http://sicko-movie.com/
Michael Moore's Sicko Trailer:
Image Source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/05/22/first-posters-for-michael-moores-sicko/
Clip Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRs-Ca6qfvc
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Michael Moore's Sicko
Link to Sicko's homepage:
http://sicko-movie.com/
Michael Moore's Sicko Trailer:
Image Source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/05/22/first-posters-for-michael-moores-sicko/
Clip Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRs-Ca6qfvc
http://sicko-movie.com/
Michael Moore's Sicko Trailer:
Image Source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/05/22/first-posters-for-michael-moores-sicko/
Clip Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRs-Ca6qfvc
Political Discussions on Healthcare
"President Bush Discusses Healthcare Initiatives":
Barack Obama's Healthcare Address in Iowa City:
Hillary Clinton's Address on Children's Healthcare:
John Edward's Speech on National Healthcare:
Barack Obama's Healthcare Address in Iowa City:
Hillary Clinton's Address on Children's Healthcare:
John Edward's Speech on National Healthcare:
What should be done about the global healthcare issues?
There are a varied number of healthcare systems in our world today. While some nations’ healthcare systems share similarities, there are also some that differ quite drastically. Healthcare reform is a touchy issue, and decisions have to be made carefully and thoughtfully. But in order to understand how to best go about making these reforms, we must first take into account the many different healthcare systems in the world.
First, let’s take a look at the healthcare systems of Britain and Canada. It has been suggested that the United States adopt a system that is similar to these two. For one, they cost less than that of the United States (take a look at the expenditure image below). With money being such a big issue, the cost is a definite determining factor. They are both universal healthcare systems, so they guarantee service to all their patients for their patients’ entire lives. Healthcare in these countries is funded by general taxation, the government pays for doctors’ salaries, and the hospital expenses are fully covered. Also, like in America, people have a free choice of physician. But reforms could also be made in these countries. Britain and Canada should focus their efforts on making their healthcare services more readily available, for the wait to receive treatment can sometimes be quite lengthy.
Next let’s look at the healthcare systems of France, Germany, and Japan. These systems share many similarities with one another. All three countries have developed some type of national healthcare system (take a look at the universal healthcare image below). Japan’s national healthcare system provides retirees and the unemployed with insurance and healthcare plans. France and Germany also make insurance available to the unemployed. People in these countries, like in the United States, have a free choice of their physician, and employees are guaranteed health insurance. But unlike the United States, insurers are required to provide minimum coverage, which encompasses a wide range of services, including coverage for physician’s services, hospital care, laboratory tests, prescription drugs, and dental and optical care. In the United States, coverage provided by insurers tends to be much more limited. More recent reforms have been in these countries to restrict their healthcare spending. This has contributed to a reduction in their expenses (look at expenditure image below). Similar reforms could be made elsewhere in the world. But while this might sound like a good idea for the United States, which has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, many Americans are already concerned with the lack of money going towards healthcare initiatives. Recently, a number of healthcare proposals were vetoed, while more and more money was put into our efforts in Iraq.
In Sweden, like in Britain and Canada, healthcare is funded by general taxation. Insurance and care is given to everyone, and medical service is free. There is little private care in Sweden, which could be an area for possible reforms. But interest in private care is not increasing, so there’s no pressing issue to be solved.
One country where reforms have made a drastic difference is Cuba. For one, they have made healthcare available to the entire population. They have also received aid from foreign countries, such as Canada, which has allowed them to get caught up with the latest technology. As a result, once widely spread diseases are now on the decline. In general, Cuba is a good healthcare model for developing countries.
Then there are countries where reforms are desperately needed. Russia and South Africa, for example, lack many necessities. Their hospitals are short on x-ray machines, antibiotics, and even hot water. If possible, the government needs to step in and make changes, or maybe even request the aid of other countries.
One common aspect of many global healthcare systems is the universal plan. Most Europe countries, including England, Spain, Italy, and previously mentioned France and Germany, have universal healthcare systems. The systems in these countries also appear to be fairly successful. Developing similar universal systems in other countries might be one possible solution to relieve some of the issues with global healthcare. There is a constant demand for healthcare, so we have to find ways to increase the supply. A universal plan would guarantee care to the entire population, hopefully eliminating problems with scarcity.
This universal system could possibly be funded by general taxes, as in Britain, Canada, and Sweden, which would hopefully eliminate some of the cost issues. What would be ideal is if we could lessen the monetary value of healthcare, instead giving it more of a personal health value. Our concern for money often gets in the way of our concern for proper health care. For example, take our general lack of preventative medicine. People often don’t pay for preventative medicine because it’s too expensive, but then they end up having to pay for a more expensive medical emergency because they didn’t take the effort to prevent it in the first place.
Above: The logo of the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is the directing agency for health within the United Nations system. It manages global health issues by setting standards, regulating research, monitoring health trends, and providing aid to countries. WHO aims to improve healthcare on a global level.
Reform goals are currently in place to broaden insurance coverage, improve the quality of healthcare, and to decrease costs. One proposal has been to increase the number of healthcare providers. This would make that are of business less of a monopoly (in the United States, Medicare and Medicaid are the dominating programs that greatly influence the course of our national healthcare). This would also hopefully allow healthcare services to reach more of the population.
If we don’t do anything to better our current healthcare systems, people will not be able to pay for services in the future, especially in the United States. The number of Americans not covered by insurance would increase and the quality of healthcare would decline as prices continued to rise. Canada, Britain, Germany, and France are in relatively in good shape and are in no immediate danger. Yet there’s always room for improvement. But countries such as Russia and South Africa will be left in dire straits if reforms are not made. People will probably be forced to leave the country in order to obtain sufficient healthcare.
With the U.S. presidential election approaching, many candidates are voicing their opinions on national healthcare and proposing possibly reforms. John Edwards is aiming for a step-by-step process, beginning by giving all employees health insurance and eventually requiring all citizens to have health insurance. While this plan sounds fairly expensive, Edwards plans to use tax credits. By making taxpayers pay for healthcare costs, it would become a more universal effort and would make the costs seem less expensive because you would pay in increments. Mitt Romney also wants to provide everyone with health insurance, but his plan involves a little more government control. Barack Obama wants to provide affordable healthcare of better quality and promotes preventative medicine. Hilary Clinton would like to offer new coverage choices for both the insured and uninsured, ensure affordable health coverage for everyone, lower premiums, and increase security of services. She is an advocate of shared responsibility when it comes to fixing the healthcare system, and is aiming for a fiscally responsible plan.
While no single country has all the answers to the global healthcare issue, most have aspects that are working well. Each country must put the best aspects together in a way that works for them. Hopefully then global healthcare will improve.
Sources:
http://www.who.int/en/
→Health Topics, Data and statistics, Countries
→http://www.who.int/topics/health_economics/en/
http://www.eldis.org/health (periodicals)
→http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/health/health-and-the-
millennium-development-goals
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/article/close-personal-taste-socialized-medicine-243439.html (periodical)
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/0A43A30BC3DE09B6852572C100541487
Images:
http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/images/cuba-medical-aid.gif
http://www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/whologo2.gif
First, let’s take a look at the healthcare systems of Britain and Canada. It has been suggested that the United States adopt a system that is similar to these two. For one, they cost less than that of the United States (take a look at the expenditure image below). With money being such a big issue, the cost is a definite determining factor. They are both universal healthcare systems, so they guarantee service to all their patients for their patients’ entire lives. Healthcare in these countries is funded by general taxation, the government pays for doctors’ salaries, and the hospital expenses are fully covered. Also, like in America, people have a free choice of physician. But reforms could also be made in these countries. Britain and Canada should focus their efforts on making their healthcare services more readily available, for the wait to receive treatment can sometimes be quite lengthy.
Next let’s look at the healthcare systems of France, Germany, and Japan. These systems share many similarities with one another. All three countries have developed some type of national healthcare system (take a look at the universal healthcare image below). Japan’s national healthcare system provides retirees and the unemployed with insurance and healthcare plans. France and Germany also make insurance available to the unemployed. People in these countries, like in the United States, have a free choice of their physician, and employees are guaranteed health insurance. But unlike the United States, insurers are required to provide minimum coverage, which encompasses a wide range of services, including coverage for physician’s services, hospital care, laboratory tests, prescription drugs, and dental and optical care. In the United States, coverage provided by insurers tends to be much more limited. More recent reforms have been in these countries to restrict their healthcare spending. This has contributed to a reduction in their expenses (look at expenditure image below). Similar reforms could be made elsewhere in the world. But while this might sound like a good idea for the United States, which has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, many Americans are already concerned with the lack of money going towards healthcare initiatives. Recently, a number of healthcare proposals were vetoed, while more and more money was put into our efforts in Iraq.
In Sweden, like in Britain and Canada, healthcare is funded by general taxation. Insurance and care is given to everyone, and medical service is free. There is little private care in Sweden, which could be an area for possible reforms. But interest in private care is not increasing, so there’s no pressing issue to be solved.
One country where reforms have made a drastic difference is Cuba. For one, they have made healthcare available to the entire population. They have also received aid from foreign countries, such as Canada, which has allowed them to get caught up with the latest technology. As a result, once widely spread diseases are now on the decline. In general, Cuba is a good healthcare model for developing countries.
Then there are countries where reforms are desperately needed. Russia and South Africa, for example, lack many necessities. Their hospitals are short on x-ray machines, antibiotics, and even hot water. If possible, the government needs to step in and make changes, or maybe even request the aid of other countries.
One common aspect of many global healthcare systems is the universal plan. Most Europe countries, including England, Spain, Italy, and previously mentioned France and Germany, have universal healthcare systems. The systems in these countries also appear to be fairly successful. Developing similar universal systems in other countries might be one possible solution to relieve some of the issues with global healthcare. There is a constant demand for healthcare, so we have to find ways to increase the supply. A universal plan would guarantee care to the entire population, hopefully eliminating problems with scarcity.
This universal system could possibly be funded by general taxes, as in Britain, Canada, and Sweden, which would hopefully eliminate some of the cost issues. What would be ideal is if we could lessen the monetary value of healthcare, instead giving it more of a personal health value. Our concern for money often gets in the way of our concern for proper health care. For example, take our general lack of preventative medicine. People often don’t pay for preventative medicine because it’s too expensive, but then they end up having to pay for a more expensive medical emergency because they didn’t take the effort to prevent it in the first place.
Above: The logo of the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is the directing agency for health within the United Nations system. It manages global health issues by setting standards, regulating research, monitoring health trends, and providing aid to countries. WHO aims to improve healthcare on a global level.Reform goals are currently in place to broaden insurance coverage, improve the quality of healthcare, and to decrease costs. One proposal has been to increase the number of healthcare providers. This would make that are of business less of a monopoly (in the United States, Medicare and Medicaid are the dominating programs that greatly influence the course of our national healthcare). This would also hopefully allow healthcare services to reach more of the population.
If we don’t do anything to better our current healthcare systems, people will not be able to pay for services in the future, especially in the United States. The number of Americans not covered by insurance would increase and the quality of healthcare would decline as prices continued to rise. Canada, Britain, Germany, and France are in relatively in good shape and are in no immediate danger. Yet there’s always room for improvement. But countries such as Russia and South Africa will be left in dire straits if reforms are not made. People will probably be forced to leave the country in order to obtain sufficient healthcare.
With the U.S. presidential election approaching, many candidates are voicing their opinions on national healthcare and proposing possibly reforms. John Edwards is aiming for a step-by-step process, beginning by giving all employees health insurance and eventually requiring all citizens to have health insurance. While this plan sounds fairly expensive, Edwards plans to use tax credits. By making taxpayers pay for healthcare costs, it would become a more universal effort and would make the costs seem less expensive because you would pay in increments. Mitt Romney also wants to provide everyone with health insurance, but his plan involves a little more government control. Barack Obama wants to provide affordable healthcare of better quality and promotes preventative medicine. Hilary Clinton would like to offer new coverage choices for both the insured and uninsured, ensure affordable health coverage for everyone, lower premiums, and increase security of services. She is an advocate of shared responsibility when it comes to fixing the healthcare system, and is aiming for a fiscally responsible plan.
While no single country has all the answers to the global healthcare issue, most have aspects that are working well. Each country must put the best aspects together in a way that works for them. Hopefully then global healthcare will improve.
Sources:
http://www.who.int/en/
→Health Topics, Data and statistics, Countries
→http://www.who.int/topics/health_economics/en/
http://www.eldis.org/health (periodicals)
→http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/health/health-and-the-
millennium-development-goals
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/article/close-personal-taste-socialized-medicine-243439.html (periodical)
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/0A43A30BC3DE09B6852572C100541487
Images:
http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/images/cuba-medical-aid.gif
http://www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/whologo2.gif
Global: Universal Healthcare Systems (Image)
This image shows which nations have a universal healthcare system, which nations are working towards adopting one, and which nations lack one. The issue of whether the United States should develop a universal healthcare system has been under debate for quite some time.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png
Breakdown of Global Expenditures on Healthcare (Image)
.PNG)
This image shows the total expenditures (per capita) that every nation spends on healthcare. Red is the lowest ($25), and dark blue is the highest (more than $5000). As illustrated, developed (1st world) countries tend to spend more on healthcare than developing (3rd world) countries.
Source: http://www.who.int/nha/THE,cap%20US$_2004(200dpi).PNG
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Story of Healthcare and International Healthcare Organizations
The history of healthcare in the world is simple too broad of a topic to talk about within a mere blog entry so all I am able to is focus on a section of international healthcare and its life's story. The world cannot yet be seen as one entity and is still seen as many countries. Each country has grown differently so obviously, their healthcare systems have had different approaches to growth as well. There isn't a health corporation out there that has completely globalized yet and can call itself an international company. However, there are international health organizations that exist worldwide. Not only do they exist, but their numbers and impact in society are both extremely big. International Health Organizations are known throughout the world as the savior of the needy. But, how did these organizations come to be? How did they get inspiration and what processes took them to where they are today. What are the differences between, for example, The Red Cross and The International Medical Corps? Well, let's get those questions answered.
Here's a brief history about the Red Cross. The Red Cross is perhaps the most renowned international health organization. The symbol of the red cross, which is...a red cross, can be identified by almost everyone in the world, just like how the McDonald's famous golden arches are. The largest health organization in the world, with a presence in over 178 countries and over 115 million volunteers, the Internation Red Cross (and Red Crescent Movement) began in 1859, following the lead of Henry Dunant. This particular organization's original goal was only to relieve the suffering of those who had been ravaged by the horrors of war. However, now, in the 21st century, the Red Cross has expanded its goals and now tries to help those who are in need of the necessities that are needed for a proper standard of life. Many basic clinics have been created throughout the world for the countries who are either too poor to afford proper healthcare for their citizens or are too corrupted to look after their own people. By providing doctors, training, and fundamental medications and supplies, the Red Cross has been able to bring longevity to places where everyday living was a health risk. However, even though the Red Cross has effectively brought healthcare to places where medicine and doctors were luxuries, they can't provide the constant medical attention that is needed by people. But, there is a global organization that can.
The International Medical Corps isn't as popular or renowned as the Red Cross. However, the services they provide are forever felt by those who they affect. The International Medical Corps, or IMC, is completely focused on providing adequate healthcare to anyone that needs it. It's not exactly health insurance, but it is free and actually good medical help. Formed much later than the International Red Cross, the IMC was formed in 1980 by Doctor Robert Simon of UCLA. He proposed that the less fortunate people of this world shouldn't receive poor, meager health services, but instead those equal to a community hospital. Many doctors felt the same way and decided to join his cause. The IMC has created dozens of hospitals in the world, each monitered by volunteer medics. Every region that bears one of the IMC clinics have bettered the health and lifestyles of the people living there.
So what's different about the Red Cross and IMC compared to privately owned national health corporations. Simple. Money. Since money is not the main goal of these organizations, then the true main goal can be seen clearly, which is bettering the health of others. Unlike the money sucking corporations that call themselves "hospitals", these organizations are only intent on the helping of others. That's what our governments and private health corporations need to do. They need to start thinking less about money and more about people. This way, global health can start strengthening.
Wealth is Health: The Current International Situation
The chart above shows infant mortality rates throughout the world. Not surprisingly, the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates tend to be the richest. The United States and Western Europe have the minimum infant mortality rate, while Central Africa loses more than 150 per 1000 babies born. A nation’s ability to take care of its most helpless members reflects on its overall healthcare system. Therefore, with regards to most nations’ healthcare systems, wealth is an indication of health.
The main issues concerned with the healthcare systems of first world countries are promptness of treatment (the time you wait to see a doctor), quality of treatment, choice of who treats you, and price (operation and prescription drugs). Many European nations have developed a nationalized healthcare plan. Countries with nationalized health plans, such as France, Britain, and Canada, offer their citizens government sponsored, total health coverage. This somewhat socialized healthcare system makes sure 100% of their citizens are covered. This plan eliminates excess costs for healthcare, as the government bears the burden of its taxpayers’ health problems and prescription drug needs. Taxes are higher in these countries, but according to medicaldesign.com, “Nationalized healthcare could be the safety net that keeps families from falling into poverty and the first wrung on a ladder that lets them climb out.”
The burdens of a Nationalized system are numerous. Under a nationalized system, if a patient’s problem isn’t an emergency he could be on a waiting list for months. Quality of treatment is also an issue. In Britain, “When government planners do get the urge to cut costs, they will short-change patients. In a few years, equipment will likely be out of date or malfunctioning.” (-medicaldesign.com) Lastly, since the government sponsors all of its citizens, a citizen loses his choice of doctor and hospital. It is a large enough challenge to simply fit him into a government hospital’s busy schedule.
Middle-class to wealthy Europeans are finding a way around their nation’s constrictive healthcare systems. Private hospitals exist around Europe so that people of substantial means can receive prompt, American style healthcare. According to “The Sunday Telegraph,” people can also purchase “International Healthcare Plans” that allow the insurance holder to choose any hospitals around the world that best treat his condition. If a European wants to include hospitals in the United States and Canada on his IHP, it will cost the individual around 3,335 pounds.
Outside of the first world, with few exceptions, healthcare systems are dilapidated. Since wealth is health, the third world is generally sick.
Cases of Leprosy Worldwide:
Leprosy is probably not a disease that’s on the radar of most westerners, but it is plainly prevalent in the southern hemisphere. Leprosy, once viewed as an unsightly judgement from God, modern medicine has made it treatable with a very high success rate. Countries with lepers are lacking most modern prescription drugs, and the populace generally cannot afford any non-traditional form of healthcare. If a country has trouble treating leprosy, imagine the trouble it has treating expensive, complicated diseases, like HIV.
In 2006, 2.9 million people died from AIDS. 18,000 were from the USA… 2.1 million were from Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS is a major modern health concern that researchers around the globe are attempting to find a cure for. Like Leprosy, its early form, called HIV, can be treated to some extent with expensive drugs. Poor countries don’t have access to these drugs, once again proving that wealth is health.
Due to the interconnectedness of our modern world, treating illnesses is becoming increasingly difficult. In the time of our great grandfathers, airplanes didn’t exist to transport a person infected with the Ebola virus (which kills a person in less than a week) across two continents in less than a day. Now, each section of the world has the ability to share its ailments with the others efficiently. Our globalizing world has improved our worldly knowledge, but it has greatly complicated the world’s healthcare practices. Potential pandemics, like bird flu, would require quick responses from drug researchers to find a cure/vaccine. Illnesses remind us that we are all in the same boat, within coughing distance. Of course, wealthy people are in the sanitary section of the boat with trained doctors ready to operate in case of emergency, while the world’s poor rely on their wits and genes for survival.
Sources:
http://www.medicaldesign.com/articles/ID/12731
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7307/248
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=c44e282ae3b6f949dd27e3b7e05276fc&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=defa7bd41e914277028095eed09e8fb4
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=8d33876fbdfaa7c7457516a88b445b1f&_docnum=16&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=c1a52ffb8985325eab6683af6a61b216
http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=23
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=11f524db1beb1606ad0fd358767099fa&_docnum=34&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=de173c1e9e95dafd0a7af282cf3f333e
http://www.leprosymission.org.nz/aboutus/statistics.shtml
Images:
http://www.leprosymission.org.nz/aboutus/images/statsmap.gif
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/01.whostat2005map_under5mortality.jpg
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~neils/africa/images/namibia/aids.gif
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Breakdown of National Healthcare Coverage (Graph)
As this graph shows, public government programs make up nearly half (46%) of the federal money spent nationally on healthcare. Already deep in debt, this just puts further burden on the government.
This graph also mentions the fact that most private health insurance is provided by employers.
Source: http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/healthreport.php
National Healthcare Graphs
As both of these graphs illustrate, spending on national health services is expected to continue growing over the next decade.
Source: http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/healthreport.php
National Healthcare: What Needs to be Done, and how "We" can do it.
The United States is one of the richest countries in the world, so SAK finds it surprising that our national healthcare plan ranks thirty-seventh in the world. We are barely ahead of our communist neighbor, Cuba. What can be done to improve our international standing? There is something wrong with our nation’s healthcare system, and since our nation is ruled by (idealistically?) we, the people, it is our job to fix it.
Our nation is a staunchly capitalistic democracy, and it therefore fears nationalized healthcare. Nationalized healthcare is a system in which the government plays the role of our current health insurance companies and “Covers” all of its citizens. The system is working in first-world nations like Great Britain, France, and Canada, providing virtually all of their citizens with inexpensive healthcare. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, fifty percent of all bankruptcy findings were partly resulting from medical expenses, and every thirty seconds someone in the US files for bankruptcy after a serious health problem.
The simple solution for the financial medical burden placed on the American populace is to switch to a nationalized healthcare system. According to the NHC, “The United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.” The NY times published an article that said that, “Viewed strictly in terms of dollars and cents, the government already accounts for more than half of the nation’s health care spending.” Why not raise taxes and remove our need to pay our rising premiums to insurance companies. Since our government is by the people and for the people, shouldn’t it decide our premiums rather than a health insurance company that uses our money for profit? Even hospitals support nationalized healthcare because they would never be forced to treat an uninsured person. The government would insure everyone.
Another perk from a nationalized healthcare plan is the price reduction of prescription drugs. As you can see from the chart, drug costs are much higher for the average American than they are for an average Frenchman under his nationalized healthcare plan. Under such a plan, elderly Americans would easily be able to afford their now expensive medications.
The argument against nationalized healthcare is that it reduces our much-loved healthcare “Choices.” Unless you’re willing to pay extra, you lose the ability to handpick your doctors, and therefore lose a lot of control over your own healthcare. Another problem with a nationalized plan is that people are forced to wait longer for preventative healthcare. If you have a heart attack, you will be treated quickly at a small financial cost, but if you need a non-emergency surgery, you could be on the waiting list for months.
Of course, if you can afford good health insurance and also can afford to pay some of your own medical bill, the actual healthcare offered in the United States is superb. We are a technologically advanced country, and our medical facilities reflect that claim. According to CNNMoney, patient survival rates in the United States are increasing, while at the same time hospitals are treating sicker patients. Basically, they are improving upon their old statistics with patients who are harder to treat.
The major problem we face regarding our hospitals is a nationwide nursing shortage. Nursing school graduate numbers are declining, and hospitals cannot run without a qualified nursing staff. To fix this problem, hospitals can give better job incentives for nurses (pay, benefits, vacation…). This would, of course, make hospitals more expensive to run, and we, the patients, would take the brunt of the cost.
As far as national healthcare is concerned, most of the changes necessary will need to be spearheaded by the federal government. There are certain things in our communities we can do to help improve the nation’s healthcare statistics. Small health clinics exist in cities all over the United States that cater to the poor and downtrodden who lack the financial backing to afford medical insurance. These centers rely on donations and government aid, and they offer the nation’s lower class cheap healthcare. Donating money to these organizations is a great way to toss your hat into the healthcare-improvement ring.
These community organizations are, however, running into problems. According to USA Today, the rising demand for their services is putting a large strain on their resources. From homeless people wandering in acquire get free prescription drugs, to the unfortunate, out-of-luck unemployed, these understaffed centers are so swamped with patients that they often, “Beg specialists to take on patients.” Volunteering ones time to work at one of these centers is another way to become directly involved in improving the nation’s healthcare.
Another possibility is to simply volunteer your time at organizations like the Red Cross. The Red Cross, for example, runs programs where volunteers escort elderly citizens to their various appointments. This reduces a senior’s total cost for an appointment because they won’t need to pay for transportation.
All in all, we are a country founded on the people’s voice. If we want our nation’s healthcare system to improve, we have to shout it at the top of our lungs. If enough Americans call for a nationwide healthcare system, the government will have to listen. For SAK, it all starts with a blog…
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/whats-wrong-wit.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842565/site/newsweek/page/0/
http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2006/nhqrdrpr.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DF1F38F937A1575AC0A96F948260
http://nhperg.org/
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/minority-health/
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1276629
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-07-17-health-main_N.htm
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/28/ln/hawaii709280359.html
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/CLTU07711092007-1.htm
http://www.redcross.org/services/volunteer/0,1082,0_423_,00.html
http://www.nursingshortageinfo.com/
http://www.deionassociates.com/comment/valium.gif
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/reports/health/hcrpt2/images/hcr2ch19.gif
Our nation is a staunchly capitalistic democracy, and it therefore fears nationalized healthcare. Nationalized healthcare is a system in which the government plays the role of our current health insurance companies and “Covers” all of its citizens. The system is working in first-world nations like Great Britain, France, and Canada, providing virtually all of their citizens with inexpensive healthcare. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, fifty percent of all bankruptcy findings were partly resulting from medical expenses, and every thirty seconds someone in the US files for bankruptcy after a serious health problem.
The simple solution for the financial medical burden placed on the American populace is to switch to a nationalized healthcare system. According to the NHC, “The United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.” The NY times published an article that said that, “Viewed strictly in terms of dollars and cents, the government already accounts for more than half of the nation’s health care spending.” Why not raise taxes and remove our need to pay our rising premiums to insurance companies. Since our government is by the people and for the people, shouldn’t it decide our premiums rather than a health insurance company that uses our money for profit? Even hospitals support nationalized healthcare because they would never be forced to treat an uninsured person. The government would insure everyone.
Another perk from a nationalized healthcare plan is the price reduction of prescription drugs. As you can see from the chart, drug costs are much higher for the average American than they are for an average Frenchman under his nationalized healthcare plan. Under such a plan, elderly Americans would easily be able to afford their now expensive medications.
The argument against nationalized healthcare is that it reduces our much-loved healthcare “Choices.” Unless you’re willing to pay extra, you lose the ability to handpick your doctors, and therefore lose a lot of control over your own healthcare. Another problem with a nationalized plan is that people are forced to wait longer for preventative healthcare. If you have a heart attack, you will be treated quickly at a small financial cost, but if you need a non-emergency surgery, you could be on the waiting list for months.
Of course, if you can afford good health insurance and also can afford to pay some of your own medical bill, the actual healthcare offered in the United States is superb. We are a technologically advanced country, and our medical facilities reflect that claim. According to CNNMoney, patient survival rates in the United States are increasing, while at the same time hospitals are treating sicker patients. Basically, they are improving upon their old statistics with patients who are harder to treat.
The major problem we face regarding our hospitals is a nationwide nursing shortage. Nursing school graduate numbers are declining, and hospitals cannot run without a qualified nursing staff. To fix this problem, hospitals can give better job incentives for nurses (pay, benefits, vacation…). This would, of course, make hospitals more expensive to run, and we, the patients, would take the brunt of the cost.
As far as national healthcare is concerned, most of the changes necessary will need to be spearheaded by the federal government. There are certain things in our communities we can do to help improve the nation’s healthcare statistics. Small health clinics exist in cities all over the United States that cater to the poor and downtrodden who lack the financial backing to afford medical insurance. These centers rely on donations and government aid, and they offer the nation’s lower class cheap healthcare. Donating money to these organizations is a great way to toss your hat into the healthcare-improvement ring.
These community organizations are, however, running into problems. According to USA Today, the rising demand for their services is putting a large strain on their resources. From homeless people wandering in acquire get free prescription drugs, to the unfortunate, out-of-luck unemployed, these understaffed centers are so swamped with patients that they often, “Beg specialists to take on patients.” Volunteering ones time to work at one of these centers is another way to become directly involved in improving the nation’s healthcare.
Another possibility is to simply volunteer your time at organizations like the Red Cross. The Red Cross, for example, runs programs where volunteers escort elderly citizens to their various appointments. This reduces a senior’s total cost for an appointment because they won’t need to pay for transportation.
All in all, we are a country founded on the people’s voice. If we want our nation’s healthcare system to improve, we have to shout it at the top of our lungs. If enough Americans call for a nationwide healthcare system, the government will have to listen. For SAK, it all starts with a blog…
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/whats-wrong-wit.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842565/site/newsweek/page/0/
http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2006/nhqrdrpr.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DF1F38F937A1575AC0A96F948260
http://nhperg.org/
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/minority-health/
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1276629
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-07-17-health-main_N.htm
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/28/ln/hawaii709280359.html
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/CLTU07711092007-1.htm
http://www.redcross.org/services/volunteer/0,1082,0_423_,00.html
http://www.nursingshortageinfo.com/
http://www.deionassociates.com/comment/valium.gif
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/reports/health/hcrpt2/images/hcr2ch19.gif
The History of Healthcare in the United States
Healthcare has been an ongoing issue in the United States for quite some time. In fact, in 2004, it topped the list of America’s most worrisome issues, ranking higher than terrorism and second only to jobs. Healthcare is under constant attack from the public. It is often criticized of its sharply rising costs – we spend more on healthcare than most other industrialized nations, and these increasing trends don’t seem to be subsiding. It is also criticized for being inaccessible – healthcare services are not available to everyone, and even when they are available, many cannot afford to pay for them. Hopefully by studying the history of our healthcare system, we can get a better understanding of how we ended up in our present situation.
Currently, we consider healthcare to be the responsibility of a third party separate from ourselves, and expect that others to provide it for us. But up until a hundred years ago, healthcare was considered to be a personal and familial responsibility. At the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century, society was mainly agrarian. The majority of people lived in rural areas where access to doctors was limited. Thus, many came to depend on local homeopaths, herbalists, midwives, and barbers, and home remedies were regularly administered. In other colonies, where religion was very prominent, there was little demand for practitioners since sickness was thought to be punishment for immoral conduct.
Medicine was still quite primitive at this time – it was not regulated, and anyone could become a “doctor”. Yet these doctors were not highly regarded, for their treatments could not be depended on to be successful. These treatments were often based on four humors – blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile – where stable health was thought to be due to a balance between these humors. Thus, in order to cure illnesses, they would withdraw amounts of these bodily fluids to try to achieve a balance. Since medical treatments were often provided by under-qualified practitioners, healthcare was rather affordable.
Yet gradual progress took place during this time. In 1751, the first hospital in the nation, Pennsylvania Hospital, was founded by Dr. Thomas Bond and Benjamin Franklin “to care for the sick-poor and insane who were wandering the streets in Philadelphia.” Then, in 1765, the first medical school was established at the University of Pennsylvania. Thus launched the idea of having an educated medial field. By the mid-1800s, the healthcare market had slowly become professionalized by college educated doctors. Yet there were still a number of under-qualified practitioners still in the business, which caused medical standards to remain low. So in order to instate professionalism, the American Medical Association (AMA) was founded. Laws were passed that made medical licenses a requirement for physicians. Since the few legally practicing doctors no longer had to compete with un-qualified practitioners, they were free to increase their costs. This marks the beginning of the high prices of healthcare, as comparable to our modern system.
During the Civil War period, a few advancements were made. The first health insurance plans were introduced during this time. Although they primarily covered accidents related to rail or steamboat travel, the paved the way for more comprehensive plans, including the first individual disability and illness policy established in 1890. Also during the Civil War, doctors began to specialize in various fields, beginning with the start of ophthalmologists in 1864.
One great development of the 19th century was the understanding of the cause of infection. With the introduction of antiseptic procedures, rates of infection related with medical care were drastically reduced. Also, doctors were no longer relying on balancing humors, but were instead focusing on symptoms and demographics. As medical treatments improved and cures proved to be more successful, the fear of medical care lessened, and respect for and trust in doctors improved.
Significant progress towards modern healthcare became obvious during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the need for modern healthcare. Society became much more urbanized, moving away from its original rural state. These denser populations concentrated healthcare needs. People began to work away from home, which made it more difficult for families to supply home care. Specialization increased the dependence on others for services. In other words, now that an individual was being trained for and working solely in a specific job, he had to rely on others to provide him with what he was unfamiliar or inexperienced with. Also, industrial accidents and illnesses increased the need for healthcare services. For instance, the railroad industry developed the leading employee medical program (keep in mind that building railroads was a very dangerous job).
Many more advances were made in the beginning of the 20th century. According to PBS, the AMA’s membership increased from 8,000 in 1900 to 70,000 in 1910 (half of the country’s doctors), furthering the concept of organized medicine. Also during this decade, doctors no longer provided free services to their patients. Hospital improvements were made –there were only a few hundred in the nation in 1900, but by 1930, there were 7,000. They also became much cleaner, since the rise of the nursing profession improved hygiene and quality of care. But with the growing prices of healthcare, groups such as the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) began fighting for federally provided health insurance. Yet many of their efforts were unsuccessful.
By the 1920s and 30s, the federal government started limiting its healthcare coverage, which was especially evident following the Great Depression with the Social Security Act. Also during this decade, the Blue Cross offered the first privatized health insurance coverage. Then, during WWII, companies began to provide health benefits in hopes of attracting more workers, which led to our current employer-based system. Following WWII, President Truman proposed the first national healthcare program, but it received little support from the public, which viewed it as a “communist plot.” Thus, the healthcare system adapted into our modern system, where many Americans receive private coverage from companies and the poor rely on welfare. Then in the 1960s, President Johnson passed the Medicare and Medicaid Act, which provided healthcare to low-income people. But since his presidency, healthcare costs have continued to escalate.
As we can see from the history of America’s healthcare, our modern system is a product of various fundamental factors, the most important and reoccurring ones being economic competition, private practice, and government regulation. Hopefully we can learn from our previous courses of action and use this knowledge to better our current situation.
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:o4j5qhSy3OsJ:www.chernoffdiamond.com/academy/appendix%2520c.pdf+healthcare+history&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/healthreport.php
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40717F93D5C1A728DDDA90B94DE405B808AF1D3
http://www.californiaspine.com/en/medical_history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12F73B5B157493C0A8178AD85F448785F9
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html
Currently, we consider healthcare to be the responsibility of a third party separate from ourselves, and expect that others to provide it for us. But up until a hundred years ago, healthcare was considered to be a personal and familial responsibility. At the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century, society was mainly agrarian. The majority of people lived in rural areas where access to doctors was limited. Thus, many came to depend on local homeopaths, herbalists, midwives, and barbers, and home remedies were regularly administered. In other colonies, where religion was very prominent, there was little demand for practitioners since sickness was thought to be punishment for immoral conduct.
Medicine was still quite primitive at this time – it was not regulated, and anyone could become a “doctor”. Yet these doctors were not highly regarded, for their treatments could not be depended on to be successful. These treatments were often based on four humors – blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile – where stable health was thought to be due to a balance between these humors. Thus, in order to cure illnesses, they would withdraw amounts of these bodily fluids to try to achieve a balance. Since medical treatments were often provided by under-qualified practitioners, healthcare was rather affordable.
Yet gradual progress took place during this time. In 1751, the first hospital in the nation, Pennsylvania Hospital, was founded by Dr. Thomas Bond and Benjamin Franklin “to care for the sick-poor and insane who were wandering the streets in Philadelphia.” Then, in 1765, the first medical school was established at the University of Pennsylvania. Thus launched the idea of having an educated medial field. By the mid-1800s, the healthcare market had slowly become professionalized by college educated doctors. Yet there were still a number of under-qualified practitioners still in the business, which caused medical standards to remain low. So in order to instate professionalism, the American Medical Association (AMA) was founded. Laws were passed that made medical licenses a requirement for physicians. Since the few legally practicing doctors no longer had to compete with un-qualified practitioners, they were free to increase their costs. This marks the beginning of the high prices of healthcare, as comparable to our modern system.
During the Civil War period, a few advancements were made. The first health insurance plans were introduced during this time. Although they primarily covered accidents related to rail or steamboat travel, the paved the way for more comprehensive plans, including the first individual disability and illness policy established in 1890. Also during the Civil War, doctors began to specialize in various fields, beginning with the start of ophthalmologists in 1864.
One great development of the 19th century was the understanding of the cause of infection. With the introduction of antiseptic procedures, rates of infection related with medical care were drastically reduced. Also, doctors were no longer relying on balancing humors, but were instead focusing on symptoms and demographics. As medical treatments improved and cures proved to be more successful, the fear of medical care lessened, and respect for and trust in doctors improved.
Significant progress towards modern healthcare became obvious during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the need for modern healthcare. Society became much more urbanized, moving away from its original rural state. These denser populations concentrated healthcare needs. People began to work away from home, which made it more difficult for families to supply home care. Specialization increased the dependence on others for services. In other words, now that an individual was being trained for and working solely in a specific job, he had to rely on others to provide him with what he was unfamiliar or inexperienced with. Also, industrial accidents and illnesses increased the need for healthcare services. For instance, the railroad industry developed the leading employee medical program (keep in mind that building railroads was a very dangerous job).
Many more advances were made in the beginning of the 20th century. According to PBS, the AMA’s membership increased from 8,000 in 1900 to 70,000 in 1910 (half of the country’s doctors), furthering the concept of organized medicine. Also during this decade, doctors no longer provided free services to their patients. Hospital improvements were made –there were only a few hundred in the nation in 1900, but by 1930, there were 7,000. They also became much cleaner, since the rise of the nursing profession improved hygiene and quality of care. But with the growing prices of healthcare, groups such as the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) began fighting for federally provided health insurance. Yet many of their efforts were unsuccessful.
By the 1920s and 30s, the federal government started limiting its healthcare coverage, which was especially evident following the Great Depression with the Social Security Act. Also during this decade, the Blue Cross offered the first privatized health insurance coverage. Then, during WWII, companies began to provide health benefits in hopes of attracting more workers, which led to our current employer-based system. Following WWII, President Truman proposed the first national healthcare program, but it received little support from the public, which viewed it as a “communist plot.” Thus, the healthcare system adapted into our modern system, where many Americans receive private coverage from companies and the poor rely on welfare. Then in the 1960s, President Johnson passed the Medicare and Medicaid Act, which provided healthcare to low-income people. But since his presidency, healthcare costs have continued to escalate.
As we can see from the history of America’s healthcare, our modern system is a product of various fundamental factors, the most important and reoccurring ones being economic competition, private practice, and government regulation. Hopefully we can learn from our previous courses of action and use this knowledge to better our current situation.
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:o4j5qhSy3OsJ:www.chernoffdiamond.com/academy/appendix%2520c.pdf+healthcare+history&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/healthreport.php
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40717F93D5C1A728DDDA90B94DE405B808AF1D3
http://www.californiaspine.com/en/medical_history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12F73B5B157493C0A8178AD85F448785F9
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
National Healthcare Cartoons
Sources:
http://www.solidarity.com/hkcartoons/images/mike3aug.gif
http://www.healthcare-now.org/images/jonikeveryfixfix.jpg
http://www.gwinnettforum.com/images/Index_images/06.0824cartoon_large.jpg
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Current U.S. Healthcare Situation
Compared to the rest of the countries in the world, the United States is actually at the top for providing healthcare in one form or another for her citizens. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. The healthcare in the United States is a combination of privately and publicly funded programs which cover nearly 60 million Americans. The publicly funded programs are those provided by the government, but they very rarely cover all the health needs of the average citizen. The privately funded programs are the ones that are run by private, medical corporations and hospitals (i.e. Kaiser Permanante). The privately owned medical programs are usually better in terms of providing patient needs, though the costs are considerably higher. Of course, there are many things that health insurance and premiums don't cover, such as some prescription drugs or illness and injuries that just so happen to fit through a loophole in the premium's coverage. So what I'm really trying to say here is that everything comes down to money. The healthcare in the United States is getting increasingly expensive and although the medical technologies and programs is better in the U.S. than in other countries, it's begin to seem more expensive than it needs to be. At this point, there are families in the United States that are choosing healthcare over proper food.
At the moment, the United States is leading the way in the field of medicine and its related technologies. From developing innovative ways to cure cancer to finding out how to enlarge specific parts of the human body, the number of different types of medical processes that an American citizen can participate in are almost infinite. However, as stated before, the costs are simply getting out of hand. Americans are not getting value for the money that they spend on healthcare. Currently, almost 45 million people in the United States don't have proper health insurance simply because it's too expensive. Most of those 45 million are workers who aren't provided with health premiums because their companies either don't pay them enough or are using the Wal-Mart-Part-Time-Pay ruse to cheat their. Furthermore, 27 million of those 45 million are senior citizens who don't have a steady income anymore because they've retired. A study showed that the average healthcare cost per American was around $6,700 a month, which totals to over 2 TRILLION dollars promptly paid to public and private health organizations. At the current rate of health cost increase, the total healthcare cost of all Americans is projected to reach 4 trillion dollars by 2015.
Although it seems as if the government needs to take a larger role in all this, most of the fault actually goes to employers and the health care organizations. Employers need to stop concentrating only on their profit and worry about their employees. If some employers would stop abusing their part-time workers, such as Wal-Mart, then a good chunk of our healthcare problems would disappear. Healthcare organizations are also to be blamed. Many privately owned hospitals are increasing their charges not simply because hospital running costs are rising, but because they want more profit. Some hospitals are putting money before their patients' well-beings. As for the government, President George W. Bush and a large number of employers and insurers have met up and agreed to do a complete overhaul of the US Healthcare System. These past few decades, the US Health System has been dragged down by government-imposed mandates, wasteful bureaucracy, and massive distortions in the US tax code that punish self-employed and low-income worker. The government is going to try to increase the number of publicly funded health programs and decrease the costs of healthcare. Bush and co. are focusing on the measures that are sensitive to medical care making a difference, such as infant mortality and healthy lives after the age of 60.
To conclude, healthcare in the United States is the best in the world, though the costs are getting outrageous. At this rate, many people soon won't be able to afford healthcare. The main goal that our government and other medical organizations are trying to make is to keep the quality and standard of US medicine and treatments while keeping it affordable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/03/a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors.html
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://healthfieldmedicare.suite101.com/article.cfm/universal_health_insurance_in_us
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
Local Healthcare Premium Costs Graph
As this graph illustrates, while Hawai'i's health insurance premium costs have risen drastically in recent years, benefits have not risen as rapidly. Thus, it now costs more to receive the same (or fairly similar) healthcare service.
Source: http://www.hapta.org/images/graph.gif
Local Health Insurance Coverage Graph
Although Hawai'i's uninsured percentage has risen over the last decade and a half, it still has significantly fewer uninsured than the rest of the nation (about 6% fewer).Source: http://www.healthtrends.org/healthmarket_uninsured.aspx#graph
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What is the current situation regarding healthcare in Hawaii?
In general, Hawaii has ranked fairly high for healthcare over the past few decades. In fact, an article published by WebMD (via CBS News) on June 13, 2007 revealed that Hawaii is currently the best state for healthcare – it scored two to three times higher than the lowest ranked states. The poll, taken by the Commonwealth Fund, was based on many factors, including access, quality, cost, insurance, preventive care, potentially avoidable hospital visits, and premature death. Hawaii's top ranking is probably due to its increasing number of insured adults. "In general, states that did well in the overall rankings had the lowest rates of uninsured in the nation," Cathy Schoen, the Commonwealth Fund's senior vice president, said. Hawaii was the first state to make it mandatory for employers to provide health insurance. This, along with our relatively low unemployment rate (2.6% in July), means that Hawaii has a fairly high number of employed, insured people. In fact, a related Star Bulletin article regarding the Commonwealth Fund poll stated that nearly 90% of Hawaii’s working adults are now insured. Furthermore, the rate of uninsured children was cut from 10% in 2000 to 5% in 2005. As long as Hawaii's number of insured residents remains steady or continues to increase, Hawaii may maintain its leading rank in healthcare.
Another aspect of Hawaii's healthcare that stands out is its accessibility (Hawaii ranked first in this category). This can be largely attributed to the state's prepaid health care act. Furthermore, a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) showed that from 1994 to 2003, Medicaid took action to increase the number of healthcare recipients in Hawaii, resulting in a jump from 41,000 to 209,000. Also in the last decade, the percentage of the population registered in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) has grown to 37.5% (final estimate made in 2005), which is higher than ever before. These accounts illustrate how Hawaii is taking steps towards making healthcare more accessible. Another strong point for Hawaii is its inpatient care. For example, Hawaii ranked fourth for avoidable hospital use and costs, eighth for healthy lives, and eighteenth for quality of care. It also has the lowest rate of breast cancer deaths and came in sixth for lowest in colorectal cancer deaths.
But Hawaii is not without its faults. As the Commonwealth Fund study showed, even for the highest ranked states, the performance fell "far short of optimal standards" in key areas. There are some noticeable categories in which Hawaii lacks strength. Our state was 49th for surgical patients receiving appropriately timed antibiotics, 47th for heart-failure patients given written discharge instructions, 44th for hospitalized care of patients with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and pneumonia, and 41st for the percentage of 50+ adults receiving recommended preventive treatment “We fell down in the area of patient education and hospital discharge planning and we need to look at a better job of screening and preventive care for adults over age 50,” said Loretta Fuddy, the state Health Department deputy director for administration. We should focus much of our efforts on improving and fixing these issues if we want to improve healthcare for the state.
Another issue Hawaii has been challenged with is having a large number of waitlisted patients. We have one of the lowest ratios of beds per population in the country (approximately 1.9 beds per 1,000 people in 2005). This allows for little flexibility, which causes dilemmas during heavy situations such as the flu season. This problem greatly affects the elderly, as they make up the majority of waitlisted patients. Currently, the Healthcare Association of Hawaii is trying to ease this problem. Another issue is the decreasing number of local doctors. An article from The Honolulu Advertiser sites that there has been a 29% drop in the number of orthopedic surgeons and a 9% drop in the number of obstetricians in the past few years, and these percentages are expected to increase. This is mainly due to doctors quitting and retiring because of the high cost of malpractice insurance and the risk of being sued.
(above: Tripler Army Medical Center). Hawaii also faces financial issues with its hospitals. As programs such as Medicare and Medicaid have made themselves more available to Hawaii’s residents, the quality of healthcare has seemed to drop. Between 1995 and 2006, the number of hospitalizations for Medicare and Medicaid patients increased by 35% and 56%, while private payers decreased by 18%. By 2006, private insurance represented 30% of the annual discharges and Medicare and Medicaid represented 49%. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid patients comprise half of all hospitalized patients in the state. And with government payers paying considerably less than the cost of providing care, this has most likely contributed to why Hawaii’s hospitals struggle financially. In fact, hospitals were paid 7% below costs in 2006. This was found to be especially true for Molokai and East Hawaii, where many people are covered by Medicare, Medicaid/Quest. On the other hand, patients on Lanai, Maui, and North Hawaii are generally better off, since many of them have private insurance. Yet, even though Medicare and Medicaid contribute the most to hospitalization charges, more of the population is covered by private health insurance. Thus, Medicare and Medicaid patients prove to be disproportionally demanding on Hawaii’s taxpayer money and healthcare system.
Below is a graph based on national figures. As it shows, Medicare and Medicaid (government run medical insurance programs) are predicted to exhaust more of our resources in future years. Although these are crucial programs, they are quite expensive. If recent trends continue, Medicare and Medicaid will account for approximately 30% of our nation's government spending by 2020, and 36% by 2040. This reflects locally as well.
While many of Hawai'i's healthcare issues seem difficult to fix, there are some possible means of action. We could reduce Medicare expenses in the hope that it would allow those with a real need to receive adequate care. We could also allocate more money to preventative care. Approximately 12% of hospitalizations in 2005 were preventable through immunization, common education, or improved outpatient care. If we invest in these areas, we may end up saving money overall.
Sources:
http://www.hhic.org/ (specifically "past articles")
http://www.healthtrends.org/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/13/news/story01.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/webmd/main2923760.shtml
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/May/09/ln/ln03p.html
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6czOicnwZlwJ:govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9327.PDF+govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9327.PDF&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Tripler image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripler_Army_Medical_Center
Graph image: http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/images/figure5.jpg
Another aspect of Hawaii's healthcare that stands out is its accessibility (Hawaii ranked first in this category). This can be largely attributed to the state's prepaid health care act. Furthermore, a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) showed that from 1994 to 2003, Medicaid took action to increase the number of healthcare recipients in Hawaii, resulting in a jump from 41,000 to 209,000. Also in the last decade, the percentage of the population registered in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) has grown to 37.5% (final estimate made in 2005), which is higher than ever before. These accounts illustrate how Hawaii is taking steps towards making healthcare more accessible. Another strong point for Hawaii is its inpatient care. For example, Hawaii ranked fourth for avoidable hospital use and costs, eighth for healthy lives, and eighteenth for quality of care. It also has the lowest rate of breast cancer deaths and came in sixth for lowest in colorectal cancer deaths.
But Hawaii is not without its faults. As the Commonwealth Fund study showed, even for the highest ranked states, the performance fell "far short of optimal standards" in key areas. There are some noticeable categories in which Hawaii lacks strength. Our state was 49th for surgical patients receiving appropriately timed antibiotics, 47th for heart-failure patients given written discharge instructions, 44th for hospitalized care of patients with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and pneumonia, and 41st for the percentage of 50+ adults receiving recommended preventive treatment “We fell down in the area of patient education and hospital discharge planning and we need to look at a better job of screening and preventive care for adults over age 50,” said Loretta Fuddy, the state Health Department deputy director for administration. We should focus much of our efforts on improving and fixing these issues if we want to improve healthcare for the state.
Another issue Hawaii has been challenged with is having a large number of waitlisted patients. We have one of the lowest ratios of beds per population in the country (approximately 1.9 beds per 1,000 people in 2005). This allows for little flexibility, which causes dilemmas during heavy situations such as the flu season. This problem greatly affects the elderly, as they make up the majority of waitlisted patients. Currently, the Healthcare Association of Hawaii is trying to ease this problem. Another issue is the decreasing number of local doctors. An article from The Honolulu Advertiser sites that there has been a 29% drop in the number of orthopedic surgeons and a 9% drop in the number of obstetricians in the past few years, and these percentages are expected to increase. This is mainly due to doctors quitting and retiring because of the high cost of malpractice insurance and the risk of being sued.
(above: Tripler Army Medical Center). Hawaii also faces financial issues with its hospitals. As programs such as Medicare and Medicaid have made themselves more available to Hawaii’s residents, the quality of healthcare has seemed to drop. Between 1995 and 2006, the number of hospitalizations for Medicare and Medicaid patients increased by 35% and 56%, while private payers decreased by 18%. By 2006, private insurance represented 30% of the annual discharges and Medicare and Medicaid represented 49%. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid patients comprise half of all hospitalized patients in the state. And with government payers paying considerably less than the cost of providing care, this has most likely contributed to why Hawaii’s hospitals struggle financially. In fact, hospitals were paid 7% below costs in 2006. This was found to be especially true for Molokai and East Hawaii, where many people are covered by Medicare, Medicaid/Quest. On the other hand, patients on Lanai, Maui, and North Hawaii are generally better off, since many of them have private insurance. Yet, even though Medicare and Medicaid contribute the most to hospitalization charges, more of the population is covered by private health insurance. Thus, Medicare and Medicaid patients prove to be disproportionally demanding on Hawaii’s taxpayer money and healthcare system.Below is a graph based on national figures. As it shows, Medicare and Medicaid (government run medical insurance programs) are predicted to exhaust more of our resources in future years. Although these are crucial programs, they are quite expensive. If recent trends continue, Medicare and Medicaid will account for approximately 30% of our nation's government spending by 2020, and 36% by 2040. This reflects locally as well.
While many of Hawai'i's healthcare issues seem difficult to fix, there are some possible means of action. We could reduce Medicare expenses in the hope that it would allow those with a real need to receive adequate care. We could also allocate more money to preventative care. Approximately 12% of hospitalizations in 2005 were preventable through immunization, common education, or improved outpatient care. If we invest in these areas, we may end up saving money overall.
Sources:
http://www.hhic.org/ (specifically "past articles")
http://www.healthtrends.org/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/13/news/story01.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/webmd/main2923760.shtml
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/May/09/ln/ln03p.html
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6czOicnwZlwJ:govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9327.PDF+govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9327.PDF&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Tripler image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripler_Army_Medical_Center
Graph image: http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/healthreport/images/figure5.jpg
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
What needs to be done?
Actually, Hawaii is doing extremely well in terms of making sure its citizens get the proper health care and medical insurance. The island chain was the very first state to make it mandatory that employers provide medical insurance for their workers. Most of the employees in Hawaii are granted avoidable hospital use and other medical costs. Because of this, Hawaii boasts a healthier workforce and population, and thus, has the longest lifespan of all 50 states.
However, as good as Hawaii's rankings are in terms of health care coverage, there is a rising problem at hand. The cost of health care and insurance premiums for employers is get increasingly expensive. In order to counter such an inflation in prices, the employers are left with only two options: cut employees or find ways around having to provide health insurance for their workers. Cutting employees is pretty self explanatory. In order to make sure that money is not being siphoned off too quickly from their vaults, employers will lay off their workers. Finding ways around having to provide health benefits for employees is something completely different. Employers that are usually trying to beat the system are the larger companies who have hundreds of employees working for them. Obviously paying for the health benefits of hundreds of workers puts quite a dent in the pockets of the employers. One way of avoiding having to pay is by hiring only part time workers. The law states that employers only have to cover the health costs of their FULL TIME employees. By allowing their workers to work only in 4-5 hour shifts, companies don't have to pay for health premiums.
So what exactly is causing the prices of health care to rise? Factors such as new, more expensive technologies, medical lawsuits, lack of "reinsurance", inflation, and economic fluctuations all affect the costs of health premiums. Reinsurance is, to put simply, insurance for the insurance companies. The number of companies willing to provide insurance for other insurance companies is falling since the number of lawsuits are increasing. Health insurance companies need the reinsurance to prevent catastrophic losses (i.e. mass lawsuits). Economic fluctuations are changes in the market for health premiums. An insurance company needs to find the right balance between cost and risk. If risk, the chances of something really bad happening to the client, rises, then the cost must also go up.
At the moment, there is only one sure-fire way of reducing the costs of health premiums. The government must provide some money to companies to help cover the health costs of their employees. There should be some sort of system where, based on the number of workers who are being covered by the company, the employee gets a certain amount of money to help pay off health care costs. The government should also do something about companies who are hiring only part time workers (i.e. Walmart). Those companies should at least give partial coverage of health care if not whole coverage.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/RHNsprsum02.htm
http://www.hawaiihealthguide.com/healthtalk/display.htm?id=580
However, as good as Hawaii's rankings are in terms of health care coverage, there is a rising problem at hand. The cost of health care and insurance premiums for employers is get increasingly expensive. In order to counter such an inflation in prices, the employers are left with only two options: cut employees or find ways around having to provide health insurance for their workers. Cutting employees is pretty self explanatory. In order to make sure that money is not being siphoned off too quickly from their vaults, employers will lay off their workers. Finding ways around having to provide health benefits for employees is something completely different. Employers that are usually trying to beat the system are the larger companies who have hundreds of employees working for them. Obviously paying for the health benefits of hundreds of workers puts quite a dent in the pockets of the employers. One way of avoiding having to pay is by hiring only part time workers. The law states that employers only have to cover the health costs of their FULL TIME employees. By allowing their workers to work only in 4-5 hour shifts, companies don't have to pay for health premiums.
So what exactly is causing the prices of health care to rise? Factors such as new, more expensive technologies, medical lawsuits, lack of "reinsurance", inflation, and economic fluctuations all affect the costs of health premiums. Reinsurance is, to put simply, insurance for the insurance companies. The number of companies willing to provide insurance for other insurance companies is falling since the number of lawsuits are increasing. Health insurance companies need the reinsurance to prevent catastrophic losses (i.e. mass lawsuits). Economic fluctuations are changes in the market for health premiums. An insurance company needs to find the right balance between cost and risk. If risk, the chances of something really bad happening to the client, rises, then the cost must also go up.
At the moment, there is only one sure-fire way of reducing the costs of health premiums. The government must provide some money to companies to help cover the health costs of their employees. There should be some sort of system where, based on the number of workers who are being covered by the company, the employee gets a certain amount of money to help pay off health care costs. The government should also do something about companies who are hiring only part time workers (i.e. Walmart). Those companies should at least give partial coverage of health care if not whole coverage.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/RHNsprsum02.htm
http://www.hawaiihealthguide.com/healthtalk/display.htm?id=580
A History of Healthcare (And Doctor Screwing) in Hawaii
Healthcare in
The health of native Hawaiians is of special concern to the scholar of
Emergency medical services are of paramount importance to local healthcare. The Honolulu Department of emergency services was established in 1908, and chartered its own ambulance service in 1916. When the system first began, ambulance drivers were required to have “a chauffeur's license, high school education or equivalency, American Red Cross First Aid Course, and no felony record.” Over the years, required training in CPR and other modern EMT (Emergency medical technician) functions were also tagged onto the job description. By 1977, we had a federally recognized Emergency medical services program that was considered an example for the rest of the nation. “The 911 system” became statewide with the
Nursing statistics over the past six years has shown a general decrease in the number of nurses working in
Health insurance in
Sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14593658&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/16/news/story04.html
Monday, September 10, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)