US Health Care – Not Worth It.

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

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.
This Story

U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’
End-of-Life Care – at What Price?

“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.

Those harsh assessments illustrate the enormousness of the challenge that awaits President-elect Barack Obama, who campaigned on the promise to trim the average American family’s health-care bill by $2,500 a year. Delivering on that pledge will not be easy, particularly at a time when the economic picture continues to worsen.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has already warned that improving and expanding health care will cost money in the short run — money that his Republican counterpart, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), argues the government does not have.

Yet among physicians, insurers, academics and corporate executives from across the ideological spectrum, there is remarkably broad consensus on what ought to be done.

A high-performance 21st-century health system, they say, must revolve around the central goal of paying for results. That will entail managing chronic illnesses better, adopting electronic medical records, coordinating care, researching what treatments work best, realigning financial incentives to reward success, encouraging prevention strategies and, most daunting but perhaps most important, saying no to expensive, unproven therapies.

“There is more than enough money in the system,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who runs the District-based Center for Health Transformation. “We just are not spending it well.”

The United States today devotes 16 percent of its gross domestic product to medical care, more per capita than any other nation in the world. Yet numerous measures indicate the country lags in overall health: It ranks 29th in infant mortality, 48th in life expectancy and 19th out of 19 industrialized nations in preventable deaths.

One way to reconfigure health spending is to shift large sums into prevention and wellness, said Reed Tuckson, a physician and executive vice president at UnitedHealth Group in Minneapolis. The idea is to tackle the handful of preventable, chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes that account for 75 percent of health-care costs.

Each year, for example, the United States spends $450 billion treating heart and artery disease. The “good news,” Tuckson said, is that former certain killers such as heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms can now be treated. But the price — of maintenance drugs, ongoing tests and procedures such as stents — is high. It would be wiser, he argued, to attack underlying problems such as smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure



1 Comment

Filed under Health

One response to “US Health Care – Not Worth It.

  1. When NAFTA was being pushed through – against the clear mandate of the Canadian electorate – Congress wondered if Canada’s medicare system wouldn’t be a relative disadvantage for Canadian companies. Nope.
    Ezra Klein’s personal blog was the battleground for countless battles over policy. Wonkery on healthcare was not in short supply either : though the to-and-fro outlasted the patience of friendly medical bloggers.
    One repeated theme was the fight over payment and the absolute kludge and hell of the payments/billings system.
    Insurers would want to dump recurring payments and cherrypick least expensive clients. Maximizing profit meant restrictions on who insured could see for service and where.
    In short, those who needed help were those who would have the worst of it : while doctors’ offices dealt with deadbeat ‘insurers’ throwing every possible obstacle in the way.
    This ensured the expense of running an office was biased towards collections…not medical treatment.
    This while people were in no position to negotiate….sometimes even unconscious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s