2009-08-13

Links Of interest: American Health Care

Interesting article in the NY Times about health care. Specifically, research into how some regions in the United States manage to offer effective, low-cost servicing to patients. What if it's just a matter of "tweaking?" There are already cases of what works in communities across the country.

"...we invited physicians, hospital executives and local leaders from 10 of these regions to a meeting in Washington so they could explain how they do what they do. They came from towns big and small, urban and rural, North and South, East and West. Here’s the list: Asheville, N.C.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Everett, Wash.; La Crosse, Wis.; Portland, Me.; Richmond, Va.; Sacramento; Sayre, Pa.; Temple, Tex.; and Tallahassee, Fla., which, despite not ranking above the 50th percentile in terms of quality, has made such great recent strides in both costs and quality that we thought it had something to teach us.

If the rest of America could achieve the performances of regions like these, our health care cost crisis would be over. Their quality scores are well above average. Yet they spend more than $1,500 (16 percent) less per Medicare patient than the national average and have a slower real annual growth rate (3 percent versus 3.5 percent nationwide)."

I heard author and doctor Robin Cook proclaim on a Montreal radio show that the U.S. "has the worst health care system in the world." Of course, this is offset by claims of just the opposite.

It seems to me, judging by what I've seen and read (particularly in this article), it's pretty creative and innovative when it needs to be.

***

The Hudson Institute examines the role of personal decision, or lack thereof, in Obama's health plan.

"Although the president is quite right in his desire to eliminate waste in healthcare expenditures, he seemingly overlooks the personal decision making that undergirds the existing system and creates a remarkable level of assurance for the American people.

With Obamacare a council or a bureaucrat relying on a computer program will determine the appropriate level of care. If an eighty year old, for example, needs a hip replacement, the bureaucrat is likely to argue that a tin joint as opposed to a titanium joint is appropriate since the person only has a few years left based on actuarial expectations. Or if an eighty year old has cancer an advisory council might suggest that aggressive and expensive radiation treatment doesn’t make sense since that person doesn’t have long to live whatever the treatment."


5 comments:

  1. Cost is not the main issue in health care, save of course for conservatives. The main question is UNIVERSALITY OF CARE .
    However well organized and efficient if 20% or more of the population can not access it, it is still inhuman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, Paul, I cannot but agree. Poor Commentator: as he once said he has to deal with two leftists ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope you both took the time to read the links. It was meant to accentuate how complex the health care debate/reform is and not take a position.

    Well, cost is a reality and it should be considered. After all, isn't this the whole premise of Obama's plan "to bring down costs while offering coverage for all?" Which according to independent studies, doesn't look like his bill can achieve.

    Cost is the base of "assisted suicide" and"tax sugar" movements too. It's all about "saving" money. Ridding "dead weight" people from our midst.

    But for conservatives, it's not about that. They just don't believe (and they're right 100%) the government in the long-run can control costs. Conservatives, and I'm a fiscal conservative (no doubt about it. It's the only way to be with money), are conscience of "bang for buck" theories.

    The minute you offer universal care the state controls health and therefore ration takes place. It's not complicated. We see it in Canada everyday and this compromises quality. But we made our choices. For some, this is a fair trade. For others not so much.

    It may be inhuman but should government be controlling health? I don't think they should entirely.

    We can come up with something else where the government plays a role but shouldn't control it. Again, any one with a mild sense of reasonable thought will admit Canada's problem is the system is too bureaucratic. It's why we can't make improvements. The system is too cumbersome at this point.

    Universal care is a noble goal and we should continue with it. Maybe moving forward we can find that right balance. However, it shouldn't stop us from critically assessing it which too many Canadians are failing to do based on tired cliches and rhetoric.

    Fix the damn system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of all the comments on other blogs I read today, I found this one most interesting:

    "I think a good starting point is to ask why health care costs so much today. I asked my office administrator at work to pull up the cost of family coverage from the year 2003, when I started at the company.

    "From 2003 to 2009, the consumer price index has gone up 17%. But my health care premium has risen 67%. I want to know why this has happened and I want to know where the money is going.

    "So in addition to the questions of how to pay for health care and how to extend it to all, we need to understand why the costs are at their present levels."

    The problem with keeping the focus on Universality is that if you can't actually afford it...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks.

    Those are very interesting figures you mention. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

    Of course we should ask! It comes our of OUR POCKETS. I'm all for maintaining it but not at any cost. For crying out loud, at one point it's going to overtake all other expenditures while never improving itself.

    As far as I can tell, Americans are revolting (and I think it's legit. All this stuff the Dems. are fluttering out there is besides the point and doesn't help their cause) and they're revolting because the Dems have failed to appropriately explain their plan effectively and lucidly.

    Americans of all stripes have serious and legit questions about what the bill means in terms of A) choice B) quality and C) Costs. Call the names and such, but you still have to answer those questions in a way that puts Americans at ease.

    The way I see it, they Leviathan is looking to trade insurance companies influence for government control. They claim this will prove less expensive and will cover all Americans under a public option - ie socialized medicine.

    It will probably cost less but it will spiral upwards. Don't tell me they'll control costs. That's flat out a laugher as the UK and Canadian systems CLEARLY show.

    In the U.S, everyone knows something needs to be done but they're gonna have to try another way.

    Question: Would Congressmen switch to public option?

    Think about that one.

    ReplyDelete

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.