The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

We'll die. It just won't happen that way.

"You're waiting for a train..."

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

We'll die.

Get the **** outta here. Really?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

"You're waiting for a train..."

and Tebowing on the tracks... or is it Faith Hilling? Or some other really stupid meme?

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

and Tebowing on the tracks... or is it Faith Hilling? Or some other really stupid meme?

The Devil's in the details.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Devil's in the details.

Wait, I got it: Planking.

People are supposedly still doing it. I saw one guy planking across the carry-on shelves in an airplane.

[duper]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Wait, I got it: Planking.

People are supposedly still doing it. I saw one guy planking across the carry-on shelves in an airplane.

Mother of God. I hope I never actually see anyone planking. I know that I will do something I will regret.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Mother of God. I hope I never actually see anyone planking. I know that I will do something I will regret.

You'll see a picture of me planking in a couple days.

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Wait, I got it: Planking.

People are supposedly still doing it. I saw one guy planking across the carry-on shelves in an airplane.

If you saw that in person, you should have asked the air marshal to shoot him. Everyone would have understood.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

A very interesting health-care cost benefit study regarding higher US expenditures relative to peer countries, and what the US gained in return for its extra spending. I'll try to edit out the editorial commentary along the way....

A persistent health-care myth is that the U.S. system is uniquely wasteful versus the European countries that spend far less per patient as a result of tight government control. ... new research shows American patients are often getting more value—better outcomes and longer lives—in return for those extra dollars.

... the news arrives via the policy journal Health Affairs, in a symposium on the cost and quality of U.S. cancer care.

Tomas Philipson of the University of Chicago and colleagues compare U.S. oncology spending over the period from 1983 to 1999 (the last year for which data are available) with that in 10 European Union countries. Costs were lower overall overseas and grew by 16%, while they grew by 49% in the U.S. Yet U.S. cancer mortality rates are lower, despite higher cancer rates, and "We found that the value of survival gains greatly outweighed the costs, which suggests that the costs of cancer care were indeed 'worth it,'" Mr. Philipson et al. write.

Throughout the entire period, U.S. cancer survival gains were larger, reaching 11.1 years over 1995 to 1999 against 9.3 years in the EU. The researchers then compared the U.S. and EU gains using conservative, commonly accepted measures for the value of a statistical life, less the cost of the care. The U.S. comes out ahead by $598 billion. In other words, though the U.S. spends more, patients and society benefit far more.

Over 1995-1999, each $100 increase in per capita cancer spending—approximately $20,000 per cancer patient—was associated with another 2.3 years of life for the average patient. The authors are also careful to show that these results reflect real patient outcomes.

....

The U.S. system is relatively more expensive because diagnosis and treatment are much more intensive, and doctors tend to leverage the latest therapies and drugs against one of the world's leading killers.

Since people here think they know what kind of comments I'd now append*, I'll refrain and let the facts speak for themselves.





though they are wrong 2 times out of 5

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The question that came to my mind instantly- the pool of patients getting care in the US is skewed by who can get care. We may spend more but there are plenty of people who do not get any of that. Some of our people get poor/ minimal care or come so late care is palliative and they die. Others get a top of the line care and therefore have a better outcome. Countries who have national systems offer care to everyone. Wondering if there is a way to look at how that effects numbers.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Simple Idea That Is Transforming Health Care:
A focus on quality of life helps medical providers see the big picture—and makes for healthier, happier patients.

Focusing on well-being might seem like a basic idea, but it is a departure from the traditional approach to public health

[Plante26]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Again, according to Reuters:

Unreimbursed care for the uninsured: $49 billion.
Payment shortages by Medicare and Medicaid: $88 billion.
Malpractice insurance and defensive medical procedures to avoid litigation: $300 billion.

Fix costs and this is all a non-issue. Lest we continue debating the finer points of another massive government regulation. Which we can all agree would be best to avoid if practical.

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Again, according to Reuters:

Unreimbursed care for the uninsured: $49 billion.
Payment shortages by Medicare and Medicaid: $88 billion.
Malpractice insurance and defensive medical procedures to avoid litigation: $300 billion.

Fix costs and this is all a non-issue. Lest we continue debating the finer points of another massive government regulation. Which we can all agree would be best to avoid if practical.

Talk to the insurance companies as well as the lawyers. With the new 'measures' we order at least 2 different tests on every diabetic that are not necessary, Why? Because they won't acknowledge prescriptions outside of plan and will dock us cash for patient non-compliance if we can't show a prescription or those tests. This is only for one dx, not including the other measures that are sometimes against current recommendations. Too bad the Medical people can't make their own measures.

[Plante26]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Talk to the insurance companies as well as the lawyers. With the new 'measures' we order at least 2 different tests on every diabetic that are not necessary, Why? Because they won't acknowledge prescriptions outside of plan and will dock us cash for patient non-compliance if we can't show a prescription or those tests. This is only for one dx, not including the other measures that are sometimes against current recommendations. Too bad the Medical people can't make their own measures.

Or we could enact tort reform legislation that caps the damages that the bloodsucking ambulance chasers can collect. That'd put an end to the litgious nature of unsatisfied patients, resulting in lower insurance costs.

[Handyman]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Why exactly cant we do both?