PDA

View Full Version : We Need a New Healthcare System


algosdoc
07-29-2007, 12:34 PM
The problems we have with our healthcare system are outlined below. There is greed and self serving decisions on nearly every front of health care. Only through some means of centralized control will we be able to curtail expenditures, provide reasonable basic universal healthcare, and finance it through taxation. And before I am accused of being a bleeding heart liberal, let it be known I am a conservative Republican. These are some of the major barriers to reasonable cost healthcare in our country, the US.

1. Hospitals cost the medical system approximately 40% of all funds available, even though they deliver the minority of healthcare. This is partially due to overregulation, partially due to threats of litigation, partially due to having to absorb the cost of indigent care, and partially because of the movement from a patient care model to a business model in which $$$ trump patient care issues. The latter explains why non-profit hospitals build $200 million campuses with soaring marble facades in their lobbies. Think about how much money is coming out of your pocket everytime you see fine art or cascading waterfalls on their premises or prime time advertisements on TV for their services. They are very big business and harbor not only clout in Washington, but are quite protectionist about their turf. They drive up the cost of health care tremendously by lobbying to have procedures covered only in hospital settings and actively attempt to destroy the formation of potentially competing ambulatory surgery centers.
2. Pharmaceuticals. The typical markup of a pharmaceutical over the raw material cost is on the order of 2500-10000%. Of course they have expenses of research (except the generics, that are virtually all profit and no research), marketing (way way too much spent on direct marketing to patients and on $100,000 sales reps to shake down doctors in order to induce prescribing of their drug), but a large amount goes to profit. The pharmaceutical industry hands down over the past 20 years has had a higher profit margin than any other industry in the country, averaging 18% per year. The pharmacy lobby has been able to influence congress into restricting sales of their products back to Americans through 3rd countries and to enforce ridiculously long patent laws that provide virtually a generation of patent protection for their drugs. Oxycontin in Canada costs 1/3 as much for the exact same identical drug as here in the US, and the Canadian government does not subsidize these drugs. In other countries there is even more of an outrageous difference in cost. There is little accountability regarding each company hyping their new drugs at 3-10 times the cost of the competing drugs and often with only statistical but not significant clinical evidence there is any improvement in outcome or lessening of side effects. Generic manufacturers in the past had prices that were 1/3 or less for their products, but now with laws and insurance rules specifying generics must be used or otherwise the patient will pay a very high premium, the generic manufactured drug prices are not too far removed from the name brands. If the generics price their drugs the same or even just 1$ lower than the name brand, they get the business. They have no research costs or marketing costs at all and are enormously profitable.
3. Physicians have become entrepenures at the expense of their patients. Doctors own labs, surgery centers, parts or all of hospitals, imaging centers, pharmacies, PT and ancillary services, etc and have lost sight of their core function. Of course the 12 years of college, medical school, and residency should create some financial reward, but financial pressures of treating those without insurance or those that voluntarily decide to do without insurance takes its toll on a practice. Family physicians make an average of $140,000 in many areas while nurse anesthetists make $200,000 in the same area. A perfusionist for cardiac cases with 2 years of college may make $150,000 and physical therapists may make upwards of $130,000. Others in the health care profession without nearly as much education are now frequently supassing the physicians in income and doctors feel pressure to own more medical services in order to keep their doors open. One of the most dangerous new arenas for doctors to make money is selling narcotics out of their offices. There are companies that will set up a turn key computerized operation that virtually removes the pharmacist completely from the loop. While this may appear attractive initially, the pharmacist serves as one of the gatekeepers for control of the use of narcotics and when abuse is recognized by the pharmacist, the physician is then notified. Taking pharmacists out of the loop is short sighted, will ultimately cause drug errors and serious reactions, and may augment substance abuse and diversion in our society.
4. Insurers make astronomical profits and are inefficient in the expenditure of patient funds. 30% of dollars paid to insurers to purchase health insurance are spent on Taj Mahal skyscraper offices and on outlandish executive bonuses. The CEO of Anthem, the largest health insurer in the country has made between $26,000,000 and $74,000,000 the past several years. This is money out of your pockets that is lining the pockets of those that are trying to limit what services you can purchase with your money. Comparatively, Medicare has an administration cost of 4%. Therefore, due to inefficiency and avarice, 1/4 of all private and corporate insurance healthcare dollars are wasted.
5. Lawyers. Trial lawyers of America exist in a greater population than in any other country. There are more trial lawyers (university trained in law and with law degrees) than in all other 176 countries of the world combined. The US population is 6% of that of the world and yet we harbor more than 50% of all trial lawyers. This breeds competition and severe distortion of fees. For instance most patients believe their lawyer gets 1/3 of any "awards" made by juries, but the final percentage is actually much higher. Lawyers have additional charges for copying documents, preparing other aspects of trial, etc. that in some cases drive the overall percentage to well over 50%. Lawyers can simultaneously charge 5 clients an hourly charge of $250 each for the same pro forma document with a $15/hour secretary typing in different names and addresses. Lawyers drive up the cost of health care when litigation is filed, then dropped for no reason, leaving the malpractice carrier with hundreds of hours of legal fees and the doctor with a permanent record with the national practitioner databank and the state medical boards. Lawyers force a change in health care practice that errs on the side of excessive caution, unnecessary tests, and precautionary measures physicians take to CYA. Lawyers also are permitted to file endless claims whether frivolous or not without any punishment for such. They use the stupidity of jurors to derive malpractice claims instead of the much more rational administrative judicial system used in Canada. There is also no risk for patients filing malpractice claims in our system since we have more than enough lawyers to jump on any claim that looks even remotely litigatable.
6. Manufacturers and middlemen cause astronomical markups in anything labeled "medical" even they sell the exact same product for another purpose. Medical Huber needles from one company sell for $8 each while the same needle sold to veternarians costs $0.56. It is all about greed and seeing just how much we can get for each product regardless of the relative or absolute value of that product to society. Rather than manufacture reusable products that could be re-sterilized as are most surgical instruments, because the manufacturers can now command a steady income stream by simply marking the products "Single Use Only", hospitals and ASCs must dispose of these products after one use, even though there is absolutely no reason they could not be resterilized.

The only way to control the many forces that beset the US medical system making it the most expensive in the world is through control of costs, universal acquisition paid for by taxation, restriction of tort law, elimination of excess patent protection, limit patient access and services to a national medical system, and permit private insurance beyond the base medical system. Would this create a two tier system? You bet it would, and this would be a far better solution than our current system. I prefer a Quebec system (two tier) to the Ontario system (cannot go outside the single system...ie. you cannot obtain an MRI at your own cost even if you wanted to). We need very strong political players to make this happen and we need a chorus of patients demanding change.

Gimpy
07-29-2007, 12:47 PM
It's not just the healthcare system in America that needs fixed. It's every aspect of being the "United States", business, health care and politics down to local government. This country is run on money, not necessarily what is best or what is deemed that the citizens want (same as healthcare). Our ports, our toll roads (Indiana) are being sold (via lease) to foreign countries because there is more money to do it that way, not because it's best for us (sounds like insurance companies). Our voices don't matter anymore, only our money matters. It goes way beyond our health care industry. One day (sooner than later) we will wake up and we will no longer be the United States, we will be a conglomerate of multiple nations. Then, it will be to late. Nobody will care about us. They will laugh at our requests for a national health care system telling us why should they care when even our own government didn't.

It makes me sick. Maybe "Sicko" was a perfect title.

Gimpy

Stetson
07-29-2007, 01:48 PM
The problem with our country is we have given our services too freely through
the years now our system is faced with large increases caused by regulations
and aging population.Ask our friends from the North how good their system is
if you need it.I know of people who had breast cancer were put on a waiting
list! I'll go to work in pain everyday for my insurance and complain that it's too expense but I am glad that I have it!

Jo6
07-29-2007, 01:56 PM
Yes, you are so right, Dr. W. It is depressing just thinking about it. I agreed with most of your post, but as a lowly little patient what can WE do?

I have sat in the Drs. reception room as the DR. stood there too talking to a rept from drug company's, hawking his ware!! They even discussed how it was and how it was expected to do on Wall Street!!

He gave the Rept. my 10 min. as well as about 6 others sitting there. Yes indeed we need some changes, but I doubt I will see any in my life time.

People need to get involved, look byond their little box because it is going to be the death of us all if something isn't done. I will hush because this subject sends my BP through the ceiling.
thanks for your time, Julia

Mark N
07-29-2007, 08:16 PM
Dr W. you make some very good points about what is going on in our health care system but I think your solution is the wrong way to achieve the changes that are needed. Look at your proposals step by step.

1. contained cost - a study of economics or a look at places that gov't control of prices has been used the end result is rationing. I want to ration health care through our choices as consumers not some gov't agency determining where scarce resources need to go. No matter how you set it up, controlled cost will always create some rationing.

2. universal acquisition through taxation - once you provide a service or product without direct cost to the consumer they will lose their restraint on consuming the service or product. As this happens the costs climb as more and more of the service is demanded as there is little restraint by the consumers because they are insulated from the cost. Without rationing by the gov't there will be no effective limit on the amount of health care demand. Do we want the someone else to determine amount of health care?

3. Restriction of tort law - this is a tough one because the 'simple' solution is to limit people's ability to recover damages done to them by the medical profession. The real problem is the cost of practicing this type of law has been removed from the lawyers as they pass along the cost to their client or the deep pockets they are going after depending on the outcome of the case. This law practice has become a lottery system where the attorneys get a large part of awards even before the client gets any money ie class action suits where the phone company gives us $3.23 credit while the attorneys bringing the suit receive millions to chase this prize. If consumers were initiating the lawsuits none of us would push for a lawsuit where the end result is we would get $3.23 in return. Too many juries see these cases as a way to make companies pay for their excesses whether the companies are guilty or not because the juries see them as wealthy entities that can afford it.

4.Elimination of excess patent protection - who determines what excess is and what happens when we go too far and companies have no incentive to develop new meds and procedures because they can reap the rewards. Without patent protection I just need to be a predatory company, wait for others to invest their millions to develop the new meds and jump in to produce the meds with very little cost to myself. Countries that have these laws have very few innovations because there is very little incentive to develop new ideas.

5. Create a two tier health care system - do we really know it is a better solution and do we want second class citizens as established by the gov't? The two tier system is what we have now without calling it that. No insurance you are treated my ERs and health clinics and if you have paid insurance then you chose your health care.

The cost of health care started when company provided insurance started. Let's look at it from a different perspective. Imagine that companies start providing food insurance. You go to the grocery store and buy your food when you go to pay 80% of the cost is reduced and you only pay 20%. What happens to your choices? Now instead of buying hamburger for $2.50/ lb you start buying T-bone steaks because at $10.00/lb it only cost you $2.00 which is less than you used to pay for hamburger. the result is we demand more expensive foods and don't by cheaper food.

It has more effects than that though because as people buy more steak and less hamburger stores change what they offer because they get more profit from steak and that is what more people are buying.

What happens to the people that don't have food insurance? They go to the store and can't find the cheaper food because the stores stopped carrying it.

For those that think the gov't run health care is preferable to our current system then think about our system as being run like the military [I am a veteran and this isn't a knock on the military] the workers are paid much less than they should be, weapons systems cost much more than they should, and we are limited to how many we let in because the cost would skyrocket if we went back to WWII staffing levels. Does anyone really want our health system to become another gov't run program like the military, welfare, and medicare? Any system not based upon our choice and and a reasonable profit for companies will be a system that reduces our freedoms.


My solution, private health accounts that let us control our health care $ and rewards us for making good choices and gov't provided catastrophic insurance for those illnesses and accidents we can't foresee. The choice we believe in is: do we trust gov't or the capitalistic system to best provide our needs.

algosdoc
07-29-2007, 08:39 PM
The problem with private insurance as the sole mechanism of payment is that many americans that have the means to buy the insurance do not. There are many plans that currently offer high deductable catastrophic insurance for relatively small amounts but rarely do Americans make that choice. They pocket the money and spend it on other things deemed more important to them at the time, and then when there is a major injury, they are at the mercy of the healthcare system, being charged 2-3 times what those who are insured are charged for the same service. For instance, gall bladder surgery.....costs around $20K for the entire hospitalization and physician. Discounted insurance may do this for a small fraction of that amount but for those that elect to go without coverage, they will be charged for the entire amount. Catastrophic insurance will not help in this situation since a gall bladder operation is not catastrophic. One must also note the deductables for most with insurance are ever increasing and patients are paying more out of pocket regardless of how much they pay for insurance.
The innovation issue is a very real one, and I agree there must be some patent protection, but not the 17 years we have now for some products. That is way beyond the realm of reason. Tort reform would best be accomplished through the use of medical panels to screen cases (as we have in my state) and the use of an administrative medical judge (finally a use for a J.D., M.D. degree??) along with caps for pain and suffering. Rationing is here and will worsen because of the high deductables and increasing copays. But there needs to be reform of EMTALA to eliminate people using emergency departments as their own personal doctor's office for coughs and colds and other minor maladies. We also need to decide how to deal with the many millions of illegal aliens that use emergency departments for everything because the US government naively says they can (the US government is not paying their medical bills....the insured are doing so by paying more).
I am just about as anti-big-government as you could possibly imagine, but I see no solution possible through any cooperative effort of the private sector. We are one of the last countries in the western world without some form of universal healthcare and I cannot see insurance companies wanting to part with their enormous profits to make this happen. It should be interesting to see how the proposed healthcare plans of the political presidential candidates play out over the next several months....

Pharmacist.steve
07-29-2007, 08:51 PM
The innovation issue is a very real one, and I agree there must be some patent protection, but not the 17 years we have now for some products.

The clock starts ticking on the patent from the first day the drug entity is isolated... typically there is 12-14 yrs between that date and date at which marketing begins.. A more realistic patent for drugs would be a fixed number of years from the first day of marketing.. Every time the FDA sends a drug back for more clinical trials ... just shortens the recoup period and basically raises the price that is going to have to be charged.

Catastrophic insurance will not help in this situation since a gall bladder operation is not catastrophic.

Catastrophic insurance could kick in at 1500-2500/person/yr. In any given year maybe one out of 5-10 people would have to seek coverage under the catastrophic provision.

Just like the drug cards do now... the prices would be negotiated/dictated by the catastrophic payor - just like Medicare does now as well.

Mark N
07-29-2007, 10:25 PM
Dr W. insurance based on profit motive is a problem but I don't see the solution including gov't care. I don't think we will have a solution until insurance companies are limited in what they can charge and the % they can use for administrative cost just as the utility companies are regulated. This system uses private enterprise to drive it but regulation to limit the negative aspects of the profit motive.

For example, limit administrative cost to 10% and allow them to operate at a 10% rate of return. Then anyone that wants a solid investment provides the money for the company to operate and the excesses are eliminated. Why not use a system we already have in place and let the state governments regulate hospitals and insurance as a utility. The purpose of utilities are to take an industry that has high capital investments to operate a semi-monopoly in return for the regulation by gov't.

algosdoc
07-29-2007, 11:00 PM
Very interesting concept Mark There would be more regulation but at the state level.
Steve, I think the problem with catastrophic illness numbers is that the average US worker expends $6200 per year for medical coverage/drugs/physicians, etc. If the cutoff would be $2500/year, then probably at least half of Americans would qualify for this coverage...and then in effect, a government program for universal health care coverage would de facto exist. You bring up an excellent point about patent coverage. It would make far more sense to start the clock for 7 years at the time of the first marketing of the drug, then grant no extensions at all. The generics should have their feet held to the fire for grotesquely overcharging patients and the health care system.

Mark N
07-30-2007, 12:05 AM
Dr W, I can use my education for something good once in a while:D . What is needed are real discussions like this one instead of the typical political slogans and feel good platitudes that we get from the powers that be. It would be nice to have some real thinkers in office instead of people that just don't want to rock the political boat or only pander to their support groups.

brians2000
07-30-2007, 05:44 AM
I feel if people had to start paying for more of their medical services everyone would stop running to the doctor everytime they got a blister. When I was born in 1971 my parents had to pay for most of my medical bills but back then medical care didnt cost very much. When businesses started paying for their employees health care that is when prices started going straight up. If the government takes over peoples health insurance the cost will continue to go up because people would run to the doctors for things they normally would deal with. I saw the US should try to use more HSA plans. I predict if people thought they could pocket alittle cash at the end of the year by not going to the doctor as often as they would with a full coverage health insurance plan then we might see healthcare prices come down as the demand for services goes down.

algosdoc
07-30-2007, 06:54 AM
Mark, you have my vote for president. Jump into the melee with the other 100 candidates...

Mark N
07-30-2007, 07:08 AM
Dr. W my students use to tell me the same thing but I couldn't sell out like many of the ones running right now do. I had the right job when I was able to coach football and teach the teenage set. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I would have you for my PM doctor and might even change to you before it is over.

Brian, that is the main point, get people to pay a price for their medical cost and they would be more careful about how their money was spent which would cause providers to be more competitive for the declining dollars spent. When there seems to be unlimited spending why limit cost because someone will pay.

Jo6
07-31-2007, 01:00 AM
You got my vote too! I can appreciate how you go about things. You may not be able to coach anymore, but your mind is in tip-top shape. Jo

Mark N
07-31-2007, 01:10 AM
jo, although I appreciate the vote of confidence it is a stretch to say my mind is anywhere near what it used to be. I just have a bright shining moment now and then:D .