Secondly even in the face of corporate healthcare’s many tragedies and inequities, its proponents and beneficiaries continue to push for its preservation and extension of a market dominated health system from which they profit.
Recent sociological studies aimed at locating and finding the backgrounds of the most influential leaders in both private and nonprofit healthcare indicate that MBAs are replacing those who primary focus is in health delivery, public health, and biomedical research. Thus if these players get their way, potential vaccines to prevent a future Covid19 pandemic will be patented and thus limited to those who can afford their inflated prices. The politics of healthcare and Covid19 provide ample reasons for anger—toward corporate healthcare and the corporate media so oblivious to their exploitation.
August 6, 2020 at 1:06 am #118924znModeratorAmerica needs a health care system that puts public health ahead of profits. I know we can do better. I see it everyday in Canada amid the coronavirus.
Dr. Khati Hendry
OpinionI’m a family physician who moved to Canada from California 14 years ago, largely because of Canadian Medicare, the country’s national health insurance program. I’ve been much happier practicing medicine where my patients have universal coverage. It frees up doctors like me to focus on patient care and frees patients to focus on their health, instead of worrying about how to pay for it.
But I have never felt more grateful to work in a universal health care system than during the COVID-19 pandemic. My heart aches for the millions of Americans who have fallen ill and then have had to worry about how they will pay for tests and treatment, who have gone to work while sick for fear of losing their health coverage or who have lost not only their jobs but their insurance, leaving them at risk for financial ruin.
While no country is immune from COVID-19, Canada has been able to mount a much more effective response. Canada’s infection rate is a tiny fraction of that of the United States, and trending downwards. Its health system has two big advantages when fighting the pandemic: universal health coverage and an administratively simpler system.
Canadian Medicare is good for patients
Canada’s publicly financed single-payer system covers everybody, regardless of age, health or job status. No one loses coverage due to COVID-19. Canadian Medicare covers services like hospital and emergency care, doctor appointments and lab tests—without copays, deductibles or medical bills. Everyone is in a single “network,” so there are no artificial limits on which hospital or health provider a patient can see. As a result, Canadians are much less likely to delay testing or treatment for COVID-19, or for the chronic medical conditions that increase the risk of severe illness and death from the virus.
Canada’s universal system also has made it easier for medical and public health professionals to respond quickly — and together — without the administrative headache of multiple insurance companies.
In my province of British Columbia, our ongoing history of collaboration between physicians and the provincial health system made it easier to coordinate responses from hospitals, primary care clinics and long-term care facilities. From the start, emergency response committees held daily meetings to address challenges of hospital capacity, distribution of supplies and protective equipment, testing procedures, staffing policies, telemedicine, COVID-19 protocols and the safety of health care workers. The British Columbia public health officer gives regular updates and guidance as we move through pandemic phases.
Instead of primary care practices shutting down and forcing patients to go without care, as reported in many parts of the United States, we have been able to work together through our province’s longstanding “Divisions of Family Practice.” Most of us work in private practice, but we get help to coordinate with other family doctors to make sure that on-call shifts are covered, our practices are safe and our patients get the care they need during the pandemic. I have not had to care for a patient with COVID directly yet, but I have been part of the extensive planning process.
As health care shifted from in-person to virtual practically overnight, Canadian health authorities put systems in place for more provincial phone triage, patient self-assessment protocols, virtual care software and better internet access to remote areas. The province made investments to support the needs of vulnerable populations, such as aboriginal communities, and those who are homeless, live in rural areas, travel for agricultural work or struggle with mental illness or addiction — groups that have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19 in the United States.
Many of my American colleagues tell me that they’re burned out from administrative demands and anguished from seeing patients not get the care they need because of cost. Now it is worse, as the number of uninsured has soared with the pandemic. My message for them is this: I know we can do better, because I see it every day. It is worth fighting for a system that puts public health ahead of profits: Medicare for All.
September 30, 2020 at 9:15 pm #121944znModeratorTODAY >> I asked a Big Pharma CEO to justify why his company raised the price of a lifesaving cancer drug by over $500 *per pill* since it first hit the market. He couldn’t answer.
This same CEO made $13 MILLION in 2017— including a $500,000 bonus for this price hike. https://t.co/3KWm6tcXC0
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) September 30, 2020
October 1, 2020 at 7:53 am #121967znModeratorBiden just told CNN he's not concerned about losing the left since he won without supporting Medicare for All anyway. "I didn't support it then and I don't support it now."
12 million people have lost their insurance since March. pic.twitter.com/JIIYoqSIXQ
— Rob Byrne (@RobByrneDC) September 30, 2020
October 6, 2020 at 11:55 am #122501znModeratorOctober 7, 2020 at 10:58 pm #122618wvParticipantYale Study Says Medicare for All Would Save U.S. $450 Billion, Prevent Nearly 70,000 Deaths a Year https://t.co/NQPPbtSpfd
— Katalin Pota 🌹 (@katalin_pota) October 7, 2020
October 7, 2020 at 11:04 pm #122620 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.