On Healthcare: Riddle me this, Batman. Why do we need trillions more for healthcare?

Welcome C&L readers. Thanks for the visit. Please comment if you have something to say and look around there is plenty to talk about.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Everyone is talking about throwing trillions of dollars at healthcare. Look, as a trauma surgeon, I am happy to make more money. You can throw as much money at me as you would like. What many people are talking about (many progressives, anyway), is universal healthcare. This means eliminating insurance costs from the equation, which frees up $700 billion. Somebody go get a calculator. We spend just over $7,000 per person in the United States. We have 46 million Americans who are currently not covered by any insurance. We can use this $700 billion and cover all 46 million Americans. No extra cost.

Joe Scarborough is trying to split the argument into two pieces. First he wants to talk about taking care of the 46 million Americans because, as he says it, “it is a moral issue.” Secondly, he has no idea how we control exploding costs. Well, Jack Welch threw out some words without actually throwing out a coherent argument of how to control costs. Here’s how we control costs:

– create a Healthcare Board. Yes, I know… more government bureaucracy. This is critical. This Healthcare Board would be in charge of health care in the United States. They will be able to direct NIH monies. Monies will be directed to finding “the best of care” strategies for the most common diseases (congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension, to name a few).
– Congress needs to give this Healthcare Board the power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Negotiating drug prices will push healthcare costs down.
– this Healthcare Board must be given the authority by Congress not to approve certain drugs which come up for FDA approval. Currently, the FDA is charged with figuring out whether a drug is safe or not. The FDA does not evaluate if the drug does the same thing that three other drugs already do. There are something like 50 different drugs available to treat hypertension. There are seven or eight different beta-blockers (these drugs act directly on the heart to slow the strength of the heart’s contraction, lowering blood pressure.) We are wasting resources developing the same drugs over and over and over again. The Healthcare Board can reject drugs that aren’t BETTER than current drugs that are on the market.

– the Healthcare Board must evaluate all medical products. There are literally thousands of medical products. This market includes titanium orthopedic rods to stabilize fractures, examination tables, mammogram machines and those scooters. Scooters are an excellent example of an explosion of a product. 15 years ago, there were no scooters. Sales in wheelchairs and scooters topped $3.2 billion in 2005. These costs need to be controlled. Along the same lines, does every hospital need a 64-slice CT scanner with the ability through sophisticated software to show physicians a three-dimensional image of the heart and spin that image in space? Does every hospital need magnetic resonance imaging? Currently market forces are pushing hospitals to buy more and more technology. This is driving up costs. It is unclear whether it is driving up quality, but I’m pretty sure it is not). The Healthcare Board,with scientific evaluation, can curb these expenses.

– the one thing that Jack Welsh said, almost under his breath, was that we need to talk about end-of-life issues. We need to go back and examine the Terri Schiavo case. We, as a country, need to decide when we are doing something to the patient as opposed to for the patient. Although the numbers aren’t crystal clear, it is commonly believed in the medical community that 50-70% of some patients’ overall medical expenditures are spent during the last six months of life. Therefore, if it is possible to identify these patients, prospectively, should we work on increasing the patient’s quality of life and not their quantity of life? This needs to be studied and thoroughly debated.

– physicians, for the most part, need to be paid differently. Primary care physicians (general practitioners, family practitioners, geriatricians, internal medicine physicians, general pediatricians and some OB/GYNs) should be paid to keep a population of people healthy. Therefore, there is no incentive to see a patient every week unless the patient needs to be seen every week. Physicians that adhere to “best practices” should be given bonuses. Best practices should drive down costs while improving quality of life for patients.

– hospitals should be paid along the same lines. Hospitals should be paid to take care of a group of patients. Hospitals should be penalized for pressuring doctors to discharge patients early. On the other hand, hospitals should be given bonuses for adhering to the “best practices.”

– the role of nursing homes and home health has not been discussed. Using a fleet of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, we might be able to keep a lot of patients out of nursing homes (which is costly) and keep them at home, if we are able to get these physician extenders to visit these patients frequently at home. We need to figure out how to make home health and nursing homes more efficient and more cost-effective.

Finally, there are some odds and ends in this discussion that I should clean up. Medicare and Medicaid patients will be rolled into this new universal healthcare. Universal healthcare will offer the same benefits that Medicare offers currently. Payroll taxes will be taken out of workers’ checks in order to pay for this system, just as Medicare is currently taken out of our checks. Business should save billions of dollars by not having to deal with health care and health care costs. States should save money by not having to shell out money and personnel to deal with state health benefits. State taxes should fall!! Insurance companies will not go away. Instead they will probably offer supplemental healthcare insurance.

Do not buy the malarkey that we have to spend trillions of more dollars on health care. This is a lie. We currently spend 16% of our GDP on health care. That is plenty. We need to use the money that we have — we just need to use a better.

  • Edward McGuire
    I think if the American people were told the truth,the only real objection to universal healthcare is the loss our politicians will suffer if the big healthcare PAC monies dry up.
    Why does the mainstream media completely shy away from openly telloing the American people this obvious fact?
  • Molly Ciliberti
    Dr. Thompson, will you please call President Obama and enlighten him. You are dead on and your voice needs to be heard by the president, congress and the people of the US. With universal healthcare, we just might move to a society that uses preventative care to stay well. As a critical care nurse I know how much money is thrown at the dying; it only prolongs their agony and accomplishes nothing. We should use that money to keep babies and little kids well. thank you
  • Great post, Errington.

    I'd like to throw this toward Brian - Insurance companies are making decisions about people's health care all the time. Bureaucrats motivated by profit are making decisions about what kind of health care you're allowed to receive under their plans. If you want procedures they aren't covering, you are welcome to pay for them out of your own pocket.

    Please explain to me how this is o.k., but a public option is not.
  • Brian --

    I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your passion on this issue.

    Maybe I haven't stated my position clearly enough. I have no desire for anyone besides the patient and physician to make a decision. Instead, I want to start a debate so that the public is more informed about end-of-life issues. I like a serious debate that includes physicians, ethicist, the clergy (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc.). All we've had in this country is heated and inflammatory rhetoric.

    I want the government to fund studies on end-of-life issues. If physicians are given sufficient data, maybe we were able to identify patients who were in the dying process much much earlier. Therefore, we can inform the families -- much, much earlier.

    Republicans have harped on the fact that the government is full of fraud and waste. Yet, we know that private companies are also full of fraud and waste. We've also seen bloated salaries in the private sector. We've seen the private sector ration healthcare by limiting coverage and increasing premiums. The government is us. If we want the government to work well, we must employ qualified, thoughtful intelligent people. Everyone fraud and abuse that we should hire somebody from the private sector who stands to reap personal benefits from contracts are being handed out. The quickest way to become a millionaire, in the year 2009, is not to come up with a business plan and go to a bank and try and find funding instead, it is to come up with a business plan, find a lobbyist and win a government contract.

    Thanks for your comment.
  • Brian brings up what I call "Bad Apple Theory" in a 2007 post [ http://undercoverblue.blogspot.com/2007/04/bad-apples.html ]. Like Jesus said of the poor, waste, fraud and abuse will be with us always. The point is to keep them to a minimum. So,
    How many bad apples spoil an otherwise useful social program like Social Security or Medicare? How many Irresponsibles does it take to justify dismantling a program beneficial to the other 300 million Americans?

    Ballpark. What percent?

    For perspective, keep in mind that over $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction cash delivered to Baghdad shrink-wrapped on pallets simply vanished. Until Democrats took over this January, congressional Republicans showed little interest in the Irresponsibles behind that waste and inefficiency.
    On the health care cost issue, critics of health care reform have pointed to what the CBO cautions is an incomplete analysis that put the ten-year cost of two draft Senate proposals at over $1 trillion. Yet the Lewin Group estimates the savings from one such plan (similar to the Tri-Committee bill) developed by Prof. Jacob Hacker “would provide health care coverage for virtually every American while generating huge cost savings — more than $1 trillion over 10 years” while while expanding coverage to those 47 million. http://www.ourfuture.org/healthcare/Lewin-Group-report

    It's not just about what it costs, it's also about what it saves and how many it covers along the way.
  • Why should anyone but the patient (or if the patient is physically or mentally unable) make the decisions about treatments?

    The physician's role should be to educate and help the unequipped family become properly equipped to make the appropriate decision. However, the decision should ultimately be the decision of the patient or the patient's family no matter how "unequipped" anyone else feels they are.

    My statement that government is the problem was a slogan of Regan and Nixon, but that doesn't make it wrong. The government is already the largest insurance company in our nation, yet waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare and medicaid are rampant. To think that this won't happen the new program would be foolish.
  • Brian --

    You make an excellent point. Unfortunately, most families are totally unequipped to truly weigh the risk and benefits of continuing specific therapies. This is a fact. There are some families that are excellent and make the right decision. (No matter what that right decision is.) I guess we need a better way of identifying patients so that physicians can better inform families of realistic options. The only way that the government should be involved is in funding studies to better identify patients prospectively. Also, with the specter of lawsuits always looming over physician's head, physicians mostly error on the side of doing more which may not be the right thing for the patient.

    I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph. It may be that I need more caffeine or that my bifocals aren't in focus. The VA is a government run program. That is not what I have in mind. Instead, I have suggested a program that is run by physicians, hospitals and other healthcare professionals. The program is paid for by the American people.

    Finally, we need to get past slogans that originated with Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. The government is us. If the government is the problem then we are the problem. The government is no more and no less than we the American people. When you fill the government with competent people you get an excellent outcome. When you fill the government was incompetent people who are looking to pad their resume and then become a corporate lobbyist (heckuva job Brownie), we get the government that we deserve.

    Thanks for your comments.
  • Although the numbers aren’t crystal clear, it is commonly believed in the medical community than 50-70% of some patient’s overall medical expenditures are spent during the last six months of life. Therefore, if it is possible to identify these patients, prospectively, should we work on increasing the patient’s quality of life and not their quantity of life? This needs to be studied and thoroughly debated.


    Shouldn't it be the patient and the doctor that decide this? At which point would you propose that the government decides for care to increase a person's quantity of life be withdrawn? I do agree with this premise somewhat that at some point a person should be "made comfortable" and let go of, after all we can't live forever. However, I believe, a system called hospice currently exists by which this can occur. These decisions are made by the patient and patients family, usually (hopefully) after consulting with the patients doctor. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    To address the rest of your post, currently government health care spending (thru Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. programs) makes up 46-56.1% of ALL health care spending in the United States. That means that the US Gov't is already the largest insurance company in the country. Assuming your argument is correct and there is already enough money in the system, why would anyone want to expand the government's role? It seems that Government is the problem not the solution.
blog comments powered by Disqus