January, 06 2020, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Clare Fauke, Communications Specialist,,clare@pnhp.org
Health Care Paperwork Cost U.S. $812 Billion in 2017, Four Times More Per Capita Than in Canada
Study in leading medical journal links rise in bureaucracy — now 34.2% of health spending — to surging overhead of private insurers.
WASHINGTON
A study published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $812 billion in 2017. This represented more than one-third (34.2%) of total expenditures for doctor visits, hospitals, long-term care and health insurance. The study estimated that cutting U.S. administrative costs to Canadian levels would have saved more than $600 billion in 2017.
Health administration costs were more than fourfold higher per capita in the U.S. than in Canada ($2,479 vs. $551 per person) which implemented a single-payer Medicare for All system in 1962. Americans spent $844 per person on insurers' overhead while Canadians spent $146. Additionally, doctors, hospitals, and other health providers in the U.S. spent far more on administration due to the complexity entailed in billing multiple payers and dealing with the bureaucratic hurdles insurers impose. As a result, hospital administration cost Americans $933 per capita vs. $196 in Canada. The authors note that in Canada hospitals are financed through lump-sum "global budgets" rather than fee-for-service, much as fire departments are funded in the U.S. Physicians' billing costs were also much higher in the U.S., $465 per capita vs. $87 per capita in Canada.
The analysis, the first comprehensive study of health administration costs since 1999, was carried out by researchers at Harvard Medical School, the City University of New York at Hunter College, and the University of Ottawa. The authors, who also performed the 1999 study, analyzed thousands of accounting reports that hospitals and other health care providers filed with regulators, as well as census data on employment and wages in the health sector. They obtained additional data from surveys of physicians and government reports.
The researcher found that administration's share of overall U.S. health spending rose by 3.2 percentage points between 1999 and 2017, from 31.0 % to 34.2%. Of the 3.2 percentage point increase, most (2.4 percentage points) was due to the expanding role that private insurers have assumed in tax-funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Private managed care plans now enroll more than one-third of Medicare recipients and a majority of those on Medicaid; Medicare and Medicaid now account for 52% of private insurers' revenues. Private insurers' increasing involvement has pushed up overhead in those public programs; private Medicare Advantage plans take 12% or more of premiums for their overhead, while traditional Medicare's overhead is just 2%, a difference of at least $1,155 per enrollee (per year).
The authors cautioned that their estimates probably understate administrative costs, and particularly the growth since 1999. Their 1999 study included administrative spending for some items such as dental care for which no 2017 data were available. Additionally, private insurance overhead has increased since the study's completion, rising by 13.2% between 2017 and 2018 according to official health spending figures released in December.
"Medicare for All could save more than $600 billion each year on bureaucracy, and repurpose that money to cover America's 30 million uninsured and eliminate copayments and deductibles for everyone," said study senior author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at the City University of New York (CUNY) at Hunter College and lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, where she previously served as a professor. "Reforms like a public option that leave private insurers in place can't deliver big administrative savings," Dr. Woolhandler added. "As a result, public option reform would cost much more and cover much less than Medicare for All."
According to Dr. David Himmelstein, the study's lead author who is an internist in the South Bronx, a distinguished professor at CUNY's Hunter College and lecturer in Medicine at Harvard, "Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care. But instead of buying better care, that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork. Before their single-payer reform, Canadians died younger than Americans, and their infant mortality rate was higher than ours. Now Canadians live three years longer and their infant mortality rate is 22% lower than ours. Under Medicare for All, Americans could cut out the red tape and afford a Rolls Royce version of Canada's system."
***
"Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017." David U. Himmelstein, M.D.; Terry Campbell, M.H.A.; and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. Annals of Internal Medicine, published online ahead of print January 6, 2020
doi:10.7326/M19-2818
The Annals of Internal Medicine is the official journal of the American College of Physicians, the largest U.S. medical specialty society with 159,000 members.
In addition to their academic positions, Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein founded Physicians for a National Health Program, a 23,000 member organization that advocates for Canadian- style national health insurance in the U.S. Co-author Terry Campbell is Executive Director, Research Operations and Strategies at the University of Ottawa in Canada.
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
'Disastrous': US Vetoes Cease-Fire Resolution at UN Security Council
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations.
Dec 08, 2023
As the United Nations humanitarian chief warned that aid workers in Gaza are "hanging on by our fingertips" as they try to mitigate an "untenable" disaster, and with Americans' support for Israel's U.S-backed bombardment of the enclave eroding, the United States on Friday vetoed a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. Envoy to the U.N. Robert Wood told members of the council that a cease-fire would "only plant the seeds for the next war."
Thirteen member-countries voted in favor of the cease-fire resolution, which was introduced after U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres took the rare step of invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, warning that Israel's slaughter of at least 17,487 Palestinians in just two months "may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
The U.K. abstained from voting on the resolution, saying it did not take into account that Hamas committed acts of terrorism when it attacked Israel on October 7.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, called the veto "disastrous."
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said Mansour. "Instead of allowing this council to uphold its mandate by finally making a clear call after two months of massacres that the atrocities must end, the war criminals are given more time to perpetuate them. How can this be justified?"
Nicolas de Rivière, France's permanent representative to the Security Council, who voted in favor of the cease-fire, argued that there is no "contradiction in the fight against terrorism and the protection of civilians, in strict respect of international humanitarian law."
"Unfortunately once again, this council has failed. With a lack of unity and by refusing to genuinely commit to negotiations in doing this, the crisis in Gaza is getting worse and it runs the risk of extending," said de Rivière.
The U.S. has now vetoed U.N. resolutions to hold Israel accountable for its policies in Palestine 45 times, human rights lawyer Noura Erakat said.
Former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber—who resigned in October over the U.N.'s response to the war in Gaza—noted that U.S. blocked the resolution on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the U.N. Genocide Convention.
"Thousands have died since [the United States'] last veto and more will die now," said Mokhiber.
Keep ReadingShow Less
73% of US Voters Want Emissions Cut in Half by 2023: Poll
One expert expressed hope that Democrats "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
Dec 08, 2023
Polling results released Friday by CNN show that 73% of U.S. voters across the political spectrum believe the government should design policies to meet its commitment to cut planet-heating emissions in half by the end of this decade.
End Climate Science founding director Genevieve Guenther noted on social media that the overall figure includes 95% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and even 50% of Republicans.
She expressed hope that the Democratic Party will now "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
The survey was conducted by SSRS last month and the results were revealed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) set to run through Tuesday—which U.S. President Joe Biden has been criticized for blowing off.
As CNNdetailed:
Americans give Biden a 43% approval rating for his handling of environmental policy, which is several points above his overall approval rating and well above his numbers for handling the economy. But few Americans, only 2%, see climate change as the most important issue facing the country, giving higher priority to the economy and cost of living.
But climate change and clean energy are increasingly intertwined with the economy. Climate change-fueled disasters don’t just impact commerce, they also strike at the heart of the American dream: homeownership.
The approval and disapproval responses strongly correlate to political party, with far more Democrats backing Biden's environmental policy.
Most Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of environmental policy
(Graphic: Matt Stiles/CNN)
Pollsters found that 58% of voters worry about the effects of extreme weather, 68% worry about the risks of climate change, and 79% think that climate change contributed to extreme weather in their area.
Large majorities of voters from the partisan spectrum agreed that humanity as a whole, the energy and automobile industries, and the U.S. and Chinese governments have some or even a great deal of responsibility to try to reduce climate change. Slightly smaller majorites said that those entities are doing "too little" to address the emergency.
Two-thirds of voters said that "requiring that all electricity in the U.S. be produced using renewable sources like solar and wind by the year 2035" as well as "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing home solar panels should be important, or even top priorities.
Even more (71%) noted the importance of "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing ultra-efficient home heating and cooling systems" along with "prioritizing investments in clean energy sources over energy from fossil fuels." A slim majority (54%) prioritized "offering federal tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle."
While Biden—who is seeking reelection next year—campaigned on the promise of being a "climate president," during his first term so far he has faced criticism from campaigners and frontline communities for declining to declare a national climate emergency, supporting the Willow oil project and Mountain Valley Pipeline, backing the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports, and continuing fossil fuel lease sales for public lands and waters.
The president has also had to contend with Republicans and right-wing Democrats in Congress who want to kill or water down climate policies. For example, this week, the House GOP has voted to block a proposed Biden administration rule meant to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and advance various fossil fuel industry-friendly bills, including one that would saddle taxpayers with the cost of cleaning up oil and gas wells on federal lands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crunch Time at COP28': Latest Draft Still Has Loopholes, Omits 'Just' Fossil Fuel Phaseout
As the newest Global Stocktake draft was released, an OPEC letter showed oil-producing companies are fearful that the world is getting closer to phasing out fossil fuels.
Dec 08, 2023
Reviewing the latest draft of the Global Stocktake regarding the climate emergency out of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference, campaigners on Friday noted that negotiators left in numerous loopholes that would allow the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting, while eliminating one option for a clause that appeared to call for a just transition toward renewable energy.
The new draft is the result of three more days of negotiations since the last version of the Global Stocktake (GST) was released on Tuesday, when advocates warned policymakers appeared insistent on including a call for "abatement" of fossil fuel emissions—meaning further development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which have so far failed to deliver the emissions-reduction results promised by proponents.
The latest version of the document includes four options for a paragraph that would address the future of fossil fuel use in the remaining years of this decade.
The options that remain in the draft are:
- A phaseout of fossil fuels in line with best available science;
- A phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1.5°C pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris agreement;
- A phaseout of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050; and
- No text regarding changes to fossil fuel use.
Negotiators crossed out an option that would call for "an orderly and just phaseout of fossil fuels."
"There is some good stuff in there, but still too many dangerous distractions," said 350.org on social media. "We must agree [to] a fair and fast phaseout of fossil fuels and to triple renewable energies by 2030!"
The draft suggested that many policymakers remain committed to calling for a phaseout of "unabated" fossil fuel emissions—those that are not "captured" and stored underground or under the seabed before they hit they atmosphere.
As Common Dreamsreported Friday, more than 470 lobbyists representing carbon capture and storage interests and companies are in attendance at COP28—along with more than 2,400 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, which has openly supported CCS as a solution that would allow oil, gas, and coal giants to continue operating.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said world leaders must take their "historic opportunity to secure a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels in line with what the science shows is necessary to meet critical climate goals."
"It's crunch time at COP28," Cleetus told Common Dreams. "The latest draft of the Global Stocktake text includes several potential options, with varying degrees of ambition. Now, it's time to reach consensus on a final outcome that is true to the science, includes near- and long-term benchmarks, has no loopholes, and has an equitable provision of finance to drive a clean energy transition. Countries must take bold action and rise above narrow self-interest and zero-sum political games, as well as the influence of fossil fuel companies, to deliver what people around the world urgently need as climate impacts rapidly worsen."
"The time is now, and the place is Dubai, to finally address the root cause of this global crisis: fossil fuels," said Cleetus.
Oil Change International global policy manager Romain Ioualalen said the latest draft left him hopeful that the world has "never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout."
"What that transition will look like will be a fierce battle over the next few days," said Ioualalen. "We are alarmed about some of the options in this text that seem to carve out large loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. These will need to be opposed. The draft is also missing a clear recognition that developed countries will need to phase out faster and provide their fair share of finance, as well as a recognition that the decline of fossil fuel production must start immediately, not in the distant future."
Ghiwa Nakat, executive director of Greenpeace MENA, said the latest draft and "everything so far" at COP28 "has been just a prelude to what we really want to hear—commitment to a just and equitable phaseout of all fossil fuels by mid-century, coupled with key milestones for this critical decade."
While "alternative formulations on fossil fuel phaseout" have never "made it this far into a draft text," said Greenpeace International, "there are still no guarantees on a decision on fossil fuels, so all is in play."
Shortly after the draft was made public, letters from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were leaked to multiple news outlets and made it even more clear that campaigners' fight for a strong final Global Stocktake is not over—but that major fossil fuel producers are growing concerned that COP28 could be a turning point for the industry.
The letters, dated December 6 and signed by OPEC secretary-general and Kuwaiti oil executive Haitham al-Ghais, were sent to members countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria.
Al-Ghais urged the countries to "proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than emissions."
"These letters show that fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy," Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, toldThe Guardian. "Climate change is killing poor people around the globe and these petrostates don't want COP28 to phase out fossil fuels because it will hurt their short-term profits. It's shameful."
While the draft text "offers hope with several options for a phaseout of fossil fuels," said Cansın Leylim, associate director of global campaigns for 350.org, fossil fuel lobbyists are still "trying to block progress" at COP28.
"OPEC needs to get with the program or move out of the way of our just transition to a 100% renewable energy powered future," said Leylim. "The spotlight is now on the COP28's presidency and if they will broker a deal for a just transition or instead align themselves with the oil industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular