It finally reaches the mainstream

[Athena]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
A) fix prices which will give us a supply problem no matter what anyone believes

Is there some sort of crisis in availability in Maryland where hospital prices are fixed? Most countries with fixed prices have better primary care/patient ratios than here in the US.

Billing makes up 25% of current provider costs. If that were eliminated, or reduced to say 5%, payment rates could fall without any dimunition in net revenue for providers.

It's all connected...which makes it difficult to attack.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Athena
Umm, no...the most heavily advertised drugs are the more expensive ones. Mass market advertising has led to patients demanding things that are usually no more effective than much cheaper alternatives.

that's been a problem between name brands and patented drugs vs. generics forever. vioxx wasn't any more effective than advil. i should restate, iirc, within classes of similar patented drugs, the advertised ones cost less per course than the unadvertised due to economies of scale.

I personally don't comparison shop because I buy where my health plan sends me. Years ago, on other plans, I did shop around and discovered that it no retailer had a lock on being "the least expensive".

no, not the least expensive in all cases or by a wide margin, but they will flip back and forth on each drug and pricing, and often the price difference can be significant. there's a reason they can give you a ton of crap when transferring a prescription. and yet price shopping on prescriptions almost never happens.

Originally posted by: Athena
Is there some sort of crisis in availability in Maryland where hospital prices are fixed? Most countries with fixed prices have better primary care/patient ratios than here in the US.

Billing makes up 25% of current provider costs. If that were eliminated, or reduced to say 5%, payment rates could fall without any dimunition in net revenue for providers.

It's all connected...which makes it difficult to attack.

and every layer of ill-begotten regulation just ads more paper pushing with little improvement in medical outcomes. hipaa could have been better done by creating a private cause of action with specified damages and recovery of attorney's fees than the giant mess it has become. lawyers are under similar obligations about not disclosing client info and yet our compliance cost is ridiculously low in comparison.

and i'll bet the legislation under consideration does nothing intelligent to try to reduce paper pushing costs. nope, they're relying on 'bending the cost curve'

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: shira
I think the biggest reason health care expenditures increase so rapdily is simply that more and more expensive treatments and drugs are now available than ever before for health conditions that formerly either weren't treated, or were treated much less expensively (and much less effectively). Clearly, that trend will continue.

It may be true that there are more treatments available but it doesn't explain why costs here are so much out of line with those in other countries. Patients in France and Germany benefit from the same advances and, while it is true that costs there are also rising, they are not anywhere near close to bankrupting the citizenry there.

We have a patchwork health care policy that owes its existence to hospitals looking for sustenance and employers trying to get around wage controls. It has continued to grow focused on things that have little or nothing to do with actual care. We're not going to get effective cost control without actual reform.

There are two issues: The overall level of spending at a given point in time and the rate at which overall spending is growing. With respect to overall spending: Because of our free-enterprise model, the lack of universal coverage, general overuse of all health care services, and the lack of strong cost-control incentives, the U.S. system is rather inefficient and out current spending is much higher than in other countries.

With respect to the rate at which costs are increasing: I don't think the rapid rise in HC spending is unique to the U.S.; technology growth affects all countries. However, the U.S. gets the double whammy of technology growth combined with technology overuse, so our spending rises even faster.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What kind of research and advancements come out of other countries vs USA?

Excuse me? Do you honestly believe that the US is the source of all medical advancement? Do you think the researchers at the Louis Pasteur Institute in Paris or Swiss pharmaceutical labs are just sitting around waiting for the US to produce things?

About half the Nobel Laureates in the past decade have done their research in other parts of the world. And talk to the doctors at Walter Reed -- much of their work on prostheses has come in refining procedures developed elsewhere.

The idea that other countries are just reaping the benefits of US research is profoundly misguided.

It was an honest question. I did NOT say no other country but the USA contributes. Didnt even hint at it. See the "vs" in that question? I was asking What kind of research and advancements come out of other countries vs USA? Simple enough question.

You seem to be very knowledgable in this, thus I asked you. So, if you can, put the claws away and answer if you have a rought guesstimate. Im curious. I dont give a rats ass about Nobel Laureates. What I care about are treatments, drugs, etc.

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: waggyyeap. anyone that thinks cost will go down and service will go up is fuckign nuts.

Explain how other nations are able to do it? According to news reports, other nations have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, and spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care. Are those statistics just lies?

For one thing we (America) subsidize some of their costs. See Prescription drugs.

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

If we factor in the value of the salaries and perks that these companies' executives earn and count it as part of the profit, what would the picture look like?

Regardless, this still doesn't explain why the U.S. spends nearly 17% of its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance while also having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies and businesses burdened by insurance concerns. In the meantime, other first world nations rightfully regard Americans as being retarded and spend a much smaller percentage of their GDP on health care while having 100% coverage, a more relaxed populace, zero medical bankruptcies, and businesses that aren't burdened by insurance concerns.

We are fat lazy bastards, most other people in the world actually exercise a bit while going about their normal day. We drive around the parking lot for 20 minutes to save 3 minutes of walking and eat fast food multiple times a week.

You wanna reduce our health care costs then move the parking lot to every Walmart 100 yards away from the entrance.

Have you ever been outside of America? In the UK there are lots of fat people. While America may be the current leader in this area, it isn't solely an American problem.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: DrekceHave you ever been outside of America? In the UK there are lots of fat people. While America may be the current leader in this area, it isn't solely an American problem.

In T. R. Ried's Frontline documentary, "Sick Around the World", the British doctor he interviewed was a fat guy.

Everyone who's interested in the health care debate should watch this, by the way, you can find it here. Just click on "Watch the Full Program Online" on the upper right:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ne/sickaroundtheworld/