Search This Blog

Friday, December 1, 2023

Doctors lobbying for Medicare for All should be careful what they wish for

 The self-described “house of medicine” is entertaining support for a government takeover of health insurance for the second time in five years.

A group of New England doctors pressed the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates this month to drop the organization’s opposition to single-payer health care.

The effort ultimately failed (for now). And good thing.

Such a system would be disastrous for physicians — and patients.

Single-payer health care is what it sounds like — an insurance program where the government is the only insurer.

Private insurance would be banned.

And the government would pay health-care providers whatever it deemed appropriate and affordable.

In countries with government-dominated systems of universal coverage, those public payments are much lower than what American doctors are used to earning.

The average physician in America makes $316,000 a year, compared with $183,000 in Germany and $138,000 in the United Kingdom, according to a 2021 survey.

Even here in the United States, public insurers pay less than private ones.

Medicare, the government health plan for seniors, pays doctors roughly 30% less than private insurance.

It cut Medicare reimbursements in 2023 — and is set to do so again in 2024.

Medicaid, the public health plan for low-income Americans, pays even lower rates — 30% less than Medicare.

Seemingly every year, Congress considers slashing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.

And seemingly every year, the AMA descends on Capitol Hill to lobby against those cuts, arguing that lower pay will cause doctors to turn away Medicare patients — and thereby make it harder for patients to access care.

Yet the AMA is flirting with Medicare for All, which would result in bargain-basement government payment rates for every man, woman and child in the United States.

What gives?

American doctors battling private insurers over billing, prior authorizations and paperwork may think that a government-run system will be simpler and easier to deal with.

But government-run systems stretch doctors to their professional breaking point.

A 2023 Commonwealth Fund survey of primary-care providers in 10 high-income countries found that 47% of American doctors were satisfied overall with their practices.

That’s a higher level of satisfaction than what primary-care doctors in Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada reported.

Just 7% of British and German doctors were happy with how much time they saw each patient, compared with nearly one-fourth of US primary-care providers.

And German, British and Canadian doctors all reported lower levels of work-life balance satisfaction than American counterparts.

Doctors in England’s National Health Service have undertaken a series of short-term strikes over the past year to protest working conditions and seek better pay and hours.

Low government payment rates in countries with single-payer or government-dominated universal-coverage systems result in chronic shortages of care.

Who wants to work long hours for a salary that doesn’t reflect one’s level of productivity?

Patients may have ostensibly “free” care through a government-run health plan.

But they must wait for that treatment.

In the United Kingdom, the wait list to receive care from the National Health Service has reached 8 million, in large part because of staff shortages and underfunding.

In Canada, the median wait for treatment from a specialist following referral by a general practitioner was more than 27 weeks last year.

Many Brits are responding to these waits by paying for care privately out of pocket.

Similarly, several Canadian provinces are increasing their reliance on private clinics to help clear backlogs of people waiting for care.

In other words, as progressive Americans make the case for single-payer, foreign countries with such systems are going the other way.

Contrary to popular belief, just one-quarter of practicing physicians in the United States are members of the American Medical Association.

That number may decline further if the organization keeps flirting with a single-payer system, which would prove devastating for physicians and patients alike.

Sally C. Pipes is president, CEO and Thomas W. Smith fellow in health-care policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is “False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All.”

https://nypost.com/2023/11/28/opinion/doctors-lobbying-for-medicare-for-all-should-be-careful-what-they-wish-for/

Speaker Johnson's Proposed Debt Commission Can Secure a Great Medicare Future

 America’s national debt now easily exceeds $33 trillion. That jaw-dropping total amounts to more than $100,000 per American, and that frightening figure has prompted the new House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to propose the creation of a 16-member bipartisan debt commission

This is a tall order. The giant federal entitlements, Medicare and Social Security, are the main drivers of America’s debt. In fact, according to former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, spending for Medicare — the federal program that provides health coverage for senior and disabled citizens — alone accounted for 34 percent of all outstanding federal debt between 1966 and the end of 2019.  

Given the enormous popularity of this huge federal entitlement, any serious effort to address federal deficits and debt is thus fraught with political peril, and perennially ripe for low-minded demagoguery. What The Washington Post terms “Mediscare”: cynical political rhetoric designed to frighten seniors into opposing any rational entitlement reforms.    

For some reason, policymakers are under the impression that they can mostly leave Medicare well enough alone and continue blithely along the well-trodden paths of the status quo. Reporters for The New York Times, for example, recently penned an intriguing piece: titled “Huge Threat to the U.S. Budget Has Receded. And No One is Sure Why”. The piece focuses in on the fact that per capita Medicare spending has slowed and flattened since 2011, resulting in $3.9 trillion less spending than the CBO had projected. Since that change is not attributable to any “obvious policy shifts,” the danger is that Washington politicians could conclude, based on the Times’ report, that  the worsening condition of  our entitlement programs will simply resolve itself.  

That would be exactly the wrong conclusion. For starters, CBO is always quick to warn that its health care projections are highly uncertain. And in any case, CBO’s past predictive failures provide no current comfort in the face of future fiscal realities.

While lawmakers should not ignore the causes of Medicare’s past per capita spending slowdown, Congressional leadership should also focus laser-like on the implications of current Medicare spending projections. Today, the Medicare Board of Trustees project a rapid acceleration of ten-year Medicare enrollment, accompanied by a doubling of Medicare spending from roughly $1 trillion to nearly $2 trillion, or about $6200 for every person in the country.

Medicare spending will impose higher financial burdens on beneficiaries and taxpayers alike, while aggravating record federal deficits and our already dangerously high debt. By 2040, the Trustees report Medicare spending will consume nearly 27 percent of all federal business and income taxes, while accumulating trillions of dollars in higher unfunded obligations. Baby Boomers living longer in retirement, while benefiting from advanced medical technologies, are bound to increase the program’s per capita cost. So, any notion that Medicare's financial issues are somehow a thing of the past is akin to breaking diplomatic relations with reality.

Given that the giant federal entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, cost $2.7 trillion — or almost half of the entire federal budget — Speaker Johnson and likeminded colleagues must work to bring Democrats and Republicans together and find common ground and take specific steps to preserve these programs for the next generation of retirees.

That is another tall order. Progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans not only disagree on the nature of Medicare’s problems but also on the best means to secure Medicare’s future. During a Senate Budget Committee hearing in September, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), sponsor of the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, was characteristically blunt about this difference: “Republicans want to maintain the massive exemption for inheritances to wealthy heirs. They want to keep tax breaks for multinational corporations that send profits and jobs offshore. And they want to hamstring the IRS from catching wealthy tax cheats.”

Whitehouse’s prescription to shore up Medicare, meanwhile, aren’t particularly reassuring. He wants to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues by closing various “tax loopholes” and ending the “rigging” of the federal tax code that favors the wealthy. Never mind that the top 10 percent of earners already pay about 74 percent of all federal income taxes.

Thankfully, Senators Mike Braun (R-IN) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) took a vastly different tack. Acknowledging that America’s overly complicated federal tax code contains loopholes, they emphasized that closing the gap between Medicare’s costs and spending will require a deft combination of spending reforms and creative policymaking. Simply soaking the rich, Braun noted, will not be enough, while Johnson warned that heavy taxation, including new taxation on business income, would further harm economic growth, thus further attenuating Medicare’s financial supply lines.

As the members of Speaker Johnson’s proposed debt commission come together, they should follow Braun and Johnson’s example by focusing on ways to slow the growth in Medicare spending and recommend structural changes to improve the program, including more flexibility in benefit offerings and greater transparency of provider prices and performance.

They should also examine past efforts to reform Medicare. The Medicare Advantage program, the competing system of private health plans created in 2003, can provide the platform for reform.  The program’s evident flaws, such as inefficient plan payment, are easily fixable.

Medicare Advantage already provides the standard Medicare benefits at an average of 17 percent less than the cost of traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare itself. So, the fact that it now enrolls half of all Medicare patients should not be surprising. With a strong emphasis on preventive services, case management, and care coordination, the private plans have not only increased seniors' quality of care, but demonstrated repeatedly an ability to provide that care to beneficiaries at an affordable premium cost. With more transparent pricing and efficient plan payment, Speaker Johnson’s commission could build on what seniors already know and like, potentially secure greater beneficiary savings, and maybe even help to alleviate our mounting debt.

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., a seasoned veteran of more than three decades in Washington policymaking, is a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Caleb Keng is a member of the Heritage Young Leaders Program, and a graduate of the University of Texas. 

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2023/12/01/house_speaker_johnsons_proposed_debt_commission_can_secure_a_great_medicare_future_996096.html

'More Data Is Public. Why That Matters to Governments and Corporations'

 The average human generates at least enough data to fill a 350-page book every second. Smart phones have accelerated the amount and rate of data creation to an almost incomprehensible scale. The International Data Corporation estimates that by 2025, 463 exabytes of data will be produced every day. To get an idea of how much this is, it is estimated that only 5 exabytes would store all of the words spoken by all humans throughout history.  

The other element is that much of this data is public. It includes YouTube videos, home purchases, streaming radio, crop harvests, government budgets, academic publications, music composition, corporate reports, news, Yelp reviews, comments on online forums, public databases, trademark applications, flight tracker information, and so on.

This has raised appropriate concerns about privacy. But if this ever-growing ocean of data can be collected in substantial amounts, in a timely and ethical fashion, and can be analyzed correctly, it has tremendous value and ability to do good. It can help the government improve national security and better represent and serve its citizens. It can help businesses make smarter decisions about capital allocations and the marketplace to deliver better products and services to consumers.

The explosion of data, and the increasingly sophisticated tools to gather and understand that data, has combined to create a revolution of publicly available information.

Publicly available information, or PAI, can be defined by what it is not. It is not legally protected personal health and medical information, personal identification data, or material non-public information, such as a company’s trade secrets. These should be off-limits to ethical data collection.

In theory, PAI can be found by anybody. In reality, the sheer amount of PAI means that it can only be usefully gathered and analyzed by organizations that have invested in technology that allows them to gather the data at scale; infrastructure that enables them to store and access it en masse; and data engineering that enables them to take unstructured data and make it digestible and understandable to users.

PAI can reveal hidden patterns in the behavior of consumers or combatants. An analysis of corporate hiring notices may reveal a strategic direction a company is about to take, giving insight to investors and competitors. Blips in supply chains can inform military intelligence about another country’s military intentions. Increasingly, governments and corporations want to find the gold inside PAI, for both national security and commercial reasons.

If an organization decides it wants to leverage the enormous power of PAI, it’s critical to be a good citizen of the internet. Only PAI that has been aggregated and anonymized should be collected and analyzed. Data that can reveal individuals’ identities, such as biometrics or even advertising information, should not be used. Organizations should follow the data compliance practices of the regulatory bodies in that sector. Responsible PAI firms should do no harm. Reckless firms that engage in common-crawl discovery of PAI can disrupt the websites they’re looking at. That can result in problems ranging from annoying – slowing down an e-commerce website – to much worse, such as disabling a medical or health site. And most importantly, organizations first need to understand exactly what they want to find in PAI. A responsible firm will be their guide.

What are some real-world examples of how smart collection and use of publicly available data can help organizations?

In the government sector, PAI is mission-critical to helping agencies tackle the toughest problems of natural security. Consider Taiwan. The country produces more than 60 percent of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90 percent of the most advanced ones. Any conflict involving Taiwan would create catastrophic disruptions to the global supply chain in both the commercial and defense spheres. Fortunately, there is copious data in the public domain that can spotlight the Taiwanese chip industry’s critical vulnerabilities ahead of time. 

These include identifying choke points for raw materials and components needed to make semiconductors, uncovering ownership stakes by hostile countries in chip-adjacent companies, predicting workforce disruptions, assessing cyberattack potential, and understanding the susceptibility of logistics corridors in contested space. On the positive side, PAI can suggest de-risking options – what do the patent and regulatory environments in other friendly countries look like, and how hard would it be to expand chipmaking there? 

In the commercial sector, imagine an owner of multiple apartment and office buildings. They want to get new tenants and retain existing ones, but can do so only if customers are happy. It can be hard for a big company to understand the customer experience at a granular level; they can only hire so many customer service agents. But it is not difficult for someone to have their voice heard in the public domain today. In addition to direct feedback tenants may give, they will post their opinions on Google reviews, Reddit and sub-Reddit forums, YouTube, and elsewhere. All of this information is publicly available, and can help the building owner identify and fix problems in its buildings.

Data-generation will continue to grow exponentially, and much of it will continue to be in the public domain. The understanding and effective use of PAI by the government and companies is a net-positive for citizens and customers, as long as personal information and PAI never intersect. PAI can help everyone make smarter decisions.

Brian O’Keefe is the CEO of Vertical Knowledge, a data products, insights and intelligence company.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/12/01/more_data_is_public_why_that_matters_to_governments_and_corporations_996161.html

Jordan subpoenas ex-White House censorship chief over ‘constitutionally protected’ expression

 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Thursday subpoenaed President Biden’s former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty to testify about his actions to pressure digital platforms to censor content — ahead of what is expected to be a landmark Supreme Court case centered on his actions.

Flaherty must sit for committee questions on Jan. 11, Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote in the legally binding demand for testimony, which follows unsuccessful attempts to force the ex-administration official to testify in a state lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana, which the Supreme Court will consider in its coming term.

“The Committee has obtained documents that demonstrate the central role you played in communicating the Biden White House’s censorship efforts to social media companies, including the White House’s demands to censor true information, memes, satire, and other constitutionally protected forms of expression,” Jordan wrote to Flaherty, who left the White House in June for a position with Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign.

“Your testimony will inform the Committee’s legislative reforms aimed at preventing the Executive Branch from wielding its immense power to pressure social media platforms to censor disfavored viewpoints,” Jordan wrote.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Thursday subpoenaed President Biden’s former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty.AP

The pending Supreme Court case, for which oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, follows a lower court ruling restricting the government’s ability to pressure companies to squelch disfavored speech. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the Republican state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who argued that the Biden administration was violating Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights.

Skip AdContinue watchingThis Day in Historyafter the ad

The lawsuit turned up a large number of documents showing that Flaherty and his team leaned on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, particularly to limit the spread of alleged misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

However, attempts to force Flaherty’s testimony in the case, as well as an appearance from former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who proclaimed in July 2021 that Biden aides were “flagging” content for removal, were unsuccessful.

Louisiana US District Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction on July 4 forbidding federal officials from pressuring companies to remove constitutionally protected speech.

Many details about Flaherty’s actions remain murky.

For example, Jordan on Thursday morning released emails acquired by the Judiciary Committee that showed Flaherty also leaned on Google-owned YouTube in the push, but those emails only vaguely refer to White House pressure on company officials — such as an April 2021 internal message that notes that the “White House is very interested in our work on borderline content” without specifically describing that content.

Jordan also issued a subpoena to former White House COVID-19 coordinator Andy Slavitt, who is ordered to testify on Jan. 9.

Flaherty must sit for committee questions on Jan. 11, Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote in the legally binding demand for testimony, which follows unsuccessful attempts to force the ex-administration official to testify in a state lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana.Rob Flaherty/Twitter

White House spokesman Ian Sams called the subpoenas “baseless” and a “political stunt,” but didn’t say how or whether the executive branch would seek to resist the demands.

“Yet again, extreme House Republicans are issuing baseless subpoenas just to play to their far-right base with positions way outside the mainstream,” Sams said.

“The Biden Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” he added.

“Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

An attorney for Flaherty did not immediately respond to a request for comment and Slavitt could not immediately be reached for comment.

Federal efforts to lean on companies to squelch speech online predate Biden’s presidency and intensified after Russian government-linked hackers allegedly obtained and released the emails of prominent Democrats during the 2016 election campaign.

Censorship opponents note that once-restricted content often ends up gaining widespread acceptance — such as a theory that COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese lab that was doing risky research, which Facebook censored through May 2021, but which now is the official view of the FBI and other sections of the US government.

In another instance, Facebook and Twitter censored The Post’s October 2020 reporting on documents from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop that showed then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was involved in his son’s foreign business relationships, despite claims to the contrary.

YouTube deleted a Post exclusive interview with Capitol rioter Aaron Mostofsky.NY Post

The Post’s reporting was suppressed after the FBI, which had taken possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop in December 2019, claimed that there could be a “hack and leak” operation impacting Biden’s son.

Other instances of censorship have removed primary-source material about significant events in American history.

YouTube, for instance, deleted a video interview that The Post conducted inside the Capitol with a New Yorker who stormed the building to disrupt certification of then-President Donald Trump’s election loss.

The platform claimed in June 2022 that the video spread misinformation about election fraud, but relented after The Post put the censorship on its front page.

Still, YouTube went on to delete other primary-source material from the unprecedented mayhem, including footage released by the House select committee investigating the riot.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/30/news/jim-jordan-subpoenas-former-wh-censorship-chief-rob-flaherty-ahead-of-landmark-supreme-court-case/