Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

[JODO 2]

Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday.

The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

Concern about high U.S. costs has existed for years, and business executives — whose companies provide health coverage for workers — have long called for getting costs under control. Now President Barack Obama says the costs have become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled.

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value — not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...fcgJqQD96S98380

[justashooter 430]

i've experienced the health care in china. you don't want to.

when i got back to america, i got what i needed.

a friend of mine died in november because of the health care in china. he didn't want to.

he came back to america in a box. if he had been in america for the event, we would be drinking beer together tonight.

[Dan J 277]

i've experienced the health care in china. you don't want to.

when i got back to america, i got what i needed.

a friend of mine died in november because of the health care in china. he didn't want to.

he came back to america in a box. if he had been in america for the event, we would be drinking beer together tonight.

You can get some of the best healthcare in the world in the US, but that's not the issue. The cost vs the quality of care received is what is at issue. We pay way more than any other country in the world when it comes to healthcare, yet overall, our healthcare system is not particularly better in any way than most developed countries, and in some cases our system is actually worse.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If we can reduce quality by 10% (disregard the difficulty of quantifying 'quality' for now) and decrease price by 15%, would you be happier?

[Dan J 277]

If we can reduce quality by 10% (disregard the difficulty of quantifying 'quality' for now) and decrease price by 15%, would you be happier?

Its not reducing quality, its improving efficiency. Private industry is suppose to be most efficient with competition, but with the way the industry is set up, very little competition actually exists.

Most people are constrained in their choices by cost. They often take whatever health plan their employer offers because its often cheaper than getting private insurance. But its often a choice of only one plan. By taking that plan, they are then pre-determined to which providers they can visit.

HSA plans are sort of a double edged sword. Those who are most likely to take them, are least likey to have extra money to put into an HSA. Which ends up not really solving any problems. As the consumer is less likely to actually seek preventive care since they need to pay for it out of pocket. Nor will many clinics actually tell you ahead of time what care might cost. Due to the complicated billing systems, they don't actually know.

Drugs are often under patent protection for 17 years, even if the research is funded by public money. Drug research is often driven by what will sell instead of what we need.

Emergency care is already solcialized. But the cost is not paid by everyone, only those who can actually afford to pay the cost of care, either directly or through insruance. But if you can't, declare bankruptcy and it all goes away.

Its less about reducing quality and more about ensuring everyone is a payer into the system, and ensuring that more of the money dedicated to healthcare actually goes to care, instead of advertising, executive compensation, and dividends.