IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I do wonder what is meant by "inadequate insurance" means, and whether any sort of government mandated insurance will be above that standard.

I have a bit of anecdotal evidence for this, as my brother started private medical practice shortly before 1966 and his standard charge for an office call was $3.00, although some doctors were beginning to charge $4.00 or even what was considered to be rather high at $5.00. That is my recollection of it anyway. I plugged in the $3.00 and applied inflation and it comes out at around $20 in 2008 dollars. A search of the internet reveals a standard doctor office visit now can cost anywhere from $60 to $120, although I think mine was only around $40.00 when I last went maybe a couple years ago or so, but anyway it appears obvious that doctor visits have at least doubled, if not tripled or more, in constant dollars, since the 1960s when Medicare was installed

Your forgot to mention okie that the cost of doctor visits have at least doubled, if not tripled since the US sent the first man to the moon in 1969.
They have also doubled, if not tripled since Green Bay won the first Super Bowl in 1967.

By the way okie, you should find someone that does coding for medical procedures. They will be able to tell you that insurance companies require it before they will pay a hospital or doctor. It is idiotic to blame the paperwork on Medicare alone.

I don't have the reference but recently read that the age-adjusted eligibility for Medicare and SS should be 73 today. One quick way to reduce the excess costs of Medicare is to increase the eligibility age to that which it was designed to support.

Patients With Higher Drug Co-Payments Discouraged From Starting Treatment
29 Apr 2009

Patients newly diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes or high cholesterol are significantly more likely to delay initiating recommended drug treatment if they face higher co-payments for medications, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

The delay was significant across all conditions, but the impact was largest among patients who had not previously used prescription drugs, according to the study published in the April 27 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

While several studies have established that higher drug co-payments discourage some patients from taking their medications, the new RAND Health study is the first to examine the impact higher out-of-pocket costs have on patients who are beginning drug treatment after being diagnosed with a chronic illnesses.

"Our study clearly shows that out-of-pocket costs reduce patients' willingness to start treatment for their chronic illnesses," said lead author Dr. Matthew D. Solomon, the study's lead author and an adjunct researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "It is indisputable that avoiding treatment for these conditions will lead to higher rates of heart attack and stroke."
The study included 272,474 retirees who received health coverage from their former employers from 1997 to 2002 and were covered by 31 different health plans. Researchers focused on 17,183 people from this group who were newly diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol, examining their records to see when they began to fill prescriptions for needed medications.

For each of the conditions, patients who had higher out-of-pocket costs were less likely to start prescription drug therapy compared to other patients in the study. For example, among those newly diagnosed with high blood pressure, those starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis dropped from 55 percent to 40 percent when their co-payment doubled. After five years, the difference was 82 percent to 66 percent, according to the study.

Similar differences were seen among those diagnosed for the first time with diabetes and high cholesterol, according to researchers. Patients starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis with high cholesterol dropped from 40 percent to 31 percent when patients' out-of-pocket costs doubled. After five years, the difference was 64 percent to 54 percent. Among patients with diabetes, those starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis dropped from 46 percent to 40 percent when co-pays doubled. After five years, the difference was 69 percent to 63 percent

"Along with behavioral and lifestyle modification, prescription drug therapy is the cornerstone of management for these diseases," said Solomon, who also is a medical resident at Stanford University. "If left untreated, each of these conditions will increase a person's risk for having a potentially fatal cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack or stroke."

The study also showed that patients who had no experience with medications were even less likely to begin recommended drug treatment, an indication that some patients may have a preference against medication use.

Solomon said the new RAND study holds implications for policymakers and insurance officials interested in creating policies to improve medication compliance and raise the quality of care. In addition, it should highlight for physicians the types of patients who may be most likely to ignore recommended drug treatments.

"Epidemiologic studies tell us that we do a terrible job of treating patients with these conditions. Now we know one reason why," Solomon said.

Support for the study was provided by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the California HealthCare Foundation. Other authors of the study are Dana P. Goldman and Geoffrey F. Joyce of RAND, and Dr. Jose J. Escarce of RAND and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

When we were kids, we didn't go see a doctor for every little cold or cuts, and survived pretty well.

The first casualty in all of this is the quality of care and the freedom of providers and consumers.

All this has already happened in the UK and Canada.

parados wrote:

Your forgot to mention okie that the cost of doctor visits have at least doubled, if not tripled since the US sent the first man to the moon in 1969.
They have also doubled, if not tripled since Green Bay won the first Super Bowl in 1967.

And your point is ...?????? In the 40 years since the moon landing a tripling of the price of something represents an average annual increase of less than 2.8%. The price of nearly EVERYTHING has increased much more than that.

parados wrote:

By the way okie, you should find someone that does coding for medical procedures. They will be able to tell you that insurance companies require it before they will pay a hospital or doctor. It is idiotic to blame the paperwork on Medicare alone.

That's certainly true. However I'm quite sure you don't intend to suggest that the government is anything less than the leading creator of mindless paperwork in most things it touches. (I just finished reviewing the terms & conditions for a science & engineering consulting contract with the Department of Energy which we may pursue. The terms and conditions section alone was 367 pages !!! Moreover it was full of hard to decipher conditions and replete with contradictions.)

A difference in medical care though is that insurance companies are fairly effective at limiting fraud and abuse - they (and their suscribers who pay the bills) get some protection for these efforts in enforcing the contracts they sign. Government paperwork is far less productive.

george :
you know very well - i assume - that that has been more than adequatly discussed over the years on a2k . perhaps you missed it all or have forgotten about it - but it is there in the history of a2k .
it takes a little digging but it is there - for anyone who really wants to LEARN about it .
of course , if you just want to give YOUR OPINION - that's a different thing - we are all entitled to have OPINIONS .

I'm was wondering if a person with this type of policy is considered to be insured, for statistical purposes. If so, I would agree that the official number of insured vs uninsured is inflated.

george :
you really did me a great favour . you agreed that health care costs are lower in canada and that life expectancy is higher in canada .
that's really all i needed to hear from you !
and that's not just your opinion but a fact .
thanks , george !