Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Viewpoints: Warren's New Idea To Go Halfway With 'Medicare For All' Is More Dangerous Than It Looks; Warren's Plan Could Lead To A Majority's Acceptance Over Time
The Wall Street Journal: ‘Halfway’ With Warren Is Too Far
She’ll only get halfway. That’s the consensus on Elizabeth Warren: If the senator becomes president, Congress will wear down her ideological edge and stymie much of her radical agenda. The result won’t be something free-marketeers can love, but it will be something they can live with and then undo at a later date. Maybe not. The lesson of the 1960s is that political compromises with progressives can be much more consequential than they look—and preclude future reform. (Amity Shlaes, 11/18)
The New York Times: Doing The Health Care Two-Step
Recent state elections — the Democratic landslide in Virginia, followed by Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Louisiana — have been bad news for Donald Trump. Among other things, the election results vindicate polls indicating that Trump is historically unpopular. All of these races were in part referendums on Trump, who put a lot of effort into backing his preferred candidates. And in each case voters gave him a clear thumbs down. (Paul Krugman, 11/18)
Axios: Medicare For All Is Popular With Democrats, But Not With Swing Voters
New polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report confirms that while Democratic voters like the idea of “Medicare for All,” it would be a risk in a general election. Between the lines: This poll was conducted in the formerly “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. By the numbers: 62% of Democratic voters in those states say a Medicare for All plan that eliminates private insurance is a good idea — while 62% of swing voters in these battleground states say it’s a bad idea. Yes, but: Our poll suggests that 2020 is a referendum on President Trump, not on health policy. (Drew Altman, 11/19)
Market Watch: The Success Of Medicare Advantage Makes It A Better Policy Choice Than ‘Medicare For All’
It’s hunting season for health insurers, commonly referred to as “open enrollment.” People over 65 who turn on their TV or open their mailbox from late October through November can’t escape advertisements from private health insurers offering so-called Medicare Advantage plans on behalf of the federal government. The process may be mildly annoying, but it is a sign of vitality in a public-private partnership that is delivering high-quality health care at comparatively low cost. Over one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries now enroll in these plans. Politicians of both parties, take note: maybe what we should be debating is not Medicare for All, but Medicare Advantage for All. (Geoffrey Joyce, 11/18)
The Oregonian: Health Care Bill Widens Disparities For Minorities, Emboldens Insurance Industry
While Oregon generally prides itself on being progressive when it comes to health care, residents are struggling to access affordable care as insurers increasingly shift costs onto consumers. The need to expand access and decrease health care disparities for communities of color is greater than ever.And so, it’s unclear why Oregon lawmakers are poised to consider legislation that would reduce access for some of the most vulnerable chronic disease patients and disproportionately affect people of color. Senate Bill 900, being revived after it died in the last legislative session, would line the pockets of insurance companies at the expense of low-income Oregonians suffering from kidney failure. (E.D. Mondaine, 11/18)
The Wall Street Journal: Why Obama Stopped Auditing Medicaid
Medicaid expansion was a key component of ObamaCare. In 2014 when the expansion started, the feds stopped doing audits of states’ Medicaid eligibility determinations. The Obama administration’s goal was to build public support for the new law by signing up as many people as possible. Now, after a four-year hiatus, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have begun auditing program eligibility again. According to a report released Monday, the audits found “high levels of observed eligibility errors,” meaning a significant number of people are enrolled in Medicaid who shouldn’t be. (Brian Blase and Aaron Yelowitz, 11/18)
Los Angeles Times: Measles Outbreaks No Big Deal? Talk To My Patient Jim
It is one of the most effective ways to protect our health: herd immunity. By vaccinating the vast majority of people in a population, we can guard against the spread of potentially deadly infections. When we allow this collective immunity to dissipate, the results can be devastating — sometimes even for people who have been vaccinated. Just ask my patient J.J.’s ordeal began with a routine dinner at an Italian restaurant in Culver City in October. A few days later, his wife called me with the news of a possible measles case at the restaurant the same day. I wasn’t worried because J. had attended Los Angeles public schools, which require vaccinations, and a key vaccine such as MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) would not have slipped through the cracks. A few days later, J.’s wife called again. (Daniel J. Stone, 11/19)
The Hill: CDC Answers Call For Accountability In Global Tuberculosis Response
Nine-year-old Mpilo (this is a pseudonym) had been sick for months, suffering from fever, loss of appetite and persistent cough. His mother made the long journey with him and his sister to the nearest rural health clinic in South Africa to seek treatment as his sister also had a leg wound. Through a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program with health facilities, as part of the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), doctors discovered that both children were HIV-positive. They also found that Mpilo had tuberculosis (TB) — a potentially deadly combination. Doctors started Mpilo and his sister on a daily regimen of HIV antiretrovirals and immediately began TB treatment for Mpilo. (Rebecca Martin, 11/18)
The Washington Post: Trump’s Mysterious Hospital Visit Raises Many Questions. His Explanation For It Didn’t Answer Any Of Them.
The president of the United States had some free time on his hands Saturday, so he decided to go to Walter Reed Hospital for some routine medical tests as part of his annual checkup — next year’s annual checkup. That’s the explanation from the White House about President Trump’s apparently impromptu hospital visit. Uh-huh. Or, more politely: The explanation raises several questions. Wasn’t his last checkup in February? When did his annual physical become a phased affair? Why was Saturday’s visit, unlike previous checkups, not announced or listed on his public schedule? (11/18)
