Health Care Reform - Myths and Disguises

It is difficult enough to evaluate such a complex issue as health care reform without the misinformation that is beginning to flood the media. Following are some of the most significant claims, myths and intentional misdirection that I have recently noticed.

• A number of US Senators and Representatives have been stating that if a public option is part of the health care reform, “About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan”. They attribute this conclusion to a report from the Lewin Group which is characterized as a research firm. What they don't tell you is that the Lewin Group is owned by a company named Informix which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Health Group. United Health is a major health care insurer in the US with about 27 million policy holders which might be negatively impacted by a public option. I doubt that United Health can be relied upon for an unbiased opinion.
• You may have seen the TV commercial or web site from a group called Americans Against Food Taxes which claims to be a coalition of concerned citizens. The commercial and web site argue against imposing a tax on soda and juice drinks which has been discussed as one way to fund health care reform.The web site and commercials have been developed by Goddard Claussen which is a public relations firm that advocates for anyone who pays them. This ad campaign is being financed by the American Beverage Association rather than a coalition of concerned citizens. The group claims that “taxes never made anyone healthy”. Oh really? Wasn’t this the argument that was made to justify additional taxes on tobacco, i.e., that higher cigarette prices would cause people to stop smoking thereby making them healthier? Another argument made to justify higher tobacco taxes was that the taxes would help fund the additional health care costs attributable to smoking related diseases. Soda, fruit drinks, candy and similar foods have contributed significantly to the explosion in rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc. that are chronic life long diseases which cost significantly more in terms of health care than smoking related diseases which typically develop in old age.
• The claim has been made that a public option will pay medical providers the same low rates as Medicare does which will put them out of business. Yes, Medicare typically but not always does reimburse at a lower rate than private insurers. However, when you consider that Medicare is designed to only reimburse 80% with the remaining 20% coming from the patient’s secondary insurance or patient’s pocket, Medicare patients in total frequently reimburse more than private insurance.
• The claim has been made that if a public payer option is included in health care reform that administrators in Washington will determine what medical services you can get and limit your options. However, with a private insurer, an administrator with the carrier will determine what care you can get and private insurers who are motivated by profit margins are more restrictive than Medicare. Dr. David Scheiner, a Chicago-based doctor who was Obama’s primary care doctor before he became president, said that Medicare is not restrictive enough and permits almost anything while he constantly battles with private insurers to authorize medically necessary treatments.

There will continue to be dire claims made on both sides of the debate and it will be difficult to sort accurate information from misinformation. Hopefully, each of us will take a few minutes to check the accuracy of the most significant claims before making a decision on the issue.