Over 100 economists call on Vermont to move forward with universal health care

From the National Economic & Social Rights Initiative website.

Publication Date: February 26, 2015
Author: Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign
Organization Title: NESRI and the Vermont Workers' Center

MONTPELIER, VT: A new health care financing plan and a letter signed by over 100 economists make the case for Vermont to establish what would be the first universal, publicly financed health care system in the United States. The plan and letter were delivered to lawmakers at the Vermont State House on Thursday by members of the Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign.

The financing plan sets out a new, more equitable model for financing Vermont’s health care system that would expand access to care while lowering health care costs for low- and middle-income families. Adding to proposals released by Governor Peter Shumlin in December, the plan, which was published by the Vermont Workers’ Center and the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), provides data and models showing that Vermont could simultaneously guarantee health care access to all its residents, reign in the overall cost of health care, and finance the new health care system, Green Mountain Care, through progressive taxation.

The Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign says that its financing plan not only shows that universal health care can be financed in Vermont, but that it can be financed far more equitably than the current market-based health care system.

“By moving from private, market-based insurance to public financing of universal care,” Anja Rudiger, NESRI, says, “we flip the way we pay for care: people contribute based on their ability, so that low- and middle-income people pay a smaller share of their income on health care than the wealthy – the opposite of the current system.”

Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who advised the campaign, says, "Act 48 promised to establish in Vermont a system of universal health care that would improve the health of its people while shifting the financial burden from the poor and the sick to those able to pay. Building on the Governor’s Green Mountain Care report, the new Equitable Financing Plan shows how this promise can be realized so that Vermont can move forward to a fair and economically efficient health care system."

The financing plan was delivered to legislators along with an open letter from over 100 economists from across the country including Prof. Friedman as well as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Richard Wolff of The New School University, New York. Both the plan and the letter are responses to a sudden announcement in December by Governor Shumlin, who had long backed Green Mountain Care, that he would no longer recommend the legislature move forward with public financing.

“As economists,” the letter reads, “we understand that universal, publicly financed health care is not only economically feasible but highly preferable to a fragmented market-based insurance system. Health care is not a service that follows standard market rules; it should be provided as a public good.” The letter calls on Vermont lawmakers to “move forward with implementing a public financing plan for the universal health care system envisioned by state law.”

According to the plan, low- and middle-income families would pay much less in health care costs if Green Mountain Care was implemented. A family with an income of $50,000 per year, for example, would pay 40% less for health care costs on average under Green Mountain Care. The plan proposes taxing wealthier people’s unearned investment income in order to give a bigger break to low- and middle-income families. It also proposes implementing a graduated payroll tax that requires large employers and businesses with highly unequal salary structures to pay more than smaller and more wage-equitable businesses. The payroll tax takes into account the difference between the top 1% of wages and the bottom half of wages in each company, and lowers the tax rate for companies with more equitable wage structures.

Ellen Schwartz of the Healthcare Is a Human Right campaign says that the financing plan and letter make clear that the economics of universal health care are sound. “This plan shows that financing Green Mountain Care is not just doable, but hugely important for Vermont. It would finally guarantee access to health care for everyone in the state, and would also move us toward a much more equitable society in which we each support public systems according to our ability and each get what we need.”

The Healthcare Is a Human Right campaign is working with legislators to introduce a bill for public health care financing, building on the state’s law for universal healthcare, Act 48, which was passed in 2011 but did not include a financing plan.

Links:
Financing plan: http://www.nesri.org/resources/equitable-financing-plan-for-vermonts-universal-healthcare-system
Economists' letter: http://www.nesri.org/economists-support-universal-healthcare

Contact:
Keith Brunner: keith@workerscenter.org, (802) 363-9615
Anja Rudiger: anja@nesri.org, (212) 253-1710 ext. 305 or 917-455-9544

For a summary of Oregon's proposed single payer bill click

Help MVHCA on the road to true universal health care, by donating, hosting a house party, signing up for the newsletter, and attending our monthly meetings.

 

What Happened in Vermont: Implications of the Pullback from Single Payer (Part 2)

 Commentary by Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. of PNHP:

Gov. Peter Shumlin’s Dec. 17, 2014, announcement that he would not press forward with Vermont’s Green Mountain Care (GMC) reform arose from political calculus rather than fiscal necessity. GMC had veered away from a true single payer design over the past three years, forfeiting some potential cost savings. Yet even the diluted plan on the table before Shumlin’s announcement would probably have lowered total health spending in Vermont, while covering all of the state’s uninsured.

Background

Decades of exemplary grassroots organizing (and strong labor union support) in Vermont put single payer on the agenda. During Shumlin’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign, he promised to implement a single payer reform, which was a factor in the Progressive Party’s decision not to field a candidate. But the details of Shumlin’s plan weren’t fleshed out during the campaign.
 
After his victory, Shumlin and the legislature commissioned economist William Hsiao to study options for health reform in Vermont, including single payer. Rejecting a fully public single-payer plan, Hsiao instead proposed a “public-private hybrid” model and projected $580 million in savings, including large administrative cost savings, in the program’s first year.

Spurred by Hsiao’s positive projections, in 2011 the legislature passed a health reform law that laid out plans for implementing the Affordable Care Act in the short term, and called for a later transition to a single payer GMC plan. But while the law gave a detailed prescription for implementing the ACA (including construction of an exchange whose final cost was about $250 million), the sections on single payer were vague, and punted decisions on critical issues to the GMC Board to be appointed by the governor. That board would determine whether critical services like long-term care would be covered; the amount of copayments; how hospitals and doctors would be paid; and whether capital funds would be folded into operating budgets or allocated through separate capital grant (the sine qua non of effective health planning). Critically, the bill included no plan for funding the single payer program.

An early signal of trouble was Shumlin’s appointment of Anya Rader Wallack to chair the new GMC board. Wallack had deep ties to the private insurance industry, having held key positions (including the presidency) at the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. That foundation played a central role in designing and pushing for Massachusetts’ 2006 Romneycare reform, and subsequently issued a series of glowing evaluations of Romneycare that helped buttress the case for replicating its structure in the ACA.

From the outset, Shumlin and the GMC Board embraced an Accountable Care Organization payment strategy that would enroll most Vermonters in large hospital-based, HMO-like organizations that would be overseen by a “designated entity” – presumably Blue Cross. To-date, ACOs have shown little or no overall cost savings, have increased administrative costs, and have driven hospitals to merge and gobble up physician practices. The consolidation of ownership triggered by ACO incentives has raised concern that regionally dominant ACOs will use their market power to drive up costs. In Vermont, Dartmouth Hitchcock and the University of Vermont’s Fletcher Allen system dominate the market, and have initiated a for-profit, joint venture ACO.
 
The GMC Board’s design incorporated several other features that increased the administrative complexity, and hence administrative costs of the proposed reform. The plan never envisioned including all Vermonters in a single plan, instead retaining multiple payers. Hence, hospitals, physicians’ offices, and nursing homes would still have had to contend with multiple payers, forcing them to maintain the complex cost-tracking and billing apparatus that drives up providers’ administrative costs. It proposed continuing to pay hospitals and other institutional providers on a per-patient basis, rather than through global budgets, similarly perpetuating the expensive billing apparatus that siphons funds from care. And hospitals would have continued to rely on surpluses from day-to-day operations as their main source of capital funds for modernization and expansion. This undermines health planning and raises bureaucratic costs by forcing hospital administrators to undertake the additional work needed to identify and pursue profit opportunities.

Some of this complexity was forced on Vermont by federal statutes that may preclude folding Medicare and the military’s Tricare program into a state single payer plan, and restrict states’ ability to outlaw private employer-provided coverage that duplicates the public plan. But the decisions to abandon lump-sum hospital payment, and separate grants for capital were the GMC Board’s choices.

The End Game of Vermont’s Reform

Vermont’s November 2014 gubernatorial election had very low voter turnout, a circumstance that generally favors the right. Gov. Shumlin – who had hedged on health reform during the campaign – eked out a narrow plurality, leaving the state legislature to decide between him and the Republican candidate and greatly weakening Shumlin’s position. A month later, while awaiting the legislature’s decision (they elected him to a third term on January 9), Shumlin announced his pullback from reform.

Shortly thereafter, he released the GMC Board’s detailed cost projections which he said had convinced him not to go ahead. The Board estimated zero administrative savings from its proposed plan. It also projected zero savings on drugs and medical devices, tacitly acknowledging that GMC wouldn’t use bargaining clout to rein in prices, and ignoring the fact that Quebec, its neighbor to the North, has gotten big discounts.

The Board’s cost estimates also incorporated an old (too high) estimate of the number of uninsured Vermonters, inflating the projected increase in utilization and cost. Finally, it assumed that doctors would expand their work hours (and incomes) to care for the newly insured, rather than maintaining their current work hours by seeing their other patients a little less frequently – as happened with the implementation of single payer coverage in Quebec.

But even the GMC Board’s inflated cost estimates indicate that universal coverage under its quasi-single payer plan would cost somewhat less overall than the current system. The voluminous Board report includes detailed tabulations of new costs to the state treasury under the proposed reform. But the report scrupulously avoids providing any figures for the impact of reform on the total cost of health care (public and private) in the state. Economist Gerald Friedman has estimated these overall impacts using the report’s data, previous estimates of health expenditures in Vermont, and CMS figures on Medicare spending and expected health care inflation under the ACA. He estimates that even the diluted reform proposed by the GMC Board would cut overall health spending in Vermont by about $500 million annually.

So why did Gov. Shumlin declare the reform unaffordable? Many have noted that the $2.5 billion in new state expenditures required under the reform would nearly double the state’s previous budget. But these numbers are meaningless absent an accounting of the savings Vermont households would realize by avoiding private insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. As detailed above, these savings would more than offset the new taxes.

But although the total costs of care would have fallen even under the GMC plan, some – mostly higher-income, healthy Vermonters whose taxes would go up the most – would have paid more. Although the GMC tax plan was far from progressive, it was far less regressive than the current pattern of health care funding in the state. The GMC Board estimated that most of the 340,214 families earning less than $150,000 annually would have gained, while most of the 24,102 families above that income level would have lost. Overall, employers’ costs would have risen by $109 million – with many small businesses experiencing cost increases, a political sore point.

Conclusion

It’s a misnomer to label Vermont’s Green Mountain Care plan “single payer.” It was hemmed in by federal restrictions that precluded including 100 percent of Vermonters in one plan, and its designers further compromised on features needed to maximize administrative savings and bargaining clout with drug firms, and improve health planning.

But even the watered-down plan that emerged could have covered the uninsured, improved coverage for many who currently face high out-of-pocket costs, and actually reduced total health spending in the state – albeit far less than under a true single payer plan. A true single payer plan would have made covering long-term care affordable, and allowed the elimination of all copayments and deductibles.

Vermont’s experience holds important lessons for single payer advocates.

1. Effective grassroots organizing makes a difference. It got real health care reform on the political radar screen in Vermont, and can get it back on the radar there and elsewhere. Indeed, single payer forces in Vermont are already rallying to reverse Shumlin’s decision. The virtues, value, and simplicity of a single payer approach have broad popular appeal.

2. Federal restrictions impose significant compromises on state-level single payer plans. For this, as well as other reasons, organizing for single-payer state plans and organizing for national legislation are not competing strategies, but complementary ones. The ultimate goal for both is a single, inclusive program for the entire nation.

3. As single payer work advances, we need to anticipate that corporate opposition will mobilize – often behind the scenes. The only effective antidote is continued grassroots mobilization. Delayed implementation and punting key decision to the future opens the door for corporate influence and smear campaigns.

4. Beware of “experts” with a track record unsympathetic to single payer. Economic projections are always based on assumptions, which are often highly political.

5. Even when we don’t get the whole pie, demanding it often yields a significant piece. Although a major single payer effort was stymied in Vermont, it achieved substantial progress. It’s no accident that Vermont’s uninsurance rate has come down to 3 percent; that virtually all children in that state are covered; that its Medicaid program is among the best; that its hospitals have come under tighter fiscal regulation; and that single payer remains in the limelight there. Even as he backed off from single payer for now, the governor promised to press for future health reform.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David U. Himmelstein are internists, professors at the City University of New York’s School of Public Health at Hunter College, and lecturers at Harvard Medical School. They co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program.

Get involved today with the Oregon campaign for publicly funded universal health care.  Attend our the Rally on the Capitol Steps on February 11, and attend our monthly meetings.

PNHP Comments about the Wall Street Journal Article on Vermont's Single Payer Effort

The Wall Street Journal
December 22, 2014
Vermont’s Single Payer Washout

Last week, in a reversal that deserves more attention, Democratic Governor
Peter Shumlin announced that Vermont would no longer create America’s first
statewide single-payer health system.
Single payer is the polite term for socialized medicine and the ultimategoal of the political left.
At least the Governor deserves credit for admitting failure. His ideological comrades are rarely dissuaded by the prospect of economic damage, as ObamaCare proves. But Mr. Shumlin has succeeded in making Vermont a national model: By admitting that single payer will make health care both more expensive and less efficient, he has shown other states what not to do.

Vermont
H.202
Bill as Passed by the House and Senate, 2011

“An act relating to a single-payer and unified health system”
changed to
“An act relating to a universal and unified health system”

(H.202 is a 213 page bill. The first 135 pages were deleted and the
remaining pages are a rewrite of the entire bill.)

Sec.2(a)(6):

The director, in collaboration with the agency of human services, shall
obtain waivers, exemptions, agreements, legislation, or a combination
thereof to ensure that, to the extent possible under federal law, all
federal payments provided within the state for health services are paid
directly to Green Mountain Care. Green Mountain Care shall assume
responsibility for the benefits and services previously paid for by the
federal programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and, after implementation,
the Vermont health benefit exchange.

***

Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP

As was fully expected, the conservative and libertarian pundits are
inundating the Internet and other media vehicles with celebratory
commentaries on the theme that Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin’s withdrawal of
his single payer proposal is proof that single payer is more expensive and
less efficient than other health care financing systems. The Wall Street
Journal editorial excerpt above is selected as a leading example of these
right-wing responses. The problem with these comments is that H.202, the
Vermont reform legislation, IS NOT A SINGLE PAYER PROPOSAL.

Even many single payer supporters have it wrong. They claim that Gov.
Shumlin gave up for political reasons, and, if he had persevered, he would
have been successful in establishing the first state-level single payer
system in the U.S. Again, the problem is that H.202, the Vermont reform
legislation, IS NOT A SINGLE PAYER PROPOSAL.

Posted above is a link to H.202. During the legislative process, the bill
was renamed, deleting “single-payer” from its title. If you check the
document at the link, you will see that the original bill was red-lined
out, and the bill was entirely rewritten. All references to “single-payer”
were removed.

The crucial phrase in the except above regarding waivers and agreements is
“to the extent possible under federal law.” It was known at the time the
revisions were being made that Sec 1332 ACA waivers, Sec 1115 Medicaid
waivers, the narrowly defined Medicare demonstration waivers, and the ERISA
limitations on employer-sponsored plans were so limited that it would be
impossible to establish a bona fide single payer system through unilateral
state action alone, nor through a cooperative effort with the Obama
administration. Comprehensive federal legislation would have been required,
and that clearly was not forthcoming from this or the next Congress.
Legislating a wish list does not equate with clearing all of the hurdles
that only Congress can effectuate.

The reason that this message is being reemphasized again today is that
there has not been a loud enough voice in unison emphatically rejecting the
claim that Vermont’s experience is proof that single payer cannot work.
Single payer never had a chance, considering the inertia in Congress. This
was not a single payer failure. Do not remain silent when that claim is
made. Single payer has been proven to work well in many other nations.