Saturday, July 25, 2009

Principles of Health Care Reform 072509

This is a living document. I started it and I change it as I get suggestions and feedback from others.

Principles of Health Care Reform


1. The United States shall have the best health care in the world.
2. Health care reform shall transfer power to PATIENTS, doctors, nurses, and allied health care professionals, and away from government and corporations.
3. The first question from a doctor's office or hospital will be "How can I help you?" not "What is your insurance?"
4. Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch, shall have the same health care as the people - no better - no exceptions.
5. Health care reform shall be simple.
6. Patients shall be the most powerful people in the health care system.
7. Patients shall be in charge of how to spend their money on health care.
8. Patients shall be told the price of everything in advance, except during emergencies, or they don't have to pay.
9. Patients shall be able to get their medical records instantly and easily and shall control the release of such information.
10. Health care shall be based on science.
11. Health care shall encourage prevention.
12. Patients shall have access to more health care information than they have now.
13. Patients shall be able to go to any doctor and to any hospital.
14. Tort reform.

These are the principles of health care reform that will save tens of thousands of lives.

TakingOverHealthCareReform.org
TakingOverHealthCareReform.blogspot.com
Facebook profile: http://profile.to/healthcarereform
Twitter.com/takingoverHCR

Bradley R. Hennenfent, M.D.
patient, physician, and economist
retired due to injury and illness
Facebook.com/hennenfent
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Petition that Congress shall have Same Health Care as the People

Petition that Congress shall have Same Health Care as the People

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/healthcareforcongress/

Friday, July 24, 2009

Principles of Health Care Reform 072409

Principles of Health Care Reform 072409

1. The United States shall have the best health care in the world.
2. Health care reform shall transfer power to PATIENTS, doctors, nurses, and allied health care professionals, and away from government and corporations.
3. Health care reform shall be simple.
4. Patients shall be the most powerful people in the health care system.
5. Patients shall be in charge of spending the money; third parties shall not dominate treatment decisions.
6. Patients shall be told the price of everything in advance or they don't have to pay.
7. Patients shall be able to get their medical records instantly and easily.
8. Health care shall be based on science.
9. Health care shall encourage prevention.
10. The first question from a doctor's office or hospital will be "How can I help you?" not "What is your insurance?"
11. Patients shall access to more information than they can get now.

These are the principles of health care reform that will save tens of thousands of lives.

TakingOverHealthCareReform.org
TakingOverHealthCareReform.blogspot.com
Facebook profile: http://profile.to/healthcarereform
Twitter.com/takingoverHCR

Bradley R. Hennenfent, M.D.
patient, physician, and economist
retired due to injury and illness

Facebook, Inc.Image via Wikipedia


Facebook.com/hennenfent
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, July 23, 2009

From Email on Health Care Reform

I don't want our system ruined for us, our children and grandchildren.
I have a "friend" who has never had a job, always lived off his parents' considerable fortune and now lives off his wife's hard work, tell me that "I think this country needs a little more socialism". My thought was.....yes socialism is a great deal for those who DON'T Work.
There is a great book that you really need to read, PJ O'Rourke, "Eat the rich". It sums up my beliefs to the letter! Funny but very educational.

I've seen your interesting comments on health care. My take on it is..... I don't want to be at the mercy of a huge government bureaucracy with crappy "free" health care, and higher taxes. The taxes on middle-upper income people are so high now there is no incentive to work anymore. Every week I turn down consulting work, since any added income just goes to more taxes. (I already pay right at 50%) so it isn't worth the extra work for "half pay". Very discouraging. I don't believe any socialist government has ever succeeded in the history of the world. I just isn't human nature to work hard for no reward. If every student got a C, regardless of the effort, who would try for an A? And what about all those who should earn an F?

I think the thing that worries me the most is that Obama is trying to push through a half-baked health care plan, just like his rush to push through his trillion dollar stimulus/tax plan. Both are disasters. Rather than try to provide a safety net for the 15-20% of Americans without good health coverage, he wants to expand the role of government (unconstitutionally)to give his supporters more power, the ability to control more of our income, and to give government total control over our jobs, and lives. Totalitarianism never works......Socialism never works.....Communism never works.....why can't these people get it?

I wish you luck. Unfortunately, Government and politics is about POWER and Money. The special interests, congress and career bureaucrats, want to create a huge organization that will give them more power and money over the population who actually works and pays all the bills. The 40% of the population who pay no income taxes don't care about cost, because they don't pay for HC anyway. But they demand equal access. Much like teenage children who demand the latest cell-phone and a laptop computer. They think they should get anything they want for free. Look at England and Canada. The % of every dollar that goes to administration of health care has gone UP since government run HC began, and the quality and control of HC has moved away from patients and physicians as quality has deteriorated.
I pay too much in taxes. It has gotten to the point where it is no longer worth the trouble to work hard. If you don't get to enjoy what you earn, then why bother killing yourself.........

I'm glad you are working on it. I don't know how much good it will do. I feel unfortunately that most individuals buy-in to the government propaganda program, and are willing to believe anything CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. feeds their little brains.............I guess I am just getting old and bitter...
Still working and not able to set anything aside for retirement. Tired of paying for cell-phones for people on welfare, giving inmates in prison air-conditioning, and cable TV when my kids school doesn't even enough room for each kid to have a locker....

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Patient Power by Goodman & Musgrave

An entire book on health care reform, written by two economists, is available for free download in pdf format at:

Profile of Adam SmithImage via Wikipedia

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp_pp_PatientPowerComplete.pdf

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

Brief Analysis | Health

Read Article as PDF
Get Adobe Reader



No. 649

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

  • Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
  • Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
  • More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
  • Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.



[1] Concord Working Group, "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe at responsible for theountries, in s chnologies, " Lancet Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2008, pages 730 - 756; Arduino Verdecchia et al., "Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data," Lancet Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 - 796.

[2] U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; also see June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13429, September 2007. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.

[3] Oliver Schoffski (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), "Diffusion of Medicines in Europe," European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002. Available at http://www.amchampc.org/showFile.asp?FID=126. See also Michael Tanner, "The Grass is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems around the World," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 613, March 18, 2008. Available at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272.

[4] June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

[5] Ibid.

[6] Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada," Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona "Medical Technology in Canada," Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., "Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies," Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."; M.V. Williams et al., "Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005," Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.

[7] Nadeem Esmail and Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn 17th Edition: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada 2007."

[8] "Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics," Department of Health, England. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Performancedataandstatistics/HospitalWaitingTimesandListStatistics/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=186979&Rendition=Web.

[9] Cathy Schoen et al., "Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007," Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, Vol. 26, No. 6, October 31, 2007, pages w717-w734. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/6/w717.

[10] June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

[11] Victor R. Fuchs and Harold C. Sox Jr., "Physicians' Views of the Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations," Health Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 5, September /October 2001, pages 30-42. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/5/30.pdf.

[12] OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html.

[13] "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation," Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004), 108th Congress, 2nd Session H. Doc. 108-145, February 2004, Chapter 10, pages 190-193, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf; Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Tom Coburn, Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner, "Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation," Heritage Foundation, Lecture No. 1030, April 2007; Thomas Boehm, "How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development?" Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pages 158-66, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2002. Available at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/erp/page/8649/download/47455/8649_ERP.pdf .

[14] Nicholas D. Kristof, "Franklin Delano Obama," New York Times, February 28, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html.

[15] The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. Available at http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html.

[16] "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation," 2004 Economic Report of the President.

We depend on the financial support of individuals. We need your help to continue our work. Join the NCPA today!

Endoscopic image of colon cancer identified in...Image via Wikipedia

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care - Brief Analysis #649

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care - Brief Analysis #649

The above article is a must read essay on health care.

Shared via AddThis

Government Healthcare Stopped ...For Now

Dick Durban (D-IL) says that Senate won't be able to vote on the government-run healthcare plan until after August recess. This is a big victory for rational healthcare reform, but Nancy Pelosi is still trying to get healthcare through House before August.

Continue to put the pressure on these 7 Blue Dog Democrats to stop it.

The most important of the anti-government-run healthcare Democrats is Mike Ross. His phone lines in DC are flooded every day, and there is no space on his answering machines, so shift your focus to calling his local offices at:
870 881-0681, 501 520-5892, and 870 536-3376

and telling him:
-We don't want the government running healthcare.
-We don't want to add billions of dollars to the deficit. (The CBO says this bill adds $200 billion.)
-We want healthcare reform to control costs. (The CBO says this bill raises costs.)

US Senator Orrin Hatch

US Senator Orrin Hatch
July 22nd, 2009 Media Contact(s): Mark Eddington and Andrea Saul, 202-224-5251
Printable Version
HATCH STATEMENT ON NEED FOR FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND TRULY BIPARTISAN HEALTHCARE REFORM

WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), member and former chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today made the following statement on the need for financially responsible and truly bipartisan healthcare reform:

“For years, I have worked in the United States Senate on behalf of Utahns fighting for policies that best promote the interest of families in Utah and across the nation. Bipartisanship has been one of my hallmarks, especially when it comes to health care laws. I have found ways to work with very liberal members in both the House and Senate when partisanship has been set aside and compromise has been forged for the good of the American people.

“In today’s health care debates, everyone realizes that ensuring access to affordable, quality and portable health care for every American is not a Republican or Democrat issue – it is an American issue. Our nation expects us to solve this challenge in an open, honest and bipartisan manner. I have spent the past several months working with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that any effort to reform our health care system not only makes quality health care more affordable for our families but is also fiscally responsible to protect future generations.

“We as a nation are facing the worst financial crisis since the Great depression. Our national debt is on the path to tripling within the next decade, the deficit this year alone will approach $2 trillion, the unemployment rate is almost in double digits, and states across the nation are facing more than $200 billion in deficits.

“I am of the strong mind that we need to urgently reform our health care system while recognizing the economic realties of our time. Simply passing a bill entitled ‘Health Care Reform’ that spends another trillion plus dollar is not the answer. Instead, we should focus on reforming the current market for every American to ensure that insurance companies no longer discriminate against sicker Americans and every American has an opportunity to keep and get the coverage of their choice. We have to address the tremendous waste, fraud and abuse in our system that costs billions of dollars every year. Most importantly, we need to target our hard-earned tax-payer dollars to help Americans who truly cannot afford insurance and start on a pathway to cover all Americans.

“The head of the Congressional Budget Office told us in no uncertain terms that the health care policies being pursued by this Congress will only worsen our deficit, create more joblessness, expand unsustainable entitlement programs that are driving our states bankrupt and start us down a path of a Washington-driven health care system. In my conversations with Utahns and Americans across the country, it is clear that people are frustrated with the ill-conceived and costly stimulus exercise and do not believe we should take the same rushed approach to health care.

“For months, I have been participating in bipartisan discussions with other members of the Senate Finance Committee in an effort to craft a compromise bill which that could be signed into law and help American families. During our discussions, I grew increasingly concerned that the President and congressional leaders have, to date, been unwilling to roll up their sleeves and agree to protect a bipartisan health care compromise from being gutted on the Senate floor and in a conference with the House. I praise Sen. Baucus and my other colleagues in the group – Democrat Sens. Conrad and Bingaman and Republican Sens. Grassley, Snowe, and Enzi – for trying to come to a bipartisan consensus. However, it has become increasingly clear to me that Sen. Baucus has not been given the flexibility necessary to construct a realistic healthcare reform bill that can achieve true bipartisan support.

“I have great faith in my colleagues, and I will continue to work on solving our nation’s health care problems in a way that best protects the health and financial well-being of families and small businesses across the nation. My door will remain open and I continue to sincerely hope that we can do this the right way for every American out there. We have a real need for reform and an opportunity on behalf of the American people to get it done. If we are responsible in our policy approaches, we can get meaningful reform done this year.”


###
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Health Care Reform Numbers

The US population in 2006 was 298,362,973 according to the US Census Bureau. Total Expenditures on health care were 2,106,000,000,000 according to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, which means health care in 2006 cost $7,058 per person. I am looking for better numbers ... do others confirm these numbers?
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

2006 National Health Expenditures

2006 National Health Expenditures
Private Expenditures
Out of Pocket 257,000,000,000
Insurance 723,000,000,000
Total 1 1,135,000,000,000 *doesn’t add up, over by 155,000,000,000
Total 1 includes other private
expenditures not show
separately.
Public Expenditures
Federal 705,000,000,000
State & Local 265,000,000,000
Total 2 970,000,000,000
Health Services & Supplies
Hospital Care 648,000,000,000
Physicians & Clinical 448,000,000,000
Prescription Drugs 217,000,000,000
Nursing Home Care 125,000,000,000
Total 3 1,966,000,000,000 *doesn't add up, over by 528,000,000,000
Total 3 includes other objects
of expenditure not shown.
Total 1 1,135,000,000,000
Total 2 1,135,000,000,000
Total 3 1,966,000,000,000
Grand Total 2,106,000,000,000 *doesn’t add up, under by 2,130,000,000,000
Grand Total includes medical
research and medical facilities
not shown separately.
US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Letters to Politicians

Here is the basic letter I am writing to senators and representatives and other politicians. Please feel free to use it as your own:

Dear Senator XXXXX,
I am your constituent and I am a swing vote. I believe that Health care reform should transfer power to PATIENTS, doctors, nurses, and allied health care professionals, and away from government and corporations. I believe that we should have the best health care in the world. I believe that health care reform should be simple. Patients should be the most powerful people in the health care system; it's their life at stake; therefore, patients should be in charge of spending the money. And patients should be told the price of everything in advance or they don't have to pay.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

How You Can Get Active Against the Healthcare Takeover

Congress is trying to shove down a healthcare takeover bill by the end of the month, and yet each of their proposed bills has been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to raise the budget deficit and not to reduce healthcare costs. And that's just the start. The bills they are proposing will limit consumer choice and result in a loss of insurance for many employees. The question is, what can we do about it?

Thankfully, the Congressional Blue Dog Caucus has a number of members who are dissatisfied with the reckless bills on the table and lack of debate. In fact, Rep. Mike Ross says that he and 9 others are committed to voting against the bill and keeping it off the House floor. There are a lot of corporate interests trying to change their votes, including Wal Mart, because it will put their competitors and small businesses out of business.

With that said, we must ratchet up the pressure on Congress as well to stop this bill. Most importantly, remind these 7 Representatives of their promise not to support a bill that creates a larger deficit or that doesn't let consumers keep their current coverage:

Mike Ross (AR) - 202 225-3772
Bart Stupak (MI) - 202 225-4735
Baron Hill (IN) - 202 225-5315
Charlie Melancon (LA) - 202 225-4031
Zack Space (OH) - 202 225-6265
Bart Gordon (TN) - 202 225-4231
Jim Matherson (UT) - 202 225-3011

Other things you can do to help are contact these 10 Senate Democrats, this long list of 30 Representatives, if you're really feeling like an activist, and join the following anti-healthcare takeover groups:
Stop the Healthcare Takeover (Facebook)
Congressional Action Network (email)
ActionAlert (Twitter)

National Debt

These numbers are from a website called Debt Angel. I am trying to track down the sources and double check the numbers as I continue to examine health care reform plans and statistics that are important for health care reform:

"Here are the numbers for the real national debt for 2008 and how they break down, and how you figure into this debt:
  1. $36,300,000,000,000 Medicare
  2. $ 6,600,000,000,000 Social Security
  3. $13,500,000,000,000 Publicy-held debt, civilian and military retirement benefits, and other misc.

Total=$56,400,000,000,000 $184,000 for each person! or $483,000 for each household!*"


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal has written an article about health care reform for the Wall Street Journal.

I have extracted his general principles.

•Consumer choice guided by transparency.

•Aligned consumer interests.

•Medical lawsuit reform.

•Insurance reform.

•Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others.

•Pay for performance, not activity.

•Refundable tax credits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300482236378974.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dear Blogger

Dear Blogger, I received the message below. I am not doing a spam site, unless by accident. I did a program called addthis on two essays. Perhaps you are not supposed to use that? I thought it was a Blogger program but maybe it is a third party program that appears on Blogger sites. In any event, please let me know what to fix and I will fix it. And please let me know if it is okay to use the program AddThis, which I just Googled and found at http://www.addthis.com/. It does look like it is a blogger program to me as it seems to interact seamlessly with Blogger. So I added it to my blog. Let me know if you want AddThis taken down and I will do it.
My best, Bradley R. Hennenfent




Your blog at: http://takingoverhealthcarereform.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=8366376500679510712

Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. Once we have reviewed and determined your blog is not spam, the blog will be unlocked and the message in your Blogger dashboard will no longer be displayed. If this blog doesn't belong to you, you don't have to do anything, and any other blogs you may have won't be affected.

We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577

Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting efforts.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

P.S. Just one more reminder: Unless you request a review, your blog will be deleted in 20 days. Click this link to request the review: http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=8366376500679510712
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, July 20, 2009

Dear Patients - From Joel Ciarochi, M.D.

Dear Patients,

I am a physician. I am a business owner. I am not a politician. I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. I care about the potential for Americans to get the best healthcare possible and I want to utilize our precious resources as if they were my own.

The voices of physicians are not being heard. The media has not given us the opportunity to speak or participate in the greatest challenge of healthcare. I am one of many clinical practicing physicians that will be required to participate in a national healthcare system and make it function. I am an expert in healthcare quality, its delivery system, and its economics, but I am not being included in the debate. I want healthcare reform, but the plans proposed in Washington will not resolve any of our healthcare issues and they will raise the cost for everyone. Physicians are not being consulted in this matter and it will be to the detriment of our quality of life. Most physicians expect that if they do their job well, the rest will take care of itself. This perception has prevented physicians from becoming involved in the formation and maintenance of our healthcare system.

Healthcare is a quality issue. Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are all countries with national healthcare systems. No single country has a healthcare system that is close in comparison to US quality healthcare. Why do foreign emissaries and nobility come to the US for treatment? Why do Canadians come to the United States for elective surgery? It is simple, our system is the best. We have the best doctors. All of these countries have dealt with healthcare at the national level and what has emerged is a two tier system: a private system for the wealthy, and a public system for the rest of the population. Does this sound familiar to the recent cry from Washington? A public system will become the option for the economically disadvantaged in our country. One look at the Veteran Affairs system and numerous quality scandals over the years can show us that a public option will be a VERY low quality system. Any doctor that is of high quality will not participate in the public system and over time, the gap in quality will increase between the private and the public systems. This plan will only widen the gap between the rich and poor in the United States, and ultimately will leave the uninsured with a far worse option for healthcare than they have today. Washington has already created a top-tier healthcare system for itself that provides a premium level of care to Federal employees, Congress, and the President. If this public option is going to be so viable and great, why not make it mandatory for all of Congress, and the President to be participants in the public option? This will never happen.

The second issue is cost. The current proposals in Washington are exceeding 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years, about 150 billion dollars per year. As a simple comparison, the purchase of premium private insurance for all of the uninsured patients in the United States should cost less than 125 billion dollars per year. This price tag would only apply if they were so foolish to pay full retail price! If the government had any ability to negotiate prices with such a large pool of individuals (which they do) the price tag would be even smaller. So, why are we talking about huge expenditures for healthcare? It is because the government is not capable of providing a benefit at a reasonable cost. Before involving a public plan or a government run system, why not allow the major carriers an opportunity to bid the plan?

The second aspect of cost is the source of the funding. Who is going to pay for it? Healthcare costs continue to rise. Is an increasing level of cost part of the legislation? Why would we increase our debt in a major recession and further delay economic recovery? Why would we increase taxation in a recession? History repeats itself and if one raises the cost of goods and increases taxes in a recession, it will become a full depression.

The third issue is benefits. What level of benefits is going to be offered in the public plan? In Washington, they are telling us that people will be able to see the same doctor and have similar benefits. This is untrue. It is not possible. The same level of benefits cannot be provided at a fraction of the price. Look at the other national health systems as examples. In Canada, dialysis is not offered past a certain age. If you need dialysis and live in Canada, you either die or cross the border to the United States to receive your dialysis, and the American taxpayer pays the bill. In the United Kingdom, patients with heart disease over a certain age are not offered surgical intervention. They only get medicine for the treatment of heart disease. Do you want to be placed on a waiting list to get cataracts removed? How many years do you want to wait to have hip surgery? Do you want a lottery system to determine who gets care and who does not? In Germany, a recent study showed that the rate of decubitus ulcers (bed sores) in elderly patients was more than six times (600 percent) higher than in the United States. This is a result of neglect. The plan in Washington is promising great benefits, and it will deliver far less. It has been said that if something is too good to be true, it is certainly false.

The fourth issue is physician reimbursement. I, like my colleagues, expect to take care of patients without getting paid. It is part of the job description, and we are willing to care for people that are unable to pay for their healthcare. It is our responsibility to care for all patients. However, we cannot care for an entire nation without reasonable reimbursement. We must be able to see enough patients that are able to pay their bills in order to offset the ones that cannot or will not. Most doctors spend a minimum of eleven years after high school to become physicians. It is a long and difficult path and it leads to large educational debts and a significant delay until a salary can be earned. We sacrifice our families and choose a lifestyle that means we work at night and we work at other very inconvenient times, because our patients need us. The plan in Washington uses medicare rates as its reimbursement basis. These rates are one third to two thirds of commercial rates and most doctors are forced to limit the number of medicare patients that they treat. This limiting of care to medicare patients is not to increase profit, but simply rather to cover overhead costs. How many physicians do you think are going to participate in the public plan? Do you really think that your excellent doctor is going to work for half price? The plan in Washington is proposing some rates that are one third of commercial rates. Would you do your same job for thirty cents on the dollar? This does not make sense.

The fifth issue is limiting malpractice awards. President Obama made it very clear when he addressed the American Medical Association that he had no intention of controlling costs by implementing limits on lawsuits. Do lawsuits improve the quality of medicine? Does patient care improve when lawsuits are settled? The answer is no, but many people gain a large financial benefit in the process. Ultimately the patient gains only a fraction of the monetary award and never sees an improvement in health. Malpractice insurance can cost up to twenty percent of a physician’s overhead in order to practice medicine. Effective TORT reform can reduce these costs and the savings can be used to help cover the uninsured. This is not on the table as a cost reduction strategy. Why?

The final issue is sustainability. Let us assume that we can pay for the proposed changes without bankrupting our great nation. Who is going to be willing to go through the rigorous training, offer the personal commitment, and make the sacrifices required to become an excellent physician? How many medical schools will have to close their doors, due to a lack of people unwilling to forgo their youth for a dead end career? How many physicians will decide to participate in a poorly reimbursed health plan? One thing is certain; at least twenty percent of current physicians have already declared that they would opt for early retirement instead of being part of a low quality healthcare system. As these experienced physicians leave medicine, who is going to train the new group of future physicians? What will our system become in a few years? The vision is a system with too few physicians, too many patients, and long delays in medical care. If you want to see this future, look at the other countries that have this type of system, and you will see our future.

We assumed that we could control costs initially. Let us be realistic now. Healthcare costs have risen every year. The plan in Washington has minimal provisions to limit costs. The new technologies and treatments are more and more expensive. It is the price that must be paid for new research and development in any field, whether it is in computers, communications, or medicine. The advancement of science requires large sums of money, and Washington is not prepared for this increase in cost.

In summary, I am a patient advocate and I am an advocate for high quality medical care. I would like to participate in healthcare reform, but I am not invited. There are solutions to the problems in medicine, but the plan proposed in Washington will not meet the needs of its patients, will not be within any reasonable budget, and will not be served by the best quality physicians. Washington is chasing a dream, and they do not have a realistic solution. These proposed changes are being forced to occur in a very rapid fashion without allowing sufficient time for discussion. In my mind, a political agenda should never take precedence over patient care.

Sincerely,


Joel Ciarochi, M.D.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Campaign for Liberty Statement of Health Care Reform Principles

Campaign for Liberty Statement of Health Care Reform Principles

Shared via AddThis

Ten Commandments of Health Care Reform version 07/20/09

Ten Commandments of Health Care Reform version 07/20/09

1. Health care reform shall transfer power to PATIENTS, doctors, nurses, and allied health care professionals, and away from government and corporations.
2. We shall have the best health care in the world.
3. Health care reform shall be simple.
4. Patients shall be the most powerful people in the health care system.
5. Patients shall be in charge of spending the money.
6. Patients shall be told the price of everything in advance or they don't have to pay.
7. Patients shall be able to get their medical records instantly and easily.
8. Health care shall be based on science.
9. Health care shall encourage prevention.
10. The first question from a doctor's office or hospital will be "How can I help you?" not "What is your insurance?"

These are the principles of health care reform that will save tens of thousands of lives.

TakingOverHealthCareReform.org
TakingOverHealthCareReform.blogspot.com
Facebook profile: http://profile.to/healthcarereform
Twitter.com/takingoverHCR

Bradley R. Hennenfent, M.D.
patient, physician, and economist
retired due to injury and illness
Facebook.com/hennenfent