Health: June 2009

Monday, June 29, 2009

Response to the Senator accusing Canada of having "staggering" wait times from Canadian Surgeon - Democratic Underground

Response to the Senator accusing Canada of having "staggering" wait times from Canadian Surgeon - Democratic Underground
By Dr. David Zelt | The Kingston Whig Standard | 6/24/09
...
I am writing to you at this time to correct and update information that you provided to the U. S. Senate this week about Kingston General Hospital (KGH), where I am chief of staff and vice-president, medical administration. I am confident that you, as someone playing a major role in the current health-care debate in your country, would want to make your arguments based on material that is both correct and current.
...
Your statement to the Senate: “Today, the average wait time for (hip replacement) surgery at KGH is about 196 days.” In fact, our actual average hip replacement wait time is 91 days — less than half of what you stated.

Your statement to the Senate: “What about knee replacements? Well, at Kingston General, the average wait time is 340 days, or almost a year from the moment that the doctor says you need a new knee.” In fact, our average wait time for knee replacements is 109 days.

Your statement to the Senate: “What about brain cancer? In Ontario the target wait time for brain cancer surgery is nearly three months; same for breast cancer and prostate cancer.” These are simply that, targets. In fact, at KGH our average overall wait times for surgical treatment of all forms of cancer is 31 days (16 days for breast cancer, 49 for prostate and eight for neurosurgical cancer).

Your statement to the Senate: “And for cardiac bypass surgery, patients in Ontario are told they may have to wait six months for a surgery that Americans can often get right away.” In fact, the median wait time for cardiac surgery in Ontario is 16 days (32 days at KGH).

In summary, Senator McConnell, in an effort to advance your position opposing public health care, you have maligned a very proud institution whose service to our community dates back some 170 years. The “glimpse” you have provided of our national healthcare system neglects to mention that at its very base is Canadians’ fundamental right to accessible and quality health care regardless of their financial circumstances. ...

Raw Story � Healthcare industry spending $1.4 million - a day - on lobbyists

Raw Story � Healthcare industry spending $1.4 million - a day - on lobbyists
...

“The top recipients of health industry campaign contributions from 2000 to 2008 are new Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) at $7.3 million and $6.3 million respectively,” National Journal reports. “All of the campaign finance data used in the report came from the Center for Responsive Politics.

“The report concludes that members of Congress face a disheartening conflict of interest: side with their large campaign donors or back reform measures that have support from the public, like the public plan option which would create a publicly-funded health insurance entity to compete with private insurers,” the site adds. ...

The Real Cost of Our 'Disease Care' System | LiveScience

The Real Cost of Our 'Disease Care' System | LiveScience | By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor | posted: 29 June 2009 09:11 am ET

Everyone knows health care costs are busting us, as individuals and as a nation. Reform is needed, but the question is whether it will come and whether it will do the job.

Here's how bad it has gotten: Medical bills were behind nearly two-thirds of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007, researchers said in June. And most of those folks were middle class; most were homeowners; most went to college; most had health insurance. And that data came from before the economic downturn.

Our health care system should really be called a "disease care system," says Mohammad Torabi of Indiana University Bloomington's School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

As we've heard, the system is busy trying to stamp out diseases without focusing on the prevention of them, which would've cost a lot less. And with nearly 75 million Americans uninsured or underinsured, according to Dr. Mutaz B. Habal of the Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center, more and more of these folks end up at the emergency room, which is a much costlier way of caring for people than seeing them before their conditions become emergencies.

Spending on U.S. health care was more than $2 trillion in 2006 (that's about $7,026 per resident), almost three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Health care expenditures that year grew at a rate of 6.7 percent, outpacing inflation, the foundation states.

...

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Obama Must Take On the Giant Lobbyists Blocking Health Care Reform | Health and Wellness | AlterNet

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog. Posted June 15, 2009.

This is one of those battles that define the state of American democracy. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EXACTLY. ed]

The big guns are out and they're firing. All major lobbying firms in Washington -- many of them brimming with ex-members of Congress -- are now crawling all over the Hill. Lots of money is on the table. AMA's political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates since 2000, and its lobbying arm is one of the most formidable on the Hill. Meanwhile, Big Insurance and Big Pharma are increasing their firepower. The five largest private insurers and their trade group America's Health Insurance Plans spent a total of $6.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up more than $1 million from the first quarter last year, and are spending even more now. United Health Group spent $1.5 million in the first quarter, up 34 percent from the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter last year. Aetna spent $809,793 between January and the end of March, up 41 percent from last year. Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, spent more than $6.1 million on lobbying between January and March, more than double what it spent last year. It also spent nearly $3.3 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008. Every one of them is upping their spending.

Some congressional Democrats are willing and able to stand up to this barrage. Many are not. They need cover from the White House....

Obama Tells AMA US Health-Care Costs Are a 'Ticking Time Bomb' | CommonDreams.org

Obama Tells AMA US Health-Care Costs Are a 'Ticking Time Bomb' | CommonDreams.org |

by John McCormick and Bruce Japsen

President Barack Obama called the cost of health care a "ticking time-bomb" that threatens to slow the nation's economic recovery as he pushed a massive reform plan during an appearance today in Chicago before the nation's largest doctors group.

"We are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care -- almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation," he said during a nearly hour-long speech before the American Medical Association. "For all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured, the quality of our care is often lower and we aren't any healthier."
...

"The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy," he said. "It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It's a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America."

Obama also pointed to the costs incurred by companies to provide health care.

"A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers," he said. "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM: paying more, getting less and going broke." ...

In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health - NYTimes.com

By KEVIN SACK and MARJORIE CONNELLY | Published: June 20, 2009

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insuranceand that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

...

Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.

But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. ...

Americans struggle to pay for healthcare-study | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

Americans struggle to pay for healthcare-study

Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:00am EDT | By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Americans are struggling to pay for healthcare in the ongoing economic recession, with a quarter saying they have had trouble in the past 12 months, according to a survey released on Monday.

Baby boomers -- the generation born between 1946 and 1964 -- had the most trouble and were the most likely to put off medical treatments or services, said researchers at Center for Healthcare Improvement, part of the Healthcare business of Thomson Reuters (TRI.N).

The study, available here, found that 17.4 percent of households reported postponing or delaying healthcare over the past year.

... "The percentage of households that had difficulty in paying for care in the last year was statistically unchanged between March and April (about 25 percent)."

They found 40 percent of all households planned to postpone care in the coming three months, with about 15 percent planning to put off routine doctor visits.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option

As I lamented yesterday, health care is one of those areas where both popular opinionand sound public policy seem to take a backseat to protecting those stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. But can we actually see -- statistically -- the impact of lobbying by the insurance industry on the prospects for health care reform? I believe that the answer is yes.

Some 37 senators are listed by Howard Dean's website as supporting the public option so far: 36 Democrats plus Olympia Snowe. To Dean's list I add Arlen Specter as a 'yes' vote, based on a recent public statement.

...

We can also estimate which particular senators are most likely to have been influenced by lobbying money. The following chart presents the model's estimates of the net decrease in a senator's probability of supporting the public option based on the quantity of insurance PAC money that he has received:

Bad test results often not reported to U.S. patients - Yahoo! News

By Julie Steenhuysen – Mon Jun 22, 4:43 pm ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Doctors in the United States fail to tell patients about abnormal test results 7 percent of the time, or a rate of about 1 out of every 14 tests, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

...

Casalino and colleagues analyzed more than 5,000 patient records from 23 physician practices across the country, looking at screening tests for conditions such as high cholesterol, diabetes, blood tests for colon cancer and mammograms.

They found doctors failed to inform patients 7.1 percent of the time. Performance at individual practices varied widely. Some practices always informed patients, and some failed to inform patients 26 percent of the time....

t r u t h o u t | Spreading the Wealth Around to the Insurance Industry and Friends

The bloat in the health care sector is projected to grow rapidly over the next decade as health care consumes an ever larger share of the economy. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reports that just the increase in health care spending share of the economy over the next decade will cost us $4.3 trillion. That is equal to a health care tax of $57,000 for an average family of four.

Who benefits from the taxpayers generosity? CMS projects that $1.4 trillion, or $18,500 per family will go to the hospitals. Doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are each expected to score about $550 billion, costing families $7,300. And the insurance industry's share of GDP is projected to rise by $360 billion, or $4,800 for an average family.

These massive transfers are not the result of the wonders of the free market. These folks are getting money out of our pockets because their friends in Congress have rigged the deck so the money flows from us to them. For example, the government grants the pharmaceutical industry patent monopolies that prevent normal competition in the prescription drug market.

Unlike every other country in the world, the United States lets the drug companies use their government-granted monopolies to charge whatever they want. As a result, we pay nearly twice as much for our prescription drugs as people in countries like Canada and Germany.

Similarly, doctors are able to tightly control the supply of both US trained physicians and the number of doctors that can enter the country from abroad. If custodians had the same control over the labor market for janitors, they would all be making $80,000 a year. We pay close to twice as much for our doctors as people in other wealthy countries. The gap is especially wide for highly paid specialists like neurosurgeons and cardiologists.

...

Of course, the insurance industry is a total mess. They pocket more than 15 cents for every dollar they pay out to providers. By comparison, the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 2 percent of its revenue. If the insurers ever had to compete with a publicly run insurance plan on a level playing field, they would be blown out of the water.

We know that private insurers can't compete because we already had this experiment with the Medicare program. When private insurers had to compete on a level playing field with the traditional government-run plan they were almost driven from the market. That is why they got their friends in Congress to pass Medicare Advantage. This program spreads the wealth around by giving the private insurers a subsidy of more than 11 percent per patient.

A robust Medicare-type plan will not only reduce the insurance industry's tax on our health care, it will also be able to bargain for lower prices from the drug companies, the medical supply companies, and other health care providers.

For this reason, most of the industry is united against any sort of serious public plan. Their latest compromise is a system of small cooperative insurers that will have no bargaining power. That's a cute joke, but it has nothing to do with health care reform.

So, keep hold of your scorecard. Unless Congress creates a serious public plan, you can expect to be hit with the largest tax increase in the history of the world - all of it going into the pockets of the health care industry.

Obama Running Scared | CommonDreams.org

by Helen Thomas

A universal health care system based on the single-payer model appears to be a bridge too far for President Barack Obama.

A single-payer system, such as Medicare for everyone, would provide health care for all.

...

Nearly all Republicans and some moderate Democrats oppose any public plan option. These are the same lawmakers who receive many government-provided perks including health insurance.

In his remarks to the AMA, Obama warned against "scare tactics" and "fear mongering" by opponents of the public plan option, which the President said should be available to those who have no health insurance.

Obama rejected the "illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."

Obama should tear a page out of LBJ's vote-getting manual and shame the heartless opponents.

The health of all Americans is our business.

Public health plan could save money faster: policy group - Yahoo! News

By Susan Heavey – Wed Jun 24, 3:16 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A nationwide health insurance exchange that includes a Medicare-like government option could save $1.8 trillion more than if only private plans are offered, a prominent private U.S. health policy group said on Wednesday.

...

An exchange that instead offered a plan with rates slightly higher than Medicare but below current private plan rates would save nearly $800 billion over one with only private options, according to the Commonwealth Fund's analysis.

"Offering a public plan choice and the design of this choice makes a difference in the pace of change," said Cathy Schoen, the group's senior vice president. ...

... Overall, an exchange with a Medicare-like plan will save nearly $3 trillion through 2020, saving consumers up to $2,200 per household, Commonwealth found. About $2 trillion of that would come after about five to six years, it said.

In comparison, an exchange including a government plan with higher rates would save $1.97 trillion and a private plan-only exchange would save almost $1.2 trillion. Both options would save a household $1,600.

Health Insurance Insider to Testify About Deceptive Practices - ABC News

Former Health Insurance Executive Slated to Speak Before Senate Today | By ALICE GOMSTYN | ABC News Business Unit | June 24, 2009

...

Wendell Potter, who worked in public relations for Cigna and Humana Inc., for more than 20 years before retiring in 2008, is scheduled to testify this afternoon before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

...

"Consumers can't make real choices because the insurance industry doesn't use standard language or definitions. And consumers can't challenge insurance companies' decisions because the companies don't explain the terms of coverage in clear, understandable language," said committee chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., in a written statement. ...

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study | U.S. | Reuters

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations." ...

...

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads. ...

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

How Health Care Stole Your Pay Raise - The Atlantic Business Channel

How Health Care Stole Your Pay Raise - The Atlantic Business Channel | Jun 3 2009, 10:35 am by Derek Thompson

This amazing graph bouncing around the web is the most striking example of why health care reform isn't just about reforming care. It's about reforming the economy. New bumper sticker: "Reform Health Care; Get a Raise!"

In layman's terms, the hard blue line is the expected growth in average wages. The dashed-purple line is what's actually appearing in workers' wallets, which is average wages minus health premiums. In other words, health care is robbing you of your bonus. ...

Health