Why we must Occupy Healthcare

Why do we need to occupy healthcare?  Why are we here, on this website, calling for change?  We are so often told that America has the best healthcare system in the world.  If that were so, then there would be no need to change anything.  We could continue running things as we currently are, and all would be well …

Except that we do not have the best healthcare system in the world.  And we do need to change our current dysfunctional system.

When I make this statement, naysayers usually point out that America is the destination of choice for people all over the world who come here for care of their complicated medical problems.  Advanced cancer, for example — the US is apparently the place to be if you need high tech, high-intensity care.  Another argument is that patients come here to jump the line to get hip surgery or heart surgery that would require a much longer wait in their original country… although it is not often that this claim is supported with evidence that the procedure in question could not have waited.

So: I have staked a position, one that is contrary to the common wisdom.  I have made the claim that American healthcare is not the best in the world.  It is now necessary to defend this position:

  • American healthcare is not #1 in the world.  In this World Health Organization (WHO) analysis, the US ranks 37th.  We place just behind Costa Rica.  Other nations that outrank us: Dominica, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Greece, Colombia, and Morocco.  Just below us: Slovenia, Cuba, Brunei, New Zealand.  Essentially every developed nation in the Western Hemisphere performs better than we do.
  • It’s worse than it looks. As this analysis shows, we are 39th in infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, and 42nd for adult male mortality and some of the US’s quality measures have not increased as much as other nations’.
  • We rank last among seven developed Western-style democracies in US healthcare performance (graphic here).  We ranked 7th out of seven in efficiency, equity and “long, healthy, productive lives” 6th in quality care, and tied for 6th in access.  This last category (access) is ironic, given that many of the arguments against reforming the US healthcare system focus on the potential loss of patients’ access to their physician; it appears this access is not as robust as we might believe.
  • Our healthcare spending per capita is 50% greater than the next highest nation’s, and our healthcare spending in the US is increasing faster than most other nations’, and the % of national GDP spent on healthcare in the US is the highest in the world (reference here).
  • According to this just-released report from the Commonwealth Fund, the US scored 64 out of 100 points and lagged behind other developed nations.  You can see the short version of the report here.

Americans pay much more per person, to support a health care system that does not function very well at all, that provides inadequate and unequal care for far too many people , and that leaves nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance. These are all indicators of a system with significant, fundamental dysfunction.

How can we tolerate this?  How long do we continue paying for a system that is not meeting our needs, and that is costing us more and more?  How long can we continue draining resources on a system that is unequal and that does not meet its intended goals?

Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it is producing.  If we continue doing the same things, we will continue getting the same results … only at ever-greater cost.  Even with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the fundamental structure of our system will not change, and we will still need to find ways to make our healthcare system more effective, equitable and efficient.

We cannot continue the status quo.  We must Occupy Healthcare, and we must fight for reform that will make a true difference for our nation and improve our fellow citizens’ health.

Mark Ryan is a family physician who blogs at Life in Underserved Medicine.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

email

  • http://twitter.com/MGastorf Melissa Gastorf

    I would caution you on the use of the World Health Organization numbers.  All things being equal they are not.  France for example doesn’t count a birth as a live birth unless the baby lives past 7 days and is born after 32 weeks.  Here in the US live births are any baby that takes a breath.  That does seem to make a significant difference in the numbers, and why a baby born before 32 weeks at least has a chance here.  

    Additionally, the WHO does not take into account the number of deaths related to car accidents or violent deaths as part of their numbers.  Remove these issues and the US mortality rate looks much closer to the top of the list.  

    That being said, I do not disagree that the system does not function as well as it should.  We are spending more than should compared to the rest of the world.  But how much of their health is subsidized by us.  We as taxpayers subsidize the development of drugs, especially orphan, who went sent out to other countries are only allowed to charge up to a certain rate.  Here there is no limit.  So now only are we taxed for the drugs on the development, we are then expected to pay a higher amount on the back end.

    Additionally, much of these costs have been steadily increasing due to careless abandonment in ordering tests and procedures.  Heck, until recently American consumers had no thought nor care as to what their procedures cost, their insurance paid for it providing that they paid their copay.

    The PPACA did nothing to address the problems with access or affordability. Instead it increased the bureacracy and the red tape in a system that is more high regulated than most others in this country,  And as for those other countries health care systems, most are going broke and unable to further sustain themselves without massive cuts.  That is why breast cancer is rarely treated in Great Britain.  

    The collusion of both the insurance companies and the government have led to the increase in prices without the quality to balance.  That is why I doubt that the government will have the answers to the health care crises looming in our future

    • Anonymous

      I agree Melissa,  One other way we could improve our infant mortality figure is adopt the Cuban model.  If the fetus is deemed defective order a forced abortion.

      • Rıza Can Kardaş

        Who decides who is “defective” or not? Let’s say that a fetus carries CAG expansion in the HTT gene which means that he’ll likely develop Huntington’s disease. Do you think that he is “defective”? What about people with type 1 diabetes? Are they “defective” too? Since none of us are perfect, we’re all “defective” in one aspect or another. By your standard, whom among us is good enough to live? Are you?

        • Anonymous

          Riza, if you read my comment it is in response to Melissa’s post and how countries can lower their infant mortality by aborting fetus’s that are deemed defective or perhaps I should have said fetus’s that have significant health problems and might die after birth or cost the state significant cost in health care. No where did I advocate this position. As to your question, am I defective?  Yes, I am.

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      Melissa–

      Certainly, the WHO numbers are less than idea…however, they do provide some context.  That is also why I included other resources: evidence of our system’s dysfunction can be found in other measurements.

      It is true that the PPACA has not addressed healthcare spending, but it will address access (by getting more people covered under insurance) and affordability–for individuals–by helping subsidize the cost of coverage for lower income individuals and families.  This report: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2011/Nov/2011-International-Survey-Of-Patients.aspx shows that Americans are more likely to have skipped care or had trouble to pay their medical bills than citizens of other nations, and the PPACA should help that.

      Granted, the PPACA provides support for for-profit insurers…but this is the healthcare system we have largely consented to have at this moment in time.  Given the fact that even the PPACA (which doesn’t impose any radical reform on our healthcare system) has been so politically fraught, any greater reform would seem politically impossible.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WWEC2BM6SYRIYQJQ2LOYFPRGCE Susan Fitzgerald

        PPACA is a recipe for putting private insurers out of business…I thought that was the intent. People think it delivers profits to insurers, but it doesn’t. It delivers profits to the same folks who are raking it in now: Pharma, medical device makers, suppliers, and for-profit hospitals and insurers, and certain medical specialties (obviously not primary care). Lest we forget, nearly half of health insurers are nonprofit, working on a 3% or less margin. Compare that to Phrma, with is making about 16-18% profit in any given year. That’s where your money’s going, folks. Any economies achieved by insurers – or even by abolishing insurers – will be eaten up in one year by unit cost increases.

        THAT is the health care “system” we have consented to, Dr. Ryan. What does your “OccupyHC” movement do about costs?

        • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

          Susan–

          Presuming the individual mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court, private insurers will get millions of new, paying customers.  This will clearly benefit their bottom line.

          I fully agree that PhRMA profits are a big issue.  However, the PPACA is already addressing some of those concerns through reforms to the Medicare Part D medication insurance program.  I agree with you that this is a an area where further reform would be a major benefit.

          At this point, those of us contributing to the OccupyHeathcare.net site are still making the argument that change is needed.  Amazingly enough, many of our peers do not agree.  Ways to reduce cost, however, have been discussed–including focusing more broadly on the social determinants of health, seeking to integrate mental health and other medical care, strengthening primary care, and avoiding fragmented care. 

  • http://twitter.com/katellington Katherine Ellington

    I agree.  Our efforts at change are likely to work when we influence systems and policies beyond healthcare.  We should look at economic and social polices that impact health. HCPs should show up at town hall and community board meetings and talk about the need to improve health.  Data, facts and storytelling will help deliver messages where we can make the case for our patients and for healthier society. 

  • heartsurgeryguide.net/

    thank you for a well articulated clarion call. we need to be very clear and educate the public (and perhaps the nabobs and politicos of washington) that “obamacare” is health insurance reform, not redefinition of healthcare delivery. reimbursement predicated on a specific service rendered must be supplanted by reimbursement based on maintaining health of population served. the microeconomic problems of moral paradox, unequal knowledge of costs/pricing (information asymmetry) and principal agent issues must be overcome.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6C65YWGCC7P5C6CGMMBK7VMFXE JenniferL

    The “Occupy” movement is a collection of thugs with no place in medicine.

    • Anonymous

      really you know any of them?? among then are patients, doctors and therapists

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      For what it’s worth–some of us ARE in medicine, and believe that major reform is needed.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GJCNF5QLKW7ROYAZZGB7HFH57Y jamesp

      That statement is so outrageous and without evidence, it hardly merits reply.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Lovell/100000113058875 Christopher Lovell

    Kevin utilizes an interesting analogy in calling for an Occupy Movement in Healthcare to mirror the current Wall St media hype. While on the surface there are similarities – trying to get people to take interest in a market sector they little understand or frankly care about until it directly impacts them i.e. loosing their savings or house and getting sick. The problem is that most people simply know nothing about either system and Healthcare Consumerism is vital if things are going to change.  This takes time and investment in creating such a consumer and the question is will people be inclined to do it unless there is a direct impact in their wallet. 

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      Christopher:

      The Commonwealth Fund just reported that between 2003 and 2010, premiums for employer-provided health insurance increased by 50% with a larger portion of those costs being paid by employees…often for fewer benefits.  This is already a pocketbook issue, though the extent of the increases have been somewhat hidden by the fact that employers are still paying large portions of the costs.

      Part of what we are attempting to do with posts such as this one is to draw attention to the problem.  Until we acknowledge a problem, it will be difficult to effect change.

      The Commonwealth Fund article I cited is at:

      http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2011/Nov/State-by-State-Report.aspx

      The authors note reforms embodied in the PPACA that aim to address these increases.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Mark,

    I couldn’t agree more with you about the state of the American medical care system. I recently was a guest of the South Korean government for the opening of their Proton Beam Therapy facility for the treatment of prostate cancer and was impressed with their approach to treating the disease (although I wasn’t convinced about the primacy of it).

    I recently defended the “Occupy” movement with friends who couldn’t see beyond the disorganization of it’s leaders in the San Francisco Bay Area. But as I look at its development, I think back on my past. First as a marcher in the civil rights movement in Montgomery Alabama, then as a peace organizer against the Vietnamese war, and currently as a writer on health care reform.

    Change is difficult for even the most enlightened of us. Throw in a bit of paranoia, deception, and fear, and it’s down-right impossible. When the first reform bill was proposed, I read all of the 600+ pages. As a hospice volunteer, I was interested in what the bill said about reimbursing physicians for end of life counseling. Although I didn’t think it would effect the reluctance of physicians to deal with death honestly, I felt it was a start.

    When I wrote about it, I was inundated with responses that I didn’t understand that death panels were being set up.When I responded back that there was nothing like that in the bill, the responses were “but I know that’s what it means.”

    Sometimes, just presenting honest material (i.e., occupying anything) is not sufficient for change, especially when the propaganda opposing it is so heavily funded. I’ve found in my past private practice as a speech-language pathologist and as a change consultant, that change often is quicker and more lasting if someone can see it’s benefits. Basically, there needs to be something immediately beneficial for change. I think Obama’s advisors really didn’t understand this universal principal of change. Many of the changes don’t take effect until 2014, which allows the misunderstandings to persist, especially when they are so well funded that feed off of fears.

    Yes, I think education is important. I try to do that in every article I write. But I know my audience already agrees with me. So, yes, the occupy movement has the POTENTIAL to change the health care system here in the states, but not unless they move away from fighting for the right to set up tents.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terence-Ivfmd-Lee/1523282856 Terence Ivfmd Lee

    Food for thought. Is it fair to applaud politicians and give them special privileges in life because they accomplish the feat of increasing the number of people who have health “INSURANCE” or “COVERAGE” but make things worse overall? What if their actions result in FEWER people having actual access to genuine care and services? In other words, can you conceive of a scenario where 99.9% of Americans have some card or piece of paper that identifies them as “having coverage”, but then when it comes time to make an appointment, they get put on a waiting list? Think about it.

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      Obviously, expanded insurance coverage will require expanded access to care and a stronger primary care workforce.  Although the PPACA includes programs that aim to help this, it will take some time before the pipeline produces results.

      On the flip side: if we have 1/6 Americans who lack insurance coverage and thereby struggle to find *any* meaningful access to regular and affordable care, isn’t that a problem worth addressing?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terence-Ivfmd-Lee/1523282856 Terence Ivfmd Lee

        Mark, which is more representative of the truth? A: There are a lot of doctors idly twiddling their thumbs and a lot of patients without coverage. So if those patients got coverage they would get seen and the doctors would have something to do. Or B : Doctors are saturated seeing as many patients as they can fit in their schedule already. Giving coverage to patients currently without coverage will add more people into the mix of those waiting for the doctors’ time, thereby displacing or delaying somebody else. Maybe the truth is somewhere between the two, but if it’s closer to B, then just giving expanded coverage to everybody will obviously not solve anything. The solution lies in producing more supply, not just redistributing in a way where govt controls who gets access rather than letting the free market decide.

        • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

          Agree that we need more supply, no doubt.  We’ll also need to find ways to work smarter: team-based care, new models of visits (group visits, e-visits), etc.

          But in a system where insurance dictates access, lack of insurance still leaves you out in the cold.

  • Anonymous

    Having worked in health care on the administrative side…it seems to me that more government regulation and involvement isn’t what’s needed…it’s what is causing the problems! The number of people and the time it takes to complete and maintain paperwork alone I’m sure adds millions, if not billions, to the cost of care in the U.S. Ask any hospital administrator or manager of a physician practice…the added staff, and materials, the pay cycle and reduced payments make it almost impossible to run the business side of medicine….and truly adds very little to the quality of care. I agree our system is broken….just please don’t support having the bureaucrats who broke it be the ones to try and fix it!

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      Quick thoughts:

      –In Canada, with its centralized healthcare system, administrative costs are much less than in the US.  We could save $27 billion each year if our admin costs were the same as those in Ontario.  http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/8/1443.abstract

      –Per data released from S&P today, in the last 12 months private insurance costs increased by 8%, vs. 2% for Medicare.

      • http://twitter.com/MichaelCJudge Michael Judge

        Comparing administrative costs are not as clean cut when you dive below the 10,000 ft. level. For example, Medicare’s administrative costs don’t take into account the use of other federal departmental services such as the IRS (premium collection), Social Security (premium collection), and HHS (accounting, fraud, and marketing) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/).

        This also doesn’t take into account the under capitalization of the Medicare fraud department which led to an estimated $48B in fraudulent or improper Medicare payments. The entire industry of for-profit health insurance companies made $13B in profits. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/03/04/private-insurer-profits-13-billion-medicare-fraud-48-billion-health-reform-priceless/)

        I agree that we must do better, but I don’t think that a single payer system will solve the plight of US healthcare. The WHO analysis takes some liberties in the development of their metrics as well (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf). Just as physicians here can’t line up unified metrics about outcomes, any data set isn’t uniformly collected based on the same set of criteria. This creates an inherent bias in the data which makes any kind of comparison extremely difficult, if not impossible. I commend the effort that the WHO undertook to make the report because it may drive more unified data recording metrics. However, when the data itself is biased I am quite skeptical of the resulting analysis.

  • Anonymous

    The logical solution to our healthcare crisis is simple: “Medicare for everyone,” following the example of Canada’s single-payer (each province) system with freedom-of-choice of healthcare providers, eliminating the role (and profit-motive) of insurance companies. Add to this the need to reign-in the excess profits of the pharmaceutical industry. If Medicare is good for those 65 and older (such as my parents), and Medicaid is adequate for those in poverty or with disabilities (such as my adult son with autism), then why not for every US citizen? Disclosure notice: written by an ordained minister who is a full-time hospice chaplain.

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      In some measures of our healthcare outcomes, we do worse than other nations for many measures…but are pretty average for people 65 years old and up.  The reason?  After age 65, we have almost universal coverage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vibha.f.shah Vibha Fenil Shah

    Wow! This did open my eyes. Though I knew it was bad, I did not realize it was so bad. Go ObamaCare!

  • Anonymous

    If you mix religion and politics, you get politics. If you mix science and politics, you get politics. See where I’m going with this? There are always things that need fixing in any endeavor. Look at MediCare and MedicAid; there are billions being wasted from fraud and abuse. Isn’t it something like $70 Billlion USD per year. Comprehensive programs and measures too often end up being giant compromises that we can’t get rid of or change for the better. As far as the statistics cited here, keep in mind, we have an obesity problem, a gang violence problem, a narcotics problem, wounded vets returning from war, etcetera, all of which impact the national health status. If the proposal is to legislate this system into a medical Nirvana, I don’t think that is going to bring about anything worthwhile, but will just create another Czardom that will be nearly impossible to correct.

    • Anonymous

      And if you choose to use big numbers to influence an argument, you really need to provide a context for such a number as “70 Billion USD per year.” That $70 billion of what? Could it be that TOTAL annual expenditures in the US are approaching $2 TRILLION dollars per year? Do the math and discover the percentage of so-called fraud and abuse is less than three (3) percent of the total. While that IS an outrage, and as a provider I can testify that we ALL pay that price through increasingly burdensome regulations and more frequent audits and site visits, it hardly leads one to the series of judgments you propose.

      Your first premise, that when we mix health care with politics, we get politics, is absolutely on target. However, I cannot agree that preventable conditions, such as (in most cases) obesity, and the socioeconomic conditions leading to a gang problem which feeds on its own narcotics and violence problems, have anything to do with the issues involved in developing a meaningful health care system. If anything, there is evidence that preventive health measures in other Western countries provide for improved management of obesity, and other lifestyle choices which have substantial impact upon health, such as smoking. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other locations have certainly caused tens of thousands of wounded veterans. In absolute numbers, the impact on the larger lack of a health care system is miniscule — precisely because these veterans qualify for care in one of our very few comprehensive health care systems: the VA hospitals and clinics.

  • Anonymous

    Politicians like to say we have the best healthcare and people come from all over the world for treatment.  What they don’t add to the sentence is, the people who come pay cash and full price.  No wonder they can jump to the front of the line.  Again, our healthcare is easily available for those with financial resources.

  • http://twitter.com/sarasteinmd Sara Stein MD

    Thanks Mark – great summary. (Disclosure…emergency, academic, community health, managed care, administration AND private practice – I’ve seen it from all sides).
    Healthcare is America absolutely has the ability to react to financial crunch and capacity crunch. We’ve been doing it all along, just not with public insured.

    Hospitals need to attach urgent cares to their ER’s so the millions who use ER’s for primary care can go to a more appropriate setting at a more appropriate cost.

    Doctors (yes that includes me) need to start writing generics. Period. Unless you can demonstrate a failure of generics, there is no indication for namebrand medication in chronic illness. (Not talking about acute or critical illness, dont react).

    Insurers need to start paying for preventative healthcare for real – not a discount at weight watchers or a single appointment per year. If I need to lose 50 lbs (and I do, already down 100), and I have health issues, I may need to see the dietitian or the therapist or the doctor every week. Pay for that. Before you wind up paying for bariatric surgery, dialysis and knee replacements.
    And to anyone who thinks #occupy is a bunch of thugs, turn off Fox News. They are average citizens from all walks of life who are in unfortunate circumstances. There but for the Grace, go I.

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      Thanks, Sara.

      Other ways doctors can do our part to reduce unnecessary spending can be found in the “Good Stewardship” project sponsored by National Physicians Alliance and the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.  More details at

      http://npalliance.org/promoting-good-stewardship-in-medicine-project/

      This program helps identify evidence-based approaches to reduce unnecessary care.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7KG2JHNLGN5EIWG3IY4HV7QVQ Nunya D Bizziness

    1st of all why would any thinking person trust the WHO, they have a credibility problem therefore the WHO cannot be trusted when it comes to the United States.  Remember the WHO is part of the UN a.k.a “we hate the United States and Israel” gang of thugs.  2ndly, while it may be considered anecdotal but I have heard from foreign born nationals that our healthcare system is better than the socialized healthcare systems they came from but all one has to do is a little research and you will find the “evidence’ you need to prove that socialized medicine in any country is not any good unless you are of the elite class people.  While I agree that healthcare reform is needed but why does it have to be socialistic answers instead of free market solutions?  Capitalism works even in healthcare but because the government over regulates and taxes us to much we are forced into the current system we have.  Look if you believe that everyone should have the same healthcare access as those with the financial resources do then by all means please provide it for them but do not make those of us who do not believe in socialized medicine pay for it.  You do not have the right to make me be charitable if I do not want to be no more than I have the right to keep you from being charitable if you so desire. While that may sound cold and unfeeling but it is a freedom and liberty issue.  Why is it always the liberal elite think it is ok to spend everybody else’s money the way the elites think it best to spend but never their own money?  If you want to pay higher taxes to pay for others healthcare, or any other liberal agenda item, then by all means please do so but, again, don’t include me in your socialist agenda  By the way we are not supposed to be practicing “democracy” we are supposed to be a republic, 4th Article, 4th paragraph United States Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers hated “democracy”(definition “mob-rule”), they said it “…commits violent suicide…”, leads to anarchy which leads to tyranny.  So you “occupiers” have illustrated what our Founding Fathers already knew, a lesson we as Americans need to re-learn or we to will cease to exist as a nation.  And if we are gone where will you get your healthcare then, the WHO?  Unlikely.

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      As you’ll see in the post, I did not rely only on WHO numbers.  There are many other sources to review.

      I hear many anecdotes of how good our system is, but have rarely been given any evidence to prove it.  We perform better than other nations in some certain areas–cancer care is one that is often cited–but lag behind when the system is viewed as a whole.  When you consider we are paying nearly twice as much for our healthcare as other nations do, shouldn’t we be doing better than this?

    • Anonymous

      I see that you prefer politics to a rational discussion of our profound LACK of a health care system. The only true health care systems in the US are the Indian Health Service, our military hospitals and clinics, and the VA. As a nurse, hospice nurse, and hospice administrator I am keenly aware of the intrusions not only by various government agencies, but especially by those highly profitable darlings of private enterprise, the HMOs. I am not a member of the “liberal elite”; I simply continue to think for myself. I remain a strong advocate for patients and families, and for those who perform this challenging, precious work. And I am familiar with the Federalist Papers
      perhaps more so than you appear to be. The US Constitution was written, then literally “sold” to the colonials through publications such as the Federalist Papers. One must acknowledge and understand the CONTEXT in which the Constitution was needed, including several rebellions rooted in the absence of definitions of individual,
      states, and Federal or central government powers.

      By definition, capitalism must create and even maintain “losers” in system designed to reward the successful investment of capital. There are dozens of successful national health care systems in the Western world, from Japan (which probably most closely follows the US experience in use of technology) to France, and to Norway.
      “Socialism medicine” has been the name-calling equivalent of saying someone has the “cooties.” It’s really just about that infantile. Every US President, beginning with Harry S. Truman has made efforts toward establishing a meaningful, centralized payer health care system. That includes Richard M. Nixon, and even Ronald Reagan.
      A final note: James Madison (one the real Founders) wrote about the threats TO democracy posed by special interests and demagoguery. Important reading — please make the effort!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MMOSGLHEAC3AV7W5AJBUUB7YOM Randy

    As a healthcare provider in the oncology field, you’ll get no pushback in your message to “Occupy Healthcare”, but your reasoning why is much different than what I experience every day in the trenches of one of the nations busiest cancer centers.  I see 100′s of patients a year that flee failed healthcare systems around the world to come here to get the high quality treatment they both desire and need.  WHO reports can formulate their ratings on whatever metric they feel is indicative of “quality” or “effective”, but my patients provide a more telling story of socialist health care systems that lack both quality and availability. 

    Unfortunately, the statistics don’t lie on mortality rates, but my guess is that the US system does a much more effective job dealing with a society that has increasingly become sedentary in nature and finds itself gorging on high calorie, low nutrient diets resulting in obesity and other complications.  Some poorer nations fortunately or unfortunately, however you look at it, are forced to make their livelihoods through physical labors and have less availability to fast processed foods. 

    My “Occupy Healthcare” message is focused more on addressing the real issue with healthcare: skyrocketing costs.  The recent “Oblablah Healthcare” so called reform included many unknown components, most of which do nothing to decrease costs, but actually create more bureaucracy and higher costs.  There are essentially two major components driving cost increases for my business: uncontrolled litigation and non-US citizens draining our resources.  We spend 2X expense on diagnostic imaging for patients as a result of litigation fears and governmental requirements.  In addition, we deal with a significant illegal immigrant population that pay zero and drive the cost of care up for those with insurance.  And if you really think insurance is a requirement to get care, think again.  The % of patients without insurance that we treat increaes every year, many (who are actually US citizens) have the means to obtain insurance, but choose not to.  Guess why? The cost is too high! 

    We agree that change is needed on the US healthcare front, but don’t let the WHO develop our roadmap on how to get there.  Look around and ask those of us fighting the battle every day.   We (as well as you) know what needs to be done, we just need non-Washington based bureaucrats with hidden agendas to step aside and allow the change to occur that will address the real issue: cost. 

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      As a fellow clinician, I deal with populations that are largely uninsured (as I work at a university hospital).  You’ll get no argument here re: the issue of costs for insurance.

      I question how many of our resources are spend providing services for undocumented individuals.  If you have a hard number, I’d appreciate it.

      In your situation, Oncology care is one of the areas where the US does better than other nations…though it must be noted at great expense and cost (not just treatment, but imaging, etc).  However, other metrics (not just WHO) show that we lag.  Meanwhile, nations with national healthcare systems (including essentially all of our economic peers) out-perform us in most healthcare outcomes.

      I think the issue of litigation is an important one for physicians, but not a very compelling one for the cost issues.  Defensive medicine drives up cost, but I wonder how much of a difference it would make if we did reform malpractice.  I blogged about that here:

      http://richmonddoc.blogspot.com/2011/03/cold-hard-facts-about-tort-reform.html

  • Anonymous

    In all honesty, we do NOT have a health care system; we have a reimbursement for health care system. I have worked with physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the US but who have Canadian citizenship, who to a person swear they would return to Canada for any major elective surgery, and would even seek to be transferred if hospitalized here with any serious illness. Why? Because the emphasis in each province’s health care system is upon providing health care — certainly as efficiently as possible, and with a commitment to cost-effectiveness. But there are also twin commitments to evidence-based care, and true continuity of care with care planning which are rare except in our highest quality provider systems, such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and larger systems including Kaiser

    I have personal experience as a patient “in-hospital”, as they say in England, in a National Health Service (NHS) specialty hospital on the outskirts of London, near Wimbledown, as it turned out. The same neurosurgical hospital where the CT scan was developed and FIRST utilized. The notion that all advances and technology originate in the US is the worst kind of ignorant jingoism. I needed very delicate brain surgery that could not be performed in the US. I received very good, attentive, compassionate care. I was discharged, fully ambulatory, to a rehab facility less than a week later accompanied by a nurse, transported not by some ACLS-equipped paramedic ambulance for the 5 mile drive, but in one of those wonderful London taxis. Throughout the experience, from pre-op through rehab prior to returning to the US, common sense prevailed and I felt respected as a person, not just “another patient from the States.” Why can’t we restrain ourselves and practice our professions with practical, not merely role-driven care for the women, men, and children whom we treat? In 1990 (when I had my surgery) there were two or three MRI machines in Greater London. Rationing, you say? I would characterize it as yet another example of common sense and commitment to utilizing diagnostic skills, and clinical knowledge and experience. There is utterly no clinical reason for the thousands of “imaging centers” across the US. I readily acknowledge that “imaging” has become a method of justification for third-party payers, and a key strategy in the practice of defensive medicine. Oh, and it IS profitable thanks to our dreadfully skewed and complicated Tax Code. Um, where is the patient in this calculus?

    Thank you for an objective account of the sorry state of health care in the US. I agree that the most fundamental issues are rooted in a corrupt political system in which money is equated with “free speech.” The attacks on the WHO betray yet another political ideology. Medical education, and to a much lesser extent the education of nurses,
    pharmacists, and associated therapists, receives significant government subsidies therefor I marvel at the audacity of physicians who refuse to see Medicare or Medicaid patients — but that’s another topic!

  • http://www.bryantsstatisticalconsulting.com Donald Tex Bryant

    Healthcare is a very different sort of service than most free enterprise services and businesses.  The insured user of the product or service does not pay for it directly; hence this user in many instances does not know or care about the cost of the service.  I know this is changing quite a bit as copays rise.  Many of the uninsured get free care in their ED, not through a PCP, which is generally much better.  No matter what access the user has to healthcare, he/she generally does not realize the cost.  

    The payers–Uncle Sam or your employer–do know the costs and realize the current trend is unsustainable.  They get what they pay for, in my opinion.  As long as care is paid as fee-for-service then providers will provide services that will enhance their income, generally.  I saw this clearly at a Michigan MGMA conference when a lawyer spoke about how to use the pay system to enhance income for physicians and their practices.  He was making good money providing this service.  

    I am not claiming that physicians provide poor service in general; however, the service that they do provide does not generally provide good outcomes for those with chronic diseases.  The fee-for-service program is great for acute care but lousy for the chronically ill, which is where much of healthcare dollars are going, especially as Americans pursue unhealthy life choices in general.

  • http://twitter.com/_ksqrd k-sqrd

    There is an abundance of waste in the form of paperwork and the man-hours to shuffle said paperwork.  At the end of the day, this country needs the health care industry to get on board with technology…and I don’t mean technology on the patient-side as far as diagnostics or treatment.  I mean on the administrative side of things.  Data entry leads to costly errors and wasted dollars spent on human resources.  Neither of which increase the quality of health care. 

    Why is this industry so far behind on the technology curve for business operations?  It’s time to get with the times, implement EHR and stop wasting time/money on paper charts. Implement EDI and stop paying billing companies to translate charts/encounter forms into paper claims, which then get mailed so they can be entered on the other end and eventually paid (often by mailing back a paper check…ugh).  Way too many steps in the chain.  Way too many paper-pushers.  Put these people to work doing something to actually improve patient satisfaction and quality metrics.  With the money saved, we don’t have to worry about paying for the uninsured.

  • Anonymous

    Occupy Healthcare? Why not? If anyone should begin to Occupy Healthcare, it should be the likes of a Wal-Mart. It’s a very sad commentary when the existing health care establishment can’t figured out a way to make primary care affordable and accessible to average consumers. Why should we be surprised if someone outside the traditional health care system, someone like a Wal-Mart, comes in and does it for them. In recent years, we saw many big box pharmacies introduce $4 generic drug programs in a very successful way. That move alone shook the traditional foundations of Big Pharma. How did they do it? It’s because Wal-Mart has the clout to name their own prices for any products, including prescription drugs, that they buy for their stores. Their $4 generic program became the consumers dream and the health care establishments nightmare! However, it seems like Wal-Mart might have a much bigger appetite. Not only do they want to dictate prescription drug prices, they want to take over the entire primary health care market. Oh, by the way, I assume they will be welcoming Medicare patients. Unlike the whining private practice primary care docs that are constantly complaining that Medicare doesn’t pay enough. Guess what doc? Wal-Mart is going to solve your senior citizen problem! My guess, Wal-Mart also has a solution for your entire primary care practice! Your patient base is about to vote with their feet!

    • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

      For what it’s worth, after Wal-Mart made noise about wanting to build a primary care network, they very quickly back-tracked:

      http://healthblawg.visibli.com/share/9ScoBy

      Personally, I don’t see Wal-Mart actually taking over primary care.  I think they’ll try and step in to the high-volume, low-acuity care seen in Minute Clinics: sore throats, ear pain, cough, etc.  This will make care more accessible for some, maybe, but will result in increased fragmentation of care and will reduce the overall efficiency of our system.  This will be especially true if they look to provide tests that might not be needed, or prescribe medicines to be filled in their pharmacies.

      There are *many* ways to make primary care accessible and affordable: community health centers, low-cost membership-based practices, etc.  It can be done, but it cannot be easily done in our current system.  The AMA’s RUC committee that sets the value/worth of procedures consistently undervalues the work primary care does, which doesn’t help address this problem.

      I agree that a larger reform of the system is needed…but I don’t trust Wal-Mart to be the answer.

      • Anonymous

        You don’t trust Wal-Mart to be the answer? Ah, that’s a shame. Seems to me they did a very nice job with $4 generics. Sadly, we’ve all experienced decades of allowing the corrupt private insurers to collude to “be the answer” to our health care system and we all know that was a huge mistake. Let’s face some facts, the game has been rigged for far too long and the consumer has been left out in the cold. I say a Wal-Mart model can’t possibly make things worse than they already are, at least for the health care consumer. 

        • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

          The $4 generics program is a huge boon, especially for my the uninsured patients I care for at the local free clinic.  However: you don’t actually think the store loses money on that program, right?  Some generics are *so* cheap that the store might do OK on the script alone.  However, my understanding of the program is that it is a “loss leader”: get people in the store for $4 generics, and have them buy groceries and other items while there.

          There is likely no easy way to price true primary care cheap enough to make it work…unless they intend to avoid any insurance participation.

          The issue I am most worried about is fragmented care, and how the clinics will be staffed.  One of the ways clinicans know when to worry about a seemingly simple problem is when it doesn’t go away.  When are those swollen glands and sore throat a virus–and when is is lymphoma?  When is the blood in the urine an infection…and when is it cancer?  When is the cough a bronchitis…and when is it asthma?  Continuity of care matters a great deal in these issues, and minute clinic models tend to disrupt that.  These clinics also tend to offer minimal services compared to a full medical visit. 

          Given that Wal-Mart isn’t planning on developing an all-inclusive model of care, I don’t see them helping here.

          I agree that private insurers are not the ideal answer–but we should admit that in this political climate, that’s all we’re going to get.  The attempt to provide a public option was met with vehement opposition, and even the current reform (important though it is) has been pointed to as a “government takeover of medicine” when in fact it supports the for-profit insurers.  We aren’t going to get private insurance out of medicine for a long, long time.

          So: Wal-Mart could be much, much worse for the consumer if they end up offering ineffective or expensive care, if they do not provide necessary follow-up care, if they are not set up to find the badness that lurks among all the routine care.

          I’m curious to see what they offer.  I’m just not optimistic. 

          • Anonymous

            “There is likely no easy way to price true primary care cheap enough to make it work…unless they intend to avoid any insurance participation.”
             ”avoid any insurance participation” 

            ???

            Bingo!

            Like a ”robust public option”? Like what the Simpson/Bowles plan alludes to? Like a Medicare Buy-in Option for all Americans? Let me be so bold as to ask, once the state health care exchanges are established in 2014, what value will insurance brokers be? If you ask me, these charlatans will not be missed. They are leeches. They are scabs that need to be removed to promote healing. They are an unnecessary cost that must be eliminated! The insurance companies, the health care providers and the drug companies had their chance to fix our health care system and they failed! For decades, they put consumers last and profits first. A reversal is long overdue. We need an “Occupy Movement” just for health care!

          • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

            I wouldn’t object to a Medicare buy-in option, nor a public option.

            Unfortunately, politics dictated against it.

            In the absence of widely-available public insurance options, self-pay or private options is all we’ll have.  And if Wal-Mart were to choose to avoid insurance connections, then they’ll need to price their services low enough to allow self-pay options.  I suspect this means that they’ll offer limited services. 

          • Anonymous

            Limited services? For goodness sake, limited services is all the 50 million plus uninsured and the estimated 25 million more underinsured are asking for. Uh, ya know, like a band-aid once in a while? Maybe a little something for the pain they have for that condition they can’t afford to get diagnosed? Most people take a little sip of whiskey for the pain since they don’t need a designer health care doc to get it prescribed. The people who can’t afford today’s designer health care aren’t asking for much. They are more than willing to go without that lung cancer operation just so long as they can get some relief from the pain. Today, one quarter of Americans don’t qualify for even pain relief unless they pay through the nose for a highly educated and highly paid doctor to render his sage opinion about their health condition. So, they go without. Without the treatment and without any pain medications. 

          • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

            I think you’re misunderstanding my position on this.

            I have worked my entire career in medically-underserved communities, and I have volunteered in free clinics and outreach settings.  I understand–as best I can–from my perspective what challenges can be presented by the lack of insurance.

            A few points:

            –I think we need a *better* system than one that provides limited services.  We should not be providing second-rate care for those without insurance, but rather find a way for all Americans to get appropriate and top-level care.

            –The PPACA will result in the vast number of Americans having health insurance.  This will remove insurance as a barrier to accessing care.

            –I will be surprised if Wal-Mart effectively manages complicated primary care patients: I have many patients with multiple medical problems (diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol, depression, chronic pain), and I struggle to provide all their necessary care even in the context of a university hospital system.  If Wal-Mart were to focus (as I suspect) on high-volume, low-complexity care then the patients who need care the most will continue to fall through the cracks.

            We clearly need to do better.  I just can’t see Wal-Mart being the answer.

            Of course, given the company’s retreat from the initial publicity, it is entirely up in the air whether they will actually enter this side of the business.

          • Anonymous

            No, you have that backwards! You don’t seem to be focusing on one simple fact. One-forth of Americans either have no health insurance or are underinsured. Given the “repeal” mentality we see coming from every GOP member of Congress and coming from every 2012 GOP Presidential candidate, the health care consumer has a lot to worry about. The US Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments about the individual mandate, originally a Republican idea. Newt Gingrich being one of the strongest proponents of mandated health care. If the SCOTUS rules that mandated health care insurance is unconstitutional, we will see many more Americans opting out of the system. Why? Because without mandated health insurance, we will return to the status quo system prior to Obamacare and costs will skyrocket at ten times the yearly inflation rate. Those with insurance now can barely afford it, how in the world will they find a way to participate if costs keep going higher. Those with no insurance will continue to seek their health care at the hospital emergency room and not pay a dime. You say, “I think we need a “better” system than one that provides limited services”. In spite of not being a very good plan, at least Obamacare tried by mandating that everyone buy health insurance. Would Obamacare limit some services? Yes! But the results of blood tests and CT scans and MRIs would be shared amongst the participating doctors in an ACO environment under the Affordable Care Act. Today, every doctor orders his own MRI and a patient many receive four MRIs for one diagnosis. Maybe four blood tests for the same treatment. Maybe four CT scans for the same illness. It’s insane! That’s why costs are so high! What does the GOP say? The GOP has nothing to say but “repeal”. The GOP wants to restore the status quo. Better system? You must be joking, right? 

          • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

            Just so we’re on the same page: I support the PPACA (healthcare reform law); aka “Obamacare”.  I think that finding a way to provide insurance coverage to most Americans is a major step forward.

            I agree that, should the individual mandate be struck down, then there will be major repercussions to both individuals and our system overall. 

  • Anonymous

    In addition to all that has been proposed to transform our hodgepodge of healthcare into an efficient system of care, we MUST also reform our Eating Culture.  Over half of our healthcare dollars go to treat chronic preventable diseases. WHOs term is NCD – non- communicable diseases.  I think CPD is more fitting.  

    CPD  - obesity epidemic (34%), a diabetes type II epidemic, cardiovascular disease is still the leader.  So Occupy our Farmland – take it back from BigAg – subsidize vegetables, create jobs for local farmers, fed our kids better.  Stop subsidies for corn cows shouldn’t eat and super hypernized wheat from which is made stretchy, puffy bakery products that holds sugar, processed oils and salt which are known to be addiction to humans.  Let’s make vegetables cheaper and more pervasive than burgers on buns, fries, ice cream, candy, chips.  Lock them up like cigarettes are.

    If there is a tax (call it RISK – reduction in sickness) on sugar,fat and salt (the substances known to make us eat more) with a strong message of the risk of CV disease, diabetes and some cancers (the tobacco model), just think – we wouldn’t need 30,000 cardiologists, could pay primary physicians better, pay for addiction rehab programs and even give a healthcare credit to taxpayer.    .

  • http://twitter.com/RichmondDoc Mark Ryan

    For what it’s worth, I included other measures and assessments outside of the WHO’s.  We don’t fare much better in their measures.

    The fact that Medicare can use other agencies to address its needs is, to me, evidence that integrated systems save costs.  The fact that we have numerous private insurance companies all setting their own rules, establishing their own policies for review, coverage, and such; using their own paperwork, hiring their own staffs: all examples of overhead and waste that occurs without centralized, integrated systems.

    There are reasons why Canadian docs’ administrative burdens are 1/4 of those in the US…

    I would argue that *no-one* disagrees with the need to address fraud and abuse.  In fact, the PPACA targets this issue.

    • http://twitter.com/MichaelCJudge Michael Judge

      By Medicare’s use of the services from other agencies, it hides those costs that are quantified by the private industry you compare Medicare to. Utilizing the services of other agencies doesn’t really save money, it just moves the cost to a different department. It still means that we pay for the services even though they don’t appear on the financial spreadsheet of Medicare. It would be artificial or incompletely understood savings. That type of comparison is really apples and oranges.

      As greater aggregation in the health insurance market becomes the norm, we must not just look at economies of scale, but returns to scale as well. I can sympathize with the amount of varied policies and paperwork. I work for a surgical group practice and my father is a solo PCP. The US could create unified policies, processes and paperwork to streamline the pre-certification process and payment as well on the practice level. I don’t really like the idea of this type of top-down approach from the federal level, but it would be preferable IMO to a single payor system. I hope that one day providers and patients can have their financial interaction based upon market prevailing rates rather than the contract negotiation process of today or the possibility of price controls by a single payor.

  • http://CANDIDMDEXPSLAINSHIGHCOSTDECLININGQUALITYUSHEALTHCARE.COM Alan D. Cato MD

    “We have the best health care in the world. Why should we want
    to change it?” In reality, what we have is an abundance of the best
    medical expertise and an abundance of the best and most expensive
    medical technology in the world. The problem is that, increasingly, we
    also have an abundance of medical expertise who, under the influence
    of business pressures and cultural expectations, are no longer ordering
    tests and treatments in the manner they were trained, en route to their
    prestigious diplomas and specialty certifications. This has resulted in
    routine over-utilization of some of the most expensive diagnostic
    technology in the world and, all too often, employment of medical
    interventions and treatments that are of minimal to no benefit to the
    patient—all because of their availability and the consumers’ desire for
    and expectation of them.

    —Alan D. Cato MD, F.A.A.F.P. (past) and author of The Medical Profession Is Dead and the Doctor
    Is “Critically ill!” (Oct.,
    2010)

    —Alan D. Cato MD, F.A.A.F.P. (past) and author of The Medical Profession Is Dead and the Doctor
    Is “Critically ill!” (Oct.,
    2010)

Trending