Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare, Part II

Podcast:

 

 Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare [14:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (15)

The fact that the health insurance industry supported Obamacare from the very beginning was entirely missed by the mainstream press. This is perhaps understandable, since a) the mainstream press does not understand the dynamics of the healthcare system, and b) during the Obamacare drama, the health insurance companies had been assigned, and had graciously accepted, their vital role as the Forces of Evil. To the famously credulous members of the mainstream press, it was easy to imagine that the insurers were actually among the opposition.

But the insurance industry supported Obamacare from the start – and even before the start. During the Presidential race of 2008, for instance, managed care companies donated far more money to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to any Republican candidate, even though both of these Democratic candidates publicly castigated the insurance companies for producing most of the problems in American healthcare, and promised to institute reforms that would drastically cramp their style and reduce their profits.

Why would the insurance industry support the very candidates whose chief healthcare strategy was to demonize them? Quite simply, it was because the insurance industry had nowhere else to go.

By the time Mr. Obama became president, the once proud, self-confident, and even arrogant American health insurance industry had been completely humbled. Like the old Soviet Union twenty years earlier, it still may have looked formidable from the outside, but it was really an empty shell.  The industry had run out its string; it was entirely bereft of ideas. Its business model was completely broken, and it desperately needed an exit strategy. And it was due to the need to find a serviceable exit strategy that the industry supported Obamacare.

To understand what landed the insurance industry in this sad state of affairs, it is necessary to review its recent history.

The Rise of the For-Profit HMOs

When the Clintons set out to reform the American healthcare system in 1993, the health insurance industry initially claimed to support them. The Clintons had promised them a vast new market – the millions of heretofore uninsured Americans whose premiums would be paid, presumably, by the government.

But the alliance fell apart the moment the insurance industry began reading the massive tome of regulations the Clintons finally produced, and found in it much they didn’t like. Chiefly, they they didn’t like the parts that ceded full control of their industry to the government. So Big Health Insurance immediately turned against the Clintons, and spent millions of dollars introducing us to Harry and Louise (a “typical” American husband and wife who were viewed in numerous TV commercials discovering various appalling provisions of the Clinton plan). In the end, when the Clinton’s reform plan went down to ignominious defeat, the powerful health insurance industry, appropriately, got most of the credit.

Most of us Americans were happy at the time that the Clintons’ plan had been defeated, but during the debate over healthcare reform we had become convinced that the old way of doing healthcare wasn’t any good either. The healthcare system, we all knew by now, was bankrupting us.  And something needed to be done about it. But with the Clinton plan off the table, what were our options?

In the ashes of the Clintons’ failed effort, the health insurers saw their golden opportunity.  And they presented the American people with a savior. The savior was, of course, them.

The insurance industry made its pitch in a new guise which we Americans had never seen before. For the big fee-for-service insurance companies had transformed themselves into HMOs, and had fully assimilated the language of managed care. These were not the touchy-feely, non-profit HMOs that had been puttering around in the healthcare system for a decade or so.  These were meat-and-potatoes, for-profit HMOs, run for the most part by hard-nosed business executives, and newly formulated for a new era of American healthcare.

And here is what they said: “Citizens! We all – employers, patients, physicians, hospitals, manufacturers and insurers – have just dodged a bullet. Thanks to us, the frightening socialist reforms of the Clintons have been soundly defeated. But where does this leave us? We stand now between Scylla and Charybdis, between the specter of nationalized healthcare on one hand, and the continued profligacy of traditional fee-for-service medicine on the other. And we cannot countenance either. But here,” they continued, “is a third way. A painless way, based on the sound principles of managed care, open markets, and free enterprise. Let healthcare become a business like any other business, and the market forces will find ways not only to cut costs but also to improve quality, and with no government intervention.”

The offer, in other words, was to turn healthcare over to the business professionals now running the New Model HMOs, who were cocky with the certainty that they could harness the efficiencies of the marketplace to control costs, make a big profit at the same time, and be feted as saviors to boot. Because we’re Americans and we know the benefits of capitalism, and because the other choices we faced looked even worse, we all said, “Go for it.”

This change led to the most rapid transformation the American healthcare system has ever seen, and within a few short years, the majority of Americans were enrolled in HMOs, or some other species of corporate managed care.

So HMO executives set out to control the cost of American healthcare, and to make a spectacular profit doing it. And for a few years, they seemed successful. Healthcare inflation slowed dramatically in the late 1990s, and HMO profits soared.

But it was all an illusion.

The Fall of the For-Profit HMOs

The initial impressive profitability of New Model HMOs was due to the one-time reduction in cost you always get when you implement efficiencies of scale (made possible by merging enterprises), and by instituting the new standardization techniques favored by managed care theory. These steps reduced the cost of healthcare for a while, but the underlying rate of healthcare inflation (which is mostly caused by new medical technologies and an aging population, neither of which are cured by managed care) was pretty much unchanged. So by the early 2000s, when these one-time cost reductions had been fully realized, healthcare inflation was right back on the same unsustainable trajectory it had been on before.

Unfortunately for the HMOs, the big profits they enjoyed throughout the 1990s could not last. Their rapidly expanding valuations were attributable not to their efficient management of healthcare, but instead, to the frenzy of mergers that rapidly ensued, and to the acquisition and privatization of not-for-profit public assets for a tiny fraction of their true value.

So not long after the turn of the century the for-profit managed care companies were getting very nervous. For the very first time in their history, HMOs were faced with the prospect of having to earn their profits, profits sufficient to satisfy their shareholders, by actually managing the healthcare of sick people. This is something they had never accomplished before, and, by the time the election of 2008 approached, they knew they never would.

By that time they had tried everything. Beginning in 1994, filled with confidence and enthusiasm and cheered on (initially, at least) by the public and by public officials alike, the health insurance companies had more than 15 years of more-or-less unfettered freedom to institute any efficiencies it wanted to. In the ensuing years insurance companies tried all kinds of legitimate ideas for reducing healthcare costs, such as managed care, gatekeepers, clinical pathways, disease management programs, pay for performance, wellness programs, medical homes, and even a ruthless consolidation of the industry to achieve “efficiencies of scale.”

They also tried every sneaky and underhanded idea they could think of for reducing costs, like cherry-picking the healthy patients, treating chronically ill patients like pariahs so they would go away, making access to specialty care as inconvenient as possible, forcing doctors to sign “gag clauses” to prevent them from telling their patients about certain treatment options, browbeating primary care physicians into zombie-like compliance with handed-down care directives, refusing to cover expensive-but-effective medical services, and canceling the policies of tens of thousands of patients after they get sick, based on trumped-up technicalities. Indeed, they tried everything short of dispatching teams of Ninjas in the dark of night to slaughter their most expensive subscribers in their beds.  And finally, when all else failed, they instituted huge and unsustainable annual increases in premiums, to the point of driving their customers out of the market. (This latter move, of course, was an open acknowledgment that the industry had entered its death spiral.)

All these efforts were to little avail. The cost of healthcare continued to skyrocket, entirely unabated. And by 2009, when President Obama began his push for healthcare reform, the insurance companies knew they had no prospect of long-term profitability. Their business model was no longer viable, and, while telling soothing stories to avoid shareholder panic, they were urgently casting about for an exit strategy.

A drowning man will cling to any piece of flotsam that comes his way.  What the insurance industry found floating by was Obamacare.

What Health Insurers  Get From Obamacare

In return for its support in the healthcare reform battle, President Obama offered the insurance industry the graceful exit strategy it so desperately needed.  Under Obamacare, for at least a few years the insurers hope to get One Last Windfall – namely, profits from the influx of previously-uninsured Americans whose premiums will be paid – or at least subsidized – by taxpayers.  Here, the insurers are relying on the likelihood that the inflow of new premiums will, for a year or two at least, greatly outweigh the outflow of money they will have to spend caring for these new subscribers. Obviously, they will use every trick in their well-worn book to stave off expenditures for these new subscribers for as long as they can, but if they actually knew how to avoid paying healthcare costs indefinitely, they wouldn’t be seeking a government bail-out today. In any case, an inflow of new subscribers will be a very temporary source of profit for insurers. Hence, at best it is One Last Windfall.

What happens to the insurers after they exhaust this last windfall is still up in the air. Obamacare may, of course, eventually transition to a single-payer system, an outcome which many conservatives desperately fear, and many liberals fervently desire. In this case, there may very well be some final compensatory buy-out (or a buy-off) for the insurance companies. But more likely, the insurance companies under Obamacare will continue to exist essentially as public utilities. That is, they will exist as companies chartered by the government, which administer healthcare under the direction of the government, with the products they may offer, the prices they may charge, the profits they may keep, and the losses they may incur, determined solely by the government.  It’s not glorious, but it’s a living.

And it’s much better than where they would have ended up without Obamacare. Which is why they supported it from the start.

Now that we know why the insurance industry supported Obamacare, in the next post we will explore how the industry, at no small cost to its own public image, supported the President when it counted most.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Podcast:

 

 Physician-Industry Relationships – What Is Appropriate? [21:13m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (185)

The following is a close approximation of a talk DrRich gave to a gathering of some of the world’s most promising young cardiac electrophysiologists, in Nice, France, on June 15, 2010. He was asked to talk to these young physicians about physician-industry relationships. The organizers of this gathering apparently did not know, as anyone who reads this blog would know, that DrRich should never, ever be allowed an opportunity to influence promising young physicians.  But, what’s done is done.

* * * * * * * *
A worldwide controversy is now roiling over the appropriate relationship between physicians and industry. Superficially at least, this controversy has to do with the undisputed fact that a physician’s relationship with industry can unduly influence his or her behavior.

That is, this controversy is said to be related to the conflicts of interest (COI) that are always inherent, to some degree, in such relationships.

I believe there is a deeper, and far more disturbing, reason behind this controversy, and I will address it in a short while.  But let’s first talk about COI, because it is ostensibly the chief concern, and it is in fact a very important issue.

A COI is present when an individual has a sacred, fiduciary duty (i.e., a duty of trust) to Entity A, but then develops a secondary relationship with Entity B, which (by creating self-interest, competing loyalties, or even just an inability to be objective), threatens to interfere with the primary duty to Entity A.

Physicians, especially academic physicians, have (at various times) at least three primary fiduciary duties that must take priority. These are: a duty to patients when practicing medicine; a duty to students (i.e., actual students, colleagues, or the public) when teaching; and a duty to society (and truth itself) when conducting medical research.  It is clear that ties with specific companies and their products can easily create important COI that may interfere with each of these primary fiduciary duties, and it is equally clear that physicians have commonly allowed this interference to happen.

Far more often than we like to imagine, doctors have allowed bias to creep in when recommending a course of action for their patients, in imparting knowledge to trainees, colleagues or the public, or when designing, analyzing or reporting results of clinical trials. And typically, most doctors who exercise inappropriate bias have convinced themselves that they are really acting in the best interests of their patients, students or society at large. For it is quite difficult to be objective about one’s own COI.

And there is no question that industry has become adept at the gentle art of creating COI among physicians (subliminally whenever possible), and have carefully incorporated the creation of such conflicts into their business models.

Obvious abuses we have all seen include doctors “shilling” for companies or their products at national meetings; clinical guidelines committees seeded with biased members; unbelievable amounts of money (well above “fair market value) being paid to key doctors for consulting services; long advertisements disguised as CME events; and ghost-writing scientific papers, then recruiting prominent physicians to sign on as “authors” after the fact. There are many others.

Such ongoing abuses of our fiduciary duties ought to be deeply embarrassing to us in the medical profession.

And if it’s not embarrassing, it is at least becoming painful. In the US, physicians who are discovered doing some of these things are being called out publicly, being investigated by Congress if not the Justice Department, losing their prestigious academic positions, and having their reputations destroyed. It is hard to be sympathetic toward them.

Despite all the negative attention – both public and legal – that such COI have brought to our profession in recent years, many of us continue to have tin ears.  A recent example, which has caused a stir in the blogosphere if nowhere else, happens to relate to the EP community. (Thanks to Larry Huston of Cardiobrief who did the heavy lifting on this one. )

Recently, the ACC/HRS collaborated in the launch of a new website, called AFibProfessional.org, which is described as “a unique collaboration to address atrial fibrillation for the cardiology community.” The site has only one corporate sponsor – Sanofi, the maker of Multaq.

At the time of launch, all the content on this new website consisted merely of old, recycled material from older ACC and HRS websites, with a single exception. The single exception was a slide lecture by a prominent electrophysiologist, who we all know and love, on “Managing Atrial Fibrillation.”  This lecture makes a strong case for the off-label, off-guideline use of Multaq. The lecture was posted without any COI disclosure statements, though the lecturer, it turns out, has significant financial ties to Sanofi.  When the matter became a public issue, the lecture was pulled from the site, and the ACC promised to investigate. A few days later, the investigation apparently completed to the ACC’s satisfaction, the lecture was reposted, this time with a COI disclosure.

While one hesitates to suggest malfeasance here, it certainly looks bad.  For the ACC and HRS to co-sponsor a brand new website that , by all appearances, is chiefly a vehicle for advertising Multaq suggests, if nothing else, that we in the medical profession, and our professional organizations, still don’t get it. If we don’t police our own COI, it will be policed for us.

What remedy should be applied?  A reasonable approach would be to recognize that physician-industry ties will always bring at least some COI, and to manage the problem by strictly limiting inappropriate COI, and fully disclosing any that remain.

Accordingly, a number of groups – most prominently the Institute Of Medicine – have recently made formal, and tough, recommendations regarding physician-industry relationships. The final “rules” under which we will all have to live are still being negotiated.

But it is highly likely that they will include many if not all of the following:

-    Doctors should not accept any gifts, no matter how small, from industry. These include trivialities such as pens and notepads, and more substantial gifts such as meals and travel.
-    Doctors should not give presentations in which content is controlled or influenced by industry.
-    Doctors should not consult for industry without a written contract, nor should they receive more than “fair market value” for consulting activities.
-    Doctors should not accept drug samples from industry.
-    Doctors who have a financial interest in a product or company should not participate in clinical trials in any capacity that involve that product or company, including patient enrollment, data collection, analysis or reporting.
-    Doctors who have industry ties should not participate in the development of clinical guidelines.
-    Medical schools and professional organizations should not accept direct funding, or attributable funding, for CME.
-    Any interaction with industry will be fully disclosed, and made publicly available.

What this “full disclosure” will look like can be seen in the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, a law which is pending in the US. Under this act,  all “transfers of value” totaling $100 or more in a year to any physician will be reported by each company to the government annually, along with each physician’s identifying information. Such “TOV” includes food, trinkets, entertainment or gifts; travel; consulting fees or honoraria; funding for research or education; stocks or stock options; ownership or investment interest, and any other economic benefit.  This information will be posted on a public, searchable government website. Companies will be fined $10,000 for each incident of an unreported TOV.

You younger physicians will be spending your careers in a COI environment that is significantly different from that which we, your elders, have experienced. Activities that have been acceptable, and even encouraged, will now cause you to be publicly stigmatized, or worse. This matter is in great flux, and you need to pay close attention to it as the rules are changing. In the meantime, you need to choose your interactions with industry very carefully, and very circumspectly.

Everything I have just discussed assumes that the real issue regarding doctor-industry relationships is COI. Indeed, everything I have discussed assumes a particular way of looking at industry relationships, which I will call Theory A. Theory A, goes as follows:

Theory A:

-  Medical progress is Good, and benefits mankind.
-  Industry is responsible for a high proportion of medical progress.
-  Industry-driven progress requires the active participation of physicians.
-  Therefore, a well-managed cooperation between industry and physicians is beneficial to mankind, and ought to be encouraged.

If you subscribe to Theory A you believe that, because well-managed physician-industry relationships benefit mankind, these relationships are good. So, fundamentally, it’s the management of these relationships which is at issue. These beneficial relationships produce unavoidable COI, which we must manage by strictly limiting their extent, and fully disclosing the ones that are left.

On the surface, at least, that’s what the debate is about – where to draw the necessary limits.  But just below the surface, the debate is about something else entirely. Beneath the surface, Theory A is rejected outright.

Today we hear prominent voices telling us that merely managing COI does not go far enough. No amount of COI is acceptable, and ALL physician-industry ties should be prohibited.  Among these is Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who says, “The ideal handling of COI is not to have them at all.” For these voices, Theory A simply does not apply. Rather, (I submit) they subscribe to Theory B:

Theory B:

-    The greed of medical industry creates excessive costs, and produces far more harm to society than good.
-    Physician-industry alliances strengthen industry, and increase the harm.
-    Therefore, crippling these unholy alliances is critical to the interests of society.

A corollary of Theory B is that it can only be the State’s job to cripple these alliances.

Proponents of Theory B, noting, not incorrectly, that medical industry is chiefly concerned with profits rather than the public good, conclude that industry will always behave in ways that are counter to the interests of society.  While many proponents of Theory B will agree that industry provides at least some benefits, they are convinced that these benefits are far outweighed by the harm they produce. Therefore, Theory B proposes to stifle, if not cripple, medical industry. And a very useful strategy for achieving this goal is to de-legitimize any practical relationships whatsoever between medical industry and physicians.

Proponents of Theory B rarely say what their real goal is. Most of them give lip service to Theory A. One must discern their real motives from their behavior.

Much of that behavior, in practical terms, has to do with controlling the flow of information. Let industry develop whatever it wants (perhaps), but don’t let profit-drunk industry – or its greedy physician spokespersons – instruct doctors and patients on who gets to use industry’s products, or when and how.

That kind of information can only be managed by unbiased sources. Proponents of Theory B invariably refer to government-appointed panels of experts to determine which products of industry are good and bad, and to manage the flow of information about them. Information coming from anywhere else is to be regarded as being charged with bias and greed, and should be ignored, or even suppressed.

Inherent in this viewpoint is the notion that the State is an honest broker, with no bias of its own, except to do what is best for the population. The State, in its disinterested beneficence, is the only civil entity which can pass judgment on which medical information is suitable for general consumption.

But even as a general proposition, no government is an unbiased and honest broker. Politics, according to Harold Lasswell, an early Progressive political scientist, is determining who gets what, when and how. Government officials do not cancel their own human nature when they put on a government name tag. As they go about the business of determining who gets what, when and how, they inevitably – and most often intentionally – create various favored constituencies, fiefdoms, and clienteles to suit their own goal. That goal is to consolidate and expand their own authority. In this way, in the exercise of its political mandate the government always creates co-dependencies, and determines winners and losers. So even in the general case, the government cannot be an honest broker.

But with regard to healthcare, government bias goes far beyond the general case. Healthcare spending is the chief problem governments face today. In the US, projected Medicare expenditures over the next 30 – 40 years will be $35-55 trillion. Numbers like this are deeply destabilizing, and simply cannot be abided, and promise nothing but chaos, revolution, and societal disintegration.

To the State, controlling healthcare spending is an existential problem, a matter of life and death, an issue that justifies any solution that has even a slight chance of working.

Why is the cost of healthcare rising so rapidly? Fundamentally, it is medical progress. Medical progress has greatly increased overall healthcare expenditures. Simply consider, for instance, the many fatal illnesses we have converted to chronic, and chronically expensive diseases – coronary artery disease, kidney disease, HIV/AIDS, various forms of cancer, and heart failure, to name a few.  Medical progress has made great strides in early detection and prevention, and preventive medicine always increases the cost of care.  And thanks at least partly to medical progress, life expectancies are on the rise, and people have many more years to consume healthcare.

Medical progress is very expensive, and the more we have of it the more it costs. The State can only look at medical progress and say, “Medical progress is killing us.”

But it is not politically feasible to come right out and say that stifling medical progress is necessary to the survival of the State. Rather, the State must assert that what it is stifling is greed.

Hillary Clinton gave us the State’s operative formulation in 1993: “There are just too many greedy doctors using too much expensive technology.”  So, to control costs, the State must control the doctors; and the State must control the technology, which is to say, industry.

I submit that an underlying theme within the debate over doctor-industry relationships is a desire to greatly slow or even stop the real threat to the State: medical progress, and the vast expenditures which medical progress produces.

The State has several means for stifling medical progress.  The State can institute increasingly oppressive regulations, which can have the effect of hamstringing industry, but more importantly, has the effect of converting industry to a client of the State, dependent on the State’s favors for its success. The State can demonize industry, trying to convince the public that drug companies and medical device companies are evil entities that would just as soon harm them as help them, and indeed, without the strong hand of the State would prefer to distribute pain and suffering as the more favored pathway to windfall profits. But more to the point of today’s discussion, the State can stifle the doctor-industry relationships that are so critical in steering medical progress in a clinically relevant direction.

So the  interests of industry must be represented as being fundamentally counter to the interests of society, and the doctors who have relationships with industry must be painted as their evil (or, at best, deluded) minions.

Yes, industry is biased, and industry will act on that bias whenever they can get away with it. Industry just can’t help itself. That’s just the way it is.

But the State is also biased. And the State will also act on that bias whenever they can get away with it. The State can’t help itself. That’s just the way it is.

Industry will try to exercise its influence over us by data-driven persuasion, and when that fails they will try to sweeten the persuasion, perhaps even with subtle or not-so-subtle bribes.

But the exercise of persuasion is even more dangerous when done by the State. While the State may also try to influence us with data-driven persuasion, it is very quick to resort instead to propaganda (i.e., the art of information-control by which the unwashed masses are told only what the specialized classes have determined is best for them), and when that fails, the State will resort to its ultimate form of persuasion – the enforcement of new and suppressive regulations at the point of a gun.

So, while industry is indeed biased, and needs to be kept at arms length, de-legitimizing industry altogether would be disastrous.  It would create an open field for extraordinarily powerful forces which are at least as biased, but in the opposite direction. If we value medical progress, we need the balance that industry provides – and that includes not only industry’s products, but its voice.

Medical progress driven by industry-physician collaboration is good for mankind. But that collaboration inevitably creates conflicts. We physicians need to control those conflicts, or the collaboration will be forcibly terminated altogether. Our professional history to date is bleak in this regard, and we only have one chance left to get it right, if that.

But in controlling our COI, we should not allow ourselves to be pushed too far. We should agree to reasonable limits on conflicts, and on full disclosure of any conflicts that remain. But we should draw the line when we are urged to forgo all relationships with industry altogether. We must recognize that industry and its selfish goals provide a necessary counterbalance to even more powerful forces whose goal is to stifle medical progress.

I don’t ask that you accept my synthesis of this problem at face value. I simply ask that you listen to what I am suggesting, and observe for yourself what is happening out in the wild. Then challenge yourself to come up with a better explanation for what you see happening out there. I sincerely hope you can, as I would much rather that my conclusions were not true. So if you do come up with a better explanation, I will greatly appreciate hearing about it.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Podcast:

 

 Medicare Already Does It (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 4) [12:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (32)

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives
____________

DrRich could go on and on about how our government is intent on restricting the right of individuals to spend their own money on their own healthcare, but (for now, at least) this will be the final post in this series. DrRich has made his point.

Even some of his critics, who have accused DrRich in the past of being overly paranoid on this topic, seem to have gotten it. Some who previously were quite vocal have remained suspiciously silent. Others have fallen back to quasi ad hominem accusations (suggesting, for instance, that DrRich must be a follower of Mr. Beck, with all the horrific connotations that condition entails). And then there is the esteemed Praveen (author of the excellent True Cost Blog), who conceded as follows: “Massachusetts’ attempt to ban direct pay is both unfortunate and unconstitutional. Perhaps you’re right, and the bureaucrats are sneakier than I think.”

So maybe DrRich should just declare victory and move on.

But it is important to make one final point, namely: the notion that our government is intent on limiting our individual healthcare prerogatives is far more than just one of DrRich’s theoretical constructs. Indeed, our government has been acting on this intent for over 15 years. The main case in point, of course, is Medicare.

It has always been recognized that every American citizen “is the proper guardian of his own health,” (Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1873), and accordingly, has a natural right to employ his own individual resources to that end. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was a particularly explicit recognition that a woman has a fundamental right to purchase medical services which she determines to be necessary for her own well-being.

Indeed, when Medicare became law in 1965, Congress also explicitly recognized this right, stipulating that nothing in the new law “shall be construed to preclude [an individual] from purchasing or otherwise securing protection against the cost of any health services.” (DrRich reminds his readers once again that a bold, restrictive statement like this, appearing in legislation, generally heralds an outcome opposite to the statement itself.)

DrRich has already pointed out that under Hillarycare, private medical practice would have been nearly criminalized out of existence. So one ought to expect that the Clinton administration would view an individual right to purchase healthcare as a threat. And indeed, it did. But, as it happens, the erosion of the rights of Medicare “beneficiaries” began even before the Clinton administration. (And even again, DrRich must remind his readers that any universal healthcare plan, even under a Republican administration, will always tend to limit individual liberties.)

In 1991, Medicare administrators published a “carrier bulletin” warning physicians that direct-pay contracts between patients and doctors were strictly prohibited, unless the contract was initiated solely by the patient, and even then, payment rates must be set by Medicare, and further, if the patient later became dissatisfied with that (patient-initiated) contract, Medicare would severely (and retroactively) sanction the physician.

When physicians sued Medicare to prevent this odious new policy from being implemented (Stewart et al. v. Sullivan), the government took the position that it had, in fact, not made any new policy after all, arguing that stuff that shows up in its “carrier bulletin” doesn’t really count. But once this argument was successful in having the lawsuit thrown out in a summary judgment in 1992, Medicare then cynically turned around and immediately made that selfsame new policy “official,” by publishing it in their 1993 Medicare Carrier’s Manual.

But the Feds were still not satisfied. The new, restrictive policy technically still allowed private-pay contracts, as long as the patient initiated them. So the Clinton administration engineered an amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 – Section 4507 – which prohibited any self-pay contracts whatsoever between Medicare patients and their doctors for medical services which are covered under Medicare. Under Section 4507, which is still the law today, if a doctor provides even one self-pay medical service to a single Medicare patient, that doctor is punished by complete banishment from the Medicare program for at least two years.

The federal government was eventually challenged again in court over Section 4507, but that lawsuit was also thrown out in a summary judgment. The rationale the government offered to the court in justifying its restrictions on individuals’ prerogatives, however, is instructive: “…what you will have is a system whereby the rich can buy what they want and those many beneficiaries who are on fixed income will not be able to afford those services” (United Seniors Association et al. v. Shalala). So again, the interest of the collective (“social justice”) was invoked to justify a law which stifles an individual’s fundamental right to purchase medical services he or she determines to be necessary for his/her well-being.

In any case, since 1997 Medicare patients have been able to purchase Medicare-covered services for themselves ONLY if they obtain that service from a doctor who agrees to opt out of Medicare entirely. This severely limits a patient’s opportunity to self-pay for covered services. The fact that Medicare patients can still buy these medical services from direct-pay physicians, however, is one reason the government hates direct-pay practices, and wishes to stamp them out. More importantly, while some primary care physicians have indeed opted out of Medicare in order to establish direct-pay practices, this path is not a realistic option for medical specialists. So in practical terms, the only “covered services” available for self-pay by Medicare patients, on even a limited basis, are primary care services.

There are several legitimate reasons a Medicare patient might want to self-pay for a medical service that is covered by Medicare. If Medicare “covers” heart valve surgery, for instance, a patient might want to pay for a new, minimally-invasive surgical approach that is inadequately reimbursed by Medicare, rather than the big, open-heart surgery that Medicare reimburses fully. Or, one might want to self-pay for “covered” psychiatric care, or for treatment for a venereal disease, in order to keep embarrassing or harmful medical records out of government-controlled databases.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that just because a healthcare service is “Medicare-covered” does not mean that it will be covered for a given patient. Whether a specific individual is covered is often determined by a “medical necessity” ruling, made by a bureaucrat. Section 4507 essentially precludes a patient’s ability to purchase a denied (but “covered”) medical service, no matter how badly they want it, or believe they need it.

One can argue, and with some merit, that at this juncture denials of medically necessary services by Medicare have been relatively judicious, and therefore that the “Section 4507 rule” has not had much of an actual impact. In fact, it is likely that most Medicare beneficiaries do not even know that this rule exists.

But while its impact might be relatively small so far, the Section 4507 rule has now been in place for 13 years – it is well-established. So, once Medicare begins reducing reimbursements to physicians and hospitals, to the point where they can no longer afford to offer certain services to Medicare patients (and Medicare has just recently begun doing so, specifically, for some cardiac imaging studies), those patients will be left in the cold. Services which are officially “covered” by Medicare, but which are reimbursed at such a low rate that they cannot actually be provided to them, will become unavailable even to Medicare patients who are willing and able to pay for those services.

DrRich’s main point, once again, is that our government has a deep and abiding need to limit our individual prerogatives when it comes to our healthcare, and has been acting on that need for a long time. The principle for these limitations on our individual liberties, the principle of social justice, has already been established, and has survived court challenges.

Extending these limitations on personal liberties to Obamacare, and broadening their usage, will not require any major changes in direction, or principles, or policy, but will merely require an expansion of already existent – and even “venerable” – rules, rules which have been an established part of Medicare for many years.

DrRich has expressed the idea that such restrictions by our government on such fundamental individual liberties are a very big deal indeed, and, in fact, signal an end to the Great American Experiment. His critics admonish him, however, that he makes too much of it, that, presumably, our government in its benign wisdom is just doing what’s best for us.

DrRich begs his readers to forgive him if he sees, in such a reply, even more evidence that the only nation in the history of mankind to be founded on the principles of individual freedom is well on the way to abandoning those exceptional principles, for the sake of the same, soothing-but-empty blandishments that have been offered, throughout human history, by well-meaning people who end up producing – or becoming – tyrants.

Podcast:

 

 Hillary Started It (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 2) [15:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4)

__________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

__________

Have you ever wondered where Obamacare came from? From where, exactly, did those 2700 pages of undecipherable prose arise?

It is clear that our Congresspersons never read it, let alone wrote it. At the President’s “Health Care Summit” in late February it seemed pretty plain, to DrRich at least, that the only people in the room who had read the bill carefully were Republican Congresspersons Ryan and Cantor. The proponents of the bill stuck to generalities, platitudes, and vignettes about recycling dead people’s dentures. When Ryan and Cantor used their knowledge of the bill to question the President about its details, they were admonished to stop using “props.” The President was not just being mean; he needed to avoid getting into the details because he himself had only a broad general idea of what the bill actually said. This is not a slam at the President; the bill is designed to be fundamentally indeterminate in its meaning, so that the regulators who will later translate it into rules, regulations and guidelines, under which healthcare providers can then be prosecuted, can at that time interpret it as directed. This is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, a few days later, that Congress would have to pass the bill so that we all could find out what was in it. (This also explains why none of our legislators read it – except for those pesky Republicans, who were only trying to make trouble. What’s the point in reading a long, boring document whose actual meaning will only be sorted out later?)

So, DrRich asks again, where did this bill – whose actual meaning was elusive even to the President and the legislators who were promoting it – come from? Who actually put the words to the page, and crafted this remarkable piece of legislation?

We may never know the name(s) of the person (people) who held the pen(s) which scratched out the actual words, any more than we will ever know the real names of the individuals who wrote the gospels of Matthew and Luke. But, just as New Testament scholars have been able to trace these two gospels to a common prior source – the so-called “Q document” – it is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of interest in the art of legislative exegesis to trace the source document for our new healthcare law.

The Q Document for President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was, of course, Hillary Clinton’s Health Security Act, which went down to ignominious defeat in 1994.

DrRich, who is rapidly developing an expertise in forensic diplomatics, and having spent significant time examining aspects of the Obamacare bill, decided to go back in time, and re-examine Hillary’s original proposal for fundamentally transforming the American healthcare system.

While Hillary’s Health Security Act was widely castigated by contemporaries as being a vast monstrosity of bureaucratic legerdemain, filled with complexity and labyrinthine passages that attempted to hide its true meaning, DrRich, after spending some time with Obamacare, found Hillarycare to be a model of legislative brevity and clarity. In fact, DrRich believes, its very straightforwardness is what killed it.

For instance, Hillarycare is only 1368 pages in length. How could they be so concise?

Even more remarkably, Hillarycare spells out pretty plainly what it actually means to do. For instance, in the Obamacare bill, in order for a reader to assemble the information that the  Independent Medicare Advisory Board is actually to be called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and that its “advisory opinions” which are to be submitted to Congress for “consideration” are actually formal dictates which must be followed to the letter, and that it can inflict its cost-cutting mandates to all of healthcare and not just to government programs, one must jump around to numerous distant sections in the 2700-page document. In the Hillarycare bill, in stark contrast, the analogous National Health Board (which, like the Immutables, was to have been the Supreme Court of Healthcare, beyond which there was to be no appeal, no revision, and no repeal) is presented in an entirely straightforward way, and all in one place.

And now, having immersed himself once again, however briefly, in the relatively refreshing model of clarity and precision that was Hillarycare, DrRich is convinced that the people who actually wrote the Obamacare bill (and may God keep these invaluable masters of legislative poetry safe, as we will be needing them), simply began with Hillary’s old Health Security Act, disassembled it into various bits, padded each bit with a little more than twice its weight in verbiage, and reassembled the pieces in some nearly random fashion, puzzle-like, into the exceedingly difficult-to-read document that became Obamacare.

That is, Hillarycare is demonstrably the Q document to Obamacare.

Obamacare’s debt to Hillarycare is obvious. Hillarycare included individual mandates requiring everyone to have government-approved health insurance; it reduced private health insurers to government-directed utilities, whose products, rates, and profits were to be controlled by the feds; and it created omnicient and omnipotent panels which were to hand down dictates to let doctors know what services they may or may not provide and under what circumstances.

DrRich, therefore, formally advances the thesis that if you want to understand what Obamacare is actually getting at – what with its inherent and intentional obscurity, obscurity designed with care to provide its proponents with plausible deniability – simply examine the much more straightforward model from which it was derived, namely, Hillarycare.

And this brings us, finally, to the theme of this current series of posts. For Hillarycare strictly limited, in practice, the ability of individuals to spend their own money on their own healthcare.

In this instance even Hillarycare had to be a bit obtuse. For, as DrRich’s critics have pointed out to him so very many times, Americans are jealous of their own personal liberties, and are not likely to simply tolerate a frontal assault on their right to guard their health with their own resources. And of course DrRich agrees with this idea. Indeed, the fact that Hillarycare was insufficiently obtuse on this matter had a lot to do with why it ultimately failed to become law.

The attempt at limiting individual prerogatives under Hillarycare was, to be sure, devious (though not devious enough to fool people). So it began with a straightforward statement declaring that it was not doing what it was actually trying to do: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting…an individual from purchasing any health care services.”

Now first of all, for readers who persist in thinking that restrictive language like this, when it appears in federal legislation, actually means anything in particular, let DrRich disabuse you of that notion with two examples. 1) The legislation that created Medicare contains the following language: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” (Section 1801, Medicare Act, 1965). 2) Obamacare contains language that prohibits healthcare rationing.

In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get “extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison.”

While none of this got much publicity in the general media in 1993-1994 (which goes to show that things really haven’t changed that much), you can be sure that doctors were aware of it. That Hillarycare would make it so very easy to inadvertently commit a federal crime – which would lead to massive fines, loss of license, and jail – was, in fact, one of the main reasons most physicians were so violently opposed to it.

The point DrRich is trying to make here is to demonstrate just how deeply reformers feel the need to control the behavior of physicians (and through physicians, the behavior of patients) in order to gain the control they need over individuals, and just how far they are willing to go to this end. It was partly because the Clintons showed their hand in this regard that their healthcare plan failed.

DrRich will now make two final points, and then end this already-too-long post. First, while Hillarycare failed to become law, many of the over-the-top anti-fraud provisions within Hillarycare actually became the law of the land a few years later, in the HIPAA legislation. DrRich has discussed this in detail in his book, and demonstrated how, during the rest of the Clinton administration, the healthcare police worked diligently to let doctors know that their careers, life savings, and physical freedom were dependent on making the happiness of the government – and not of their patients – their chief concern. This activity stopped during the Bush presidency, and has not yet picked up again under President Obama. But the infrastructure is in place already for an unusually effective coercion of doctors, in order to keep them from providing services, and thus to keep patients from buying those services, that the government does not like. There was, in fact, no need to add this infrastructure to the Obamacare legislation. The only thing that’s necessary is for the government to decide (as it did for a few years during the 1990s) that it’s time to take off the gloves.

And second, the intent of the people who brought us Hillarycare – the same people, in philosophy if not in person, who brought us Obamacare – ought to be very plain to all of us. We know their mindset. They may not have gotten away with limiting individual prerogatives in 1994 – but they certainly tried to.

And while it is true that Americans greatly value their liberty, and will chafe at overt restrictions on their ability to use their own resources for the sake of their own health, DrRich reiterates that actually preventing these restrictions will depend on our continued vigilance, and our willingness to stop the people who so plainly want to stifle our individual prerogatives, for the sake of the control they must have.
____________
Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives