CDC: Number Of Uninsured Adults Rises | 2 Million More Americans Joined Ranks Of Uninsured In 2006, Report Says | ATLANTA, June 26, 2007
(AP) The number of adults without health insurance jumped by 2 million from 2005 to 2006, according to a new federal report.
Uninsured Americans numbered 43.6 million last year, a 6 percent increase from 2005, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Almost all the increase was in the non-elderly adult population — a trend attributed to diminishing employer coverage and pricier private insurance.
The change in non-elderly adults was significant, but the overall increase was not, CDC officials said. The overall count of the uninsured has been fluctuating between 41 and 44 million over the last five years and is not really trending up, they said.
...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
64 percent supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, ... but CBS says they do not
CBS's 'Sicko' Spin | Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do | 6/25/07
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
Staph superbug may be infecting patients ... 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated ...
Staph superbug may be infecting patients | By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Mon Jun 25, 5:04 PM ET
ATLANTA - A dangerous, drug-resistant staph germ may be infecting as many as 5 percent of hospital and nursing home patients, according to a comprehensive study.
At least 30,000 U.S. hospital patients may have the superbug at any given time, according to a survey released Monday by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
The estimate is about 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated. ...
ATLANTA - A dangerous, drug-resistant staph germ may be infecting as many as 5 percent of hospital and nursing home patients, according to a comprehensive study.
At least 30,000 U.S. hospital patients may have the superbug at any given time, according to a survey released Monday by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
The estimate is about 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated. ...
boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke ... indigent suffered the brunt
New Orleans deaths up 47% | By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
Hurricane Katrina's tragic aftermath lingered for at least a year after the storm abated, boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke, researchers reported Thursday.
Doctors say the dramatic surge in deaths comes as no surprise in a city of 250,000 mostly poor and middle-class people who lost seven of 22 hospitals and half of the city's hospital beds. More than 4,486 doctors were displaced from three New Orleans parishes, creating a shortage that still hampers many hospitals, says a companion study released Thursday.
The indigent suffered the brunt of the health toll from the 2005 storm. The Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, two hospitals that made up the city's safety net for the uninsured, were severely damaged. Charity Hospital, oldest and best known of the two, remains closed. ...
...
That study, released in May, found a death rate of 14.3 per 1,000 people during the first three months of 2006, compared with 11.3 per 1,000 for three-month spans in 2002 and 2004.
But Stephens says the state's figure still tops the U.S. rate of 8.1 per 1,000. "We don't think that's a slight increase, we've think it's a tremendous increase in mortality," he says. He called the state's numbers "inaccurate and incomplete" because they don't count deaths of evacuees who left Louisiana. ...
Hurricane Katrina's tragic aftermath lingered for at least a year after the storm abated, boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke, researchers reported Thursday.
Doctors say the dramatic surge in deaths comes as no surprise in a city of 250,000 mostly poor and middle-class people who lost seven of 22 hospitals and half of the city's hospital beds. More than 4,486 doctors were displaced from three New Orleans parishes, creating a shortage that still hampers many hospitals, says a companion study released Thursday.
The indigent suffered the brunt of the health toll from the 2005 storm. The Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, two hospitals that made up the city's safety net for the uninsured, were severely damaged. Charity Hospital, oldest and best known of the two, remains closed. ...
...
That study, released in May, found a death rate of 14.3 per 1,000 people during the first three months of 2006, compared with 11.3 per 1,000 for three-month spans in 2002 and 2004.
But Stephens says the state's figure still tops the U.S. rate of 8.1 per 1,000. "We don't think that's a slight increase, we've think it's a tremendous increase in mortality," he says. He called the state's numbers "inaccurate and incomplete" because they don't count deaths of evacuees who left Louisiana. ...
Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
25 June 2007 10:31 | Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs | By Roger Dobson | Published: 24 June 2007
Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists have warned.
Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing obesity epidemic.
All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia, showed evidence of weight increase.
"Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of prescription drugs. ...
Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists have warned.
Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing obesity epidemic.
All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia, showed evidence of weight increase.
"Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of prescription drugs. ...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
SiCKO America's health care system and explains why the whole system was actually designed to deny health care to the American people.
Why Michael Moore's SiCKO is a health care documentary every American must see | Tuesday, June 19, 2007 by: Mike Adams
America's disastrous health care system is heaving the country head-first into near-certain economic collapse. Just about everybody's either financially strained or going broke due to spiraling health care costs: the people, the employers, state governments and even the federal government. Multinational corporations are fleeing the United States due to health care costs, taking jobs and economic productivity with them. Meanwhile, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical expenses.
But not everybody's doing badly. The drug companies, surgeons, medical specialists, health insurance companies and private hospitals are making out like bandits, raking in multi-million dollar CEO salaries and -- I'm not making this up -- greater than 500,000% markups on prescription drugs. And while the American people get sicker, the drug companies, insurance companies and many health "care" providers (it's really more like "sick care providers") are rolling in cash. Drug companies are now among the richest corporations in the world, and they got there by inventing fictitious diseases, then selling drugs to people who mostly don't need them. See my CounterThink cartoon, Disease Mongers, Inc. to learn more about this topic.
Meanwhile, the American people are the most diseased people in the world among advanced nations. We spend more on health care than anyone, we pay the highest prices for medications, and we're constantly told that we have the best medical technology in the world. But if our health care system is really so good, why do 50 million Americans have no health insurance? Why are hospitals literally dumping uninsured patients on the street, abandoning the sick to protect profits while our politicians actually negotiate on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure Americans keep paying the highest prices in the world for medications? (Click here to see our CounterThink cartoon on President Bush's price negotiations with drug companies.)
What's wrong with America's health care system?
America's disastrous health care system is heaving the country head-first into near-certain economic collapse. Just about everybody's either financially strained or going broke due to spiraling health care costs: the people, the employers, state governments and even the federal government. Multinational corporations are fleeing the United States due to health care costs, taking jobs and economic productivity with them. Meanwhile, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical expenses.
But not everybody's doing badly. The drug companies, surgeons, medical specialists, health insurance companies and private hospitals are making out like bandits, raking in multi-million dollar CEO salaries and -- I'm not making this up -- greater than 500,000% markups on prescription drugs. And while the American people get sicker, the drug companies, insurance companies and many health "care" providers (it's really more like "sick care providers") are rolling in cash. Drug companies are now among the richest corporations in the world, and they got there by inventing fictitious diseases, then selling drugs to people who mostly don't need them. See my CounterThink cartoon, Disease Mongers, Inc. to learn more about this topic.
Meanwhile, the American people are the most diseased people in the world among advanced nations. We spend more on health care than anyone, we pay the highest prices for medications, and we're constantly told that we have the best medical technology in the world. But if our health care system is really so good, why do 50 million Americans have no health insurance? Why are hospitals literally dumping uninsured patients on the street, abandoning the sick to protect profits while our politicians actually negotiate on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure Americans keep paying the highest prices in the world for medications? (Click here to see our CounterThink cartoon on President Bush's price negotiations with drug companies.)
What's wrong with America's health care system?
SiCKO is a must-see documentary
SiCKO creator Michael Moore answers that all-important question in his best documentary yet. Forget whatever criticism you may have heard about SiCKO -- this is a Michael Moore masterpiece: A courageous, impactful and outrageous documentary that exposes the arrogance of modern medicine and the utter failure of America's corporate-controlled sick care system to provide decent health care to the people. Watching this movie will leave you either steaming mad or shedding tears (or both). It reveals the deep-rooted corruption in America's health care system and explains why the whole system was actually designed to deny health care to the American people. ...[45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. ] Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams...[but mostly dentists]
Discount Dentistry, South of The Border | By Manuel Roig-Franzia | Washington Post Foreign Service | Monday, June 18, 2007; Page A01
...
... Salvador found herself in an international cyber-bazaar of dentistry come-ons targeting patients in the United States, where 45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. The Internet offers crowns in Costa Rica, where "a few miles buys beautiful smiles," root canals in Bangkok and Caracas, and implants in Budapest, where the "Hungarian medical level of training compares to UK or Irish practitioners," according to one Web site.
Tempted as she was to head for Bangkok, Salvador, 58, chose Mexico, which is quickly transforming its border cities into catch basins for millions of bargain-hunting and uninsured Americans. Arizona retirement communities now organize regular bus tours for Mexican dental work and inexpensive drugs. New hospitals have opened in Tijuana, because some U.S. health plans have begun covering services in Mexico. And tiny border communities, some about an hour from Ciudad Juarez, are becoming dentistry boomtowns to handle an ever-growing flow of American patients flying in from as far away as Alaska.
In a recent University of Texas study, 86 percent of low-income El Paso residents surveyed -- half of whom were illegal immigrants -- said they receive medical care or buy prescription drugs from Mexico. Similarly, a study published in the Pan-American Journal of Health found that more than 37 percent of uninsured New Mexico border residents get medical care in Mexico.
Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams and routine checkups. But it is the dentistas -- thousands of them strung along the border -- who are in the vanguard in attracting U.S. health consumers. ...
...
... Salvador found herself in an international cyber-bazaar of dentistry come-ons targeting patients in the United States, where 45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. The Internet offers crowns in Costa Rica, where "a few miles buys beautiful smiles," root canals in Bangkok and Caracas, and implants in Budapest, where the "Hungarian medical level of training compares to UK or Irish practitioners," according to one Web site.
Tempted as she was to head for Bangkok, Salvador, 58, chose Mexico, which is quickly transforming its border cities into catch basins for millions of bargain-hunting and uninsured Americans. Arizona retirement communities now organize regular bus tours for Mexican dental work and inexpensive drugs. New hospitals have opened in Tijuana, because some U.S. health plans have begun covering services in Mexico. And tiny border communities, some about an hour from Ciudad Juarez, are becoming dentistry boomtowns to handle an ever-growing flow of American patients flying in from as far away as Alaska.
In a recent University of Texas study, 86 percent of low-income El Paso residents surveyed -- half of whom were illegal immigrants -- said they receive medical care or buy prescription drugs from Mexico. Similarly, a study published in the Pan-American Journal of Health found that more than 37 percent of uninsured New Mexico border residents get medical care in Mexico.
Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams and routine checkups. But it is the dentistas -- thousands of them strung along the border -- who are in the vanguard in attracting U.S. health consumers. ...
Monday, June 18, 2007
30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit ...
Edwards Lays Out Health Care Plan | By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Published: June 14, 2007 | Filed at 11:04 p.m. ET
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday proposed cutting health care costs by overhauling the patent process for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.
...
Edwards' plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.
He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. Campaign officials said the payments could be voluntary for drug companies and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.
...
''Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just about coverage,'' Edwards said. ''Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end.''
He also said his plan would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care, adding that 30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida already impose similar requirements. ...
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday proposed cutting health care costs by overhauling the patent process for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.
...
Edwards' plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.
He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. Campaign officials said the payments could be voluntary for drug companies and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.
...
''Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just about coverage,'' Edwards said. ''Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end.''
He also said his plan would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care, adding that 30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida already impose similar requirements. ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. ,,,
Summer 2007 Issue: Latin America Rising | Cuba's Cure | by Sarah van Gelder
Why is Cuba exporting its health care miracle to the world's poor?
They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world—including the United States.
The story of Cuba’s health care ambitions is largely hidden from the people of the United States, where politics left over from the Cold War maintain an embargo on information and understanding. But it is increasingly well-known in the poorest communities of Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa where Cuban and Cuban-trained doctors are practicing. ...
Why is Cuba exporting its health care miracle to the world's poor?
They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world—including the United States.
The story of Cuba’s health care ambitions is largely hidden from the people of the United States, where politics left over from the Cold War maintain an embargo on information and understanding. But it is increasingly well-known in the poorest communities of Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa where Cuban and Cuban-trained doctors are practicing. ...
[Eliminating $1.2B in cancer drug profits to doctors] ... doctors responded ... by performing additional treatments that give them best reimbursements
Incentives Limit Any Savings in Treating Cancer | By ALEX BERENSON | Published: June 12, 2007
When Medicare cracked down two years ago on profits that doctors made on drugs they administered to patients in their offices, it ended a windfall worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for each physicians.
The change, which mainly affected drugs to treat cancer and its side effects, had an immediate effect. In all, cancer doctors billed about $4.4 billion for chemotherapy and anemia medications in 2005, down from $5.6 billion in 2004, with Medicare covering 80 percent of the bills in each year. The difference mostly represented profit that doctors had made on the drugs.
But the change did not reduce overall federal spending on cancer care, which increased slightly. And cancer doctors say the change did nothing to reduce a larger problem in cancer treatment.
Some physicians say that cancer doctors responded to Medicare’s change by performing additional treatments that got them the best reimbursements, whether or not the treatments benefited patients. Those doctors also say that Medicare’s reimbursement policies are responsible.
“The system doesn’t value the time we spend with patients,” said Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a cancer doctor in Greenbrae, Calif., and director of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “The system values procedures.” ...
...
The ballooning cost of cancer treatment, one of Medicare’s most expensive categories, offers a vivid example of how difficult it may be to rein in the nation’s runaway health care spending without fundamentally changing the way doctors are paid.
...
In general, oncologists make money by providing chemotherapy, even when it has little chance of success. Oncologists naturally dislike telling cancer patients that they have exhausted all available treatments. Ending chemotherapy, after all, means acknowledging that a patient’s disease has become terminal. ...
...
Because the profits on different drugs varied enormously, doctors had an incentive to prescribe medications with the highest margins. Medicare requires a 20 percent co-payment by patients on chemotherapy medicines, but before 2005 doctors sometimes forgave those co-payments because their profits were so great.
...
When Medicare cracked down two years ago on profits that doctors made on drugs they administered to patients in their offices, it ended a windfall worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for each physicians.
The change, which mainly affected drugs to treat cancer and its side effects, had an immediate effect. In all, cancer doctors billed about $4.4 billion for chemotherapy and anemia medications in 2005, down from $5.6 billion in 2004, with Medicare covering 80 percent of the bills in each year. The difference mostly represented profit that doctors had made on the drugs.
But the change did not reduce overall federal spending on cancer care, which increased slightly. And cancer doctors say the change did nothing to reduce a larger problem in cancer treatment.
Some physicians say that cancer doctors responded to Medicare’s change by performing additional treatments that got them the best reimbursements, whether or not the treatments benefited patients. Those doctors also say that Medicare’s reimbursement policies are responsible.
“The system doesn’t value the time we spend with patients,” said Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a cancer doctor in Greenbrae, Calif., and director of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “The system values procedures.” ...
...
The ballooning cost of cancer treatment, one of Medicare’s most expensive categories, offers a vivid example of how difficult it may be to rein in the nation’s runaway health care spending without fundamentally changing the way doctors are paid.
...
In general, oncologists make money by providing chemotherapy, even when it has little chance of success. Oncologists naturally dislike telling cancer patients that they have exhausted all available treatments. Ending chemotherapy, after all, means acknowledging that a patient’s disease has become terminal. ...
...
Because the profits on different drugs varied enormously, doctors had an incentive to prescribe medications with the highest margins. Medicare requires a 20 percent co-payment by patients on chemotherapy medicines, but before 2005 doctors sometimes forgave those co-payments because their profits were so great.
...
Saturday, June 9, 2007
This doesn't help them at all, only lose profits when people don't throw away drugs anymore to buy new ones. ...
Unlike expired foods, which can be full of bacteria and fungi after the expiration, most drugs are good for at least 10 years after the expiration date. The reason they don't have longer expiration dates is that drug companies have to prove effectiveness beyond that time, which cost them a lot of time and resources to test. And why would they want to test for longer expiration dates? This doesn't help them at all, only lose profits when people don't throw away drugs anymore to buy new ones.
Many of our expired drugs go overseas, especially to Africa. Many are simply thrown away because we have too much money and paranoia to take expired drugs.
I'm not saying this from a conspiracy theory, either. Got this from a medical professor. ...
Many of our expired drugs go overseas, especially to Africa. Many are simply thrown away because we have too much money and paranoia to take expired drugs.
I'm not saying this from a conspiracy theory, either. Got this from a medical professor. ...
90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date
Drug Expiration Dates
Are the expiration dates on pharmaceu-ticals valid? In 1985, the U.S. military found that the expiration dates on $1 billion worth of their drugs were expir- ing so they decided to test the drugs to determine if the useful life of the drugs could be extended. They found that 90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date.
Some officials feel that expiration dates are put on drugs for marketing purposes
and have no bearing on whether a drug is still useable. The company chooses the expiration date, not the FDA. How-ever, FDA warns that the shelf life of drugs that must be refrigerated probably cannot be extended very long.
Are the expiration dates on pharmaceu-ticals valid? In 1985, the U.S. military found that the expiration dates on $1 billion worth of their drugs were expir- ing so they decided to test the drugs to determine if the useful life of the drugs could be extended. They found that 90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date.
Some officials feel that expiration dates are put on drugs for marketing purposes
and have no bearing on whether a drug is still useable. The company chooses the expiration date, not the FDA. How-ever, FDA warns that the shelf life of drugs that must be refrigerated probably cannot be extended very long.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes ... peer review, regulation, malpractice lawsuits, private evaluations
BMJ. 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519. | Copyright © 1999, British Medical Journal | Medical errors kill almost 100000 Americans a year | Fred Charatan | Florida
An expert panel from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found that medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year.
The chairman of the 19 member panel, William C Robinson, president of the W K Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan, a private, grant making body, said, “These stunningly high rates of medical errors—resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering—are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to ‘do no harm.’”
The panel's report, which was released in November, recommended that a new federal centre for patient safety should be set up in the Public Health Service and should have a budget of about $100m (£63m) a year, which is equivalent to just over 1%of the $8.8bn a year in costs estimated to be attributable to preventable medical injuries.
Healthcare providers would be required to inform state governments of any medical errors leading to serious harm; currently only 20 states have such reporting requirements. Doctors and nurses would also be re-examined periodically by state licensing boards to evaluate their competence and their knowledge of safety practices.
The report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes, which relies on a combination of peer review, federal and state regulation, malpractice lawsuits, and evaluations by private accreditation bodies. ...
An expert panel from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found that medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year.
The chairman of the 19 member panel, William C Robinson, president of the W K Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan, a private, grant making body, said, “These stunningly high rates of medical errors—resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering—are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to ‘do no harm.’”
The panel's report, which was released in November, recommended that a new federal centre for patient safety should be set up in the Public Health Service and should have a budget of about $100m (£63m) a year, which is equivalent to just over 1%of the $8.8bn a year in costs estimated to be attributable to preventable medical injuries.
Healthcare providers would be required to inform state governments of any medical errors leading to serious harm; currently only 20 states have such reporting requirements. Doctors and nurses would also be re-examined periodically by state licensing boards to evaluate their competence and their knowledge of safety practices.
The report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes, which relies on a combination of peer review, federal and state regulation, malpractice lawsuits, and evaluations by private accreditation bodies. ...
Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more that $136 billion a year in United States. ... 1 in 15.2 exposures is a problem]
Drugs & Doctors May be Leading Cause of Death | by Joseph Mercola, D.O. | Published 8/21/2004 | Pharmaceutical Industry News
...
Interestingly, when I contacted Dr. Starfield by e-mail she disagreed with the headline I had come up with. She did not feel that doctors were the third leading cause of death, but thought they were the number one cause of death because of their failure to inform their patients about the truth of health. Now this might be a bit too harsh as even if people understand health truth they have freedom of choice and can choose to use sugar, soda and drugs (legal and illegal) to compromise their health and longevity.
However, JAMA actually published a study a year earlier that could support that doctors may be the leading cause of death in the United States ......
Medication-related problems (MRP) continue to occur at a high rate in ambulatory hemodialysis (HD) patients.
Medication-dosing problems (33.5 percent), adverse drug reactions (20.7 percent), and an indication that was not currently being treated (13.5 percent) were the most common MRP.
5,373 medication orders were reviewed and a MRP was identified every 15.2 medication exposures.
Medication administration errors (MAEs) were observed in two departments of a hospital for 20 days.
The medication administration error rate was 14.9 percent. Dose errors were the most frequent (41 percent) errors, followed by wrong time (26 percent) and wrong rate errors. Ten percent of errors were estimated as potentially life-threatening, 26 percent potentially significant and 64 percent potentially minor.
Serious and Fatal Drug Reactions in US Hospitals
- Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more that $136 billion a year in United States. These estimates are higher than the total cost of cardiovascular care or diabetes care in the United States. A major component of these costs is adverse drug reactions (ADE).
...
As health reporter Nick Regush said last year:
"There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising false hopes. There is no treatment or vaccine in sight. There is no miracle breakthrough on the horizon.
Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It's entering a terminal phase.
What began as an acute illness reached the chronic stage about a decade ago and progression toward death has been remarkably swift and well beyond anything one could have predicted.
The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators - all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor."
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year ... + Other rankings
Doctors May Be Third Leading Cause of Death | by Joseph Mercola, D.O. | Published 3/15/2000 | Pharmaceutical Industry News | Rating: | Joseph Mercola, D.O.
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
Another analysis (11) concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
- 12,000 — unnecessary surgery 8
- 7,000 — medication errors in hospitals 9
- 20,000 — other errors in hospitals 10
- 80,000 — infections in hospitals 10
- 106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
- These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
- 116 million extra physician visits
- 77 million extra prescriptions
- 17 million emergency department visits
- 8 million hospitalizations
- 3 million long-term admissions
- 199,000 additional deaths
- $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.2
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:
- 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
- 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
- 11th for postneonatal mortality
- 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
- 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
- 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
- 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
- 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence. However the data does not support this assertion.
- The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range s from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
- The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
- The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
- Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
- Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
- It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
- Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world ... but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance
U.S. health care is bad for your health | César Chelala | Sunday, June 3, 2007
One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctional health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a study published last month detailing the shortcomings of U.S. health care when compared to the systems of other developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance.
Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh its advantages. ...
...
...Although the most notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.
... The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the United States. ...
...
... In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health stated, "The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess." Given the seriousness of the situation, this is an understatement.
One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctional health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a study published last month detailing the shortcomings of U.S. health care when compared to the systems of other developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance.
Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh its advantages. ...
...
...Although the most notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.
... The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the United States. ...
...
... In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health stated, "The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess." Given the seriousness of the situation, this is an understatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)