Velcro and Teflon
Jan. 21, 2009 | Author: Sam Donaldson | No Comments »Like most Americans, I am caught up in the excitement of a new administration and the hope that our new President will guide this country well. One of the issues I focus on, of course, is his stance on health care, particularly behavioral health care. President Obama has a good track record of being an advocate for mental health and has been a strong supporter, along with the managed care industry, of establishing parity, that is equivalent benefits for mental health and substance disorder treatment in all health insurance. I wonder if you were surprised that the managed care industry, as I mentioned in the previous sentence, was also such a strong advocate and supporter of the parity law recently passed by Congress?
I, too, am very concerned about the fact that upwards of 40 million Americans or more currently do not have adequate health care coverage. No one that I know of disagrees that we must make this a priority to ensure that everyone in this country has access to affordable, quality health care. What I am worried about is the direction that the country might take in response to this problem. Clearly there is the belief growing out there that for-profit companies are “taking money out of the health care system.” I have to tell you that working for a managed care company is kind of like wearing a Velcro suit all the time. If it is negative and one states/writes it about managed care, then “of course it must be true.” Anything negative just sticks without regard to facts or data. Conversely, if you are a non-profit company, you get to wear the Teflon suit since accusations of waste or misspending rarely, if ever, stick. I know, because I have worked for both profit and non-profit health care entities.
First of all, “non-profit” is simply an IRS tax code distinction. It does not mean that non-profits spend all the money on health care costs, nor that they don’t make a lot of money. One only has to see, (when you can even get a glimpse of non-profits’ financials since they are not required, nor do they make public their financials), some of the huge medical and behavioral health systems reserves held by some of these massive non-profit companies. Second, I challenge anyone to find an industry MORE regulated than for-profit health care. The scrutiny and oversight simply is not there for non-profits. In contrast, my parent corporation discloses publically it’s financials on a regular basis and is heavily over sighted by agencies like the SEC and Sarbanes-Oxley. Our industry is so regulated that even the size and type of font for some of the information we send to members is proscribed by regulation. Third, we pay taxes, not only back into the federal system, the same system that pays for public health care, but also locally wherever we operate, to states and communities.
And finally, is it really true that because of profits, that for-profit companies take more money out of the system and are less efficient? A report recently released by the McKinsey Global Institute in December, 2008 reports that U.S. health administration and insurance costs account for 7% of overall spending. And, when you take out private, employer paid insurance, and look at the administrative costs for the publically funded system (Medicare and Medicaid) we are at 6% of overall spending.* In other words, 94 cents of every dollar is spent on health care delivery and treatment. Other countries spend about 4% but these government plans severely limit choice on when and where you can be seen by a health care provider, what drugs you can take, what procedures and tests you have access to, etc.
Look, I am not trying to say we should not be looking at reducing costs, or that all non-profits are wasteful and not accountable in the same way that for-profit companies are. I would just like to see an end to these broad brush depictions of both non-profit and for-profit health care companies. Under this new administration, I hope to see a more informed American public, looking at all the facts, looking at data, and not leaping on 10 second sound bites about the sins of for profit health care companies. I hope to see the same scrutiny applied to non-profits as are applied to for-profit health care.
Time for me to put on my Velcro suit and get back to work!
*”Accounting for the cost of US health care: A new look at why Americans spend more”, December, 2008, McKinsey Global Institute
This entry is filed under Blog.
Weinberg has been with Cenpatcio Arizona as Policy Developer for 3 ½ years. She knows and understands the problem suicide has been in the Tribes in her area and knew she had to help make a difference. “There was no prevention department,” Weinberg said. “There were no enrollment, and no diagnoses services in the tribal areas.”
In part because of Weinberg’s work, Native American Suicide rates in Arizona dropped below the state mean for the first time in Arizona history. In September 2008 Weinberg was awarded for her works with the Native American Suicide Prevention/MBrace Life Award.
