Category Archives: Health Care Policy

The Real Danger of Socialized Medicine by Niko Karvounis

Posted on by

Last week The Washington Post ran a good opinion piece by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at NIH (and brother of Congressman Rahm Emanuel) on the insidiousness of labeling any and all positions on health care apart from free market fundamentalism as being “socialized” medicine, doomed to failure.

Emanuel notes that “ ‘socialized medicine’ is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government…” As Emanuel rightly points out, none of the universal coverage proposals being debated in the U.S. today “can be characterized as socialized medicine. None calls for government ownership or control over U.S. hospitals, drugstores or home health agencies, or for making doctors employees of the federal or state governments.”

This is right on the money—maybe even more so than Emanuel intends. Opponents of “socialized” medicine are wrong three times over: not only do most reformers not want socialized medicine, but even European health care systems (often used as examples of socialized medicine) do not meet the criteria outlined above. Further, publicly-run health care carries with it some significant benefits that are evident right here in the U.S.

To dispel the myth of monolithic government-run European health care, look no further than Germany, where most of the population (88%) receives health care through “sickness funds"–non-profit, third-party pools of money devoted to health services. Sickness funds are built on the principle of “subsidized self-governance”: they receive public funding, but the funds must be financially self-sufficient (i.e. be able to govern themselves) and also allow a high degree of freedom on the part of patients and doctors (the former can choose their doctors and hospitals, and the latter have much flexibility in treatments).

Continue reading →

Race and Health Care: Dimensions of Inequity by Niko Karvounis

Posted on by

Yesterday I talked a little about segregation of patients by race in NYC hospitals, and noted how this is likely a problem repeated across the nation. Wonder no more: a 2006 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) analyzed about 719,000 Californians who had received a wide range of complex surgeries. The authors found that blacks, Latinos, and Asians were far less likely to get these operations done at high-volume hospitals, which tend to have better outcomes for complex surgeries. (After all, practice makes perfect).

If you’re white, you’re more likely to receive care at high-volume, better-performing hospitals. This is bad in and of itself; but unfortunately, discrimination continues beyond the level of medical institutions and into the level of individual doctors. A 2004 study in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the primary care experience of Medicare patients, specifically looking at 150, 391 visits by black and white Medicare beneficiaries for “medical evaluation and management who were seen by 4355 primary care physicians.” Here is what they found:

“Most black patients were confined to a small group of physicians (80 percent of visits were accounted for by 22 percent of physicians) who provided only a small percentage of care to white patients. In a comparison of visits by white patients and black patients, we found that the physicians whom the black patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians visited by the white patients (86.1 percent) and also more likely to report that they were unable to provide high-quality care to all their patients (27.8 percent vs.19.3 percent).

Continue reading →

Preventing Hospital Errors Part II by Howard C. Berkowitz

Posted on by

Given the medical community’s reluctance to step up and admit to mistakes, Medicare has decided to get tough, saying that it will stop reimbursing  hospitals for the thirteen adverse advents listed below. Before discussing the list, let me suggest that not all of these events are within a hospital’s control. I’ve rated the mishaps on the list from 1 to 4, with “1” indicating something that, I agree, should never happen, and “4” referring to something that, in my experience, a hospital may not be able to prevent.

    The 13 Things That Should Never Happen in a Hospital
   1. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection [2]
   2. Bed sores [1]
   3. Objects left in [THE PATIENT”S BODY] after surgery [1]
   4. Air embolism, or bubbles, in bloodstream from injection [1]
   5. Patients given incompatible blood type [1]
   6. Bloodstream Staphylococcus (staph) infection [2]
   7. Ventilator-associated pneumonia [2]
   8. Vascular-catheter-associated infection [2]
   9. Clostridium difficile-associated disease (gastrointestinal infections) [3]
  10. Drug-resistant staph infection [3]
  11. Surgical site infections [3]
  12. Wrong surgery [1]
  13. Falls [4]

IF YOU’D LIKE TO COMMENT ON
THIS POST, PLEASE
CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL MAGGIE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS.

Continue reading →

Comment on Class and Health

Posted on by

(To see the original post on Class and health, click here.  To add your comment, scroll down and click on “Contact” on the left-hand side of the page.)

From Alan Abrams (a.k.a. Alan_A
at the hpscleansing.com/group
community forums)

I just read Maggie
Mahar’s health blog after linking to it from an agonist.org blog on universal health care.
I then read Maggie Mahar’s blog [post] on
"Class and Health."  thus this quote:

"And yet, and yet . . . Schroeder sees reason for "cautious
optimism." Although we trail behind other countries, we are healthier than
we once were. We have reduced smoking ratse, homicide rates and motor-vehicle
accidents. Vaccines and cardiovascular drugs have improved medical care. But
progress in other areas will require "political action,"
Schroeder declares, "starting with relentless measurement of and focus on actual
health status and the actions that could improve it. Inaction
means acceptance of America’s poor
health status."

Healthier than we once were? Really?  Are…smoking, homicide rates, and
motor-vehicle accidents adequate measures of the overall improving general
health of Americans?

What about these:

  • 58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese
  • Eight out of 10 over 25’s Overweight
  • 78% of American’s not meeting basic activity level recommendations
  • 25% completely Sedentary
  • 76% increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 yrs old since 1990

Continue reading →

Class and Health

Posted on by

When compared to other developed countries, the U.S. ranks near the bottom on most standard measures of health. Many people assume that this is because the U.S. is more ethnically heterogeneous than the nations at the top of the rankings, such as Japan, Switzerland, and Iceland. But while it is true that within the U.S. there are enormous disparities by race and ethnic group, even when comparisons are limited to white Americans our performance is “dismal” observes Dr. Steven Schroeder in a lecture  published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday.

Why? It’s not the lack of universal access to healthcare" says Schroeder, though that’s important. And it’s not just that we don’t exercise enough and eat too much—though that is a major cause. But there is one factor undermining the nation’s health that we just don’t like to talk about in polite society: Class. When it comes to health, class matters.

Schroeder, who is the Distinguished Professor of Health and Health Care at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) underlines how poorly even white Americans stack up when compared to the citizens of other countries by pointing to maternal mortality as one measure of health. When you look at “all races” you find that in the U.S. 9.9 out of 100,000 women die during childbirth.  Focus solely on white women, and the number is still high—7.2 deaths out of 100,000 –especially when compared to Switzerland where only 1.4 women out of 100,000 die while giving birth.

Statistics on infant mortality reveal the same pattern: among “all races” 6.8 American children who were born alive die during infancy; limit the analysis to “whites only” and 5.7 infants die—compared to just 2.7 out of 1,000 in Iceland. .) When researchers compare maternal mortality and infant mortality in white America to rates of death in the 29 other OECD countries, white America ranks close to the bottom third in both categories.

Turn to life expectancy, and you find that white women in the U.S. can expect to live 80.5 years, only slightly longer than American women of all races (who average 80.1 years). Both groups lag far behind Japanese women (who, on average, clock 85.3 years). The gap between “all American men” (who live an average of 74.8  years) and white men in the U.S. (75.3 years) is wider—but not as wide as the gap between white men in the U.S. and men in Iceland (who live an average of 79.7 years).

“How can this be?” asks Schroeder. After all, as everyone knows, the U.S. spends far more on health care than any other nation in the world.

The answer is a stunner: the path “to better health does not generally depend on better health care,” says Schroeder. “Health is influenced by factors in five domains — genetics, social circumstances, environmental exposures, behavioral patterns, and health care. When it comes to reducing early deaths, medical care has a relatively minor role. Even if the entire U.S. population had access to excellent medical care — which it does not — only a small fraction of premature  deaths could be prevented.” [my emphasis]

Continue reading →

HILLARY CLINTON’S NEW PLAN

Posted on by

   I have written two posts analyzing Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. You will find them on www.tpmcafe.com (where I am a contributor). You can comment there.

   

    

Responding to Comment on “Should People Who Don’t Take Care of Themselves Pay More?”

Posted on by

Bradley—Thanks for your comment. I’m inclined to agree with
you about smoking. Because so many people do quit, it’s clear that it is
possible for most people who are addicted to tobacco to give it up. So a
financial incentive (or penalty) might have some results. And there is no question but what smoking adds to our national health
bill.

When it comes to weight loss, however, I’m convinced by the research that only a small percentage of the truly obese can
take the weight off and keep it off. As for adults who are carrying an extra 10
to 20 pounds, this doesn’t seem to me a major health problem. Ideally everyone
would be at their perfect weight, but if we begin charging people who are 10 pounds overweight an extra
premium I’m afraid we would be feeding our culture’s obsession with being thin.

Do We Really Have to Cut Back On How Much We Spend on Health Care?

Posted on by

After all, we’re the wealthiest nation in the world. And what is more important than the health of our citizens?

Nevertheless, even in the U.S. resources are finite. And in 2007, Congressional Budget Office director Petter Orzag warns, “The central fiscal challenge facing the nation involves rising health care costs.” In a recent letter to the House Subcommittee on Health chairman Pete Stark, Orzag frames the problem in a way that no one can ignore by comparing how much faster healthcare spending is growing than income per capita. “The rate at which health care costs grow relative to income is the most important determinant of the nation’s long-term fiscal balance,” he explains. “It exerts a significantly larger influence on the budget over the long term than other commonly cited factors such as the aging of the population.”

Let’s cut to the bottom line: If health care inflation continues to outstrip income growth over the next forty years at the same rate that it has over the past 40 years, spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone will rise to 20 percent of GDP in 2050. (To give you a sense of how big a slice of the pie that is: today, the entire federal budget equals roughly 20 percent of GDP).

Continue reading →

Replying to Comment on “Should 21-year olds pay less,”

Posted on by

Barry—

Thanks for your comment on “Should 21-Year Olds Pay Less . . .” While we’re in agreement on many points, I have to disagree with your first sentence—that “in theory the Massachusetts approach of charging older people up to twice as much as younger people for health insurance is more reasonable, in my opinion, than pure community rating because younger people, as a group, incur far lower healthcare costs.”

I believe that insurance, by definition, is supposed to get everyone into one pool so that those who need less care can help those who need more care.  You are, of course, right that younger people incur far lower costs—until they get older. At that point, another generation of young people will help pay for their care. That’s how insurance is supposed to work.

Continue reading →

If We Mandate Insurance, Should 20-Somethings Pay Less?

Posted on by

Should insurers be able to offer less expensive policies to the young and healthy? Or should they be required to offer the same benefits to everyone at the same price?

In states where insurance is mandated, should twenty-somethings get a break? In a post on Health Care Policy and Marketplace Blog Robert Laszewski addresses these questions. He begins by focusing on a report  just released by the health insurance trade association (AHIP). The study looks at state health insurance reforms of the 1990s that tried to eliminate discrimination by insisting that insurers must sell “individual” policies to people who are not covered by an employer or another group without discriminating on the basis of health, age or gender. According to the AHIP, these reforms have had some “unintended consequences.”

Continue reading →