TW: The arrogance and ignorance expressed by many Americans is embarrassing. Our system does some things well, some things not well at all and everything very expensively. No system is perfect, of course, but the notion that the U.S. is superior is naive. There is a large segment of Americans who think we are the best at everything. We have a great country, but we are not, not even close.
TR Reid has written a book on the various health care delivery systems throughout the developed world. Below are some summaries he prepared for WaPo:
"1. It's all socialized medicine out there?
Not so...In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States...Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines?
Generally, no. ...As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries...In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment.
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.
Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.
U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation.
False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)
5. Health insurance has to be cruel.
Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.
Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums...The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.
...the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html
4 comments:
Interesting.
1 question I have--and it's tangential--is about, say, the Japanese. As a culture, they are a healthy people. Their diets and habits and general group-think makes for a very healthy population. They may visit doctors 15 times a year and get twice the number of MRI's, but how many are being treated for diabetes related to obesity for the last 40 years of their lives?
That is, when we talk about costs among populations, we have to think about the population first.
Is there a way to make Americans who choose unhealthy habits pay more into the system than those who choose healthy ones? It might not be good politics to say that the smokers and the obese have to pay more for insurance, but I'd like to see it be part of whatever policy we end up with.
But, OK, I'll try to have a more pragmatic discussion with you and dispense for now with grand ideals.
Let me start by saying that I'm not a fierce proponent of any plan or idea of a plan out there. I don't even think I'm a fierce oponent to "Obamacare" (and I don't even think there's a firm enough plan out there to be quite so labeled yet--it feels like it's a murky model of some sort right now. . .)
But my thinking is this: There's a free admission out there that "No system will be perfect," --maybe you can address the imperfections of the system you'd like to see put into place.
Because the choice right now is not between Do X or Do Y, it's between Do X or Do Nothing. We're not in a place where we need to compare plans, especially if the competing plan is one that looks like a free market reform, because that one's not going to get passed right now.
And while we need to Do Something as opposed to Do Nothing, I think it's better to Do Nothing if the "something" is going to be a mistake that we get stuck with for the long, long term.
So, what are the weaknesses of the plan you'd like to see passed? And what's your argument for how the benefits outweigh them?
Not much disagreement with this comment.
Will probably spin this into a post so will keep this brief.
Re obesity etc. I read the other day that Americans actually have some of the world's lowest smoking and alcoholism rates which should bring things down but obesity is obviously a different story although many nations are rapidly catching up.
Insurance is already higher for some behaviors (e.g smoking), I am all for "penalizing" other bad behaviors the question is how.
The 1 pm post goes to your question about X v. Y v. nothing. More importantly if you look through the health care posts you will many addressing this issue. Net net it is in the opposition's interest to oppose usually and the Republicans are using that strategy with gusto on health care.
Btw do u mind if I take some of your Herp post and spin that into a post here. Obviously that hits close to home for u but it demonstrates some challenges of rationing, coverage etc.
Sure, have at it. The herceptin issue isn't mine alone. It makes for an interesting case study, and as I explained on the post, at the end of the day, I'm just thankful and humbled that the funding of it isn't my battle.
I'll even let you know how much my insurance pays for it once that statement comes in. :)
Here's another example which goes to the question of rationing. Again, it's a personal one, but sometimes the argument is best understood when it's on a real face.
Bryan's father, Pedro, was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of 75. He was told by 4 separate doctors in FL that there was no point in operating, let it ride, he'd die of something else first.
But, as a retired physician with a lot of time and inquisitiveness on his hands, he'd done his own research. It was possible, he knew, that perhaps he had an aggressive cancer and not a slow cancer.
Not to mention the discomfort he was experiencing.
The 2 surgeons he saw said they didn't want to operate and Pedro was looking at 100% chance of impotency and 50% incontinency. Pedro was 75 years old, after all. That's too old to operate...
Pedro's son was a fellow at Harvard at the time. Got his Dad a consult with the Harvard guy, who took a look at Pedro's health an concluded that he had the cardiovascular system of a 45 year old man. (He sprint walks 4 miles a day on the beach and maintains the most ridiculously strict diet you could imagine.)
So the Harvard guy operated.
The cancer got biopsied.
It would have killed Pedro within 6 months, they now know. (And, maybe he'd want this known, no problem with incontinency nor impotency. But that's a tribute to the surgeon's skill. . .)
So, happy story for Pedro. It all worked out for him and he's now 6 years down the road and still going strong. Picture this scenario 20 years in the future.
Would any such surgery be allowed to a 75 year old man? Espcially when, statistically, that cancer was expected to be "slow" and not "aggressive"?
That's the concern: How do we make sure the system would allow for this happy ending? No one WANTS to see men like Pedro die of prostate cancer pre-maturely. But would the system make it a likely result?
I think it's a helpful example because it doesn't paint the present system as perfect. If it weren't for Pedro's pro-activeness, he'd be dead. If he'd taken the FL doctor-quacks' word for it, he'd be dead. And if he didn't have a physician in the family stuyding at the right time and the right place, he might be dead.
Do we shrug and say, "Glad it worked out for him, but we have a bigger picture to paint"? Or do we say, "Let's not implement a system that has these weaknesses built into it"?
I'm playing catch-up with your other health care posts, trying to get your bigger picture. It's a little tricky because you cite others a lot. This is OK, of course, but it's not as straight forward as my reading a 5 paragraph essay from you on the topic. :)
Rather than comment on the Pedro example I will perhaps another post on of it as well, may be a few days mind you.
But I suspect the issue here (and with Herp and with all other care) is not rationing so much as how rationing occurs. Inherently we have rationing otherwise our consumption of health care would be infinite. As you mentioned in your first comment above and I completly concur there is no magic bullet answer.
Republicans can say they are against rationing but they are inherently for it else again they would favor infinite spending.
How or who paid for Pedro's care btw?
Post a Comment