Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The dark side of government-run socialised healthcare

  1. #1

    Default The dark side of government-run socialised healthcare

    I'm a proponent of socialised healthcare, and I think a govt. has a natural role to play in healthcare. I also think Sweden's pretty neat. But, the other day, GGT used Sweden as an example of awesome healthcare that kicks your ass, and that gave me pause. I felt it was perhaps time to explore the darker sides of healthcare in Sweden. And elsewhere

    This thread will--for a while at least--be littered with anecdotes and devoid of sources.



    One problem with healthcare in Sweden that I've alluded to before is that it's ultimately controlled by politicians at the county level. There's a disconnect between these politicians and healthcare personnel (including those nurses and doctors that hold managerial positions). For the most part things work out, but sometimes they don't.

    The county in which I'm currently employed is a small one. The three main hospitals in this county are small hospitals. For the most part, people can talk to one another and resolve problems with minimal fuss. This county is having financial difficulties and would need to streamline its healthcare system. One measure they might take is to shut down an underused labor ward, focusing resources on one that's better situated and that could benefit from increased volume. But this decision seems to be an impossible decision to make for any politician who wants to get re-elected, because a number of voters very much want to keep an underused labor ward in their own town even though the alternative labor ward isn't much more distant.

    This county is also currently spending a great deal of money on various [re]building projects--initiated several years ago--that should not be prioritised at the moment. They realise this, but the county machine moves slooooowly and can't adapt very quickly to these hard times.

    Finally, many of the doctors and nurses and assistant nurses who work here seem... unhappy
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #2
    Doctor as renegade -- accepts cash, checks, eggs or pie, not insurance
    by Jennifer Vogel, Minnesota Public Radio
    June 20, 2011

    Osakis, Minn. — Dr. Susan Rutten Wasson sits on the corner of a bed in the cramped bedroom of Alice Johnson, a 91-year-old Osakis resident everyone calls "Grandma Alice." She's examining Johnson's arm, which is swollen, she's determined, because of a tight sleeve cuff. Also in the room are Alice's daughter, Ione, and granddaughter, Anne, who lives downstairs in the farmhouse Johnson has occupied for decades. A Rottweiler mix as big as a Shetland licks the face of 18-month-old Sarah, Rutten Wasson's daughter, who sits on the doctor's lap. It's more a scene from the days of frontier medicine than from the modern health care system. And that's because Rutten Wasson, 42, is a throwback to a time before HMOs, electronic health records and hospitals with fountains in their lobbies. She sees patients the same day they call if she's not booked up, spends at least a half-hour per visit — compared to the more typical 15 minutes — and usually charges only $50 for a consultation. She takes cash or check, but no insurance — and sometimes accepts gratuities of a dozen fresh eggs or a pie.

    "I have a few bottles of homemade wine in the fridge from patients," says Rutten Wasson. "In summer, I'll get pickles or tomatoes. I've received pork sausage, the kind that would convert a vegetarian."
    Rutten Wasson is decidedly not a vegetarian. She and her husband raise sheep and chickens she butchers herself. "Occasionally, I have people pay me more than my fee because they think I've earned it. It's nice. I don't complain."

    In an era of high overhead, ever more byzantine regulations and payment models, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare benefits, and large medical systems swallowing independent practices, Rutten Wasson relishes her straight-forward manner of practicing. Since many federal health care reforms — such as those requiring electronic medical records — are tied to Medicare, they tend not to apply to her.


    Her practice serves as a critique of the modern health care system, the complexity of which has pushed some providers and clinics to find dramatic work-arounds, despite the fact that it can be tough to make a living outside the mainstream. A small but growing number of physicians practice "concierge medicine," charging patients annual retainers for basic medical care. A 2010 nationwide survey commissioned by a congressional agency pegged the number of concierge doctors at 756, up from 146 in 2005.
    Walk-in clinics are another alternative. MinuteClinic, for example, started in Minnesota in 2000 and has spread to 26 states. At these clinics, nurse practitioners and physician assistants treat a menu of common illnesses and injuries and perform physicals for reasonable, stated fees, no appointment necessary. Exams typically run between $79 and $89.

    In rural Minnesota, where there are too few doctors to treat a sparse, aging population, being creative is both more possible and an imperative. Compared to other doctors, says Rutten Wasson, "I don't waste anywhere near as much time on paperwork. Yes, I do other things. I take out my own trash. I clean my own instruments. I clean my own toilets." She prefers this to working within the insurance system. "I'm autonomous. I don't let third-party payers or clinic staff get between me and the patient."

    Rutten Wasson asks Johnson questions about her arm and her hips and lungs, often repeating herself slowly and loudly, and checks various areas of complaint. Johnson has emphysema, likely from the wood-burning stove she used to heat her farmhouse. She's also, it turns out, allergic to mold and geraniums. Johnson had been misdiagnosed as having heart trouble, until Rutten Wasson made the proper call seven years ago.

    "When mom was doctoring in [Alexandria], she was popping nitro tablets like crazy," says Ione, who notes that her mother used to dislike seeing a doctor but now looks forward to it. "Then we met Dr. Wasson and she figured out it was her lungs. Dr. Wasson will dig and dig until she finds out what's wrong. We can call her anytime if we have a question and we are not going to get laughed at. We love her."

    Rutten Wasson hails from Michigan, where she attended Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and did rotations at Detroit Receiving Hospital. There she got a crash course in trauma medicine. "I started my residency with an enormous amount of clinical experience," she says. "I was very well prepared." She did her post-graduate training, specializing in internal medicine and pediatrics, at the University of Minnesota. Her first job as a physician was with Allina Hospitals & Clinics in the Twin Cities.
    It didn't take long before Rutten Wasson became disenchanted. She was shocked to learn how much money the clinic brought in. "They made four times what they were paying me. I looked at that and thought, where is the money going? Rent can't be that high. I had the most hideous art and ugly furniture. My assistant wasn't paid that much. Where is it all going?"

    She answers her own question. "It was going to administration, tiers and tiers and tiers of management, all of whom were busy making rules to make them look busy. Mostly they made my job more difficult."
    What bothered Rutten Wasson most, though, was that she couldn't give a break to patients without insurance. "It's hideously unfair that uninsured people are given a bill for $375 and are expected to pay the whole thing, while the insurance company pays between 60 and 75 percent. It's not right. People without insurance are subsidizing people who have it.
    "I view medicine more as a ministry than an industry," she says.

    She stayed at Allina for two and a half years before opening her own practice in 2002. "If you are going out on your own, you need to know what you are doing. Also, I had to save up some money." She says her colleagues told her she was nuts. "They were sure I wouldn't last," Rutten Wasson says. "And here I am, nine years now."

    Rutten Wasson was drawn to Osakis because Todd County, like many rural Minnesota communities, lacks physicians, with just one primary care doctor per every 727 people. Also, her dad, a farmer who worked for a pharmaceutical company, grew up nearby. She practiced out of her home, her kitchen doubling as a waiting room. But then she got married and wanted to start a family. With the help of a real estate agent who is also a patient, in 2007 she settled on a converted gas station in town for an office.

    Her clientele are people who can't or won't go elsewhere: people with no insurance or high deductibles, people looking for second opinions, Amish people and Latinos. Rutten Wasson, who speaks "medical Spanish" with ease, serves immigrants working in the area's dairies and meat packing plants. Other patients come from as far away as Bemidji and the Twin Cities, she says.

    By Rutten Wasson's lights, they're drawn by a desire for privacy and because she listens and thinks independently. "Right now, the push with the third-party payers is, conformity equals quality. That works if you're building piston valves. But people are not all the same. You want every car to be the same. But with patients, one person is a Volvo and another is a Civic. You might have a Rolls Royce in there and maybe a Model T. I'm customized and personal. That's why people like to come here. I don't do the same thing for everybody."

    If there is a case or condition beyond her capabilities, she refers the patient to a specialist — she keeps a list but drops a doctor from it if she hears two complaints — or a nearby hospital. Sometimes, though, she has no choice but to fix what's in front of her, especially given a clientele that's sometimes wary of official medicine. "I had an Amish patient come in who had caught his finger in a wood stripper," she recalls. "His bone was sticking out. His father had brought in a potion made with black walnut extract. He was convinced it would make the finger grow back. I thought, I can't let them go because they won't go to the hospital. So, I got out a sterile nipper and I cut the bone off and rearranged the flesh on the end of it. I let them put some magical potion on there. I checked on him two days later and it was so much better already. The finger looks good now. The fingernail even grew back."

    She says the same man returned later with glass shards in his eyeball, which she picked out one by one. "I wasn't comfortable doing that either. But the next day he went to church. His eye felt fine. If he'd gone to the emergency room, they would have called in an ophthalmologist or transferred him and it would have cost him a small fortune. I charged him $60. He paid me $5 extra, I suspect."
    "Mostly what I do is think for people," says Rutten Wasson. "It's my brain that is my best tool." She doesn't overmedicate, believing the body can do a lot of recovering on its own. She ascribes the medical system's reliance on prescriptions and procedures to the profit motive. "Actions get paid for," she says. "Watchful waiting and follow-up doesn't pay diddley squat."

    Rutten Wasson's practice hasn't made her rich. She leads a modest life on a fixer-upper farm with her husband, Rud, who is a Lutheran pastor, and their daughter Sarah. Yet, she says, "I'm not going to raise my rates. Some of my patients are on medical assistance or on fixed incomes. They couldn't afford to come if I raised my rates. I'm not going to be buying a yacht anytime soon. But we're comfortable."
    "I look at what my patients make and I think I'm doing pretty well," she adds. "Doctors of yore used to be lower middle class, until third-party payers came into the picture. I'm a great deal happier doing this, even if my husband doesn't have the latest Nintendo."

    After more than an hour at Alice Johnson's house, Rutten Wasson puts on her wool cloak while Ione writes a check. Johnson insists on giving Rutten Wasson a couple of hand-sewn black and red pot holders that match the doctor's kitchen. When Sarah was born, Johnson made her a black stuffed dog, which she delivered in person.
    "If she ever went away," Ione says, "the whole community would really miss her."
    Not exactly relevant, but in the same vein; it's an interesting article nevertheless.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-26-2011 at 07:23 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Not exactly relevant, but in the same vein; it's an interesting article nevertheless.
    We have a doc in town like that, but I think he calls himself a "concierge provider". If patients want to use insurance, they have to file their own forms and try to get reimbursed.

  4. #4
    Guess this fits here. The Dark Side of government-subsidized socialized healthcare in the US would be inequalities in rationing. We already know our Congress, Senators, politicians and federal employees have Platinum plans paid by the tax payers. Our political elite automatically get the best-of-the-best.

    Example 1: Not all victims of a GSW to the head will get the same excellent care Rep. Giffords received, with helicopters and plane transfers to the best facilities, top notch surgeons, critical and intensive care, the best in physical/occupational therapies, with no time limits or monetary caps.

    Example 2: Dick Cheney and his long history of cardiac problems. The kind of pre-existing conditions most people find are denied, or too expensive to cover with private insurance. He received all the bells and whistles, everything covered and paid for by federal employee benefits and Medicare. A wealthy VIP using Medicare. And we all know most Medicare patients wouldn't get the same excellent and expensive care for five heart attacks and end-stage cardiac failure.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle


    Quadruple bypass
    Balloon angioplasty
    Two stents
    Cardio-verter defibrillator implant
    Replacement of defibrillator
    LVAD (left ventricular assist device) implant

    With all the physicians, specialists, tests and diagnostics, medications, hospitalizations and therapies included. I'd love to see the total bill, and how much (if anything) Cheney paid out of pocket.


    But in a word, he owes his life to American medical innovation. Cardiology has improved more in the six decades since his grandfather died than in all previous history. A new advance, often unavailable even a few years before, has always outpaced the progress of his coronary artery disease and of his career: Gerald Ford's chief of staff, a dozen-odd years in Congress, defense secretary to the first President Bush and vice president to the second. "I've been extraordinarily fortunate to live in a place and a time when all that was going on," Mr. Cheney says.
    "You could, and some people do, become so fixated on the disease that they, well, they don't get to get on with their lives. You've got to get on with your life," Mr. Cheney says. "It's never stopped me, though there's nothing in particular special about me. It's a reflection about how good the technology has grown."
    Most economists agree that the spread of such technological change accounts for most of the climb in U.S. health-care costs—and if it has bought a lot in extending and improving lives, much of it has been financed on the taxpayer's nickel. Heart disease accounts for about a third of what Medicare spends merely on hospitals, not counting drugs or other charges. One larger question now is whether entitlements can be restrained without retarding future health-care innovation, which usually occurs at the margins and compounds over time.
    "We've got a system that provides for the kind of research and innovation that has provided these tremendous capabilities. That automatically raises questions about how we deliver to everybody who needs it. . . .

    "But I don't think there's any way not to have that debate about how much we're going to spend on health care. We've got big budget problems, big national debt problems. . . . In finding our way forward, we've got to be able to find ways to deliver the quality care that everyone expects and that we're capable of providing to the maximum number of people."

  5. #5
    You're missing the subtlety of that same piece (which I was going to post last night after reading it on the subway, but it was 4AM somehow and I passed out).

    The kinds of medical innovations that have kept Cheney alive have been the result of private medical innovation with a clear profit incentive. The problem, as Cheney readily acknowledges, is distribution and dissemination of that technology in a way that doesn't drain or public and private coffers.

    If anything, Cheney's survival is an indictment of socialized medicine. But it also exposes the weakness of our system.

  6. #6
    Our private, for-profit, expensive medical innovation isn't "subtle" at all. It's also obvious that the maximum number of people can't access the same excellent care our political elite can.

    One great weakness NOW is that delivery and distribution heavily favors those who are already well-insured or wealthy or powerful, while those at the bottom scramble for crumbs. That's an indictment of our private, for-profit system that could stand a bit more SSSocialized medicine. Cheney wasn't quoted as saying there's got to be a way for others to receive the same excellent care he did.

    Cheney got his share as a VIP, pleased with his custom vest, life-saving equipment, multiple surgeries and medications....now it's up to "everyone else" to figure out if "everyone else" can have the same, or if it's just too expensive to extend those tax-payer perks to the tax-payers. Nice guy, compassionate conservative, huh.

    There's no reason our NIH or CDC can't work with private industry on cutting edge R & D that would benefit everyone, not just elite groups or shareholders. There are reasons our healthcare system shouldn't operate like the financial industry---private profits with public losses.

  7. #7
    Cheney is a wealthy man who has been having heart attacks for decades. He's obviously paid for a lot of treatment himself, and yes, some by the state.

    That's not the issue though. The issue is that all this technology was overwhelmingly developed in the US because we reward these kinds of innovations with profit, instead of turning-around and regulating how they are priced. Whatever model is the right model for healthcare payments, this really can't be ignored.

    The subtlety is being able to acknowledge the problems with our system while also acknowledging a major area where it gets it right.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    There's no reason our NIH or CDC can't work with private industry on cutting edge R & D that would benefit everyone, not just elite groups or shareholders. There are reasons our healthcare system shouldn't operate like the financial industry---private profits with public losses.
    Okay, I'm not getting this part. What should the NIH be doing they aren't doing right now? (I'm going to ignore your comment on the CDC since they don't really do the kind of work that would fit into this.)

    And doesn't 'cutting edge R&D' benefit everyone by making new treatments for previously untreatable disease, or making the treatments better than previous treatments, or making them cheaper to synthesize? All of these help everyone in aggregate, even if the benefits may first accrue to those who can afford very new and expensive therapies.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Cheney is a wealthy man who has been having heart attacks for decades. He's obviously paid for a lot of treatment himself....
    I'd like to see the source confirming that. He's been covered by federal benefits for decades, with no lifetime caps, exclusions, rescissions or denials that John Q. Public faces all the damn time. Cheney is one of those "5% high-risk, chronically ill people who use 50% of the resources".

    The subtlety is being able to acknowledge the problems with our system while also acknowledging a major area where it gets it right.
    That's not subtle at all. Everyone brags on American ingenuity and innovation all the time. The irony is that other nations share those benefits within their NHS or universal care, spread across all income levels. But in the US one has to be a VIP, a professional politician or gov't employee, well-insured by a generous employer, or independently wealthy. If you're poor or unemployed with renal failure, good luck finding hemodialysis....

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Okay, I'm not getting this part. What should the NIH be doing they aren't doing right now? (I'm going to ignore your comment on the CDC since they don't really do the kind of work that would fit into this.)

    And doesn't 'cutting edge R&D' benefit everyone by making new treatments for previously untreatable disease, or making the treatments better than previous treatments, or making them cheaper to synthesize? All of these help everyone in aggregate, even if the benefits may first accrue to those who can afford very new and expensive therapies.
    <You don't have to ignore the CDC part when it comes to things like vaccines, or research on public health issues>

    I was thinking of patent or revenue sharing changes, especially when public funding is given to companies like Eli Lilly or Pfizer. We have some crazy rules in pharmaceuticals especially, when certain generics can't be made here until a 10 or 20 year 'exclusive proprietary rights' expires.

  11. #11
    Why is there a problem with granting a temporary monopoly to the discoverers of a treatment? R&D costs are quite high, but marginal manufacturing costs are generally pretty low. Allowing immediate competition by generics companies is a good way to make the discoverers not innovate, or go out of business.

    I can guarantee that the amount of public funding given to various medical research companies by the government is tiny compared to the amount of money the government makes them spend for validation and safety studies. NIH/etc. money is much more useful for small startups in the early stages of research, but it doesn't take them even close to the clinic, nor should it.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Why is there a problem with granting a temporary monopoly to the discoverers of a treatment?
    You're kidding, right? First problem is that "temporary" shouldn't mean a decade or two of a monopoly. Not when it comes to life-saving drugs or technology. Why? Because human healthcare and medicine isn't quite like any other service or sector. If they want to make profits on OTC variations of pain meds or allergy pills, that's one thing. If it's a cancer cure, then limiting it to the highest bidders until all costs plus billions in profits can be squeezed out....that's morally objectionable.

    The other problem is related to the US employer-based insurance for-profit model of care, where millions (around 50 million at last count) are left out altogether, and can't buy their way in easily at all.

    Example: 20 years ago, even with a good plan and prescription coverage, Imitrex wasn't covered because it was considered "experimental and expensive". Early on it was only in injectable form, first at the office and then as a Rx. It was around $100/injection but one-a-day worked. That was stronger and more effective than the next-generation tablets which meant each pill cost between $80-90, and I needed four/day. All out-of-pocket cash. A generic version wasn't available until a few years ago, and patents expired in europe first.

  13. #13
    There aren't any free lunches, GGT. Someone has to pay for the R&D. Patent law is pretty clear that for nearly any innovation you get a decade or two of a monopoly (you actually get less for a drug or medical device because of the time it takes to get to the market) in exchange for your innovation. That's why patents exist. I agree the system isn't great from a moral perspective, but I think it's the best possible system in that innovations are developed and brought to market because of the profit incentive. That's better than what would happen if we didn't grant them patents.

    Insurance is a separate issue here; we're just talking about the rights and wrongs of granting people patents for medical innovations. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case. I understand why some countries have ignored patent law (e.g. India allowing generic drug makers to break US patents), and other countries have shifted costs to the Americans (i.e. the Europeans and others who use collective bargaining with socialized healthcare plans to drop drug costs to the point that the companies have to recoup the costs in the US), but at the end someone is paying for the R&D by paying for more expensive drugs. Currently that's American employers and consumers; I suspect that will come to an end soon, since the US is fed up with paying for other countries' medical bills.

    edit: BTW, patent law doesn't really allow limitless price gouging by the holder of a patent. If they charge unreasonable prices due to their monopoly, they can be forced to license the technology or whatever, as I understand it.

  14. #14
    We agree that Americans get screwed by bearing the brunt of costs, when europeans can bargain for special prices but we can't. That's crazy.

    Insurance isn't really a separate issue, though. It's baked into the cake with cost-shifting all over the place, because insurance doesn't cover "real costs" anymore than Medicare does, and we end up with $10 aspirin tablets. And since Medicare will cover those very expensive new prostate cancer drugs ($93,000 for one course that adds 3-4 weeks of life), but private insurers can deny their coverage....we'll see how well the public accepts that moral dilemma.


    edit

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    There aren't any free lunches, GGT. Someone has to pay for the R&D. Patent law is pretty clear that for nearly any innovation you get a decade or two of a monopoly (you actually get less for a drug or medical device because of the time it takes to get to the market) in exchange for your innovation. That's why patents exist. I agree the system isn't great from a moral perspective, but I think it's the best possible system in that innovations are developed and brought to market because of the profit incentive. That's better than what would happen if we didn't grant them patents.
    We all know nothing is "free", that innovation and R & D are expensive and time consuming, using highly skilled people (paid with real money) working in sophisticated labs (that cost a lot of real money).....and more attempts can fail than succeed and make it to market.

    I'm not convinced that all these scientists are innovating and experimenting for the profit principle. Their funders or benefactors might be motivated by money, but I doubt people who devote their lives to medical research, or medicine in general, are doing it just to make money. That's like saying musicians, composers, artists or writers only do what they do....for love of money.

    That's not to say they don't deserve a monetary reward for their genius and work, but this whole "monopoly" for a decade or two is counter-productive and actually harmful. Seems like patent-sharing or revenue-sharing could accomplish the same thing without depriving people of life-saving inventions.

    A royalty system works pretty well for musicians, composers, TV producers and actors. Also for engineers and inventors in sectors from aerospace or computer tech to....Super Glue or Frisbees. Why couldn't that work for medical and pharmaceutical discoveries, without price gouging? Then it wouldn't even matter which countries are low-balling or subsidizing prices, if the creator can get X cents or dollars from each use or generic facsimile, and more people can actually use the thing and benefit from it?
    Last edited by GGT; 07-12-2011 at 10:04 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •