List Archives

Mon May 21 15:59:34 BST 2007

>From Reuters last week, a report from the Commonwealth Fund. No one is
saying the problem with US health care is the doctors and nurses for
goodness sake. The problem is the system. Timely access to good care and
prevention is a huge problem in our country.

R. Smith

U.S. health care expensive, inefficient 
America ranks last among six countries on key measures, group finds
Reuters
Updated: 10:48 a.m. ET May 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most
compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on
Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care
for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.

Canada rates second worst out of the six overall. Germany scored highest,
followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

"The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on
health care," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone
interview.

The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the
six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly
than the others on many measures of health care.

Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all
agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system - an
uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health
insurance and government programs.

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all,
according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have
shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only
keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

Davis said the fund's researchers looked at hard data for the report.

"It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on
average," she said.

Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083
and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

Key measures
"We focus primarily on measures that are sensitive to medical care making a
difference - infant mortality and healthy lives at age 60," Davis said.
"Those are pretty key measures, like how long you live and whether you are
going to die before age 75."

Measures of other aspects of care such as cataract surgery or hip
replacements are harder to come by, she said.

They also looked at convenience and again found the United States lacking -
with a few exceptions.

"We include measures such as waiting more than four months for elective,
non-emergency surgery. The United States doesn't do as well as Germany but
it does a lot better than the other countries on waiting time for surgery,"
Davis said.

"We looked at the time it takes to get in to see your own doctor ... (or)
once you go to the emergency room do you sit there for more than two hours,
and truthfully, we don't do well on those measures," Davis said.

According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or
very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent
to 59 percent in other countries.

"The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive
care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed
care plans," the report reads.

The United States had the fewest patients - 84 percent - reporting that they
have a regular doctor.

And U.S. doctors are the least wired, with the lowest percentage using
electronic medical records or receiving electronic updates on recommended
treatments.

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]
On Behalf Of KMATTOX at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 8:01 PM
To: ecthompson at msn.com; ccm-l at ccm-l.org; med-events at ccm-l.org
Cc: trauma-list at trauma.org
Subject: Re: [ccm-l] "Sicko" premise

In a message dated 5/20/2007 6:58:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
ecthompson at msn.com writes:

Did you see the film, Dr.  Mattox?

No, but I found a number of reviews of the film, both pro and con.  I  found

comments from Mr. Moore.   I found a review in several of  today's national 
newspapers.     

I did say in my review that it was NOT the un-insured that was the main  
focus of Mr. Moore's film.   His major target apparently is the  Insurance
and HMO 
industry.   

k

************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

[ccm-l] "Sicko" premise