Mental Health Cuts Will Lead to Increased Health Costs

On December 8, 2010, Jack Dalrymple, a Republican Governor in the safely Republican state of North Dakota, sent a budget to the state Legislative Assembly calling for an $8 million increase in funding for mental health services.

His transmittal message accompanying his FY2011-2013 proposed budget was simple. “We… need to make investments that help take care of people.  We have all been alarmed recently about teen suicide rates, especially on our Native American reservations.  These highlight the need to make more resources available for critical mental health services for our citizens.”

So, in a $3.3 billion general fund budget, he proposed over $6 million for new inpatient services, community crisis stabilization, and drug dependency treatment.  He also proposed $1 million for suicide prevention, another million dollars for mental health services on college and high school campuses, and a rate increase for mental health providers. 

He summed up these requests by saying that “the physical and mental health of our citizens is always a top priority.”

The North Dakota Legislature apparently agrees.  According to a recent report of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the state has made up for historically low spending on mental health services over the past three years by topping the nation in increasing spending for mental health. 

As overall state mental health spending in the nation declined by $1.6 billion, North Dakota increased spending for mental health by 48.1%.

In the same time frame, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, and Illinois all cut mental health spending by over 30%, and Nevada, the District of Columbia, and California all cut it by over 20%.  In fact, most of the rest of the country is clearly out of step with North Dakota.

A Bloomberg News article headline this past week made clear what cuts to mental health mean: “Mental Health Cuts by U.S. States Risk Boosting Health Costs.”  The reason, as one Illinois emergency room physician pointed out, is that sick patients don’t just disappear when they are denied one set of services.  They seek out another, often more costly, alternative.

In the case of people denied mental health care, it is usually the hospital.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2.4 million primary diagnoses of mental illness in general hospitals in 2006. In the same year, state mental health spending totaled $104 per capita, according to Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts data. 

CDC recently released new data for 2009.  In that year, the number of primary mental illness diagnoses decreased to under 1.6 million.  But the State Health facts data reported that state mental health spending had increased by then to $123 per capita.

In other words, during a time frame when state mental health agency funding increased by 18%, mental health diagnoses in general hospitals decreasedby 35%.

These are the facts, and there is an association here, at least for the most recent three-year period for which we have data. When states spend more on mental health as they did in 2009, fewer people with mental illness need hospitals for care.  And when states spend less on mental health, as they did in 2006, hospital use goes up.

Now that they have the facts, what are states proposing this year?

• The Florida Senate has proposed to reduce adult mental health services funding by 34%.  The House saved Florida from such a spending disaster last year; it will have to do so again this year.
• Connecticut’s Governor has proposed a $12 million cut to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services from the state’s already-approved FY2013 budget.
• Alabama last week announced plans to close 4 psychiatric hospitals.
• Illinois has proposed cuttingtwo psychiatric hospitals and a host of community health centers throughout Chicago.
• Mississippi is proposing a 5% cut to mental health that could result in the closing of six mental health facilities throughout the state.
• The Pennsylvania Governor’s newly proposed budget will cut Philadelphia by $42 million in mostly mental health and addiction services funding, according to information provided by the Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania.

Do you detect a pattern here?

Proponents argue that these cuts are being made in the name of fiscal responsibility, but they don't have the vision to see the forest beyond the trees.  Every one of them will make people sicker, state costs higher, and an already bad situation worse.

If you have questions about this column or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

The 13,386 Lives Congress Sacrificed Last Week

“I will keep them from harm and injustice.”

“I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.”

-Classic and modern versions of the Hippocratic Oath, from MedicineNet.Com

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is a physician.  He’s familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, and has used it to explain his opposition to health care reform.

Last November, Senator Coburn famously termed a $15 billion appropriation for public health and prevention a “slush fund.”  That’s because it was paying for community tobacco control programs, immunization activities, and addiction disorder prevention and treatment services around the country. 

For information on sources, see note below

“Prevention is about focusing on an individual patient,” he commented, apparently forgetting everything he learned about epidemiology at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Medicine and at least some of the words of the Hippocratic Oath.

Public health is the basis of health promotion and disease prevention. 

It focuses on the well-being of entire populations and communities.  It gets only 3% of our total health funding according to CMS data.  It has been responsible for at least half of the increase in life expectancy in America in the last century.

Now it is going to get even less funding, because Senator Coburn’s view has prevailed. 

Last week, his Congressional colleagues – in approving what was described as the last significant piece of legislation like to pass this year – agreed to cut $5 billion from the public health fund.  (Senator Coburn voted against the final bill, but not because it cut public health funding.)

We now know how many lives that $5 billion cut to public health will cost. 

This is because of an article written by Glen Mays and Sharla Smith and published last July in Health Affairs.  In that article, the authors showed that increasing spending on public health reduces infant deaths and deaths from cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. 

They found that a 10% difference in public health funding is associated with a 6.9% difference in infant deaths, a 3.2% difference in heart disease deaths, a 1.4% difference in diabetes-related deaths, and a 1.1% difference in cancer deaths.

The CMS tally of U.S. spending on public health in 2010 was $78 billion.  A $5 billion dollar cut represents 6% of that total.

So that 6% cut this year will be associated with the following:

• 1,077 additional infant deaths;
• 7,831 additional deaths from heart disease;
• 617 additional deaths attributed directly to diabetes;
• 3,861 additional deaths from cancer.

Let’s be clear.  Mays and Smith were careful to point out that we can’t say that lower public health spending causes more deaths – but the association is real.  The amount of disease and death go up as public health spending goes down.

There are two levels of irony in the vote.

The first is that, before this happened, Mays and Smith cited the public health fund as evidence of Congress’s increasing awareness of the value of public health.  So much for awareness.

The second is that Congress decided to use the $5 billion to pay physicians to see Medicare patients who suffer from conditions like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Physicians needed that so-called “doc fix.” Congress caused the problem way back in 1997 when it adopted a Medicare reimbursement formula with a flaw. 

Ever since the flaw became apparent a decade ago, Congress has plugged the reimbursement hole it created one year at a time, kicking the solution another year down the road.  After ten years of kicking, the hole is so large that doctors’ reimbursements would have been cut by 27% without the plug.

Kaiser Health News has an excellent summary of the doc fix dilemma on its web site for those who want to read more about it.  Because Congress won’t fix it for good, doctors are forced to waste their time and money lobbying for a fix every year.

Physicians are undoubtedly relieved that they came out okay again this year, but I seriously doubt that most of them would have wanted the money to be taken from public health.  After all, they’ve all sworn the same Oath as Senator Coburn.

But here’s the important question.  When Congress is able to afford $40 billion in oil and gas tax subsidies over the next ten years for hugely profitable companies, how come, when our health and well-being is concerned, it has to be either/or – and at the expense of thousands of lives?

Note on Source Data for Lives Lost Calculations:  Sources for numbers of deaths attributable to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and infant mortality were websites of national chronic disease advocacy organizations and U.S. Government (CDC).  Death calculations were made by OHPM using the one-year death total for the most recent year available (usually 2010) and applying a 6% change factor.  The implicit assumptions is that if the 6% cut were to become annualized, so too would the annual number of increased deaths.

If you have any questions about this column, or would like to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

The Contraception Exception

In arguing last week for the “contraception exception,” did Catholic Bishops – whose compassion for human beings is generally second to no one’s – really mean to open the door to those who would deny people access to other needed prevention services?

To recap, the Obama Administration announced that birth control had to be a part of employer-based health insurance plans.  Contraception is considered preventive health, and the Affordable Care Act mandates this and many other prevention services be offered free of charge.

The Catholic Bishops objected strongly.  They are morally opposed to birth control, and argued that, as an employer, the Church should not be compelled to pay for prevention services it deems immoral.

The Obama Administration then announced a compromise.  No religious institution would be required to pay for contraception services in its health insurance plan, but insurers would still have to cover the services for women who wanted them.

On Friday, it appeared that Catholic leaders would accept the compromise. 

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Bishops, called the Administration’s announcement “a first step in the right direction” of “preserving the principle of religious freedom.”

But by Saturday the U.S. Conference had issued a strong statement declaring that “the only complete solution to this religious liberty problem” was “to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.”

Some commentators have taken a cynical view about the Bishops’ statement, arguing that they’re out of touch with the 99% of U.S. women who have used birth control. 

In the past, governments have preserved access to ethically controversial services, including contraception, abortion, and capital punishment, while assuring that no one with an objection had to pay or participate.

As Kaiser Health News pointed out in a February 8^th blog, over half the states required coverage of contraception services before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and twenty of those had some form of exemption for religious institution employers.

The Bishops’ Saturday statement breaks new ground in demanding that a prevention “mandate” be rescinded. 

It has the potential to change the way we make public policy regarding both prevention and health care services in ways the Bishops themselves would not support.

Historically, we have protected most religious objections to health care treatment.  But we haven’t allowed a religious organization to run roughshod over nonbelievers.  Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, can refuse blood transfusions, but they can’t deny them to a non-believer. 

But it is a prevention service to which the Bishops seek to deny access, not a health care treatment service. 

The Bishops argue that this is just about their rights under the first Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  

However, we also have a Ninth Amendment which reads:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”   In other words, the Church’s First Amendment rights don’t come at the expense of someone else’s Ninth Amendment rights.

So then everyone must be given the opportunity to maintain their health by accessing whatever prevention services they need, consistent with their own religious and secular beliefs – unless we do not have a Constitutional right to health.

That last part is the door the Bishops – who also support universal health care – have now cracked open.

By creating a Constitutional objection to some prevention services under the Affordable Care Act, they are inviting others with less life-affirming goals to make theology-based Constitutional objections to other prevention services, too.

There are policy leaders in this country who don’t believe that people have a “right” to health.  They see health care as a commodity, subject to the whims of the free market.  They don’t support insurance mandates – for contraception, prenatal care, child health, or anything else.  You can already see them piously wrapping themselves in the Bishops’ cloaks. 

It is a slippery slope for Bishops – who on Saturday also reiterated their support for “access to life-affirming healthcare for all” – to cast their lot with these “unchristian” people. 

If the Bishops are true to their beliefs, they will speak out in the coming days as forcefully to these policy leaders as they did to the President – about why they supported health care for all in the first place.

If you have questions about this column or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Is Medicare for All on the Horizon?

We’re now just a little more than a month away from the day the Supreme Court will hear the arguments that determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act.  

The fight will be narrow – about the constitutionality of the individual mandate and Medicaid expansions.  

The consequences for health care financing, however, will be widespread.

And, ironically, both states rights conservatives and pro-national health insurance progressives may end up rooting against their own positions.

To understand why, consider the four ACA Supreme Court issues that will be argued. 

The first is the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 

To be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, a law has to regulate economic activity that “has a substantial effect” on interstate commerce. 

While it may seem that all the activity under ACA will have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Judge Vinson in Florida disagreed.  In considering the individual mandate, he found that the failure to purchase insurance by an individual is economic “inactivity,” not “activity.” For Judge Vinson, there’s no distinction between economic inactivity and non-economic activity. (I’m not so sure.)

Two times – in 1995 and again in 2000 – the Supreme Court held that non-economic activity wasn’t covered under the Commerce Clause.  So if the Supreme Court agrees with Judge Vinson, then the individual mandate won’t be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and the Court will have to consider the second issue.

Is the individual mandate constitutional under the taxing authority of Congress?

If the Commerce Clause doesn’t make the mandate constitutional, then the Anti-Injunction Act might.  It prevents anyone from challenging the right of Congress to collect taxes. 

But even though ACA forces people who don’t buy insurance to pay higher income taxes, Congress specifically referred to these as “regulatory penalties.”  So is a tax by another name still a tax?  If it is – as the Fourth Circuit Court ruled – then the individual mandate is probably constitutional. 

But let’s say it isn’t.

Then the third issue becomes important – whether the individual mandate can be “severed” from the rest of the law. 

Some laws state explicitly that if one section of the law falls, the rest still stand.  But ACA doesn’t.  So it’s up to the Court to decide what happens to ACA as a whole if it finds the individual mandate unconstitutional.

So far judges who have ruled the mandate unconstitutional have disagreed about its severability.

One judge (Hudson) said it was severable, citing a 2010 Supreme Court ruling. When portions of a law are unconstitutional, all that should be thrown out were “problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” 

Another judge (Connor) also found it severable, but not from the entire law.  He said that the sections of the law that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and prevent higher rates based on health condition, geography, or gender are intertwined with it.  So he found these unconstitutional, too.

A third judge (Vinson) ruled that the individual mandate wasn’t severable, but essential to ACA’s overarching goal.  He therefore decided that the whole law was unconstitutional.

The individual mandate was originally developed as an alternative to single-payer, government-funded, universal health care coverage.  But the fourth issue – whether ACA’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional – may now glue the two together.

The 26 states opposing the Medicaid expansion aren’t arguing against it per se, but against the federal government “coercing” them into implementing it.  In other words, government health care is fine, but not if states have to pay. 

This year, these and other states are proposing disturbing cuts to safety net health services.  Florida is considering a proposal to turn most state health services over to counties .  The Governor of Maine wants to remove 65,000 adults from the Medicaid program.  Louisiana just announced a new round of cuts to local mental health providers.  And Connecticut has begun denying some Medicaid coverage to kids with disabilities.

It’s as if they collectively believe that any problem can be solved by taking money away from it.

Here’s what they’re ignoring.  When you oppose requiring either individuals or states to pay for health care, you’re left with only one viable future option – federally-financed Medicare-for-all.

On the other hand, when you defend ACA as it is, you’re arguing that a two-tiered system of government-subsidized private health insurance for those who can afford it and public insurance for the poor and elderly is the solution to our health care financing crisis.

So when the Supreme Court decides, who wins?

If you have questions about this column, or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, contact gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.