Reihan Salam Of 'National Review' On The GOP's Options For Health Care

Senate Republicans still can’t agree on their health care plan. NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks to Reihan Salam, executive editor of National Review, about the Republican Party’s options.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will delay taking up their health care bill while Senator John McCain recovers from surgery. It’s just another sign of how tight things are when it comes to the latest plan to overhaul the Affordable Care Act. The Republican Party remains divided on exactly how much of a role the federal government should play in health care. Reihan Salam is the executive editor of the conservative magazine National Review, and he joins us now.

Thanks for being with.

REIHAN SALAM: Thanks for having me.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So has the country now decided it likes having the government involved in health care? The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and polls show that people actually now like it.

SALAM: We have seen movement in the polls over the last several years. And now you have a comfortable majority of people who say that they believe that the federal government should guarantee universal health coverage for all Americans. One thing to keep in mind is that when – pretty much whenever any new social program comes into effect, it creates a constituency and that it really changes the politics around a given issue because basically, you know, people are fearful of losing benefits they’ve already acquired.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I mean, essentially, people don’t want things taken away from them that they feel they’ve already been given. Is that what the Republicans are facing right now?

SALAM: That’s certainly a big part of it. So when you’re looking at market democracies, when you do try to shrink a program, when you try to change how a program works, the only way you could really successfully do it is by saying, look, we’re going to take the most vulnerable people, and we are going to protect their interests while we’re going to change the program to make it more cost effective to make it more sustainable over time.

That’s still not always easy, but that’s a message that can succeed. If, however, you have a muddled message, if it seems like you’re planning on having some retrenchment of a program for no good reason, you’re not articulating a good and compelling reason to do it. That tends to be much, much worse.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: There is a paradox. The Affordable Care Act has become popular, as we mentioned, but in the same polls when you ask people about Obamacare, they say that they don’t like it. Now that Obama is out of office, are people paying more attention to the actual policy and its effect on their lives?

SALAM: Well, what I’d say is that earlier on, I pointed out to the fact that if you look at surveys, you find that people say that the federal government should insure universal coverage. Now, of course, there are lots of ways to go about doing that. As for Obamacare in particular, it certainly has created some constituencies. But are there ways to change the law that would be broadly popular? I think the answer is yes.

But to do that, you’d really need to have a coherent, unified critique of Obamacare. And that’s the big problem for Republicans because if you’re looking at Republican objections to Obamacare, they’ve come from pretty much every direction. People have criticized it for all kinds of reasons that are oftentimes somewhat contradictory. And that means that you don’t have a kind of common narrative about, what’s the problem here that we’re trying to solve?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And one of the other reasons is, of course, because there are so many different views within the Republican Party. Senate leader Mitch McConnell is using the threat of bipartisanship now to whip his conservative members into backing the BRCA (ph). But wouldn’t repairing the existing law actually get them a political win, the one that they need?

SALAM: Well, one issue is, what exactly does it mean to repair the existing law? If you’re looking at something like the Cassidy-Collins proposal and now the Graham-Cassidy proposal, there are some proposals coming out of the Republican side that involve, you know, basically measures that are not going to be such radical changes to the status quo. But then, you know, more broadly, if you look at both the AHCA and BCRA…

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Those are the House and Senate bills.

SALAM: That’s exactly right. Both of these legislative proposals aren’t actually repeals of Obamacare. And that’s one thing that some folks on the political right lament, but they really don’t actually get rid of the central regulatory dimensions of Obamacare that ironically enough are the things that conservatives really objected to all along. You’ll find a lot of people on the right, you know, for the last 20 years, who would have said, sure, you might need premium subsidies, you might need sliding scale subsidies, et cetera.

The real objection was actually to the centralization of regulation. And that’s the stuff that is fundamentally being preserved. So you have this tricky situation where because we don’t have bipartisanship – because you can’t really get 60 votes, you know, Republicans find themselves in a real bind. They can’t really do all of what they’d want to do. And so they find themselves being forced to defend these proposals that they don’t really have full ownership of, they’re not necessarily that enthusiastic about.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review. Thank you so much.

SALAM: Thank you.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

McConnell: Senate Will 'Defer' Vote On Republican Health Care Bill

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., leaves a meeting of GOP senators in the U.S. Capitol on June 22.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Senate will postpone its consideration of the GOP bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act until Sen. John McCain returns to Washington.

The Republican senator from Arizona is recovering from brain surgery performed Friday to remove a nearly 2-inch blood clot from above his left eye. The surgery was described as a “minimally invasive craniotomy with an eyebrow incision.”

“The Senator is resting comfortably at home and is in good condition,” according to his doctors at the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix, relayed in a statement from McCain’s office. He’s in “good spirits” after the “surgery went ‘very well.’ “

The tissue that was removed is undergoing analysis, and McCain’s office says results should be available within the next several days.

Thanks to @MayoClinic for its excellent care – I appreciate your support & look forward to getting back to work! https://t.co/eUkFr7jKYB

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) July 16, 2017

Shortly after McCain’s office released the statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell clarified what the news meant for the vote on the Republican health care bill planned for next week.

“While John is recovering, the Senate will continue our work on legislative items and nominations, and will defer consideration of the Better Care Act,” McConnell said in a statement he posted to Twitter.

My statement on @SenJohnMcCainpic.twitter.com/WSqc9axgzm

— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) July 16, 2017

McConnell had been in a rush to get the bill to a vote, in part because it was thought more time wouldn’t help and could hurt the chance for passage.

And the Republican senator’s absence from the Capitol next week would have complicated the already tight math surrounding a planned Senate health care vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Two Republican senators have already announced opposition to the measure, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. With McCain away, unless one of those two senators changes their mind, Senate Republican leaders are unlikely to meet the 50-vote threshold needed to begin debate on the bill.

A chorus of senators weighed in on McCain’s recovery via Twitter, including the Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

Praying for a speedy recovery for my friend @SenJohnMcCain. https://t.co/WPtEdwoUvY

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 16, 2017

Sen. Jeff Flake, also from Arizona, put out a statement, saying he and his wife were praying for a speedy recovery.

“I have never known a man more tenacious and resilient than John McCain,” Sen. Flake said. “I look forward to seeing him back at work soon.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

A Terminal Illness Divides Parents And Doctors

Charlie Gard is an infant with a terminal illness. Scott Simon talks to Arina Grossu of the conservative Family Research Council about whether his parents or doctors should have control of treatment.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

What will happen with Charlie Gard, the 11-month-old little boy in a London hospital with a rare terminal illness, mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome? He’s been in the Great Ormond Street Hospital since last October and reportedly has no muscle function, cannot breathe on his own and seems to have no awareness. Doctors there say there are no remaining treatments that could save his life or improve it. They’ve recommended Charlie just receive end-of-life care. His parents have gone to court to ask permission to take their son to the United States to receive an experimental treatment in New York.

A judge has now given permission for a U.S. doctor who specializes in conditions like Charlie’s to come to London and assess whether any further treatment would truly help him. We’re joined now in our studios by Arina Grossu. She’s director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Conservative Family Research Council. Thank you so much for coming in.

ARINA GROSSU: Thank you so much for having me, Scott.

SIMON: You feel strongly this is not just a medical decision, don’t you?

GROSSU: It’s not just a medical decision. This is a decision that has implications on parental authority versus the state. The family is pre-political, so they should be the ones to make the decision as to the kind of care that Charlie should get. And there are seven experts around the world who do see that he can be helped. And the hospital is not only saying, we won’t offer the care that has helped other children with less severe forms, but they’re saying, we won’t even release Charlie so that others who can help him can have a chance at helping him.

SIMON: Are there instances in which the parents do not necessarily have the best interest of the child at heart and it is the responsibility of a hospital or the state to intervene?

GROSSU: Of course. And in terms of if the parents are deemed unfit to make decisions, if there’s any sense of abuse, that is when the state or the courts can step in and really look out for the best interests of a child. But in this case, the parents obviously love their child and see that this therapy could help prolong his life and actually help slow down the rate of his illness. And so they’re being denied that chance.

And, in fact, the – Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that parents should not be overcome by the government and suffer coercive state interference. And they are fit parents. And they should be able to make this decision, especially since they’re looking out for Charlie’s best interests.

SIMON: We should explain that money is not an issue. More than 80,000 people have donated to a fundraising campaign to support the Gard family. Why do you feel this case has drawn such, at this point, international attention?

GROSSU: I think it has sparked outrage because it gets down to the point of whose child is Charlie? Does Charlie belong to the state, or does Charlie belong to his parents? And if he belongs to his parents, then they should be given the right – and not the government, not the hospital, not the courts – to decide Charlie’s fate because the moment they turn off the ventilator, he’s going to die.

SIMON: Would a life spent on a ventilator be worth living?

GROSSU: From the Christian perspective, yes because every single human life is valuable. His life has meaning. And if his parents want to increase and prolong and give him the best chance possible, the hospital has no right to step in the role of the parents to try to give their son the best chance possible.

SIMON: Arina Grossu of the Center for Human Dignity, part of the conservative Family Research Council. Thank you so much for being with us.

GROSSU: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Doctor Shortage In Rural Arizona Sparks Another Crisis In 'Forgotten America'

To help locals get the health care they need, the 14-bed Copper Queen Community Hospital in remote Bisbee, Ariz., has incorporated Mayo Clinic doctors into its practice — via telemedicine consultations.

Krik Siegler/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Krik Siegler/NPR

For Heather Gijanto, going to the doctor means taking a day off work and driving at least 60 miles round-trip from her home in McNeil, Ariz., to the town of Bisbee. And that’s assuming there’s a primary care doctor available in Bisbee to get her in.

“You select one doctor and then you find out a few months later that that doctor is no longer going to be available,” Gijanto says. “So then you have to start the whole process over again. And then you find that doctor and, for whatever reason, that doctor leaves as well.”

Gijanto is frustrated, and says she and her husband and their two young kids have had to change family doctors four times recently. Ideally, she says, the family would have one doctor who knew each member’s medical history, so “I didn’t have to explain my chart every single time, or have to go over medications all the time with each new physician.”

It’s long been hard to recruit new doctors to rural America. They can make a lot more money in metropolitan areas as specialists, and many choose to do that, especially if they’re saddled with mounting debt from student loans.

But the shortage, especially of primary care providers, has gotten steadily worse in recent years. According to the National Rural Health Association, rural areas could be short 45,000 doctors by 2020. And other trade groups warn those numbers of unfilled positions could loom even larger. Since 2010, more than 70 rural hospitals have closed.

The fallout is felt most acutely in small towns like Bisbee, which has a population of 5,400. The Victorian-era town has struggled since the 1970s, when the copper mines closed. Much of its economy now depends on tourists, who come to see the town’s well-preserved old West architecture and scenery, and to enjoy the local arts and music. But that income is largely seasonal. Bisbee’s full-time population has been steadily declining.

Today, says Mayor David Smith, a lot of Bisbee residents are uninsured, or rely on Medicaid. And this region has only about half the doctors it needs.

“Because of the lack of doctors, they actually end up using the emergency room for their normal needs,” Smith says. “They get a bad cold and they end up in the emergency room.”

Located in the mountains about 5 miles north of the border between the U.S. and Mexico, Bisbee is remote. Smith says they’ve worked hard to improve the town’s amenities. Among other things, this summer the public pool is finally reopening.

Still, there is no movie theater. There is only one grocery store left in town, no soccer fields. Little things like these can be a deal breaker when it comes to recruiting new doctors and other professionals.

And though the shortage of doctors all across rural America is a crisis affecting some 90 million Americans, the problem is not even part of the health care debate in Washington right now.

A mountain of mine tailings frame a Bisbee park — a legacy of the copper mines that once fueled the local economy.

Kirk Siegler/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Kirk Siegler/NPR

“Rural America is a forgotten America,” says Bisbee’s mayor, who believes the doctor shortage is just part of a broader story of rural neglect.

Smith points to the problem of student loan debt. Leaders in towns like this have long called for more generous debt-forgiveness programs for medical students, so that young doctors actually could afford to come out to underserved areas and work.

The mayor says there’s no sign this is being addressed by national politicians. They talk about rural America, he says, but when they get here they realize it’s complicated, and they leave and wait until the next election.

“Copper from Bisbee, Ariz., is what helped win World War I,” Smith says. “And yet, when we are in need, we are forgotten because it’s not convenient — and because it’s not a whole bunch of people here that are voters.”

Over at Bisbee’s Copper Queen Community Hospital, CEO James Dickson goes further.

He sees the doctor shortage as the latest example of why people in towns like this are feeling left behind, untouched by the economic booms in many American cities. It’s a likely contributor to the country’s growing economic and cultural divide, Dickson says.

“They’re starting to call the rural areas ‘the new inner city’ because we have the same shortages and lack of access to care,” he says.

How do you have a thriving economy if you don’t have access to health care?

“They can’t export a health care system like you all have in [Los Angeles] and other places,” Dickson says. “Doctors don’t come here. Doctors want a reasonable income, and I don’t blame them.”

Dickson’s 14-bed hospital and health clinic sit at the base of a mountain of old mine tailings — a legacy, if a somewhat bitter reminder, of better economic times. Copper Queen is often held up as a success for its low-cost model of high quality, especially when so many other rural hospitals are closing, or facing the threat of closure.

Rural hospitals have relied on foreign-born doctors who work in underserved towns in exchange for green cards, explains James Dickson, CEO of Bisbee’s hospital. But that’s changing. “They cap the number of visas and we can’t get doctors down here,” Dickson says.

Kirk Siegler/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Kirk Siegler/NPR

For now, Copper Queen has been able to get around the shortage of family doctors by incorporating telemedicine into its practice. Patients in need of specialty care or other emergency services can get consultations in real time from physicians at the Mayo Clinic. The hospital also has been able to hire more nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

But no one knows if these coping strategies are sustainable. Dickson thinks there’s another big problem, beyond the student loan issue, that’s being ignored: a shifting immigration policy that’s squeezing off the supply of young physicians from outside the U.S.

“They cap the number of visas and we can’t get doctors down here,” Dickson says.

Rural hospitals have relied heavily on foreign-born doctors who do residencies in underserved towns, in exchange for green cards. The cap means Dickson hasn’t been able to recruit a doctor to his hospital or clinic for 18 months.

No one is counting on a more liberal immigration policy under the Trump administration. And there’s a pervasive sense, in Bisbee anyway, that even if the national government weren’t divided, there’s only so much national leaders can do to solve the crisis.

Just as much of the responsibility lies within the local community, the mayor believes. Small towns like Bisbee that used to be wholly dependent on natural resources have struggled to reinvent themselves. Smith foresees some tough conversations.

“A lot of people still think that the mines are going to come back and resurrect this town. And of course that’s not going to happen,” he says. The mining industry has increasingly focused its business in South America. “Business practices have changed.”

It’s been hard for the economy to diversify, especially in a remote border region like this, Smith says. “And that hurts small towns with vision.”

Heather Gijanto, the mother of two who drives many miles to Bisbee for medical care, figures one of the solutions to breathing life into the region is to attract more private investment. She’s had the same job at a local Safeway for 14 years because she hasn’t been able to find much else.

“There’s not that much for people here,” Gijanto says. “There needs to be more options.”

More options, she says — and then maybe the doctors will come.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Who's In, Who's Left Out With The Latest Senate Health Care Bill

The GOP’s latest proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act hews closely to the earlier bill that didn’t win enough support among lawmakers to bring to a vote.

Perhaps the biggest change in the document released Thursday is that it leaves in place the Affordable Care Act taxes on wealthy individuals. It uses that money to reduce the number of people left without insurance coverage by the law’s changes. This latest version adds $70 billion to a fund for states — bringing the total to $132 billion — to help support coverage of low-income people.

It also would allow insurance companies to offer health plans without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. That means insurers could sell stripped-down policies that cover fewer conditions and offer fewer benefits than currently allowed under the law.

Loading…

Those plans would very likely be cheaper than the policies currently offered on the Obamacare exchanges. But for people who would like to purchase plans that cover the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act, including mental health coverage, addiction treatment, maternity care and prescription drug coverage, costs could go way up.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office hasn’t yet analyzed the new bill. It weighed in on the earlier Senate bill, saying that proposal would result in 22 million fewer people having health coverage in the next 10 years, compared with under the Affordable Care Act. Of those, 15 million would lose Medicaid coverage. That version was projected to lower the deficit by billions over 10 years — but that may have changed as the latest version offers billions more for state grants and also doesn’t repeal as many of the Obamacare taxes.

Yet this new variant is the same as its predecessor when it comes to subsidies to help individuals pay for insurance. It would mostly reduce subsidies and cause out-of-pocket costs to rise, as the CBO said about the previous bill. It’s not yet clear how the state grants would alter that dynamic.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)