Yeouch

Thought I'd be working today, but had to share this. I've seen more than a few insurance industry employees supporting their industries in the debate over the public option. That's their prerogative, but this news kind of indicates that they shouldn't necessarily picture themselves as members of a big corporate 'family'.

In the memo from Randy Brown, WellPoint's chief human resources officer, the company said it would lower its contribution toward worker premiums and raise deductibles in two of its three benefit plans. "Your cost per paycheck will probably increase," the memo said.

Hard times for everyone, but I have to point out -- if you make pens, you usually get some free pens. If you're a cook, free soup. I get free database access. My partner gets free textbooks. Shouldn't insurance employees have, you know, particularly good insurance? Or maybe the legal fees, top-level salaries, and lobbying expenditures (they made the exceptional step this year of phoning 3 million of their own customers with a push-poll robocall opposing reform) are getting a little bit too expensive for Wellpoint to cover?

Every Country You Wouldn't Mind Moving To

Proponents of the public option often point out that nearly every industrialized country has created a government-based policy to address the basic health needs of their population. This is hard to visualize -- which may be a reason that detractors of public option legislation barely ever mention the fact. But look at this:

(from this blog, which is the weirdest place I've ever been in my life, via reddit)

Knowing just a little bit about which countries are rich and which are poor, the map above basically shows that nations who have resources guarantee their citizens health insurance. Even some nations that don't necessarily have the resources -- India and Mexico, for example -- are working on a way to provide basic universal care. Now, not all these health care systems are top notch -- Japan's has had some problems during their long recession, and Russian hospitals are famously corrupt -- but none of these nations are seriously considering or have seriously considered giving up their universal health insurance.

I believe this is because the people in the blue countries above -- over a billion people, by my count -- understand that health insurance and the profit motive do not mix. Insurers who are responsible to their stockholders will always try to take more in premiums and give less in care -- exactly opposite to our interests as a nation and our individual benefit. This is why simple regulation of insurers won't decrease their ability to refuse insurance and care to the sick or needy -- if a company like GradMed has the resources and motivation to monitor the entire web looking for mentions of their brand, then they have plenty of resources and motivation to discover ways to get around government regulation. We end up in an arms race: a well-funded industry trying to outwit a less well-funded government agency. The insurers have been winning that fight for generations.

A public option would, for a small part of the population, change that equation. It would create an insurer whose responsibility was first to the people, and only to the people -- the voters that create and shape it are the same people that it is intended to serve. This is no big secret to the countries on the map above -- they all know this -- those who haven't created a system of universal health insurance haven't because they lack the resources to put such a system in place.

We've got those resources. What's stopping us? Industry lobbyists? Partisan bickering? Lack of political will among those who support real change?

How Much is Too Much?

The long-awaited second part of Professor Reinhardt's article on insurance costs and loss ratios was posted yesterday. In the first part, he explained that it's not just insurance company profits that drive the cost of insurance up: they have considerable overhead and costs, sometimes reaching, sometimes passing 15%.

That article, though, was about the group market. When you insure a large group, risk is distributed more widely and you can do things like look at historical data, rather than give individual physicals, and cut out a great deal of brokering and marketing. For the individual non-group market, which is especially important now that Fox News is reporting that 149 million Americans are unemployed, overhead is much, much higher. How high? I say I say, how high?

-- So high that insurance lobbies fought 2008 state laws that tried to restrict their 'loss ratio' (i.e. the percentage of income that they pay out in care) from going below 70%.

-- So high that they claim that 55 to 60% is average -- which means that for every dollar you give them, you have purchased the right to get two quarters and a dime's worth of health care.

-- So high that small firms, who buy insurance for fewer than 10 people at a time, pay up to 18% more in premiums than large firms.

-- So high that three fourths of all families who shop for individual health insurance policies end up buying nothing.

That's hiiiiigh. Forgetting your debit-card at the grocery store while you're buying a bag of Doritos and a 2-liter bottle of Squirt high.

A public option would allow the government to create one large group out of this terribly underserved part of the population. These people have money; they need and deserve insurance -- although opponents of reform like to blame the victim ("I don't want to pay for somebody else's..."), these people would be happy just to have a deal similar to those who are covered by large companies. Large companies, I would add, that almost all started as tiny businesses, or groups of freelancers -- if we continue to unfairly punish customers on the individual or small-group market, we may not even have the next generation of innovative large businesses -- the financial and health risk won't be worth striking out on one's own.

But a 55% loss ratio (let's call it a 55% care ratio) makes insurance industries big financial players with a lot of money to throw around, and this is why we have Blanche Lincoln channeling Ronald Reagan in the Senate Finance Committee. 45% of our premium dollars are more than enough to buy a little democracy.

EDIT: but not all the democracy: progressive stalwart Shakesville transcribes this exchange between White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and ultrajournalist Helen Thomas, who has been asking him whether Obama will veto a health care bill without a public option over and over again for over a week.

The Loss Ratio and Insurance Industry Profits

John Rockefeller is in the Senate Finance Committee right now hammering away in the speech that everyone needs to hear most -- that health insurance companies are bleeding our benefits dry, and that a strong public option is the best solution to the problem.

Most of what I learned about health insurance industry profits, I learned from a single person's writings -- Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton economist and opinion writer for the New York Times. My favorite article on the topic, so far, is this one -- it breaks down the way to answer the question "how much do insurance companies make" in a comprehensive way.

This is important because an insurance company -- and we saw GradMed claim that they don't even collect this data for themselves or the insurance companies that they broker -- will never share this information with potential customers. They are forced by law, however, to share it with potential investors, and that's where Professor Reinhardt comes in. I've seen pictures, but I picture him with a monocle and a handlebar mustache. Egads, he says.

Insurance industry profits -- that's the amount that the company takes out of the economy, free and clear -- usually hang between 3 and 6%, which is not exceptional for most kinds of industry. What is exceptional, though, is the amount in marketing and administrative expenses that the company spends. Keep in mind that, unlike buying a cell phone, where you give a guy some money and he gives you a cell phone, insurance companies essentially take your money and then give it back -- the product you get is the insurance company holding your money, and the money of many others, for you, and then reorganizing it to pay for the medical care of the people that need it. So these costs become extremely important: the money taken out of your premiums, and the money that's left, determines what kind of coverage you get.

Not much of a product, true. But it's even less of a product when the insurance companies are only paying out 84.4% (in Reinhardt's example, Wellpoint in 2008) of the premium money that they've collected. That's an 84% loss ratio -- to the insurance companies, GradMed included, the company has lost 84% of "its" money (actually your money, but held by the insurance company). 84% loss for them means 84% care for you.

Where does the money go? Profits are substantial, but don't explain the whole picture. The rest is marketing -- GradMed paying alumni associations to run advertisements, insurance executives googling their products and leaving dodgy comments, TV ads, newspaper ads, etc. etc. etc -- as well as 'administrative costs', which covers the salaries of the people who work in the insurance industry. What seems absolutely true to me is that even if these costs aren't considered profit on the company's 10-K, they are profit: the company investing in its own future enrichment through advertising, and directly profiting the people who make up the company through salary and benefits.

You have to hand it to them, though. Taking 15% off the top of your health care dollar: not too shabby as a con game. A strong public option would also have administrative costs, but estimates for Medicare put their administrative cost at between 3% and 8% (and their profits at ZERO, where they should be), which is nowhere near the expense and waste we're experiencing with private insurance.

UPDATE: The Rockefeller public option amendment was just defeated, 8 to 15. Democratic senators voting against it were Conrad of North Dakota, Lincoln of Arkansas, Nelson of Florida, and Carper of Delaware.

DOUBLE UPDATE: The Schumer public option amendment was also defeated, 10 to 13. A slightly weaker option, it picked up Thomas Carper and Bill Nelson, but Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln (who was wearing an enormous green lapel pin that said "BLURGH") still voted against it. No Republicans, of course, voted for the amendment or even bothered making serious arguments about the bill -- it all seemed to have been posturing for the general senate debate, and insistence on this new weird "defend Medicare" attitude they've all suddenly come to after decades of trying to slash Medicare.

Don't Know How She Sorts It

I just watched this short documentary, about a cook at the Sigma Nu frat house at Ole Miss:

Ten Dollars an Hour from Ben Guest on Vimeo.

Here's the math of Leasse William's life, from the whiteboard talk in the documentary:
She makes $10/hour, and works 50 hours a week, nine months a year, and either works minimum wage or gets unemployment (the income is about equal) for the other three. Her taxes (yes, people at this income level pay taxes!) are $3600, and her health insurance, which she buys on the private market, costs $2400/year. This leaves her about $14,200 in take-home pay, which is near the Louisiana poverty line -- and that already includes the possibility of government-subsidized unemployment benefits.

Now, poverty is a systemic problem, and it's not clear whether it can be simply fixed by legislation, more consideration shown to employees by employers, an insistence on racial equality, or any other individual undertaking. But the absolutely back-breaking cost of medical insurance is something we can fix with legislation, and the legislation is in Congress right now, in the form of the public option amendments to the Baucus bill.

Leasse's problem isn't just that her insurance is expensive -- it's that she doesn't have any extra resources to fight her insurance provider to protect her coverage. If, let's say, she wakes up bleeding from the nipple one morning and her insurance company refuses to cover it as an emergency, she's not going to be able to do what any smart person would want to: lawyer up and spend a couple of days making angry, pointed phone calls. She's back to work, if she can work, ten hours the next day. Every dime that insurance providers and brokers like the GradMed people (who don't provide real health insurance and wouldn't insure anybody in this documentary, but who seem like good representatives of the industry to me) steal and waste -- every bit of that $2400 a year that goes into marketing, salaries, profit, obsessive rereading of "Dying for a Public Option" -- comes out of the money that Leasse is setting aside for her own care, and it's money that she frankly doesn't have in the first place. Those costs are passed along to her in the form of claim denials, copays, coinsurance, and rescission.

And this doesn't just cost Leasse. Medical bankruptcy would put her right on unemployment (which her job seems to expect her to collect already), eventually on welfare (if she's lucky). This couple in a recent PBS NOW episode, like many others with chronically ill children, limits their own income so that they can qualify for Oklahoma state child health benefits, because their asthmatic daughter may need an expensive operation to repair her damaged lungs at any time. From a purely practical perspective, we are wasting the country's resources, both human and financial, by dumping them into the insurance industry.

And it doesn't just cost money. Our system of health insurance is unjust. It punishes those who can least afford it, and enriches those who do not deserve it and haven't earned it. Instead of strong citizens united for the common good, it creates fear and division and resentment. We can do better. We're so close to making a change for the better.

Olympia Snowe and the Audacity of Cost Control

Over five hundred amendments were suggested to the Baucus bill today, which is frankly a little bit disappointing -- I had hoped that one of the other committee bills would be getting more attention for the simple reason that most of them are better bills.

There's one amendment that I'm really interested in, though -- Olympia Snowe's amendment to create a public health plan as a 'safety net' if insurance costs don't decrease in the coming years. This isn't, I don't think, as good as having a public health option -- but it's certainly better than the Baucus bill itself, which does nothing to control costs. One of the things that the bill reflects, though, and I think that this is the reason that this amendment is canny and smart, is that insurance industry costs are under the control of the insurance industry.

It's pretty simple, but it's something that those that insist on the free market don't usually get. When an insurance company has a monopoly, or an 'agreement' with the competition, or when it simply realizes that people can be persuaded, shamed or tricked into paying more money for fewer services, that insurance company will raise rates. This is not the invisible hand: this is someone coming to a meeting with a PowerPoint that ends, "...so if nobody figures out what we're doing, then we can safely raise premiums by 9% in the next year." What limits this -- even in the current system -- is government. We regulate what is fair and unfair to do. The most profitable attitude for an insurance company would be to promise you a bunch of stuff, take your premiums, and then never pay for a dime of your care. And that happens -- except when we make it illegal.

The triggered public option would be another kind of regulation for insurance companies. It would require them to keep costs down, which they have the power to do, and if they failed, it would punish them by opening government competition. In doing so, it would insure that costs were at or below some particular level.

Unfortunately, a triggered public option wouldn't create (absent the trigger) an insurer that people could trust -- it would be fairly easy for insurance companies to keep profits high by surreptitiously cutting benefits every time they cut costs. There's simply no good way to get your health insurance from an entity that has shown itself to be overwhelmingly untrustworthy. Additionally, the 'trigger' part of the public option is just a bone thrown to those untrustworthy industries. If the public option is effective in keeping down costs, and if it can ensure that people pay a rational amount for their health insurance, then why don't we have it now?

All that having been said, there's been a lot of talk about Senator Snowe being an important moderate, and I have to say this amendment really does represent something in between the two sides. This is a very large, very rarely traveled, and very necessary territory in the Senate debate, and the people of Maine should be proud of their representative for having the courage to go there.

Cost Control

Almost every serious proposal for health care reform tries to insure more people -- even many conservatives will agree that in the current system, we would all be better off if more people had health insurance. The public option, though, is a special way to provide that insurance, and the best thing about it (and I'm taking off my liberal 'provide health care for everyone and let God sort it out' hat here) is that it cuts costs.

This is an important point that is often lost in the heat of debate. The public option in and of itself does not insure more people -- it's not an entitlement, it's a mechanism for delivering insurance. We could ensure everybody without ever having a public option -- this is what the Baucus plan tries to do, by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. Why have the public option, then? To cut costs.

A lot's been made of the price tag of HR 3200 -- almost $1 trillion dollars over ten years, about 20-30% more expensive than the Baucus bill -- but this is the government expense, or the cost that comes out of our taxes. The costs that the public option would cut would be our private expenses, the money that comes out of our paycheck to pay for health insurance. Look at the history of an average family's health care expenditures:

(from the Kaiser foundation)

In 2007, we spent 16.2% of everything that we produced in the country -- that's one dollar out of every six -- on health-care related expenses. In 2008, we spent 2.4 trillion dollars on health care. If we could enact a plan that cost one trillion dollars but saved 5% of our yearly costs, it would pay for itself in less than nine years. Since we know, too, that 30% of all the money we pay to insurance companies is spent in the form of overhead, administrative costs, and returned to stockholders as profit, the insurance industry is a natural place to try to carve out some of these savings.

Those savings would come from competition. Blue Cross/Blue Shield currently holds 90% of the market in the state of Alabama, and has been raising its rates between 7 and 12% every year since 2003, when its last major competitor exited the market. All across the country, health insurance corporations are getting bigger and taking larger chunks of market share, as often happens in a situation where an unregulated industry gets its hands on a part of the economy where demand is inelastic (i.e. there are really very few situations in which you choose not to purchase a life-saving medicine; most people will buy health insurance no matter how much it costs) -- Enron's control over the deregulated California energy industry comes to mind.

A government option -- one which would be offered to people at cost, and would negotiate with health providers for cost decreases -- would change the competitive landscape. Companies that have long since stopped trying to attract or serve customers would suddenly have to start. Policies would become clearer, trust would start to matter (right now, what's the incentive for monopoly insurers not to deny care? They don't rely on their reputation to attract business), and most importantly, premiums and copays would start to come down. Just as private universities have to either compete financially with, or offer better educations than, public universities, so would insurers have to either do better than the government -- offer more, give better service -- or charge less. Many of the conservative objections to the public options assume that this would happen -- by saying that it's a socialist policy, they admit that it would be extremely competitive with, and threaten the profit margins of, private insurers.

Like a subway line, a public university, a city park, an irrigation canal, or a highway, a public option is a group investment, not a give-away. It's intended to, and will, create returns for government, and especially for individuals.

I've been pretty critical of the Baucus plan in recent posts -- it serves industry interests and leaves us out in the cold with regards to cost. But the insurance industry wins, as well, if we do nothing or make minor changes -- without competition, specifically the kind of competition that would be provided by the public option, we may be able to insure everyone, but we're going to pay through the nose to do it.

What's the Public Option, Anyway?

Fivethirtyeight.com has an essay up about people's misperceptions and misconceptions about the public option, and how it's not even accurately defined in poll questions, much less in the answers of regular voters. So here's my best crack at a short definition of the public option as it appears in the House bill that passed earlier this August:

The public option is a set of government-run health insurance options available to those who make less than 400% of the poverty line and who have no employer-provided health insurance.

Estimates of the number of people who would actually choose this option vary widely, but the range of estimates I see is somewhere less than twenty million, and somewhere more than seven million. No seniors would be affected (although they might be affected by other parts of health care reform). No person would be 'forced' into public option insurance -- there will also be standardized private options made available to the same people.

So when I see people up in arms about socialized medicine, or a government takeover, I feel like there's a certain amount of disinformation at work -- this is a policy that bends over backwards to make sure that everybody gets to choose the insurance they want. It simply creates opportunities for working families, small business employees, and others who make too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough to be able to afford terrifically overpriced private insurance. The argument that the public option will put private insurers out of business assumes 1) that the government-run insurance option will be so successful that private insurers can't compete, and 2) that our system of private insurance is somehow financially dependent on the working poor and the lower middle class -- that they'll collapse if 10-15% of the population, many of whom are uninsured or underinsured, choose a government option. That doesn't, to me, make sense -- how can you price a group of customers out of the market, deny them the opportunity to be covered, and then turn around and argue that you can't survive without them?

For more, here's a description of the bill at OpenCongress and a journalist from the Nation describing the public option.

Nothing's Over

I took a few days and posted pieces I had saved up so that I could mull over what's happened to the public option in the last week -- after the Obama administration hinted that it was willing to drop a public option as part of a health reform bill and then said that nothing was settled yet. I didn't want to flip the hell out without really thinking about it.

And I'm not flipping out. It's U. S. politics. We didn't suddenly get a better political system once President Obama was elected, and I've never doubted that if he was Imperial Lord, we'd probably already have a health insurance guarantee for every American. I've looked at questions about whether the administration is working hard enough on our behalf, and tried to figure out, but I just don't know.

Here's what I can answer, though. Am I working hard enough to be able to say that I've done everything I can to ensure that all American children have health insurance? That my friends and neighbors don't have to put off doctor visits or lose their homes over medical bills? The answer to that would be no.

One thing that has held me back a great deal was the assumption that what proponents of a public option have been working against is the attitudes and beliefs of other citizens, but this isn't entirely true. This statistical analysis at fivethirtyeight.com makes an argument that should be familiar to most of us: insurance company PAC money and direct donation have had a significant impact on health care reform votes in the Senate. Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia has raised $69,000 in health insurance contributions in the six months since he entered the U. S. Senate -- that's $10,000 a month, and he's not up for reelection for another five years. This article breaks down contributions accepted by the Gang of Six, the bipartisan committee that called for a slowdown of public option legislation in July. Republicans accept health insurance corporate funds across the board -- and that certainly has strengthened their resolve to oppose a public option -- but what is surprising is that Democrats like Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska have each, over the course of their careers, raised more than two million dollars from donors in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. This is more than a debate between people who want a government option for health insurance and those who want an unrestricted free market; all citizens who want what they feel is best for their nation are pitted against corporate interests who are attempting to purchase favorable policies for themselves.

If you aren't convinced that health insurance companies intentionally and aggressively court industry-positive policies in Washington, check out this interview with a former executive for CIGNA who helped end reforms during the first Clinton administration, and is now speaking out about the excesses and cruelties of the current US health system.

So no basic principles, for me, have changed -- I support affordable health care for every American, and a competitive government option for the provision of that health care. I oppose profits earned by encouraging human suffering, and the disproportionate voice that monied interests have in our government.

What has changed is that I no longer trust my elected officials to make good law without the energetic oversight and intervention of people like me and you. So let's get to intervenin'.

Melting to the Money

Dr. Rob left this comment a few days ago, and this was the most thought-provoking part to me: "[I] hope the congress will avoid melting to the money and actually push primary care." I agree with him -- I hope that primary care is a priority in the new system (and since the legislation is still being debated, it's not certain that the final draft of the reform bill will prioritize primary care), but it took me a while to figure out why ignoring primary care would be "melting to the money."

Here's what I figured out: since we have, excepting Medicare and Medicaid, a largely for-profit health care and insurance system, the most profitable parts of the health economy become larger, and the less profitable parts shrink in size -- the system flows towards the money. Examples:

1) Notice how you never see television advertisements for prescription drugs that cure disease or fix a problem? The drugs worth advertising -- the most profitable ones -- are new treatments for chronic disease like irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, erectile dysfunction, etc. These are treatments one has to take over and over again, and the reason only new drugs are advertised is because the profit margin is highest on drugs that are still under patent. This book puts it particularly well:

Jurgen Drews, a physician who has been the research director of a major global pharmaceutical company...argues that in recent years an obsessive, and ultimately self-defeating, focus on the bottom line, and the increasing costs of launching a new product, have led pharmaceutical companies to devote their research efforts increasingly to so called "me too" remedies for conditions such as high cholesterol and hypertension for which useful therapies already exist.

Because it's quicker, and more profitable, to seize control of a market that already exists than it is to undertake the long process of truly improving public health.

2) Why is it that a trip to the dermatologist, even a very simple one, is likely to cost three times as much as a trip to a general practitioner? Supply and demand -- there are fewer dermatologists, and they can demand a higher price, even though their specialty is no more complicated than general practice medicine, and they don't have more training, just different training. It is weird that we have plastic surgeons driving around in Benzes while some rural counties with obvious need have a crisis-level doctor shortage. I'm not arguing that people should be stopped from paying for health care, I'm just pointing out that under the current system, the most profitable branch of medicine is cardiology, followed by radiology, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, anesthesiology, and dermatology. Those are all great, and deeply necessary for good health care, but they're not the medical care that we need most. They're the kind of care that is most specialized -- when you need a specific surgery on your eye, there's a very limited number of people who can do it, and they can charge whatever they like. Meanwhile, your primary care physician is deeply involved in saving your life in a number of ways (monitoring your blood pressure, providing early cancer diagnoses, catching diabetes before serious symptoms set in) but they're not paid a premium for it -- because there's lots of general practitioners.

3) Public health initiatives -- education and availability of the most simple, most effective health interventions -- make zero profit (because they address a need before the point of crisis) for private industry and provide measureless profit to the community. So we leave it to non-profit, often non-medical groups to do things like encourage HIV prevention, provide flu shots (which are organized in my neighborhood by the LA County government), educate expecting mothers (a service of the March of Dimes), etc. etc. Resources -- money -- literally melts away from these needs, because they don't fit into our current profit-based model. This is not cost-effective -- if we had an organized, national health care system that could ensure that folic acid was provided for every pregnant mother, we would pay less in emergency room visits, government-sponsored care for premature newborns, lost work and wages, etc. etc. etc. The problem is that it's not profitable to tell women to take a multivitamin in the first weeks of pregnancy -- at least not profitable in the narrow, free-market sense.

I probably come off sounding a little bit critical of the free market in the examples above, and I'm really not -- private companies can be, under certain conditions, terrifically helpful. Unfortunately, too much money has melted to the shape of that free market, and we're missing all the benefits that can be had from a not-for-profit, community option for health care. That's the public option -- and to get it, we're going to have to overcome the entrenched interests (and the money they've accumulated) that profit from the current system -- namely, insurance companies and the politicians they support.