Obamacare is actually reducing health care rationing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Not arguing about having desirable outcomes like more people being able to get coverage. That was always part of my idea of real health care reform. I do however much dislike the idea that rationing is occurring. The Republicans cried about that and it didn't happen because that's not how the system works the overwhelming majority of the time and until circumstances change it's not going to. If services ever are cut then you will have rationing then because people are just going to have to wait. Note that does not include unneeded services, but what if you needed an MRI in medical opinion and once were able to get it but due to funding cuts you have to wait a long time for a proper test? That would be rationing. Let's hope that's a while in coming.
Agreed, and that's a valid point. I'm just pointing out that it's a valid point about what Republicans are claiming, not about what Obamacare is causing. The only place where American health care is seriously habitually rationed is in the emergency room, and that predates (and to some degree will be mitigated by) Obamacare. There are other scattered instances where American health care must be rationed - for instance, Linux23 ran into that with a vengeance - but not really as a component of Obamacare.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Agreed, and that's a valid point. I'm just pointing out that it's a valid point about what Republicans are claiming, not about what Obamacare is causing. The only place where American health care is seriously habitually rationed is in the emergency room, and that predates (and to some degree will be mitigated by) Obamacare. There are other scattered instances where American health care must be rationed - for instance, Linux23 ran into that with a vengeance - but not really as a component of Obamacare.

Meh... waited 24 hours+ to get a sleeping pill? Sounds suspiciously like the electronic health records failed him. Part of the ACA.

A 2008 Sentinel Event Alert from the U.S. Joint Commission, the organization that accredits American hospitals to provide healthcare services, states that "As health information technology (HIT) and 'converging technologies'—the interrelationship between medical devices and HIT—are increasingly adopted by health care organizations, users must be mindful of the safety risks and preventable adverse events that these implementations can create or perpetuate. Technology-related adverse events can be associated with all components of a comprehensive technology system and may involve errors of either commission or omission. These unintended adverse events typically stem from human-machine interfaces or organization/system design."[49] The Joint Commission cites as an example the United States Pharmacopeia MEDMARX database[50] where of 176,409 medication error records for 2006, approximately 25 percent (43,372) involved some aspect of computer technology as at least one cause of the error.

Thank god it was just a sleeping pill and not something complicated&stat that he needed when first arriving. That pretty much sums it up. Got lucky.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
By that loose definition everything can have the label of rationing. Don't want a hamburger today? Ration. Not buying a new car? Ration. Sun not shining? God is rationing. Government insurance not paying for something? Rationing!

Like I said real rationing starts once one entity get's complete and irrevocable and all powerful control. It's not happening now, but not everyone in every case is getting everything they want all the time, whether it's good or not. Bad medicine being rationed.

Lifetime maximums from insurance companies pre-Obamacare. Rationing or not?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Meh... waited 24 hours+ to get a sleeping pill? Sounds suspiciously like the electronic health records failed him. Part of the ACA.



Thank god it was just a sleeping pill and not something complicated&stat that he needed when first arriving. That pretty much sums it up. Got lucky.
Part of it was the automation. I was thinking about not having any open beds, which is a form of forced rationing but not likely due to Obamacare.
 

Tombstone1881

Senior member
Aug 8, 2014
486
161
116
The number of patients who were injured or became ill during a hospital stay dropped 17 percent since the start of ObamaCare, saving about $12 billion in healthcare costs, according to new government data.

Strides in patient safety saved the lives of about 50,000 patients and prevented 1.3 million avoidable hospital-related accidents or illnesses since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced Monday.

The prevalence of adverse drug events, bloodstream infections, pressure ulcers and ventilator-associated pneumonia each declined by 25 percent.
HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told a roomful of Medicaid and Medicare providers on Tuesday that the findings represented “dramatic improvements in patient safety.”

“Think of the difference it makes to a family to have a loved one home for the holidays instead of in the hospital,” she told a crowd at the CMS Quality Conference in Baltimore.

She touted the ways that the Obama administration has tried to make costs and quality information more transparent and to expand the use of electronic health information, all in an effort to “bolster clinical decision-making.”
“I believe that as Americans, we will receive better care — and spend our dollars more wisely — if we find better ways to deliver care, pay providers and distribute information,” she said.

The report says that while the causes of the decline may not be fully attributed to ObamaCare, “the increase in safety has occurred during a period of concerted attention by hospitals throughout the country to reduce adverse events.”

It specifically points to a Medicare payment program that refunds less money if hospitals have high readmission rates, as well as the public-private alliance called Partnership for Patients.

Burwell said the progress in patient safety was helping to move the country away from a healthcare system which “simply did not make sense.”
“We waited until patients got sick in order to treat them, rather than focusing on prevention. Our payment models incentivized volume rather than value,” she said.

HHS took its first big step to reduce hospital mistakes in 2005 with the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The department continued to roll out patient safety rules until 2008, just two years before ObamaCare was passed.

Attention returned to reform in 2010 when data found the rate of harm among Medicare patients was 27 percent. Almost half of the incidents were considered preventable.

HHS now analyzes up to 33,000 medical records each year in an effort to reduce the total amount of preventable harm by 40 percent.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/225674-hhs-hospital-errors-readmissions-drop-under-obamacare
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I knew a man who lost both legs because a known drug allergy did not get copied from his records to his chart. On the other hand, Linux had problems because the system showed him admitted to a room, so prescribed meds and other care did not reach him in the ER. Not a problem with having automation, just a problem with the implementation. Even then, the two aren't exactly similar scale problems.

Although I have seen problems with the automation too. A fully electronic system allows corporate to attach prescriptions such as blood thinners for all. My neighbor is a nurse with roughly thirty years experience, most of it in the emergency room. Recently whoever enters these prescriptions (and no one there seems to know exactly who it is or what are his/her qualifications) prescribed a blood thinner every hour, but in a dose appropriate for a 24 hour period. It literally would have caused every patient to bleed out internally, and the younger, lower level nurses were carrying it out. Luckily she had the experience and training to stop this before anyone was harmed. However, I personally had the same experience with handwritten charts when a nurse showed up to give me a blood thinner shot hours before a scheduled surgery; although both were on the chart (and neither was from a doctor who had seen me or who had ever treated me, or had the decency to inform me on what they had scheduled for me) she wasn't trained well enough to know the two don't mix. Lesson learned, ain't nothing foolproof.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,559
248
106
-1x-1.png

Awesome numbers, but real people's health behind it.

Hmm, awesome numbers? Here is what this graph tells me, by the careless (maybe they were trying to be creative?) way they present this:

Americans delaying medical care is almost down to the number it was before the Senate passed an alternative health care bill.

Makes one wonder how low the number would be if they hadn't passed the darn thing.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,084
8,940
136
Hmm, awesome numbers? Here is what this graph tells me, by the careless (maybe they were trying to be creative?) way they present this:

Americans delaying medical care is almost down to the number it was before the Senate passed an alternative health care bill.

Makes one wonder how low the number would be if they hadn't passed the darn thing.

Why did people ration healthcare after the bill was passed, but before any of the actual provisions went into effect?

Makes one wonder how much lower the numbers would be if they had implemented the darn thing sooner.
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
wuwk0wbuwea6ge9sxz9v9w.png


Medicaid enrollment grew by 10% 2013-2014 in reality, but stayed flat in Gallup land.

That chart isn't enrollment but is percentage of people with blank insurance putting off care due to cost. Has Medicaid's care started covering higher percentage of cost because of Obamacare, so that people won't put off procedures due to cost?

Among Americans with varying types of medical coverage (including no coverage), uninsured Americans are still the most likely to report having put off medical treatment because of cost. More than half of the uninsured (57%) have put off treatment, compared with 34% with private insurance and 22% with Medicare or Medicaid. However, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance who report putting off medical treatment because of cost has increased from 25% in 2013 to 34% in 2014.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
That chart isn't enrollment but is percentage of people with blank insurance putting off care due to cost. Has Medicaid's care started covering higher percentage of cost because of Obamacare, so that people won't put off procedures due to cost?

Among Americans with varying types of medical coverage (including no coverage), uninsured Americans are still the most likely to report having put off medical treatment because of cost. More than half of the uninsured (57%) have put off treatment, compared with 34% with private insurance and 22% with Medicare or Medicaid. However, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance who report putting off medical treatment because of cost has increased from 25% in 2013 to 34% in 2014.

Pretty strong case for universal single payer, if you ask me.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That chart isn't enrollment but is percentage of people with blank insurance putting off care due to cost. Has Medicaid's care started covering higher percentage of cost because of Obamacare, so that people won't put off procedures due to cost?

Among Americans with varying types of medical coverage (including no coverage), uninsured Americans are still the most likely to report having put off medical treatment because of cost. More than half of the uninsured (57%) have put off treatment, compared with 34% with private insurance and 22% with Medicare or Medicaid. However, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance who report putting off medical treatment because of cost has increased from 25% in 2013 to 34% in 2014.
I'm not saying this isn't happening as clearly some people (including me) have been hit with higher deductibles and worse coverage, but seems very fishy to me that the largest increase is in people earning $75K and up.
 

TreVader

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2013
2,057
2
0
The ACA isn't going anywhere. Anybody who thinks you can vote several million people back into worrying constantly about possible ruinous destitution upon injury is out of their minds. Every single person I know has at least SOMEBODY they know who is now covered, who was not before the ACA. All those people would never defund the ACA.


Republicans ought to pick a different fight.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
This thread:
I said this way back from the beginning about Ebola and Thomas Duncan in Texas.
Mr Duncan had no health insurance.
Went to a Texas ER.
Was sent home with Tylenol, and a bill.
And we know how that healthcare system eventually worked out for Mr Duncan.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Chart looks to be cherry picked. Lots of years missing between 2005 and 2010.

Yup.

And the Gallup poll taken at end of last year shows why.

The Gallup poll came to the opposite conclusion: Delaying medical treatment under Obama care is rising, not falling.

In U.S., 33% have put off medical treatment because of cost. (The highest in the last 14 years.)

More put off treatment for serious conditions than non-serious

More with private insurance put off treatment in 2014 than 2013

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179774/cost-barrier-americans-medical-care.aspx

I think the omission of 2013 of particular note.

Edit: Possibly higher deductibles and co-pays under Obamacare are responsible for this?

Fern
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Pretty strong case for universal single payer, if you ask me.

Why don't all the progressives out there pony up the money for it then? You obviously have the cash without needing to rely on conservatives, so what's holding you up?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,084
8,940
136
Why don't all the progressives out there pony up the money for it then? You obviously have the cash without needing to rely on conservatives, so what's holding you up?

Because all of the conservatives who keep spending tax money to bomb poors and browns across the world are wasting our money.