Why the Government Needs to Leave Healthcare
By: BJ Lawson
There’s no question our healthcare system is a study in contrasts. On one hand, we lead the world in diagnostic and therapeutic research. On the other hand, healthcare is now an industry dominated by warring bureaucracies — both corporate and governmental. As providers fight to bill as much as possible, and payers fight to pay as little as possible, the doctor-patient (or more generally provider-patient) relationship is becoming a curious historical relic.
I ran across a document some time ago that captures our healthcare system’s problems with amazing clarity. Written in the style of the Declaration of Independence, it accurately reports the history of our government intervention in healthcare, and the resulting unintended consequences:
The Physicians’ Declaration of IndependenceJuly 4, 2004 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one Profession to dissolve the Financial Arrangements which have connected them with Medicare, Medicaid, assorted Health Maintenance Organizations, and diverse Third Party Payers and to assume among the other Professions of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that the Physician’s primary responsibility is toward the Patient; that to assure the sanctity of this relationship, payment for service should be decided between Physician and Patient, and that, as in all transactions in a free society, this payment be mutually agreeable. Only such a Financial Arrangement will guarantee the highest level of Commitment and Service of the Physician to the Patient, restrain Outside Influence on Decision-Making, and assure that all information be kept strictly confidential. When a Third Party dictates payment for the Physician’s service, it exercises effective control over the Decision-Making of the Physician, which may not always be in the best interest of the Patient. The Third Party then intrudes heavily into the sacred Patient-Physician relationship and demands to inspect the Medical Record in a self-serving attempt to satisfy itself that its money is being spent in accordance with its own pre-ordained accounting principles. The Financial Arrangements between Physicians and the Third Parties have become so destructive to the Patient-Physician relationship, and to the Medical Profession as a whole, that it is the Right, and Obligation, of the Members of the Profession to abolish them. Prudence will dictate that arrangements long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that Physicians are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right; it is their Duty, to throw off such arrangements, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Profession; and such is now the necessity that constrains them to alter their former Financial Arrangements. The history of the present system is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct effect the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the Medical Profession. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A System whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a Free Profession. We, therefore, the undersigned Physicians of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name of our Patients solemnly publish and declare, that we will withdraw our participation in all above-described Third Party Payment Systems. Henceforth and Forever, we shall agree to provide our services directly to our Patients, and be compensated directly by them, in accordance with the ancient customs of our Profession. As has always been true of our Profession, our charges will be adjusted to reflect the Patients’ ability to render payment. Nothing prevents any patient from purchasing and using Insurance. The Patients’ medical interactions with us will remain completely confidential. We pledge the highest level of Service and Dedication to their Well-Being. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. |
This powerful document should be studied by anyone who believes so-called “Universal Health Care” (either with a single provider system, single payer system, or “mandatory health insurance”) is a good idea. As our national debt continues to increase, and our currency becomes increasingly fragile on international markets, the question remains how we can even consider printing and borrowing the money necessary to make our current model of expensive “corporatecare” a “right”. And do you really want more corporatecare, or is it time to change the system?
Perhaps my biggest concern is our current fascination with mandatory health “insurance”. As the declaration above so eloquently states, “Slowly, insurance changed into payment for all Health Expenses, minus a small and shrinking deductible, which led to further Inflation, and a call to control costs.” You see, health insurance isn’t really insurance anymore. Insurance, by definition, is pooling risk for unexpected and often catastrophic occurrences. Health insurance that gives you unlimited access to providers and treatments with a $15 copay isn’t insurance at all.
Think about it — if you’re a homeowner with homeowner’s insurance, do you expect the insurance to cover new carpeting or a new coat of paint? What would your insurer say if you burned down your house because you liked having campfires on the living room floor to roast marshmallows with your kids? They sure wouldn’t build a new house for a $15 copay. And how much would “fix anything, no questions asked” homeowner’s insurance cost?
For those who still think that “Universal Health Care” is a panacea, a couple of articles from Canada are also worth considering. Manitobans with colon cancer don’t have access to Avastin, a drug shown to increase survival in colorectal cancer:
CancerCare Manitoba claims the cost of the drug is too high and they cannot afford it. Yet the drug Herceptin, given to breast cancer patients, is more expensive. Patients who received Avastin through CancerCare had approximately six to 10 treatments, at an average cost of $2,000 per treatment. Granted, some chemotherapies have been deemed more effective in maintaining life for a longer period of time and perhaps the cost/benefit seems to be greater. But why discriminate against colon cancer victims, especially since the health system has a “duty of care” to these patients. There has been no major effort to implement a screening process for colon cancer, even though the provinces agreed to do so in 2002. Manitoba announced it would begin screening in the spring of this year. Where is it?
Do you still want unaccountable federal and state bureaucracies making decisions about what prevention strategies or therapies are available for you?
Also consider this CMAJ editorial from the year 2000, which while obviously in favor of Canada’s single payer system, acknowledges the precipice they are walking by rationing care:
If we want to maintain universal and comprehensive medicare we can do one of 2 things: increase funding, or ration services. If we want to maintain comprehensiveness without increasing spending, then “medically necessary services” will have to be rationed. And with rationing there are only 2 options: rationing by exclusion on the Oregon model, or by “delay and dilution”. We favor frank discussion about the former. We are already doing the latter and it doesn’t work.
Sounds like they’re choosing between the frying pan and the fire — trying to meet unlimited needs with limited resources is always an economic impossibility.
So what do we do? How about freeing the market for health insurance so people can buy as much, or as little, coverage as they need? How about removing the irrational coupling of healthcare and employment? How about eliminating all taxes on saving for healthcare, without arbitrary restrictions on contribution limits? (Well, we need to eliminate all taxes on income and savings, and not just for healthcare… but that’s another story.)
Those three simple steps would allow people to start saving for healthcare expenses, and purchase insurance coverage for truly catastrophic events. More patients would then be truly “shopping” for routine healthcare, looking for the providers who would provide the best value for their healthcare dollar. And providers could again truly engage with their patients as individuals, and help choose which treatments and therapies are best given their individual preferences and priorities.
The system will not change overnight, and we can’t suddenly eliminate the current “safety net” of government support, but we can take aggressive steps to move in a better direction.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
During my brief time trying to sell life and health insurance for a non-HMO, one of the tips we had for countering the “why don’t you pay for routine check-ups?” question was, “Do you want your car insurance to pay for your oil changes?”
Of course, that was why this insurance cost a lot less than most … you used it when you needed it. not when you just wanted to have a doctor say, “Yep, you’re still alive.”
Certainly, the HMO model of insurance is counter-productive. By trying to limit costs, it runs them up.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“campfires on the living room floor to roast marshmallows with your kids”. I love it. I wonder if I could convince my wife to go for that. I’m sure the kids would be into it.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 am
what are your thoughts about malpractice costs, frivolous lawsuits, etc???
good luck BJ!
February 24th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Swati - We have a serious problem with malpractice costs and lawsuits, although some specialties are more affected than others. Neurosurgery and obstetrics are two of the most costly specialties with respect to malpractice insurance. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the average yearly premium for a neurosurgeon’s malpractice insurance in 2000 was $44,367. In 2004, it was $81,749, an 84 percent increase. The highest premiums nearly doubled from $200,000 to almost $400,000 in the same time period.
On the other end of the spectrum, anesthesiology has actually improved. Adjusted for inflation, malpractice premiums in anesthesiology decreased from $33,000 in 1985 to $21,000 in 2005 (http://depts.washington.edu/asaccp/prof/asa69_6_6_7.shtml).
The malpractice crisis defies easy solutions. How did anesthesiology see its premiums decrease? After being sued to the brink of economic extinction in the 1980s, anesthesiology embarked on a six-sigma based quality improvement initiative to systematically to identify failure points and reduce the variability in patient care. This effort was comprehensive and driven by the accrediting body itself, and objectively made the specialty safer and improved patient care. As patient safety improved, so did the cost of malpractice insurance. That’s the best case scenario.
Why are “high risk” specialties like OB and neurosurgery such tempting targets for litigious patients and attorneys? Clearly, both specialties have the potential for spectacularly bad outcomes. Non-technical factors such as the patient-doctor relationship (i.e., does the patient “like” the doctor) play a role, as well. Is there a solution?
Frankly, I don’t know. Anecdotally, I hear of many malpractice cases that appear, on the surface, frivolous. On the other hand, I have a relative who is an attorney and has spent time defending physicians. In trading stories with him, many of the suits he was defending were cases in which the physician appeared negligent relative to the standard of care.
I still have much to learn about this problem. On one hand, malpractice insurance costs are forcing providers in some parts of the country to abandon their practices. Other providers are simply dropping coverage all together, and letting their patients know that there will be little to recover in the event they even try to sue. On the other hand, a regulated/capped system seems more likely to keep bad doctors in practice, to the detriment of their patients.
From your experience, what are your thoughts?
BJ
May 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Dr Lawson,
What is your position on the “war on drugs?” I am interested in particular in your position on medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and industrial hemp.
Thanks,
jb
May 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
jb — The federal “war on drugs” is quite simply unconstitutional, and must be stopped. Regulations on the use of marijuana, and things like industrial hemp, are for the states to decide based upon the 10th amendment.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Dr. Lawson–I believe that we must take responsibility for our own health and what we put into our bodies–it should be mandatory that good nutrition ,exercise be taught from grade 1 in school–parents cannot do this at home when they think a hamburger, fries and a coke are dinner–courses in health would have been more valuable to me than algebra I am sure–at age 72 I am healthy but could do better–with a doctor who would honestly listen to me without wanting to prescribe a pill I could do better–I do not know what the statistics are but I believe that the Majority of our health problems today are diet and environment related–yes, our children also need to know what to avoid for good health–my 5year old and 10 year old grandchildren already know the basics of health and take pride in helping me shop for healthy food and they are always asking questions (which I encourage) IT CAN BE DONE1
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Barbara — Amen, you are right on. Food and drink are by far the most important “drugs” based upon the fact that we consume them constantly.
I was amazed throughout my medical training how little was taught about nutrition, and how modern medicine emphasizes symptom treatment via medicine versus optimizing health. It’s tougher to convince people to modify their lifestyles than pop a pill once a day…
BJ