February, 21 2017, 09:15am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Clare Fauke, Communications Specialist,,clare@pnhp.org
Single-Payer Reform is 'the Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge' on Health Care: Annals of Internal Medicine Commentary
Researchers estimate administrative savings at $504 billion annually
Proposals floated by Republican leaders won't achieve President Trump's campaign promises of more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs, but a single-payer reform would, according to a commentary published today [Tuesday, Feb. 21] in Annals of Internal Medicine, one of the nation's most prestigious and widely cited medical journals.
Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the Trump presidency. But the health reform effort has stalled because Republicans in Congress have been unable to come up with a better replacement and fear a backlash against plans that would deprive millions of coverage and raise deductibles.
In today's Annals commentary, longtime health policy experts Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein warn that the proposals by Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Secretary of HHS Tom Price would slash Medicaid spending for the poor, shift the ACA's subsidies from the near-poor to wealthier Americans, and replace Medicare with a voucher program, even as they would cut Medicare's funding and raise the program's eligibility age.
Woolhandler and Himmelstein review evidence that, in contrast, single-payer reform could provide comprehensive first-dollar coverage to all Americans within the current budgetary envelope because of vast savings on health care bureaucracy and profits. The authors estimate that a streamlined, publicly financed single-payer program would save $504 billion annually on health care paperwork and profits, including $220 billion on insurance overhead, $150 billion in hospital billing and administration and $75 billion doctors' billing and paperwork. They estimate that an additional $113 billion could be saved each year by hard bargaining with drug companies over prices. A table in the paper summarizes these savings.
The savings would cover the cost of expanding insurance to the 26 million who remain uninsured despite the ACA, as well as "plugging the gaps in existing coverage - abolishing copayments and deductibles, covering such services as dental and long-term care that many policies exclude."
The lead author of the commentary, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, is an internist, distinguished professor of public health and health policy at CUNY's Hunter College, and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School. She said: "We're wasting hundreds of billions of health care dollars on insurance paperwork and profits. Private insurers take more than 12 cents of every premium dollar for their overhead and profit, as compared to just over 2 cents in Medicare. Meanwhile, 26 million are still uninsured and millions more with coverage can't afford care. It's time we make our health care system cater to patients instead of bending over backward to help insurance companies."
Dr. David Himmelstein, the senior author, is a primary care doctor and, like Woolhander, a distinguished professor at CUNY's Hunter College and lecturer at Harvard Medical School. He noted: "We urgently need reform that moves forward from the ACA, but the Price and Ryan plans would replace Obamacare with something much worse. Polls show that most Americans - including most people who want the ACA repealed, and even a strong minority of Republicans - want single-payer reform. And doctors are crying out for such reform. The Annals of Internal Medicine is one of the most respected and traditional medical journals. Their willingness to publish a call for single payer signals that it's a mainstream idea in our profession."
The Annals of Internal Medicine is the flagship journal of the American College of Physicians (ACP), the nation's largest medical specialty organization with 148,000 internal medicine physicians (internists), related subspecialists, and medical students. In 2007, the Annals published a lengthy policy article in which the ACP said a single-payer system was one pathway to achieving universal coverage. In early 2008, the journal published a study showing 59 percent of U.S. physicians support "government legislation to establish national health insurance," a leap of 10 percentage points from five years before.
Today's commentary is believed to be the first full-length call for single payer, or national health insurance, that the journal has published in its 90-year history.
*****
"Single-Payer Reform: The Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge of More Coverage, Better Benefits, and Lower Costs," by Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. Annals of Internal Medicine. Published online first, Feb. 21, 2017. doi:10.7326/M17-0302.
Disclosures: Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org), a nonprofit educational and research organization that supports a single-payer national health plan; they also served as advisers to Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. Neither the Sanders campaign nor PNHP played any role in funding or otherwise supporting the commentary.
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
LATEST NEWS
US State Department Claims It Hasn't Seen Reports of Israel Torturing UNRWA Staff
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?" asked one observer.
Mar 18, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson on Monday attempted to avoid addressing allegations by employees of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees that they were tortured while in Israeli detention by claiming the U.S. State Department has not seen any media reporting on the accusations.
Ryan Grim, The Intercept's Washington, D.C. bureau chief, asked deputy State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel if he believes the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) staff members who say they were tortured by Israeli interrogators into making false confessions about involvement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which led the October 7 attacks on Israel. Israeli officials claimed that at least 12 out of UNRWA's 13,000 staff in Gaza had ties to Hamas and October 7.
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?"
"When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you have said that UNRWA itself was the one who forwarded those allegations alone. You said you found them credible, but since then UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted," said Grim. "Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel, and if UNRWA was credible enough for you believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?"
Patel replied, "I've not seen that reporting, Ryan," adding that "we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible."
The U.S. and more than a dozen other nations suspended funding for UNRWA in the wake of the Israeli allegations. In what UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini later called an act of "reverse due process," the agency terminated nine employees in response to Israel's claims, despite admitting to having no evidence to support their firing.
The European Union and nations including Canada, Sweden, and Australia subsequently reinstated funding for UNRWA, which Lazzarini said "is facing a deliberate and concerted campaign to undermine its operations."
The controversy over UNRWA has unfolded as the agency struggles to provide shelter and humanitarian aid to Gazans, who are suffering not only Israeli bombs and bullets but also a genocidal siege and blockade that are exacerbating growing famine in the embattled enclave.
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) this week called Israeli claims that UNRWA is a Hamas proxy a "flat-out lie."
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medical assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," the senator warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Asset Seizure Likely as Trump Can't Afford Bond for NY Fraud Case
"Trump owes this money because he fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets—and now (oops) apparently no one will accept those assets as collateral."
Mar 18, 2024
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the remainder was demanded from his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
A Times analysis found earlier this month that Trump has only about $350 million in cash.
James has given Trump until March 25 to pay the judgment, which was announced last month as New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found the former president and his real estate empire, the Trump Organization, had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
"It wouldn't surprise me if lenders are refusing real estate as collateral due to his lying about their value," said attorney Blake Allen.
The attorney general said last month that regardless of Trump's difficulty in securing the bond, her office is "prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers" and suggested she would pursue asset seizure.
"I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James toldABC News, referring to one of Trump's buildings in New York's Financial District.
James hasn't publicly stated what other Trump assets she would potentially seize from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump asked an appeals court to issue a stay on the judgment, pausing enforcement while his appeal proceeds, or to accept just $100 million.
In addition to potentially levying and selling Trump's assets, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain toldThe Associated Press last month, James' office could "lien his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular