2017. The year health reform took it on the chin. The year the middle-class, individual health-insurance buyer was abused by President Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party.
In Iowa, where we almost had no insurers in the individual market, we were left with one for 2018, Medica. One is not a choice. Who knows whether we will have insurers in 2019.
In the chaos of health-care efforts both nationally and in Iowa, today I seek to go back to two basic beliefs: 1) the hope of future generations to learn from past generations’ mistakes and 2) the value of continuity of care for primary health care and, ultimately, health care in general.
The U.S. Senate is now debating a tax-cut bill that includes eliminating the Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual mandate for health-care coverage — a basic tenet for true health-care reform — and, in Iowa, the for-profit, managed-care Medicaid fiasco now has one managed-care organization (MCO) leaving the state and another MCO not able to take new patients. These actions leave the state with only one MCO left to serve Medicaid patients. Given these realities, I shift gears by presenting to you a guest blogger.
She is a third-year medical student who recently spent a month with me in my clinic. She plans to be a pediatrician. I choose not to provide her name. Although she would allow it, I am not sure her medical school would.
In 2003, Iowa used part of its portion of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement monies to help build a new Supreme Court Building. During those years and later, Iowa Republican legislators sought to reduce the funding and scope of the Iowa Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Commission, which was created to use the settlement monies to help Iowans to either quit smoking or not start. I said at that time that using the Tobacco Settlement monies for any use other than health care was wrong. As a former chair of the Tobacco Commission, I viewed this money as blood money because it was being paid out to partially compensate for the death and disease that cigarettes had caused Iowans for many decades.
Similarly, I use the same term, blood money, today regarding the U.S. Republican House and Senate efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a plan that will reduce wealthy individuals’ taxes by more than $600 billion over 10 years by taking a similar amount of money from the Medicaid program and from subsidies used to supplement poor and low-income individuals’ effort to pay for premiums in the individual health-insurance market.
My dad — whom I admire, respect, and love dearly — for my taste, watches too much Fox News. He criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for years. He talked exclusively about its shortcomings. He talked about the 3,000 pages of the Act that none of the members of Congress had read. After listening to him for a while, I rebutted him on only one point. I said you could never criticize the ACA’s authors’ motive — to improve health-care coverage for Americans. With my comment, he quickly changed the topic of discussion. During many conversations with him over several years, he never changed the topic as quickly as he did that time. My rebuttal hit home. We can argue over method, but it is far more difficult to argue over motive.
As a physician, I have a hard time understanding post-truth politics. Wikipedia defines the post-truth culture as “a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored… . (It) differs from traditional contesting. … Falsifying of truth … (is viewed as) … of secondary importance.”
I live in a world where the absolute values of lab tests — such as INR levels (the international normalized ratio (INR) is calculated from the result of a prothrombin time (PT) test, which is used to help detect and diagnose a bleeding disorder or excessive clotting disorder; the INR is used to monitor how well a blood-thinning medication is working to prevent blood clots), ejection fractions (which measure the percentage of blood leaving the heart each time it contracts), creatinine levels (used to assess kidney function), and hemoglobin levels (hemoglobin is the substance in red blood cells that carries oxygen) — affect function, quality of life, and the potential life or death for my patients. I live in a world where, for my geriatric patients, the commonly accepted truth of gravity plays a huge role in falls. I spend much of my time as a geriatrician trying to prevent falls and treating the outcome of falls. In my 32 years of practice, I have seen how details of policy and falsifying of truth have tangible consequences.
I was tempted to titled this blog entry Health Reform and “I Won’t Let People Die in the Streets.” I also was tempted to describe the November 8 election as the day health reform died. One retort could be that the Republicans are now in charge of health reform. They need to play offense as opposed to only playing defense. And we should move forward.
For starters, let’s discuss the dual action of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and maintaining the Republican pledge not have individuals with pre-existing conditions be excluded from health insurance in the post-ACA world.
This week, a high-ranking politician left a phone message for me at my clinic. He asked that I call him. The purpose of his call, according to the note from my receptionist, was “politics.” I did return his call and left a message. He called me back while I was out at a movie. Stepping out of the movie to look at my phone, I found that the purpose of his call was direct and to the point: He asked for money for his political campaign fund. Another politician currently running for office has called me at various times during my work hours. He called once just as I prepared to do a knee injection for a patient and again while I was making rounds at the hospital. During each call, this politician asked for campaign money.
One of my proudest moments, which was photographed — the photo is displayed in my office at the clinic — is the 1998 signing ceremony for the Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa (HAWK-I) program. I stood with representatives of several medical societies and an Iowa family that included a mom and three daughters while Governor Branstad signed into law a program that helped to make Iowa a leader in the nation in the percentage of insured children.
I worked long and hard with Democratic legislators, Republican Representative Brad Hansen, who also is in photo, and Republican Senator Nancy Boettger to create a program made possible by federal funding that created a public-private system to insure children. For my efforts, in 1999 I received a national Public Health Award from the American Academy of Family Physicians. During the negotiations for the HAWK-I bill, I clearly remember that then-Governor Branstad did not want a quasi-independent board to supervise the program. He stated that in his administration he did not want to add “silos” that prevented him from overseeing the actions of state government.
Fast forward to 2013-2014.
Over the past months I have been inundated with requests for campaign contributions, and I looked for a way in which to make informed decisions about which candidates to support. In last month’s blog post, I shared two questions I posed to Iowa candidates running for U.S. Congress, the Iowa governorship, and the Iowa Legislature. The questions asked were an effort to engender better knowledge of just two of the complex issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At that time, I said I would make a $1,000 campaign contribution to the candidate who provided the most-specific answers to my questions and allow the responses to be posted on this blog. If I received thoughtful responses from several candidates, the $1000 contribution would be shared.
To date, I have received only one response, that of Senator Jack Hatch, who is running for Iowa governor. I have posted his response below. I sincerely appreciate Senator Hatch’s response. The opportunity for candidates to submit a response to my questions remains open until August 15. S.S. McClure, editor and publisher of McClure’s Magazine, once said, “The vitality of democracy depends on popular knowledge of complex questions.” I seek candidates’ answers for just two of the many complex questions surrounding the ACA. Please let the candidates you support know about this campaign-contribution opportunity. Help me share “popular knowledge about complex questions.”
During the Golden Age of Journalism, S.S. McClure, editor and publisher of McClure’s Magazine, who is credited with developing some of the best journalists of the 19th century, said, “The vitality of democracy depends on popular knowledge of complex questions.”
Complex questions are currently before the public involving health care, and, specifically, the unfolding and future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare are clearly among the most complex questions our society faces.