How ironic. I caught the flu right in the middle of blogging about health care reform. After two days of misery, I awoke this morning to see Tina Brown on CNN talking about how, as a Brit, she has been able to go to the doctor whenever necessary without question or worry. She said that for everyone born in the U.K. or Europe this is just a normal expectation of, "living in an evolved society." And she said everyone has always had the option to "go private" for enhanced care. Can you imagine the peace of mind that must offer?
The big question is how do they pay for it? That is what Congress is wrestling with now. It seems to me they are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.
A British writer and friend named Mark has lived in Paris for the last decade. Now a permanent resident of France, he has the unique perspective of both health care systems. He wrote to me saying, "In the U.K. basic health care is covered by National Insurance Contributions, which pays for the National Health Service, as well as retirement. In other words, if you're hospitalised in an emergency, nobody asks you if you're insured or, conversely, to write a cheque. The food may be lousy, but the chances are you'll live. NI contributions are taken right out of everyone's salary on a scaled basis and you barely notice them."
According to my American friend Elizabeth who now lives in the U.K. (see her story in Part 1), a noticeable difference between the level of care in the U.S. and British systems is the hospital ward. Here in the U.S. we're used to having "semi-private" rooms wherein two strangers are housed in adjacent beds in the same hospital room with curtains for privacy. In England, multiple patients are housed in an open ward with curtains for privacy. In a culture where our sense of community has completely broken down and we no longer know our neighbors, this would definitely require a psychological adjustment. However, unless our healthcare reform is going to include the cost of demolishing and rebuilding every standing hospital in the U.S., that's just not going to happen. Thus, ostensibly, we'll have the comparative luxury of semi-private rooms while gaining the peace of mind of no longer having to fight insurance companies and worry about losing our homes while we fight the cancer that put us in the hospital to begin with.
In France, things work a little differently. Free medical care for all, including the jobless and homeless, is the guiding principle, however implementation is a little more complicated. The French national health care system, L'Assurance Maladie, provides for standard medical care at 100% support. If you have a trauma, you are wheeled into the hospital, you receive the same standard of care we expect here in the U.S., and you pay for nothing. You are healed, given ample opportunity for recovery, and no one from billing contacts you. Also, the doctors don't have to get permission from an insurance company to determine what procedures to provide. They just get the job done.
When it comes to routine preventive care, in France, fees for doctor appointments and dental care are reimbursed at 80%. According to Mark, you present the receptionist with the French equivalent of a Social Security Card and pay 20-50 euros. You also give the card to the pharmacist when you pick up prescription drugs. He said, "If you're lucky enough to have an employer with a 'mutuelle', or private healthcare scheme, a small amount is taken out of your wages. You send a form to your mutuelle saying how much you paid for your check-up or dental appointment, and it's reimbursed. The result: you pay nothing."
Under debate by Congress now is a tax-based system that appears to be similar to the one used in England where roughly 10-11 cents of every dollar you earn is put in a giant fund to pay for every U.S. citizen to get the health care they need. I don't know about you, but one thin dime for every buck you make seems like a very easy trade for being able to see the doctor any time you need to. It is certainly a very easy trade-in on all of the stress of fighting the insurance company bastions over routine denials.
But what will all of this change mean for the doctors who care for us? I consulted with another friend, Steven R. Hindes, MD, MPH of Colorado. Dr. Steve and I went to high school together. I remembered him as one of those delightful people who always had the best interests of everyone in mind, so it was no surprise for me to learn that he graduated from the University Of North Carolina School Of Medicine with both his medical degree and a Masters in Public Health. He is a board certified family physician, and he operates a private practice outside of Denver. He is also a professor of medical health economics at the University of Denver. This week, I went to school with Dr. Steve on the economics of healthcare reform.
The big sticking point for most Americans, including Congressional Blue Dogs and RINOs, is how to fulfill President Obama's pledge that reform will be "deficit neutral." First, we need to understand why the deficit exploded in the first place. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama (sorry Dems, there's ample blame to go around on this one) abandoned the Pay-Go law that prevented Congress from approving any new expenditure until a tax was increased or a different expenditure was eliminated in order to make the new spending budget neutral. Add together the long list of unfunded mandates including Medicare Part D, the Iraq War and the Wall Street and Auto Industry bailouts, and we have the fix we're in today. One of the few programs in decades mandated to be deficit neutral is health care.
As a physician, Dr. Steve says that a public health care option that is "administered as efficiently as Medicare" is favorable. While the argument that a government option will drain consumers off the insurance company rosters has been used as a negative, Dr. Steve says this will be a positive effect. The reason: private insurance is currently way over-priced. Proof is how quickly premiums have outpaced cost-of-living and wages in the last decade. While he accedes that supply and demand per se doesn't work in health care, the fact is that supply drives demand and leads to excessive and redundant treatment with no benefit outcomes.
This is what the President speaks about often. "When these expensive sources are controlled and only used as truly needed, then the total billing goes way down," wrote Dr. Steve. "If someone wants to get the test or procedure even when it has been deemed not medically necessary, then they can pay for it themselves with their own money but the taxpayers will NOT pay for it." (His emphasis.) Critics spin this as "rationing." Truthfully, it is an end to CYA medicine a.k.a. "defensive medicine" that is done simply to avoid malpractice claims. Tort reform is essential.
As a family doctor, Hindes says that increasing the financial incentives to go to primary care and to get preventive services will reduce the high cost of specialist services that can be just as well handled by primary care physicians. This echoes what I learned a few years ago when I provided P.R. consultation to the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians. Our national addiction to specialists has made it economically infeasible for our front line physicians to practice in most rural areas and low income zip codes.
Another thing Dr. Steve believes will truly impact the cost of health care in reform is the elimination of direct-to-consumer advertising for medications which he says drives inappropriate demand and inappropriate use.
"When the uninsured have insurance, they will be seen early and fixed early," Dr. Steve wrote to me. "Now they wait until they are very ill, go to the ER, need advanced care and don't pay, so the hospital shifts the cost onto the next patient who walks in the door with good insurance and jacks up the bill...This is cost shifting, and it makes care seem extraordinarily expensive for those who are insured." Dr. Steve says that when everyone is insured, then preventive care is incentivized. That way when someone does need advanced care, the cost for those high-end services is spread across everyone, not just across those who happen to get sick.
Now that sounds like healthy economics.
Follow Kimberly Krautter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kimbrlykrautter
Loading comments… 
The next time somebody laughs at the French healthcare system in front of you, forget reason. Put 'em in the hospital.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest
As much as 30 percent of all health-car
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."
Apparently
THANK YOU !
According to the UN WHO, the US ranks 37th in the world in health care available to the "average" citizen. Correct.
In other words, the US health care system is not cutting the mustard and it's costs are out of control. It is time to scrape the whole program and start from scratch. There are 36 examples of other countries doing a better job with some at half the cost. Obama's big mistake is that he wants to improve a system which Americans are used to. Is this some flag waving patriotic exercise that because our system is a bunch of crap and that we need to stay with the crap because it's American crap?
Don't waste any more time arguing about how to fix a broken system while lobbyists push to preserve their special interests at the cost of the American people. Scrap it, junk the crap and start over.
"With nothing to give Washington
http://www
"July 31, 2009
BILL MOYERS: Watching the people in those lines waiting patiently and hopefully for free medical treatment, I couldn't help but think about how little chance they have against the powerful interests that are deciding the health care debate underway in Washington right now. In the weeks since my interview with Wendell Potter was first broadcast, the reports have kept piling up, and the message is the same: money trumps need.
1. Pass a law outright restrictin
2. Establish a new non-profit status for any organizati
3. Establish a strong enforcemen
4. Natural competitio
5. Treat people in primary care situations before they get sick.
These are just a few ideas. I don't firmly subscribe to these ideas, but I think that two or more should be enacted.
6. Legalize street drugs like marijuana. Tax them. Shootings and stabbings stop.
7. Tort reform. Pain and suffering base payments. Time lost.
True single payer system would cut cost $3,000 per person per year!
ONE TRILLION DOLLARS efficienci
Here is a funny (and true) comment from Newsweeks'
Jonathan Alter
What’s Not to Like? [tongue in cheek]
Reform? Why do we need health-car
Jul 31, 2009
"OK, if you really press me, I'm for one change. It's the one that Republican
http://www
On this point, the only thing that would help would be government price controls on malpractic
President'
Congress modifies how Paygo is applied and to what. The result of Paygo between 1995 and 2000 was a budget surplus. The Republican Congress turned Paygo on and off through 2006 but the deficit remained small because the economy produced off-settin
The 'fix we're in' today has nothing to do with Paygo. Republican
So, we are in a fix because of off-budget spending tools and spending increases that continued when tax revenue dwindled. Two examples are the Bush tax cuts that continued after they stopped being effective and the money for Iraq and Afghanista
Robert McElroy
Thank you for your courage gentlemen!
Learn more at the non-partis
http://www
The social security trust fund has been squandered on things conservati
Here is a more humorous view of some of these ideas:
Al Gore's State of the Union Address
http://www
In case you are a doctor, and your pay is dependent upon your patient's outcome, you will more likely strive to prescribe the best medicine for your patient, let alone avoiding unnecessar
Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a 'medical error' each year.
Under the new health care program, practition
Nowadays, we can't imagine the society without IT SYSTEM, just to think of the bank that lacks it, presumably what we should fear most would be the medical institutes without A MUST. I think measurable savings in the transforma
Thank So Much !
There's enough that we share. We can all have health care.
If we can afford to bail out AIG we can afford to take care of you and me.
http://www
http://www
Our government currently runs the post office and it runs on a deficit so they tax us more to make up for it. Our government runs Amtrak and it runs in the red so they tax us more to make up for it. Our government runs Medicare and Medicade. One bankrupt and one going bankrupt in a couple of years but they will tax us more to make up the difference