Wednesday, October 21, 2009

In Hawaii’s Health System, Lessons for Lawmakers

Published: October 16, 2009



HONOLULU — Imee Gallardo, 24, has been scooping ice cream at a Häagen-Dazs shop at Waikiki Beach for five years, and during that time the shop has done something its counterparts on the mainland rarely do: it has paid for her health care.

Prescriptions Blog

blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

conversations

Health Care Conversations

Share your thoughts about the health care debate.

Top Discussions: The Public OptionMedicare and the Elderly | A Single-Payer System

Cory Lum for The New York Times

Richard Caldarazzo, a manager at Lulu’s Waikiki Surf Club, said restaurants on the mainland had never provided health care.

Ms. Gallardo cannot imagine any other system.

“I wouldn’t get coverage on the mainland?” Ms. Gallardo asked. “Even if I worked? Why?”

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.

Lawmakers working on a national health care fix have much to learn from the past 35 years in Hawaii, President Obama’s native state.

Among the most important lessons is that even small steps to change the system can have lasting effects on health. Another is that, once benefits are entrenched, taking them away becomes almost impossible. There have not been any serious efforts in Hawaii to repeal the law, although cheating by employers may be on the rise.

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.

Why is Hawaiian care so efficient? No one really knows.

In dozens of interviews, doctors and hospital and insurance executives in Hawaii offered many theories, including an active population that is culturally disinclined to hospitals, a significant military presence and a health care market dominated by a few not-for-profit organizations.

But there was another answer: With nearly 90 percent of the populace given relatively generous benefits, patients stay healthy and health providers have the money and motivation to innovate.

If true, it’s a crucial lesson. Health care overhaul efforts at the state and national levels have so far been largely confined to providing bare-bones insurance coverage to those in need. But changing the way care is provided has been given short shrift, and medical experts warn that costs could soar if overhaul legislation passes. After expanding coverage in 2006, Massachusetts is only now tackling the cost problem as expenses continue their inexorable rise.

But the Hawaii experience suggests that overhauling health insurance before changing the way care is provided could work, eventually. With more people given access to care, hospital and insurance executives in Hawaii say they have been able to innovate efficiencies. For instance, the state’s top three medical providers are adopting electronic medical records — years ahead of most mainland counterparts.

The Hawaii Medical Service Association, the state’s largest insurer and a Blue Cross Blue Shield member, recently offered the nation’s only statewide system whereby anyone for a nominal fee can talk by phone or e-mail, day or night, to doctors of their choosing.

Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, which covers about 20 percent of the state’s population, screens 85 percent of its female members ages 42 to 69 for breast cancer, among the highest screening rates in the country.

One result of Hawaii’s employer mandate and the relatively high number of people with health insurance is that hospital emergency rooms in the state are islands of relative calm. In 2007, the state had 264 outpatient visits to emergency rooms per 1,000 people — 34 percent lower than the national average of 401.

Dr. Ray Sebastian splits his time between the emergency room at Kapi’olani Medical Center at Pali Momi and a hospital in Los Angeles. Nearly all of his poorest patients in Hawaii have routine access to family doctors who can provide follow-up care, while fewer than half of those in Los Angeles do, he estimated. So, he said, the emergency room in Hawaii is not clogged with patients suffering minor problems like medication adjustments and cold symptoms, and patient waiting times are a small fraction of those in Los Angeles:

“It’s like greased lightning here,” he said.

Other states tried employer-mandated care only to repeal the efforts after employers threatened to move across state lines. Hawaii’s isolation forestalled such threats, and its paternalistic plantation history made employer-provided care an easy fit.

In interviews, leaders and employers in Hawaii referred with surprising earnestness to an “aloha spirit” and a sense of familial obligation known as ohana to justify providing care to nearly everyone.

Hospital executives said they never overbuilt their facilities because the Pacific Ocean meant they could not delude themselves into thinking, as their mainland counterparts sometimes do, that they would be able to attract patients from afar.

Since supply tends to drive demand in health care, this may be one reason Hawaii residents use fewer health care services — they get a third fewer magnetic resonance imaging tests and are admitted to the hospital 26 percent less than the United States average.

There are clear problems with Hawaii’s system. Hospitals on the outer islands are small and losing money. With unemployment rising, so, too, are the ranks of the uninsured — which is now 10.7 percent of nonelderly adults. Only Massachusetts has a lower share of uninsured adults, and the national share is 20.4 percent. And there is growing evidence that as the economy has slowed and premiums have risen, employers have hired more part-time workers who are ineligible for benefits.

Barbara Zacchini, owner of Pizzeria Zacchini on the island of Hawaii, said she makes sure that her 17 part-timers work less than 20 hours a week so she does not have to pay for their care.

“I’m for universal health care,” Ms. Zacchini said, “but it’s tough to run a business in this state and in this economy.”

Some employers are ducking the law altogether. A 61-year-old travel agent in Honolulu said her boss refused to provide health insurance although he is required by law to do so. She cannot find another job, so she asked that her name not be used.

She has not been to a primary-care doctor or a gynecologist in years and goes to the emergency room when she needs care. “I could have an alien called cancer growing inside me, but who knows?” she said. “It worries me.”

Hawaii law requires employers to offer standardized health plans with low co-pays, no deductibles and few out-of-pocket costs. Cliff Cisco, a senior vice president at the Hawaii Medical Service Association, said that having a standardized and popular benefit has helped keep administrative costs to just 7 percent of revenue, among the lowest in the nation.

Indeed, many in Hawaii are worried that legislation moving through Congress could, if it supersedes Hawaii law, allow employers to reduce the quality of care provided. So legislators in Hawaii have pushed for provisions exempting the state.

Chad Buck, owner of Hawaii Food Service Alliance, a grocery distribution company with 140 employees, said he feared national health care legislation might allow his competitors to provide low-cost, high-deductible plans in place of the generous benefits now required by the state.

“I don’t want to compete against low-quality health care, and I don’t want my employees to have a cheap second,” Mr. Buck said.

Richard Caldarazzo, 25, a manager at Lulu’s Waikiki Surf Club, said he had worked at restaurants in Ann Arbor, Mich., and Chicago and had never gotten health insurance.

After he moved to Hawaii and got a job at Lulu’s, “I was really surprised when they told me I’d get insurance,” Mr. Caldarazzo said. “My parents couldn’t believe it.”

Friday, October 16, 2009

Guest Blogger - President Bush #41

How quickly we forget that we are Americans and what made American great. I get miffed way too often about partisan politics and yearn for the days of compromise (of Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Lloyd Bentsen, Howard Baker, Charles Percy, Scoop Jackson, Bob Griffin, Robert Byrd - ok, Byrd's still there). 

So here are the words of George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States, as he talks about his invitation to President Barack Obama on October 16, 2009 ...


Howdy! 

As you have probably heard, I have invited the 44th president of the United States of America to come visit the Bush Library and Texas A&M, and President Obama has graciously accepted.

Along with the administration, faculty, and so many of you, I am honored that the president, our president, is taking the time and making the effort to come to College Station Friday to talk about an issue that unites all Americans, namely, community service and its vast importance to our continued well-being as a nation. Our country still faces many tough challenges, and the message that will come out of our Presidential Forum on Service, I hope, is that every American regardless of age has an important part to play in helping us overcome the obstacles to our common progress.

This is not about politics. This is about the importance of service to our communities and our country.

It would be hard to imagine a more deserving college campus to host a Presidential Forum on volunteerism and community service than Texas A&M, which is, after all, a school steeped in a rich tradition of service.

That's why I am so proud to have our Bush Library and Museum and Bush School of Government and Public Service here, and I cannot wait for President Obama to experience the open, decent and welcoming Aggie spirit for himself.

This will be an important national moment, and a moment for Texas A&M to shine in the global spotlight as it always does. I sincerely hope and believe it will serve as a point of Aggie pride for many years to come.

Gig 'em!

Monday, October 12, 2009

Franchising

This started out as a few simple posts by some former students on Facebook and I just got carried away with my explanations. Hope it answers some of your questions, and if you have more, just ask. I have a really good source on franchising but he’s unavailable today. Some of you who have worked for a franchised food location could also comment.

 

Quizno's in Rosenberg/Richmond by Wal*Mart is closed for good. :(

 

Comment:

NOOOOOOOOO

 

Comment:

I think the same ppl own the one by pecan grove so maybe it was a bit much?

 

Comment:

They didn't have a reason on the sign, but it did say they were going to be at the Pecan Grove location.

 

 

Reasons? Time for a new lease negotiation and the landlord wanted more for rent is usually the #1 reason a franchised place closes (or more typically, relocates). They could have also not come to terms on the length of the agreement … 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?

 

In MOST cases, if a franchisee can no longer operate the store profitably (or up to company standards), the company will search for a buyer to take over the location, either an existing franchisee or they will make it a sweetheart deal for a new person to own it ... or they will make it a company store until they can find a new owner.

 

For a Quizno's - or any of the franchised companies - to shutter a location means they made a mistake, unless ALL of the stores owned by the franchisee go under (and in this case the PG store is still open).

 

But … it may be a pull back by the corporation. The local guy says, “look, I’m running two stores and struggling. Could I consolidate them into one location? Or could I just close one (maybe just for a while) until the economy picks up?”

 

I haven’t been into the fine print of franchise agreements in a while, so my guess here is that rather than see TWO stores close, the corporation might have said okay to closing one. Or it may go back to lease agreement and they’re looking for a new spot and don’t have right now.

 

Note …

McDonald’s has the most extensive real estate and market location operation of any franchise company. Burger King once admitted they would see a McDonald’s going in and figure they should be nearby and build a store. The let “Ronald” do all the leg work and just tagged along.

 

 

Comment:

They were nice people but too expensive for their sandwiches.

 

While each store can set their own prices, the main prices are strongly suggested by the regional and/or corporate office. You liked the service aspect, so for you, it comes down to “value” or “bang for the buck.”

 

Quizno’s just didn’t get the message out about their pricing was a good value versus the $5 Foot Longs like Sub-Way. Schlotzky’s has pushed their new sandwiches as well as their value pricing, as has Sonic, as well as all the burger places (except What-A-Burger, who stand alone on quality and service in the fast food burger industry.)

 

 

 

 

Comment:

I ate at a ghetto Quizno!!! they were mostly out of everything! I ate what they had!! and I say the place sucks ... I think subway is better!!! :)

 

While franchising is about getting the same quality and consistency in Richmond, TEXAS or Richmond, VIRGINIA, it comes down to the local people. With franchised operations, sadly, people judge the whole chain based on one store for the WRONG reasons.

 

 

If you don’t like that Burger King uses sesame seed buns for all their products, or that McDonalds uses chopped onions, or the way Jack-in-the-Box makes their fries, or the way one pizza chain does their crust, then THAT would be a valid reason. Personally, I think the $1 spicy chicken sandwich at McDonald’s is too hot for me and I will tend to stay away based on that.

 

All stores have a service hotline number or web site. Use it!!! Compaies want to know why you were unhappy and why you wouldn’t come back. Sometimes they will send you an apology (meaning a free food coupon) as a way to get you to go back. If they have too many complaints about one store they’ll look into it. They do want that “consistency.”

 

Note …

When the Big Mac was invented in Pittsburgh, it had tomatoes. But when McDonald’s wanted to use it as a standard menu item, they knew that tomato prices and quality could vary from region to region and were not used on any other sandwich at the time. Thus, no tomatoes on Big Mac’s. But it WAS a way for people to choose between a Big Mac or a Whopper – well, that and the flame broiling versus grilling thing.

 

 

 

Comment:

What you're saying is there might be a possibility that it will re-open under a different franchise owner?

 

It "might" reopen there. Not knowing the situation, I can't say for sure.

 

But the thing is ... people are used to going to that spot in Rosenberg for sandwiches. It "could" re-open as one of the other franchised names mentioned here. Or it could re-open as a "no name" sandwich shop.

 

My first bet would be it re-opens as a Quizno's. Second bet would be a no name. Third would be a different franchise.

 

First, that's a LOT of equipment in there that has to be moved. It starts out as property of Quizno's and is bought by the franchisee. Do the local people own it all, or just part? IDK. But that's a lot of $$$'s. Those of you who have worked at one franchise food place and switched to another know that none of them use exactly the same equipment.

 

Second, the building is "built out" to Quizno specs. Another sandwich company would come in and have to re-do all the equipment as well as remodeling the space. Another fast food chain would do almost the same thing but it would be A 100% tear down and rebuild.

 

If you and I took it over, we'd do as little work as possible. And if the guy/company who owns the franchise rights is giving them up, there may be a waiting period ... ??? ... That waiting period could be 30-60-90 days.

 

We’ve seen a couple of examples in Rosenberg. Taco Bell closed their Avenue H location and relocated to Highway 36 and added Pizza Hut. But What-A-Burger closed their Avenue H location because it just wasn’t doing the business that their other two store were doing and it was time for a new lease agreement. The W-A-B franchisee for R/R has about 20 stores in the area, so closing one probably won’t put him in a bad light with the corporate office.


Perhaps the BEST local example was the On The Border Mexican food place that closed and then became a Gringo's. Gringo's is local and the style of the building didn't matter, nor did the equipment (they could adapt both to their needs and looks). They are local people looking for a deal. People were used to going to that spot for a Tex-Mex fix and they can still go there. 


On the other hand, don't look for a BBQ place to open in the spot where Dickey's came and left. While that was a franchise, they just opened at the wrong time. They were planning on Del Webb opening and when that didn't happen it hurt their business plan. They were also hoping for more highway traffic - but if you're looking for a BBQ pix, you have better places down the road in Wharton, Hilje, and El Campo.

 

Note ...

Domino's Pizza got their name because it was originally Dominic's and all the new owner had to do to the outdoor signs was take out the "ic" and add the "o" at each location. And Domino's sounded better than Tom's ... because an Irish guy named Monoghan took it over from Dominic!

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Mustache

I couldn't put it any better ... so here's a few words and a couple of chuckles from Wesley Morris, the film critic of the Boston Globe (published at Boston.com 10/11/09)

gotta love the line "only about 7 regular barber shop customers have a mustache, and they're all in their 50's" ... yeah, that'd be me ... and it'll be here in my 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's!!!!!!!


Who took my ’stache?

The sad and curious exile of the American mustache

By Wesley Morris
Globe Staff / October 11, 2009

IF YOU DIDN’T know anything about Steven Soderbergh’s “The Informant!,” which opened last month, you could at least deduce from the poster that it was a comedy. Just above Matt Damon’s popped-open mouth sits a large brown mustache. It looks like a caterpillar. Even if “The Informant!” were the most serious movie ever made, that mustache would be funny.

On Burt Reynolds or Billy Dee Williams, movie stars of a generation ago, a mustache was an alluring matter of fact. Before them it was Douglas Fairbanks, William Powell, and Clark Gable. On Damon’s adolescent-looking face, a mustache is a joke. There’s nothing stylish or sexy about it.

For most of the 20th century, the mustache was a serious option for follicular self-expression - an elastic emblem of masculinity. Cowboys and truckers wore them big and thick. Movie stars and certain roués wore them faint or thin. For comics like Groucho Marx and Charles Chaplin, the mustache wasn’t the gag; it was just part of the persona. Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft took mustaches to the White House. Mike Ditka took his to the Super Bowl. If at any point during the 1970s you threw a rock, the gentleman you hit was probably wearing a mustache.

What happened? For the past 20 years, a parade of facial hair has taken root on the faces of movie stars and American men - sideburns, the three-day beard, the chinstrap, the soul patch. The goatee returned from the 19th century and seemingly brought eight cousins with it. But the mustache? As far as pop culture is concerned, the mustache remains trapped in the land of porn and irony.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a mustache. Worn with conviction, it’s just as attractive as any of these. It’s not hard to maintain. So why can’t the mustache have its comeback?

The answer lies in something deeper than maintenance. It’s about manliness. There’s an unapologetic ruggedness to the mustache that’s been gradually chastened and civilized out of popular American culture. Americans just aren’t as comfortable with masculinity as they were 30 years ago. Today, men wax their chests. They do yoga. As one barber I spoke to erupted, in a robust Russian accent: “There are no mustaches anymore because there are no real men!”

TO APPRECIATE WHAT has happened, you need only look at two notorious movie mustaches. In 1958, Charlton Heston wore a mustache for “A Touch of Evil,” one of those long thin numbers that parted in the middle. Watching the movie today, the mustache feels corny - a prop to make his narcotics cop seem Mexican. But it also feels like a serious gesture. On Heston, it conveyed real authority and virility. You’re inclined to take the mustache seriously because Heston did.

Contrast that with the hedge of a mustache that Sacha Baron Cohen grew for “Borat.” It accessorized the character’s cheap suit, weird gait, and knowingly bad English. Cohen is a handsome guy, and he grew a mustache to show he wasn’t serious - to make Borat seem more foreign, less attractive, and, by the movie’s naked hotel climax, kind of unappetizing. It was a mustache that you mockingly draw on a subway billboard.

The difference between Heston’s and the mustaches that Cohen and Damon wear, as good as they are in their respective films - comedies both - is that for the younger actors, those mustaches are wearing them. This is also how mustaches feel whenever they make a half-hearted run at a pop-culture comeback. Brandon Flowers, the Killers’ fresh-faced front man, kicked up a hot fuss a few years ago after he grew a mustache. He was accused of overseriousness - but no one seemed to take his new facial hair, or his band’s music, as seriously as before. It was as if we could hear the mustache in the songs. By the release of the band’s next record, Flowers was clean-shaven again.

Wittingly or not, Flowers wore what has come to be known as an ironic mustache (he has said he grew it merely because he could), the irony stemming from the idea that the mustache has become a symbol of uncool. The hipster’s appropriation is an extension of the vintage-store experience - an antique you wear on your face. This isn’t facial hair per se. It’s facial hair in quotation marks, concentrated in such hipster ghettos as Austin, Texas; Williamsburg, Brooklyn; and Allston.

Every now and then the mustache surfaces as a trend story in the wider culture, but that seems determined by whether Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington happens to be wearing one for a role. In talking to barbers in the city, I couldn’t find one who’d trimmed more than a few mustaches in the last couple of years. Between customers the other day, Youssef Aboura stood outside State Street Barbers in the South End, and explained that of his 200 or so regulars, only about seven have a mustache - “and they’re all in their 50s,” he said. The most serious one he’d seen recently was for a competition. When did the mustache go from staple of the American face to sport?

The answer, it seems, is some time around the 1970s, when facial hair moved beyond Vietnam-era shagginess and the mustache was just the thing to do. Mustaches were manly. They were suave. Even among Ivy League college men, having a mustache was a way to seem a bit wild without being woolly.

But something began to happen to the mustache. In attaining ubiquity, it also became entwined with two increasingly visible subcultures: pornography and gay men. John Holmes and Ron Jeremy wore mustaches in their X-rated movies. And more than anything, the mustache said bathhouse and late-night cruising. It said, “Y-M-C-A.” The Village People conflated blue-collar masculine iconography and gay fetish until it became impossible to see law enforcement or the American West without a glittering disco ball hovering over it. The mustache became the symbol of this inversion. There was something costume-y about it. It was the beginning of a joke we’re still telling.

BY 1980, TOM SELLECK wore the culture’s most famous mustache, and you could say he put it out of business. Selleck did for the mustache what Angela Davis did for the Afro. He made future wearers - straight white guys trying to seem handsome with a mustache - look like imposters. The mustache survived Hitler. It could not survive porn, disco, or Magnum P.I.

This is not the mustache’s fault. In the wake of “Macho Man,” maleness acquired a tinge of camp; in the wake of the porn industry and the women’s movement, straight masculinity also started to feel retrograde. A breed of new men emerged: sensitive and open-minded, and afraid of seeming too serious about being male. It gave us Ben Stiller, the Wilson brothers, Tobey McGuire’s Spiderman, and Will Ferrell, whose “Anchorman” mustache was a comic wink at 1970s manhood.

To be a guy became a kind of adolescent joke - think Jackass and the G4 network - and to be a man, a grownup, meant shaving your upper lip, and possibly maintaining your eyebrows. There are more college-educated American men now that there have ever been, and while education can create self-confidence, it’s also good at creating self-consciousness. You could say that a huge swath of American men have simply misplaced the self-confidence required to wear a single strip of hair on their lips.

We’re no longer comfortable with Charlton Heston’s brute primacy, or Clark Gable’s bravado, and this is never clearer than when modern celebrities try to wear a mustache - really try, instead of wink-wink try. When Jake Gyllenhaal shows up in the latter half of “Brokeback Mountain” in a mustache, he’s trying to wear it for real. He’s supposed to be a cowboy. But every time I saw the movie, the audience laughed. Gyllenhaal was a metrosexual in mustache drag, and they knew it.

This is, sadly, our loss. Without the mustache, we’ve lost a whole language of facial hair - the sleek pencil mustache, the villainous curl. An entire universe of mustaches is now relegated to contests and annual conventions. It may not be too late to reclaim this legacy, though. What the mustache needs isn’t another pretender. What the mustache needs - no, what the mustache demands - is a hero.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Sponsorships ... Part 1

When #99-Carl Edwards broke his foot playing Frisbee last month there were jokes about how fortunate he was to be sponsored by AFLAC, which sells disability insurance. Edwards even made reference to the obvious irony and talked about filing a claim and getting a check. 

NASCAR fans are so used to drivers hawking their sponsors' products - and dropping the sponsor's name in every TV interview - that they rarely think twice about it. That's what drivers do when they aren't driving. 

But pretty soon drivers might have to do something else if they find themselves endorsing a sponsor's product. They might have to disclose that the sponsor is paying them to do it. 

The Federal Trade Commission this week issued new guidelines for those who endorse products. There is a new requirement that endorsers - whether it's a lowly blogger or a high-profile actor or athlete - must say if they are being paid by that company. 

So, how would this affect NASCAR, the most blatantly commercial sport around? Depends on the context. So says David Zetoony, an attorney specializing in consumer product-liability cases with the firm Bryan Cave. 

For instance, when Edwards does a commercial for AFLAC, it is understood by not only NASCAR fans, but also by the public at large that he's being paid to do so or that it's part of his obligation to his sponsor. And when he gives an interview standing in front of his AFLAC Ford, wearing his AFLAC driver suit and says something like "the #99 AFLAC Ford Fusion was awfully fast today," he's also in the clear. That's considered product placement, Zetoony said, and it won't get a driver in hot water with the FTC. 

What will cause trouble is when an athlete takes it a step further and endorses a product. But again, context is important. 

If Tony Stewart gives a TV interview and is asked to name his favorite hamburger and he says "I never eat anything but flame-broiled Burger King Whoppers," he'd be required to disclose his relationship to BK. If he said, "I never eat anything but those juicy Whoppers my sponsor Burger King makes," he'd be OK. 

Confused? You aren't alone. It's going to take time and probably litigation to sort out where the lines will be drawn