Democratic presidential candidates confronted off on the talk stage for the eighth time this marketing campaign season. Meeting in Manchester, N.H., they returned to now acquainted well being care themes — “Medicare for All” versus a public possibility, the price of pharmaceuticals and different key areas they are saying are ripe for change.
Once once more, candidates sparred over the price of the single-payer well being reform invoice promoted by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Former Vice President Joe Biden argued it might essentially elevate taxes, pointing to its estimated $32 trillion price-tag (a quantity supported by independent economist estimates). Sanders famous that over the following decade, the nation is projected to finish up spending greater than $50 trillion on well being care. (That’s additionally borne out by proof.)
Don’t Miss A Story
Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition publication.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota additionally dove into points associated to abortion rights. Warren touted the statistic that three out of 4 Americans consider that Roe v. Wade must be the legislation. This is fairly correct — a current Kaiser Family Foundation poll discovered that 69% of Americans are not looking for Roe v. Wade overturned. And Klobuchar once more talked about how there’s overwhelming assist for Planned Parenthood. We beforehand checked this declare.
The candidates additionally mentioned the opioid epidemic and the scarcity of substance abuse remedy beds — in New Hampshire and nationwide.
Here are some highlights and associated reality checks:
You despatched out a tweet just some years in the past you stated ‘henceforth, forewith you are for Medicare for all for the ages.’
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Feb. 7, 2020
The reality is I’ve been constant all through in my place on well being care for each American.
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Feb. 7, 2020
Klobuchar and Buttigieg, the previous mayor of South Bend, Ind., sparred over his report of assist for Medicare for All, the single-payer well being care invoice Sanders backs. Klobuchar famous that Buttigieg beforehand tweeted in favor of the invoice and has since modified his place. Buttigieg stated he has been constant on supporting an strategy that may convey well being care to all Americans.
Klobuchar’s level — that Buttigieg has at the very least expressed assist for the particular invoice, and not does — is supported by proof.
The tweet was posted on Feb. 18, 2018. Buttigieg wrote, “I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered.”
Since then, Buttigieg has narrowed his stance — backing “Medicare for all who want it,” a plan he argues would additionally obtain common protection, by letting folks decide right into a public well being plan, and providing extra beneficiant subsidies for many who buy non-public insurance coverage. (Proponents of single-payer are skeptical it might succeed.)
To be truthful, even Buttigieg’s 2018 assertion contains an essential qualifier — he’s not tied to the plan. He favors Medicare for All, he says, as he does “any measure that would help get all Americans covered.” If you agree that his present plan would additionally obtain common well being care, there’s an argument that he has been constant.
—Shefali Luthra
It would value greater than all the federal price range that we spend now.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, Feb. 7, 2020
This is in reference to Medicare for All. We contacted Biden’s marketing campaign, who directed us to the 2018 federal price range — $four.1 trillion — in comparison with the estimated $32 trillion price ticket of Sanders’ single-payer proposal. But there’s an issue: That latter quantity is an estimate of the price for 10 years. So placing one yr of the price range in opposition to a decade of well being spending is evaluating apples and oranges.
And changing one yr’s price range to a decade-long forecast is an economically advanced proposition — it’s not as simple as simply multiplying by 10.
We additionally ran this declare by an unbiased knowledgeable, who crunched the $32 trillion estimate. Linda Blumberg, an institute fellow on the Urban Institute, instructed us Biden’s comparability is “an exaggeration” and “overstatement.”
Certainly, she stated, Medicare for All could be “a bigger increase to the federal budget than we’ve ever experienced” — greater than a 70% enhance, in comparison with the CBO’s 10-year price range estimate.
“This is an enormous increase, but it wouldn’t double” the price range, she stated.
—Shefali Luthra
The well being care business makes $100 billion in revenue.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Feb. 7, 2020
This is a favourite speaking level from Sanders. We double-checked the maths over the last debate. It holds up — and might be an underestimate.
The determine is derived by including the “net revenues” as reported by the businesses for 10 pharmaceutical firms and 10 firms that work in medical insurance. Multiple unbiased economists reviewed the methodology with, and affirmed that it’s sound. In reality, the whole “net revenue” — or revenue — is definitely round $101 billion.
The speaking level doesn’t embrace well being care’s largest earners, although: hospitals and well being programs. When you issue them in, specialists beforehand instructed us, the extent of revenue in our system will develop considerably bigger.
—Shefali Luthra
30,000 Americans a yr die ready for well being care due to the price.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Feb. 7, 2020
The method Sanders makes use of this quantity is problematic and oversimplifies the analysis. When we previously fact-checked this declare, we rated it Half True.
It seems that the quantity comes from Physicians for a National Health Program, which cited the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, a research that assigned by lottery some individuals to Medicaid and the others remained with out insurance coverage. A yr into the experiment, researchers discovered that the loss of life fee differed by zero.13 share factors between those that have been on Medicaid and those that weren’t — although this distinction was not statistically important. If you extrapolate this quantity to the variety of Americans who’re uninsured — about 27 million — you then do get near a determine of about 30,000 folks.
However, specialists stated that for the reason that distinction was not statistically important it shouldn’t be extrapolated so broadly, and it’s doable that Sanders’ quantity is just too excessive. Other analysis does present that there’s a connection between being uninsured and better probability of mortality. Thousands of Americans die ready for well being care yearly, however this quantity depends on imprecise math.
—Victoria Knight
36 million Americans final yr couldn’t afford to fill a prescription, together with these with insurance coverage.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Feb. 7, 2020
This is true. If something, it falls just a little brief.
The information comes from an estimate by the Commonwealth Fund, a well being care analysis and advocacy group. Researchers discovered that in 2018, 37 million non-elderly Americans — about 1 in 5 folks — skipped a prescription as a result of they couldn’t afford it. Some of these folks had protection. Others have been “underinsured.” That means that they had insurance coverage, however it wasn’t sufficient to safeguard them from massive medical payments.
Other information suggests it’s doubtlessly even worse. A November ballot from West Health and Gallup estimated that 58 million Americans skilled what they referred to as “medication insecurity” previously 12 months.
—Shefali Luthra
How about we begin with what a president can do — I like saying this — all by herself? On day one I’ll defend the Affordable Care Act and use march-in orders to cut back the prices of generally used pharmaceuticals like insulin and HIV/AIDS medication and EpiPens.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Feb. 7, 2020
On the marketing campaign path, Warren has usually talked about that she would use the facility of the manager workplace to cut back prescription drug costs for medication comparable to HIV remedy and EpiPens. We checked it, and it’s true that the president has these government powers.
Warren has in her “Medicare for All” transition plan a pledge that she would use two authorized mechanisms to realize this aim — “compulsory licensing” and march-in rights. Compulsory licensing means the federal government will take over a patent if a drug’s costs are too excessive and create competitors. There is precedent for this strategy, it was completed within the 1960s for reasonable generic medication and in 2001 for Ciprofloxacin in the course of the anthrax scare. Experts stated this probably couldn’t be utilized to all medication however may work for insulin and EpiPens.
March-in rights are when the federal government “marches in” throughout a public well being disaster as a result of a drug isn’t obtainable. But, it solely works for medication by which the federal government holds the entire patents, comparable to Truvada, the HIV prevention drug. However, this mechanism has by no means been employed and it’s unclear whether or not excessive prescription drug costs would qualify as a public well being concern. Officials on the National Institutes of Health would additionally must approve this measure, and it might face important backlash from the pharmaceutical business.
Warren is correct that the legal guidelines are in place for her to cut back prescription drug costs with out the facility of Congress, however it’s probably it might be tough.
—Victoria Knight
Shefali Luthra: [email protected]”>[email protected], @Shefalil
Victoria Knight: [email protected]”>[email protected], @victoriaregisk
Related Topics Elections Health Care Costs Insurance Medicare Public Health The Health Law KHN & PolitiFact HealthCheck Prescription Drugs src=”http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″>
