Massachusetts Health Reform: The Canary in the Gold Mine?

Advocates for health care reform have been keeping an eye on Massachusetts, hopeful that its new health reform law will serve as a pilot program for the nation.

I’m much less hopeful than I was two days ago.

Yesterday I attended the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Eighth Annual Leadership Forum where I was one of four speakers. This year, the Society (which owns The New England Journal of Medicine)  focused on the cost of health care –with a special emphasis on funding universal coverage in Massachusetts. The new was not good. While the citizens of   Massachusetts believe that everyone has a right to health care (when polled 92% say “yes”), no one wants to pay for universal coverage.   When asked “if the only way to make sure that everyone can get the health care services they need is to have a substantial increase in taxes [should we do it] 55% said “no.”

One speaker at the forum recalled a man who explained why taxpayers shouldn’t have to pick up the bill: “The government should pay for it.” (He didn’t disclose who he thinks “the government” is. )

The Real Danger of Socialized Medicine by Niko Karvounis

Last week The Washington Post ran a good opinion piece by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at NIH (and brother of Congressman Rahm Emanuel) on the insidiousness of labeling any and all positions on health care apart from free market fundamentalism as being “socialized” medicine, doomed to failure.

Emanuel notes that “ ‘socialized medicine’ is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government…” As Emanuel rightly points out, none of the universal coverage proposals being debated in the U.S. today “can be characterized as socialized medicine. None calls for government ownership or control over U.S. hospitals, drugstores or home health agencies, or for making doctors employees of the federal or state governments.”

This is right on the money—maybe even more so than Emanuel intends. Opponents of “socialized” medicine are wrong three times over: not only do most reformers not want socialized medicine, but even European health care systems (often used as examples of socialized medicine) do not meet the criteria outlined above. Further, publicly-run health care carries with it some significant benefits that are evident right here in the U.S.

To dispel the myth of monolithic government-run European health care, look no further than Germany, where most of the population (88%) receives health care through “sickness funds"--non-profit, third-party pools of money devoted to health services. Sickness funds are built on the principle of “subsidized self-governance”: they receive public funding, but the funds must be financially self-sufficient (i.e. be able to govern themselves) and also allow a high degree of freedom on the part of patients and doctors (the former can choose their doctors and hospitals, and the latter have much flexibility in treatments).

Race and Health Care: Dimensions of Inequity by Niko Karvounis

Yesterday I talked a little about segregation of patients by race in NYC hospitals, and noted how this is likely a problem repeated across the nation. Wonder no more: a 2006 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) analyzed about 719,000 Californians who had received a wide range of complex surgeries. The authors found that blacks, Latinos, and Asians were far less likely to get these operations done at high-volume hospitals, which tend to have better outcomes for complex surgeries. (After all, practice makes perfect).

If you’re white, you’re more likely to receive care at high-volume, better-performing hospitals. This is bad in and of itself; but unfortunately, discrimination continues beyond the level of medical institutions and into the level of individual doctors. A 2004 study in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the primary care experience of Medicare patients, specifically looking at 150, 391 visits by black and white Medicare beneficiaries for “medical evaluation and management who were seen by 4355 primary care physicians.” Here is what they found:

“Most black patients were confined to a small group of physicians (80 percent of visits were accounted for by 22 percent of physicians) who provided only a small percentage of care to white patients. In a comparison of visits by white patients and black patients, we found that the physicians whom the black patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians visited by the white patients (86.1 percent) and also more likely to report that they were unable to provide high-quality care to all their patients (27.8 percent vs.19.3 percent).

Why We Don‘t Have Enough Nurses (It's Not Low Wages)

Consider this: In the San Francisco area, a nurse with a bachelor’s degree can hope to start out with a salary of $104,000. The salary for a nursing professor with a Ph.D. at University of California San Francisco starts at about $60,000.

This goes a long way toward explaining why nursing schools turned away 42,000 qualified applications in 2006-2007—even as U.S. hospitals scramble to find nurses. We don’t have enough teachers in nursing schools and the fact that the average nursing professor is nearly 59 while the average assistant professor is about 52 suggests that, as they retire, the shortage could turn into a crisis. The most recent issue of JAMA (October 10, 1007) reports that in 2005 we had 218,800 fewer nurses than we needed and by 2020, it’s estimated that we’ll be short some 1 million nurses.

Hospitals have had to raise nursing salaries (as well they should), not just because nurses are scarce but because, in our chaotic hospital system, the work can be extraordinarily stressful.   

Race and Health Coverage: Medical Apartheid?

I've invited Niko Karvounis, a colleague at The Century Foundation, to guest-blog. Niko is currently a Program Assistant at the Foundation and an Alumnus Senior Fellow with the Roosevelt Institution. His post follows below.

....

Recently I was handed a report from Bronx Health Reach (BHR) entitled “Separate and Unequal: Medical Apartheid in New York City” that reveals some startling inequities right here in the so-called capital of the world.

Bronx Health Reach is a coalition formed by the Institute for Urban Family Health, with the mission of examining and addressing racial and ethnic health disparities in the southwest Bronx portion of NYC.

At the local level in the Big Apple, these disparities play out through discriminatory care tied to health coverage. Since “health insurance is a major determinant of access to medical care,” poor insurance increases the probability of “delayed care and poorer health outcomes.” And in NYC, health insurance status is closely linked to race: “52 percent of blacks, 63 percent of Latinos” and only “24 percent of whites are uninsured or publicly insured.”  This skewed distribution of health coverage ultimately “creates a de facto sorting of patients by race.”

The most compelling evidence of apartheid can be found in the records of medical institutions which reveal the characteristics of patients that they admit and discharge.

When Women and African-Americans Receive Better Care Than White Men

Last week a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association documented yet another case of discrimination in American medicine. It turns out that blacks and women suffering from heart disease are much less likely than white men suffering from a comparable level of disease to have a defibrillator (a cutting-edge device that uses a jolt of electricity to shock an erratically beating heart back to a normal rhythm) implanted in their hearts.

But as Merrill Goozner points out at GoozNews:  "Guess what? They may be the lucky ones, at least when it comes to implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDS) . . ."

The study showed no benefit for the white men who received the implant. Below, Merrill's analysis, plus his comment (from a separate post) on the need for more and better research into the effectiveness of new drugs and devices:

More Thoughts On the Hospital Building Boom

A Startling Insider’s Look at What Happens to Patients Who Stay in the Luxury Suites of a Prestigious Hospital                         

Last week, thehealthcareblog.com (THCB) asked if they could put up my post about the hospital building boom below where I ask “Can we Afford the Waterfalls”-- and all of  the other hotel-like amenities that new hospitals are beginning to offer. Do we really need grand pianos, valet parking and all-private rooms—especially in hospitals that don’t yet have electronic medical records? (See my original post here)          

Quite a few readers at THCB commented, with a number voting “yes” for the amenities.  But one young doctor said “no”—and then offered this startling insider’s  view of  the care patients do and don’t receive on the luxury floor of one prestigious hospital:

“Maggie's right-on regarding the disconnect between hospital frills and quality of care...

Are We Willing to Accept a Two-Tier Hospital System?

Yesterday, I wrote about the hospital-building boom and suggested that we may not need it—and more to the point, we may not be able to afford it.

In my description of how hospitals are adding costly amenities like waterfalls and all-private-rooms in order to woo well-heeled, well-insured patients, I suggested that the money might be better invested in computerized medical records or Level I trauma units. (In some parts of the country, trauma units are spaced so far apart that if you are in a car accident, there is a real danger that the unit will be too far away to be of any help.)

Barry Carol responded, agreeing that safety should come first, but also arguing that the private rooms help prevent infections. As for the waterfalls, he noted that “while they may make good journalistic copy as illustrative of frills,” given the high cost of hospital construction “they probably get lost in the rounding as a cost factor.” See his comment here.

Because Barry had raised a number of good points, and because the hospital boom is such a large and crucial subject, I decided to return to it today while responding to his comment.

Barry—

I'm afraid the waterfalls are more than good copy for journalists.. Similar amenities are being included in hospital construction across the country--and it adds up.

The Hospital Building Boom: Can We Afford the Waterfalls?

In Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much I talk about the nationwide hospital building boom—and ask two questions: Can we afford it? Do we need it?

In many regions, suburban hospitals have been reaching for big-city business. “What we have to do to maintain our position in the markets is to keep adding services,” explained Westchester Medical Center CEO Ed Stolzenberg. “That’s the whole reason we went into liver transplants.”

Did the resident of Westchester Country (just outside of New York City) need a local hospital doing liver transplants? Just how many transplants would a Westchester hospital do? Would such patients be better off at a high-volume medical center in Manhattan where “practice makes perfect”?

Those questions didn’t seem to come up.  The CEO knew that transplants would raise the hospital’s image.

Across the nation, as not-for-profit hospitals set out to invest in new construction and equipment, decisions seemed to be market-driven—but  not necessarily driven by the local population’s medical needs.  Instead, they were powered by the hospital’s need for market-share.

Employers and Healthcare: “Which Frogs A-Leaping?”

At “Healthcare Renewal” (hcrenewal.blogspot.com) Brown University’s Dr. Roy Poses recently posted a thought-provoking piece about the Leapfrog Group, an employer group that has made its reputation pushing for higher quality care.  Poses points out that nearly 30% of the members of Leapfrog are healthcare corporations, and notes that this might skew their view of healthcare’s goals:  

“One would expect that companies who make money by providing health care goods and services may have different ideas about health care costs and quality than companies who do not do any health care related business” said Poses in his post.

IF YOU’D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS POST, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL MAGGIE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS.