An article in NEJM Catalyst reports: “The U.S. Veterans Health Administration’s vast size and complexity suggest that it would be an improbable environment for nimble innovation, but it has created an Innovation Ecosystem that leverages its resources and expertise to generate a steady stream of new ideas, projects, and programs that have made significant improvements for the organization and the veterans it serves.”
To read the article, hit this link.
Healthcare journalist Suzanne Gordon writes about why veterans and other citizens should push back against Republican/Koch Brothers ideas of privatizing veterans hospitals. She says:
“An independent assessment of the VHA conducted by MITRE Corporation, the Rand Corporation, and others and released last year highlighted problems with top-heavy management, cumbersome hiring processes, and delays in access to care in some regions.
“On the whole, however, the assessment also reported that the VHA’s 288,000 employees, including 20,000 physicians, are able to deliver high-quality care to the more than 6 million veterans who receive its services. ‘VA wait times,’ RAND reported, ‘do not seem to be substantially worse than non-VA waits.’ VA patients get care that is often higher quality than that in the private sector — with performance variation ‘lower than that observed in private sector health plans.’ A study published recently in JAMA reported that men with heart failure, heart attacks, or pneumonia were less likely to die if treated at a VHA hospital rather than non-VHA hospital.
“These successes are because the VHA {Veterans Health Administration} has developed into the only nationwide fully integrated health care system in the United States. As such, it provides a model for other systems — one policy makers should be trying to learn from, not dismantle,” Ms. Gordon said.
By JULIE ROVNER
Healthcare has emerged as one of the flash points in the Democratic presidential race.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been a longtime supporter of a concept he calls “Medicare for All,” a health system that falls under the heading of “single-payer.”
Sanders released more details about his proposal shortly before the Democratic debate in South Carolina Sunday night. “What a Medicare-for-All program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right,” he said in Charleston.
Sanders’s main rival for the nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has criticized the plan for raising taxes on the middle class and said it is politically unattainable. “I don’t want to see us start over again with a contentious debate” about health care, she said Sunday night.
Some of the details of Sanders’s plan are still to be released. But his proposal has renewed questions about what a single-payer health care system is and how it works. Here are some quick answers.
What Is Single-Payer?
Single-payer refers to a system in which one entity (usually the government) pays all the medical bills for a specific population. And usually (though again, not always) that entity sets the prices for medical procedures.
Single-payer is not the same thing as socialized medicine. In a truly socialized medicine system, the government not only pays the bills but owns the health care facilities and employs the professionals who work there.
The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is an example of a socialized health system run by the government. It owns the hospitals and clinics and pays the doctors, nurses and other health providers.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a single-payer system in which the federal government pays the bills for those who qualify, but hospitals and other providers remain private.
Which Countries Have Single-Payer Health Systems?
Fewer than many people think. Most European countries either never had or no longer have single-payer systems. “Most are basically what we call social-insurance systems,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who has studied international health systems. Social insurance programs ensure that almost everyone is covered. They are taxpayer-funded but are not necessarily run by the government.
Germany, for example, has 135 “sickness funds,” which are essentially private, nonprofit insurance plans that negotiate prices with healthcare providers. “So you have 135 funds to choose from,” Anderson said.
Nearby, Switzerland and the Netherlands require their residents to have private insurance (just like the Affordable Care Act does), with subsidies to help those who cannot otherwise afford coverage.
And while conservatives in the United States often use Britain’s National Health Service as the poster child for a socialized system, there are many private insurance options available to residents there, too.
Among the countries that have true single-payer systems, Anderson lists only two — Canada and Taiwan.
Are Single-Payer Plans Less Expensive Than Other Health Coverage Systems?
Not necessarily. True, eliminating the profits and duplicative administrative costs associated with hundreds of different private insurance plans would reduce spending, perhaps as much as 10 percent of the nation’s $3 trillion annual health care bill, Anderson said. But, he noted, once that savings is achieved, there won’t be further reductions in following years.
More important, as many analysts have noted, is how much health services cost and how those prices are determined. In most other developed countries, even those with private insurance, writes Princeton Health Economist Uwe Reinhardt, prices “either are set by government or negotiated between associations of insurers and providers of care on a regional, state or national basis.” By contrast, in the U.S., “the payment side of the health care market in the private sector is fragmented, weakening the bargaining power of individual insurers.”
Would Medicare For All Be Just Like The Existing Medicare Program?
No, at least not as Sanders envisions it. Medicare is not nearly as generous as many people think. Between premiums (for doctor and drug coverage), cost-sharing (deductibles and coinsurance) and items Medicare does not cover at all (most dental, hearing and eye care), the average Medicare beneficiary still devotes an estimated 14 percent of all household spending to health care.
Sanders’s plan would be far more generous, including dental, vision, hearing, mental health and long-term care, all without copays or deductibles (which has given rise to a lively debate about how to pay for it and whether middle-class families will save money or pay more).
Would Private Insurance Companies Really Disappear Under Sanders’s Plan?
Probably not. Private insurers are fully integrated into Medicare, handling most of the claims processing and providing supplemental coverage through “Medigap” plans. In addition, nearly a third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in private managed care plans as part of the Medicare Advantage program.
Creating an entirely new federal claims processing structure would in all likelihood be more expensive than continuing to contract with private insurance companies. However, Sanders makes it clear that insurers in the future would no longer be the risk-bearing entities they are today, but more like regulated utilities.
