Kaiser Daily Health Policy Repor Highlights Recent Editorials, Op-Eds

January 5, 2007 – 7:24 pm | posted in Health Insurance, Medicare, Primary Care, Public Health

Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion pieces related to health care. Summaries appear below. Editorials

Contra Costa Times: Calling for reductions in Medicaid payments to pharmacies is “a small step in the right direction,” but, “[u]nfortunately, the Bush administration has failed to take far more significant action to reduce drug prices for Medicare,” a Times editorial states. Lack of federal negotiation for lower drug prices is “one of the major failures of the Bush administration and Congress” because the negotiation “could force huge cost savings for taxpayers and patients,” the Times says. According to the editorial, “What seems to be” preventing negotiations “are the close ties the Bush administration and many in Congress have with drug companies and their huge campaign donations” (Contra Costa Times, 12/26/06).
New York Times: Some critics of recently approved legislation that will link Medicare reimbursement for doctors to quality measures accuse “Congress of trying to impose federally regulated ‘cookbook’ medicine,” a Times editorial states. However, “the notion of pegging reimbursements to performance has strong support from leaders in clinical and academic medicine, provided it is done carefully and in collaboration with credible experts who know good medicine from bad when they see it,” the editorial continues. The Times concludes, “We can only hope that this is a real reform in the making, not a passing fad in the endless struggle to improve the health care system” (New York Times, 12/26/06).
Washington Post: Politicians and national leaders have stayed away from making large-scale changes to the U.S. health care system because they view it as “impossibly complex,” a Post editorial states. According to the editorial, “the pressure for reform is stronger now” because the nation has “suffered another decade of galloping health costs that eat into take-home wages, damage the bottom lines of companies and leave a shamefully large number uninsured.” States, such as California and Massachusetts, have created statewide universal insurance programs that show “ambitious health care proposals” do not “explode in the face of their sponsors,” the editorial states (Washington Post, 12/24/06).
Winston-Salem Journal: The Bush administration “is looking in the wrong place” for savings in Medicaid by lowering reimbursements to pharmacies, according to a Journal editorial. The proposal “would hit small, privately owned pharmacies hardest” without the “leverage to wring better deals from manufacturers,” the editorial states. In addition, the proposal would “squeeze pharmacies between drug company prices on one hand and federal payment schedules on the other hand,” according to the editorial (Winston-Salem Journal, 12/26/06).

Opinion Pieces

Mike King, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The FDA should proceed with plans to require stronger warning labels on common, over-the-counter painkillers, but ultimately it will be up to consumers to monitor their own use of these widely popular drugs,” Journal-Constitution editorial writer King states in an opinion piece. Consumers who “turn daily to over-the-counter medicines to help them sleep, to control headaches, to ease their painful joints or to deal with common colds need to understand that almost all of the medications they are taking contain these drugs. And the combination could do much more harm than good,” King concludes (King, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/29/06).
Stuart Altman, Boston Globe: Employer-based health insurance ” has become the American way of financing health care for most individuals and families,” Altman, dean of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, writes in a Globe opinion piece. He continues, “We should develop ways to make it work better — and focusing on the most expensive patients is the way to do so.” Altman says that having the government “pay a portion of the expense of high-cost patients will lower private health insurance premiums and spread the cost of paying for these patients among all taxpayers in the state — thereby taking the burden off an individual company or group of workers.” He adds, “No longer will an employer or insurer have a financial incentive to avoid employing or insuring a potentially high-cost worker or family” (Altman, Boston Globe, 1/2).
Ed Feulner, Chicago Sun-Times: In 2007, lawmakers should focus on measures that would help “[d]eal with our entitlement crisis,” Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, writes in a Sun-Times opinion piece. “[T]oday’s youngsters” will have to pay about $187,000 in the future “just to provide Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to their elders,” Feulner writes, adding, “This isn’t merely unfair; if left unchanged it could spell the end of the American dream.” Feulner says that “lawmakers owe voters an explanation of how they’ll enact long-term reforms without increasing our tax burden” (Feulner, Chicago Sun-Times, 12/27/06).
Anna Bernasek, New York Times: The “solution” to the “developing health care crisis” in the U.S. is a system that has “proven effective for hundreds of millions of people: single-payer health insurance,” columnist Bernasek writes in Times opinion piece. She continues, ” Despite everything that is known about the economic benefits of a single-payer system, there’s one big stumbling block: many Americans don’t believe in it.” Bernasek concludes, “Changing the minds of so many millions of people isn’t done overnight. But sooner or later, persuading people to do something that’s in their own economic interest ought to succeed” (Bernasek, New York Times, 12/31/06).
Paul Krugman, New York Times: “[G]iven a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform,” Democrats “should choose the spending,” columnist Krugman writes in a Times opinion piece. “By spending money well, Democrats can both improve Americans’ lives and, more broadly, offer a demonstration of the benefits of good government,” Krugman says. “In the long run, something will have to be done about the deficit. But given the state of our politics, now is not the time,” he concludes (Krugman, New York Times, 12/22/06).
Paul Krugman, New York Times: “The truth is that we can afford to cover the uninsured. What we can’t afford is to keep going without a universal health care system,” Times columnist Krugman writes in an opinion piece. Krugman states that the U.S. health care system is a “scandal and a disgrace” marked by “spectacular inefficiency” and fragmentation. Proposals to switch the U.S. to universal health care have been flawed because they rely too much on private insurance companies rather than a Medicare-style approach, Krugman says, adding that the resistance persists because “would-be reformers are trying to avoid too strong a backlash from the insurance industry and other players who profit from our current system’s irrationality.” He concludes, “Now we have another chance for fundamental health care reform. Let’s not blow that chance with a pre-emptive surrender to the special interests” (Krugman, New York Times, 1/1).
H. Gilbert Welch, Lisa Schwartz and Steven Wolpshin, New York Times: Over-diagnosis of disease is the “biggest health threat” in the U.S., according to a Times opinion piece by Welch, author of “Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why,” and Schwartz and Woloshin, senior research associates at the VA Outcomes Group. The “epidemic of diagnoses” is caused by industry forces, such as increased revenue for drug manufacturers, hospitals, physicians and disease advocacy groups; greater financial security and respect for researchers of disease-based organizations; and the possibility that under-diagnoses could lead to lawsuits. “Simply labeling people as diseased can make them feel anxious and vulnerable,” the authors write, and the side effects of drugs prescribed to those with only mild or moderate symptoms “can only cause harm.” They continue, “As more of us are being told we are sick, fewer of us are being told we are well,” adding, “People need to think hard about the benefits and risks of increased diagnosis” (Welch/Schwartz/Woloshin, New York Times, 1/2).
Gary Andres, Washington Times: “Authorizing the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors is one of the first tasks on the Democrats’ to-do list when Congress reconvenes in January,” Andres, vice chair of research and policy for Dutko Worldwide, writes in a Times opinion piece. Initially, support among seniors for such negotiations appears high, but “when voters are confronted with the real possibility that the result of government negotiations means more restricted choices due to a more limited government-determined drug formulary, support for negotiations plummets,” Andres writes. “How the Democrats’ centerpiece health care proposal is ultimately framed and understood by voters — as an antidote to high drug prices or a tourniquet on drug options — will shape voter judgment on this issue,” Andres adds (Andres, Washington Times, 12/28/06).
Gilbert Ross, Washington Times: “Pfizer’s recent decision to terminate its 15,000-patient study of torcetrapib and abandon further development of this HDL-raising drug … casts a cloud over the whole class of cardiovascular therapeutics, which is very bad news for millions of Americans at risk for heart disease,” Ross, the executive and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, writes in a Times opinion piece. “Pfizer’s disappointment should highlight the real risks of drug [research and development]. Who will take such risks to develop the next generation of innovative, lifesaving drugs, other than an industry with abundant capital, intellectual resources and the freedom to use them? Where will the next generation of innovative drugs come from?” he asks. “Not from Washington and not from antibusiness activists. Only a vibrant, market-based, unfettered pharmaceutical industry can continue to provide us with a steady stream of lifesaving, cost-effective drugs,” Ross concludes (Ross, Washington Times, 12/23/06).