What if every American of a certain age knew they had medical coverage; what if all they had to do was register? What if, in this program, they could choose their doctors, who would be privately or self-employed, not government workers? What if the hospitals they went to were the very ones they go to now? What might you call such a program?
Medicare.
And what if this coverage were extended to all Americans? What might you call that?
Single-payer.
For those who have insurance, the only thing different would be the paperwork: it would become far less, or cease to exist. Neither the care nor the people and places providing it would change. From the point of view of the consumer, I simply see no advantage to having multitudes of companies standing between them and care, sucking money out of the system which goes into the pockets of executives, investors, and into the paychecks of tens of thousands of workers filling out forms at both ends of the transactions. No one -- NO ONE -- is talking about a national health service, ie, a plan whereby everyone goes to government-run hospital, staffed by government employees. (Well, that's not entirely true: several in Congress are comparing the so-called "public option" to the Department of Motor Vehicles. But that's completely disingenuous. The comparison, as I've said, is to Medicare.)
I'm not saying there are no arguments to be made against that "public option," or to a single payer system that enrolls everyone. Many doctors worry about losing control over reimbursement, having to accept ever-decreasing payment for service; they fear the monolithic. It's not without reason, or precedent. Funny thing is, as I've said, Medicare is already pretty much calling the shots: insurers largely take their reimbursement cues from them. Moreover, I've seen several situations in which an insurance company plays docs against one another: fearing losing their patients who are covered by a particular company, they cave to the demands to accept lower fees. It works particularly well in towns that have several competing physician groups.
It's also been a repeated theme of mine that endlessly cutting reimbursement to "providers" is a policy doomed to failure. We're about as low as it can go, if there's an expectation that smart and dedicated people will take up the caduceus. Rather -- and President Obama at least speaks the words -- the real savings will be in identifying those treatments that are the most cost-effective; and, even more importantly, finding those docs that provide the best care at the lowest cost and spreading the word.
The concept is ripe for demagogurery. "Do you want the government to get between you and your doctors?" they ask. As opposed to, what, a high-school grad in an insurers cubicle, telling the docs what they can and can't do? Like it is now? (In the linked article, it would also appear some want to prevent -- by law!! -- research into what treatments work best. To me, that's pretty hard to explain. How awful could it be to be told you can't have one operation that has been shown to be inferior to another?) (Okay, I recognize the potential problems. But if an idea is a good one, surely there's a way to implement it with safeguards.)
Reforming health care, it seems to me, is a perfect metaphor for everything that's wrong with our political system. While faintly acknowledging that for tens of millions it's not working, some in Congress nevertheless want only to maintain the status quo. Their efforts, unashamedly, are mainly limited to coming up with loaded (and disingenuous) phrases calculated to obfuscate. Given the complexities, it would be daunting even for legislators committed to comprehensive and effective reform. Would that we had some.
I'd bet very few people feel loyal to their insurers, per se. They may be loyal to their "providers" and to their preferred hospital. (Sort of. I read a study a few years ago that put the price of loyalty at, as I recall, about twenty bucks: ie, if switching docs meant saving more than that per month, it was hasta la vista, dockie.) What is the argument, from the consumers' point of view, of having insurance companies in the middle of the system? Where, specifically, is the value-added?
I fault the whole gang: Republicans, Democrats, and those in the White House. I can think of no reason why single-payer isn't on the table, except for the fact that it has so little support in Congress. But why? Whose goose is being greased? (If that's the term...) If a plan were to provide the same care we're now getting (or, hopefully, better), using the current infrastructure of doctors, nurses, clinics, and hospitals, while costing less by keeping more money in the system, why would that be bad? Because some call it.... SOCIALISM? Might not the result be more important than the name?
Some who've traveled these parts before will know I've made some suggestions. Funny thing: President Obama seems to have read them and bought everything but the single-payer part. He talks about identifying best practices; he talks about a larger role for the Medical Payment Advisory Commission. The latter, of course, is a double-sided axe; how acceptable it might be to physicians and hospitals would depend on its makeup and its responsiveness to reality. But it's the idea that is a good step. Cautiously endorsed.
[Acknowledgment: I know I said recently I didn't want my return to this blog be by way of the politics of health care. But I find myself unable to cast it out. I think I may have to get a little rubble off the desktop before I can find my way back into the mind of a surgeon.]
