As the Obama administrations develops strategies to strengthen the economy, create jobs, and provide relief to middle-class Americans, it is imperative that health care reform be considered as an essential part of fixing the economy. 

There are several key reasons why economic strengthening and health care reform go hand in hand, including the alarming rate at which rising costs of premiums and high deductible plans are squeezing the middle class pocket books.  One reason providing low-cost quality care through a National Health Plan can help grow the ecomony is that workers who are trapped in jobs because of the insurance provided through employers will have more flexibility and ability to create their own small businesses or be self-eployed as entrepreneurs.  Women who want to work at home to help manage their family responsibilities and cut back on child care expenses will benefit from the ability to purchase low-cost quality health care through the National Health Plan. 

In addition, the stress of the uninsured on the health system has significant implications for rising costs and premiums.  The insured who continue to make premium payments regardless of the increases will see relief from this uncontrolled rise as more Americans care will be covered.  The lack of control or ability to know the extent of rising costs forces many insured Americans to accomodate rising costs without the ability to plan financially.  In a home budget, sticking to that budget is difficult when one expense that is necessary can increase significantly without much warning. 

The most important part of economic well being is the impact of providing preventive health services to all American workers.  A healthy population is a productive work force.  We must invest in the health of all Americans as part of our economic stiumulus plan in the coming months. 

Many members of the middle and upper classes feel that the creation of a National Health Plan uses their hard–earned money to redistribute wealth.  If the economic downturn is not addressed, middle class jobs will be lost and health insurance along with it.  We have a choice to support efforts to help others in ways that will ultimately benefit us.   Supporting health care reform that improves access to low cost insurance is one aspect of ensuring the economic well-being of the middle class. 

For more information please read the following articles:

“Make Health Care Costs Part of the Economic Cure” from the Detroit Free Press

“Record Share of Economy Spent on Health Care” from the Washington Post

In an article published this week in the New York Times titled “Women Buying Health Policies Pay a Penalty,” notes that recent data suggests that women buying individual insurance plans pay significantly more than men.  The research showed that women paid hundreds of dollars more per year for insurance coverage on the open market as compared to male counterparts of the same age.  The reason insurance companies give is that health care for women costs more because women bear children.  The article does, however, point out that insurance plans for women that do not include maternity coverage are still more expensive.

The health care industry justifies these premium disparities based on their actuarial experience that care provided to women (read: OB/GYN care) costs more.  This may be true in the sense that increased costs of care are more directly associated with female gender statistically speaking.  However, costs of care that are associated with male gender are probably less numerically obvious.  As a result, the industry may not be analyzing coverage issues for men to the same degree to determine appropriate costs for providing insurance coverage to men.  The justification that women cost more because of their anatomy is problematic in a system that also covers Viagra for men but not birth control pills for women.   While I do believe that such disparities are civil rights issues, the implications of these findings have a direct relationship to the health care reform proposals of our presidential candidates.

Consider these findings in the context of McCain’s proposal which supports the end of employer-based group plans and advocates for Americans to purchase their own individual insurance plans. Families of four will have a $5,000 tax credit with which to purchase a plan that typically costs $12,000 per year and lose their tax exemption for benefits paid by their employer. If you are a woman or have young women in your family you need to purchase coverage for, expect to pay hundreds of dollars more per year than your neighbor with two sons.   In a plan that has already been criticized for potentially decreasing the ability of many families to afford coverage in the individual insurance market, this plan places women at an even greater disadvantage financially.   Those families that find paying for health insurance coverage in the system proposed by McCain is not financially viable could be predominantly female households.  Is this fair and just?  Is this the change and progress we need in reforming health care?  Nurses For Change believes that health care needs to be more affordable and accessable to all Americans, and those Americans with vaginas should not be systematically penalized on the basis of their biology.

If you are working as a nurse and you are a mother, you have unique challenges: finding day care to cover a 12-hour shift, taking time to pump breastmilk for your baby while at work, dealing with the emotional stress of your job in a healthy way, and working holidays/weekends/nights. As nurses, we are fortunate to have many different options of when we work to help us plan and manage our children’s needs.

On the other hand, we lack a certain degree of flexibility. Calling in sick makes us feel guilty, and the nursing shortage leaves floors understaffed when nurses are unable to work. Our shifts start and end at precise times and the system affords little alteration to the schedule once it comes out. When things come up in our lives, we may rely more on our partners and extended family networks to get our children where they need to be. While each profession has unique challenges for working mothers, being in a profession that is predominantly women has a particular set of problems for implementing solutions to the work/life balance conundrum.

The nomination of Sarah Palin for the Vice-Presidency of the United States as John McCain’s running mate has been the subject of considerable water cooler and playground discussions among women in all professions. Since many nurses are also working mothers, I feel it is appropriate to look at these discussions and what those discussions tell us about the state of Feminism today.

Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska, and a mother of five, including a four-month old with Trisomy 21. Her nomination has evoked conflicting sentiments for many women. On one hand, many women recognize that the nomination is another significant milestone for women in politics and that any criticism of her as a mother because of the demands of her career are signs of a serious problem with the central tenets of Feminism. Privately many women are asking themselves how Palin can take on the Vice-Presidency, a 4 month-old with special needs, a son going to Iraq, a pregnant teen, and two other children. Publicly, all women who believe in gender equality say her role as a mother does not alter her ability to be Vice-President and vice-versa. Women have also publicly noted that there is not such controversy about male politicians balancing work and home.

The public versus private dichotomy of feeling about Palin’s ability to fill both roles successfully is a reflection of the general feeling that women have in their own lives about being working mothers. For many, the ideals of Feminism that sold us on equality failed to account for the demands of motherhood.

Motherhood is a demanding career, and there have been several studies that indicate the working mothers still perform the majority of household and childrearing responsibilities even while working high-power jobs. The reality of women’s experience as working mothers is that they often feel they are not as successful as they would like to be in their careers or as mothers. I think much of the ambivalence about Palin is fueled by confusion.

Many women are genuinely unsure of exactly HOW Palin can perform two 24 hour a day, seven day a week jobs when one of them includes travel all over the world. They want to know what her secret is, because they have struggled to integrate work and mothering. With Palin’s voice about this issue absent in the campaign, women quietly feel that she must not be that successful at it.

Feminism sells us on the idea that we can do everything and be everything. Once we have children, we realize there are choices to be made about work, home, co-parenting and some things are sacrificed. While we all may make different sacrifices in this process, most women probably feel they sacrificed in their career, at home, or in both from time to time. I personally feel disillusioned with Feminism because I once believed I could do everything perfectly. Once I had my daughter I realized that being a mother was enough work that I felt I had to slow down in my career to get through babyhood.

Without question I felt meeting my daughter’s needs was my primary concern. While I still plan my career, I do feel that I placed it on hold to be the mother I wanted to be. When I see Sarah Palin seemingly manage motherhood and a career in politics without compromise, I feel a little like a failure for feeling that I couldn’t. If it is possible to be a mother of five and the Vice-President without making sacrifices that will negatively affect career or family, I want to know Palin’s secret. For now, I resent the campaign for selling the image of the mom who can do everything and never break a sweat, especially if the reality is that Palin sacrificed, worried, and felt a fear of utter failure just like so many other working mothers.

Which Comes First, Health Care Cost Containment or Access:

Comparing the Health Plan Policies of John McCain and Barack Obama

Either John McCain or Barack Obama will become the next president of the United States in January 2009. According to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, “one in four Americans cite paying for health care as a serious problem.” (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008) Beyond the challenges of American individuals struggling to manage rising health care costs, insurance companies, hospitals, and employers continue to adapt their policies to attempt to decrease the economic burdens of health care. As these stakeholders have responded to rising costs by attempting to shift the cost burden to other stakeholders, the burden that is shifted back on the individual has contributed to increases in the number of uninsured Americans. The recent economic downturn and associated rise in the unemployment rate is associated with an increase in the number of uninsured individuals by a factor of 1.1 million new uninsured for every 1% rise in the unemployment rate. (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008) The presidential candidates have both articulated health care plans and policies that address health care reform in terms of cost, quality, and access to varying degrees.

Barack Obama and John McCain’s foundational philosophies about health care reform are vastly different. Where Barack Obama aims to reform health care and create affordable, quality health insurance accessible to all Americans, John McCain’s approach is to reform health care by focusing on cost containment measures that will be market driven. While Obama does not articulate his plan as a plan for universal health care, the idea that health care is a human right appears to be the foundation of his plan. Obama’s rhetoric focuses on increasing access through increasing the role of the government in providing insurance along with investments in research, technology, and public health. McCain articulates a philosophy of change that emphasizes shifting control of the system to the individual consumer. In McCain’s health care reform paradigm, shifting control and cost burden to the individual consumer will optimize cost containment. According to McCain’s plan, the notion of moral hazard in our current health care system, where the consumer is shielded from the cost and therefore has no incentive to be cautious in their utilization of services, is a contributor to rising healthcare costs. In comparing the underlying principles without reference to the specifics, one must evaluate whether reform of health care is best accomplished by increasing access or containing costs first. Where Obama’s plan lacks clarity on cost containment, McCain’s plan does not significantly address the issue of access. In terms of the many details of their plans for increasing quality, the candidates are in agreement.

Access

The road to increasing access to insurance for all people is clearly defined in Barack Obama’s plan. Obama’s plan will create a national health plan that people who do not have access to insurance through their employer, cannot afford private insurance, or have not been eligible for coverage can purchase. Obama’s outline indicates that all premiums, co-pays, and deductibles will be “affordable.” According to the outline, those individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but cannot afford the premiums of the national plan will be eligible for subsidies to offset individual costs. Other aspects of Obama’s plan that are designed to increase access include expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP, mandatory coverage for children, creation of the National Health Insurance Exchange as a means of regulating the private insurance market, and inclusion of portability as a component of the national health plan.

While Obama’s plan does not mandate coverage for adults, it does appear that more Americans would have access to insurance through the creation of the national health insurance plan. One area that seems unclear is how well the subsidies would offset costs for families that would qualify. Obama does not dismantle the private insurance system, but would require employers to either provide insurance or contribute towards the costs of the national health insurance plan. The integration of public and private insurance under Obama’s plan makes it appealing, and less likely to evoke strong resistance on the part of big business than a true universal health care plan. In terms of access, Obama’s plan appears to be a true reform, but the implications of this plan for cost control in health care are problematic.

McCain contrasts sharply with Obama over the issue of increasing access to healthcare for Americans, though he has never articulated commitment to universal health care. McCain’s plan does state that they will make insurance more available to individual Americans by lowering costs and increasing portability. According to his outline, he will use tax credits to make insurance more affordable. He will eliminate the employer tax exemption on health care and provide families with direct tax credits they can use to pay for insurance. The idea here is that families will search for the lowest cost plans and this will drive competition in the industry. Employer-based plans are still an option, though. Bob Lazewski has analyzed McCain’s plan and notes, “With the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance at $12,000 a year, a $5,000 tax credit will often come up way short—especially for higher age people and those who don’t have the benefit of an employer contribution.” (Lazewski, 2008) In addition, if an employer pays a portion of the costs, families would now pay taxes on that benefit. In this sense, McCain’s tenet is that he will make health insurance more affordable, which will give more people access. The challenge here is that it is not clear who will benefit from this plan. It depends on how much one earns and the ability to find coverage. (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008) In addition, there is no requirement of coverage. The McCain plan also emphasizes the use of Heath Savings Accounts, national plans that are portable, and a Guaranteed Access Plan for people who are otherwise ineligible for insurance. The mechanism of the GAP is not well-defined.

McCain’s plan may make health insurance more affordable for some, but the shift from the employer-based system to an individual purchaser system will undoubtedly be a bumpy road. The plan does not address how the uninsured poor will have more access to insurance, especially since the degree to which the costs will be driven down is unknown.

Cost

McCain’s plan is rooted in cost containment. In this sense, his plan does not require significant new expenditures that need to be funded by tax increases. His tax credit will essentially be funded by ending the tax exemption on health insurance benefits. Looking at how his plan impacts stakeholders, it appears as though his plan to drive down costs through competition would decrease costs for some stakeholders to some extent. By placing the burden on individuals, there would be some relief of cost burden for employers who may stop providing insurance and subsidize their employees’ individual purchases. At the same time, McCain’s plan does not articulate a clear mechanism to deal with the impact of the uninsured on hospitals and providers, who then pass the cost of providing care of the uninsured to private insurers. Unless there is flow of new capital into the system by way of more purchasers of insurance or some other means, the cost burden on the private insurers may increase, and then increase costs to individuals whose salaries do not rise at an equal rate. McCain does articulate other cost containment strategies such as: lowering drug prices through reimportation and increased generic availability, emphasizing preventive care and disease management strategies, greater use of information technology as a cost-saving measure, increased use of walk-in clinics in retail outlets, tort reform, and Medicaid and Medicare payment reform. In terms of cost containment, McCain’s plan does have a cost benefit in so far as the implementation of the plan will not produce significant new government expenditure; however, it does not clearly articulate who will have lower heath care costs and to what extent the costs will be lower. The extent to which low-income uninsured will benefit from tax credits depends on several specific details about tax credits that are not stated in McCain’s Plan. (Kaiser Network, 2001) McCain’s plan also does not demonstrate that the cost containment strategies he will implement will be equal or greater to the cost burden of 47 million uninsured on the system.

With respect to cost, Obama’s plan requires extensive government spending to be implemented, estimated at 50 to 65 billion dollars per year according to his campaign website. This cost will be passed on to individuals through the repealing of Bush’s tax cuts. In all fairness, those tax cuts have been noted to primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. Essentially his plan will infuse cash into the system that will cover many uninsured and increase the number of insured. On the other hand, his other cost containment strategies are not well-defined and are similar to the McCain plan. Obama’s plan also emphasizes cost control through use of information technology and lower drug costs, though he does briefly discuss regulation of unjustified price increases by big business. Ultimately, if the cost of health care itself cannot be reduced through decreased utilization of the system and reduction of administrative costs, covering the uninsured will not be feasible in the long run with tax increases. The bottom line is that Obama’s plan will cover the uninsured which will help reduce the cost burden on hospitals, providers, private insurance companies, and the privately insured, but does not provide well-articulated strategies for controlling costs within the system.

Quality

There are few significant differences between Obama and McCain’s ideas about improving the quality of health care aside from the implications of access or as quality indicators. Both support initiative for preventive care, public health, research, increased use of information technology, and federally supported outcome measurement initiatives. Obama provides more specific examples of the types of quality initiatives he supports, but they are really not espousing vastly different quality improvement strategies other than the ways they relate reform of access and cost issues to issues of quality in health care.

Nurse Practitioners and the McCain and Obama Plans

McCain is the only candidate that gives some reference to utilization of nurse practitioners as a mechanism of improving access and quality when he discusses the use of walk-in and retail clinics, though he does not explicitly state that nurse practitioners constitute a component of the approach. The physician lobby is fairly powerful and both candidates are most likely aware that if they want support of their plans, they will need the blessing of the physician lobby. Even though increased use of nurse practitioners as providers has the potential to decrease costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance companies, McCain and Obama are not likely to state this in their plans.

Obama’s plan has potential to impact Nurse Practitioners favorably by virtue of increasing the flow of revenue into the system in the form of more insured patients. If nurse practitioners can position themselves as lower cost yet effective providers, they have the opportunity to create jobs for more nurse practitioners and have more money flowing into their pockets. Many nurse practitioners feel that the health of the population is adversely affected by the number of uninsured individuals.

Conclusion

While the lack of cost containment policies in Barack Obama’s plan is a concern, the expanded access that it will provide to uninsured Americans makes it a better plan than John McCain’s plan. I do not think the shift towards a consumer driven insurance market is going to aid the uninsured or be a real cost containment measure unless the shift is coupled to heavy regulation of the insurance industry. Given John McCain’s principles, it is unlikely that he would support increased regulation. Even though Obama’s plan is more costly, I support the repeal of the Bush tax cuts to pay for it and also believe that decreasing the numbers of uninsured will serve as a cost containment measure. Once access is expended, efforts to contain costs can be more focused and refined with the removal of the financial cost of caring for the uninsured. Without expanding access, I do not believe costs will be contained. While expanding access has a cost, it is a cost that also serves the health of the population, which is important. I also happen to support the idea that health care is a human right. Given the current state of the economy, I fear that McCain’s plan will only increase the numbers of uninsured as individuals struggling to make ends meet will be forced to use any tax credits to offset other necessary costs. If that were to happen, the cost burden could continue to be shifted back on the insured anyway. In do not believe the net cost effect on the average insured American differs that greatly between the two candidate health plans. While we may pay in the form of taxes for Obama’s plan, I believe McCain’s plan will probably cost us some employer-provided benefits that will not be made up by increased wages as well us cause increases in hospital costs to cover the uninsured. By failing to address the access issue for uninsured Americans, I believe hospitals and private insurance companies will continue to deflect the cost of care to the uninsured onto the privately insured. The costs associated with either plan are essentially equal in that I believe any health reform will cost me. But my belief that health care is a human right leads me to support Obama’s plan.

References

1. Bodenheimer, T. S. & Grumbach. (2005). Understanding health policy: A clinical approach. Stanford, CT: Appleton& Lange.

2. Kaiser Family Foundation (2008) New Analysis Shows Effect of Rising Unemployment on Health Coverage, Medicaid and SCHIP Spending and Enrollment. Retrieved on 7/13/08 from http://www.kff.org/medicaid/kcmu042808pkg.cfm

3. Kaiser Family Foundation (2008) Tax Subsidies for Health Insurance: An Issue Brief. Retrieved on 7/16/08 from http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7779.pdf

4. Kaiser Network. (2001) Presentation Transcript from 4/6/2001: A Briefing on Extending Health Coverage- Tax Credits, Public Program Expansion and Combination Approaches. Retrieved on 7/17/08 from http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/kff040601.pdf

5. Lazewski, Bob. (2008) A Detailed Analysis of Senator John McCains’s Health Care Reform Plan. Retrived on 7/12/08 from http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/search/label/McCain%20Health%20Plan%20Analysis

6. McCain, John. (2008) Straight talk on health Care System Reform. Retrieved on 7/10/08 from http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19BA2F1C-C03F-4AC2-8CD5-5CF2EDB527CF.htm

7. Obama, Barack. (2008) Plan for a healthy America. Retrieved on 7/10/08 from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

This essay originally written for my advanced practice nursing class on Health Policy and Finance July 23, 2008 at Emory University.

I’m worried about what will happen when one aspect pay for performance in Medicare and Medicaid is implemented this fall. The need for effective cost containment strategies in health care is evident. Neither hospitals, providers, consumers or public and private insurers can afford to continue shifting costs around the system in a financial game of Russian roulette. The government as a public payor via Medicare and Medicaid plans to cut costs by stopping payment to hospitals and providers for treating conditions deemed “reasonably preventable.” Sounds like a good idea, right?

When you read the fine print and then look at it in context with the state of our health care system today, this is another health care cost containment measure that will not really contain costs and will potentially result in hospitals losing money to the extent that they will close. My primary concern is that the hospitals that will not be able to meet these standards are those operating in areas with limited resources, such as those in medically underserved areas.

The six conditions included in the list of reasonably preventable conditions are:

1. Pressure ulcers

2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

3. Staphylococcus Aureus septicemia (really hospital acquired venous access infections)

4. Air embolism

5. Blood incompatibility

6. Object left in patient after surgery

I think that some of these are no brainers. If you have a hospital whose surgical staff has problem leaving objects in patients, they need a serious wake-up call. Likewise, if the hospital continual gives patients the wrong blood type, theses are safety standards that MUST be met at a minimal level and no one but the hospital should pay the bill resulting from that error.

On the other hand, probably more morbidity is associated with catheter associated urinary infections, pressure ulcers, and line infections, but they are harder to prevent. It is also hard to prove causality for these events. Any patient with an indwelling catheter is at high risk for getting an infection, even if the staff does everything within their power to prevent infection. Hospitals will test patients for the presence of these conditions on admission and if any of these conditions are present on admission Medicare and Medicaid will pay for the treatment. If a patient did not have a UTI on admit and gets one during the course of treatment, Medicare and Medicaid would not pay.

This concept is great from the standpoint of the need for quality improvement in care to reduce risks for these conditions. There is not greater incentive for the hospital to get busy with their staff to reduce these theoretically preventable conditions than hitting them with a financial consequence. At the same time the a nursing shortage and a primary care physician shortage make it very difficult for hospitals to reach levels of quality that depend on their staff being able to do everything they should do to provide the best quality care.

Pressure ulcers are preventable when nurses and auxillary staff turn at-risk patients every two hours and ensure that nutritional intake is optimized. When I work as a bedside nurse I am obsessed with turning my patient every two hours to prevent pressure ulcers. But I’d be lying if I said there were not times when staffing was so low or other types of care had to be prioritized first that I was not able to do this on every patient every two hours. Is that my fault? Yes and no. If I have 6 patients to care for that all require a high level of care and the auxillary staff called in, I am forced to prioritize care and do the things that are most important first. Now working under those conditions and not being physically able to do everything I want to do for my patients feels horrible. But what other choice do i have? If I have four patients and have support from other nurses with similar patient loads and support staff, I can provide the best care. I feel great when that happens. The reality is that there is a nursing shortage. Nurses will tell you over and over again that they are so short-staffed that they cannot do everything they need to do. Nurses in this situation will also tell you that they ask for help from their administrations constantly. Some hospitals deal with the shortage better than others, but in some geographic areas there is no relief. Will those hospitals be able to meet the quality standards at the same level as other hospitals? Is a hospital in New Orleans suffering from a severe loss of staff and an increase in patients after Katrina be able to make quality improvement at a high enough rate to prevent loss of revenue from treating these catheter-associated infections without reimbursement?

If they cannot, and they have to close, how will that serve the New Orleans community? If you think about the types of hospitals that will have more trouble with this mandate it is important to realize that hospitals with lower quality are often hospitals that serve in areas of high need with few economic resources.

I know that there are many errors that are unacceptable, including some on this list. There are some errors on this list that are less black and white. Preventing those errors falls heavily on the nursing staff that is already overtaxed with responsibility. In areas faced with high shortages and other barriers to making the desired improvements, these mandates will potentially have a large financial impact. I have great concern about the who and where of this financial impact as an indicator of vast disparities in health care along socio-economic lines.

Have you ever heard the saying by Ghandi, “Be the change you want to see in the world”? If we apply this idea to the need for change in our country’s healthcare system as it relates to how people who work in the healthcare industry are insured, we have an interesting set of issues that are readily visible. Many healthcare institutions bemoan the effects of uninsured or under insured patients that flow through their doors because of the money they lose. There is an opportunity for these institutions to examine the effect of their insurance plans on their employees to understand how their policies may contribute to the numbers of uninsured, under insured, and insured but still in debt.

The following examples are food for thought.

When I worked for a nonprofit children’s hospital in New Orleans, our health insurance covered no well visits. Most children only see their pediatricians for well visits which include immunizations. These visits were not covered by insurance. Can you believe that a hospital whose mission is to serve the health needs of children did not provide a health insurance policy to its employees that covered well visits? Imagine how the employees who worked there and did not earn a living wage fared with this insurance policy. For immunizations, employees were encouraged to visit a free immunization bus that traveled around the city. While this would allow everyone to have their children immunized, it did not provide for well visits with a pediatrician to screen children and provide anticipatory guidance to parents.

Many businesses are now encouraging their employees to open Health Savings Accounts for their health insurance. I understand the idea behind such accounts, but I think they are a potential disaster for people with lower incomes. I am concerned about how employers are encouraging people to enroll in these plans as if they are less expensive for everyone. The system is complicated enough that we all need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits associated with various plans, the propaganda about these plans is misleading, in my opinion. If I were to change to this type of plan, I would not have sufficient cash to start the account such that if I had a catastrophic illness before I had put several thousand dollars in the account, I would have a serious financial problem.

Similar problems can occur with PPO plans. These were also touted as better than HMO plans because they have lower premiums and you have more choices. You also have a much higher deductible. I had this type of plan at one time. When I needed a minor surgical procedure, I ended up paying about $800 between my deductible and some other fees not covered by the plan. It was very difficult for me to pay this much cash, even though I have a very good income. Imagine what happens to people who make less than I do.

I do not believe that it is fair for the housekeepers upon whom we depend to keep our facilities clean pay the same premiums for healthcare that we do when those premiums will constitute a significantly higher proportion of their incomes. If I made minimum wage, I do not believe that I would enroll in the health insurance plan my employer provides because it would be financially implausible for me to have health insurance and pay my bills. This phenomenon has been noticed by forward thinking living wage advocates who have advocated for a living wage ordinance in Los Angeles. This is a description of the rationale for their efforts to include health insurance premiums in their living wage calculations.

If we want more Americans to have the befit of health insurance, we may look to the practices of our own employers and start the dialogue about how we are insured. Contact your Human Resources Department and ask them to investigate how many of their employees are uninsured and why. Also ask them to investigate what proportion of their employees require public assistance to be insured. Remind them if we want to change the flood of uninsured that come into our facilities, we need to look at how their own practices contribute to the numbers of uninsured in their area. I would advocate researching the costs and benefits of instituting a sliding scale of insurance premiums for employees that would set the cost of the premium at a proportion of your income.

In the meantime I devoutly enroll in my HMO plan during benefits renewal every year, until my employer or the insurance company decides that it costs them too much money. I may need a referral or a PCP, but I choose not to pay 10% of my hospital bill.

If you haven’t seen this movie by Michael Moore yet, I highly recommend it. This movie does an excellent job of showing the state of healthcare today in human terms. I mentioned that I had watched the movie to some fellow nurses. Many people commented that “socialized” medicine had terrible consequences. I found these comments interesting given the terrible cost of capitalist medicine in this country for the average insured person. As a nurse, patients often express their anxiety about getting their bill or comment that their insurance company has denied their claim. We are all aware that some of the people we care for will simply not be able to pay their bill. I think we sometimes forget that these are not people who are among the uninsured. There are many people WITH insurance who will be financially destroyed because of their medical bills. These are the people Michael Moore chronicles in this film.

Another striking point of the film is that the American people have been fed a steady stream of propaganda about the terrible state of healthcare in countries with universal health care. As I watched this sequence I had the sinking feeling that our politicians are not representing their constituents (the people), rather the constituents they represent are those corporations able to write checks large enough to fund their reelection campaigns. My $50 or $500 dollar contribution to the campaign of a politician I support pales in comparison the $500, 000 check someone with deep pockets can contribute. Do we honestly think that we will be equally represented by that politician?

We have to confront the reality that our system is designed for businesses (read: insurance companies) to make a profit. It is in the best interests of these businesses to spend as little on us as possible. Healthcare in other countries that provide coverage to everyone probably is not perfect, but the system is not set up so that a business will profit from your illness by denying your claim. I cannot tell you how many times I have had an insurance company refuse to authorize the treatment prescribed by one of the physicians I work with.

The process goes something life this: 1) Dr. X writes a prescription to treat Johnny’s chronic illness. 2) The insurance company denies the claim when Johnny tries to pick up the medication. 3) Johnny calls the physician’s office to tell them what happened. 4) The nurse calls the insurance company to find out why the medication is not covered. 5) The insurance company has some reasons that makes no sense, medically. 6) the physician submits a letter of medical necessity. 7) the insurance company still denies it. The physician or nurse talks to a physician for the insurance company to explain why the treatment is necessary. 9) Hopefully, it gets approved eventually.

This process takes days or weeks. Think Johnny’s health is improving in this time period? See how that your insurance company has a lot to do with how your physician determines your treatment plan?

We have to change our healthcare system. We have to find a way to make it impossible for anyone in this industry to make money off keeping people from getting well in the best way possible. Look at the healthcare plans the current presidential candidates are proposing and ask yourself if these plans take the profit for private corporations out of the equation.

Nurses have a responsibility to participate in advocating for this change along with other medical providers. We are on the front lines of healthcare and have the ability to convey the impact of the current system on the health of our patients. We can tell these stories, write letters to our representatives, think when we vote, and be sure to tell our friends and families what we know. See Sicko and start talking about what you know.