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
US Leads Charge as Surge of Oil and Gas Projects Threaten Hope for Livable Planet
"The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Fossil fuel-producing countries late last year pledged to "transition away from fossil fuels," but a report on new energy projects shows that with the United States leading the way in continuing to extract oil and gas, governments' true views on renewable energy is closer to a statement by a Saudi oil executive Amin Nasser earlier this month.
"We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, said at an energy conference in Houston.
A new report published Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) suggests the U.S. in particular has abandoned any plans to adhere to warnings from climate scientists and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said in 2021 that new oil and gas infrastructure has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Despite the stark warning, last year at least 20 oil and gas fields worldwide reached "final investment decision," the point at which companies decide to move ahead with construction and development. Those approvals paved the way for the extraction of 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).
By the end of the decade, companies aim to sanction nearly four times that amount, producing 31.2 billion boe from 64 oil and gas fields.
The U.S. led the way in approving new oil and gas projects over the past two years, GEM's analysis found.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of GEM's findings shows that burning all the oil and gas from newly discovered fields and approved projects would emit at least 14.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"This is equivalent to more than one-third of the CO2 emissions from global energy use in 2022, or all the emissions from burning oil that year," said Carbon Brief.
GEM noted in its analysis that oil companies and the policymakers who continue to support their planet-heating activities have come up with numerous "extraction justifications" even as the IEA has been clear that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with avoiding catastrophic planetary heating.
The report notes that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "supported ConocoPhillips' Willow oil field, arguing that the Alaskan oil and gas industry has a 'better environmental track record,' and not approving the project 'impoverish[es] Alaska Natives and blame[s] them for changes in the climate that they did not cause.'"
Carbon Brief reported that oil executives have claimed they are powerless to stop extracting fossil fuels since demand for oil and gas exists for people's energy needs, with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods tellingFortune last month that members of the public "aren't willing to spend the money" on renewable energy sources.
A poll by Pew Research Center last year found 67% of Americans supported the development of alternative energy sources. Another recent survey by Eligo Energy showed that 65% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for renewable energy.
"Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these hold water," said Scott Zimmerman, project manager for the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker at GEM. "The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle."
Climate scientist and writer Bill McGuire summarized the viewpoint of oil and gas executives and pro-fossil fuel lawmakers: "Climate emergency? What climate emergency?"
The continued development of new oil and gas fields, he added, amounts to "pure insanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just ‘Stop Drilling,’ Critics Say After Biden Admin Finalizes Methane Limits
The new Biden administration rule will limit methane emissions, but critics say it's time to stop drilling for fossil fuels.
Mar 28, 2024
The Biden administration on Tuesday finalized rules that will force oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions, but critics say the administration needs to do more to curb a key driver of the planet-warming pollution: fossil fuel drilling.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and the Bureau of Land Management's new rules will require that fossil fuel companies contain methane leaks at oil and natural gas wells that are on federal land, and they will also have to limit how much methane they burn off.
Critics say the only solution that will truly address the climate crisis is to stop drilling entirely. Recently released Interior Department data shows that the Biden administration has approved close to 50% more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than the Trump administration did during its first three years.
"The best way to eliminate methane pollution from public lands is to stop fossil fuel drilling, period. In the midst of a climate emergency, we need to take the actions necessary to stop pollution once and for all," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said in a statement. "We look forward to working with climate champions in Congress like Rep. Jan Schakowsky to pass the Future Generations Protection Act to ban fracking on public lands and everywhere else."
Some praised the new rules as needed progress, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
America’s public lands should be sources of inspiration and joy, not pollution and waste. I applaud @Interior for working to stop releases of methane, a major climate pollutant, on our public lands—something I've been demanding for years with my FLARE Act. https://t.co/D1o26GEc55
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 27, 2024
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement Tuesday that “this final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent [methane] waste, protect our environment and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers.”
Methane can trap far more heat than CO2, so limiting emissions is a critical part of addressing the climate crisis. Despite pledging to cut methane emissions, oil and gas companies have not significantly reduced emissions in recent years. The U.S. is currently the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas in the world.
The International Energy Agency says major reductions in methane emissions need to be made if the world is going to avert catastrophic global warming.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Department Spokesman Urged to Resign Over 'Despicable' Attack on UN Expert
One critic described Matthew Miller's attack on United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese as a "Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
Mar 28, 2024
U.S. State Department Matthew Miller faced calls to resign Thursday after he accused a United Nations special rapporteur of engaging in antisemitism—an attack that came days after the human rights expert presented a report concluding that Israel's assault on Gaza has met the threshold of genocide.
Asked about the report during a press briefing on Wednesday, Miller said the U.S. has "for a longstanding period of time opposed the mandate of this special rapporteur, which we believe is not productive."
"And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can't help but note a history of antisemitic comments that she has made that have been reported," Miller added, pointing to comments that Francesca Albanese—the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories—"made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7."
A new low by the Biden team.
In response to UN Special Rapporteur @FranceskAlbs new report - Anatomy of a Genocide - concluding that the threshold of genocide has reasonably been met, the State Dep chooses to attack her persona and accuse her of antisemitism :( :( pic.twitter.com/iNpVT3BWQy
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 27, 2024
It's not entirely clear which comments Miller was referencing.
In an interview with Jewish News Syndicate in December, Albanese was asked whether Palestinian militants' killing of Israeli soldiers on October 7 was a violation of international law. Albanese, an Italian attorney and academic, said that "killing a soldier is a tragedy under international law, but when there is an armed conflict, like in this case, killing a soldier is not illegal."
But Albanese stressed in the interview that the Hamas-led attacks on Israeli civilians—including the taking of hostages—were "not legitimate resistance."
"These are crimes and cannot be justified," she added.
Miller's attack on Albanese Wednesday—which echoed earlier attacks on the special rapporteur by U.S. officials and lawmakers—sparked immediate backlash and calls for his resignation.
"Matthew Miller should be forced to resign for trying to endanger the life of a U.N. official with falsehoods," Ashish Prashar, a spokesperson for Gaza Voices, said in a statement. Albanese said earlier this week that she has faced threats following the publication of her report accusing Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, called the State Department spokesman's remarks a "truly despicable, Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
"Note the lack of substantive rebuttals of her careful analysis, and the resort to ad hominem attacks," Talbot wrote on social media. "Not the sign of a confident administration."
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians."
The Israeli government has similarly attempted to cast Albanese as an antisemite, drawing pushback from human rights organizations and academics who say the claim is a baseless attempt to discredit her work.
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians—and U.N. officials and experts have been among the most consistent victims of those attacks," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams.
"Almost 15 years ago Richard Falk," Bennis added, "an internationally respected Princeton professor of international law who had just been appointed special rapporteur, was not only denied access to the occupied Palestinian territory to carry out the terms of his U.N. mandate, but was also arrested and jailed by Israeli authorities."
"Since then every special rapporteur has been similarly excluded, their mandate and their work undermined, and their commitment to international law and human rights attacked as antisemitic," she said. "Francesca Albanese has been among the bravest of these SRs, maintaining her commitment to calling out all violations of international law relevant to her mandate—including when Israel has violated international covenants against apartheid and now, against genocide."
Albanese's 25-page report, which she delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Tuesday, argues that "the overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group."
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has been met: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to groups' members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," the report states. "Genocidal acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by senior military and government officials."
Amnesty International praised the report as "a crucial body of work that must serve as a vital call to action."
The Biden State Department has publicly rejected genocide accusations against Israel as "meritless" and said it has not found Israel's military to be in violation of international law during its monthslong war on Gaza—an assessment that conflicts with the findings of leading human rights organizations and U.N. experts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular