Salluzzo on US Healthcare

Departing Wellmont CEO Dr. Richard Salluzzo expressed his support of a universal health care system in a recent interview with the Kingsport Times-News. Dr. Salluzzo is a physician and administrator who will be leaving for a similar position in Cape Cod. He has led Wellmont through a period of significant growth, acquisition, and success in the Tri-Cities region of southwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee.

Dr. Salluzzo comes out in strong support of a single-payer plan which he supports with many interesting statements. There is no doubt that the current health care system needs change, and Salluzzo suggests that ten to thirty percent of hospitals will close if no changes are made. Later in the same article he is quoted as saying "‘so the question is -- do we have to have 30 to 40 percent of our hospitals close before we react?'" It makes one wonder if his percentages are mere conjectures with no supporting evidence or if he paraphrases studies.

Salluzzo states, "'The Bush administration says we don't want government mucking up health care like it mucks up everything else. But in all reality, the government funds 70 to 80 percent of health care already between Medicare and Medicaid. So we already are a government-run system that's badly run. The idea that they could muck up the other 30 percent is kind of silly.'" Yet he acknowledges there is a "$70 trillion Medicare deficit."

He advocates a strongly regulated certificate of need process for service locations including hospitals and outpatient centers. Another issue he has with the current system is the reimbursement procedure which is based on per capita income which varies across the country. He points out that "areas with greater per capita income often have healthier populations, whereas those with lesser income levels often produce sicker people." In addition to these problems, the health care system faces a shortage of physicians that is expected to double by 2015 from 100,000 to 200,000 according to Salluzzo.

Finally, he laments a lack of knowledge among the lawmakers in Washington. "'They don't know anything about health care. ”If they spent as much time going to Sweden and the United Kingdom as they do going to Iraq, maybe they'd learn something.'" He now says the country is ready for a plan similar to that of Hillary Clinton's 1993 plan. "'More than 50 percent of the CEOs and doctors would embrace it. They’re tired of it. They're tired of all the paperwork."

In researching Salluzzo’s political contributions, it is surprising that in 2006 he made $6,600 in contributions to Republican Bob Corker and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Granted, while employed at Conemaugh Health System in Johnstown, PA in 2004, he made contributions to Democrat John Murtha, Republican Arlen Specter, Democrat Gephardt for President's primary, and Republican Bush-Cheney's primary. Also in PA, Salluzzo made similar donations to Specter and Murtha in 2002. So there does not appear to be a significant left or right leaning that could give rise to his sentiment.

Salluzzo's admission that the current system is broken and that the government accounts for 70 to 80 percent of the funding do not appear to be in any way related in his mind. He continues the thought by saying it is "silly" to think the government would mess the remainder up should they become the single-payer. How is this the case? What evidence is there to support the claim that the government could somehow be immune to screwing up coverage on those it does not yet cover? Could it be that the system is broken, as is, because the government represents such a large portion of the funding? This, coupled with the massive $70 trillion deficit in Medicare does not exactly inspire confidence in the government's ability to successfully manage a health care system for those it currently covers, much less the entire nation. The "government-run system that's badly run" as he refers to our present situation is not a result of using private insurance to account for 20 to 30 percent of the funding. Private insurance needs to realize the need to improve their coverage and access in order to avoid future government intervention that may result, in the short term, in a near complete loss of consumer base. Granted, as systems such as Canada’s show, in the long term private insurance will see a return to their options as government coverage will not be found sufficient for most citizens.

Ultimately, the only advantage show by a universal single-payer system is that it would be funded by the government and virtually immune to fiscal responsibility. The debt load faced by such a system would undoubtedly skyrocket considering we already face a $70 trillion deficit in Medicare. We cannot continue to allow the government to absorb responsibilities outside of those granted by the Constitution and subvert the capitalist economy that provides the engine for our growth. Until the US government stops printing money without any regard for the value of the dollar and allow us to go deeper into dollar-weakening debt, politicians and unwitting citizens will falsely believe that the government is the answer to any ill or shortfall its citizens face.