COVID-19, Culture & Society, Current Events, Featured, Health Policy, Medical Ethics, Medicare, Op-eds, What's New

There’s More to Death Than Covid-19

No Comments

Breathless headlines featuring ‘the Virus” are beginning to fade into a chronic undercurrent of fear thy neighbor for he might be bearing the gift of Covid. What you won’t see in the headlines are stories about a more pervasive and ultimately more lethal virus: a growing disregard for others and devaluation of life. Rampant homicides are disheartening enough, but more shocking is the shifting morality in medicine. 

News headlines gave the impression that the newly instituted Covid rules were designed to save lives, yet we soon learned the lockdowns, masking, school closures did more harm than good. Meanwhile—in plain sight—government-sanctioned sacrifice of the elderly was taking place. In 5 “progressive” states, Covid-positive patients were discharged from hospital isolation units and returned to their nursing homes where they comingled with uninfected residents. Of course, many more residents became ill. It didn’t make the headlines that half of Covid deaths were in nursing homes and 80 percent of deaths were in those over 65. This might have encouraged more policies that protected our elders and allowed the younger folks to carry on with their lives. To date, the news has not reported any apologies to the families of the victims of government and medical incompetence.

In 2020, many hospitals in the United States considered guidelines that would allow doctors to withhold CPR from Covid patients, ignoring the patient’s wishes. Our neighbor to the north, Quebec had actually issued such an order lasting from April to September 2020. Bless the paramedics on the front lines who complained and had the order lifted.

Age-related rationing is alive and well. The ethics advisor to 78-year-old President Biden, Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, author of the utilitarian “Complete Lives System” of  medical care, chose age 75 as his personal benchmark for ending life. This is so wrong. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Whether mentally sharp or in declining health, older people give texture and context to our lives. Reflecting on older folks reminds us that in their lifetime innovations have gone from puttering around in a car to rocketing to the moon. And Dick Tracy’s comic book two-way wrist radio is now a commonly worn Apple watch. 

The behavior of bureaucrats and the medical establishment during the Covid “crisis” laid bare the dismissive treatment of elders. And an uncomfortable question hangs in the air: was the nursing home debacle a conscious attempt to cull the herd? After all, Medicare chews up 15 percent of the federal budget and 25 percent of Medicare dollars are spent in the last year of the patient’s life. According to the 2019 Medicare Trustees report, the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2026—a short 5 years away. 

If this form of population control sounds un-American, remember that our country seriously engaged in eugenics, marked by 75 years of Supreme Court-approved forced sterilization. The abortion industry has devolved from a time when a woman was mortified to have an abortion to where clinics are advertised on highway billboards. The quest for clean air has gone from encouraging recycling and renewable energy to suggesting that human depopulation is the only way to save the planet. 

Human concern in medicine has taken a back seat to marginal scientific ethics and perhaps, secret agendas. We have become numb to the experiments using fresh aborted fetal tissue to create “humanized mice” that sprout various human organs. This slow walk to the edge of medical ethics has allowed science to go in grotesquely anti-human directions. Jointly with Chinese government funding, United States researchers created viable embryos that are a mix of human and monkey cells (a “chimera”). With funding from the Chan Zuckerberg [Mr. Facebook] Initiative, researchers tinkered with male rats so they could deliver live babies via Cesarian section. 

Sadly, physicians have become willing participants in the government’s borderline coercion by not informing themselves about early treatments for Covid or the side effects of the experimental vaccine. Federal and state governments are bribing, cajoling, and subjecting us to door-to-door pressure to take an injection of a product that could be killing us in numbers not seen before. Serious reactions include miscarriages, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, blood clotting disorders (including brain clots), and anaphylaxis. Bizarrely, the White House is challenging colleges to vaccinate its entire campus, despite sometimes fatal heart inflammation after vaccinations in young adults (who have infinitesimal risk of significant Covid illness). 

It appears we are guinea pigs in a grand experiment. The elderly were the casualties of Phase I. As the post-vaccine bodies pile up, the Nuremberg Code’s principle is being ignored: The experiment must be stopped if continuation would result in injury and death.

It’s not too late. Physicians must remember their Oath of Hippocrates and speak up and act for the benefit of their patients even in the face of conflicting government dictates. 

Culture & Society, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds, What's New

Obesity: America’s Self-inflicted Preexisting Condition

No Comments

Consuming too many potato latkes and Christmas cookies has left its mark on our waistlines. Unfortunately for Americans and their medical care, the seasonal overeating seems to last all year. Indeed, the American Medical Association has declared that obesity is a disease.

It may be more accurate to describe obesity as a contributor to certain diseases. Obesity raises the risk of premature death, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, breathing problems, certain cancers, and osteoarthritis. Certainly, obesity can result from certain uncommon diseases and hereditary factors, but most people become obese simply because they eat too many unhealthy foods and do not exercise.

At its last count, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 40 percent of U.S. adults age 20 and over, 21 percent of teens, and 14 percent of preschoolers are obese. A December 2019 study that analyzed 26 years of body mass index (BMI [the relation of weight to height]) data concluded that half of U.S. adults will be obese (BMI>25) by 2030. Some 25 percent will be severely obese (BMI>35). Moreover, less than 5 percent of adults get the recommended 30 minutes a day of physical activity. And even when people living in “food deserts” were presented with healthy options, only 10 percent changed their evil eating ways.

According to the CDC’s last comprehensive analysis, the annual medical cost of obesity in the United States to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers was $147 billion in 2008. And the medical costs for obese people were $1,429 higher than those of healthier weights.

The saddest development is the cultural normalization of obesity with lingerie models, singers, and television shows celebrating fatness. Do we high-five people with other lifestyle related conditions such as alcoholism, emphysema, or coronary artery disease? Of course not.

The obese are easy targets for drug company peddlers of quick fixes or “providers” who want to extract money from third-party payors. U.S. pharmaceutical companies spent $6.1 billion on direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in 2017. Many ads feature chunky type 2 diabetics happily frolicking about, thanks to the drug company’s magic pill. The ads might as well say, “pass the chocolate cupcakes with statin sprinkles drizzled with insulin.” We all know the prescription of eating less and exercising more is free of charge.

Alas, we are losing the battle of the bulge. A recent study found that participants failed to lose weight despite reporting that they were exercising and watching their diet. The authors concluded that “many of [the participants] might not have actually implemented weight loss strategies or applied a minimal level of effort, which yielded unsatisfactory results.”

While politicians debate the merits of spending trillions of dollars on government-sponsored medical care, a correctable source of high medical costs is hiding in plain sight. Irrespective of who pays for medical care, rational economic decisions must be made. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) waved a magic wand and removed preexisting conditions from the underwriting equation when calculating premiums. A sick person and a healthy person of the same age could purchase insurance at the same price. Consequently, the ACA doubled the costs for people who made the effort to take care of themselves.

The ACA did allow a “tobacco surcharge” of up to 50 percent more for premiums. Why not an obesity surcharge? This would provide an incentive for consumers to take obesity seriously. Additionally, health-conscious persons would not have to pay for the bad habits of others through taxes to fund government health insurance programs or through higher private insurance premiums.

Those who are stricken with illnesses through no fault of their own need a path to affordable medical care. A good start for lowering costs would be eliminating costly middlemen by encouraging consumers to pay directly for day-to-day medical expenses. Expanding contribution limits and eligible uses of Health Savings Accounts would help pay for the more reasonably priced direct-pay surgery and other alternatives to insurance like direct primary care.

With regard to insurance, we need a revival of competition in the insurance market with multiple products and carriers. Once again, single men could opt to decline pregnancy coverage. We need to restore the pre-ACA availability of low-cost catastrophic (major medical) insurance policies to all ages. Even before mandated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the large majority of insurers offered guaranteed renewable policies. Here, assuming timely payment of premiums, at the end of the policy period the insurer must renew coverage regardless of the health of the insured. Naturally, this valuable feature costs more but provides consumers with a strong incentive not let the insurance lapse.

Let’s confront the elephant in the room. Healthcare policy should promote personal responsibility, rather than encourage free riders. In America we are free to overeat and under-exercise but we have no right to make innocent bystanders pay for the consequences.

Culture & Society, Healthcare Reform, Medical Ethics, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds

Data Mining, Artificial Intelligence, and Angels of Death

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

Google is universally well known as a search and advertising company. Now Google is tapping into the $3.5 trillion healthcare market. To compete with the Apple Watch, Google acquired FitBit, the wearable exercise, heart rate, and sleep tracking device. Data is king.

Voluntarily worn fitness tracking devices are one thing, but Google has entered the realm of the brave new world.A government inquiry has brought to light Google’s “Nightingale Project” that collected private medical data from Ascension Health’s 2,600 sites of care across 20 states and D.C., unbeknownst to the patients. Dozens of Google employees had access to the data which included lab results, physician diagnoses, hospitalization records, and health histories, complete with patient names and dates of birth. Google claims that the project complies with the Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA) because it is a qualified business associate of Ascension Health. And unlike the ads for socks that appear on your computer a nanosecond after you purchased some tennis shoes, Google promises that the data won’t be combined with consumer data. Fat chance.

Amazon, which already knows our every thought, was not satisfied with merely creating software that can read medical records. Now they’ve created Transcribe Medical, a system that transcribes confidential patient-doctor conversations and uploads them directly into the electronic health record. Doctors would relinquish all control over “private” patient records. Google also has been working on its own automatic speech recognition “digital scribe” to upload multiple speaker conversations.

Not only is there a problem with inaccuracies that could lead to a patient receiving the wrong treatment, but we all know the ubiquitous problem of hacking—even in the Department of Defense and the federal Office of Personnel Management.

Disturbingly, certain circles oohed and aahed over the revelation that Google, using electronic health records (EHR), created an artificial intelligence program that could predict death better than doctors. Fortunately for humanity, many others found the thought of leaving doctors out of the equation horrifying. The cheerleaders crowed that it would decrease work for the doctors; they wouldn’t have to waste their time going through those pesky medical records to arrive at a conclusion. Using an artificial neural network to predict the death of a human being is a far cry from having a computer interpret an inanimate x-ray who is not a daughter, mother, sister, wife, or grandmother.

 If you put it all together, it adds up to a death panel of one. Google’s software would decide that there is not a high likelihood of walking out of the hospital, no treatment would be given. We are becoming witness to the devolution of humanity.

Moreover, the government is incentivizing workforce development in palliative care through the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act. Perhaps this is why the hospice team seems to greet the patient at the hospital door. Of note, once a person has signed on to the Medicare hospice program, Medicare will not pay for any curative treatment or medications. Medicare will not pay for an emergency room visit unless the hospice team arranged it or someone decides it is not related to the hospice diagnosis.

The number of hospice agencies participating in the Medicare program nearly doubled between 2000 and 2016, for a total of some 4,382 providers. In 2000, about 30 percent of hospice agencies were for-profit, compared to about 67 percent in 2016. In that same period, Medicare payments grew from $3 billion to $16.8 billion.

Hospice care is lucrative. The minimum Medicare payment is $196 per day regardless of the quantity or quality of services provided on that day. A July 2019 report from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services found that more than 80 percent of end-of-life facilities in the United States had at least one deficiency, and nearly 20 percent were poor performers with serious problems that jeopardized patient health and safety. It seems the compassionate medical service to care for suffering patients has turned into a heartless cash cow.

Is this what we want for our loved ones and eventually, ourselves? Medicare for All promises every type of medical care under the sun, including long-term care. Long-term care is expensive and if done properly, labor intensive. What better way to save money than to promote a computer program that convinces doctors that the patient is going to die no matter what they do. So the hospital tells the family that treatment or home care will drain their finances. For what? I’ll tell you for what. My parents died at home only after they were tired of doctors and ready to go. They strolled into heaven. They were not shoved in with a giant government backhoe.

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is Immediate Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. 

Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds, Socialized Medicine

Giving Medicare for All a Facelift: the Ugly Is Still There

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

Medicare for All (M4A) retained its prominent place on the stage at the latest Democratic debate. In its purest Bernie Sanders form, concurrent with abolishing private health insurance, U.S. residents would be enrolled in “Medicare.” The program would pay for unlimited “medically necessary” health expenses, including pharmaceuticals, mental health and substance abuse treatment, vision, dental, and hearing services, and long-term care with no out-of-pocket costs. Some supporters were scared off by the $32 trillion over 10 years price tag. Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren’s “I’m with Bernie” plan comes with a $52 trillion over 10 years price tag including up to $34 trillion in new government spending. Our country’s entire yearly budget is a mere $3.5 trillion. For perspective, if your salary is $40,000 per year it would take 25 million years to earn 1 trillion dollars. As M4A’s dark side emerged, the candidates distanced themselves from Bernie-care.

Elimination of private insurance? Whoa, Nellie! Over 156 million Americans —half the country—are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance plans and another 23 million have private individual policies. And most of these folks like that arrangement. Then there was pushback from some unions who had excellent health insurance policies for which they had bargained and given up other perks.

In the June debate the candidates raised their hands indicating they would abolish private health insurance. Now Mayor Buttigieg wants to “unify the American people around, creating a version of Medicare, making it available to anybody who wants it, but without the divisive step of ordering people onto it whether they want to or not.” Vice president Biden, noting his desire to keep patient choice stated, “we should build on Obamacare … adding a Medicare option in that plan, and not make people choose.” Of course, Obamacare caused a rise in premiums, a decrease in choice of insurance coverage, and like any large government-run program was prone to mismanagement and waste.

Possible financing mechanisms were screaming for a deep dive. One analysis concluded that most Americans would suffer financially if M4A were implemented as proposed. An analysis by a bipartisan think tank estimated a 32 per cent increase in payroll taxes would be needed to fund M4A. Everyone—even the working poor—would have more payroll taxes extracted from their paycheck. The analysis concluded that most households would pay more in new taxes than they would save by eliminating their current spending on private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Senator Warren tries to hide the ugly truth by railing about the evil rich who would be taxed down to their underwear. Take the deceptively worded “2-cent” annual tax for households with more than $50 million in assets. If you have $51 million in assets, most probably tied up in your business, you’d have to cough up (.02)($1,000,000) or $20,000, not 2 cents. The devil’s spawn, aka our 535 billionaires, would be subject to a 6 percent annual tax on their assets. Who will be the next target when the government has driven the assets to a sunny island in the Caribbean? Finally, raising the corporate income tax back up to 35 percent likely would result in businesses paying lower wages to current employees or cutting back on hiring to compensate for the increased tax burden.

During the latest debate, Senator Warren retreated from her “all-in” approach, asserting she would first provide Medicare at no cost to “everybody under the age of 18, everybody who has a family of four income less than $50,000”—about 135 million people. Second, she would lower the Medicare age to 50 and expand Medicare coverage to include vision, dental, and long-term care. In the third year, “when people have had a chance to feel it and taste it and live with it, we’re going to vote and we’re going to want Medicare for all.”

Senator Sanders owns that payroll taxes would be doubled or tripled and proposes a 4 percent surtax on families earning more than $29,000. So if you earn $60,000, you’d have to pay (.04)($31,000) or $1,240, enough for a whole year’s membership in a private Direct Primary Care plan. Senator Sanders, staying true to his principles, is sticking with unadulterated Medicare for All with its financial warts.

Even those who are numb to government over-spending can see the broader problem of inviting Uncle Sam into their lives in exchange for a Medicare card in their wallet. Any remaining privacy is erased. Our medical records would be furnished to the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Physicians and patients would be robbed of their autonomy and choice by medical care policies set by the government monopoly. Lack of competition leads to lower quality and fewer services. Coverage becomes an illusion.

Medicare for All’s beauty is only skin deep and its ugly goes to the bone.

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is Immediate Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. 

Doctors, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds

Medical Costs Transparency: As Clear as Peanut Butter

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

What if purchasing medical products and services were like buying peanut butter? Grocery stores have several brands and varieties: smooth, chunky, old-fashioned, natural, organic, no added sugar, reduced fat, no-stir, and pre-mixed with jelly with clearly marked prices ranging from $1.75 for the store’s generic brand to $7 for the over-priced Yuppie brand. After carefully examining the labels, our shopper chose a 16-ounce, $5 jar of no-added-sugar peanut butter. She paid the cashier $5 for the peanut butter and went home.

If our shoppers were transported to the universe of medical billing with the $5 jar of peanut butter, the shopper with Medicare would pay $1.00 but her grandchild will be presented with a bill for $4. When the shopper with private health insurance attempts to pay, the cashier becomes unglued. The shopper cannot say whether she met her deductible or has a co-payment, and whether the brand of peanut butter is approved by the network. She really wants the peanut butter so she grabs the generic from the shelf and pays the $1.75. Our privately insured shopper was pleasantly surprised at the generic’s good taste and healthful ingredients, her wallet was happy for the cost savings, and she was glad not to have the middleman hassle.

Comparison shopping is one pillar of bringing sanity to the high cost of medical care, but the opacity of the pricing system for medical costs limits the value of posting list prices to encourage lower costs through shaming, competition, and choice. In addition to research and development, manufacturing, and distribution costs, drug costs are affected by additional layers of middlemen: pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers. Using a “trade secret” process, PBMs negotiate discounts and rebates for private and government insurers. The money saved is supposed to go back to the government (taxpayers) or to insurers to lower premiums or otherwise benefit patients. PBMs typically are paid by a percentage of the rebate or discount off the list price. The higher the price, the bigger the rebate. Thus, the rebate system gives an incentive to raise list prices rather than placing the lowest-priced drug on the insurer’s formulary. (This same system is used by Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) for hospital product purchases.)

An analysis of the effect of California’s 2-year old drug price transparency law illustrates the complexity of pricing. Despite being compelled to post list prices, pharmaceutical companies raised the list price for wholesalers by a median of 25.8 percent but the data did not indicate the “price” that consumers actually paid. Moreover, with medical services and products the simple What the Market Will Bear (WTMWB) pricing method works because either the medication is essential (e.g., Epi-Pen®), has no alternative, is in short supply, or the medical consumer is not paying directly for the services.

 Similarly, publishing hospital the charge description master (“chargemaster”). i.e., the standard industry price does not give consumers enough information to make a rational choice regarding elective medical services. The data necessary to make price comparisons depends on an individual’s circumstances. More relevant than the chargemaster price, a self-pay patient needs to know the lowest possible cash price. A patient with health insurance must know (1) whether the hospital is in the insurance network, (2) the price negotiated between the health care provider and insurer (including Medicare), (3) the amount and method of calculating cost-sharing, (4) the amount Medicare or other insurer will pay for services performed in a physician’s office in contrast to the hospital which tags on a “facility fee.”

 Transparency is one tool for lowering costs through choice. As one of many studies on hospital consolidation noted, “The Sky’s the Limit” on prices where there is lack of competition. But the difficulties of achieving useful price transparency must not be a cue for the government to initiate bureaucratic band-aids. As we have seen with Obamacare, forcing insurers to pay more of the costs leads to higher premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays.

 Nor should the government impose price caps. President Nixon’s 1971 wage and price freeze brought product shortages—which we are already facing with certain drugs, including anesthetics and chemotherapy agents. If the government sticks to enforcing anti-trust laws, a competitive market will thrive. The court house door anti-trust settlement by Northern California’s Sutter Health sends a message to big hospital chains to stop using their market share to inflate prices or require insurers to join their networks on an all-or-nothing basis to prevent insurers from negotiating lower prices at individual hospitals.

If we can get to the point of direct exchange of money for goods and services and reserve health insurance for major expenses, we can see costs decrease just as we have seen with the Surgery Center of Oklahoma over the last 10 years.

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is Immediate Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. 

Culture & Society, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicine, Socialized Medicine

The Medical Care Wheel of Misfortune

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

You finally get your dream and are selected to be a contestant on Wheel of Fortune. You get to see Pat Sajak and Vanna White! You win a vacation to some country that you don’t really want to see. You cannot get the cash equivalent. You have to take 10 days off of work to take the free vacation you did not want. You discover that you have to pay the tax on the free vacation.

Or you win a free car. You have a perfectly functioning 3-year-old car. The free car was not really the car you would have selected. You accepted it because it was free. Then you see that you have to pay tax on the list price of the free car. You also discover that the collision insurance and Department of Motor Vehicles registration for the free car are significantly higher than for the car you currently own.

These are examples of why nothing is “free.” This applies to medical care as well. You may have to see the “health care provider” the government program or private insurer makes available to you. You don’t particularly want to see a nurse, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles with free health care. Oh well, you convince yourself that it’s okay because, just like that car on the game show, it was free.

Here’s a new spin on “free.” Yes, your medical care should be free – free from the restraints of government control. Free from the government rules that have raised the price of insurance premiums. The Affordable Care Act mandated ten essential benefits that all insurance plans must include free of out-of-pocket charges to patients. Of course, this does not include the initial out-of-pocket charge: the insurance premium. Insurance premiums shot up over the post-ACA year because the insurance plan has to cover conditions that the insured persons may not even encounter in their own lives. A glaring example is obstetrics coverage in a menopausal female. Preventive and wellness visits are also labelled as free.

Moreover, a recent AMA study revealed that over the last four years the competition in the commercial insurance market has decreased. In over 50 percent of metropolitan areas, representing about 73 million persons, one insurer has half of the market. The more concentrated the market, the higher the premiums.

Remember that free car? We all know and readily accept that car insurance does not pay for the gas and basic maintenance. So why should maintenance medical care be covered by insurance? Car insurance would be unaffordable for most car owners if it paid for gas, oil changes, new mufflers, radios, and batteries. Most states require drivers to have car insurance. If people can’t afford the insurance, they lose the benefit of owning a car.

Similarly, if you lose your health due to long waits or delayed diagnosis because the CT scan was not authorized or poor medication response because you had to take the formulary drug that was not the doctor’s first drug choice for you, the care is not free, but very costly.

The underlying message of free “health care” is disempowering. The message is that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves. Empowerment is having control over our own lives. First, we take charge of our own health by thinking about the choices we make. We choose to not smoke, overindulge in food or drink, or engage in foolhardy behaviors. Second, we decide what is important for our own health. If you do not want insurance coverage for obstetrics or fertility treatment because you are 50 years old and do not want children, there should be a less expensive insurance product available to you. Third, we need to be free to choose our own doctor as well as the treatment the doctor—not the invisible third-party payer—recommends.

The promised free health care would increase the payroll taxes on all workers, even if that worker does not want that particular brand of free medical care. The next time you hear that medical care is free, just think about that “free” car that is the wrong color, is too small, has uncomfortable seats, inadequate headroom, and overall is not what you really want.

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is Immediate Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. 

Doctors, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicine, Politics

Don’t Buy What They Are Selling

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

Buying and selling is in the news lately with President “at some point you’ve made enough money,” “climate change is urgent and growing” Obama’s well-publicized imminent purchase of a 7,000 square foot, $14.85 million estate in Edgartown, Martha’s Vineyard, the playground of the rich and famous, guaranteed to survive the rising seas. Our current politicians are also on the hunt for buyers.  

Sales Pitch Number One: A medical care crisis is afoot and only the government can save you. Yes, there is a crisis of rising prices and premiums after the government started meddling in the medical care market. Once health insurance became popular, by 1963 906 insurance companies wrote health and accident insurance, with 42 offering exclusively health insurance. Now we have five companies that have cornered the health insurance market. Additionally, politically powerful hospitals continue to merge and gobble up physicians’ practices leading to up to 70 percent higher prices in geographic areas with minimal competition.

Premiums and out-of-pocket costs steeply rose after the passage of the Affordable Care Act and show no sign of going back down. In 2018, according to eHealth, the average cost of health insurance premiums was $440 for individuals and $1,168 for families – almost double the cost in 2014. The deductibles (the amount of money that you have to pay out-of-pocket before health insurance starts paying for your covered benefits) similarly rose to $4,328 for individuals and $8,352 for families.

Sales Pitch Number Two: The government-to-the rescue plan is fair and free. Now that we have had debates and the Iowa State Fair, we’ve heard enough to know that Medicare-for-All is neither free nor fair. There is a good political reason the House and Senate Medicare-for-All bills fail to provide a financing mechanism. We would have a collective national heart attack after seeing the price tag.

In 2016, the federal government spent more than $1.2 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Total national health expenditures by all government levels and private entities were $3.3 trillion. A 2018 Mercatus Center analysis concluded that Medicare-for-All conservatively would add $32.6 to $38.8 trillion to federal expenditures during its first 10 years. The government predicts that in 2026 the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust fund will be depleted and total national health expenditures will be $5.7 trillion. The federal government collected about $100 billion in Medicare premiums and a total of $3.32 trillion in taxes last year. Given the projected expenditures and no cost-sharing or premiums, new ways to perform mass wallet biopsies on the populace will emerge. The simplest tool, as Senator Sanders has suggested, is to raise payroll taxes on everyone.

Moreover, with the elimination of private insurance, when the money runs out and care is rationed, only the wealthy will be able to pay for care outside of the government system. Is that fair?

Upping the ante, Senator Sanders wants to pay off some Americans’ current medical debt by taxing Americans with no medical debt. Under his proposal, only people unable to pay their medical debt would be granted relief. Those keeping up with their payments would have to continue to pay. What does “unable” mean? If they are living below the poverty level, they have Medicaid. Is it the working poor? Or is it people who failed to prioritize their medical bills over Starbucks and take-out food? Hardly fair.

Sales Pitch Number Three: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, Politifact’s lie of the year. Essentially, the promise was that government would not interfere in the practice of medicine. But both state and federal government wants the final say-so in our medical care. For example, the California assembly passed a bill requiring the state Department of Public Health to review and potentially reject medical vaccine exemptions written by doctors who have granted five or more in a year. No exceptions for doctors specializing in neurological or immunological diseases. In order for Medicare to pay claims, physicians will be required to complete a computerized algorithm and certify that they have done so before ordering certain imaging like MRIs and CT scans. A computer will now determine whether the order is “appropriate.” Medical care by government robots will supplant individualized care – the heart of the patient-physician relationship. Who cares if the patient has a missed or delayed diagnosis?

As the government tries to trap physicians and patients in its restrictive bubble, independent physicians are pursuing avenues for increased choice in medical care and insurance products. Above all, we will never put the needs of the state ahead of the needs of the patient.

Bio: Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is a Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. 

Media & Press, Medical Ethics, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds, Politics

Propaganda, Pandering, and Politics

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

For the next one and a half years we will have to endure the hyperbole, apocalyptic predictions, fake outrage, half-truths, and frank lies of politicians. Some kind soul should take pity on us and pass out beans to put in our ears.

Of course, we should expose ourselves to many opinions, but we have to be careful about propaganda. Propaganda, an ugly word, is viewed as more than mere opinion but information that is somehow manipulative, misleading, or not telling the whole truth.

Propaganda came to mind during a meeting I attended where well-heeled teenage girls sporting AOC for Congress T-shirts preached to the captive audience about how the government should pay for college tuition, books, and housing for everyone, while extolling the virtues of socialism. Had their parents heeded Vladimir Lenin’s “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted”? Then some adults with vapid smiles admonished us that we should believe the young ladies, not because they provided statistics or pros and cons of the value of college for everyone, but because they are young and our future. This brings out one propaganda tool: it’s for the children.

Why would we willingly give up any of our freedoms and turn over our pocketbooks to the government because some nouveau socialists fed us propaganda? Because it works.

Look at the Social Security Act. No one would turn down the promise of financial security in old age, or as President Roosevelt said, a safeguard “against the hazards and vicissitudes of life.” I question if people think it is a good deal to pay more than 15 percent of your paycheck (including employer’s “contribution” and Medicare tax) to the government, thus taking your future savings out of your control. If you die young you get nothing; your savings go, not to your children, but into the government’s black hole.

Patients and doctors alike have been sucked in by statements of questionable accuracy. In promoting the Affordable Care Act, President Obama on multiple occasions assured us, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.” The ACA likely would not have gotten traction if he had said, “We don’t know what the insurers will do after the ACA is passed, so good luck.”

Electronic Medical Records (EHRs) were part of the bumpy road to the ACA. President Obama, promised that EHRs would “cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes and help save billions of dollars each year.” The unwary believed the puffery versus the facts.

The promise: EHRs are efficient. Reality: Hundreds of different brands mean that the records cannot be exchanged between physicians, but they can be sent to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

The promise: EHRs save time. Reality: Doctors spend half their time on the computer rather than talking with patients.

The promise: EHRs save lives. Reality: Software problems have memorialized incorrect information. One in 5 people surveyed by Kaiser Family Foundation has found a mistake in their records.

The promise: EHRs are private. Reality: There were more than 2,000 data breaches of 176.4 million patient records between 2010 and 2017.

It sounds so virtuous to insist that “healthcare is a right.” Thus, if you do not believe medical care should be free, you are not a moral person. This technique echoes Aldous Huxley’s view that “the propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that the other set is human.” (Of course, bearing arms is a constitutional right, but guns are not given away for free. Indeed, gunowners are thought by some to be horrible people). Free medical care for all is short, simple, and seductive.

The promise: Medical services are free. Reality: Government may deny the request for prior authorization for your treatment, or ration treatments for older folks, such as hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery. In the government health system 307,000 Veterans might have died waiting for medical care.

The promise: Drugs are free. Reality: The medication your physician thinks is best for you is not on the government’s formulary.

The promise: There are no without out-of-pocket costs. Reality: Private health insurance is abolished, leaving no consumer choice.

The promise: It’s free! Reality: Your taxes will be raised to heights unknown.

“Free” is America’s new verbal Potemkin village of health care, where Susie gets a free birth if she survives her abortion, free medical care for life, and even free food. All Susie has to do for herself is breathe. This is a panderer’s view of America. In fact, we are a country of individuals who want to govern their own lives and of physicians who want the freedom to properly care for their patients.

Dr. Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD is a board-certified anesthesiologist and member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Marilyn Singleton ran for Congress in California’s 13th District in 2012, fighting to give its 700,000 citizens the right to control their own lives.

While still working in the operating room, Dr. Marilyn Singleton attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She also interned at the National Health Law Program and has practiced both insurance and health law.

Dr. Marilyn Singleton has taught specialized classes dealing with issues such as the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. She also speaks out about her concerns with Obamacare, the apology law and death panels.

Congressional candidate Dr. Marilyn Singleton presented her views on challenging the political elite to physicians at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons annual meeting in 2012.

Follow Dr. Marilyn Singleton on Twitter @MSingletonMDJD

More info about Dr. Marilyn Singleton

Culture & Society, Health Policy, Medical Ethics, Medicare, Medicine, Op-eds, Socialized Medicine

Free Medical Care: a Deal with the Devil?

No Comments

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

Listening to the campaign promises spewed out by the bevy of folks running for president brings the old but enduring story of Faust to mind. Despite being successful, Faust wanted more knowledge and possessions. To that end, he made a deal with Mephistopheles (aka the Devil) who promised to give him everything he wanted in exchange for his soul.

Who isn’t tempted by a bargain or better yet, something for nothing? Free income, free college, and free medical care. What do we have to lose? Self-respect, the opportunity to succeed at a career suited to one’s talents, your privacy and control over your own body.

Intended to ameliorate poverty, universal basic income can be counterproductive. Some promise income for merely having a pulse and others envision the government equivalent of a mama bird regurgitating food into the open mouths of her chicks. Neither option gives a sense of pride and accomplishment or the foundation for character development.

The high cost of college is the justification for free tuition. One key reason for the continually escalating tuition is readily available student loans: no matter the cost, the student can continue to borrow. Endless direct-from-the-government money would likely cause further increases. Further, one-third of college students drop out. The majority of these students were poorly prepared for, and not fully committed or suited to college. It is a bad idea to remove an incentive for perseverance, allow uncommitted students to waste their time on the government dime, or worse be stigmatized as a failure. Finally, as Senator Amy Klobuchar bravely pointed out, the taxpayers cannot afford it.

With regard to medical care, all “medically necessary” health services, including dental, vision, hearing, mental health, long-term care, home and community-based services, physical therapy, prescription drugs with no premiums, deductibles or co-pays from cradle to grave sound pretty good. Sold! Frankly, given the direction so-called reproductive health is going, you may never make it to the cradle. And with the current laser-focus on hospice for all, you may get to your grave a little faster.

Will free medical care halt one of the biggest drivers of poor health and medical costs? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 percent of people in the United States are obese. And 47 percent of our $3.5 trillion per year of healthcare spending goes to treat the effects of obesity, with another 8.7 percent attributable to cigarette smoking. People have known for years that eating too much makes you fat and smoking contributes to heart and lung disease. Free care would worsen the problem because patients will expect more pills and procedures to cure their lifestyle-created illnesses rather than taking care of themselves.

Not only is the promise of free stuff an attempt to buy votes, but the politicians themselves have sold their souls to special interests. And we never know whether they are working for the metaphorical Devil or for you, the voters.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2018, both sides of the Congressional aisle received a total of $134,590,142 in contributions from the health sector (health professionals, device and pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals and nursing homes). The health sector was the top spender of lobbying money – some $562,968,799 spread among 2,810 hired guns. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products topped the list with $281,872,969.

On the bright side, when given the full picture, people are not that easily bought. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 70 percent of those polled approved of Medicare for All when told the plan would eliminate insurance premiums (which are sky-high thanks to ObamaCare). But up to 70 percent opposed Medicare for All when told it would lead to treatment delays, tax increases, or loss of their option for private insurance.

Perhaps those polled read that private insurance is allowed in all but two countries with universal coverage, and patients in all countries have some out-of-pocket expenses. Perhaps they realized that when the citizen money tree has been picked clean, promised services must be reduced. Perhaps they realized that free stuff can be used as a cudgel to keep the recipients in line and trap them in a system with no escape. Perhaps they were of a certain age where they were warned that the tasty-looking Halloween candy might be laced with razor blades. Or more likely, those infamous words, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” were flashing before their eyes or echoing in their ears.            

Free stuff is an age-old snare, a temptation that can steal one’s critical thinking abilities. Despite the old saw that there is a sucker born every minute, there are always those who will not be fooled. Which will you be?

Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School.  Dr. Singleton completed 2 years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law.  She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers.