Reply With Quote
Actually, if you have no money, you still don't have access to decent preventive care.
That is what the study illustrates.
hContact: Mary Mahon
[email protected]
212-606-3853
Commonwealth Fund
New update of international health system comparisons: US continues to lag on most measures
US spends most on health care, least on health information technology
New York City, May 15, 2007—The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys. While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.
Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology—just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.
"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."
In Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, by Karen Davis, Ph. D., and colleagues, compare surveys on physicians' and patients' experiences and views of their health systems conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. between 2004 and 2006. Key findings include:
- On measures of quality, the U.S. overall ranked 5th out of 6 countries. The U.S. ranked fifth in coordinated care, and last in patients reporting that they have a regular doctor (84% vs. 92%-97% in other countries).
- On access measures the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on timeliness of care: 61% of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25%-59% in other countries.
Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2006, by Jonathan Cylus and Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., of The Johns Hopkins University, compares health spending data in nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and, where possible, the median of all 30 OECD countries. Key findings include:
- On efficiency, the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on percent of patients who have visited the emergency room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available (26% vs. 6%-21% in other countries). The U.S. ranked fifth of six countries on primary care practices having "high clinical information functions," defined as practices having at least 7 of 14 office practice information functions, including electronic records, electronic prescribing, computerized safety alerts, and patient reminders systems and registries (19% compared with 8%-87% in other countries).
- In 2004 the U.S. spent the most per capita on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending per day in the United States was nearly three times the median OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).
- The U.S. spent twice the OECD median per capita on drugs in 2004—$752 compared with $377. ( Big Pharma! )
- Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals in the U.S. were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the OECD median. (Big Agri/Food Business! )
- The U.S. had about two and a half times the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes—101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data is for 2002).
###The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation working toward a high performance health system.
==================
So the US spends most money delivering the least care to the fewest people. Just ing brilliant.
While I expect the Dem Exec/Legislative to address the health care system crisis in 2009, I also expect the $Ts in play will enable Big Pharma, Insurance companies, AMA, etc, to buy enough legislators to continue to disenfranchise voters and keep the $Bs of profits flowing to the corps.
Last edited by boutons_; 05-20-2007 at 02:03 AM.
Actually, if you have no money, you still don't have access to decent preventive care.
That is what the study illustrates.
"have absolutely no money"
You get treated anyway.
Then the treatment orgs cover their charges, which go into their total costs, by billing the govt for re-imbursement from tax revenues, or jacking up charges to patients who can pay and and insurance companies.
I reported here in the last few months where Austin is providing free care to people who can't pay to encourage them to come much earlier in their sickness when care is simpler, quicker, CHEAPER, rather than waiting until the sickness has become an (preventable) emergency costing 10s or 100s times more to treat.
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...23/story6.html
This simply confirms my belief that Austin is one of the better managed cities in the US.
Interesting article that really supports the assertion that providing more preventive care has a marked effect on keeping health care costs overall in check.
I generally eschew purely socialistic solutions to problems, but our capitalist system in this regard is broken, and waaaaay inefficient at providing the greatest amount of health care for least cost.
A single payor system is simply going to be necessary at some point. We will, of course, wait until this is painfully obvious and further into crisis until we act. Sad.
The US health-care proves irrefutably, inarguably that for-profit health-care is extremely inefficient, rigged, wasteful, edup up, and finally and massively inhumane, which is exactly how the Repugs and their corporate owners want it.
Actually, many businesses are starting to realize the costs of our current health care system, and are pushing for reform as well.
You would be surprised what some of them are saying. Have to find the website, but there was a bit on NPR about a coalition of businesses working for a single payor system. No insurance companies in the coalition of course, but the insurance industry would not be expected to support something that would suck money away from them.
Businesses want out of the health care business, that's very clear.
It was an anomaly that businesses were ever forced into health care in the first place.
The big profitmakers in the heathcare will spend 100s of $Ms to disenfranchise voters who elect politicians who support a national health care system. Edwards is making the most sense now, way too timid as first step, but in the right direction.
The system doesn't work because you don't really have a choice. You can't say "well it's too expensive, i just won't get health treatment" when you're sick. Not "buying" your health is not like not buying xbox. Demand will always outnumber supply. That's why the state has to regulate.
just my thoughts
i'm not buying the idea that the poorest people have an easy road to hoe when it comes to getting healthcare. they wait a long while to be seen unless it's an emergency, and if it is an emergency, they get treated like everybody else. federal laws dictate anyone with an emergency condition be seen in an ER. i mean, really, the idea that if i am poor i get a free ride on hospital care doesn't jive. sure, maybe indigent programs kick in, but those dollars are getting cut every year and, thus, doctors are racing away from medicare/medicaid programs as fast as they can. the folks who could provide the preventative care, then, have little incentive to do so. and then, going back to the emergency thing, ERs triage everything, so the rich guy with a shotgun wound gets seen before the poor guy with pneumonia.
hospitals, i believe, negotiate how much insurers will pay, and the insurers pass the buck on to those with insurance. but even that ignores the scores of folks without insurance the growing number of those folks. the list of folks who depend on the indigent/charity programs grows, further causing insurers to raise rates and companies to drop coverage. thus, wait times increase for those without the funding.
and blaming capitalism doesn't sit well considering the wait times that socialized medicine is up against in countries like canada and europe. sure, everyone is covered but you wait months to see the doc, by which time you may be too far gone.
the other thing in regards to this study that should be emphasized is that the sentiment should not be that the u.s. health system sucks enormously. being judged 5th out of 6 industrialized nations sounds bad, but truly, it's like being the 5th best nba player out of the top 10. the care here is great and survival rates for cancer, diabetes, etc. attest to that. the system's not perfect but let's not brow beat it too much.
what countries did they compare us against?
Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K.
"everyone is covered but you wait months to see the doc, by which time you may be too far gone."
evidence?
Read the following link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/#top
yup, i know many canadians and that is what they tell you. you're dead before you see the doc...
new zealand??? there are like 4 people there.
australia? again, only a few people there.
and germany, great, if you like to pay 40-50% taxes!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
