Posts Tagged ‘France’

Is Paris Burning ?

Sunday, December 2nd, 2018

toulouse

A famous request from Adolf Hitler was also the tile of a book about the liberation of Paris in 1944, and might be a question about the riots of this week by the “Yellow Vests”

There is not a single media report about the Yellow Vest demonstrations in Paris and France that I’ve read or watched that has not been slanted by Fake News.

It has (usually) not been deliberate, I gather, and nobody has said anything factually wrong; what is the problem is the fact that (very) important stuff has been omitted.

It is not wrong to say that the demonstrations were caused by the government’s decision to raise gas prices. What is missing is that this is just one of several draconian measures dating back half a year, i.e., ‘tis the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

It requires someone on the scene to describe what has really been happening.

For the past four to five months, the French government has done nothing but double down on bringing more and more gratuitous oppression and more and more unwarranted persecution measures down on the necks the nation’s drivers and motorcycle riders.

In fact, the imposition of ever harsher rules has been going on for the past decade and a half or so — whether the government was on the right or on the left — and that is why the choice of les gilets jaunes (the yellow jackets) by the demonstrators is particularly ironic.

The 2008 law (under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy) requiring the presence of high-visibility vests (gilets de haute visibilité) aka security vests (gilets de sécurité) in every vehicle — hardly an unreasonable rule, for sure, as similar ones exist throughout the continent — was just another example of the myriad of evermore-onerous rules for car and motorcycle owners over the past 15 years, and so the government in effect provided the 2018 rebels with their uniforms.

(more…)

Remembrance Day, or Armistice Day.

Sunday, November 11th, 2018

ramc-window-westminster-abbey-copyright

November 11 is the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. When I was a child, it was Armistice Day. In Britain, it is still Remembrance Day when people who respect history buy and wear paper poppies.

The story of the poppies is told here.

In the spring of 1915, shortly after losing a friend in Ypres, Canadian doctor Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae was inspired by the sight of poppies growing in battle-scarred fields to write the now famous poem In Flanders Fields.

His poem moved American teacher Moina Michael who began making and selling silk poppies to friends to raise money for the ex-service community.

Before long, poppies made their way to the UK and became the symbol of the Royal British Legion when it was formed in 1921.

The first ever ‘Poppy Appeal’ in the UK that year raised over £106,000 for war veterans. The following year, a poppy factory was set up by Major George Howson MC, giving jobs to disabled former servicemen.

The bright red poppy is regarded as a resilient flower which managed to flourish despite fields being destroyed by war.

Some people say you should wear the poppy on your left side, so it is worn over the heart. The left is also where military medals are worn. Others say only the Queen and Royal Family are allowed to wear a poppy on the right, which is an urban myth.

About ten years ago, my daughter Claire and I were visiting London and a friend, a retired Royal Army Medical Corps doctor, invited us to sit in Westminster Abbey with the RAMC on Remembrance Day. The group sits in front of the RAMC window that commemorates the medical branch of the British Army. The medical corps is “Royal” but the Army is of Parliament, so not “royal.”

In the north aisle of the nave of Westminster Abbey is a memorial tablet and stained glass window for those who died serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps in the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wars. The larger white marble tablet was unveiled on 13th July 1922 by the Duke of Connaught, Colonel in Chief of the Corps. It was designed by F.J. Wilcoxson. The inscription reads, below the regimental badge:ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS
In memory of 743 Officers and 6130 Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men who fell in the Great War, and whose names are enrolled in a Golden Book placed in the Chapter House. “They loved not their lives unto the death”

World War I changed Europe and we live with its consequences today. Unfortunately, the study of history has lapsed largely, and is distorted by academics and politics.

In years since that visit, I have spent some time in the scenes of World War I, such as Ypres, a scene of a prolonged and expensive battle of the war. There were several battles of Ypres.

The first ended the German assault through Belgium and ended with the beginning of trench warfare that continued to the end of the war. On our visit in 2015, we saw some of the original trenches, which were preserved by a family that returned after the war to find their farm a battlefield. They elected to preserve the scene as a museum since farming would be difficult with all the residue of battle and the bodies of the dead. There children have continued the museum and it is quite an interesting visit.

There are a number of museums in the area. This is the one we visited.

After the First World War a farmer returned to reclaim his land in and around what was left of the wood he had left in 1914. A section of the original wood and the trenches in it were cleared of debris and casualties but generally the farmer left a section of a British trench system as he found it.

This site is now one of the few places on the Ypres Salient battlefields where an original trench layout can be seen in some semblance of what it might have looked like. Elsewhere the trenches were filled in and ploughed over by returning farmers leaving only the occasional chalky outline of what had once been there.

In the last decade there has been a large increase in visitors to the Ypres Salient, and many have, of course, included a visit to the trenches at Sanctuary Wood. In the 1990s the trenches were covered in grass and the whole site was overgrown with undergrowth. Interestingly, nowadays the ground around the trench line has been visited by so many pairs of feet that it is mostly bald with no grass or undergrowth. The photograph on the far right shows how the trenches looked just a few years ago.

sanctuary-wood-2003-1995-250

The changes with increased foot traffic are seen in the two photos. The left photo is the way we saw it.

Happy Fourth of July

Monday, July 4th, 2011

This is Omaha Beach in late June 2007. We were there for two weeks and spent a week in Normandy so the girls could get an opportunity to appreciate what the Fourth of July means. The National Guard Memorial is at the right edge of the photo.

Here is the US Military Cemetery at Omaha Beach. We spent an hour there.

A few days later, Cindy and I had our lunch at this cafe. It is on the south side of Pegasus Bridge and was intimately involved in the landing on June 6, 1944, of the British paratroopers in their gliders. The cafe owner, awakened by gunfire, opened his cafe for use as a first aid station. He had hidden wine in his garden and some of this was served to British wounded while they waited to be evacuated. His small daughter who witnessed the battle, still owns the cafe and made our lunch.

From Wikipedia– Arlette Gondrée, who now runs Café Gondrée, was a small child living in the home when it was liberated.

I hope the kids will remember this as more than a vacation.

Free speech in France

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

I thought I had previously posted on this subject but it must have been on another blog.  The story is  here except that James Fallows, a left wing writer for the Atlantic, took the Palestinian propaganda version as the truth. Here is another version of the story but it is still not the truth.

It is now widely believed among objective observers of the Palestinian story, few enough as there are, that the boy was never killed and the entire sequence was a propaganda film. A lengthy court struggle in France, pitting the France 2 network and its powerful supporters in the Chirac government, against a single web site owner, has resulted in the defeat of the TV Goliath by the independent David.

Phillipe Karsenty is a hero to all journalists and his improbable win should join the annals of great media stories.

It probably won’t. 

 
More here. This is a big story for Israel but also for all of us who care about truth.

Health Reform- a few further thoughts

Monday, May 19th, 2008

UPDATE:The article here offers an interesting comparison between the French and British health care systems. Almost a controlled trial since the writer had one hip done in the NHS and the other in France. That article link is no longer valid but this one is interesting. Sound familiar ?

In recommending Medicare as the vehicle for the basic coverage in a national health plan modeled on the French system, I did not intend to suggest that Medicare, as that vehicle, would be a government agency. I was recommending a non-profit corporation funded by payroll or other contributions from beneficiaries. Medicare, in theory, is funded by the Medicare tax contributions of workers prior to retirement. A system for active workers would be called the same name and the two programs, plus Medicaid, would be rolled into one system. It would be funded, however, not by general tax receipts but by the assessment for health care, analogous to the French funds, the largest of which, CNAMTS, is for salaried workers. There are many other funds for other workers such as agricultural or managerial workers.

As far as the name is concerned, Medicare was the name for the health care program for military dependents when I was in the Air Force. The name was adopted for the retirement health plan in 1965 and the military then called its program “CHAMPUS,” and now calls it “Tricare.” The name is secondary.

My point is that this should be a non-profit corporation or foundation, sort of like CalPERS, the California pension program for government employees. Beneficiaries, employers, unions and providers should all serve on the board of directors. The retirement program, which is mostly funded by tax receipts now, can be represented by bureaucrats. Working people should be represented by their own members, elected or appointed, depending on the format chosen by members. This may be a very important part of the French system.

We have learned a lot about managing health care in the past 25 years. When I was in graduate school ten years ago, there were students in the same program from all over the world. This is a universal problem. I have consulted for the NHS when they adopted the “Fund Holding” reforms of Margaret Thatcher. The Labour government, once it took over from the Conservatives after Mrs Thatcher was no longer Prime Minister, made many disparaging remarks about Fund Holding, a reform with some similarities to American HMOs. However, they have kept most of the reforms in place.

In considering reforms, most critics of the US system look to Canada for ideas. This is because they are close to us and share our language and many of our institutions. They are not, however, a good model. I believe many mistakes were made and too much coercion was used in dealing with providers, a feature of our current treatment of doctors in the US. Because of language, few know much about the French health care system but those of us who have been working in health care, especially in surgery, are aware of the very high quality of care and innovation. We should also become aware of the similarities and of the very high level of satisfaction, both by patients and doctors.

Health Reform – France III

Friday, May 16th, 2008

How is reimbursement accomplished ?

The carte vitale changed a system based on paperwork to one with a very modern and efficient methodology. Prior to electronic billing, the patient had to obtain treatment or prescription forms called feuilles de soins from the doctor, attach any stickers (vignettes) from the pharmacist, which identify the class of drugs dispensed, plus a certificate from the employer (attestation annuelle), or a certificate of unemployment from the national office, and submit them all to the local CPAM. A few weeks later, a statement of amounts to be reimbursed would be received, followed eventually by the money. In 1998, 1.2 billion feuilles de soins were submitted.

If the doctor has the proper card reader (and in 2001 when the report was written, it was a problem), the card is swiped and the proper form goes electronically to the CPAM. Confidentiality is assured because a second card, issued to the doctor and called Carte Professionnel de Sante, or CPS, is required for transmission. Card holders have the right of access to the database where their records are kept by the CPAM.

In 1999, in response to a perception that 25% of French citizens postponed care due to financial concerns, and another 150,000 were still not covered, another system was added for the poor. Couverture Maladie Universale or CMU, now covers a million people who receive free care. There is CMU de base, which enrolls people who are not covered by NHI into CNAMTS and which covers all residents of France regardless of employment status.  This provides free care. A second level, called CMU complementaire covers the supplement for those earning less than 3600 FF per month (as of 2001 before the Euro).  This could be considered analagous to our system in which poor Medicare recipients are eligible for Medicaid payment of the deductable or co-payment.

Applicants must register at the CPAM and those eligible for CMU complementaire, may select a mutuelle to manage the co-payment. Once granted, the free care is valid for a year, after which the person must reregister. The person receives a carte vitale and the care is the same although they must select physicians from Sector 1 who accept the fee schedule (conventionne). Prescriptions, hospital care, some dental care and eyeglasses are included. CMU assurance complementaire covers 4.7 million.

British expatriates living in France can apply for CMU and the rules are described here. That site is one for advice to British retirees living in France and is interesting for other aspects of life in France.

The system is not foolproof as this message board for British retirees shows.

Here is more timely information about enrollment, again from the point of view of British retirees moving to France. This is a very large group and some areas in the southeast have completely English-speaking villages.

Providers

Free choice of doctor is assured, a feature of the French system that is very attractive to us as we are losing that very feature of the American system. The French can go to any doctor, can go to specialists directly without a “gatekeeper,” and can choose a public or private hospital. The private hospitals do not have to accept the government rates and generally require payment at the time rather than wait for the reimbursement from CNAMTS.  Doctors may only advertise in “The Yellow Pages” and there is none of the marketing we see here. Health organizations and private clinics are allowed to advertise (some in the Paris Metro) and all doctors must post their fees. Patients are free to change doctors and seek second opinions. Appointments with GPs are 15 to 30 minutes and direct payment encourages the doctor to treat the patient as an equal, unlike HMOs in the US and NHS hospitals in the UK. Free choice of hospital is also the rule.

Fees

In 1997, 99.6 % of physicians were in Sector 1 or 2. Of these, 74% were in Sector 1, 83% of GPs and 62% of specialists. The Sector 1 physicians are contracted with the NHI and are paid from the negotiated fee schedule ( NGAP ), which is revised annually. By agreeing to the fee schedule, Sector 1 physicians become eligible for pension and sickness benefits. Sector 2 physicians may set their own fees but do not have the pension and sickness benefits. The additional fees, above the national fee schedule, are the responsibility of the patient. When this reform was established in 1980,  Sector 2 became popular, especially with specialists, but initially only 7.5%  joined Sector 2. By 1997, Sector 2 had 57% of physicians and access to the category was limited. This may have been the result of Sector 1 fees not keeping pace with inflation. In 1998, 51% of physicians were specialists (49% GP)  and 75% of GPs were in private practice. Specialists were more likely to be employed by clinics and teaching hospitals but 68% were still in private practice. Many medecine liberale (fee-for-service) GPs are practicing in cabinets liberaux, a one physician office with a small staff. Group practices are more common in urban communities.  Many GPs list themselves as medicins de famille or family doctors and care for entire families. The fee for one of these visits is quite modest, about 11 pounds sterling in 2001.

There is a gatekeeper-like system that is optional and is called medecins referent.  The patient, by giving up the right of free specialist consultation, is rewarded with waiver of the co-payment and the physician receives the co-payment directly from the CPAM. GPs who agree to become medecins referent receive a capitation fee for each new patient. They must use generic drugs for 10% of their prescriptions and additional record keeping is required so only 13% of GPs have agreed to join. There has been considerable resistance from both GPs and specialists, who fear restricted referrals.

There are between 1,000 and 2,000 municipal medical centers with salaried physicans. They are operated by municipalities, trade unions, mutuelles (a remnant of pre-war medicine) and are important in caring for the poor. The institution of the CMU may affect these centers as Medicaid affected county hospitals in the US after 1965.

About 40% of doctors are union members and there are three unions; Confederation des Syndecats Medicaux Francais (CSMF), the pre-war organization; Federation de Medecins de France (FMF), a small federation which broke the resistance to the 1980 reform by signing up, and Medecins generalistes de France (MG-France). These were formerly professional associations but have become unions and are not averse to direct action when provoked. They negotiate fee schedules with CNAMTS each year and concern themselves with professional issues such as regulations and hospitals.

Hospitals

There is a daily hospital charge, forfait hospitalier , although patients may request direct payment for hospital care, called tiers payant, or “one-third to pay”. This is based on the ticket moderateur, a schedule of co-payments.

ticket moderateur —    Co-payment based on Securite Sociale payment schedule

Consultation fee during hospital stay——-20 %

Hospital treatment————————— 20% most cases

Doctor’s fees (specialist and GP)————30%

Paramedic fees and lab fees—————– 35%

Medicines with blue vignette —————65%

Medicines with white vignette ————–35%

Vital or expensive drugs ———————-0%

Ease and comfort drugs (non-prescribed)–100%

Other expenses and transport—————–30%

Private hospitals may charge what they wish (although patients are reimbursed at the national rate) and payment is required at the time.  All hospitals have a fixed charge per day, called taux/forfair journalier, which is a “hotel costs” charge for room, board, etc. US hospitals used to bill this way until the stupidity of insurance companies required itemized billing and set off wild inflation in hospital bills. Children, maternity patients and war veterans on pension are exempt from this charge. Advance approval for some services, such as dentistry, physical therapy and prosthetics is required.

Some cases are eligible for exemption for co-payment. Serious medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer and AIDS are exempt. The exemption pertains only to the diagnosis and other conditions require co-payment.  A cancer patient with appendicitis, for example,  must pay the regular rate for the surgery. More complex services and hospital stays over 31 days are also exempt. The exempt class of patients, such as children, maternity and war pensioners are the third category.

Types of hospital

Two thirds of hospital beds are in public hospitals. The Hospital law of 1991 gave the public hospitals autonomy and the larger hospitals and teaching hospitals are public. In 2000, there were 1,050 public hospitals with 323,098 beds (or 5.5 per 1000).  They included Regional Hospitals, usually in cities and most have medical schools. There are 29 of these. Hospital Centers, which are in Department capitals, and hey tend to provide what we would call tertiary care, such as mental health or cancer treatment. Local hospitals are the third level and correspond to Level III hospitals in the US.

There are private non-profit hospitals, many of them specialized centers such as the 20 cancer centers. They tend to concentrate on long-term care and special care. They have similar rules and financing to public hospitals although staff membership may be restricted. In 1998, there were 24,782 beds in such institutions.

Private for-profit hospitals are mostly acute care and do a lot of surgery. Many are small although there has been a trend to consolidation. In 1998, there were 98, 813 beds in such hospitals and they have 20% of hospital capacity.

The public hospitals tend to have salaried doctors and France has a smaller proportion of hospital-based specialists than other European countries. Private hospitals tend to be staffed by fee-for-service specialists and the public hospitals have been short-staffed, often hiring foreign doctors to fill positions. Since there is no problem with delays and queues for care in public hospitals, the political issue seen in the UK does not exist in France. It is simply a matter of choice.

Hospital budgets have been under strain in recent years and, since 1984, have been under a global budget process. Since 1996, regional hospital associations ( ARH) have established budgets at a more local level based on need. France was the first country to adopt Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) which became a controversial Medicare reimbursement reform in the US in 1986.  Private hospitals sign contracts with the regional agencies, Schema regionale d’organisation sanitaire, or SROS. Private hospitals are paid on a combination of per diem and fee-for-service. They do not have a central budget like the public hospitals. All the hospitals, including the public institutions, are judged by patients on cleanliness and food quality. Semi-private and private rooms are the rule. There are no wards.

Emergency Services

Pompiers medicaux are the equivalent of paramedics with special training but are not at a level with physicians.

Service d’Aide Medicale Urgente (SAMU) is an ambulance service that is in radio contact with physicians and may involve physicians in the ambulance. There is a high hourly charge that is waived if the patient is admitted to the hospital. If they do not go to the hospital, they are responsible for the copayment of 30%. If they are not a member of Securite Sociale, they are responsible for the entire fee. If they have a mutuelle, it may pay the co-payment. American trauma physicians have been critical of the care of Princess Diana because the ambulance team remained on scene for over 30 minutes before deciding to transport her to the hospital. This may be a feature of SAMU care, which does often treat patients at the scene.  American trauma care strongly supports the protocol of “scoop and run,” which discourages any attempt to stabilize a patient at the scene of an accident except for airway management.

Pharmacy and laboratory

Pharmacies are on every corner in France. Reimbursement requires a doctor’s prescription and is determined by the color of the vignette unless it is a “vital” drug. Both Securite Sociale and mutuelles provide payment so much of the cost may be covered for prescribed drugs. Approval of drugs is through Objectif National des Depenses d’Assurance- Maladie (ONDAM), a national agency, and Commission de la Transparence. There is price regulation although France has always had an excellent pharmaceutical industry. Spending targets are set and penaltes may be levied for violation.

Laboratoires are private and are recognized by display of a blue cross. Results go to the patient, not the doctor, to assure free choice.

French consumption of health services is the highest in Europe. In a 1998 survey of 23, 035 persons, chosen by household, 33% had visited a doctor at least once in the previous month, 19% a GP, 8% a specialist and 6% both. In 1994, mandatory practice guidelines (see my post on Evidence-Based Medicine), were introduced. They are called References Medicales Opposables (RMO) and are mandatory although an attempt to fine doctors for violating them was ruled unconstitutional. In 1998, use of RMOs resulted in a health spending budget below projectons and a “bonus” was provded to GPs. It was protested by the medical associations for rewarding provision of less care but I don’t know if anyone refused to accept it. The same method is often used by HMOs to reward compliance with guidelines for utilization.

Implications for US reform 

I have never been a patient in the French medical care system. I do know that French surgery is of the highest quality and the entire laparoscopic surgery movement originated there and in Germany. In 1987, Eddie Joe Reddick, a Nashville surgeon and good ol’ boy, was vacationing in Paris with his wife. Bored with museums, he got permission to observe surgery in a Paris hospital. What he saw revolutionized American surgery. He returned and got a friend,  Barry McKernan, to teach him laparoscopy. Within a year, surgeons were taking laparoscopy courses, many from McKernan (as I did in 1988), to learn the new technique. In 1992, I attended a laparoscopy meeting in Bordeaux to learn the newest techniques which were still coming from French surgeons. They have remained at the forefront of world medical advances.

The French system has many similarities to our own. It is complex but the components are similar to those of our own system and that fact may permit  integration of gradual changes and allow alteration to respond to problems. The basic reform in France was the Securite Sociale, similar to our Medicare program in 1965. One of the proposals for reform has been to adapt Medicare to the entire population. One way to do this would be to use the existing health insurance industry as the French use the mutuelles, to handle copayment and administration. Health insurance in the US is not really insurance. Employers use insurance companies to administer self-payment programs. Insurance companies have become “administration service organizations.” This is not that much different from the non-profit CNAMTS, which has a board composed of employers, unions and physicians. One difference that may be necessary is to get rid of the adversarial role of the Federal Trade Commisson toward doctors and their organizatons. Any fee negotiation has been banned for 30 years and that inhibits any attempt to deal with for-profit HMOs which are destroying the medical profession, especially in California were they are triumphant. Poor care and bankruptcy for medical groups has been the legacy of for-profit HMOs.

The use of the electronic carte vitale alone would reduce overhead for medical practices by 75%. Estimates of costs of administration for American medicine probably exceed the entire budget for French healthcare. The French have been having problems with cost but much of that comes from factors unrelated to health care, such as the 35 hour work week and the cost of unemployment which discourages employers from adding staff. With a more vibrant economy, the cost of the French healthcare system would be far less than our own as a percent of GDP, and would relieve the burden on manufacturers. Unions would probably resist letting go of their health plans that they administer and have a sense of entitlement to since they were often the trophy of negotiation and even strikes.

Straight single payer with no co-payment, like the Canadian system, will never work here. We are not a people who will accept queues and overt rationing.  The French system looks enough like our own that a transition would be less painful and could be gradual. It already has the Medicare basic format that it shares with Securite Sociale.

Health Care reform- The French system I

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

 I have been reading a book about the origins of the French health care system, comparing it to the history of our own. Another excellent source, with more on the contemporary program, is here. The latter source compares the British NHS with the French and German systems. One statistic stands out. In a survey of users, 56% of the British surveyed believed their system was so bad that it should be scrapped and they should start over.

The French system evolved over the past century in a fashion very similar to ours. They emphasize private, fee-for-service practice even more than we do. In the 1930s, the French instituted a system quite similar to our Medicare system although it covered wage earning workers, not the elderly. For those workers, it was mandatory although it initially did not cover “white collar” or agricultural workers. The French had traditionally bought health insurance from fraternal associations, just as we did prior to the Second World War. In 1930, the unions (chiefly the CGT) were the force pressing for compulsory insurance. The doctors had split into three groups on the issue. Finally, a centrist named Paul Cibrie, founded a new group called “Confederation des Syndecats Medicaux Francais (CSMF) and carried the majority into approval of a compromise that established a “medical charter” for doctors, guaranteeing fee-for-service medicine and free choice of physician for patients. That charter has continued to this date. It included direct payment of fees, freedom for the doctors to set fees, and confidentiality. The mutual societies were included in their role as intermediaries, although government oversight was included. The 1930 French system was funded by payroll deductions.  In the US, adamant opposition by the AMA prevented any compromise until the Medicare legislation in 1965.

In our case, the War brought the employer-based system we have for two reasons. One was that wages were frozen during the war but fringe benefits, up to 5% of wages, were allowed. Provision of health care allowed employers to attract scarce labor during the war. The other was that it was tax exempt while private insurance was not. Many of the health benefits were the result of collective bargaining so unions, which often administer their own plans, have been very reluctant to adopt any alternative. Both Harry Truman and Bill Clinton learned that Democrat Presidents got no cooperation on that subject from unions. Both had plans for major reform that didn’t happen, largely because they got no union support.

The French had a very different experience. In 1940, Germany defeated the larger French Army in a lightning six weeks campaign. The occupation and Vichy rule displaced all of the traditional forces in French society, including the medical association leadership. The Vichy state even appointed a new medical society, called “Order of Doctors,” after it abolished all professional organizations and independent unions. The new society, headed by famous surgeon Rene’ Leriche, urged conformity in a time of crisis. Vichy had some ideas of its own, such as a German-like emphasis on the role of women as home makers and mothers. New maternity clinics were founded and hospitals were opened more to the general public. Low population growth, after the catastrophic loses of men in World War I, was blamed for defeat even though the French Army was larger than the German in 1940 and had better equipment.

Meanwhile, the Free French groups in exile in England planned for the post war period including health care and pension reform. I found it interesting that they were so concerned with such matters at such a time. The 1930s had been a period of labor unrest and this was also thought to be a factor in the French weakness in 1940. The committee that worked on Securite Sociale included labor leaders from CGT and Pierre LaRoque, who had served briefly as a Vichy Labor Minister until his Jewish origins led him to emigrate to England.  In the 1930s he had played a large role in the Labor Ministry under several governments. With the 1944 invasion, German authorities warned French doctors not to treat wounded Resistance members but the President of the Ordre des Medicins courageously contradicted the German orders and encouraged doctors to treat everyone and ignore the orders to report them to the authorities.

With the end of the War, France made a leap into the future with the founding of Securite Sociale, a program of health care and pension benefits that remains the basis of the French system today. Private fee-for-service practice was preserved and, after disputes arose about fee schedules, DeGaulle himself, intervened in 1960 to demand that doctors accept a uniform fee schedule. He said, “I saved France on a colonel’s salary !” The doctors signed up.

In early 1945, LaRoque became head of Securite Sociale and, even though he was subordinate to the Labor Minister, his relationship with De Gaulle gave him great power. Many large employers (Not including Marcel Michelin) had collaborated with Vichy, weakening their influence, and the mutual societies, which would lose their major role as intermediaries once the government assumed the primary role of  administrator, eventually found a role as providers of “gap” coverage. Here too, the mutuals lost influence because they had collaborated wth Vichy. The upheaval of the war allowed much more radical reform than was possible in the US. Roosevelt briefly considered inclusion of health care in the Social Security Act but it never found support.

The Securite Sociale boards were dominated by union officers as employers lost influence. Doctors retained their influence because they had not collaborated and they quickly reconstituted the CSMF. The local syndecats, equivalents of our medical associations, assumed a major role in setting fee schedules and adjudicating disputes. One third of the seats on the boards of Securite Sociale were reserved for physicians. Fee-for-service medicine was preserved in the interests of freedom, both for doctors and for patients. Doctors resisted payment by third parties and patients paid the bill and then sought reimbursement of 80% from Securite Sociale. This was a wise decision as it tended to dampen the moral hazard problem that has bedeviled the US system. Even today, (more of that later) patients, except in expensive procedures, pay the doctor directly and get reimbursement from the plan.

The British of course, went another way with the NHS and a total tax-paid system. The French system, like that in the US, was funded by employers and workers through payroll deductions. The French system was funded from a 16 percent deduction from wages, ten percent paid by the employer and six percent by the worker.  The contribution is now up to 20 percent and there is serious resistance to any increase. The deduction, like our FICA deducton, funds pension and unemployment, as well as health care.  There were still some government clinics but the basis was private care. Unions and employers sat on the board of the government program, although employers had less power than before the war. The fee schedule was to be set and the Securite Sociale payment would be 80% of the fee, just as Medicare was expected to pay only 80%. In both countries, private insurance quickly appeared to fill the gap and defeat some of the purpose of the deductable. In the US, Blue Cross and Blue Shield stepped in with “Medi-Gap policies; in France, it was the mutual societies which had been pushed out of health care insurance by the government program in 1945.

The original French plan in the 1930s was to cover lost wages during illnes, as actual medical costs were small. After the war, as hospitals grew and more were built in both countries, medical costs outpaced the lost wage segment, covered in the US as unemployment insurance, not health benefits anyway.

In both countries, “Usual, Customary and Reasonable” fee schedules were the Achilles heel of private fee-for-service medicine. How the French solved this problem, to the extent they have solved it, is the major lesson of the comparison. Gradually, Securite Sociale covered greater and greater portions of the population until now 99% are covered. The government pays for those who do not earn enough to contribute and Couverture Maladie Universelle (CMU) determines how much the member must pay. Above a certain income, the member pays their own way for the 20% (or more like 30% now) that is not covered by the Securite Sociale. In 1958, a survey of members asked “Should the healthy pay for the sick or should everyone get back only what they put nto the system?” 86% answered that the healthy should pay for the sick and 95% approved of the compulsory nature of insurance even though complete coverage of the population, including agricultural workers, came only in 2000.

The most significant difference was that, in France, the private insurance companies provided the “gap” coverage and the government program provided 80% of the payment. In the US, except for Medicare and Medicaid, it was all private. The book comments that French doctors have lesser incomes compared to US doctors but French medical school is free and US doctors might well choose that over the huge student loans they must repay the past 20 years. The makings of a grand bargain might just lie in that difference.

The French citizen or resident joins Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie deTravailleurs Salariés (CNAMTS)—health insurance organisation for salaried workers. That covers about 80% of the population now and it pays 80% (often more like 70%) of a fee schedule for the doctor visit although specialists are allowed to charge more. French doctors are divided for payment and fee schedule purposes into three “sectors” after 1980. Sector 1 doctors agreed to abide by the fee schedule established in 1960, modified for inflaton and technological changes. They are mostly primary care doctors although some had waivers from the fee schedule prior to 1971 because they were more experienced or had great reputations. Few are still practicing. Sector 2 doctors could set their own fees but reimbursement was still determined by the fee schedule. These two categories correspond roughly to Medicare assignment in the US. If you accept assignment, you agree to accept Medicare payment as the full payment (or 80% of it plus the Medi-Gap payment) . Those who refuse to accept assignment may set higher fees but the patient is not obliged to pay more than the “allowed” charge. The French system is similar. Sector 3 in the French system is very small (about 1.5% of doctors) and includes “Alternative Medicine”, for the most part. They do not participate in Securite Sociale payment.

To be continued.

The decline of Britain

Monday, March 10th, 2008

Last week, the Labour Party broke its promise to the people of Britain and adopted the EU Constitution, which removes the sovereignty of Britain without a vote of the people. Previously, France and the Netherlands had rejected it in a referendum. The EU bureaucrats then came up with a way to avoid the embarrassing rejection of their work by the voters. They eliminated the referendum. The same Constitution became a “treaty” and thereby could be ratified by the parliaments without a direct vote of the people. So far, only Spain has actually approved the treaty by vote and the same electorate then chose the Socialists as a new government. That is no coincidence.

The al-Dura affair

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008

UPDATE: The closing arguments are over. The verdict will come May 21. Karsenty got a fair hearing this time.

In 2000, Israel was dealing with the Intifada, Arafat’s response to the serious peace proposals negotiated by Bill Clinton as he was about to leave office. It was as good an offer as the Palestinians would ever have short of the annihilation of Israel planned by Ahmadinejad of Iran. Of course, Ahmadinejad’s plan would annihilate the Palestinians too. In the midst of this crisis an incident occurred that became the image of the Palestinian argument. A boy named Muhammed al-Dura was allegedly killed by Israeli bullets while crouching with his father behind a wall. The incident became a cause celebre for supporters of the Palestinians. In recent years, others have taken up the matter and published stories that doubt the original version.

Philippe Karsenty, a French TV critic who runs a web site in France, raised the question of whether the entire incident was staged by the Palestinian TV crew. He was then sued by France 2, the TV network that had run the footage and began the controversy. It was their crew who had filmed (or staged) the incident. They even obtained a judgment against him in spite of the fact that the French judge had refused to allow him to obtain the “out takes” of the film. Karsenty contended that a portion of the film, not shown on French TV, had shown the boy still moving when he was alleged to be dead. Maybe it was all a hoax. Outrage followed. I heard him interviewed on the Dennis Prager show about a year ago after the trial.

Karsenty appealed and last week that appeal resulted in a new trial that heard a ballistics expert testify that the event could not have happened as alleged by the French TV program.

This entire affair is an example of the dishonesty of the entire Israeli-Palestinian controversy. In 2000, the Palestinians had a unique opportunity to move beyond the 50 years of squalor they had been offered by their Arab brethren. They could have had 96% of everything they said they wanted. Dennis Ross, the Clinton negotiator, has written that there were venture capitalists ready to invest in the West Bank and economic success was there for the asking. The response was Intifada and the sort of dishonest propaganda that followed. Now the Washington Post is reporting that the Bush Administration has little leverage and the Arabs are turning to Iran. What they do not tell you, is that there is no US solution for the problem. Only when the Palestinians decide to join the 21st century will they achieve a solution. It is in their hands and the al-Dura affair shows that they are not clean hands.