Hospital’s “Egregiously Unethical” Behavior Illustrates Problems of Government-Run Health Care

Why would a hospital keep a brain-damaged patient on life support in a vegetative state for months, without so much as talking with the patient’s relatives to ascertain the family’s wishes for their loved one? Because government regulations encouraged them to do just that.

ProPublica recently profiled a pattern of troubling cases at Newark Beth Israel hospital. In several cases, physicians admitted they kept patients alive to bolster their statistics in government databases, and prevent a potential closure of the hospital’s transplant unit. The sorry tale shows but some of the perverse consequences of government-run health care—a system that the left wants to force on all Americans.

Brain-Damaged Patient Artificially Kept Alive

After suffering from congestive heart failure for years, Young, a Navy veteran and former truck driver with three children, had received a heart transplant on Sept. 21, 2018. He didn’t wake up after the operation and had been in a vegetative state ever since.

Machines whirred in his room, pumping air into his lungs. Nutrients and fluids dripped from a tube into his stomach. Young had always been fastidious, but now his hair and toenails had grown long. A nurse suctioned mucus from his throat several times a day to keep him from choking, according to employees familiar with his care. His medical record would note: ‘He follows no commands. He looks very encephalopathic’—brain damaged.

On one day this April, physicians at Newark Beth Israel discussed what to do about their brain damaged, and severely injured, patient. When asked about Young, the head of the hospital’s transplant team, Mark Zucker, had a blunt response: “Need to keep him alive ‘til June 30 at a minimum.”

Zucker went on, instructing hospital staff not to raise the option of palliative care—that is, a less aggressive treatment course focused more on alleviating pain—until the one-year anniversary of Young’s transplant in September.

“It’s not as if they’re asking for this and we’re saying no, we cannot do this,” another physician said, according to a recording of the meeting. “We haven’t refused anything they’ve asked,” Zucker agreed in talking of the family’s wishes. “We just haven’t raised withdrawing” intensive treatment.

Unethical Behavior to Meet Government Targets

Beginning in 2007, as ProPublica notes, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) set quality standards for organ transplants:

Under those rules, the one-year survival rate has been ‘the magic number,’ according to Laura Aguiar, principal of consulting firm Transplant Solutions. If a program’s survival rate fell too far under its expected rate, which was calculated by a CMS algorithm, the agency could launch an audit. If the audit uncovered serious problems, CMS could pull a program’s Medicare certification, meaning that the federal health care insurer would stop reimbursing for transplants.

A hospital losing its Medicare certification could lead to the end of its transplant program, as many private insurers will only pay for procedures performed at Medicare-certified hospitals. With heart transplant survival rates already below the national averages, Newark Beth Israel feared the potential consequences of an audit if its numbers fell any further.

As a result, the hospital’s doctors decided to keep patients like Young alive to prop up its federal rankings. They took those actions without consulting Young’s family, and even though they believed Young would “never wake up or recover function.”

Hid Information from Relatives

Despite the damage to Young’s brain during the procedure, doctors never initiated a conversation with the family about options for care, such as hospice, given his poor prognosis for recovery. They failed to inform Andrea Young that her brother had contracted a dangerous drug-resistant fungal infection. During this time, Andrea also struggled to ensure the hospital staff provided basic grooming; she recounted that it took four months—four months—for staff to trim her brother’s toenails.

All the while, doctors knew they were violating their ethical duty to Darryl Young, by failing to obtain informed consent for his care. But they felt that Young and his family needed to “take one for the team”—incur more pain and heartache so the hospital could meet government targets. As transplant director Mark Zucker explained in a meeting:

This is a very, very unethical, immoral but unfortunately very practical situation, because the reality here is that you haven’t saved anybody if your program gets shut down….This guy unfortunately became the seventh potential death in a very bad year, alright, and that puts us into a very difficult spot.

Sadly, Darryl Young does not represent the only instance where Newark Beth Israel purposefully tried to boost their targets to meet government standards. ProPublica uncovered other instances where patients were kept alive, or their hospital discharge delayed, until one year after surgery. Notes in another patient’s files indicate that “he will remain hospitalized…to hit his one year anniversary.”

Government-Run Care Betrays the Vulnerable

Poor examples of government-run health care abound. As I recently noted, the United States suffers from an antiquated kidney care system—with a much smaller percentage of patients receiving at-home dialysis than a country like Guatemala—because Medicare has covered most patients with kidney disease since 1973, and the government-run program has failed to innovate since then. In the Newark Beth Israel case, an arbitrary target imposed by a government agency more than a decade ago led to patients being kept alive simply to meet that target.

Patients like Darryl Young deserve better than the care Newark Beth Israel provided to him. They also deserve better than the government-run health care that the left wants to impose on all Americans.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Separating Fact from Fiction on Trump’s Health Care Proclamation for Immigrants

On Friday, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring certain immigrants entering the country either to purchase health insurance, or demonstrate they can pay their medical bills. The order prompted no small amount of hysteria from the left over the weekend.

If you’re puzzled by this development, you might not be the only one. After all, don’t liberals want everyone to have health insurance? They have spent significant time and effort attacking President Trump for a (slight) increase in the number of uninsured people while he’s been president.

What the Proclamation Says

The proclamation itself, which will take effect on November 3 (30 days from Friday), limits “the entry into the United States as immigrants of aliens who will financially burden” the American health care system. It requires aliens applying for immigrant visas to become “covered by approved health insurance…within 30 days” of entry, or “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”

The proclamation includes numerous different acceptable forms of health insurance: employer plans (including association health plans and COBRA coverage), catastrophic plans, short-term limited duration insurance, coverage through Tricare or Medicare, or visitor health coverage lasting a minimum of 364 days. The list of acceptable forms of insurance does not, however, include subsidized Obamacare exchange plans, or Medicaid coverage for individuals over age 18—likely because these options involve federal taxpayer subsidies.

What the Proclamation Doesn’t Say

It shouldn’t need stating outright, but contrary to claims that the proclamation constitutes a “racist attack on a community who deserves health care,” the order says not a word about a specific race, or national or ethnic group. It also exempts “any alien holding a valid immigrant visa issued before the effective date of this proclamation,” meaning the requirement will apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

Liberal reporters claimed that “the move effectively creates a health insurance mandate for immigrants,” after Republicans eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty. But this charge too ignores the fact that the proclamation—unlike Obamacare—includes an exception for those who “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” (The proclamation does not define this term, meaning that the administration will presumably go through a rulemaking process to do so.)

The Real Story

Liberals’ hysteria over the issue demonstrates a massive shift leftward in recent years. Consider that in 1993, Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that she opposed extending benefits to “illegal aliens,” because it would encourage additional migration to the United States:

We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.

Even in 2009, Barack Obama felt the need to claim that his health plan wouldn’t cover those in the country illegally (even if the claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny). The fact that Democrats have now gone far beyond Obama’s position, and have attacked President Trump for ensuring foreign citizens will not burden our health care system—a position liberals claim to support for Americans—speaks to the party’s full-on embrace of both socialism and open borders.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

President’s Executive Order Shows Two Contrasting Visions of Health Care

As Washington remains consumed by impeachment fever, President Trump returned to the issue of health care. In an executive order released Thursday, and a speech at The Villages in Florida where he spoke on the topic, the president attempted to provide a vision that contrasts with the left’s push for single-payer socialized medicine.

This executive order focused largely on the current Medicare program, as opposed to the existing private insurance marketplace. By promoting new options and focusing on reducing costs, however, the president’s actions stand in opposition to the one-size-fits-all model of the proposed health care takeover.

The Administration Wants To Explore These Proposals

One fact worth repeating about Thursday’s action: As with prior executive orders, it will in and of itself not change policy. The more substantive changes will come in regulatory proposals issued by government agencies (most notably the Department of Health and Human Services) in response to the executive order. While only the regulations can flesh out all of the policy details, the language of the order provides some sense of the proposals the administration wants to explore.

Modernized Benefits: The executive order promotes “innovative … benefit structures” for Medicare Advantage, the program in which an estimated 24 million beneficiaries receive Medicare subsidies via a network of private insurers. It discusses “reduc[ing] barriers to obtaining Medicare Medical Savings Accounts,” a health savings account-like mechanism that gives beneficiaries incentives to serve as smart consumers of health care. To accomplish that last objective, the order references broader access to cost and quality data, “improving [seniors’] ability to make decisions about their health care that work best for them.”

Expanded Access: The order seeks to increase access to telehealth as one way to improve seniors’ ability to obtain care, particularly in rural areas. It also looks to combat state-imposed restrictions that can limit care options, and can lead to narrow physician and provider networks for Medicare Advantage plans.

More Providers: The order discusses eliminating regulatory burdens on doctors and other medical providers, a continuation of prior initiatives by the administration. It also references allowing non-physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to practice to the full scope of their medical licenses and receive comparable pay for their work.

Entitlement Reform: Last, but certainly not least, the order proposes allowing seniors to opt out of the Medicare program. This proposal would not allow individuals to opt out of Medicare taxes, but it would undo current regulations that require seniors to opt into the Medicare program when they apply for Social Security.

As I had previously explained, this proposal stands as a common-sense solution to our entitlement shortfalls: After all, why should we force someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to accept Medicare benefits if they are perfectly content to use other forms of health coverage?

Democrats’ Health Care Vision Is Medicare for None

Of course, many on the socialist left have made their vision plain for quite some time: They want the government to run the entire health-care system. Ironically enough, however, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer legislation would abolish the current Medicare program in the process:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)

As I first noted nearly two years ago, this language makes Sanders’ proposal not “Medicare for All,” but “Medicare for None.” It speaks to the radical nature of the socialist agenda that they cannot come clean with the American people about the implications of their legislation, such that even analysts at liberal think-tanks have accused them of using dishonest means to sell single-payer.

Just as important, “Medicare for None” would take away choices for seniors and hundreds of millions of other Americans. As of next year, an estimated 24 million seniors will enroll in Medicare Advantage plans to obtain their Medicare benefits. As I outline in my book, Medicare Advantage often provides better benefits to seniors, and at a lower cost to both beneficiaries and the federal government. Yet Sanders and his socialist allies want to abolish this popular coverage, to consolidate power and control in a government-run health system.

The actions the administration announced on Thursday represent the latest in a series of steps designed to offer an alternative to the command-and-control vision promoted by the left. The American people don’t deserve socialized medicine, but they don’t deserve the broken status quo either. Only true patient-centered reforms can create a health-care environment that works for seniors and the American people as a whole.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Skyrocketing Premiums Show Obamacare’s Failure to Deliver

According to a recently released report, extending employer-provided health coverage to the average American family equates to buying that family a moderately-priced car every single year. This provides further proof that Barack Obama “sold” a lemon to the American people in the form of Obamacare.

The inexorable rise in health care costs—a rise that candidate Obama pledged to reverse—shows how Obamacare has failed to deliver on its promise. Yet Democrats want to “solve” the problems Obamacare is making worse through even more government regulations, taxes, and spending. Struggling American families deserve relief from both the failed status quo, and Democrats’ desire to put that failed status quo on steroids.

Study of Employer Plans

Obamacare has failed to deliver on that pledge, as premiums continue to rise higher and higher:

Why has Obamacare failed to deliver? Several reasons stand out. First, its numerous regulatory requirements on insurance companies raised rates, in part by encouraging individuals to consume additional care.

The pre-existing condition provisions represent the prime driver of premium increases in the exchange market, according to a Heritage Foundation paper from last year. However, because employer-sponsored plans largely had to meet these requirements prior to Obamacare, they have less bearing on the increase in employer-sponsored premiums.

Second, Obamacare encouraged consolidation within the health care sector—hospitals buying hospitals, hospitals buying physician practices, physician practices merging, health insurers merging, and so on. While providers claim their mergers will provide better care to patients, they also represent a way for doctors and hospitals to demand higher payments from insurers. Reporting has shown how hospitals’ monopolistic practices drive up prices, raising rates for patients and employers alike.

Same Song, Different Verse

More Regulations: On issues like “surprise” billing or drug pricing, Democrats’ favored proposals would impose price controls on some or all segments of the health care industry. These price controls would likely limit the supply of care provided, while also reducing its quality.

More Spending: Most Democratic proposals, whether by presidential candidates, liberal think-tanks, or members of Congress, include major amounts of new spending to make health care “affordable” for the American people—an implicit omission that Obamacare (a.k.a. the “Affordable Care Act”) has not delivered for struggling families.

More Taxes: Even though some don’t wish to admit it, the Democratic candidates for president have all proposed plans that would necessitate major tax increases, from the hundreds of billions to the tens of trillions of dollars—even though at least two of those candidates have failed to pay new taxes imposed by Obamacare itself.

The latest increase in employer-sponsored health premiums demonstrates that hard-working families deserve better than Obamacare. It also illustrates why the American people deserve better than the new Democratic plans to impose more big government “solutions” in the wake of Obamacare’s failure.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How the Impeachment Frenzy Could Block Bad Health Care Policies

House Democrats’ headlong rush to impeach President Trump will have many implications for American politics and the presidential election. On policy, it could have a salutary effect for conservatives, by precluding the enactment of harmful policies that would push our health care system in the wrong direction.

Congress should of course do something about our health care system, particularly the millions of individuals priced out of insurance by Obamacare, also known as the Unaffordable Care Act. But in recent weeks, it appears that Republicans have fallen into the typical definition of bipartisanship—when conservatives agree to do liberal things. As a result, if the controversy over impeachment leads to a legislative stalemate over health care, it will at least prevent Congress from making our current flawed system any worse.

Renewed Impeachment Push

The emerging controversy over Trump’s interactions with Ukraine, and whether those actions constituted an impeachable offense, resulted in analyses of whether and how the impeachment push will affect the legislative agenda on multiple issues, including health care.

Multiple Republicans suggested impeachment could bring Congress’ other work to a halt, whether by consuming the time and energy of members of Congress and staff, poisoning the proverbial well for negotiations and compromise, or a combination of the two. Consider the following quotes from Republicans in a Wednesday story:

  • House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Texas): “Impeachment makes a toxic environment more toxic.”
  • Former House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.): “There is more oxygen on impeachment than there is on legislation….My Democratic colleagues have put everything on hold to try to make sure that this President is not the one that signs any proposed bills.”
  • President Trump: Nancy Pelosi has “been taken over by the radical left. Unfortunately, she’s no longer the Speaker of the House.”
  • The White House: Democrats have “destroyed any chances of legislative progress” with their focus on impeachment.

Ultimately, whether any major legislation passes in this environment, whether on health care or other issues, will depend on two factors. First, will President Trump want to strike legislative bargains with House Democrats at the same time the latter are working to impeach and remove him from office? On that front, color me skeptical, at best.

Second, at a time when Trump will need Republicans to support him in an impeachment fight, will he aggressively push policies that many of them oppose?

Controversial Agenda in Congress

In July, the Senate Finance Committee approved drug pricing legislation over the concerns of many Republicans. A majority of Republicans voted against the Finance Committee bill, believing (correctly) that its provisions limiting price increases for pharmaceuticals amounted to price controls, which would have a harmful impact on innovation.

Since that time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has taken ideas from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and the Trump administration, and put them on steroids. The drug pricing legislation she recently introduced as H.R. 3 would force drug companies into a “negotiation” with defined price limits, confiscating virtually all their revenues if they do not submit to these government-imposed price controls.

Likewise, Congress’ action on “surprise” billing appears ominous. While Washington should allow states to come up with their own solutions to this issue, some Republicans want Congress to intervene.

Save Us from ‘Socialism-Lite’

If Congress’ legislative agenda grinds to a halt over a combination of the impeachment food fight and the impending 2020 presidential campaign, it would mean that lawmakers at least did not make the health care system worse via a series of socialist-style price controls.

The American people do deserve better than the failed status quo. They need the enactment of a conservative health care agenda that will help lower the skyrocketing cost of health care.

But if Republicans have failed to embrace such an agenda, as by and large they have, at least they can stop doing any more damage through new policies that will push us further in the direction of government-run health care. Thankfully, Pelosi’s newfound embrace of a march towards impeachment may slow the march towards socialized medicine—at least for the time being.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Report the Louisiana Department of Health Doesn’t Want You to Read

In recent months, enrollment in Louisiana’s Medicaid expansion has declined, as the state finally removed tens of thousands of ineligible individuals from the rolls. But according to researchers at LSU, enrollment in expansion will soon climb higher, with an estimated 41,575 individuals joining Medicaid expansion in 2019 alone.

Those estimates came in a report the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH), using state and federal taxpayer dollars, commissioned from LSU. The circumstances surrounding this report raise concerns and questions in at least two areas. First, someone—it remains unclear whether from LDH, LSU or both—deleted important passages from the report during the editing process. And second, the report appears nowhere on LDH’s website.

Despite the Pelican Institute first requesting documents surrounding this enrollment study on June 10, LDH has yet to turn over a single document on the report. However, through a public records request of LSU, the Pelican Institute managed to obtain a version of the report from June 2019 and a version dated August 2019, which LSU presented as the final document.

In many sections, August’s final enrollment report contains the same verbatim passages as the June version. However, the August version eliminated all discussion of projected Medicaid enrollment in future years. As a result, LSU removed major sections of the June version—three paragraphs of the executive summary, population projections on pages 11-13, and Medicaid enrollment projections on pages 14-20—from August’s final report.

With respect to Medicaid expansion, the June version of the report projects substantial enrollment increases. From a level of 470,567 in 2018, the LSU researchers project enrollment in Medicaid expansion to jump to 512,142 in 2019—an increase of 8.8% in one year alone—and climb slowly thereafter, reaching 515,721 in 2022.

Moreover, the June report acknowledges that expansion enrollment “can become substantially higher given that the ceiling” for enrollment “is over 571,000” by 2022—and even this “ceiling” for enrollment represents an under-estimate, the researchers admit. Because the researchers’ ceiling only includes individuals with income below the poverty level, but most individuals with income below 138% of the poverty level qualify for Medicaid expansion, enrollment could exceed even the 571,000 maximum outlined by the researchers.

Overall, the June report shows a dramatic growth in Medicaid dependence over the span of a decade. According to the LSU researchers, “by 2022, Medicaid enrollees will represent about 36% of the population, compared to 24% in 2012.”

The enrollment projections removed from August’s final version of the enrollment report raise serious questions, including:

  • How is LSU’s projected increase in Medicaid expansion for 2019 enrollment consistent with the eligibility checks LDH instituted earlier this year?
  • Why did the LSU researchers agree to release such a heavily redacted version of their work? Were there any political motivations in the decision?
  • Given that LSU presented its report as final, why has LDH declined to publish any version of the report on its website? Similarly, why has LDH declined to disclose any documents regarding this report in response to the Pelican Institute’s public records requests?
  • The contract governing the enrollment report specifically required LSU to draft “a report to LDH providing the projections of Medicaid recipients based on a prepared model for projecting Medicaid recipients by major categories.” Why did the Department of Health agree to spend a total of $71,120 of state and federal taxpayer dollars on an enrollment report—only to have that report fail to meet the Department’s stated objectives? Will officials within LDH repay taxpayers for the funds spent on a report that does not meet the Department’s own objectives?

The residents of Louisiana deserve the truth about Medicaid expansion. The mysterious circumstances surrounding this enrollment report—the deletions from the final report, LDH’s failure to post the report publicly and its failure to provide documents in response to the Pelican Institute’s records requests—should lead citizens and lawmakers to demand greater transparency and accountability from LDH. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly how their dollars are being spent.

This post was originally published by the Pelican Institute.

Junk “Study” Demonstrates Liberal Think-Tank’s Bias

Why would an organization billed as a “respected source of health care data” publish an analysis with mutually contradictory conclusions? In the case of the Kaiser Family Foundation, the answer is simple: To defend Obamacare—even if the facts don’t align with one’s conclusions.

As conservatives have noted for years, Obamacare encourages states to discriminate against individuals with disabilities—a prime example of how government intervention in the health care system ultimately hurts those the left claims they want to help. Liberals, understanding the political power of such charges, feel compelled to push back on this narrative. While they don’t have many actual facts with which to do so, that hasn’t stood in the Kaiser Family Foundation’s way.

Obamacare’s Discrimination, Explained

If you could gain 50-76 cents for doing one thing, and 90 cents for doing another, which would you choose? I know which I would.

When I served on the Commission on Long-Term Care in 2013, it explored an area of health policy unknown to much of the public: Hundreds of thousands of individuals with disabilities remain on Medicaid waiting lists for home and community-based care. While federal law requires state taxpayers to pay nursing home benefits for all eligible Medicaid patients, coverage of community-based services remains optional, so states can—and do—establish waiting lists to control their Medicaid spending.

These waiting lists preceded Obamacare, so Obamacare didn’t cause the waiting lists per se. And individuals with disabilities on the waiting lists do have their health care needs paid for by Medicaid, even as they wait to become eligible for home-based care (e.g., help with bathing, dressing, etc.). But sheer common sense indicates that states will prioritize coverage of able-bodied adults—for which they get paid a higher match from the federal government—than eliminating their waiting list for individuals with disabilities.

The Flawed Premise

For the past several years, Kaiser has attempted to rebut charges that Medicaid expansion has affected waiting lists for individuals with disabilities. Their studies, including one released in April, claim that there is no relationship between whether a state has expanded Medicaid and increases or decreases in its waiting lists.

However, as I first noted two years ago, Kaiser’s over-simplistic analysis does not begin to consider the many other factors that affect decisions about their Medicaid programs and waiting lists. To use the most obvious example, the average state that has not expanded Medicaid is poorer than the average state that has. Connecticut, with a median income of $73,781 in 2017, has more resources to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults and reduce its waiting lists than a state like Alabama, which had a median income of $46,472.

If Kaiser wanted to do a thorough analysis, it would control for this variable, and others. For instance, a good econometric analysis would factor in states’ morbidity rates—because states with sicker populations may have more individuals with disabilities needing care—along with the underlying cost of care, because states would have to spend more to reduce their waiting lists in areas with higher prices.

Contradictory Claims

How superficial are Kaiser’s conclusions? The section of its April paper right after the passage claiming no relationship between Obamacare and waiting lists includes this doozy:

Waiting lists are a function of the populations a state chooses to serve and how the state defines those populations; both of these factors vary among states, making waiting lists an incomplete measure of state capacity and demand for [home and community-based services] and not directly comparable among states. [Emphasis original.]

If waiting lists for individuals with disabilities are “not directly comparable among states,” then why did Kaiser in the preceding section claim Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion has nothing to do with waiting lists—a conclusion that by definition involves comparing waiting lists among states?

The question practically answers itself. Kaiser just hopes you won’t notice.

Talking Point versus Research

After more than two months, the researcher, Mary Beth Musumeci, would not deign to defend her “research” with a direct reply. Instead a Kaiser spokesman sent me what amounted to a polite brush-off, replicated in full below:

Thank you for your interest in our work. We appreciate people taking the time to consider our work and provide constructive feedback on it, and our team discussed your comments and ideas.

The data in the brief are presented as a simple, descriptive comparison of trends in wait lists stratified by expansion status, and we also tried to be clear about major limitations of the data, including caveats in state comparisons of wait lists. While we agree that further econometric analysis to assess causality could build on this work and contribute to policy understanding, the posted brief was not an attempt to undertake such analysis.

We appreciate your feedback and will consider it as we continue to develop our work in this area, and we hope our work serves as a useful basis for your own analysis and econometric research to undertake the type of work you suggest in your comments.

I responded with one simple question: Does the Kaiser Family Foundation have any plans to conduct an econometric study on Medicaid expansion and waiting lists? As I noted in my response:

You’ve admitted the limitations of your own analysis to date, but you’ve repeated these types of assertions for several years—without doing the type of in-depth research that you concede would be both warranted and more accurate. Why not?

Kaiser’s communications department responded that they don’t have that type of study planned. I won’t hold my breath for them to conduct this type of econometric study, either. As with the issue of pre-existing conditions, Kaiser won’t ask a question to which it doesn’t want to know the answer. Far better to use a crude and highly flawed “study” to claim that Obamacare hasn’t affected Medicaid waiting lists—the political conclusion the Kaiser analysts want to support.

A supposed “fact check” on the disability waiting list issue two years ago called the Kaiser Family Foundation a “respected source of health care data.” But by issuing mutually contradictory conclusions to maintain a political talking point, and not conducting the in-depth research that they admit the issue of Medicaid waiting lists warrants, Kaiser again reveals itself not so much as a respected source of health care data as a highly liberal one.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Will Single-Payer Health Care Help Ruin the Planet?

To promote his single-payer health care legislation, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently sent an interesting tweet: “Average cost of childbirth in the United States: $32,000. Average cost of childbirth with Medicare for All: $0.” However, the left’s general position on population growth’s effect on the climate make one wonder why Sanders and his single-payer supporters want to facilitate additional births, whether in the United States or overseas.

As one might expect, Sanders’ tweet contained several oversimplifications and mis-statements. First, his “Medicare for All” bill would actually abolish the Medicare program. Second, the 2013 report to which Sanders referred studied the charges medical providers submitted, not just for childbirth, but for all prenatal and postpartum care. While doctors and hospitals charged patients an average of $32,063 for this year’s worth of care before and after a vaginal childbirth, insurers paid far less ($18,329)—and consumers paid only $2,244 out-of-pocket.

Not one week before Sanders sent his tweet, he addressed the topic of population growth at a CNN climate forum. A member of the audience said that “human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth.” In talking about “the need to curb population growth,” she asked Sanders if he would “be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate change?” Sanders responded in the affirmative, then proceeded to highlight the need for abortion and contraception, both in the United States and overseas.

In his CNN appearance, Sanders echoed statements by other leftist leaders. In February, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked what she considered “a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children,” given that “there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult?”

Following Ocasio-Cortez’ comments, Vox highlighted “a growing discussion about the ethics of having children,” due to the “a genuine concern of many young prospective parents today” about the effects of climate change. It included some questions that prospective parents have asked themselves about having children, including “how much time do I have to make a decision” to see if carbon emissions decline rapidly, and “what kinds of signals would I be sending” by making an environmental statement to eschew parenthood.

Leftists like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and forums like Vox, have given voice to millennials seeking to avoid procreation, whether to hypothetically save the planet, avoid a dystopian future for their potential offspring, or a combination of the two. But few outlets on the left have reconciled their belief in the need to slow population growth to save the planet with their support for a single-payer system that—according to Sanders’ own statements—would encourage population growth by making it financially easier for parents to have children.

The conservative case against Sanders’ proposal encompasses the taxes, regulations, and government control necessary to create a single-payer health system. But liberals who claim to have a single-minded focus on the climate crisis should oppose single payer as well, due to the ecological effects that would logically follow.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan…For Avoiding Your Health Care Questions

She claims “I’ve got a plan for that” on just about every issue, but the proverbial cat got Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s tongue on health care. And you can bet that’s Warren’s plan.

Rather than answering tough questions about the single-payer health care scheme she now endorses, Warren wants to keep the focus on 1) bashing insurance companies and 2) telling people they will receive great health care under socialized medicine. Telling people they will lose their current coverage, and figuring out how to pay for this $30 trillion-plus system? Warren doesn’t want to bother answering questions about those minor details.

Subdued Launch for Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Plan’

First off, the health-care page of Warren’s website logs in at 1,115 words for a health care system on which our nation spends more than $3.5 trillion per year. By comparison, Joe Biden’s health care platform clocks in at nearly 3,302 words, or three times as long. Warren’s “plan” is 25 words longer than Donald Trump’s campaign health care platform, released in March 2016 and derided by some as having “the look and feel of something that a 22-year-old congressional staffer would write for a backbencher based on a cursory review of Wikipedia.” Yet, ironically enough, Trump’s campaign platform contained more concrete proposals than Warren’s does.

Warren’s “plan” does include specifics on prescription drug prices, mental health, the opioid epidemic, and access to care in rural communities. But on the biggest issue of the campaign—the millions of people who cannot afford health coverage because Obamacare priced them out of the marketplace, and the left’s big government “solutions” to a problem government created—Warren talks much, but says precious little.

The heart of Warren’s health care “plan” starts with two paragraphs about Warren’s life story. It continues by bashing Republicans’ attempts to “sabotage” Obamacare and insurance companies. It then states as fact that single payer “solves these problems. Everyone can see the doctor they need. Nobody goes broke.”

Apparently, the Warren campaign is looking to reduce its carbon footprint by converting to veganism. If you’re looking for any meat in this health care “plan,” good luck finding it.

Trying to Avoid History’s Mistakes

Why might Warren, who prides herself on her supposed love of wonkish details in every other issue area, suddenly become so taciturn on health care? Perhaps a video can illustrate:

Want to take a guess how many of those promises Obama’s health-care legislation actually kept? Here’s a hint: It’s a nice round number.

Therein lies the root cause of Warren’s strategy: Rather than making specific promises related to single-payer health care—which she knows she cannot possibly keep—she wants to conduct her campaign on the issue solely in platitudes. She will tell middle-class people they will pay less, but won’t say precisely how they will pay less, or who will pay more, or who qualifies as “middle class,” or how much doctors and hospitals would get hurt if (more like when) they have to take a massive pay cut under single payer.

Ironically, the lack of specifics has made some on the left leery that if and when Warren wins the Democratic nomination, she will make the proverbial “hard pivot” away from support for single payer, and water down the plan introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). (Some think she hasn’t really endorsed Sanders’ plan as it is.) They do have cause for concern, given that until earlier this year, Warren had endorsed other “pathways” to get to universal coverage than a full socialized medicine scheme.

But viewed from another perspective, Warren’s silence on all the difficult (and unpopular) decisions needed to achieve a single-payer health-care system represents an implicit admission that the left cannot be upfront with the American people about all the consequences—both intended and unintended—of their agenda.

Just Tell People It’s Free

Last month, in an article about Sen. Kamala Harris’ repeated flip-flops on health care, a researcher at one liberal think-tank unironically articulated what’s going on here. Calling arguments in the Democratic debates counterproductive, the analyst said the American public “just want[s] to know the candidates’ big ideas and values. Can they shop? Is it free?”

Apart from the obvious fact that few things in life, let alone our massive health care system, come free—someone pays, in some way, shape, or form—that comment lies at the heart of Warren’s strategy: “We’re going to give you all the free stuff you want. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about the details.”

Having not been born yesterday, I will care about the details, thank you. I—and the American people—have far too much to lose.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Why Single-Payer Advocates Demonize Opponents of Government-Run Health Care

Earlier this summer, I wrote an article, based upon research for my forthcoming book, outlining the ways a single-payer health care system will lead to greater fraud and corruption. That afternoon, I received the following message—sent not just once, but four separate times—in my firm’s e-mail inbox:

Just finished reading the fear mongering article that Chris wrote for RCP. I am looking forward to reading and refuting his book on ‘single payer’. Id love to know which insurance companies own his arse via monetary payments. It’s obvious by Chris’ lack of salient facts regarding single payer that he is owned by some corporation. Since RCP only makes it look like others can comment you were spared from me systematically destroying your BS with the real facts of health care. In closing, go [f-ck] yourself you corporate [b-tch].

Whether in vulgar e-mails, Twitter rants, or blog posts, single payer supporters often start out by assuming that anyone opposed to socialized medicine must by definition have received some sort of payoff from drug companies or insurance companies. Even in my case, however, that claim has very little validity. More importantly, calling anyone opposed to single payer a corporate shill patronizes and insults the American people—the same people whose support they need to enact the proposal in the first place.

Take Me as an Example

If folks want to play “Gotcha” games with this nugget, they can—and some will—but there’s much less to this history than meets the eye. For starters, I took the lobbying job when I was aged 24, a little over a year out of grad school, and for the princely salary of…$39,000 per year. I never made six figures as a registered lobbyist—not even close, actually—and earned less in three and a half years as a registered lobbyist than most actual lobbyists make in one.

To be honest, I did little actual lobbying. My inclusion on the list of registered lobbyists represented more of an abundance of caution by my firm than anything else. (Under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act, individuals do not have to register as a lobbyist if fewer than 20 percent of their hours are spent in paid lobbying activities.)

I prepared memos ahead of lobbying meetings, and drafted letters following those meetings, but precious little beyond that. After three years, I left to go back to Capitol Hill in a more senior role, where I had wanted to work all along.

More to the point: I haven’t taken a dime of support from corporate interests to shill for their positions—and I won’t, period. My views and reputation are not for sale. They’re not even for rent.

Don’t Insult the American People

Even Ezra Klein, of all people, acknowledged Americans’ deep resistance to change regarding health care. In a July article analyzing whether individuals can keep their health insurance—an issue that has tripped up Kamala Harris, among others, during the Democratic presidential campaign—Klein asked some pertinent questions:

If the private insurance market is such a nightmare, why is the public so loath to abandon it? Why have past reformers so often been punished for trying to take away what people have and replace it with something better?…

Risk aversion [in health policy] is real, and it’s dangerous. Health reformers don’t tiptoe around it because they wouldn’t prefer to imagine bigger, more ambitious plans. They tiptoe around it because they have seen its power to destroy even modest plans. There may be a better strategy than that. I hope there is. But it starts with taking the public’s fear of dramatic change seriously, not trying to deny its power.

Yet, judging from the amount of times Bernie Sanders attacks “millionaires and billionaires” in his campaign speeches, he and others find it much easier to ignore the substance of Americans’ concerns, and instead blame corporations and “the rich” for deluding the public.

Even Slate admitted that “to the President’s critics, it sounds patronizing. I was doing the right thing, but the slow American people didn’t get it” (emphasis original). Single-payer supporters fall into this trap on health care: “We could enact our socialist paradise easily, if only the health insurers and drug companies hadn’t bought off so many people.”

Starting off by questioning motives—by assuming everyone with any objections to single payer automatically must be a shill of corporate interests, just trying to bilk the sick and dying out of more money to pad their wallets—doesn’t seem like the best way to win friends and influence people, let alone pass a massive bill like single payer. And it speaks volumes about the radical left that they seem more intent on the former than the latter.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.