Posts Tagged ‘Harvard’

10 Percent of America’s Veterans Have No Healthcare Coverage

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

Ten percent of the nation’s 12.5 million non-elderly veterans do not have health insurance coverage or use Veterans Administration (VA) health care according to the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS).  The Urban Institute report, which was released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is the first to provide estimates of a lack of insurance among veterans and their families both nationally and at the state level, and to assess the potential for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) to reduce these rates.  Veterans are less likely be uninsured than the overall population.  Uninsured veterans and their families report significantly less access to healthcare than their counterparts with insurance coverage.  Forty-one percent of veterans who lack healthcare coverage have untreated medical needs, while nearly 34 percent have put off getting care because of the expense.

The ACA’s coverage provisions have the potential to increase coverage among the U.S. population, including uninsured veterans.  An estimated 50 percent of veterans who currently do not have insurance would qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage; another 40 percent have the potential to receive subsidized coverage through health insurance exchanges if they lack access to affordable employer coverage.  Not surprisingly states that have made minimal progress in setting up health insurance exchanges have the most uninsured veterans — nearly 40 percent.  Success in bringing coverage to uninsured veterans will depend primarily on aggressive ACA implementation and enrollment efforts.

The Veterans Administration (VA) –  with more than 1,400 hospitals nationally and nearly 15,000 physicians – covers the majority of veterans, although not all: Eligibility is determined by income, injuries sustained in combat and length of service.  Because of the eligibility requirements, 1.3 million veterans and 0.9 million family members have no healthcare coverage.

Uninsured veterans typically are younger than those with coverage and less likely to have been injured in combat.  Uninsured veterans tend to have higher unemployment rates, less income and usually are not married — all of which reduce the odds of having private coverage.  “Their lower likelihood of being full-time workers and being married likely contribute to their lack of coverage, as these attributes are characterized by lower access to employer-sponsored health insurance,” according to the Urban Institute study.

Writing for the Non-Profit Quarterly, Rick Cohen notes that “Among the states with the worst rates of uninsured veterans, Louisiana, Oregon, and Idaho all top 14 percent, and Montana comes in at a woeful 17.3 percent.  This past weekend, the streets of Washington, D.C. were occupied by participants in the Rolling Thunder demonstration, the annual Memorial Day gathering of veterans (and non-veterans) on motorcycles focused on calling the nation’s attention to the POW/MIA issue.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report would suggest that, in the U.S., there is an abundance of veterans and their families who are being treated as if MIA when it comes to health insurance.”

According to Dr. Jonathan D. Walker, assistant clinical professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Fort Wayne,  “A Harvard study estimated that more than 2,200 veterans died in 2008 due to lack of insurance.  You may have thought that veterans can automatically be treated at a veterans’ hospital, but this is not the case.  Uninsured veterans face a “means test” based on their income.  The test determines their priority level for care and how much they have to pay.  And if the system doesn’t have enough money, it can stop enrolling veterans if they fail the means test – as happened from 2003 to 2009.  But even if the VA were able to fully cover every veteran, it would still leave a lot of veterans without care because they do not live near a VA hospital.  And even if they live near a hospital, they still may need to drive far away to get services that aren’t available locally.  There are laws that make it illegal for an insurance company to force patients to drive an excessive distance to stay in their network, yet we think nothing of making veterans drive long distances simply to get the care to which they are entitled.”

Public Perceives Supreme Court Justices As Biased Over ACA’s Legality

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Approximately 60 percent of Americans believe that the Supreme Court justices who will hear the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will base their judgments more on personal ideology than a legal analysis of the individual mandate, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

Only 28 percent believe the justices will base their decision on the mandate without regard to politics and ideology.  The poll also asked about general views of the Supreme Court and found that 75 percent of the public believe that justices sometimes let their personal politics sway their decisions.  Seventeen percent said justices more often than not decide cases based on legal analysis.  The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March in a case brought against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) by 26 states.

The Kaiser poll found that the individual mandate, a requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, remains unpopular — 67 percent of Americans opposed the provision and just 30 percent supported it.  Overall, approximately 37 percent of Americans view the health law favorably, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view.

In terms of the “repeal and replace” agenda that House Republicans are pursuing, it’s not really winning over the public.  According to the Kaiser poll, 50 percent of respondents would prefer to expand the law or keep it in place; just 40 percent want to repeal it outright or replace it with an alternative.  That could be a problem, since House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts said that a “replace” plan is on the subcommittee’s to-do list, at approximately the same time that the Supreme Court is expected to rule.  Pitts hopes that his caucus will be able to seize the opportunity to sway public opinion: “We’ll have a window of opportunity to — with everyone looking — to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet.  A lot of people think it is.  So we’ll use that opportunity in that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act and what we’ll replace it with.”

For example, Justice Elena Kagan (who was Solicitor General at the time the ACA was passed and has recused herself from the Supreme Court case) and noted Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who worked for the Justice Department at the time, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending healthcare vote.  “I hear they have the votes, Larry!!  Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote to Tribe in an email.

“So healthcare is basically done!” Tribe responded to Kagan.  “Remarkable.  And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!”  The “Stupak group” refers to then-Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), who masterminded a group of House Democrats who had indicated they would not vote for the ACA if it permitted federal funds to pay for abortions.  Ultimately, Stupak and his allies voted for the bill, even though no additional language was added that would prevent federal funding for abortions.

Writing for KSL.com, contributor Curt Mainwaring muses on what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the ACA. “If the Supreme Court rules that ACA is constitutional, healthcare costs will likely continue to rise — although at a slower rate than if the law were determined to be unconstitutional.  Healthcare costs currently make up approximately 18 percent of gross domestic product.  If expenditures continue on their current trajectory, ‘the share of GDP devoted to healthcare in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040.’  In more intimate terms, the Department of Health and Human Services demonstrates individuals paid approximately $1,000 per year in healthcare costs in 1960, more than $7,000 per year in 2007, and are projected to pay more than $13,000 per year by 2018.

“Simply put, this kind of a rise in healthcare costs is unsustainable — and these kinds of projections are part of the reason ACA was created in the first place.  Nevertheless, claims of ACA’s positive impact on the economy have likely been overestimated.  ACA focuses heavily on reducing the cost of health insurance — a factor that will likely result in reduced insurance costs.”

Polls: Most Americans Oppose Changes to Medicare

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

Americans have mixed feelings about what changes should be made to the popular Medicare program. Although 53 percent say the program needs fundamental changes, 58 percent say it is working fine the way it is.  Americans were asked to decide which of three statements is closest to their viewpoints: “Medicare works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better”; “There are some good things about Medicare, but fundamental changes are needed”; or “Medicare has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it.”

Twenty-seven percent – including 36 percent of Democrats – believe that only minor changes are needed.  Another 13 percent said the program needs to be completely rebuilt.  Fully 53 percent said Medicare needs fundamental changes — even though the program has many good points.  People who want basic changes include a majority of Republicans and independents, though just 43 percent of Democrats support the plan.  A majority of Americans between ages 18 and 64 want significant changes.  Just 37 percent of those 65 and older agree.

Additionally, respondents were asked if they wanted to see Medicare “continue the way it is set up now, as a program that pays the doctors and hospitals that treat senior citizens” or “if they think it should be transformed into “a program that gives senior citizens payments towards the purchase of private insurance.”  Democrats want to retain Medicare in its present form; Republicans want to transform it into a voucher system in which seniors choose their coverage and are given money to cover their insurance premiums.

So strongly does the Senate Democratic leadership feel,  they have reaffirmed that Medicare cuts should not be on the table during the debt ceiling discussions.  “Seniors can’t afford it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said.  “The vast majority of the American people, including most Republicans, do not support changing Medicare as we know it, as articulated in that piece of legislation that came from the House.  That” piece of legislation is the Paul Ryan (R-WI) plan, “The Path to Prosperity”, which slashes the budget deficit by about $5 trillion over the next decade.

Ryan’s plan would overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and proposes major reforms to Medicaid and Medicare.  Medicaid would become a block grant system; the federal government would allocate money to states, giving them greater flexibility to shape their healthcare programs that serve the poor.  Currently, the government matches every dollar that states spend on Medicaid; the formula varies from state to state.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said Democrats will not accept a “mini” Ryan plan.  “The Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it must be taken off the table, but Republicans should know that we will not support any mini version plan of ‘Ryan’ either,” Schumer said.  “We want to make our position on Medicare perfectly clear.  No matter what we do in these debt-limit talks, we must preserve the program in its current form, and we will not allow cuts to seniors’ benefits.“

Slashing Medicare will be a major issue in the 2012 election. According to Harvard political scientist and pollster Robert Blendon, “Older Americans tend to vote at much higher rates than other voters,” he said.  “They are the group that most care about healthcare as a voting issue.”

“Medicare for us is a pillar of health and economic security for our seniors,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is the House Minority Leader.  “It’s an ethic, it’s a value…and we intend to fight for it.  Pelosi is well aware that there is a problem with Medicare and acknowledges that the program is not financially sound enough to support the retirement of 78 million baby boomers who are joining the program.  Additionally, she knows that Medicare costs strongly impact the nation’s debt and deficit problem.  Additionally, she says that she prefers not to use Medicare as a weapon against Republicans.  “Would you rather have success with the issue, or would you rather have a fight in the election?  Of course you’d rather have success,” she said.  “That’s what you came here to do.  That’s what’s important to the well-being of the American people.”

Another recent poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center found that older Americans do not have a favorable opinion about privatizing Medicare.  Fifty-one percent of people aged 50 and over oppose the plan, while just 29 percent support it.  Even among Republicans, more respondents oppose the plan than support it.  The changes are designed to save the program’s finances by trimming government benefits for all Americans under the age of 55.  Medicare says it will run out of funds to pay full benefits by 2024.  One person polled is Michael A. Smith, a 54-year-old lifelong Republican who is currently unemployed and lives in the Philadelphia suburbs.  “A community like this, they want jobs and no changes in the funds they’ve paid into all their lives,” Smith said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that Ryan’s plan would not allow insurers to charge sick people more than healthy ones. Insurance companies would set premiums at the same level for everyone of the same age.  Although Ryan’s plan would leave Medicare intact for anyone now 55 or older, Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, CA, said older voters have a hard time believing that.  “Anytime you say, `But this doesn’t affect current senior citizens,’ they think it’s going to affect them,” he said.  “Seniors are very, very sophisticated when it comes to these programs.  They figure any change could have a loophole or an exception or a provision that could end up hurting them after all.  They’re very zealous about safeguarding the programs from which they benefit.”

Medical Residents Need Enhanced Training, Shorter Work Hours

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

Medical residents should receive expanded training as part of an effort to make America’s healthcare more effective.  Dr. Jay Crosson, senior medical director of the Permanente Foundation at Kaiser Permanente, who served on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, announced the initiative.  According to Crosson, medical residents will now receive additional training in office-based care competencies, care coordination, continuity of care; leadership and management skills; providing analysis by identifying needs and priorities; increasing the number of primary-care providers; investing in top-quality training; and placing physicians in under-served areas.  “Which of these can we expect from residency programs, and what is naturally on-the-job training?” Crosson asked.

The advanced training could be funded in part by $320 million in grants authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said “Investing in our primary-care workforce will strengthen the role that wellness and prevention play in our healthcare system.  With these grants, Americans from all backgrounds will have new opportunities to enter the healthcare workforce.”  Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D, R.N. and administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) says “These grants will provide much-needed support for increasing primary-care capacity by expanding training programs for primary-care providers, vital to our future healthcare workforce.”

In another move that will impact their training, medical residents now work slightly shorter shifts and have tighter supervision in a bid to improve quality. According to Kaiser Health News, “The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s (ACGME) board of directors approved new rules for more than 110,000 new physicians being trained at American hospitals.  The goal is to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors caused by junior doctors working extremely long hours.”  Doctors in their first year of residency will be limited to 16 consecutive hours of work with “strategic napping.  The maximum shift length remains 24 hours for residents in their second year of training and beyond.  Also, medical residents are to tell patients they’re being supervised by more experienced physicians, and the hierarchy should be spelled out to patients,” according to the revised rules.

“My body is not made to work 30 hours or more,” said Dan Henderson, a third-year medical student at the University of Connecticut. “If I’m truly going to do no harm as I pledged, I need a system to protect patients against errors caused by my fatigue.”

“Resident physicians working 30-hour shifts make 36 percent more medical errors caring for women in the intensive care unit…including 460 percent more serious diagnostic mistakes than those scheduled to work for 16 hours,” said Chuck Czeisler, M.D., of Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.  “They are also 73 percent more likely to stab themselves with a scalpel or needle.”

Americans Are Not Getting Healthcare During Hard Times

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Americans cutting back on healthcare during the recession.  During difficult economic times, Americans are less likely to seek out healthcare than people who live in countries with government-funded systems.  A research team from Dartmouth College, Princeton and Harvard found that Americans cut back on everyday healthcare by 26.5 percent because they had been laid off or lost money on investments.  This represents a far larger percentage than seen with Canadian, British, German and French citizens.

Citizens in Great Britain and Canada went to the doctor less often by 5.6 percent and 7.6 percent.  The French and Germans cut their doctor visits by 12 percent and 10.3 percent.  According to the researchers, “We find strong evidence that the economic crisis – manifested in job and wealth losses – has led to reductions in the use of routine medical care.”