Is it society’s duty to ensure equitable access in healthcare?

Question posed to my students in a health policy course

In his book “The Healing of America,” T.R. Reid identifies four distinct methods of (paying people who are) providing healthcare to the citizens of a country. Some countries follow the model of England and collect money form all citizens, mostly via taxes, and use that money to pay for needed care. It is also referred to as  the Beveridge model, after Lord Beveridge, who wrote a report in the war years identifying disease as one of the five “Giant Evils” and recommended state action to combat this and other evils. In this model everyone is entitled. The second was the German model which mandates participation in private insurance. This is also referred to as the Bismark model, after Otto von Bismark, the Prussian chancellor who determined that universal healthcare could be a force in the fight for a unified Germany.  In this model, everyone is mandated to participate. The third is the Canadian model, which taxes citizens to pay for care but allows health care entities to be private contractors. In this model, budgets are set at a regional level and as a consequence some artificial shortages are created. In this model, everyone is treated equitably within the system.  Lastly is the “out-of-pocket” model. In this model, prevalent in developing countries, care is rationed based on ability to pay. In this model, no money=no access.

As T.R. Reid explained in his book and my class identified as America’s unifying model, we use an “all of the above” approach. For those over 65, active duty military, eligible veterans, and native Americans we apply the Beveridge model. Once Americans are in one of these groups, it IS society’s responsibility to provide equitable access in healthcare (well, sort of. Physicians can “opt-out” but for the most part, this is true). For those who work at jobs in larger businesses, we tend to apply the Bismark model (and Obamacare reinforces this). The employers are given a significant subsidy to provide health insurance and most Americans (before 2010, 66%) pay through healthcare via this mechanism. For some of the poor (mostly children and pregnant women but some with chronic illness) and military dependents we apply the Canadian model (how Medicaid and Tricare work, for the most part). For everyone else, we apply the pay- out-of-pocket-or-die-or-go-to-jail model. Obamacare attempted to move the last three groups into an amalgam of Beveridge (poor) and Bismark (everyone else) model.

Turns out the sticking point is the question I asked my students. Unlike my students, who had about a 70-30 split that it was a society and thus government problem, the American public thinks differently. Only 42% of Americans feel a responsibility for their fellow American’s access to healthcare. This increases as people get older peaking with of those who are 65 and older. 53% of these  believe that government should not be providing their health care. The majority of folks opposing the law, in all fairness, despite this believe it is the responsibility of our elected officials to make the existing law (be it via Bismark, Beveridge, Canada, or other) work.

The New England Journal of Medicine has published two essays on this topic this week. The first, out of Kentucky, discusses the benefits to patients living in a poor state that has elected to avail itself of the improvements in access offered by the Affordable Care Act. The author, who had previously written of access problems, says it this way:

But during the past year, many of my lowest-income patients have, for the first time as adults, been able to seek nonurgent medical attention. I recently evaluated a 54-year-old man with hyperlipidemia and a systolic blood pressure of 190 mm Hg whose last physician visit had been with a pediatrician. Before he enrolled in Medicaid, he would have been unable to pay for his appointment and laboratory work, and I wouldn’t have considered offering him a screening colonoscopy since he would surely have been billed for it. Newly insured, however, he was able to afford the tests and medications that most Americans would expect to receive, and he told me he felt proud to have witnessed a sea change in health care delivery in Kentucky and that recent reforms seemed “just.”

On the other side of the discussion is South Carolina, an equally poor state that has elected not to avail itself of the benefits afforded via implementation of  Obama-care. The author speaks of the many attempts to influence policy makers into accepting access for South Carolina’s poorest citizens. This culminated in a series of arrests following peaceful protests on the capitol steps. In his words, he had to act because

When I graduated from medical school in 1979, we did not take an oath, but I have since striven to adopt the words of Moses Maimonides as my guiding philosophy: “The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures” and “Preserve the strength of my body and of my soul that they ever be ready to cheerfully help and support rich and poor, good and bad, enemy as well as friend.” My interpretation of this prayer is that I need not only be a good clinician in the hospital or clinic but also attend to the effects on my patients’ lives of the wider world, whether my own hospital or the state government. [W]e must pay attention to the whole patient. Similarly, I now believe that our concern for our patients should encompass the effects of public policies that result in direct harm.

I do believe it is society’s responsibility to provide equitable access and believe Obamacare is the mechanism through which to accomplish this. Living in Alabama, a state that has not accepted the Medicaid expansion, how do we as educators look those we teach in the eye and say “We did all we could” to ensure access for those who are poor, who have mental illness, who are unable to speak for themselves? Anyone else ready to march on Montgomery?