Obamacare and Its Discontents

Steven Brill’s new book outlines the shortcomings, as well as the accomplishments, of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Adam Gaffney

President Obama is set to sign the executive order raising contractors’ wages today. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Promis­ing new treat­ments and tech­nolo­gies abound­ed, but the ris­ing cost of health­care was squeez­ing the finances of fam­i­lies through­out the nation. A research group — the Com­mit­tee on the Costs of Med­ical Care — was assem­bled to study, and per­haps change, health­care financ­ing and deliv­ery in the Unit­ed States.

I wonder if fundamental change could be achieved more easily if those with powerful voices, like Brill, were a bit less confident in drawing the boundaries of political possibility, and more willing to join in efforts to expand them.

The year was 1927, but the Committee’s final report, released five years later, remains quite timely.“There needs to be some plan,” the report stated, “whereby the unequal and sometimes crushing burden of medical expenses can be distributed.” The report presciently acknowledged the dangers of what was a new phenomenon, the commercialization of healthcare: “The danger which physicians and dentists fear, namely that lay groups organized for profit will control medical practice, is a real one.”

These two very much intertwined problems—high healthcare costs and medical profiteering—have only become more pronounced. They are also the concerns of Steven Brill’s bestselling new book, America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System.

Brill—a journalist, lawyer and founder of numerous media ventures—burst onto the healthcare reform scene in 2013 with an explosive exposé in Time that painstakingly demonstrated the wreckage inflicted by massive itemized medical bills on some very unfortunate uninsured and underinsured people. His new book traces the emergence, travails, accomplishments and shortcomings of Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA). His reporting on the “backroom deals” that helped sculpt the ACA provide a valuable illustration of just how much influence the “medical industrial complex” has accrued.

For the pharmaceutical industry, the stakes were high, particularly as some Democrats were talking about allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies over prices (which is what the rest of the world does already). Brill describes how a deal was ultimately hashed out in meetings between industry lobbyists, Max Baucus’ Finance Committee staff and the administration. “[My] five principal CEOs,” he quotes from a note written by head pharma lobbyist Billy Tauzin to a White House staffer, “have accepted the terms we discussed with the Committee yesterday.” Those terms, not surprisingly, did nothing to substantially contain astronomically high U.S. drug prices.

Brill stumbles, however, in his prescriptions for the future. As Brill describes, a historic consolidation of the healthcare industry into large, integrated, regional systems is underway, and some evidence has already demonstrated that such consolidation carries the peril of monopolistic pricing. His solution is to accommodate this trend toward “branded, integrated and regulated oligopolies” and also to heavily regulate it, while at the same time encouraging these systems to cut out the middle man and become insurers themselves (which some have done already). Through greater administrative simplicity, redefined provider incentives and a cap on profits, Brill envisions huge potential savings.

Unfortunately, insurer overhead (which his plan would not eliminate) is only one part of the massive administrative waste of the U.S. healthcare system. In reality, the only system that could achieve profound administrative savings would be one in which hospitals receive a “global budget” from a single governmental payer to cover all operating expenses for all patients.

Because healthcare organizations would be both the payer (insurer) and the provider in Brill’s plan, he argues that they would no longer have a profit incentive to overtreat—i.e., offer patients unnecessary tests and referrals. However, the notion that we can dramatically reduce healthcare expenditures by suppressing this “fee-for-service” incentive is itself an oversimplified, if happily bipartisan, dogma. No doubt there is overtreatment in the U.S. system, but there are also areas where Americans use comparatively less healthcare. In a recent survey of 15 developed nations, the U.S. had the highest rate of MRI scans—but it also had the second lowest number of annual doctor visits per capita, and the fourth lowest number of per capita hospital discharges.

In an era when the insured are facing rising out-of-pocket health expenses—up to $13,200 a year after premiums for family plans bought on the ACA exchange—I worry far more about all of the families who sacrifice needed care because of the crushing financial burden of high deductibles and copayments. Brill’s own reporting reveals the problem of out-of-pocket exposure to healthcare costs, but it is unclear if his proposal would do anything about it, much less eliminate it.

At times, Brill implicitly accepts the premise that a public, fully universal, single-payer program might be the best cure for what he calls the “toxicity of our profiteer-dominated healthcare system.” But he is resigned that such a system is simply “never going to happen.” I wonder if fundamental change could be achieved more easily if those with powerful voices, like Brill, were a bit less confident in drawing the boundaries of political possibility, and more willing to join in efforts to expand them.

Adam Gaffney is a physi­cian and writer with a focus on health­care pol­i­tics, pol­i­cy and his­to­ry. He is an instruc­tor in med­i­cine at Har­vard Med­ical School and a pul­monary and crit­i­cal care physi­cian at the Cam­bridge Health Alliance. His writ­ing has appeared in the New Repub­lic, Los Ange­les Review of Books, Salon, CNN​.com, USA Today, Jacobin and else­where. He’s a board mem­ber of Physi­cians for a Nation­al Health Pro­gram, a sin­gle-pay­er advo­ca­cy orga­ni­za­tion. The views expressed are his own.
More articles by Adam Gaffney
Viewpoint
Trump Says Covering All Immigrants Would Bankrupt Our Healthcare System. That’s a Lie.
Covering undocumented immigrants under Medicare for All isn’t just morally right—it’s also economically sound.
Feature
Tom Price Is a Horrible Choice for Health Secretary
The Georgia representative redefines what it means to have conflicts of interest.
Feature
The Hundred Years’ War for Healthcare Reform
Until the ACA, reform attempts have been thwarted throughout the last century.
Similar articles
Culture
What Would a Feminist City Look Like?
New York’s City Hall encampment provides a model for creating care-centered, inclusive spaces.
Apoorva Tadepalli
Culture
Feminism in the Age of Precarity
An interview with historian Alice Kessler-Harris on how the past 30 years have changed women’s workplace demands.
Joanna Scutts
Culture
Sorry To Bother You Is the Anti-Capitalist Black Comedy We’ve Been Waiting For
Boots Riley’s new film shows how black liberation and labor politics are enmeshed. And it’s funny.
Lauren Michele Jackson
Subscribe to our free newsletter
Fearless journalism that speaks truth to power
Limited Time:

SUBSCRIBE TO IN THESE TIMES MAGAZINE FOR JUST $1 A MONTH