August 3, 2018

NYS Seal - colorNEWS FROM


Chair                                                Ranking Member
Assembly Health Committee        Senate Health Committee
Contact:                                                         FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 8/1/18
Mischa Sogut (Gottfried)                                  

(518) 455-4941 or (202) 365-5475

Valeria Munt (Rivera)
(646) 259-5923
Think tank concludes: New York Health would cover all New Yorkers
with net health care savings
Bill sponsors Senator Rivera and Assembly Member Gottfried will continue to push for passage during the next legislative session
(New York, NY) – State Senator Gustavo Rivera and Assembly Health Committee Chair Richard Gottfried, sponsors of the New York Health Act in the New York State Legislature, welcomed the findings of a study of the bill by the highly-regarded, independent, non-profit RAND Corporation. The study confirms that New York Health would reduce total health care costs, while increasing spending on actual care rather than administration and insurance company profit; provide full health coverage to every New Yorker; save substantial money for almost all New Yorkers; and generate a net increase in employment due to increases in disposable income.
In December 2017, the New York State Health Foundation commissioned the RAND Corporation to assess the savings, costs, and feasibility of the New York Health Act. Using conservative estimates, the RAND study establishes that New Yorkers would use more health care services under the new single-payer plan than under the current system, even as total health care spending would be slightly lower in 2022 growing to a savings of $15 billion annually by 2031 due to administrative efficiencies.
The study highlights that the majority of New Yorkers would pay less under the New York Health Plan – New Yorkers in the bottom 90% of household incomes would save an average of $2,800 per person annually – thanks to an equitable distribution of taxation based on the ability to pay. In addition, premiums, deductibles, copays, out-of-pocket payments, and out-of-network charges would be eliminated.
“This is an important validation of the New York Health Act by one of the most prestigious analytical firms in the country,” said Assembly Health Committee Chair Gottfried. “RAND shows we can make sure every New Yorker gets the care they need and does not suffer financially to get it; save billions of dollars a year by cutting administrative costs, insurance company profit, and outrageous drug prices; and pay for it all more fairly. Even though RAND thinks the net savings back in the pockets of New Yorkers will be less than I think we’d actually get, this is still a terrific deal for New York. The study also shows it’s feasible to include long term care – home health care and nursing homes – in the bill.”
“The RAND study makes it clear that the New York Health Act is not only feasible, but the most fiscally responsible option for our State”, said State Senator Gustavo Rivera, Ranking Member of State Senate Health Committee. “While we estimate that the benefits to New York State will be greater than those outlined in the study, we all agree that the implementation of the New York Health Act translates into more savings and jobs, while expanding critical health care coverage and access for all New Yorkers regardless of their wealth. I will continue to work with Assembly Member Gottfried and the many advocate organizations that support the bill as we stand up for what is right and work to implement an efficient and universal healthcare system in New York State.”
The RAND study estimates that New York Health would lead to an estimated 2 percent net increase in employment – approximately 150,000 jobs in 2022 – due to increased disposable income for almost all New Yorkers and lower costs for employers.
Senator Rivera and Assembly Member Gottfried concur with RAND that New York Health would have substantial benefits to New York by fostering job creation, increased access to health care, wages, long term care, and overall savings compared to the current system.
However, based on consultation with several health economists and policy experts, Senator Rivera and Assembly Member Gottfried believe the benefits of the New York Health Act will be greater than highlighted in the RAND study in certain areas, such as:
  • Greater Administration Savings: RAND estimates an administrative cost of 6 percent for running New York Health, which is much higher than the administrative cost of traditional Medicare. The cost items that RAND says would raise the rate are actually costs Medicaid already incurs, and are highly automated. Two to three percent is a more reasonable estimate. This additional savings would double RAND’s savings estimate.
  • Greater Pharmaceutical Savings: RAND’s model bases pharmaceutical prices on what Medicaid is able to negotiate today on behalf of a fraction of the State’s population. The State negotiating for its entire population – three times more consumers – would result in lower drug prices and greater savings.
  • Greater Health Care Provider Administrative Savings. RAND’s estimates for the administrative costs providers bear for dealing with multiple insurance bureaucracies, and the savings from a single-payer system, are not clearly justified and are much lower than savings projected by other studies.
The findings of the RAND study validate assessments made by Senator Rivera, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Health Committee, and Assembly Member Gottfried, the chair of the Assembly Health Committee, that a universal single-payer health care system under the New York Health Act would benefit the health of New Yorkers and the State’s economy.

A copy of the full report can be found here.  A summary can be found here.

Watertown NY June 10 health care organizing event

May 7, 2017

Please pass this along to anyone who may be interested in participating in our June 10th event in Watertown, New York.



Thank you.

Sunny Aslam


Watertown NY June 10 healthcare organizing event

May 7, 2017

Please pass this along to anyone who might
want to get involved in our June 10th event in
Watertown, New York.
Thank you.
Sunny Aslam

NY Health Act has a 2017 Assembly bill number, it’s A. 4738

February 5, 2017

The NY Health Act has a 2017 Assembly bill number, it’s A. 4738.

RightCare Weekly

December 10, 2016

If you are interested in subscribing contact Ellen Kagan
About Us | News | Donate

In order to bring you more of the news you want to read, RightCare Weekly summarizes and interprets three important articles and provides headlines linking to the many other articles and editorials you’ll find interesting. As always, RightCare Weekly presents articles related to moving our healthcare system toward the right care for all patients.

Join the conversation: Post your comments in our section at the bottom of this page.

Right Care Alliance members all over the country were hard at work this month organizing and participating in events focused on the theme of listening for Right Care Action Week, and that hard work paid off! This year we organized nearly 100 events, with thousands of participants in 25 states (plus DC), which included 32 listening booths, 16 story slams, 39 “What Worries You” activities, and many other listening-related events. We partnered with 20 organizations, posted 550 tweets with the #RCAW hashtag, and reached more than a million people on Twitter. Several events also piqued the attention of news media. Maia Dorsett, MD, an Emergency Medicine council member, was featured in STAT’s On Call newsletter for her “What Worries You” activity. WTNH in New Haven, C.T. covered two listening booths at the New Haven Public Library, one of which was manned by Lown Institute President Vikas Saini, MD. And New England Cable Newsinterviewed Lown Institute Senior Organizing Fellow Francisco Irby, MD, about his Boston-area listening tours. Thanks to all the RCAW organizers and participants for listening and sharing! Stay tuned for more stories from RCAW coming soon.

Workplace wellness programs are supposed to encourage employees to quit smoking, get fit, or better manage illnesses like diabetes—and keep health care costs down in the process. Many employers use wellness programs as a carrot or a stick, offering financial incentives to join programs or penalties for abstaining. While these programs are growing in number, some employees are resisting sharing personal medical information with their employers. This week, the The New York Times reports that the AARP filed suit against the agency that issues rules for the programs, citing the rules violate anti-discrimination laws protecting workers’ health records, and it questioned whether the programs are, in fact, voluntary, given the consequences of non-participation. In May, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that employers could set incentives as high as 30 percent of the annual cost of an individual employee’s health insurance coverage. The AARP contends that its members face “imminent harm” from the rules, which allow “employers to pressure employees to divulge their own confidential health information and confidential genetic information of their spouses as part of an employee ‘wellness’ program.” It is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the rules, which go into effect next year. The real question is, do these programs actually help workers improve their health? They might, according to STAT, but there’s still no proof.

With all the policies and promises around improving health care quality, one would think that there must be standardized measures used to evaluate it. It turns out, only a small proportion of quality measures are similarly defined and used by various health care payers, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported this week. For example, a 2013 study found more than 500 different measures used across 48 health plans, only 20% of which were used by more than one program. This plethora of measures wastes time, money, and energy. One study found that doctors spend 785 hours per year on documenting quality measurements overall—that’s a full month! Compiling different information for different payers contributes to administrative burden. Additionally, doctors receive conflicting information from different payers on their performance, making it difficult to identify what changes are needed to improve quality. Meanwhile, many quality metrics have no bearing on patient outcomes, say several organizations, including Care That Matters, a group affiliated with the Right Care Alliance. It’s high time for the Department of Health and Human Services to develop and implement meaningful quality measures that matter, and for payers to quit haranguing doctors and nurses with metrics that don’t.






Public health


Med ed


Mental health




End of life

Clinician health

Conflicts of interest

Doctor-patient communication

RightCare Weekly is made possible through the generous support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

21 Longwood Avenue
Brookline, MA 02446-5239
info@lowninstitute.org • 617-992-9322

You are subscribed to this organization’s email list as ellenkagan@gmail.com. If you did not subscribe, or would no longer like to receive email updates, unsubscribe here.

Next Page »