The US is #1 healthcare spending, but....

179 posts / 0 new

Comments

-too-fat-for-anesthesia-suction-cups-hold-up-patients-guts-during-surgery? I bet the US IS number 1 in this procedure. Too fat for an mri. Wonder if there is a clearance minimum before being slid in the machine. Getting stuck would be a bitch. Too fat for gastric bypass?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Pierpont:What? no effort to prove that right wing opinion piece is even accurate? It's hard to call it "research" since it cites no sources. It can't even provide a date for its one specific example... nor did it say whether that adjusted Candaian number was then higher than the US or still lower.
Cap's article claims

According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.

When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year. http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/?singlepage=true

Since that crap piece of an article cites no source, claims such as the above must be suspect... especially since it appears in a far Right website. In fact I found Canada DOES use the <500g criteria in calculating their IMR as stated in footnotes here:

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=1020030

6. Over time, there has been increased registration of live births with birth weight less than 500 grams. To improve comparability of this indicator over an extended time period, infant death counts and infant mortality rates are calculated two ways, including and excluding live births with birth weight under 500 grams.

7. Standard infant death counts in this table include all infant deaths regardless of birth weight.

There's no mention counting babies <500g was only done in one year as the Cap's article implies. The article quotes someone without citing the source. It's from this study and it clearly is a distortion of its findings: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1335353/ So I can see why Cap's right wing article avoided citing it.

This ANCIENT 1996 study was of birth records between 1987 and 1993 asking why the IMR increased in 1993. It finds the increase was because babies <500g WERE being finally included as of 1993. Cap's Right wing article proves it has a political agenda by pretending this study was recent and for only one year... that the rest of the years Canada did NOT use the same methodology as the US and can't be used as a comparison.

So in Cap's warped Orwellian Right mind... if Canada has the SAME methodology as the US for at least the last 19 years (we don't know when the US started using it)... that we ARE comparing apples to apples, then we can NOT use those better Canadian IMR rates if it makes the US look bad. ROTF

So who's REALLY lying Cap? Once again it seems to be your Orwellian Right. A person with a smidgen of integrity would retract his claims, but I know better than to expect such from Cap. Yet since Cap claimed we all should be using the same IMR methodology Cap should now WELCOME a comparison between Canadian and US IMRs... right? Didn't think so. In Cap's mind, an attempt to be objective in the CRS report must be rejected because

Quote Cap:CRS isn't telling you the Truth....
Yet we must all bow before the slop the Orwellian Right spews.

Are there any, Any, ANY intelligent right wingers out there?

Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Personally, I'd like to see the statistics of how many die each year in England, Japan, Taiwan, Slovenia, San Marino, etc. because they have no health care vs. the number of persons who die every year in the U.S. because they have no health care.

I personally know 3 people in the U.S. who have died because they couldn't get access to U.S. medical care....nearly one a year over the past three and one-half years. Low bank account neighborhoods don't have access to decent health care.

The U.S. isn't much different than the Middle Ages...when the nobility and the well-off had medical care...and others were left to die in the streets. History probably won't be kind when it reveals U.S. barbarism that is so readily acceptable today.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp:

I personally know 3 people in the U.S. who have died because they couldn't get access to U.S. medical care..

Well, polycarp, they may not be able to get to an office to regularly sustain their health, but, if they make it to an ER before dying, they will receive all the fabulous technical procedures and manipulations to try to save their life at that point--regardless of cost. Welcome to the top-heavy, topsy-turvy world of American medicine--the best medicine that money can't afford. But, according to Capital, we can't afford universal health care, either--even though we can 'afford' universal accessibility in life threatening ailments (and determining what is and is not 'life threatening' at that point of presenting to the ER is part of the cost--and it's not quite as easy a determination as some people may think--even though most life-threatening ailments at the time of presentation will be shown after that deterimination to not be life-threatening at that time--but, again, some may and will be--and that requires determining that...). Don't try to prevent you from getting to that point of dying (there's no big money in that, polycarp) but, if you are dying and make it to an ER, you will get the entire spectrum of life-saving techniques and procedures regardless of cost (that is EMTALA--and there is big money in end of life techniques--of course, as Capital claims, with all those costs not adequately covered by government sources). How effective are all the end-of-life, high cost, life-saving techniques? Some study I remember said that, of all people that required CPR and the advanced life-saving techniques and were revived (most are not revived to begin with), after 6 months, only 6% were still alive. But, what the hell. 'We' can 'afford that'--we just can't afford the comparatively much cheaper preventive treatments. It's just fucking nuts.....and Capital is living proof of just how nutty it has become--so nutty that Capital doesn't even seem to realize just how nutty it is.....with all this privileged for-profit promotions being done along with universal accessibility, it's hard to figure out where the truth lies......or is it just all lies....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Since that crap piece of an article cites no source, claims such as the above must be suspect... especially since it appears in a far Right website. In fact I found Canada DOES use the <500g criteria in calculating their IMR as stated in footnotes here:

Youl should Say DOES NOW.

She lists her source dumbass.

"According to research done by Canada’s Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, “Comparisons of infant mortality"

"Analyses of Canadian data have demonstrated that including live births weighing less than 500 g changes the infant mortality rates.(4,5) From 1992 to 1993, the infant mortality rate, including all live births, increased from 6.1 to 6.3 per 1,000 live births. However, the exclusion of live births weighing less than 500 g resulted in a decreasing rate, from 5.6 to 5.4 per 1,000 live births. An increasing rate of live births weighing less than 500 g during this period, from 5.1 to 8.5 per 1,000 live births, explains this variation and highlights the importance of accounting for these extremely low birth weight infants in infant mortality analysis."

So she was Right, but outdated, So now do the rest of the work regarding the rest of the Nations and compare US methodolgy with thier Methodolgy.

Here you go.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

According to the CDC, which I suspect in more interested in getting to the truth than Cap's rightwing hack pieces... while some nations do measure IMR rates differently, the US is NOT alone in counting ALL live births hence giving us an artificially high infant mortality rates (IMR).

According to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm the following EUROPEAN nations (no Cap, Canada isn't in Europe.) all count live births the same as the US Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States and with the possible exception of Slovakia, the US is still at the bottom.

There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

Ultra low birth weights might be one reason the US has such poor IMR numbers, but to use this as an excuse it to miss the point that it also reflects a FAILURE on the part of the health system. From the CDC report

...preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate.

So I think the Orwellian Right's defense of the US health care system based on blaming other nations for less stringent IMR methodology has proved a bogus objection... and Cap's claims that his right wing sources are "educating" us is just more of his delusional thinking.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

BTW, Have I ever even implied that US Infant mortailty would be the best in the world if everyone used the same defintions? No.. Did I claim that we woudn't be as low, yes. Which Thank you.... You CDC link help makes the case..

All you blustering and stomping around aside... what are you arguing. That we are worst or would stay the same?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

What should Capital care about total neonatal mortality or death rates to begin with? After all, since medicine is a privileged for-profit product, you would expect those people that couldn't afford it to die, wouldn't you? So, those can't be part of the discussion because they fall out of Capital's application of medicine as a privileged for-profit product--so, Capital's 'statistics' should only be those that receive the privileged, for-profit product of medicine--the others don't count. I mean, does the 'safety net' provide for all those things that would positively affect neonatal mortality and death rates in the entire population? If so, then, wouldn't that mean that Capital's privileged for-profit product would have to be offered to everyone? And, if that's so, how is it supposed to be so privileged and for-profit? See that problem, Capital? You're just fucking nuts....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

See that problem, Capital? You're just fucking nuts....

Not by your writings. No. The irony of you calling me nuts is not lost on me.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Since that crap piece of an article cites no source, claims such as the above must be suspect... especially since it appears in a far Right website. In fact I found Canada DOES use the <500g criteria in calculating their IMR as stated in footnotes here:

Youl should Say DOES NOW.

TRANSLATION: You mean "now" = the last 19 years? And when did the US start including <500g live births?

She lists her source dumbass.

"According to research done by Canada’s Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, “Comparisons of infant mortality"

Sorry, that's really NOT really citing a source that we can easily check... and she was being dishonest in implying Canada only included <500g live births "briefly" and failed to say that was a ancient 1996 study reviewing birth records from 1987 to 1993. Pretty ancient history. So how is that in ANY way relevant to IMR stats from the last 19 years?

"Analyses of Canadian data have demonstrated that including live births weighing less than 500 g changes the infant mortality rates.(4,5) From 1992 to 1993, the infant mortality rate, including all live births, increased from 6.1 to 6.3 per 1,000 live births. However, the exclusion of live births weighing less than 500 g resulted in a decreasing rate, from 5.6 to 5.4 per 1,000 live births. An increasing rate of live births weighing less than 500 g during this period, from 5.1 to 8.5 per 1,000 live births, explains this variation and highlights the importance of accounting for these extremely low birth weight infants in infant mortality analysis."

What article are you even citing? That quote is NOT in the article PJmedia article you posted.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/?singlepage=true

Remember her claim in the title of her post was "Babies don't do better in countries with socialized medicine." She FAILS to prove that but tries to IMPLY that. A typical Orwellian Right tactic. If her claim were so obviously true she'd not have to resort to smoke and mirrors. Like I said, such Orwellian Right articles aren't meant for general readers who would see through them. They are meant for True Believers like yourself who NEED to keep their delusions alive. As for the last link.... the conclusion is amusing:

"American are less healthy than Canadians. What this paper finds, however, is that this is mainly due to the fact that the U.S. has a higher incidence of disease."

Seriously? Ya think??? How much money did they spend to come to that brilliant conclusion? And even considering the intro:

A new NBER working paper by June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill concludes that the two systems may produce more similar health outcomes than was previously believed.
So according to you we're to be thrilled that we manage to have the same outcomes as Canada when they spend about 60% per capita of what the US does and they cover EVERYONE while we fail to cover 50 million people? Seriously Cap... you're posting THAT to defend our wasteful system?

Are there ANY intelligent right wingers out there?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:BTW, Have I ever even implied that US Infant mortailty would be the best in the world if everyone used the same defintions? No.. Did I claim that we woudn't be as low, yes. Which Thank you.... You CDC link help makes the case..

All you blustering and stomping around aside... what are you arguing. That we are worst or would stay the same?

Gee Cap, rewriting history again? When you THOUGHT you could discredit other nation's lower IMR numbers, thus "proving" the US healthcare system superior, you were all for making IMR your prime issue. According to you, we should NOT believe the CRS report which you accused of lying to us. Instead you claimed the truth could only be found in your Orwellian Right hack pieces. Now, suddenly... as your case falls apart... IMR doesn't matter. ROTF

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:

Not by your writings. No. The irony of you calling me nuts is not lost on me.

Typical distort, distract and dismiss tactic of yours, Capital. Can you explain what's so 'ironic' in calling you fucking nuts? Once again, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were the one that came in here claiming medicine to be a privileged for-profit product--and, certainly, not a right. Correct so far? So, let's see--if it's that privileged a product, it's not offered to everyone. Correct? So, if it's not offered to everyone, by such an assumption, that would mean that the morbidity and mortality statistics of the United States as a whole would obviously be skewed (and not indicate how great that privileged for-profit product really is) because not everyone got that privileged for-profit product in the United States. Correct? So, 'your statistics' ought to only include those who were able to get that privileged for-profit product. Do you have those statistics? Maybe you can get them from the Mayo Clinic--they seem to understand all the elements of American medicine that 'skew statistics', anyway--you know, what costs they didn't get paid by the government vs. what profits they make, elsewhere. So, maybe they have their morbidity and mortality rates so skewed--say, what such statistics were for those that got 'cheap government care' (of course, as the 'safety net') vs. those that got the 'privileged for-profit care'. Don't have those, Capital? Does that mean that the 'safety net' includes all that privileged, for-profit care to everyone? Huh, Capital?

And, you don't see how fucking nuts your whole position is yet? That's ironic.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

What article are you even citing? That quote is NOT in the article PJmedia article you posted.

opps thought I put that in there.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/meas-haut/mu_c-eng.php

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:... that would mean that the morbidity and mortality statistics of the United States...

Here's a quick link to all CDC stats: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/Default.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

But, Pierpont, in line with my point with Capital, are those CDC statistics divided up between those who received the privileged for-profit product of medicine vs. those who did not? Because, remember, it's not a right to 'receive it'. That so-called 'statistic' would be more in line with what Capital seems to promote....and my 'ironic' point to Capital to show how fucking nuts Capital's whole line of thought with this is...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

What article are you even citing? That quote is NOT in the article PJmedia article you posted.

opps thought I put that in there.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/meas-haut/mu_c-eng.php

It doesn't matter. Your claim that the US IMR rates would look better if other nations weren't "cheating" (using less stringent methodology) has proved to be a dead end for you. You said your wanted to compare apples to apples.... now that I have, you're STILL refusing to acknowledge there's something wrong with the US health care system.... that those socialized medicine nations using the same IMR methodology ARE better than the US for-profit system.

So where you going to sleaze off to next Cap? We could just go back to the CRS report which apparently IS attempting to be honest even if you're not.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Kerry:...to show how fucking nuts Capital's whole line of thought with this is...

As I said earlier, welcome to the wonderful world of the Orwellian Right. Cap is one of those right wingers who's convinced all his nutty right wing beliefs can never be wrong... and when painted into a corner, he'll never concede... he'll just squirm more then run away.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont: Gee Cap, rewriting history again? When you THOUGHT you could discredit other nation's lower IMR numbers, thus "proving" the US healthcare system superior, you were all for making IMR your prime issue. According to you, we should NOT believe the CRS report which you accused of lying to us. Instead you claimed the truth could only be found in your Orwellian Right hack pieces. Now, suddenly... as your case falls apart... IMR doesn't matter. ROT

You care to provide the correct history. The one where I said the US had a better Infant mortality if all counted the same. I said, that country do not all use the same defintions. Birth wieght only being one facet of those defintions. CDC confirms even on the issue of birth weight, some countries use differing definition. Therefore my premise Stands.

If you think this history is wrong feel free to provide the proper qoutes and context to my statements made.

I'll run to the store and get some popcorn...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

polycarp wrote:

I personally know 3 people in the U.S. who have died because they couldn't get access to U.S. medical care..

Kerry replies: Well, polycarp, they may not be able to get to an office to regularly sustain their health, but, if they make it to an ER before dying, they will receive all the fabulous technical procedures and manipulations to try to save their life at that point--regardless of cost. Welcome to the top-heavy, topsy-turvy world of American medicine--the best medicine that money can't afford. But, according to Capital, we can't afford universal health care

poly replies: True. Those I knew were stabilized, told to contact their physicians (they didn't have one) and were sent home to die within a week.

I tend to my neighbors as best I can. That's what monks do....and I am no physician.

Probably it would be better to treat cancer at the beginning stages rather than at the end stage in an ER. Things like that are way too frequent in the U.S.

I know someone now (a neighbor) whose ENT said she needed to see a neurologist. She is out of work because of symptoms. Collapsing several times a day at work just isn't acceptable, is it? Her health ins. (employer based) will run out before the appointment which is still several weeks away She doesn't have the money to pay a COBRA premium to keep private ins.

. An ER will address that in just what way? She's been to one twice in the past two weeks. I expect once again, I'll be calling an ambulance for her. If this keeps up, I'll one day be calling the coroner.

Right wing ideology in this country is killing people!

Retired Monk - "Ideololgy is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:CDC confirms even on the issue of birth weight, some countries use differing definition. Therefore my premise Stands.
ROTFLMAO. And Romney saved Detroit and killed Bin Laden.

We all know you have a fragile ego and will claim victory even as your arguments have been devastated. NO ONE said that nations did NOT have differing methodology for computing IMR. That's a red herring. That was already clear in the CRS report I posted! When the Congressional Research Service posted that of the nations USING THE SAME IMR METHODOLOGY the US, our IMR was still terrible, YOU ACCUSED THEM OF LYING... and posted right wing articles, one which claimed "Babies don't do better in countries with socialized medicine." The rest of that article was supposed to make that case but it fact was intellectually DISHONEST. Now you're pretending you never made that claim and you were correct all the time.

Thanks Cap for AGAIN proving you're f***ing sleazebag Cap. [/quote]

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote polycarp2:

polycarp wrote:

I personally know 3 people in the U.S. who have died because they couldn't get access to U.S. medical care..

So, 2,437,163 people died in 2010. Total Death rate of the world is 100%. I suspect your figure is bullshit anyway.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:

ROTFLMAO. And Romney saved Detroit and killed Bin Laden.

I should vote for Romney then.

Thanks Cap for AGAIN proving you're f***ing sleazebag Cap.

That Ok. I didn't think you could do it anyway. That seems to be a problem with liberals, Kerry especially. Half the conversion done inside your imaginary worlds. When real worlds and Fantasy world collide.. We get post like this.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:CDC confirms even on the issue of birth weight, some countries use differing definition. Therefore my premise Stands.
We already knew there were different IMR methodologies. No, your position was that ONLY the US used a strict ALL birth methodology.
Quote Cap: LOL ... do you let CRS do all your thinking for you...Child Mortality- US is the only country to Count Everything. There is no apples to apples comparison

Now you've rewritten your own past to pretend you were always right about something that was NEVER in question. Despite the fact the CRS SHOWED the nations using the SAME methodology as the US, you accused it of lying when it showed the US was still among the worst nations in terms of IMR. Come on say it Cap: YOU WERE WRONG. Since numerous nations DO use the same IMR methodology there IS an apples to apples comparison you claimed did NOT exist.

So despite all your pathetic tap-dancing I will now assume you now agree that despite its outrageously high per capita health care spending... the US does NOT have a good outcome when it comes to its IMR.

So what's your next lame "defense" of our dysfunctional healthcare system going to be or are you just going to spend time rewriting history??

One last thought... are you even pissed that those right wing articles you trusted were written in a way to deceive rather than enlighten? So when someone LIES or misleads you... what's their true goal? It's the hope that people like you will act on that bogus info in ways you might not if you knew the truth... of course in your case you could care less about the truth.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Now you've rewritten your own past to pretend you were always right about something that was NEVER in question. Despite the fact the CRS SHOWED the nations using the SAME methodology as the US, you accused it of lying when it showed the US was still among the worst nations in terms of IMR. Come on say it Cap: YOU WERE WRONG. Since numerous nations DO use the same IMR methodology there IS an apples to apples comparison you claimed did NOT exist.

This is getting tedious. we are ranked 31st and you want to hang your hat on 7.

Fine, I will amend my Conclusion to "US and 7 others record IMR using the same methodology definition of "Live Birth"

But I final found the site I was looking for regarding the problem outside the definition of "live birth"

Read it if you want, I'm content just to let it drop with a minor correction.

Although... they statement I had in mind from the Above article when I started this Is proably still true.

according to Eberstadt, "America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half."

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

orwellian is against the constitution so it would be far more left then right look at obamas defense authorization act

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Capital:This is getting tedious.
The only thing that's tedious is listening to you claim your Orwellian Right views have some bearing on reality... that and your pathetic attempts to avoid admitting you're wrong about anything.

This is NOT a minor issue about definitions as you're pretending.... the IMR is just one of MANY data points showing there is something seriously wrong with the US health care system... a conclusion you just refuse to consider because of your blind belief in capitalism. Sure it does some things well. But it crosses the line into religion to claim it can do EVERYTHING well. Sometimes competition is wasteful, innefficient, and can SLOW progress. Sometimes that waste and innefficiency are so great people suffer and die needlessly because progress wasn't made fast enough. The US health care and drug development systems are classic examples of such grotesque innefficiency.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

orwellian is against the constitution so it would be far more left then right look at obamas defense authorization act

Do us all a favor CC... next time you're in "college" TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING! Perhaps the meaning of "Orwellian".

BTW this thread is about health care. You'd know that if you knew how to read the title of each thread.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote polycarp:

An ER will address that in just what way? She's been to one twice in the past two weeks. I expect once again, I'll be calling an ambulance for her. If this keeps up, I'll one day be calling the coroner.

You have figured out the trick to the trade. If it is an immediate life and death situation, bar no expense and instigate whatever means is necessary at whatever cost. If it's not impending, treat and street--and advise follow-up. If there is no follow-up possible because of no funding, eventually they will be back in the ER. It's a ridiculous way to practice medicine. And three or four ER visits would probably cover 6 months to a year's worth of weekly clinic visits--and maybe even the procedure needed for your friend.

I had a similar conversation with one of the hospital's that I work(ed) at administrator and new ER corporate manager (and I've been working for corporations for over 20 years--but, now, it's changing--and I don't think for the better--what I call 'corporatization of medical practice'). If, as the plan goes, the hospital is to replace all the local physicians with corporate physicians and those physicians will be working as much for the corporation as they will any one patient, what's to prevent patients from falling through the cracks--especially if underfunded or not funded at all? Ironically, it will be the underfunded or not funded patients that will most frequent the ER. If not an immediate life or death situation but if that possibility still exists, they will get evaluated to prove it doesn't exist at that point in time, and, then, they will get treated and streeted--eventually to come back to the ER and see a different physician (and are the corporate physicians going to have 'their patients', anyway? Even as outpatients.). As a primary care assessment, coming back to a different physician for the same problem in an ER usually means the same work-up to make sure it's not an immediate life threatening situation and, if not, treat and street. No body's following each patient to go to the next step in assessing and treating as one's own physician who knows what he or she has done and knows what they have tried and, then, knows what next step they have in mind if none of that works. In the ER, you don't go from A to B to C in a logical progression of how to deal with each patient's persistent or recurrent problem, you are stuck in from A to B.

So, as I explained to the authorities in medicine, each patient eventually comes back to the ER--and comes back to the ER--for the same repeated (and grossly inefficient process). Finally, they may get bad enough to be admitted (whether they can pay or not) because they are in a more critical state. But, that admission is to a hospitalist who, also, doesn't know this patient. Just like ER (and just like EMTALA's mandates), that hospitalist may be more intent on tweaking the problem to be able to stabilize the patient in order to discharge them than to see to it that such a patient (most likely chronic) condition gets effective follow-up and further care. And, if these patients don't have their own doctor, who does the hospitalist discharge them to? No one. Which starts the process over with the patient coming repeatedly to the ER for recurrent, incidental management by several physicians intent only on assessing the case from A to B--and never get to C. It's a ridiculous way to practice medicine. It represents a corporate attempt to take over medical practice--and not for the efficiency of the practice to handle each patient's case in the most complete fashion as 'continuity of care' but to 'assembly line process' the patient may for billing purposes than anything else.

For my efforts, the new ER management company terminated me in that hospital--said there was evidence that 'I' wouldn't 'fit into the program' (glad there was another hospital nearby)......8^).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

What’s the Difference Between Cancer and Donald Trump?

So-called “free market" or "unregulated capitalism” is really nothing more than the cancer-stage of capitalism. And that uninhibited cancerous growth has spread, so that now even our political system is infected with the cancer of corporatism.

Donald Trump’s candidacy is an example of how our political system is being eaten alive by the cancer-stage of capitalism.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system