Physician Patient


Minnesota Physician-Patient Alliance, Inc. ("MPPA") is a not-for-profit organization committed to improving our health care system. We do this by communicating information to the public and within the industry about important health care issues.

MPPA believes that efficient, quality health care depends on strong doctor-patient relationships. Interference in the doctor-patient relationship by third parties such as health plans and the government, is widespread in today's health care system and often limits what doctors or patients are allowed to do, altering market-based reimbursement, and undermining the traditional ethics of the medical professions. While the intentions of the third parties in interfering with the relationship may be honorable (for example, to control costs or improve quality), ironically the cumulative effect of this interference is unnecessarily high costs and reduced quality. Efforts to reform health care, therefore, must first and foremost address the issue of strong doctor-patient relationships.

The MPPA board consists of physicians, health care consumers, and others who share these concerns and values. We seek to communicate our message by collaborating on research and publication, sharing information about market developments, and individually being active in a variety of health care and community organizations.

To see who belongs to MPPA, please visit our Who We Are page by clicking on the link to the right. To see some of our communications, click on one of the Publications links to the right. If you would like to learn more about MPPA or our positions, click on the Contact Us link to the right.

MPPA was established in 1997 as a Minnesota 501(c)3 charitable nonprofit organization. If you would like to be added to the MPPA listserv, the respected MPPA online discussion group, send us your contact information and we will add you.

May 4
the definition of “unicorn” is something which is unusual, rare, or unique.  We know for sure that health care deductibles are up for patients, and family savings (of any kind) are rare and unique for many citizens in the middle class. See:
It is not possible to shop for anything if you do not have available money to spend, even if you know what something costs. One can however shop for politicians  who tell you they will give you something for free and that the rich or someone else will pay for it.
Clearly price shopping for health care services and products in 2019 is unusual and rare. Are Minnesota employers willing to empower their employees to shop for health care best suited to their needs? How can recipients of Medicare and Medicaid be themselves rewarded to do so?
With the active support of the media, the US healthcare-industrial complex has framed the political issue for voters as a threat to them over the affordability of their healthcare. In 2018 the voting public responded by electing Democrats fearing losing their insurance coverage (post ACA or ACA repeal) for pre-existing health conditions, and they also supported middle class government healthcare subsidizes.
Our federal debt is now more than $22 trillion. And here in Minnesota, Governor Walz wants a Medicaid buy-in for the middle class and continuing the regressive provider (sick) tax. If Democrats want government control of medical care for all US citizens, this goal represents a piggy or a piggy bank rather than a unicorn. If only the “rich” can afford to buy private healthcare insurance or shop for health care based on price and quality, then what?
Apr 17

Europe’s Alternative to Medicare for All
Swiss and Dutch private insurance provide better coverage than Canada’s single-payer system.

By Regina E. Herzlinger and
Bacchus Barua
April 16, 2019 7:33 p.m. ET

Sen. Bernie Sanders described his Medicare for All legislation in a Fox News town hall the other night: “What we are talking about is simply a single-payer insurance program, which means that you will have a card which says Medicare on it, you go to any doctor that you want, you will go to any hospital that you want.” He added that “you’re not paying any more premiums, you’re not paying any more copayments, you’re not paying any more deductibles.” In another context, he said the plan “would allow all Americans, regardless of their income, to get the health care they need when they need it.”

Not so fast. The experience of Canada, which follows the Sanders model, shows that single payer is not the best way to achieve the goal of access to timely care. Its single-payer program is universal, funded by taxpayers without deductibles or copayments, and excludes premiums for most users. Objective measures of performance show it’s a comparatively expensive system whose results are mediocre—and sometimes very poor.

A Fraser Institute study published in November examined 28 universal health-care systems across 45 indicators of performance. After adjusting for differences in the proportion of seniors, Canada ranked among the top spenders—fourth-highest as a percentage of gross domestic product and 10th-highest per capita. Yet it had less medical resources available for patients and painfully long wait times for specialists. Canada ranked 26th out of 28 for number of physicians, 22nd out of 27 for MRI units, and 25th out of 26 for hospital beds.

In Commonwealth Fund data comparing 11 developed countries, Canada reported the most patients waiting more than four weeks for a specialist appointment (56%), vs. only 22% for Switzerland and 23% for the Netherlands, the top performers. The proportion of patients waiting more than four months for elective surgery was 18% for Canadians, 2% for the French and zero for Germans. Canada performed well on only five of the 12 indicators of clinical performance and quality included in the Fraser Institute’s study. Its performance on the other seven—including obstetric traumas and diabetes-related amputations—was poor or average.

Overall, Canada performs worse than other universal-coverage countries, particularly Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany. Why? Unlike Canada’s single-payer system, the Swiss, Dutch and German systems rely on private insurers, whether nonprofit or for-profit. Government helps the needy make premium payments.

German enrollees can use a public system composed of 145 competing independent nonprofit “sickness funds” or buy insurance from 43 companies or nonprofits. In the Netherlands and Switzerland, residents must select a standard insurance package from private insurers, of which both countries have dozens.

Unlike the U.S., with Medicare and its massive trillion-dollar unfunded liabilities, these countries cannot pass un-reimbursed current expenses onto future generations. If the expenses of private insurers exceed their revenues, they face bankruptcy.

The relatively successful universal health-care systems also rely on private hospitals and physicians. As of 2012, 42% of German hospitals were for-profit, almost all of them open to patients with public insurance. These regulated for-profit vendors can readily access private capital to fund medical innovations—unlike government-run systems, which need bureaucratic approval to use tax revenue.

Consumers and the private sector drive the health-care systems in these countries, which accomplish exactly what Mr. Sanders and his supporters say they want—universal coverage, controlled costs, high quality and ready access. In contrast, Canada’s experience shows the dangers of the Medicare for All model.

Bernie Sanders’ new ‘Medicare For All’ plan is co-sponsored by Democratic presidential rivals Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

Ms. Herzlinger is a professor at Harvard Business School. Mr. Barua is associate director of the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Health Policy Studies.

This article appeared in the April 17, 2019, Wall Street Journal print edition as ‘Europe’s Alternative To Medicare For All.