Health Care Execs: US System Inefficient, Wasteful, Even Dangerous

[babylonsister]

U.S. 'Not Getting What We Pay For'
Many Experts Say Health-Care System Inefficient, Wasteful

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page A01


Talk to the chief executives of America's preeminent health-care institutions, and you might be surprised by what you hear: When it comes to medical care, the United States isn't getting its money's worth. Not even close.

"We're not getting what we pay for," says Denis Cortese, president and chief executive of the Mayo Clinic. "It's just that simple."

"Our health-care system is fraught with waste," says Gary Kaplan, chairman of Seattle's cutting-edge Virginia Mason Medical Center. As much as half of the $2.3 trillion spent today does nothing to improve health, he says.

Not only is American health care inefficient and wasteful, says Kaiser Permanente chief executive George Halvorson, much of it is dangerous.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901025.html?hpid=topnews

[SoCalDem]

1. Insurance is the problem..

They are the gatekeepers between the patients & the medical providers..

"Managed care" is the biggest boondoggle we have ever seen..

[fortyfeetunder]

2. Hmmm, is it really because the money is not going to the patients

but to the executives????

[w4rma]

11. A bunch of bean counters have inserted themselves between the patients and the doctors and now

dictate what the doctors can and can't do for about half of what the patients pay out.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. You don't say? Who woulda thunk it?

Gosh, I sure hope our leaders can think up a system that will make health care:

1. Affordable for every single American
2. Available and accessible for every single American.
3. Provide free choice of care provider for every American

I know those are my minimum requirements and I sure hope the smart people in government can figure some way out to make it so!

[Cleita]

5. You are talking about the Canadian system, which we could do.

But we have to climb the mountain of insurance and HMO boulders blocking the way first.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. No. I'm not talking any system. I'm talking what I want a system to do. Just 3 things.

Be affordable
Be accessible
Allow choice of care provider

If they can do that with the Outer Mongolian system, I'm fine with that.


I don't care what anybody calls it. I don't care who introduces it, votes for it or shows up at the signing ceremony.


I just want 3 little things.

1. Affordable for all.
2. Accessible for all
3. choice of care provider for all

Is that too much to ask for as an American?

[Cleita]

7. And that's how the Canadian system functions.

Our Medicare functions the same way, except that it needs to be updated, cover everything, and be extended to everyone just not seniors. That's what we need. Instead what is being talked about is a system that will include the privateer (yes, I meant privateer and not privatized) health insurance companies and HMOs. It will result in more profits for them and little health care for us. This is the same system that's failing in Massachusetts, yet it will be brought to Congress and probably pass instead of the expanded Medicare system sponsored by John Conyers in his bill HR676.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I think if we focus on outcomes it will help focus the issue for Americans and our Reps.

Any plan introduced needs to be evaluated based on three simple criteria.

1. Does it make health care affordable for everyone?
2. Does it make health care accessible to everyone
3. Can everyone choose there own care providers?

By insisting on outcomes we help avoid the pitfall of ideology trumping practicality.

For one thing these three principles are pretty straight forward and easy to understand. They don't take a lot of explanation. So it's far easier than attempting other evaluations of different health care proposals. If we boil any and all proposals down to how well they meet they three criteria, it becomes easy to choose the best most efficiewnt means to achieve the three outcomes. It allows us to pick and choose part of different plans and to also reject parts of various plans based on an outcomes based criteria.

i agree that that HR676 is one of the health care plans out there that does meet the three outcome criteria. And good for it that it does. I'm particularly interested in seeing what legislation my Senator Baucus proposes and whether it meets my minimum criteria as an American and as a human.

[Cleita]

10. Concentrate on Daschle not Baucus.

Since he will head H&HR he will be the one who influences Obama. From what I have been reading about Daschle and his health plan ideas, I'm not very hopeful in a meaningful program that not only delivers what you want and what we need, but that can do it in an efficient and cost effective way. I have ordered his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis" before I pass final judgement. However, up until then he was employed as a Senior Policy Advisor with the "K" Street law firm Alston and Bird, whose lobbying clients are various private health care and pharmaceutical companies. I get the fox in the henhouse feeling from this.

This is what Physicians for a National Health Plan have to say about Senator Baucus's plan:

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/11/12/reform-proposal-of-sen-baucus/

As the powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a person passionately dedicated to comprehensive health care reform, we need to listen to what Sen. Max Baucus has to say. “Call to Action, Health Reform 2009″ is his white paper describing serious problems with our health care system, and includes a collection of legislative proposals to address those problems. It is an important report because it does represent what seems to be the prevailing views in Washington, D.C. on the direction for reform.

There are many valuable recommendations in this report. Some of them should be enacted soon as possible as urgent measures to hold us over while we are pressing forward with comprehensive reform. Others can be enacted independently of the comprehensive legislative package. But some represent flawed policy concepts and should never be enacted.

Only one of the major flaws will be touched on here: the mandate for individuals to purchase their own health plans should they not be covered under their employers’ plans. A whole lot more at link

[John Q. Citizen]

15. A few things to keep in mind.

Baucas' recent statements straight out reject single payer as a solution.

Baucas' just former Chief of staff/former campaign manager Jim Messina is now deputy chief of staff in the White House. some of us locals know Messina from earlier campaigns and he's a good guy from a 3 principles point of view. I don't know his professional opinion but i do have some insight into his personal opinions via past experience and current friends.

MT Labor Unions are endorsing the 3 criteria and some have already endorsed HR676 because as meeting the 3 principles.

As a Montanan I should presumably have more sway with Baucus than with Daschle. In fact, I would assume that Obama is the final say on policy and Daschle is supposed to implement it.

Max on the other hand is a free agent. He works for the State of Montana (and his big donars like banks, insurance co. and big pharma apparently) and not for Obama. But the fact his guy is in the White House is a good sign of mutual co-operation.

If Baucus can pass muster on the 3 principles then he will get my support. If not I will be a squeaky wheel.

[Idealism]

4. Heres the WHO report for this year

http://www.who.int/whr/2008/whr08_en.pdf

The WHO puts out its annual review, with a focus on global health. For the second time in the past decade, it points out how awful health care is in the world over and how to change the system.

[Cleita]

8. I'll bet it doesn't stop them from enjoying their private jets, yachts, SPAs and

country club memberships.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. How much actual campaigning have they done to improve the system?

[AwakeAtLast]

13. 1999 wants its headline back

:eyes: The MSM really is clueless, isn't it?

[AnnieBW]

14. Some Korean doctors I met in Oz were talking about this

All three were educated in the US and were on vacation in Australia. They were very familiar with the US health care system as well as the South Korean and other countries' systems. Their main observation was that the US health care system is controlled by Big Pharma, which pushes its agenda onto the AMA and insurance companies. The example that we talked about was my blood pressure. My BP has always been borderline (140/85). Suddenly, my BP is too high, and I'm now on a low dose of BP meds for it, even though it's essentially the same. It's because the drugmakers pushed for the rules to be changed so that they could sell more pills. In a country with a government-run system, this wouldn't happen because the system would be less inclined to pay for medication for people with borderline BP.

Their basic thought was that the American health care system sucked, and should be replaced ASAP, but it was highly unlikely to be changed because of the lobbyists.

[Cleita]

16. They tried that with me but the pills made me feel faint because they

made it too low. I was able to lower my borderline blood pressure with a change of diet and exercise. The doctors I see now are amazed that my BP is so normal for my age. Quitting smoking and excess alcohol use is also necessary. Also, I invested in a BP monitor and check my BP regularly and it's much cheaper than taking pills in the long run.

[kenny blankenship]

17. You say "fraught with waste" I say "laced with profit"

Your money or your life is the oldest business proposition on the planet- why must you Democrats be so anti-business and hostile to tradition?

[Cleita]

18. Are you serious?

I hope you forgot the sarcasm emoticon on your post.

What tradition says that people have to die untreated of diseases that could be cured because they can't afford to pay the health care providers? And why is it anti-business? Business with doctors and other health care providers will go on as usual. The only difference is that there will be the government to pay for it instead of the individual. The individual will only pay into the plan what is affordable to them because the risk is spread to everyone.