Re: Study: Americans pay more for health care, get less

rmjon23 wrote:
> Paper: Los Angeles Times (CA)
> Title: Prices Cited in Health Cost Gap
> A study finds that although the U.S. spends more for care than
> elsewhere, Americans don't always get more.
> Date: July 12, 2005
> The large gap in per capita spending on healthcare between the United
> States and other major industrialized countries cannot be explained by
> differences in malpractice costs or access to care, according to a
> study published today in the journal Health Affairs.


COMMENT:
Indeed.


> "We pay more for healthcare for the simple reason that prices for
> health services are significantly higher in the United States than they
> are elsewhere," said lead author Gerard Anderson, a professor of health
> policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

COMMENT:

I can see why they made this guy a "perfesser." :)


> The U.S. spent $5,267 per person for prescription drugs, hospital stays
> and doctor visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 in Switzerland, the
> next biggest spender, followed by $3,083 in Norway, $3,065 in
> Luxembourg, and $2,931 in Canada. The median cost of healthcare per
> capita was $2,193 for the 30 nations that belong to the Organization
> for Economic Cooperation and Development.
>
> Healthcare spending accounted for 14.6% of the U.S. gross domestic
> product that year. Only two other countries, Switzerland and Germany,
> spent more than 10% of their GDP on healthcare.
>
> But contrary to conventional wisdom, Americans are not getting more
> healthcare with higher expenditures, the study found. In fact, in
> several key areas, Americans had comparatively less than the other
> countries.
>
> For example, the survey found there were:
>
> * 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 Americans, compared with a median of 3.7
> per 1,000 residents in the other countries;
>
> * 2.4 physicians per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 3.1 per
> 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;
>
> * 7.9 nurses per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 8.9 nurses
> per 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;
>
> * 12.8 CT scanners per million Americans (in 2001), compared with 13.3
> per million elsewhere in 2002.
>
> The U.S. did appear to have more magnetic resonance imaging units per
> capita than many other countries. But other nations may get more use
> out of the MRI machines because they typically operate them for 18
> hours a day, compared with 10 hours in the U.S., Anderson said.


COMMENT:

Hmmm, sounds like a hipshot to me. I think we have more of these damn
MRI scanners and we pay a lot of money for them, just as appears. Also
more nuclear scanners, PET scanners, late generation ultrasound,
angiography suites, cyberknife gamma irradiators and proton
synchrotrons! Enough stuff for a Buck Rogers movie. And it's great for
the few cases where it's needed, but it's overused because it's there.

> Malpractice, as it turns out, is not the cause of our higher medical
> bills, according to the study. It found that malpractice payments --
> settlements and judgments -- were a small portion of overall health
> spending and were lower in the U.S. than in Canada and Britain. The
> average malpractice payout in the U.S. was $265,103 in 2001, compared
> with $309,417 in Canada and $411,171 in Britain.

COMMENT:
Probably malpractice drives up costs in ways that have nothing to do
with actual malpractice *payments.* Defensive medicine costs money--- a
lot of money. This issue must be settled in other ways.


> The latest study bolsters a 2003 paper co-authored by Anderson
> entitled, "It's the Prices, Stupid," which identified fee differences
> as the primary cause for the gap. That report found, for instance, that
> the average cost of a one-day stay in a hospital in the U.S. was $2,434
> in 2002, compared with $807 in Canada.

COMMENT:

Yes, but the hospitals aren't keeping the difference, nor are the
physicians. The price difference is due to the difference in
high-technology, which is real enough, and it's the makers of the
technology who are keeping the difference in cost.

> Jack Lewin, chief executive of the California Medical Assn., said
> malpractice costs were probably only a small reason for the healthcare
> spending gap. He believes that the difference in spending has more to
> do with a uniquely American expectation for a high level of care.


COMMENT

LOL! I said the same thing here yesterday, and today have some Canadian
accusing me of not being cosmopolitan enough to know the difference
between the two countries in terms of expectations. But I have been to
Canada, and (more importantly) dealt with enough sick Canadians and
Canadian doctors to see the difference. I guess Mr. Lewin noticed it
also. Bully for him.


COMMENT:
> "We have a little twinge in our knee, we want an MRI," he said. "We
> want to see a specialist immediately. We want care now. Some of that is
> good in terms of getting an early diagnosis. But it's expensive."
>
> He added: "All of us baby boomers [want] to play tennis til 90 -- [that
> means] new hips, new knees. We're going to have it all. So until all of
> us as a society get more realistic about healthcare, I don't know that
> we're going to change this dynamic."


COMMENT:

I've got nothing against knee and hip replacements. They work
surprisingly well, and probably pay for themselves in savings in
mobility assistance. That's the hell of new technology--- you need to
know what's worth the money and what isn't. But nobody really needs 10
MRIs of their knee over 5 years to tell when it's getting to the point
that a new one would be a good answer. But I see THAT done. The
bone-on-bone is pretty clear even in a standard X-ray, and the clinical
exam does count. Perhaps the surgeon will want a CT. On the other hand,
MRIs for back pain and back surgery for back pain are an endless sink
of resources, for which you get comparitively little, and the studies
show this. Somewhere, we are going to have to prioritize things.

SBH

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clinton unveils socialist medical plan
    ... businessperson provides zero healthcare insurance funding for 10 employees ... and less of the portion of the employees healthcare insurance cost. ... insurance industry we have gobs of payers too. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Pedio Maxis to Kentro tis Athinas
    ... these are mainstream media articles. ... you planning to read it any time soon so I don't waste my time ... it disenfranchised in more ways than healthcare. ... But in it the overall comparison is between cost and results. ...
    (soc.culture.greek)
  • why is medical care so expensive?
    ... too many people don't pay and push cost onto others. ... give those who can't afford tv sets FREE tv sets and dump the cost on ... yet, in healthcare, those who can't ... this sets medicine apart from all other businesses. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: OT/ What is the true cost of cheap gas?
    ... I snipped from this post, about the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pumps, it is obvious that the major difference between the US and some other countries is the level of taxation imposed by our elected officials. ... Medicare fraud, by service recipients, medical professionals, and the government itself has been rampant. ... While NHS supporters might applaud the universality of benefits, with the availability of state, county, local, and charity hospitals, healthcare can be found at low or no cost when necessary. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: HSAs a Shot in the Arm
    ... government and instiutions cannot fully fund the care they promised ... the cost increase. ... which will be compulsory in that everyone who will pay for it through ... has just about the most expensive healthcare in the world. ...
    (soc.retirement)