The U.S. Will Try and Remake Healthcare Yet Again

Flaws Aside, The Current System is Balanced – But It Could Be Tipped
By Steven Findlay

For the second time in a decade, a president and Congress will undertake a large-scale effort to re-engineer the healthcare system.
            Politics and debate over policy are not the primary cause of this continued upheaval. It is our patchwork, Rube Goldberg-like system, developed ad hoc over 50 years.
            We have an insurance and care delivery system that works less well—in terms of public health, coverage, patient outcomes, and cost—than healthcare in most of the rest of the developed world.
            And, things are getting worse. To wit: Rising death rates among middle-aged, low- and middle-income white Americans; the unchecked rise in obesity and preventable chronic diseases and opioid addiction; and woefully slow progress to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety.
            Our system works well in only two ways: It creates jobs (many of which are high paying) and it generates generous profits for large corporations—from pharma and device manufacturers to hospital systems to increasingly consolidated insurance companies. Some of that profit derives from welcome innovations, new products and treatments. But a sizable portion is due to excessive prices ungrounded in any value proposition.
            It may be that that’s what we really want from our system—profit maximization—and that progress in public health, disease prevention and serious cost control is secondary. Many left-wing economists and health policy wonks have argued as much for years.
            The public does not understand our health system dysfunction from a policy or technical perspective, but they very much “get it” at an experiential and intuitive level. They know how expensive it has all gotten and how vulnerable they are.
            Indeed, surveys over the past 10 to 15 years consistently show that about one-third of the population supports replacing what we have now with a single-payer system.
            Of course, we’re not headed in that direction now—or probably ever.
            Where we are headed now is toward another big debate about the balance between government and private-sector control of the “means of production” in healthcare, the reach and design of the “safety net,” and the meaning of insurance.
            It’s important to understand where we are as we enter this next phase. We are at 50/50—more or less an equal divide between public (tax financed, government run) and privately run.
            In terms of raw, topline numbers: Medicare and Medicaid cover some 110 million people.Federal, state and local government (as an employer, but still tax financed) cover another 8 million people or so, including the military and VA. Private employer-based insurance covers about 152 million people. The exchanges cover 11 to 12 million, and some 10 million people have individual coverage outside of the exchanges. About 30 million Americans remain uninsured.
            The wrinkle this time is a president who is unprecedented in character and unpredictable in action. He has pledged to maintain Medicare, but Republicans in Congress have other ideas. He and congressional Republicans want to block grant Medicaid and, of course, dismantle the ACA. The VA is up for grabs.

Their purpose is clear:

·Swing the pendulum to privatization, less government control and less government regulation

·Shift control from the federal government to the states

·Let marketplace competition operate more freely to improve care and restrain costs

·Reform entitlement programs to limit federal liability and spending

·And, most importantly: Shift risk and direct costs to consumers and families (more “skin in the game”).

The Obamacare exchanges created competition between insurers and choice for consumers. The design was sound, and based on concepts Republicans championed in the 1990s and early 2000s.
            Likewise, some skin-in-the-game for consumers (deductibles, co-payments, and self pay for discretionary care etc.) are an important check on overuse and an inducement to responsibility and self-care.
            Trump the business guy, the real estate mogul has lived in the world of building codes and construction regulations his whole adult life. So we might expect that he understands the need for balance. Importantly, he has also said repeatedly: “everyone must be covered.”
            My worry is that in the current anti-government, hyper-partisan and anti-intellectual environment, the hard-right and quasi-libertarian Republicans (like Paul Ryan) will prevail.
            Democrats and moderate Republicans must be a strong bulwark against this outcome.
            My other worry is that the era of propaganda, misinformation, truth-averse tweets, and fake news we have entered will militate against any informed and deliberative debate. Ominously, Republicans employed these tactics against Obamacare from the beginning—many knowing full well that they were misleading the public with slogans and untruths.


Steven Findlay is a healthcare editor and journalist. A version of this article originally appeared on The Health Care Blog.