popular logistics

Popular Logistics thinks that a health care delivery system in which one out of six people can’t get health care, except by going to the Emergency Room is poorly run, mismanaged, and in a word, broken. We disagree with President Bush, who said “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” We also recognize the public health concerns when one out of six people can’t get access to prescription medications, especially in densely populated areas. Thus, we think that a single payer health care system based on the Medicare model, also known as “Medicare for all,” is the best way to approach health care, from a policy perspective.

Popular Logistics is a non-partisan “blog.” We write about policy; we don’t often endorse candidates. However, we recognize that policy is made by candidates who win. This letter to the Editor, by Phil Steck, published in the Capital District Business Review, shows why we like Phil and why we wish him success in his race to represent New York’s 21st Congressional District.

To the editor:

I read with great interest James Barba’s opinion piece entitled “Health care reform is a business issue.” I applaud him for taking a visible leadership role on this critical issue. I recently had the opportunity to meet with him individually to discuss the benefits of a national single-payer heath care system and other challenges faced by health care providers.

Even before I declared my candidacy for Congress, I have supported single-payer health care, known as “Medicare for All,” because it is a system that is proven and tested. Medicare, the health system for the elderly, has a long history of success despite recent efforts to undermine it. It is statistically the most efficient health insurance care system available in the United States. Single-payer would benefit our economy, by lowering costs for patients, doctors, employers, and government. Single-payer would make us far more competitive internationally because many foreign businesses do not have to absorb the health care costs like their American counterparts.

In addition to hospital industry leaders like Jim Barba, a majority of doctors support single-payer because of the burdens that the current system places on them, primarily additional administrative costs.

As a partner in an Albany law firm, I understand the ever-escalating costs that businesses face in order to provide employees with health insurance. As an Albany County Legislator, I am all too familiar with the problems associated with the patchwork expansion of Medicaid. In Albany County we have worked to keep property taxes the 4th lowest in the state, but 90% of the county property tax goes toward Medicaid expenses. In a single-payer system, that local unfunded mandate is eliminated.

Sincerely,
Phil Steck
Candidate for Congress, NY-21

Stephanie Strom of the Times reports on persistent - over 15 years - difficulties with the Red Cross blood supply operation, which provides two-thirds of the organization’s revenue.

For 15 years, the American Red Cross has been under a federal court order to improve the way it collects and processes blood. Yet, despite $21 million in fines since 2003 and repeated promises to follow procedures intended to ensure the safety of the nation’s blood supply, it continues to fall short.

The situation has proved so frustrating that in January the commissioner of food and drugs attended a Red Cross board meeting - a first for a commissioner - and warned members that they could face criminal charges for their continued failure to bring about compliance, according to three Red Cross officials who attended the meeting and requested anonymity because Red Cross policy prohibits public discussion of its meetings with regulators.

If fear is a motivator, we’re happy to help out in that way”If fear is a motivator, we’re happy to help out in that way,” said Eric M. Blumberg, deputy general counsel at the Food and Drug Administration, though he declined to confirm what the commissioner, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, said at the meeting.

Some critics, including former Red Cross executives, have even suggested breaking off the blood services operations from the rest of the organization, as the Canadian Red Cross did a decade ago.

The problems, described in more than a dozen publicly available F.D.A. reports - some of which cite hundreds of lapses - include shortcomings in screening donors for possible exposure to diseases; failures to spend enough time swabbing arms before inserting needles; failures to test for syphilis; and failures to discard deficient blood.

In some cases, the lapses have put the recipients of blood at risk for diseases like hepatitis, malaria and syphilis. But according to the food and drug agency, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed to investigate the results of its mistakes, meaning there is no reliable record of whether recipients were harmed by the blood it collected.

The Red Cross, which controls 43 percent of the nation’s blood supply, agrees that it has had quality-control problems and is working to fix them. Both its officials and the drug agency point out that none of the identified problems involve the most serious category of infractions. For instance, the Red Cross does a good job of testing for H.I.V. and hepatitis B, officials on all sides agree. And in general, Red Cross blood is regarded as some of the safest in the world.

Still, the drug agency says, the problems that remain in screening donors and following protocols for collection add unnecessary risk to blood transfusions, almost five million of which were done in 2007, according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

“This is a critical piece of the public health infrastructure,” Mary A. Malarkey, director of the Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality at the drug agency, said in an interview. “I know it’s difficult to get so many people trained and properly supervised, but it has to be done.”

This week, the agency sent the Red Cross the results of yet another recent investigation that makes Ms. Malarkey’s point: From December 2006 to April 2008, the Red Cross distributed more than 200 blood products that it had already identified as problematic, according to the investigation report.

Fifteen years under court supervision without progress. Doesn’t this suggest some change in approach?