Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (22165)	8/18/2011 2:46:03 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. The U.S. system appears to be failing for chronic care: Our chronic disease care ain’t #1 Yesterday, I highlighted a Commonwealth Study comparing twelve industrialized nations to show how we’re paying more for the same drugs. Today, I want to point out some other findings related to quality. Specifically, I want to show you some data related to how well we care for chronic diseases. One of my longstanding complaints about the US health care system is how we focus so heavily on really bad, but relatively rare things. We will do anything it seems to prevent a death from happening, but we will often ignore primary care, public health, and chronic disease ambulatory care. That’s penny-wise and pound foolish, and it bears out in comparative data. When we don’t care properly for people with chronic diseases on an ongoing basis, they get sick. Then, they need to get admitted to the hospital. That’s expensive, and often avoidable. So a well-functioning health care system will work to prevent admissions for chronic diseases. And, in this, we fail: That’s the number of people over age 15 per 100,000 pop who had to be admitted to the hospital for their asthma in 2007. We’re not even close to doing well, let alone being number one. And it’s not just asthma. Here’s hospitalizations for congestive heart failure: Similarly bad. That’s two different organ systems, two different diseases, two different examples of how we’re doing pretty badly at preventing hospital admissions, which costs money and leads to bad outcomes. But that wasn’t even the worst thing I saw in the report. That prize goes to diabetes. You see, if you don’t take care of your diabetes properly, over time you can get really bad complications. You can have eye problems, or kidney problems, or circulation problems. Sometimes these get so bad, then lead to non-healing wounds which result in amputations. Obviously, this is a complication you don’t want. Yet, here are lower extremity amputations due to diabetes: That’s so bad, I don’t even know where to start. We’re an obese country, and we have more diabetes than most other countries, but this is a preventable outcome. And we’re doing really, really badly. When we brag, we consistently stick to the same things. Rare transplants, survival rates of cherry-picked cancers, and other aspects of the system that don’t relate to outcomes. But this is the stuff that often matters: common chronic diseases that require ongoing care and a well-functioning health care system. We don’t have that system, and it shows. theincidentaleconomist.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (22165)	8/18/2011 2:52:27 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 42652

Our chronic disease care ain’t #1 – ctd. It’s frustrating, because whenever I show data on how we don’t do so well in caring for one disease or another, someone inevitably tries to “gotcha!” me by claiming that there’s a good explanation for it, other than the fact that our system is lacking. Today’s excuse seems to be “the prevalence must be the reason”. A number of you have emailed me, or commented, that it may be that the reason there are more amputations in the US is because diabetes is much more common here. More people sick = more amputations. So here’s the chart of amputations again: And here’s the prevalence of diabetes in those countries: Yes, we have a lot of diabetes in the US, but not so much more than everyone else, and they all do better than us. One in particular on the left (which gets a bad rap on “difficulty to get care”) has nearly the same prevalence in diabetes and less than one third the amputations. Someday, you’ll learn to trust me. Or at least, to trust Occam’s Razor. UPDATE: ARGH! 1) I didn’t have these data “handy”. They take time to take down and chart. But now I’ve done it. 2) Data on Germany were not available for amputations. Go look at the link to the original data I provided. 3) Here’s Asthma. First hospital admissions again: And then prevalence. Data were not available for the Netherlands, and I used England for the UK. Scotland and Ireland were even worse:

To: Brumar89 who wrote (22165)	8/23/2011 11:43:26 PM
From: Webster Groves	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

Wow those statistics clearly show the American system is better than Canada's. Yet Canada has a lower infant mortality rate and a longer life expectancy, despite Tim's donuts and hockey night heart attacks. Strange isn't it. Maybe not. Older folks in Canada don't loose their life savings to medical care, and descendents inherit enough to buy condos in Florida and Arizona. When they get sick, though, they always go home. Why is that ? wg