This week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has a perspective piece by a doctor from Kentucky, describing the changes wrought by Obamacare in its first year. The doctor, Michael Stillman, is writing from a clinic serving a relatively poor area with limited health access: 60% of the doctor’s patients had no health insurance in the year before Obamacare’s introduction. It’s a short but quite powerful piece, and worth reading if one wants to get a sense of the transformative effect of Obamacare for the working poor. Dr. Stillman writes:
Last year, I encountered a patient with widely metastatic colon cancer whose diagnosis had been delayed because of lack of health insurance. He had clearly become ill at the wrong moment in our commonwealth’s history. Before Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear decided to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and accept federal funding for Medicaid expansion, the 60% of my clinic patients and 650,000 Kentuckians who lacked health insurance received disjointed and disastrous care. They could be seen in subsidized facilities and be charged for their visits on a sliding scale, but they were asked to pay in advance for most diagnostic tests and consultations. Many of them avoided routine and preventive care — and worried that a medical emergency would leave them bankrupt.
This describes a pretty terrible situation in the world’s richest nation, and something that could hardly be imagined in any other developed nation. Dr. Stillman’s first sentence in this paragraph has a reference to another perspective he wrote last year, Dead Man Walking, in which he describes the case of this patient with colon cancer in more detail:
We met Tommy Davis in our hospital’s clinic for indigent persons in March 2013 (the name and date have been changed to protect the patient’s privacy). He and his wife had been chronically uninsured despite working full-time jobs and were now facing disastrous consequences.
The week before this appointment, Mr. Davis had come to our emergency department with abdominal pain and obstipation. His examination, laboratory tests, and CT scan had cost him $10,000 (his entire life savings), and at evening’s end he’d been sent home with a diagnosis of metastatic colon cancer.
The year before, he’d had similar symptoms and visited a primary care physician, who had taken a cursory history, told Mr. Davis he’d need insurance to be adequately evaluated, and billed him $200 for the appointment. Since Mr. Davis was poor and ineligible for Kentucky Medicaid, however, he’d simply used enemas until he was unable to defecate. By the time of his emergency department evaluation, he had a fully obstructed colon and widespread disease and chose to forgo treatment.
This is not the fate that should be allotted to the working poor. Obamacare will change this situation for a large number of Americans: in Mr. Davis’s case, Obamacare made him eligible for Medicaid, so had Obamacare been passed just a little earlier he might have been able to diagnose and treat his cancer earlier; or at the very least, would not have used up all his life savings on a mere diagnosis. The author reports that in Kentucky Obamacare has expanded access to 430,000 previously-uninsured Americans, and the same process is being repeated across the country. The Obama administration itself is forecasting a total of 9 million people will gain health insurance through the ACA, and I earlier reported on the first assessments of its impact from the Commonwealth Fund. Although most of the rest of the world agrees that Obamacare is flawed and doesn’t go far enough towards universal health coverage, this is still a huge achievement and any politician who opposes it, or any pundit like Michael Cannon who deploys disingenuous arguments to destroy it on ideological grounds should be seen as the wrecker and low-life that they are. Responsible politicians of any political stripe should be focusing on improving it, not destroying it, but sadly this is not the way the American political system seems to work.
Dr. Stillman finishes his article with this little observation:
I was once uncomfortable discussing politics with my patients, but now I routinely ask them if they are registered to vote and remind them that certain candidates do not support the legislation from which they have so palpably benefitted.
This little sentence should have Republicans and other opponents of Obamacare worried. If they can’t destroy it in the Supreme Court soon, they’re going to have to hoodwink 9 million Americans at the next election. The fact that they would even consider such a reckless and destructive policy is a depressing indictment of the cruelty and shortsightedness of the modern Republican party. I hope their intransigence on this issue destroys them at the next election, and Obamacare survives to be improved and consolidated, rather than dismantled and discredited. For where will the working poor be without it?
November 25, 2014 at 8:24 am
I just saw an interesting article on Slate. It’s an FAQ on the Republican opposition to Obamacare that describes them as something other than swivel eyed loons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/obamacare_faq_everything_you_need_to_know_about_why_conservatives_want_to.html
Some of the objections it outlines kinda line up with your comments on Obamacare (i.e. that Obamacare doesn’t really provide that much pressure on cost reduction because of the lack of a single negotiation point, though their solution is of course more market pressure).
It also seemed to contain links to a bunch of extra reading that I didn’t bother doing.
November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm
I guess I should avoid commenting too much on the political dimension of the battle over Obamacare since I’m not in America and only get a self-selected sample of the available information on the political debate, but what would a blog post be without unsubstantiated assertion about a foreign country’s politics? So a few points about that article …
It seems a little biased in favour of being fair to the Republicans, which is fair enough I guess since the author states openly at the end that they think Obamacare should be abolished … though they don’t say from what perspective they get to this view. A few points that seem unreasonably kind to the Republicans include …
1) The “you can keep your plan” “lie” was actually – as I understand it – largely true when the bill was first legislated (is this a word in the US?) in 2009/10, but it took so long to set up some parts of the bill and to get it through the senate that by the time the Exchanges were set up (in 2013) many people had switched plans, and the law only applied to plans people had when the bill passed. Plus of course if people lost their plan after Obamacare was passed, it was because it was a rort and didn’t meet basic consumer protection standards.
2) Gruber is not “considered one of the chief architects” of Obamacare – he ran econometric models for one part of it, because he happens to have a set of models that manage to mimic the behavior of the CBO’s models. He was not responsible for any of the political aspects of the bill – or even, as far as I understand it, for designing the financing system itself – and the reason he has been elevated to “chief architect” is that he happens to say stupid things that can be used for the Republican agenda.
3) To be fair the Slate article mentions a couple of alternative “plans” put forward by Republicans, but in fact neither of these plans are considered credible by the Republicans as a whole, and in exchange for dredging up a couple of stingy plans from a pair of Republicans, the article is painfully silent on the complete absence of legislative effort by the actual party in the past 4 years. Health care reform has been at the centre of the Obama administration’s policy plans, and the Republicans have opposed it every step of the way, but they have not made any effort to produce a counter-plan. Their “plan” for reform is to not have a plan.
I don’t think this makes them swivel-eyed loons (though what kind of pinko leftist would I be if I didn’t call them such?), I think they are caught between the hammer of their political strategy (deny Obama any policy achievements no matter how reasonable, and then claim he is partisan and incompetent) and the anvil of their ideology. This ideology has really run up against its limits with Obamacare, which is why we find apparently reasonable “thinkers” (like the Michael Cannon dude I linked to in the OP) who have been forced to basically come out against the basic concept of insurance. I remember reading one (Cato, I think) thinker opposing Obamacare because it involves the young being forced to subsidize the elderly and sick. I.e. on an economic theory level, he opposes the basic principle of “insurance,” in which people who never get sick, crash their car, or suffer a flood, pay money that is then used to reimburse those who do. Worse still, on a fundamental ethical level he has come out in opposition to the idea of a society where the young care for the elderly. He’s an ethical cannibal, a step away from Soylent Green. Michael Cannon opposes community rating – which is the same thing – and also any form of mandate or subsidies. So he is arguing against any form of insurance that is not voluntary, high-priced and predatory (you can see it all in the linked article), and he sees no need to find a solution to the problem this presents to the poor. The mandate is one of the key objections that Republicans have, which is basically the health-financing equivalent of sitting down on the floor and screaming. You can’t have a functioning health insurance system without it, and there are lots of other areas of insurance – such as vehicle insurance – where a mandate is assumed, even in America. And there is no serious Republican healthcare plan that involves an alternative to the mandate – to the extent that they have even bothered to come up with a plan, it’s all free market fairy dust. Also I have yet to see a single Republican put forward even an objection to the ability of insurers to reject those on pre-existing conditions, let alone a free market solution to this problem; nor have I ever read or heard of a Republican objecting to the kind of predatory billing described in the OP, in which a couple of diagnostic tests destroyed a family’s life savings. When your ideology is so uncompromising that it doesn’t even have a problem with price gouging, you really are going to be put into a difficult position by any actually useful health financing reform plan. [To be fair to any actually reasonable Republicans out there, I get most of my right-wing anti-Obamacare reading from the National Review Online, and they really are swivel-eyed loons, so maybe I’m being unreasonable in my assessment of the degree of stubbornness].
This is hardly a problem of the Republicans alone – there are many left wing critics of Obamacare who hate it because it isn’t single payer, for example. But the specific difference between modern Republican critics of Obamacare and conservatives from other countries or times – Thatcher and Howard spring to mind, obviously – or a sizable proportion of American leftists is that their entire political strategy is based on a refusal to compromise, both ideologically and politically. Health financing reform is one of those areas where you can’t build a policy that is “ideal” from any ideological perspective, which means that when the need for reform arises, people have to compromise. And the Republicans aren’t able to do that, for a wide range of what I hope are historically specific reasons that will one day fade away.
It certainly makes them look like swivel-eyed loons though!