Failure Through Compromise?

Make no mistake. The health industry likes the status quo and wants health reforms to fail. Why? Because "what the rest of us call health care costs, they call income" as Paul Krugman noted on May 10. A meaningful reform package will drastically cut costs that will affect all or most players, so the industry has strong incentives to unite to oppose it.

President Obama ought to fully know this even as he lauded the health industry's promise to cut $2 trillion in costs over the next 10 years. The industry is doing this to get a seat at the table on health care reforms. Pundits and reformers are rightly suspicious of industry intentions. Krugman in his May 21 column exposed insurer moves to kill the public insurance option in a repeat of the Harry and Louise ads that helped sink Clinton's 1993 reforms.

This public option is vital for the US unlike other countries like the Netherlands as explained in my previous two posts - because engineered provider scarcities in the US require a centralized entity with buyer's clout to keep pricing reasonable. The cost-effectiveness of the public option will essentially sink the private insurers as the private market is likely to shrink to less than a fifth of its current size. So yes, I empathize with the desperation of private insurers. The question for Obama and Congress is, whose interests should be paramount? The American public whose health care costs can be chopped dramatically, or the employment and profits of private insurers?

Despite the obvious answer, reforms may be stymied as in decades past. With so much at stake, private insurers will spare no efforts to buy over lawmakers, and advance fallacies of "free market" virtues and "socialized medicine" evils to sway public opinion. The biggest hurdle is the US Senate where Republicans are a 40% minority, but can be joined by enough Democrats to block the most useful changes through "compromise legislation." Such Democrats call themselves "centrists", but like good and bad cholestrol, such centrists can be good or bad types depending on how they choose to accomodate Republicans.

An example of a bad centrist is Democratic Senator Ben Nelson who opposes the public option and gave eight easily refutable reasons for doing so, and basically parrots Republican objections. Then you have Sen. Charles ("Chuck") Schumer ostensibly addressing Sen. Nelson's objections in a compromise proposal by handicapping the public option and constraining it to pay providers higher rates than Medicare. Just as in G.W. Bush's ill-conceived drug plan for seniors, what's the point of not allowing the government to use its buying power to lower costs, particularly to counter monopoly or scarcity pricing by providers?

President Obama's Administration can of course use his high popularity and his bully pulpit to call out the Democratic Senate hold-outs. They will support the public option without undue handicaps if they fear a voter backlash from failure to do so and heightened suspicions of their backroom dealing. Obama at times seems over-eager to be inclusive, but it's early yet and I hope my misgivings are misplaced. We will know soon.

Finally, an aspect that escaped comments by Krugman and other experts is about the numbers in the health industry's promise to cut costs. They'll cut $2 trillion over ten years by reducing the projected annual growth rate of health costs by 1.5%. Is that it? While $2 trillion sounds like a lot, it's under 5% of cumulative costs. Given our outrageously high costs and pricing compared to peer economies we should be aiming for over a trillion dollar reduction per year at current levels. That's about $15 trillion over ten years.

Deceptive Arguments Against Reform

Republicans have been vociferously opposing two key features of health care reform: universal coverage and public insurance alongside private options. Till recently they mainly combined backroom obstruction with shallow slogans like "socialized medicine" or "save taxpayers". Now they offer more detailed arguments, like in three articles appearing in major newspapers. Their objections may sound convincing but are deeply flawed.

The first of these articles is Ramesh Ponnuru's April 9 Op-Ed in The New York Times about "The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage." He uses some clever phraseology and statistics to argue against guaranteed health coverage for all that are summarized (in italics) below, along with my comments:

• Universal coverage will not save money, but instead may cost more. The cost shifting effect of uninsured people raising premiums for everyone else is very little, and will likely be outweighed by money needed to extend proper health care to all. --- I agree with all this, but talk of a red herring. Reformers have never used this cost saving argument to push for universal coverage. Instead, they acknowledge it will take some additional resources but consider it very worthwhile on grounds of public benefit and moral responsibility. It's actually the health industry interests and their Republican allies who push this "cost-shifting" as one excuse to justify exorbitant US prices for treatment. Now, there arguably ARE two economic second order benefits of universal coverage that Ponnuru does not try to counter: (i) Timely care will avert some more serious problems, lost productivity and more costly emergency treatments. This creates some offsetting savings. (ii) A lot of waste and expense will be eliminated, associated with private insurers' trying to screen out sicker applicants, and providers trying to recover dues from uninsured patients.

• Universal coverage cannot be achieved using free market methods. It will require regulating private insurers, subsidizing them and/or introducing public insurance. --- Even if this is correct, so what? A "free market" however you define it should be a means to an end of greater prosperity and well being of the overall society. It makes no sense to bear huge burdens and inefficiencies just to maintain a convoluted concept of free market health care. And why should public insurance be banned from competing with private plans in a really free market? That said, the Dutch health care system is an example of (appropriately regulated) private insurers alone doing a good job of delivering universal care. Finally, the US already has public insurance in the form of Medicare for its senior citizens. Extending something like it for all Americans is not such a large conceptual leap.

• It's possible that money spent on universal coverage can be spent more efficiently or effectively on something else (e.g., clinics, reducing medical errors, nutrition, or even improving education.) --- No supporting facts or proof are offered that would indicate this. It's as ridiculous as saying you shouldn't treat patients in hospitals because the resources involved could just be better utilized for something else that you can't specify. Ponnuru raises other open-ended questions in his piece without offering any facts to establish the legitimacy of his concerns.

• Voters want lower health costs more than they want universal coverage. During the Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton repeatedly attacked Barack Obama’s health care plan for not covering everyone — and as you may have noticed, he survived. If Democratic primary voters are not wedded to universality, the larger public surely is not. --- First, as you may have also noticed, Obama roundly beat McCain who wanted the precise health care system advocated by Ponnuru & Co. Second, Obama was as much for universal coverage as Hillary was, and only differed on the way to achieve it. Hillary wanted to mandate that everyone had or bought coverage beforehand. Obama wanted to give people the option of obtaining it whenever they wanted it, even after falling sick. That is like being allowed to buy insurance and fix your car with it after having an accident. This of course went down very well with voters, and its problem is viability for the insurers. Third, given the economic uncertainties, even the covered Americans are fearful of losing their benefits. Most of them want the safety net of universal coverage that incidentally is already available in every developed country except for the US.

• The best way to go forward is to allow private insurers to offer any plan only to customers they want, so that they can lower prices of coverage. People with preexisting conditions or who develop chronic problems subsequently should be able to turn to the government or public funding for help. --- This is of course very convenient: private insurers cover healthy people profitably, and abandon others or make taxpayers pick their tab. It's part of the joke about Republicans wanting to privatize all gains while socializing all losses.

• People shouldn't be forced to have or buy health insurance in a free country. --- First, even in a free country you have and need laws to protect people from their own idiocy or neglect, like those requiring seat belt use in cars. Second, in humanitarian free societies the uninsured will likely still not be completely abandoned, so society and providers will incur expenses for their care in any case. For example, we have longstanding US laws requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. So it's better and fairer to require coverage for all.

The other two Op-Eds appear in the Wall Street Journal, "The End of Private Health Insurance" of April 12, and Kerry Weem and Benjamin Sasse's "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap?" of April 14. Both make the case against public insurance being allowed to compete with private health insurers. Here's what they - and I - have to say:

• Democrats intend to game the system to precipitate -- or if need be, coerce -- an exodus to government from private insurance. Soon enough, that will be the only "option" left.
  As people gravitate to "free" or heavily subsidized care, the inevitably explosive costs will be covered in part with increased outlays to keep premiums artificially low or even offer extra benefits. --- There's no evidence at all of this sinister Democratic intent. In fact in the case of Medicare vs. the private Medicare Advantage plans, subsidies have been flowing the opposite way. Private insurers have been paid 12.4% more per member than what the government spends on its traditional Medicare patients. The Obama administration's move to simply level the payments is facing stiff opposition. And a public insurance plan can very well be like Medicare for all.

• Public insurance with its enormous buyer clout (monopsony) can force providers to accept much lower prices than private insurers and enjoy other scale economies. So private insurers cannot compete effectively, and will be squeezed out of a lot of business. --- This is correct, and only underscores the need for a strong buyer to counteract the pricing leverage of providers as a result of lack of competition and engineered scarcities (e.g., a shortage of doctors.) Whose interests should the lawmakers and government serve - its citizenry or industry interests? Why should Americans be prevented from signing up with a more efficient and cost effective public insurer just to enable costlier private insurers to retain more business? If the supply of providers is improved over time (something the lawmakers and administration should have addressed long ago) the private insurers should be able to do better.

• As more people switch to a public Medicare-type plan the providers will have to do more cost-shifting, making private plans more expensive. --- This argument is invalid for several reasons. First, providers voluntarily accept Medicare patients, and wouldn't do so if they were losing money on them. Second, Medicare payments are quite high compared to the rates in other developed countries. It's just that providers get away with charging even higher prices because of the frictions and scarcity-induced market distortions in US health care. Third, even Ponnuru acknowledges that any cost-shifting effect is minuscule - about 1.7% of private insurer premiums (I'd of course challenge even that number.)

• Public insurance will be wasteful and open to fraud, and so will actually cost more. --- These critics should make up their minds. First they attack public insurance as being too cost effective for private insurers to be able to compete. Here they say it will be so wasteful as to fritter away taxpayer dollars. Anyone seeing the numbers on Medicare vs. private Medicare Advantage will realize the public option costs less overall.

Obama seems to have rightly decided to go ahead with health reforms even if it involves bypassing a Republican filibuster though with Sen. Arlen Specter's defection that may not be necessary.

Why We Need Government Run Health Insurance

In a search for a real world model for health care reforms, there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that any of the health care models in highly rated countries will be a huge improvement over that in the US for most of its population. There are many different models and The Commonwealth Fund in March 2008 described some of the disparities even within West Europe. Some countries like the Netherlands since 2006 operate almost entirely through private insurers and providers while offering wide choices. It ranks No. 1 in the Euro Health Consumer Index for 2008. On the other side the No. 2 and No. 3 ranked health care systems of Denmark and of Austria (that rate even higher than The Netherlands in other studies) are mainly government run and financed, with fewer choices. Almost all of the other countries have heavy government involvement through public health insurance and/or regulated pricing (as in Singapore) for many medical services. But the systems vary enormously from country to country.

The bad news is that this wide variation in the health care structure in top ranked countries muddies the picture for reforming US health care. It allows special interests and the lawmakers under their influence to argue against the Democratic consensus on the need for public health insurance as an alternative to private insurance. When driven by the public outcry to lower costs and cover the uninsured, they can point to The Netherlands and the more expensive (but still a third cheaper than the US) private insurance system of Switzerland as examples that we don't really "need" public health insurance in the US. But this is a highly flawed contention, and I'll explain why.

Largely through industry influence and aided by bad planning and happenstance the US has a shortage of providers. Take the important case of doctors. Both The Netherlands and Switzerland have 3.8 doctors per 1000 population, which is above the OECD median of 3.4. So private insurers can get competitive deals and pricing with providers in these countries. In the US by contrast we have only 2.4 doctors per 1000 population so it's entirely a seller's market. That's the main reason many US doctors are opting out of Medicare because of low rates even though these are generous by European standards. We have a similar though smaller problem with hospitals. Due to lax anti-trust oversight we have allowed many hospitals and chains to consolidate so there is now reduced competition and low consumer choice of hospitals in many places.

Detractors will be quick to point out that some (though few) developed countries with less doctors do manage to have relatively good and inexpensive care. Specifically these exceptions are Singapore, Canada, Japan and UK. They have 1.4, 2.1, 2.1 and 2.5 doctors per 1000 population and health care expense per capita of $1,170, $2,578, $3,678 and $2,760 respectively in 2006, compared to $6,714 for the US. But all these countries have managed to keep costs and prices low precisely through heavy government intervention. Singapore directly imposes price controls and restrictions on most hospitals and providers, and has a younger population needing less health care (only 7% are over 65 years old, compared to 14% in the US.) The other three, Canada, Japan and UK all have public insurance playing a huge role that determines pricing.

In other words, when we have a constrained supply of providers as in the US, we also need the purchasing power of a dominant buyer like the government (i.e., a monopsomy) to keep prices in check. Private insurers and their supporters say that this huge buying power of a public insurer gives it an "unfair" advantage, but unfair to whom? Yes, going by the West Europe as well as Medicare versus the private Medicare Advantage enrollment experience, I fully expect that over 80% of the business will go to the public insurer if it were created. That's precisely because this public insurer offers by far the best value, and only the very affluent or those with generous employers will opt for the much more expensive private insurance.

Let's be clear though: public insurance provides the means to drive down prices but does not guarantee it. There still has to be sufficient oversight and proper execution to ensure that special interests don't exert undue influence to come away with overly generous reimbursements. Think Blackwater, no-bid contracts in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina... But this should be less of a concern post 2008 elections, with the high profile of this issue and a better administration in place. Also we need to separately address the issue of provider shortages.

Back to public insurance the primary responsibilty of US policy makers is to set up a high quality, cost-effective and universal health system for US consumers. It's not to steer business towards private insurers by selling out the public interest. Unfortunately, this is precisely what they did in the Bush era when they created the complex Medicare Part D's drug program for seniors. This barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices and is rightly viewed as a giveaway to drug companies, private insurers and middlemen.

Given its importance will Obama and the Democrats be able to stand firm and set up a public insurance program to run alongside private ones? Or will they submit to "compromise" that eliminates or postpones this step? It's a huge deal that will radically affect health care costs, and is a fitting test of the commitment and effectiveness of the new administration. We'll see.

Different This Time?

The good news is that President Obama hasn't let the current economic situation make him lose sight of the imminent need for health care reforms. The question is whether he has the resolve and insight to push the most important ones through.

The health care forum kicked off by him on March 5 has generally been well received. News commentators and political pundits have contrasted the atmosphere of open discussion and hearing of all the interest groups with the behind-closed-doors formulation of the ill-fated 1993 Clinton plan. How well the new approach works depends partly on how the working group discussions have been structured, and whether all the ideas could be aired and properly debated.

In these open discussions there are hopefully safeguards to ensure that special interests can't through mutual compromises squelch good ideas that adversely affect them. For example, payers and patients stand to enormously benefit from an increased supply of doctors; a properly designed public health insurance plan that fairly competes with private plans; reform of tort laws including restrictions on jury shopping and imposition of malpractice caps; and using a cost-benefit criteria to evaluate drugs. But these measures can reduce excess earnings of doctors, private insurers, trial lawyers and the drug companies respectively. So they all decide to "respect" each other and downplay such proposals.

Another danger in open discussions is the advance warning and preemptive opportunities available to special interests and the lawmakers that they have influenced or bought. Five senior Republican senators have already affirmed their GOP group's opposition to the public option, declaring, "..forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition... Ultimately we would be left with a single government-run program controlling all of the market.”

Huh? If private plans are more efficient and / or offer something better than the government program then why should they be wiped out? I don't much doubt the prediction, since the experience in France and Germany indicates that about 80%-90% of the people will go for the basic government plan (though 90% of the French also buy supplemental private insurance.) It's because a properly administered government -run plan can deliver better value than private profit-seeking entities, but then that's a sound reason to change the system. Note the "properly administered" qualifier - Paul Krugman repeatedly points out the success story of the government run Veteran's Health Administration in the Clinton years. Then services deteriorated and scandals like at Walter Reed emerged in the subsequent Bush era.

On this issue of public programs it is a little disturbing to see Obama appearing less than resolute and making conciliatory noises at the outset. He says he understands the objections because "...if a public option is run through Washington and there are incentives to try to tamp down costs, (then) private insurance plans might end up feeling overwhelmed.” Why? A March 12 item by Reuters quotes conservative experts who assert it will be "almost impossible to create a level playing field (between a public and private insurers)" but give no reason to support this.

Still, there are two encouraging aspects that makes the present reform thrust much more likely to succeed than the 1993 effort (other than the over-hyped closed-door versus open-door contrast):
a) A sadder, wiser, more anxious public is less likely to be taken in by those Harry and Louise ads. And a more dire health care situation has made the push for reforms much stronger.
b) Obama has rightly focused on the very high costs of US health care as an even bigger issue than extending coverage to all the uninsured. That should force participants to come up with solutions for more efficient and cost-effective health care, instead of simply shoveling more taxpayer dollars to outrageously priced providers.

Major Reform Steps or Media Hype?

BusinessWeek in its Feb. 23 issue is carrying this big article titled "CVS's Bold Bet on Health-Care Reform." Tom Ryan, CEO of CVS, has built the drug store chain into a "national health-care colossus" with $76 billion in annual sales.

Ryan's goal is reported to be "to help transform America's expensive and often ineffective health-care system. Seeking to take advantage of President Barack Obama's commitment to health-care reform, Ryan wants to use CVS's vast prescription database and burgeoning network of in-store clinics to treat patients with chronic diseases and help keep them out of the hospital, where most medical costs are incurred. "I don't think our health-care system is broken," Ryan says. "We are just spending too much, and it's unproductive." " And so the article goes.

I am a little bothered whenever someone in the industry says that they don't think the healthcare system is broken. That seems to indicate that they want to tweak the existing system rather than go for an overhaul. Though CVS is reportedly setting out to "transform" healthcare it doesn't seem as if the two steps outlined will drastically lower costs or improve coverage.

These two steps in essence are a) to build their electronic health records (EHR) system so that patients are helped in continuing to take their prescribed medications thereby keeping in better health and averting some costly hospital visits, and b) to set up in-store clinics that are mainly run by nurse-practitioners so as to handle routine and minor health complaints without needing to go to a doctor or hospital.

Everyone is in agreement that EHRs should be promoted and CVS efforts tie in well with this objective (even if the jury is still out on whether CVS with its dedicated PBM Caremark helps consumers.) Then there are some questions about the viability and growth potential of in-store walk-in clinics, especially in view of the hostility of the AMA towards them. But we can hope that they flourish and expand so as to take some pressure off the demand for doctors' services that are in short supply.

These efforts are fine and laudable. All I'm saying is that news coverage and hype about them shouldn't obviate from the larger issues of universal coverage, malpractice (tort) reform, doctor shortages, reduction of administrative waste, and drug policy rationalization.

Acting Now On Health Reforms

The state of the US economy and the Congress' struggle to pass a fiscal stimulus package seems to have crowded out the Obama Administration's mind share on other vital initiatives.

So I was glad to see Paul Krugman drawing attention to this issue in his Jan 29 Times OpEd "Health Care Now." Krugman argues that (a) The economic crisis and resultant swelling of the ranks of the unemployed uninsured adds to the urgency of reforming the health care safety net; (b) The cost of healthcare reforms are far less than the fiscal stimulus package, and hence not "too expensive"; (c) many of the health and health reform expenditures will of themselves stimulate the economy and should be part of the stimulus package; and (d) the time to act and seize the moment is short and we shouldn't let the momentum built from the current "serious crisis go to waste."

I agree with Krugman on all these points. If anything I'd like Krugman (and the Obama administration) to expand advocacy of health care reforms from universal coverage, single payer system and drug purchase coverage to also include other important measures. These are, addressing the doctor shortage and ensuring increase in long and short term supply of health care workers; malpractice and tort reforms that will immensely ease overall health costs; and allowing more international trade in health care services (importing doctors and exporting patients) that improves services and lowers costs. All these measures carry huge benefits, but are opposed by some influential lobbies.

Still, the main point of Krugman's article shouldn't be lost sight of. Congress has struck its compromise on a $789B package. Sadly, some needed health expenditures have been cut out, but a separate health care focused bill can address this. Obama's administration should keep sweeping health care reforms on the front burner and act before the window of opportunity narrows.

Build Upon Or Rebuild Our Health System?

This article by Dr. Atul Gawande on healthcare policy in the Jan 26, 2009 edition of the The Yorker has created quite a buzz in the US. Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati drew my attention to it last week, as did my brother Viranjit and his friends through email exchanges. Atul (bio here) is remarkable in that he's a prominent cancer surgeon in Boston, as well as a celebrated writer and a Macarthur (or "Genius") award winner. His longish article (that you can read first to compare your impressions with the comments below) contains vivid analogies and knowledgeable references to developments far beyond medical matters.

Atul's main theme in "Getting There From Here" is that it's far better to build on (or modify) the healthcare system that we have, rather than create a new one from scratch. He argues that good European healthcare systems like those in France, Britain and Switzerland are different from each other and evolved from some existing structures. He also draws lessons from technology advancement in phone service to stay with the tried and the tested. He blames debacles like China's Mao-era Great Leap Forward, Rumsfeld's Iraq war strategy and Bush's prescription-drug plan for seniors on the mistake of introducing something completely new. He cites the Massachusett's universal coverage plan as an example of successful incremental reform.

I partly agree with Atul and have the following comments:

• Borrowing from hi-tech terminology we certainly need a proper and well thought out migration path to smoothly shift to an improved system.


• There can also be "path dependance" in the system we end up with, as Atul points out. Snopes reports on the widely circulated email about vital design features of our booster space rockets (claimed to be) "determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass."


• However, it doesn't follow that the final healthcare solution has to look anything like the inadequate and expensive mess that we have today. (How much do the space rockets resemble a horse's ass?) Talking practical policy, John Edwards at the beginning of the last primary season introduced healthcare reform proposals that addressed transition issues well. Hillary and Obama borrowed a lot of his ideas, and all three outlined sound migration plans.


• The major healthcare problems aren't confined to the people without coverage. Even "the hundreds of millions who depend on it" as Atul says of those who're insured incur criminally high costs. They at least indirectly pay for it through lower take-home pay (since employers look at the total cost of their employees), through higher taxes, and/or lack of international economic competitiveness. So a Massachusetts type plan that doesn't address costs is very inadequate.


• Atul does not offer solutions that address the high prices (double of those in Europe) of healthcare, and ways to reduce the scarcity of doctors.


• International trade (exporting patients and importing doctors) that Prof. Bhagwati and I have advocated isn't mentioned here. It can enormously help in savings and coverage while transitioning to the new system over say, a ten year period.


• The article has been selective in picking examples and laying out facts where others can lead to different conclusions. Some takeaways (as from the problems with the prescription drug plan) seem to be fallacious. See quoted text below.

I'll close by reproducing a detailed note from my brother Viranjit's friend Jonathan that's interesting and seems to make a lot of sense.

COMMENTS ON ATUL'S ARTICLE BY JONATHAN STARR:

My reactions to the article are mixed. Some things that I think are done well are:
1) It gives an interesting and helpful presentation of some of the history of a few (but just a few) existing national healthcare systems.
2) It nicely introduces the concept of "path-dependence" in the development of present systems of various types.
3) It gives some evidence that in some ways the Massachusetts statewide coverage program might be working well. (If so, then it is the first of several such state-based attempts to succeed, or even survive, in a meaningful way. The others have failed to expand coverage on a sustained basis, and have become so expensive as to become politically unsustainable. I had previously read that the Massachusetts program was becoming financially untenable as well, but perhaps I should look into this further.)

Some things that I think are poorly done, or are very misleading, in the article:

1) The author is extremely selective, for failure, in his choice of large-scale, centrally-planned systems to describe. Instead, he might have described the Taiwan health-care experience. Here, government health-planners chose specifically to overhaul the entire existing system, studied various other national healthcare systems (and pointedly rejected the U.S. model), created a comprehensive new plan, and implemented the plan nationwide. The implementation went smoothly and the results are very good and popular. Closer to home, the national introduction of the U.S. Medicare system in 1965 also went very smoothly, even in the absence of modern information technology and other present advantages. And, as the author of this article notes himself, the Medicare program is extremely popular with beneficiaries and with medical personnel.
2) The choice of the recent introduction of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit as a cautionary example of ineffectiveness of central planning is very misdirected. The difficulties in the introduction and administration of that program were and are direct consequences of the success of the Bush Administration (and its associated insurance and drug industry lobbyists and Congressional fellow-travelers) in PREVENTING centralization of this program. Had this benefit simply been incorporated into the existing Medicare program, it could have gone very smoothly. But instead, Bush and company wanted to assure that private insurers got the most financial benefit out it, and that the pharmaceutical companies would not face a purchaser with large negotiating leverage. Consequently, they consciously pushed for and implemented the decentralized, disjointed, and confusing system that we got. (Furthermore, they introduced no new funding source, other than more federal borrowing, to pay for this new benefit.) So, this example should serve as support in favor of a more centralized approach, not as an example against it.
3) The author admits that present public programs are more successful than private insurance at improving quality of care. (The paper by Professor Hacker at Berkeley, which I have mentioned in previous emails, documents this as well.) The author also admits that the Massachusetts program does not control costs well, and he does not make any other meaningful suggestion for controlling costs through any other "path-dependent" evolutionary program. Meanwhile, Medicare has been shown to limit administrative overhead and to contain costs better than private insurance (see again the Hacker paper).

The author, Atul Gawande, clearly is well-intentioned and concerned about assuring quality medical care for all. In this, he is joined by other high-minded medical professionals (including Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the new administration's Chief of Staff) who have written sincere and thoughtful articles and books recommending methods to improve care and expand coverage without resorting to a single-payer system. But, while they often have very good suggestions for improving care (some of which are being actively pursued by the Daschle team), their ideas often seem extremely weak, naive, and poorly-examined on the financing side. (I plan to write a new little review of some of these publications to share with the single-payer-advocacy crowd, among others, and will share it with you.)

The various "middle-ground" and public-private-hybrid approaches that have been proposed might nominally (or just theoretically) make some level of healthcare insurance available to most or all, but they retain many of the problems of the present system: high administrative and insurance-company overhead costs, care-denial by profit-minded insurance companies, deflection of care-provider efforts and time to dealing with insurance-related matters, poor payer-based impact on care-quality improvements, anti-competitive burdens on American businesses, etc.

Medicare for All would expand an existing and popular program to cover everyone. The administrative structure is already in place. There would be enormous cost-savings from reducing administrative costs, eliminating insurance industry salaries and profits, increasing consumer negotiating leverage on fees and prices, and even from improving the identification and dissemination of information on the most effective approaches to care of particular conditions. The potential for improving health-care outcomes is enormous, and documentable from existing experience. Employers would be spared the financial and administrative burdens of providing healthcare insurance to employees (while simultaneously paying taxes to support existing public programs). Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals could spend more time providing care and less time battling (often futilely) with innumerable insurance companies, and would be paid more predictably and reliably as well. Choice of medical-care providers would be maintained, and even increased compared to a lot of private programs which limit such choices to participating providers. And, supplemental insurance plans still could be offered privately (just as they already are now) to cover things not covered by Medicare.

Leadership is the key, just as it was when LBJ got Medicare (and numerous other publicly-beneficial programs) approved, and just as it was (to contrary effect) when George W. got his badly-conceived prescription-drug benefit (and even more badly-conceived tax-cuts for the wealthy) approved. What impact will our present leadership choose to have?