Reading Karen Tumulty’s compelling narrative about her brother’s illness and misadventures in the U.S. health care system in this week’s issue of Time reminded me of Fast Food Nation, the deservedly popular book that chronicled the evils of the fast food industry but ended with a conclusion as flat as a McDonald’s hamburger. It pretty much said you don’t have to eat Whoppers if you don’t want to.
Tumulty, a national political correspondent for Time who has covered health care before, told the serious and underreported story of those 25 million Americans who have coverage that nonetheless leaves them uninsured when a devastating and or even a not-so-devastating illness strikes. It’s a problem that could happen to any of us at any time, and it happened to Tumulty’s brother Patrick. She told of her brother’s battle with kidney failure, and the insurance traps he fell into while trying to get treatment.
After he lost a job with health insurance, Patrick took the experts’ advice and bought a policy in the individual market. Continuing to believe that he would get another job with benefits, he kept buying a series of six-month policies from Assurant Health, a company that specializes in insurance for small businesses and short-term policies for those between jobs. What Patrick didn’t realize was that each time he re-upped for another six months, he had to satisfy the company’s health requirements just as if he were buying a brand new policy. When he needed the coverage to pay his medical bills, Assurant refused, saying that his kidney condition was already pre-existing when he got his latest six-month policy.
Tumulty’s story poignantly shows what happens when patients fall through the cracks of the insurance system. She points to the shortcomings of other options for people in similar predicaments—such as the Texas Medicaid program, which she calls “notoriously stingy.” In San Antonio, where he lives, Tumulty’s brother qualified for a special program that is available only to patients with very low incomes. But even though he can get relatively inexpensive care, Tumulty points out that it is not seamless.
The lack of seamless care is one of system’s failings, many experts believe. Patrick must navigate between his kidney specialist, who prescribes medications and treatments, and the program’s bureaucracy that must approve them. That’s hard for him.
Time readers get a clear picture of the problem. But the magazine only advances fuzzy solutions. Tumulty devotes some paragraphs to what she says are the two major paths to reform. One is the Obama approach, which she sums up as forcing employers to offer coverage to their workers with subsidies and other incentives to make the policies more affordable. That’s it—no mention, let alone explanation, of a public option that could compete with private insurers—which will be the major flashpoint in the debate. How would Patrick fare under that option?
She talks about McCain’s proposals, which are very much alive in the Congressional mix—taxing the value of employer-provided insurance, which proponents hope will encourage people to leave their employers’ health plan and seek coverage in the individual market. Yes, the one that snared Patrick. Tumulty does say that consumers often lack the power or information necessary to make their own choices, and hints that McCain’s approach may be tough for many patients. But, she says, “there are ways to fight back.” In the end, she pushes the Texas Insurance Department to make the insurer cover some of Patrick’s bills—a partial solution, at least for him. But most patients don’t have savvy relatives who know where to file complaints and have a national media platform at which to write about them.
- 1
- 2
Part of the issue that got neglected in the Time article is all of the people that have benefited from having this type of policy. The author was not objective at all, and it was really an attack article. If her brother had really tried to buy a policy that took into account any possible event, he would have had to look at a different policy, that would have been unaffordable to him. But why villainize the insurance company? The fact of the matter is that he bought the type of policy that is not good if you have any long term health problems. If the same person had to be treated during their six month policy for a burst appendix, they would have been greatful for the coverage. When the unforseen happens, the victims look for someone to blame. Insurance companies are willing to take on any amount of risk for the right price, and it is a sliding scale. That is what you are purchasing, risk coverage, and you get what you pay for.
#1 Posted by Chris Baker, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 06:01 PM
One grossly underreported solution--with the promise of effectively and efficiently remedying our health insurance travesty--is "Single-Payer National Health Insurance." Perhaps Ms Tumulty was unwilling to cover Single Payer in the pages of Time. Other reporters seem to swallow wholesale the PR press kits funded by private health insurers, then undermine or malign the promising benefits of a single-payer national health insurance system, as well as add to the general ignorance of comparative healthcare systems in the developed world.
With 70+ million uninsured and underinsured Americans, ~18,000 deaths/year resulting from lack of health coverage, and stratospheric "administrative costs" consuming ~$0.30 of every health care dollar (30%); many Americans, who once trusted the likes of Time, are no longer self-deceptively and -destructively clinging to their suspect reports.
Your readers may be surprised to hear the following: single-payer national health insurance is largely privately delivered and government-insured; and almost 60% of American doctors support it. Projected savings on administrative costs are $400 Billion/year; furthermore, it promises to cover everyone for all necessary services--eg, hospital, surgical, and outpatient care; primary, preventative, and emergency care; mental health and substance abuse; prescription medication; dental and vision; as well as chiropractic, rehab and physical therapy.
But, with out-of-control medical inflation, misinformation campaigns threaten an increasing number of our family or friends, as well as the needless death, debilitation, or bankruptcy of a staggering number of American men, women, and children who we'll never meet. I'm sure Ms Tumulty and her brother can relate. Therefore, health reporters should "follow the money" and dispel the campaigns of disinformation.
One way to familiarize themselves with the perspective of physicians seeking to replace our rudimentary health insurance system with single-payer health insurance can find their positions and perspectives, here: www.pnhp.org
#2 Posted by TS, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 07:37 PM
Excellent column.
Insurance companies will, of course, continue to abuse patients like Karen Tumulty's brother because that's fundamental to who they are. Insurance companies are not in business to authorize care, they are in business to make money for their shareholders. Period.
We will never fix the system by giving them more customers. Trying to reform the insurers is like trying to teach a tiger to eat tofu. It's not in their DNA. The only way to cure our healthcare nightmare is to get them out of the way, with a single payer/Medicare for all approach.
Single payer reform also has the broadest grassroots coalition behind it, and supporting a bill now before Congress, HR 676.
One way to make your voice heard to the Obama administration:
http://healthreform.gov/regionalhealthforum.html
#3 Posted by Chuck Idelson, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 08:34 PM
The CJR commentator Lieberman makes a good analysis but ends up in the same rut she accuses Morgan Spurlock of tumbling into, vagueness. However, Spurlock made his point about fast food, when will the message about health care in America come through clearly.
May be it is because of the billions spent on silencing the solution. Commentator TS is absolutely correct. I am a specialist physician who may lose income under a single payer, Universal cover system and yet I will say it. Universal health care with a single payer, e.g., Medicare for all, will solve this once and for all.
The public needs to wake up from the Reaganomic nightmare that began in 1980, some vital services need to be regulated and managed by good (not small) government.
And here is the clue people, if the American Medical Association, the Insurance Industry, Big PHRmA, specialist physicians and Specialist Private hospitals dont want it, its because they wont be making a killing on Universal single payer health care. The general physicians, pediatricians and nurses support it, indeed 59% of physicians do, these are groups in health care who historically never made a grand slam on health care dollars. So pick whom you want on your side.
Go to www.pnhp.org, call your representatives, call Congress , Max Baucus, PLease dont let the money grabbers get away with their stories. Its time you all told and stood by whats good for you.
Wilbur Larch
From Medicine Unplugged
on WUSB 90.1 F.M Stony Brook
alternating Mondays 6 to 7 am.
e mail: wilburlarch@WUSB.FM
#4 Posted by Dr. wilbur larch, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 09:02 PM
I've read many of the comments about these articles and while I agree that there are elements of our healthcare delivery system that need corrected, there is much for us to retain.
People still come from all over the world to the United States for healthcare because of the quality of our hospitals and doctors. Before you take the sting of capitalism out of this system, recognize that it is the free market and profit that have encouraged high quality people to make it what it is.
For those of you proposing either Medicare-like programs or programs similar to those "successful" programs in Canada, England, or France, I have two comments: 1 - Medicare is about to bring the US to its knees regarding costs and cost over-runs; and 2 - Study those programs in foreign countries carefully before you choose to replicate them. Long waits for healthcare, bureaucratic policies, costs that are bringing the plans into bankruptcy and private insurance systems to augment the poor quality of healthcare delivered are common.
So, can we please change our programs carefully and just a little bit at a time? Can we do some things at a local level to see if they work on a small population before we take it to the millions? Can we recognize for all the complaining about private interests corrupting a program, that there are very few government programs that have actually worked?
Putin himself recently said: Socialism just doesn't work. So, if I can be heretical, let's encourage private industry to solve this problem. The likelihood of good ole American know how and inventiveness being able to resolve the problem is much better than a bunch of know-it-alls in Washington being manipulated by special interest groups.
#5 Posted by Bill Clevenger, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 04:50 PM