EXPECTING THE UNEXPECTED: PLANNING FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF DIVORCE, DIABILITY, OR DEATH CAN SAVE A PRACTICE IN THE LONG RUN

Republished from Medical Economics, January 25, 2011 MedicalEconomics.com
Link:

Planning for the Possibility of Divorce, Disability, or Death can Save a Practice in the Long Run

The Organization Needs to Consider Human Frailty, Behavior, and the Realities of Practice Life

Divorce adds complications
Divorce presents a particularly difficult problem for the practice, because by nature it creates an adversarial relationship between the divorcing couple and the practice. The spouse of the physician-owner, through an attorney, is determined to be sure that his or her share of the practice, real estate, retirement fund, and other ancillaries are appropriately valued, whereas the practice and the physician owner are trying to ensure that overvaluation models do not come into play.

READ FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING TITLE ABOVE

Reprinted From The Hill; September 29, 2010

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/121575-medicine-at-a-crossroads

Medicine at a Cross Roads

By

Larry N. Smith, M.D., F.A.C.S.

The battle-lines have formed and skirmishes are breaking out as doctors across the nation, particularly in Florida, struggle to regain relevance in today’s healthcare environment. Prior to passage of President Obama’s massive healthcare system overhaul, polls across America revealed that a large majority of non-medical voters and an even larger majority of doctors disapproved of the extent of the proposed legislation. Disregarding the majority’s wants, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The bill was supported, but not totally endorsed, by the American Medical Association (AMA). This support has created tension between the Florida Medical Association (FMA) and the AMA.

The AMA found itself in a difficult position at the start of the reform debate. It had fought and won many political battles to prevent partial or complete national healthcare models from being instituted. From President Franklin Roosevelt on, the AMA had been able to negotiate effectively for its membership while still maintaining its core mission of improving healthcare for Americans. During this most recent debate, the AMA found itself in a disadvantaged position. Having seen a sister medical organization completely excluded from the negotiations for taking a hard stand against this reform package, the AMA leadership realized that it had to be “at the table.” The leadership worked towards meaningful input into the legislation despite the competitive, complicated, and multi-interested nature of the negotiations.

 The AMA’s participation allowed it to negotiate against an experienced group of reform advocates including Rahm Emanuel and Nancy-Ann Min DeParle — both Clinton-era healthcare veterans. In addition, both houses of Congress were in the grips of reform-minded Democrats with little sympathy for doctors. As news of each major reform was released, doctors and state medical societies vociferously resisted the changes. The laws would forever alter the practice and even content of medicine. It was then that AMA membership levels began dropping, and doctors’ outcries of no confidence began.

Many doctors believe that the AMA was giving up doctors’ rights to independent medical practice for cosmetic gains. Doctors were banned from owning hospitals or other healthcare facilities, which is exactly what they had historically done: the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and the Ochsner Clinic are three prime examples. In addition, doctors were being forced into “Accountable Healthcare Organizations,” meaning they would become paid employees. The SGR formula was not fixed, so doctors still face a substantial 21 to 35 percent fee reduction in the next several months. More cuts will follow in order to meet budget projections, as noted on page fourteen of the Congressional Budget Office report to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Even though the AMA was successful in preventing the newly established Comparative Effectiveness Committee’s findings from being used to dictate practice decisions, deny treatments, or set payments, the committee still establishes the effectiveness of treatments. It is hard to imagine that this data will not be drawn upon to make policy.

From within this assault on medicine, dissatisfaction with the AMA’s ability to represent Florida physicians grew, and the Florida Medical Association met to discuss the AMA’s actions. The odium towards the AMA was only inflamed when the leadership gave support to Obama’s pick to lead CMS — Dr. Donald Berwick. His beliefs about redistribution, socialist healthcare delivery systems, and healthcare rationing are well documented. During the FMA’s Orlando meeting, Jeff Goldsmith, a PhD from the University of Virginia and a recognized expert on healthcare legislation, validated every fear that organized medicine had about the bill. Medicine in the future will be delivered by large multi-specialty hospitals, with capitated coverage and risk-sharing systems; doctors will be employed by these systems, many in shift work. This change has already started, as noted by a survey taken at a FMA meeting revealing only 30 percent of doctors are still in solo private practice. Private medical and academic practitioners are concerned about their future as independent professionals.

At the meeting, civil and sometimes stinging arguments for and against secession from the AMA were debated. Ultimately in a 52% to 48% vote, the decision to put the AMA on notice and remain a collective body passed. The members of Congress have long recognized the AMA as the single most important voice for medicine, invariably asking the AMA’s position on any issue. The FMA and the 49 other state medical societies know that without a single voice the opposition to the free practice of medicine will be empowered. The AMA tried and succeeded in this round of reform to preserve some sanctity to the doctor-patient relationship by keeping the government from coming completely between it, but future changes could still undo this relationship. Granted there are marked regional variations in doctors’ vision of healthcare reform. Understanding this, the FMA House of Delegates came to the right decision to sanction but not secede from the AMA. Without a single respected and experienced voice at future negotiations, no administration is going to listen to the blather of dozens of separate organizations. The AMA accomplished much in this reform battle but the war is not over, since so many believe only a single-payer national healthcare system is the answer. If for nothing but the sake of America’s constitutional liberties and the freedom to practice as one chooses, this must be prevented and it is the voice of the AMA that will lead that fight. But it has been placed on notice and may find itself alone if it continues to lose the big battles in this war.

Dr. Smith is a historical novelist and has written extensively on medical economics. He is an adjunct faculty member at Santa Fe College, a Fellow in the American College of Surgeons, and delegate to the FMA House of Delegates

www.darwinswar.com

Reproduced with permission of the Journal of the Tennessee Medical Association 

To accommodate the coming baby boomers and their healthcare needs, CON programs need to be eliminated so more facilities can be opened to compete against the controlling dinosaurs of healthcare.

 Commentary 

Certificate of Need Programs: Inflationary and Anti-Competitive for Healthcare

By Larry N. Smith, MD, FACS

Controlling healthcare costs and improving access to healthcare have been problems for decades, at least since the federal government decided to enter the business of healthcare delivery in 1965 with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. Despite the government’s best intentions, I believe it has failed in both programs. Today, increasing healthcare inflation and perceived lack of access are still affecting many Americans. Cost and access are hot topics for politicians. Physicians have significant opportunities to help control costs and improve access, but state governments limit many of these opportunities.

As I see it, the one government program that has done the most detriment to healthcare is the Certificate of Need program (CON), which requires any organization or person seeking to build hospitals or expand healthcare services to first have state approval for the facility. In theory, CON would control the utilization of health care by limiting the number of patients who could be cared for at any one time. This centralized government model of controlled healthcare access was designed to control access and thereby, the politicians believed, cost. The contrary occurred. In effect, the program aided the uncontrolled rise in healthcare costs, destroyed effective hospital competition, and limited access of the poor to healthcare.

CON programs started in New York in 1964 and spread to 25 states by 1974. Believing the program could control utilization of healthcare resources, the federal government passed the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act in 1974. Supported by American Hospital Association lobbyists, the act required all states to have a CON program in place by 1980. After 1986 the federal government realized that by mandating CON nationwide it had put a stranglehold on competition. The hospitals controlled access to nearly every new technology and thereby, the patients who wanted the newest and best treatment choices. An East Carolina University study reported, “The states most likely to enact CON … were those with a highly concentrated hospital industry and increasing competitive pressures.”¹ Communities with large not-for-profit or for-profit hospitals controlled their referral base with an iron hand. Despite evidence of the need for healthcare, doctors could not build facilities to admit, diagnose and treat patients. After reaching a peak of 50 states with CON programs in the early 1980s, the number dropped to 37 by 2006.

 CON gives existing service providers, especially large hospitals, a stranglehold on the market. Existing competitors can object to CON applications and force prospective competitors through a protracted and expensive legal battle to obtain the CON. For example, the Washington State Hospital Association position in 2006 demanded CON for ambulatory surgery centers, which are clearly more cost-effective than hospitals, and outpatient-imaging centers. They also required no dollar thresholds for reviewability, meaning the cost of a new facility had no dollar limit under which it could escape the CON review. In essence, CON effectively cuts off  any competitive challenges to the hospitals.² In 1999, the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) reviewed this control mechanism, finding that the legislative goals for the CON program had not been met; the JLARC found CON did not reduce cost, improve quality or increase access. This assessment was supported by findings of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice.³

Other states have come to similar conclusions. Kentucky had already concluded the CON program did not control costs and was a barrier to competition, noting that better quality and access could be enforced through licensure requirements.⁴ Alaska faced a comparable situation. The May 26, 2007 edition of The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported how Banner Health Systems had limited competition by requiring an outpatient-imaging center to close its doors because it did not have a CON.⁵ Further, CON programs have come under continued calls for repeal, as evidenced by the Commission on Rationalizing New Jersey’s Health Care Resources report in January 2007. Its report acknowledged that CON had not met any of its designed goals of cost containment, increased access or improved quality.⁶ Similarly, a 1995 Florida Law Review article by Patrick John McGinley argued strongly in favor of repealing the obviously anti-competitive state-government practice of CON requirements. The U.S. Congress took up legislation to repeal CON, but the bill died long before seeing the floor for a vote.⁷

Georgia has had a similar situation, where the American College of Surgeons found the state’s medical competition is restricted by its CON program. There, general surgeons are restricted from developing more-cost-effective healthcare models to compete against the larger, more-expensive models.  After years of expensive legal battles supported by the Federal Trade Commission’s recommendation that CON be eliminated, the surgeons eventually won their battle to build cheaper ambulatory surgery centers. This lack of competition is costing insurance companies more, but also allowing hospitals to control the number of facilities that can provide care. I feel this evidence shows that if Georgia – and America – were to allow more healthcare providers to enter the marketplace, costs would come down until a competitive balance was reached.¹¹

The elimination of CON programs can increase competition. For example, take the expansion of heart-care services in Pennsylvania in 1996 after CON was repealed. There was no documented increase in coronary bypass surgeries in spite of a 25 percent increase in availability of services; mortality rates were unchanged. For years before, the large Allegheny Hospital System of Pittsburgh had expanded at will and taken advantage of the state-mandated CON monopoly. But after years of no competition, Allegheny suffered a significant loss of market share with the repeal of CON and in 1998, filed the largest not-for-profit bankruptcy in U.S. history, at $1.3 billion. Never forced to actually compete to provide healthcare services, Allegheny was bloated, complacent and overconfident. Competition quickly exposed the hospital’s weaknesses and cut out the fat, as it should have.⁸ Without open and fair competition in the healthcare sector, centralized  mentalities of market control prevailed.

To accommodate the coming baby boomers and their healthcare needs, CON programs need to be eliminated so more facilities can be opened to compete against the controlling dinosaurs of healthcare. Even with this expanded competition, demand will still climb as the baby boomers age, but this situation will also offer a great opportunity for insurers and Medicare to negotiate better prices. Then, as the boomers pass on, the market will contract significantly. A flexible, competitive model of healthcare – not a monopoly – will best suit this market fluctuation. As stated in a July 2004 Department of Justice report, “The Agencies believe that CON programs can pose serious competitive concerns that generally outweigh CON programs’ purported economic benefits. Where CON Programs are intended to control health care costs, there is considerable evidence that they can actually drive up prices by fostering anticompetitive barriers to entry.” Monopolies are the antithesis to the American republic’s principles; just review the history of America’s oil and communication industries.^{1, 9}           

In the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy the free market is adept at exposing, the government sowed the seeds of future competitive problems when it formed Medicare. The program’s early reimbursement models and its lucrative capital-formation efforts encouraged hospitals to grow quickly. Also a cause was Medicare’s practice of calculating depreciation on the basis of current replacement cost instead of historical cost. Despite the government’s desire to control costs, it failed to remember that competition in open markets lowers prices.

Similar to Medicare in its distorting effects on the market, CON programs have stifled competition and should be abolished. This move will open the sector and allow for competition that will lower prices. Then the government can allow Medicare and Medicaid administrators to negotiate individual agreements by pitting multiple providers against one another within a given community. By closing competition instead of expanding it, the bureaucrats have guaranteed inflation and limited access and built anti-competitive monopolies. This denial of access to open market competition will only be made worse if the government’s HR 3200 healthcare reform bill is passed. Language within the bill further restricts physicians from ownership of healthcare facilities. This language defies the very findings of the Department of Justice’s report on CON programs. How is it that physicians who are trained to provide healthcare are now being restricted in the way they can provide it? In this author’s opinion, it appears that the current Washington politicos are more interested in advancing a political agenda than in providing open, competitive, and cost effective healthcare.  

In my opinion, business leaders, physicians and believers in the effectiveness of free-market principles need to campaign against any existing state-mandated CON program. By eliminating the CON and any future government restriction of physician participation in the free market, surgeons – indeed, all physicians – will have the opportunity to compete and offer cost-effective, quality alternatives to patients. As Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those willing to give up liberties for security deserve neither.” Similarly, those willing to give up liberties for healthcare will have neither.            

Dr. Smith is a retired facial plastic reconstructive surgeon who now writes about medicine and science’s role in history, America’s uninsured, and the progressive move toward medical socialism.

            References:

1. Cordato J: Certificate-of-Need Laws: It’s Time For Repeal. John Locke Foundation; Nathaniel Macon Research Series, No. 1, Oct 2005.
2. Washington State Hospital Association: Bulletin Details, Jun 5, 2006. Available at  http://www.wsha.org/page.cfm?ID=bulletinDetails&EID=626.
3. Barnes J: Failure of Government Central Planning: Washington’s Medical Certificate of Need Program. Washington Policy Center; Policy Brief, Jan 2006. Available at http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Healthcare/PBBARNESCON.htm.
4. Kavanagh KT: Perspective: Promoting Health Care Transparency and Competition: Certificate of Need Unneeded. Health Watch USA, 2006-8.
5. Friedenauer M: Radiologist says certificate of need is in violation of physicians’ rights.  Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, May 26, 2007. Available at  http://www.adn.com/money/story/892891p-8829134c.html.
6. Sagness J: Certificate of Need Laws: Analysis and Recommendations for the Commission on Rationalizing New Jersey’s Health Care Resources. WWS 597, Jan 12, 2007.
7. McGinley PJ: Beyond Healthcare Reform: Reconsidering Certificate of Need Laws in a Managed Competition System. Fla St Univ Law Rev, 1995.
8. Robinson JL, Nash DB, Moxey E, O’Conner J: Certificate of Need and the Quality of Cardiac Surgery. Annual Meet, Int. Soc Technol Assess Health Care 17:abstract no. 206; 2001. Available at http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102274538.html.
9. Improving Healthcare: A Dose of Competition; A report by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. Jul 2004. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/healthcare/040723healthcarerpt.pdf.
10. 10.  Sutton JH: Health Care Competition in Georgia: Still Restricted for General Surgeons. Bulletin: Am Coll Surg 91(11): 23-25, Nov 2006.

Reprinted from Friday August 28, 2009 Washington Times Op-Ed Page 

Private Alternatives:

Tax System can Foster Real Change

Coverage, Cost and Control: Rational Healthcare Reform and Understanding

By

Larry N. Smith, M.D. and Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D.

            As the healthcare reform debate heats up, the true costs and the complexity of the issue are finally coming to the surface. Sticker shock has moderated many proponents of reform, but for many the attitude nevertheless seems to be “damn the tax increases, full speed ahead into some reform.” It is important to keep in mind, though, that the costs of reform will come in more than money. In the push to nationalize healthcare, it will be liberty that is truly the sacrificial lamb, as pointed out at the June 17, 2009 CATO Institute Healthcare Reform Symposia. The reality is that the current healthcare system can expand coverage, lower costs and allow for the patient and the doctor to maintain the constitutional freedoms that we all enjoy, without changing the coverage of the 85 percent of Americans who now have healthcare access.

            Expanding coverage to the 47 million uninsured Americans can be accomplished through simple accounting and tax code changes. These changes would allow doctors to deduct the uncompensated healthcare they provide from their year-end taxable earnings. Physicians are already providing uncompensated coverage all across America, and in Florida, doctors and hospitals provide free care through the We Care Program, specifically for the uninsured. The doctor would deduct the dollar amount of care that is representative for that level and quantity of service, based on the dominant regional payer’s reimbursement for such care. In effect, this change elevates the uninsured patient to a fully insured status, and costs the IRS a small incremental decrease in tax revenue. Plus, the physician and hospitals are rewarded for providing a valuable aggregate social service and these 47 million get comprehensive care. Of course, physicians are mandated by law to provide care through the hospital emergency room already, but generally they do not collect for these services, although they’re still a target of litigation for such services. This simple change in code would mitigate these issues, and it would also help patients who, because of illness, lose their jobs and are in fear of bankruptcy. By allowing the healthcare provider to deduct the ongoing uncompensated costs, the patient’s care is not interrupted and physicians can continue to meet their moral obligations, which the vast majority already do without compensation.  

While the fundamental healthcare model is workable, that does not mean that it does not have room to improve, especially on the cost side of the equation. One issue is the geographic difference in costs for the same risk-adjusted medical condition without better outcomes, as noted in a Dartmouth study. This problem must be addressed and mitigated. With the tax changes noted above, costs can be mitigated since disproportionate share payments to hospitals could be decreased, because the hospitals would receive tax benefits for providing uncompensated care. This change would save the states tax revenue, which can be used elsewhere. Moreover, the hidden cost of the uninsured is eliminated, as there is no need to pass on these costs in the form of higher fees for everyone else. Costs can also be controlled by the government supporting, but not designing, local, regional and national practice guidelines. Once adopted by specialty societies and followed by physicians, these guidelines would insulate the physician from frivolous litigation but also control for regional cost differences. As these care-standards come online, cost comparisons can be undertaken to determine the true balance between quality and cost effectiveness, with the understanding that the cheapest treatment may not always be the best. Third, local healthcare systems need to be allowed to coordinate care into integrated systems free of Federal anti-trust laws, which currently prevent the open exchange of charges and practice data. The patient is the ultimate beneficiary of such changes, since transparency for costs and outcomes can be made available through integrated community networks. Some doctors may stay in private practice, while others may choose to merge into single or multi-specialist groups, but the goal would be for them to be linked electronically with systems designed and integrated by healthcare providers. With these changes, Regina Herzlinger’s and Alain Enthoven’s visions of patient-directed healthcare within a system that is integrated, transparent and conscious of the quality-to-cost balance would be achieved. There may be from one to twenty such competing systems within a community, but quality and price competition will drive the market. Rural physicians and hospitals may receive incentives to participate in several networks, depending upon their areas of proven excellence. In the end, the patient benefits. This is not to say that government assistance would not be needed, but it should be temporary, focused and supportive.

            Much is made of the cost of American healthcare, which represents 17 percent of the GDP. However, no one discusses the fact that medicine only produces healthy workers who are returned to the workforce – a valuable service to the economy but difficult to assign an economic value to. A healthy worker who contributes to the GDP has an innate economic value. Similarly, the economic value that medicine contributes to the GDP by supporting General Electric, Johnson and Johnson, Eli Lilly and those in other healthcare-related industries is not calculated. These two values should be subtracted from this 17 percent of GDP to account for the positive impact that medicine has. As an end-stage consumer and provider of healthcare, medicine‘s contribution to the economy is often overlooked since it produces nothing to sell.

Within these changes, healthcare could be maintained within a market based system among patients, doctors, hospitals and private insurers. If the government is allowed to provide a public healthcare option, then the option will become the dominant single-payer insurance product, as so clearly outlined by David Hyman. Such a move could denigrate the personal choices Americans currently have, while running all other insurance companies out of business. Costs would be controlled by lowering reimbursements to providers by using the Medicare fee schedule – plus 5% to 10% – as an index for payment. One need only study the national healthcare systems around the world to know that a public option could mean long lines, limited access to technology and lower-quality care. Between 1946 and 1952 doctors working with the AMA, American College of Surgeons, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield increased the number of insured from 22 percent to 55 percent. The free market can do it better and should. As noted by our Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, “Those willing to sacrifice liberties for security deserve neither.” Similarly, anyone willing to sacrifice liberties for healthcare will have neither.   

Dr. Larry N. Smith is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and an adjunct professor at Santa Fe College in Gainesville, Fla. Stephen T. Parente is an associate finance professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and director of the university’s Medical Industry Leadership Institute.

Other Voices

Views From Beyond the Barron’s staff by Larry Smith, MD

Health Care Over There Needs U.S.-Style Fix

Privatization

stalks the

British

National

Health Service

Creating the British National Health Service (NHS) opened the door to health care for many who could not afford it, even though a great war had just drained Britain’s national resources and treasury. Now that Britain is a much wealthier country than it was in 1948, many new health-care issues are abroad in the land. A big concern is patients’ lack of choice. Others include hospital overcrowding, worsening budget overruns and the rise of resistant staph infections in hospitals. In addition, some British officials are trying to address another problem: They believe the system has an excess of doctors. A forth-coming reorganization of the NHS may reduce opportunities for new graduates. Yet there are problems with the timeliness of patient appointments, dissatisfaction with the hospital care provided in open wards and a rising awareness that poorer areas of the country have relatively few doctors. So the NHS is offering incentives to general practitioners to work in these poorer areas, and is experimenting with a private-public model of competition.

All this is stuff of Fleet Street sensationalism. In at least one newspaper’s interpretation, the Labour government has strayed so far from its socialist roots that it’s been accused of stealthy privatization of the very system the party put in place in 1948. What if Britain turned its medical system over to the health-care organizations that could manage budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds, such as the HMOs United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross and Blue Shield? Would that be so bad? Private ownership can bring efficiency and accountability to health care by changing it from a bureaucracy to an industry-and to an efficient marketplace. While health-maintenance organizations’ administrative costs aren’t small, what these private companies do well is control of utilization, and verification of benefits.

Currently, patients have no point-of-service charge for their National Health Service; the real cost is hidden in the tax system and in general practitioners strictly per capita payments (they get the same amount for each patient on their rolls). This is a system that encourages high utilization by patients, while discouraging productivity from the providers. The bandied figure of 40,000 doctors in general practice-serving the United Kingdom’s population of more than 60 million-misses the fact that some doctors work part-time, or less. The Royal College of General Practitioners estimates that there are actually 35,000 full-time-equivalent physicians. With privatization, this number may actually be adequate: Doctors with incentives to work harder produce more. The NHS recently has allowed general practitioners to receive extra payments above the capitation rate (the rate at which a GP is paid per patient) if the GP meets certain targets for health improvement among their patients. In fact, it turns out that many GPs have met their targets or enhanced their services so well that there’ve been adverse consequences for the NHS budget.

The NHS would benefit greatly from competition. Giving patients a choice of health-care providers, allowing competition among providers, instituting quality oversight by private accrediting agencies and having more than one such agency will allow for creation of a competitive marketplace that will better serve patients. Currently, 200 British doctors practice in a completely private setting, receiving all their income from outside the National Health Service. That leaves the remaining 34,800 fulltime-equivalent GPs in Britain receiving at least part of their income from the NHS. If a patient has both NHS coverage and a private-insurance plan from an employer, he probably will use the “free” NHS for routine non-urgent needs. But, as one patient confessed: “If I’m really sick, I just go straight to the private doctors, so I can get taken care of quickly and have a private room.”

It’s not clear how many private MDs the market would bear in Britain, but this sort of cherry-picking illustrates the need to change the NHS to a near-total private system. There will still be a social safety net for the truly needy, but those who can provide for themselves should do so. The private health-care industry in the U.S. grew out of private health-care delivery systems designed, run and administered by doctors, not governments. Private health plans are products of the freedom historically afforded to American health-care providers (today, some U.S. doctors might argue, HMOs “bureaucratize” them too much, but HMOs are learning their lessons and consulting with doctors more). U.K. medical providers need the freedom to build a British version of the U.S. health system.

As Benjamin Rush, an English-trained physician, American revolutionary and signer of the Declaration of Independence wrote: “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”

Britain should free her physicians, nurses, midwives and other health-care providers so they can practice independently. If British medical professionals had more opportunity to work for themselves, they could make Britain, now saddled with an antiquated system, a destination for state-of the art European health care. For competition, accountability and incentives encourage excellence.

Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc.

Tim Foley for Barron’s

Republished with the permission of the Tennessee Medical Association and Tennessee Medicine, ©2008

When using our northern neighbor or America’s former colonial monarchy as an example of the ideal healthcare delivery system, one must first look closely at the history of those governments and their people. Both nations are strongly steeped in the history of the crown and centralized control. Canada did not gain coherent statehood until 1867 – two years after the end of America’s Civil War. Independence from the crown was not achieved until 1882, even though Canada had an opportunity to join the American Revolution and free itself on two separate occasions. Before and after its independence, Canada maintained a strong identification with the crown. Similarly, Britain to this day maintains a parliamentary-monarchy whose monarchic influence still insinuates itself into the government. This tacit power of the monarchy manifests itself in how a prime minister resigns from office–to the reigning monarch, instead of to the electors. We won a revolution to free ourselves from this type of system, but we are now at risk of descending back into this centralized-socialist system if Americans are continually lied to about America’s uninsured and deceived into a national healthcare system. After close examination of the British alternative, America’s system is a clearly better choice.

Regardless of how bad critics make America’s healthcare seem, the truth surrounding America’s 45-47 million “uninsured” has never really been revealed. The number is used only as a negative talking point. Politicians would rather use this figure as an inflammatory “fact” to rally their support base into irrational action, rather than tell the truth. So, from where does this 45-47 million number come? The statistic has its origins in a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and U.S. Census Bureau survey that counts those people or workers who are without insurance at some point in time during a four-month period. Many are between jobs but have no reason to be uninsured. An examination of these statistics reveals that over one-half of the uninsured are re-employed and re-insured within a four-month period. More than half of the surveyed make $50,000 a year or more. The most recent U.S. Census survey (2007) notes that 75.1 percent of households with incomes less than $25,000 have insurance, and that 91.5 percent of families with incomes of $75,000 or more are insured.

The figure of 45 million uninsured seems surprisingly large given the significant programs already in place to assist the disadvantaged. If there are 45 million Americans without insurance, children should not be among them. If you qualify financially (means-tested), your children are covered by Medicaid or SCHIP. For those who qualify financially, pregnancy is covered by Medicaid, providing prenatal care through delivery. A woman in this financial category would also qualify for the Women and Infant Care (WIC) support programs. If you are disabled, you are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. If you are 65 or older, you have Medicare and are eligible to purchase secondary insurance to cover other costs. If you qualify financially, Medicaid becomes your secondary. Meanwhile, working-age employees receive group insurance from many businesses. For employees at a small business without a group plan, cost-effective private policies provide limited-through-comprehensive hospitalization and physician and emergency services based on your ability to pay. In many states, small businesses also have the option to purchase insurance products through collective purchasing alliances. Many states even have special sales taxes that fund policies for the uninsured who qualify financially.

It is important to understand the CBO number chosen to quantify the uninsured is a misleading “red herring” statistic that lends itself to being exactly what it has become, a politically inflammatory talking point that does not reflect the reality of the problem. It is also important to remember that “illegal aliens” reportedly represent up to 21 percent of the 45 million “uninsured Americans.” Illegals consume medical resources without paying the taxes to fund them. In North Carolina, for example, 43,391 illegal immigrants used the state’s Emergency Medicaid Spending (EMS) program over a four-year period. These illegal aliens used EMS primarily for pregnancy-related conditions and deliveries, but that is shifting toward elderly care, disability and healthcare needs of a broader illegal demographic. The federal government has made one billion dollars available to states to help offset medical expenses incurred from illegal aliens.

Perhaps the most important detail of the CBO’s report is this: the same variables that put someone at risk for being labeled poor by the federal poverty guidelines are also the same variables that lead to someone being at high risk for becoming one of the temporarily uninsured. Understanding that the indicators for the lack of insurance and poverty are the same, it seems reasonable that addressing the causes of poverty will be more successful in helping to reduce the number of uninsured than just giving them a health insurance policy.

Two examples of regional health programs demonstrating the lack of need for an even-broader national program are Maine’s Dirigo Health Insurance Program and Alachua County, Florida’s Choices Program. Both are tax-based or employer-mandated, and were started to provide insurance products to the working uninsured. Early estimates suggested tens to hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible and in need of the program; the reality has fallen far short of that number. In Maine, of an estimated 136,000 potential enrollees, only 2,000 people had enrolled by 2005–less than 1.5 percent of the expected number. Currently, there are 12,000 enrollees–less than nine percent of the expected number. So disappointing are the results that a blue-ribbon panel has been established to consider elimination of the program altogether. In Alachua County, enrollments are only in the hundreds, as collected tax dollars go unused. Enrollment after two years was so low, the county commission broadened the eligibility window to 200 percent of the federal poverty level and reduced work-hour requirements to 28 hours per week. Even with this liberalization of eligibility requirements, few people qualify for insurance coverage. The Alachua County program has collected over $24 million to serve only 900 enrollees. The program would be better used as a helping-hand program instead of a handout program. Instead, there is no expectation that enrollees undertake education or self-improvement, and the benefits never run out. In essence, Alachua County has broadened eligibility into brackets based on wages that can support a private policy without any expectation that the recipients help themselves. Both programs languish today, collecting tax dollars for a minute number of enrollees. The 1990s lessons of the Republican legislature and President Clinton’s “Workfare” have been overlooked, as local and state governments establish welfare programs that disincentivize recipients to improve their economic situation.

Again, it is important to note the demographics of those who are uninsured, temporarily or long term, are the same as those who are rated as welfare-eligible in most categories. Just as important, the government does not require recipients of state monies to improve their ability to earn more and come off the state dole.

After examining the numbers, it seems the true number of America’s uninsured is much smaller than has been advertised and politicized, because current public and private programs provide for the overwhelming majority of the needs of the briefly uninsured. Even if someone falls between the eligibility requirements and is in immediate need of healthcare, many resources are still available. A perfect example of the availability of free healthcare services is the Alachua County (FL) Medical Society’s We Care program, which provides free healthcare for those who qualify. In 2006, We Care was calculated to have provided over $4.7 million in dental and medical care to those who qualified. This program has expanded to every county in Florida, and recently to Georgia. We Care and all the other high-quality, free healthcare programs in Florida have provided over $961 million worth of free medical and dental care since the inception of Florida’s Voluntary Health Services program. This number does not include any federal or state programs such as the public health department, Medicaid programs or state-funded agencies. In 2005 alone, over $100 million worth of free medical care was provided to Floridians. These numbers alone make it clear that there is no reason not to receive health care in Florida unless someone chooses not to have access to it. Florida has demonstrated that free market solutions to care for the temporarily or long-term uninsured are available and need to be expanded.

The demographics of those served by Florida’s outreach programs are surprisingly familiar. Of those who qualified, 70 percent were women and 62 percent were between the ages of 45-64. Some 53 percent were Caucasian. Over 50 percent of the women were unemployed and had been denied disability benefits or they were pending (and would be Medicare-eligible, if qualified). About 75 percent of the total recipients were unemployed. Only 25 percent worked part time or at all, and many lacked a high school or equivalent education. Whites followed by blacks were the two largest groups of recipients. On closer examination, Florida’s uninsured population is among the same group of Americans who are at risk for falling into the federal poverty welfare group and being uninsured.

Sadly, it cannot be left unsaid that included in the cadre of those at risk of becoming or being uninsured are America’s single mothers (divorced with a deadbeat dad or never married) and their children. It has been documented that this progressively enlarging group of Americans is at high risk of becoming trapped in poverty. Accordingly, they are at risk for being uninsured. Mechanisms to prevent this are unpopular but there is definite evidence that a complete nuclear family lifts families out of poverty and allows access to insurance and opportunity.

Even with the success of Florida’s outreach programs, policy-makers across this state and country have continued to ignore the real reasons that any uninsured Americans exist–the demographics of poverty. The demographics of the recipients of Florida’s free healthcare benefits and the so-called 45 million uninsured Americans are remarkably the same demographics as those who receive state and federal welfare benefits.

Benevolence is one of the hallmarks of American society, but we have to be careful that this benevolence does not breed dependence. America has overlooked the fact that the risk of being uninsured is remarkably similar to the problem of poverty. Both have the same root causes, yet we are not outraged at those causes. Through shortsighted programs such as nationalized healthcare, we would constrain our freedoms and centralize government’s control over our lives. Let us instead work toward solving the problems of poverty, not encourage it by providing open-ended benefits with no expectation for improvement in the recipient’s personal and family responsibility. America is about opportunity and the willingness to work hard to achieve the success that opportunity and education bring. It takes hard work, family values, education and commitment to community to achieve the success of personal, welfare-free independence. By giving people the tools through free-market principles, charity becomes a helping hand, not an anchor.