We're Number 37

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Visited some friends in the UK with a profoundly disabled son and they told us they had received government funding to build a lift to carry him from his bedroom to the bathroom. The catch? They had to promise not to put him in an institution for at least 5 years. It was cheaper for the government to help them keep him at home than to pay for him to be in an institution.

I have no idea whether any of this figures into the health care reform plan but I find the logic behind it compelling.

That logic is used here too. There's a large movement toward paying for home health care for Medicare and Medicaid recipients rather than have them in assisted living or nursing homes, because it's so much cheaper for the government. There are no requirements, as far as I know, that prohibit institutionalization for a certain period of time in return. Most people want to get (and provide) care in the home rather than move to a nursing home, so it generally works out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are #1 for malpractice suits!! hmmmm

It's true. But it's not the size of the damages awards, which are about the same in Britain. It's that we suck so much more that more patients sue. Hmmmm...

The AVERAGE settlement is the same. The NUMBER of settlements are much much higher here.
BTW, American doctors are some of the best in the world. We would have fewer suits if patients had to ante up the legal costs like they do in Europe. And if the patient loses the case, he would have to pay the legal costs of the doctor. That would make you think long and hard before going ahead with something like a lawsuit.

Well, in theory that would only scare away the suits that had no merit. That would reduce the cost of litigation, but it is not likely to change the number of successful suits, unless it has a chilling effect on those who have legitimate claims but can't afford the additional risk of pursuing them. And that would be very bad.

Regardless, malpractice suits and even the defensive medicine associated with avoiding lawsuits still only adds up to a few percentage points of our cost. That only explains a very small part of the difference between our costs and that of industrialized nations.

And finally, the rankings are for the quality of care. I don't see how cost reduction will actually improve our quality of care.

[Anonymous]

There is no doubt in my mind that we need health care reform. There is also no doubt in my mind that I don't understand all the issues/solutions that this bill is presenting. That is what frightens me. There have been some changes made to the banking system that were not well thought out (presenting big problems to credit unions). My fearis that this massive change that effects all of us will have some sloppy verbiage. Also, as a federal employee will I be forced into the public option? If I don't take it, what will it cost me? I work for a small business who offers health insurance. Will start up businesses and struggling small business be penalized if they don't offer health care? Will companies who don't use the public option be taxed/penalized?
WHERE IS THE $$ TO PAY FOR THIS GOING TO COME FROM?? These things scare me.....because I don't understand what is being proposed and due to past sloppy legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But one of the reasons we have so many malpractice suits, especially for OBs, is because most people's insurance won't cover the enourmously high cost of caring for kids who have a life time of care ahead of them. Making it harder for parents of kids like that to sue might stop the excessive suing, but WON'T address the underlying issue, and WON'T help those kids, and families, get the care they need.

What is the underlying issue?

Paying for a lifetime of care for a severely disabled infant, child, teen, young adult -- can completely bankrupt a working family; even if they have health insurance the insurance will have a lifetime cap, maybe of $1 million, which seems like it should be a lot, but apparently can be reached faily quickly if you have even a few major surgeries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But one of the reasons we have so many malpractice suits, especially for OBs, is because most people's insurance won't cover the enourmously high cost of caring for kids who have a life time of care ahead of them. Making it harder for parents of kids like that to sue might stop the excessive suing, but WON'T address the underlying issue, and WON'T help those kids, and families, get the care they need.

What is the underlying issue?

Paying for a lifetime of care for a severely disabled infant, child, teen, young adult -- can completely bankrupt a working family; even if they have health insurance the insurance will have a lifetime cap, maybe of $1 million, which seems like it should be a lot, but apparently can be reached faily quickly if you have even a few major surgeries.

OK, I was just asking for a clarification.
I agree, I actually think that the way to decrease medical costs is to have better long term care, AND limit malpractice settlements. That is the model that exists in Britain. Then doctors can slow the tests and referrals.

[Anonymous]

"You know whythat is? Lots of people don't want to sue their doctors, but they have children with very expensive, lifelong medical conditions, and no way to care for them. If there were more of a sfatey net for children born with disabilities (like the ones people sue OBs for, wvwn when it might not really have been their fault) then there wouldn't be a need for so many lawsuits. "

Absolutely agree that this is a very important driver and not one that R's like to talk about, real as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You know whythat is? Lots of people don't want to sue their doctors, but they have children with very expensive, lifelong medical conditions, and no way to care for them. If there were more of a sfatey net for children born with disabilities (like the ones people sue OBs for, wvwn when it might not really have been their fault) then there wouldn't be a need for so many lawsuits. "

Absolutely agree that this is a very important driver and not one that R's like to talk about, real as it is.

But the D's don't talk about it either.