RSS
Hells Bells
Any questions? We'll start with the right side of the aisle, once permission is granted from the lobbyist puppeteers ...
Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.
The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.
"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," Kelley said in a statement.
"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."
One example -- a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.
"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.
Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:
* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.
* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.
* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.
"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.
"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.
All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country's $2.5 trillion healthcare system.
posted by Gordon Glantz at
11:01 AM
21 Comments:
It's all academic now, my man. Sounds like it's going to go our way, with the public option. Let's hope we don't have to live this down 20 years down the road.
It will not hold water - and the time frame for starting for the whole nip and tuck is 2014.
I got plenty of questions Gordon, but you are not objective enough to answer them. What's the point in even trying?
After consulting with my health care lobbyist puppeteers (you know, the evil corporate entity that controls my every thought and action) I have a few questions:
Why do you think that an EXPANSION of Government involvement in health care will result in LESS waste? The article you cite references $200 Million in Medicare fraud—note, NOT private insurance fraud, but MEDICARE fraud—Medicare is a government-run entity, already in bankruptcy, yet you think expansion of this is the answer to our healthcare issues in this country? You think that the same people that ran Medicare into the red will be able to run a nationwide healthcare system efficiently simply because the Democrats are in charge?
Speaking of waste, why hasn’t the Democratic congress addressed waste created by frivolous lawsuits and the resulting outrageous medical malpractice insurance bills that force doctors out of major metropolitan areas or out of practice altogether? This is not to mention the waste incurred by physicians who practice “defensive medicine”, over ordering tests in order to cover all their bases lest they get sued for overlooking or misdiagnosing an illness. The article you cite even mentions this, but there is no bill that has crossed the congressional floor that has addressed the solution for this problem---TORT REFORM--except to say they will “stop waste.” Perhaps that is because they are all beholden to their puppetmasters in the trial lawyers lobby.
Do you think that the government has been effective or efficient at distributing the vaccine for the swine flu, essentially the first real test of a government run health system? And if so, what color is the sky in that world?
What about the currently uninsured, who flood our emergency rooms for minor issues such as colds and headaches, incurring huge bills, but not paying them, because the current EMTLA laws FORCE emergency room doctors to treat these patients regardless of their ability to pay. That these costs are passed along to insured patients is a huge cost driver. But if, as President Obama has famously claimed, he was not lying about covering illegal aliens, how then does this grand new healthcare program intend to address this critical issue?
My puppetmasters are pulling me into work now, so I don’t have time to go into depth about how my tax dollars are going to be used to fund abortions, but perhaps you’d like to address that issue as well—about how all Americans will be forced, by the strong arm of Government, to pay for a procedure that more than half of them find morally repugnant.
Oh, and yes, I know you guys won the election. Buy what happened to all that unity Obama was going to bring? Is he just going to ignore, dismiss or marginalize those on my side of the aisle—about half the country--- who have a strong disagreement with him? That last question was more a rhetorical one, since I already know the answer.
"Why do you think that an EXPANSION of Government involvement in health care will result in LESS waste?"
... because you eliminate profit and provide competition. Medicare is not in bankruptcy. The corruption as recently outlined on SIXTY MINUTES can be reduced by increasing government enforcement which was allowed to atrophy under Bush's "starve the beast" philosophy. I hope your family has great medical coverage. A lot of people don't.
So your position, Tom, is that years of Medicare waste and fraud is "Bush's fault"?
Seriously, what a disappointment. I did not think that you would fall back on such an intellectually lazy position. Aren't you liberals getting tired of that whine yet? Should I just shut up and get a mop, too?
The theory of more regulation as a panacea for all of our ills, specifically the economy and healthcare, is a myth. In fact, regulations actually contributed to some of these problems, but of course that is something you and I will never see eye to eye on. I don't believe that the solution to any of our problems lies in expansion of government. I need only look at the mess any expansion of government, under any President (yes, Bush too) has created.
And let's not leave congress off the hook. They are the ones who are truly to blame for most of the messes, on both sides of the aisle. Why people like you persist in perpetuating the old saw of "Bush's fault" while letting those clowns in congress off the hook, is really overly simplistic and unserious.
But back to our health care discussion. Perhaps you'd like to address how, if a massive government public option is enacted---without generating those oh-so-filthy profits you liberals sneer at---how do you maintain healthy "competition" between public and private companies when you've eliminated profits? And once those companies leave the market (and they will, make no mistake) and the government public option is now the only option, where's your competition then?
Why not untie health insurance from employment? Why not let people buy health insurance over state lines? Why not address tort reform? Why not expand medical flexible spending accounts?
Why is the only solution the public option? Why must the Federal Government take over one sixth of our nation's economy without trying some incremental, conservative promoted ideas first? Why do liberals insist on shutting down this debate rather than having it, becasue these are ideas they do not even attempt to discuss.
It is furthermore laughable that government will be successful in eliminating waste. Those tone deaf idiots in Washington are only good at one thing: wasting our money on their pet projects designed to keep them in power so they can keep wasting our money. I want these people to have LESS power over my life, not more, and certainly not over something as personal as health care.
Yes, I have good insurance. I pay for it, too. I work hard for my benefits and my employer; this is not "luck", this is responsible living. I don't know why I should pay for health care for people who are in this country illegally, who are drug addicts, or who live in the underbelly of society, even though I already am. I don't feel I should force people who don't want to pay for health insurance to get it. I feel sympathy for people who are truly down on their luck who need health insurance and don't have it, but they are not the majority of those so-called millions of uninsured the left likes to promote. But the public option is not the only solution to these problems. The fact that your side wants to represent opposition to the public option as an opinion only held by callous, unfeeling privileged conservatives is a disingenuously cheap tactic indeed.
Engage in the deabte instead of shutting it down with tripe like that. What is it that you are afraid of?
It's good for Americans. And what's good for Americans is good for me.
Lisa - you really need a heart transplant? Is that covered under your plan?
Wow Jack. What an intelligent and effective argument. You bring up points I never considered.
I must be against healthcare because I'm mean.
Your brilliant, well thought-out commentary has me re-thinking my entire position on health care.
Blogger Lisa Mossie said...
Wow Jack. What an intelligent and effective argument. You bring up points I never considered.
I must be against healthcare because I'm mean.
Your brilliant, well thought-out commentary has me re-thinking my entire position on health care.
October 30, 2009 2:53 PM
------------------------
This and all the other spewing from the race-baiter lisa mossie. Don't go away mad, JUST GO AWAY!
Do you even realize that comments like yours, Anonymous, only further prove my point about liberals being afraid to debate the issue? Especially when you are doubly afraid to sign your name????
No, on second thought, I don't suppose you do have the capacity to figure that out.
Now go get my fries.
Blogger Lisa Mossie said...
Do you even realize that comments like yours, Anonymous, only further prove my point about liberals being afraid to debate the issue? Especially when you are doubly afraid to sign your name????
No, on second thought, I don't suppose you do have the capacity to figure that out.
Now go get my fries.
November 2, 2009 2:35 PM
-------------------
Typical of someone who no longer works at the TH and blogs at the water cooler. Must be the kool-aid you're drinking. You're still hallucinating that you're Trixie with your cartoon character picture... Your race-baiting remarks may or may not have gotten you off the TH, but I'm glad you're gone. Now, as to the fries, I'm sure you know how to flip those burgers and salt the fries. I never worked in any type of food industry. Never had to, even while working and going to college.
And, you're not the blog police here where you can demand someone post their real name or not. You must be a real control freak.
Also, you can put your $ where your mouth is and take care of all the children brought into the world that are homeless, in orphanages, etc. since you are against a woman's right to choose! I don't care if my tax money helps a woman to choose. It's her body, not yours!
You should just blog on Stan's blog. I'm sure he'll "approve" your post in no time, since you seem to be like-minded.
I'd rather debate someone who is rational, which doesn't include you.
So, again... Don't go away mad, JUST GO AWAY. You and Limbaugh must have been in the oxycontin again.
Lisa,
I engaged in no ad hominem arguments. You're slinging them all over the place. You're "fries" comment to Anonymous is an example of what I'm talking about.Also slinging "intellectually lazy" at me is another example. If we have the temerity to disagree with you are we automatically "intellectually lazy."
On substance, I didn't say it was all Bush's fault, but a large part of it is. Single payer insurance (Medicare for all) would be the least expensive). Barring that a public option would keep expenses down by offering a competitor to private insurance. If you're saying this would drive companies out of business you're admitting that the government option is less expensive.
Lack of regulation hasn't created all our ills, but it's created a lot of them - the financial collapse and the health care crisis to name two.
Nobody said Congress is not partially at fault. By the way "people like you" is another ad hominem you used.
You asked me to "engage the debate." You are the one who should stick to the facts. By the way, Medicare for all would would untie health insurance from employment.
Disappointment works both ways. You've disappointed me here - big time.
Blogger tlees2 said...
Lisa,
I engaged in no ad hominem arguments. You're slinging them all over the place. You're "fries" comment to Anonymous is an example of what I'm talking about.Also slinging "intellectually lazy" at me is another example. If we have the temerity to disagree with you are we automatically "intellectually lazy."
--------------
This is exactly what I am posting about. Lisa does a hit and run with her opinion, just like that oxycontin limbaugh who thinks everyone else who abuses drugs like him should go to jail EXCEPT HIM! Also, Palin and her palinistas, who are okay with her daughter being able to choose what she wants to do with an unexpected pregnancy, but no one else can choose according to the "moral NOT! majority" who have found themselves looked at as the Bozos of the Universe.
But, to go a little further re: the public option... A man joined the military almost at the cutoff age because he couldn't afford medical coverage for his wife.
(One of the worst tragedies of the recession has been people losing their health insurance because they lost their job. Nearly 14,000 Americans lose their insurance every day. Wisconsin father Bill Caudle was laid off from his job at a plastics company in March 2009, which resulted in his family losing their employer-subsidized health care coverage. This put the family in an especially precarious position, because Bill’s wife, Michelle, was an ovarian cancer patient. After months of unsuccessfully looking for work, Caudle did the only thing he could to get his wife chemotherapy — he joined the Army)
Now, let the cartoon character Trixie answer to this or just go back to flipping burgers and salting the fries.
Tom,
You can go ahead and shout “repeal of Smoots Hawley” as the primary reason for the financial crisis. You can further support this with your strongest argument, which is, ”Paul Krugman said so,” but the fact remains that it just ain’t so. The repeal of Smoots Hawley may be making the current crisis more difficult to unwind but that is the extent of it. It is a well known fact that Eurpean banks have, in fact, existed happily for all of their lives without the “benefit” of a Smoots Hawley type regulation, yet the housing bubble was a uniquely American phenomenon (albeit with worldwide consequences). Blaming the repeal of this regulation, which lowered the barriers between banks and investment houses, is a bit like putting the cart before the horse and is a gross over-simplification of a very complicated issue.
For the origins of the crisis, one has only to look to the regulation called Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, which forced banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Organizations like ACORN made sure that banks who dared deny loans to people based upon financial data were soundly picketed as racist; congressmen who thought CRA a bad regulation were similarly vilified as racist.
CRA was enacted under Carter and strengthened under Clinton. The lowered lending standards resulting from CRA (80/20 mortgages, aka $0 down, and “no doc”loan, aka, no proof of income required) spread not only to the so-called “disadvantaged”, but were applied to all sorts of people who wanted to get in on the housing boom and buy more house than they could afford; these included a vast amount of speculators. This in turn resulted in an artificial inflation of housing demand, which resulted in a housing construction boom. The bottom only dropped out of the market when housing prices began to drop due to the oversupply of housing on the market. This was really only a problem for people who were upside down in their mortgages—that is they owed more than their house was worth. And this situation was only a problem for those people looking to sell their houses for one reason or another, whether it was speculators who were looking to “flip” houses for a quick profit or people who could no longer afford their mortgages once their adjustable rate began to rise. This was, and remains a huge problem. By some estimates, there is an excess of inventory on the U.S. market that will take some 15 years to work itself out.
It is not and never has been the responsibility of the salesman to dictate to the customer what he can and cannot afford. So if there was greed on the side of the bankers, I’ll grant that. But let’s not forget the greed on the part of the consumers who took advantage of market conditions and got in over their heads.
Continues below....
I reiterate all of this by way of backing up my point: there is legislation currently working its way through congress aimed at actually EXPANDING CRA: making lending standards EVEN LOWER so even MORE people who cannot afford housing can get upside down in their houses eventually. Insanity.
The geniuses who came up with this the people that you want to turn one-sixth of the economy over to. Without any debate, without trying to fix what is wrong, without any entertainment of alternatives. This boggles my mind.
I’ll make you a deal: if congress can fix Medicare and get it out of bankruptcy FIRST, I’ll be inclined to let them take over health care for the rest of us. Until then, I see no reason why the public option should be the ONLY option on the table for health care.
Oh, and please spare me the crocodile tears for bottom feeders like Anonymous. Anonymous spews nothing but insults and thinks that it is a legitimate way to defend and/or promote his views—you only encourage this type of uncivil behavior by defending him on partisan grounds. If he signed his name, he might be more inclined to make himself appear more civilized, if only for fear of actually running in to me face-to-face at Target or something. His entire argument consists of “shut up”. Now he thinks he has an ally in you and look what he comes up with.
And please, let’s not forget that this original post by Gordon was introduced by an “ad hominem” attack on those on the “right side of the aisle” who only hold their views because they are supposedly controlled by their greedy corporate “puppetmasters”. So spare me your outrage at “ad hominem” attacks. This is a common device that, yes, “people like you” often resort to in order to avoid debating the issues.
My style of debate has never changed; it has always been raw and strongly worded because I am passionate about what I believe in. That this debating style should suddenly be viewed as a “disappointment” to you suggests to me that you also would rather not engage and are only telling me, much like Anonymous, to “shut up and go away” because you cannot answer me point for point. And THAT, my friend, is why you disappoint ME.
Let's stop with the "Bush's fault" argument--it's disingenuous and yes, lazy intellectually. Congress is far more at fault in this mess than any one president. And while you partially acknowledge this, you still cannot tell me why you are willing to nevertheless trust them with your healthcare.
I understand our New York Senator's game in Washington is Quates - always close, but not good enough. Maybe he should take some advise from his beding down partners.
quoted from trixie "If he signed his name, he might be more inclined to make himself appear more civilized, if only for fear of actually running in to me face-to-face at Target or something."
------------------
Civilized? Your comments at the water cooler crying the blues about no longer being at the TH were posted right after your race-baiting remarks in the paper. There is no fear of the likes of you by me. If I ever came face to face with you, I'd laugh at your paltry attempts to get attention by spewing your insults on this blog and prior ones. You are such a joke, just like palin and her palinistas inciting people to shout threats against Obama.
trixie quote: "Let's stop with the "Bush's fault" argument--it's disingenuous and yes, lazy intellectually. Congress is far more at fault in this mess than any one president. And while you partially acknowledge this, you still cannot tell me why you are willing to nevertheless trust them with your healthcare."
-----------------------
This from someone who obviously didn't see the nonsense of Bush and Paulson with a 3-4 page memo to get $700 billion to bail out the banks with no strings attached.
Don't tell me not to blame Bush. He also ignored 2005 warnings about the sub-prime mortgages when the Republicans were in power.
hey trixie, while you're at it with your religious views about abortion, let's see if you go and protest about organized religion and its fallacies, for example:
Priest removed after showing inappropriate photos
SCRANTON - A northeastern Pennsylvania priest has been removed from his duties after church officials say he accidentally displayed inappropriate pictures from his computer before Sunday Mass.
The Diocese of Scranton said the Rev. Edward Lyman was using his computer on Oct. 25 to project an informational DVD about the annual diocesan fund-raiser when four photos were displayed featuring what church officials describe as "minimally attired adult males."
Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic, did not include minors, and were not taken by the priest.
Lyman has been removed as administrator of St. Anthony, St. Bridget and St. John the Baptist parishes in Throop. The diocese would not say where he is. - AP
Lisa ... do you get any joy out of life, whatsoever?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home