How American Health Care Killed My Father

The Atlantic (September 2009):

Almost two years ago, my father was killed by a hospital-borne infection in the intensive-care unit of a well-regarded nonprofit hospital in New York City. Dad had just turned 83, and he had a variety of the ailments common to men of his age. But he was still working on the day he walked into the hospital with pneumonia. Within 36 hours, he had developed sepsis. Over the next five weeks in the ICU, a wave of secondary infections, also acquired in the hospital, overwhelmed his defenses. My dad became a statistic--merely one of the roughly 100,000 Americans whose deaths are caused or influenced by infections picked up in hospitals. One hundred thousand deaths: more than double the number of people killed in car crashes, five times the number killed in homicides, 20 times the total number of our armed forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another victim in a building American tragedy.

Read the whole story: The Atlantic (September 2009)

Comments

[SteveZecola]

This article provides a better understanding of the flaws of the U.S. health care system than any other that I have seen.

I can personnally attest to the unnecessary prescription of procedures such as MRIs and the inability to get prices to prescription medicines and medical services.

These problems will be around foreover -- with or without the current proposed legislation -- so the costs will continue to be excessive.

Unfortunately, Congress is off in a direction that is trying to solve the wrong problem. Instead Congress should break up its Omnibus bill into little pieces and start with the pieces that are going to lower the escalating costs of health care.

[Steven Anderson]

Great article. That does not include the even higher number that die in Doctors care every year because of misdiagonsis and either over perscribing of medicine or the prescribing of completely contraindicative medicine. I was a Doctor and "dropped out" in 92 after the horrors I saw. Have you ever read the internationally known proven reports from around the world that when hospitals and the health care system goes on strike by some unknown miracle the death rate drops....hmm something to think about.

[pros54]

If you dropped out as a doctor what right do you have to criticise those who are trying to do their best? Again in ever growing criticism so called deaths due to Dr's mistakes and hospital acquired infections it must be borne in mind that these are really at worst contributosy causes. The case above it should be noted that pneumonia is a very serious disease in the elderly no matter how apparently health the person is.

[booker52]

I read this piece and still say reform is needed in the insurance industry. The same for the way healthcare folks do business. I hear those folks say people with insurance don't know what their bills are. Hell yes I do. What, do they think we don't read the bills?? Don't read our insurance statements??
Get real, there is alot of room for change on both sides, the providers and the insurance companies.

[progressivelady]

These are the stories that should be told at the towne hall mob rallies

[iridium53]

My father was denied early treatment and then painfully died of cancer that had spread to his spine.
It seems to be a common story.

Most Americans get their healthcare insurance from their employers. The insurance companies create "products" that satisfy the needs of their customers - the employers. The third-party beneficiaries of these insurance products are the employees - who most often also have to pay in.
These policies are designed to keep the employee tied to the employer, and to limit the cost to the employer. Hence the limitations, because they'll no longer be employed by that company when they're really sick, and can no longer work.

Business executives make these decisions to increase their profit.

Isn't it time, really, that we took these decisions out of the hands of business executives? Haven't they proved often enough, that relying on these businesses is not wise?

And, isn't it time, really, that we stop the idea that the bureaucracy of the government is any less efficient than the bureaucracy of AT&T, Florida Power and Light, HP, IBM, Microsoft, or Bank of America? Hardware, software and banking are way easier than healthcare provision. Is your experience with those companies - for instance Microsoft software - so good that you belive your life should be dependent upon them? Really? Those products are the result of their best bureaucratic efforts.

[PhilipTaylor]

EIGHTY-ONE 9ll's!

The REAL THING by Insurance Companies PRICING People out of the Market:

242,000 lost due to lack of health care coverage since 9ll! (22,000 D1E/Year X 11 years)

2,974 DE@THS in 9ll!

81 repeats of 9ll!

Let this sink in!

We spent $3 Trillion on 1RAQ according to Harvard Magazine!

HAL1BURT0N charges $40 for every soldiers meal and $100 for every bag of laundry or $7.8 Billion/Year or $85 Billion for Food and Laundry Services in 1RAQ!
__________­__________­________

Republicans want a breakdown of the nearly 50 Million People who have NO Health Care Coverage!

Who cares? So you can show a BIAS toward one group versus another?

They all use the Emergency Room or D1E (242,000 D1ED Since 9ll) and cost 1000% more than seeing a Doctor!

A Cost of $1.3 Trillion per year!

[urweatherman]

For every article like this, there are dozens of examples from states with government programs (like MA / OR) where worse has happened.....

[hark]

And your sources are?

By the way, health care is not the same thing as health insurance. Health care can be atrocious and the insurance superb, or vice versa.

In America, the insurance system is a disaster, and the care system is sub par, ranking 37th according to WHO, while being the most expensive by far.

Now how many dozens of countries can you find worse than that among the western nations?

[slithers]

And you don't think that will happen with Obama care?

[LemonMeringue]

There is no such thing as "Obama care."

[hansulrichrudel]

Looks like hospitals are much more dangerous than guns. So why don't the "gun-grabbers" want to ban hospitals instead?

[tbone99]

When doctors and nurses go on strike, death rates drop.Go figger

[Rayme]

LOL, it's true, in India, the doctors went on strike. The strike ended when the Morticians began to protest the strike due to a decline in their business.

[akryan]

I like how the talk about financing. Let's figure this out: the poorer I am, the worse my credit rating will be, the less likely I will be to get financing, and the higher the rate any financing I do get will be. So, the less able I am to pay for something, the more I'll be charged for it. I'd love to see what sort of terms a single mother making $40K a year will get if little Johnny needs a "non-catatrophic" $40K worth of medical care. Let's add usuary to the myriad of problems we have with health care.

I think the author of the article is sincere, but his assumptions about fiscal stability in people's lives are way too idealistic. Good for him though in taking his time to research the issue and put forward a proposal avoiding hystrionics.

[Eres]

HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:

* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.

[loki]

if it is pro business it will pass. But the part that kills it is when it says pro people.
Ivy Greed doesnt want to do anything for the people. Keep us down, keep us depressed , suppressed and in fear and they keep us under their control. Make us really feel we are empowered and have some control over things, and they lose their grip. Ivy Greed educated overlords do not like giving up even the tiniest bit of control. That is why they are exclusive from their education processes to their strict rules on just who can be included in their little but powerful group.

[yappnmutt]

and retirement before 65 is a reality.

[LewDan]

In the '60s early retirement was at 50, retirement at 55 and MANDATORY retirement at age 60.

People complained of mandatory retirement as they were still willing and able to work. Now retirement age is kept within spitting distance of life expectancy as a government dodge to avoid paying benifits.

Back then people expected to retire after 20-30 years on the job with another 15 years or so of pleasant retirement ahead of them. Now its work till you drop and retirement to a nursing home, if you're lucky -- real "progress."

[Costa]

Lets face it. We keep hearing about how our healthcare costs twice as much as any where else in the world, but that we have the best care. The reality is that the WHO lists the US at around 37th in the world. Costa Rica and Dominica, both being "third world" countries, rate above us. Does anyone care to address that discrepancy.

[shanefish]

No doubt! I heard gasps all around the country that health care reform would cost a trillion $ over 10 years ($100 billion/year), and yet no one mentioned how much we pay already....over $2 trillion/year.

[loki]

but we pay that 2 trillion to private companies who control just how much, or how little care they can give for how much money. If the government gets into it, they might have to do a little bit more for the same amount of money. Just doesnt make good business sense. Just go ask any Harvard, Yale, Princeton Business professor. It goes against the IVy Greed Code of unEthics

[Oonagh]

To say that we have the best care in the world is a lie. For a certain group of people it is great... and for the next group of people it is fair and then.... for the rest it is poor to awful to non existent.

[GardenerNorCal]

Perhaps their medical personnel wash their hands?

[dieselis]

Docters diagnois are 50% on a constant. They are wrong as much as right. In this day and time its uncalled for however it spreads the wealth. Specialty Docters are necessary however, they generate a high expense of 2x what a reg doc charges. This is not right. The overhead they generate is wasteful and some teamwork would reduce it,but the claim is insurance prevents it. 3specialist s and a primary doc isn't allowed in the same office by medicare 1.Misdiagnois rate at 50% 2.Overhead for fancy office space 3.Lack of standard procedure for the correct and most efficient and successful treatment 4.Repetative treatment practices. You give the same test to all your patients. 5.Absolutle refusal to work as a team 5a.I have the degree so we do it my way. Inefficiency is the underlining problem and the major problem of health industry. We need new highperformance clinics that are open 12-16hrs a day or more in some cases. Low overhead for infrastructure, but the highest quality equipment and service that can be attained. You bring the diagnois up to 90% and informed patients demand proper treatment your 2/3rds fixed. Work on the Country Club atmosphere and pickup another 1/6th and your not going to get much better. No easy task, but not near as hard as you think.

[Robert59]

Costs for health care are up in those nations with universal health care because their populations are getting older and the pharmaceutical industry forcing very expensive drugs with marginal benefit be given to patients. Case in point, herceptin. There is now a push for it to be given for a laundry list of cancers because it will extend lives by 2 to 3 months. A typical regimen of herceptin therapy is 15 months; one infusion a month, 10 to 13K for each infusion. Do the math; we can't generate enough dollars to pay for these unproven treatments, but the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have coerced or coopted patients and physicians to insist on them.

We do need reform and the public option is the first step in reforming our system. I predict it will lower costs and move us away from our current system because insurance companies will find other services offering higher rates of return.

[bluevase]

Wait a minute, Robert. Herceptin saved my life. I took it for five years. My cancer is in remission and I'm back to work. Herceptin has already extended my life by five years -- and I intend to live for at least another 20.

[Robert59]

Bluevase,

Herceptin is not given for 5 years. Are you sure you're not confusing Herceptin and tamoxifen? My wife received Herceptin (15 infusions over a 15 month period) to prevent a recurrence of breast cancer. She is HER2 positive and ER PR negative.

At the time my wife's oncologist put her on Herceptin it's efficacy was being tested via several long range studies. The studies weren't complete but he was able to get her treatment covered by our insurance.

Herceptin is now being marketed for treatment of a lot of different cancers, but the studies show it is not curing those cancers, just adding one or two months of survival. That to me is disingenous marketing.
e

[hoobit]

Robert59 ~ as you point out, one size does NOT fit all ... particularily when it comes to medications and/or treatments. I think that's part of what POTUS is *trying* to get the public to understand [when it comes to healthcare reform/overhaul.]

You mention herceptin. As bluevase says, that particular drug has added at LEAST five years to her life - because the Doc prescribed it *specific* to bluevase's case, the effects were what they were supposed to be. On another patient, the drug might not work as well or won't work at all. Yet so many Docs still prescibe it to all their breast cancer patients *regardless* of *other* factors...'covering all bases.'

POTUS is urging formation of a *systematic, COMPREHENSIVE study* of drugs (and treatments) for their efficacy on illnesses and diseases. Without that, without a *factual* breakdown of what works BEST and under what conditions, drugs and treatments will continue to be prescribed as they are now: on 'the word' of the Pharma cos, theDoc's intuition and training, trial-and-error, and/or reports from other doctors/journals about efficacy [if the Doc has access to those reports/journals.] It's pretty much the drug (or treatment) du jour, OR what's (historically) been prescribed. Not good.

Find out *which* patients/conditions will respond BEST to a given course and only prescibe that drug/treatment to *those* patients. We have to tailor treatment to the *specific* patient to health them *&* control costs.

[hoobit]

Adding:

And no, this is NOT "rationing" - it is common sense. A much more holistic approach needs to be taken - the {single} disease is *not* the only thing that needs close attention when prescribing a patient drugs and/or treatment of a disease or illness. i.e. A patient with end-stage Alzheimers is NOT a candidate for aggressive treatment of seconday disease (say, breast cancer). The patient will die *with* the breast cancer...not *of* it. (Yes, that's an extreme example, but it's just to illustrate my point...)

[hoobit]

Adding:

And no, this is NOT "rationing" - it is common sense. A much more holistic approach needs to be taken - the {single} disease is *not* the only thing that needs close attention when prescribing a patient drugs and/or treatment of a disease or illness. i.e. A patient with end-stage Alzheimers is NOT a candidate for aggressive treatment of seconday disease (say, breast cancer). The patient will die *with* the breast cancer...not *of* it. (Yes, that's an extreme example, but it's just to illustrate my point...)

[menlopian]

Very good article.