Monday, June 17, 2013

For those who still argue that government cannot effectively deliver health care, Sweden would like to politely disagree.

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

The United States spends more than $8,000 a person per year on health care, well more than twice what Sweden spends. Yet health outcomes are far better in Sweden along virtually every dimension. Its infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States. And males aged 15 to 60 are almost twice as likely to die in any given year in the United States than in Sweden. 

In fairness, those differences result partly from lifestyle. In Sweden, workers are more likely to commute by bicycle than by car, for example, and obesity is far less common. Absolute poverty and income inequality — both associated with adverse health outcomes — are also lower. 

But when illness strikes, the Swedish health care system responds efficiently. Managers have exploited economies of scale by consolidating services into fewer but larger hospitals. The American system has also gone through consolidation, but, by contrast, boutique hospitals are also more common here — partly in response to demands from patients with very high-cost health plans. In large hospitals, CT scanners and other expensive diagnostic and treatment machines are in nearly constant use, versus only a few hours of weekly use in some small ones. 

Larger hospitals with heavier patient flows also enable their staff to hone their skills through specialization and experience. If you are getting a knee replacement or coronary bypass surgery, you want teams that do scores of such procedures each month. 

Doctors in the two countries also face different financial incentives. In the United States, under the fee-for-service model, they can bolster their incomes, often substantially, by prescribing additional tests and procedures. Most Swedish doctors, as salaried employees, have no comparable incentive. 

Another important difference is that, unlike many American health insurance providers, the government groups that manage Swedish health care are nonprofit entities. Because their charge is to provide quality care for all citizens, they don’t face the same incentive to withhold care that for-profit organizations do. That more hip-replacement operations are performed per capita in Sweden than in most other countries is almost certainly a reflection of the generous care options rather than of any inherent deficiency in Swedes’ hip joints. 

The Swedes also provide drugs and other treatments only when evidence establishes their effectiveness. People can spend privately on unproven treatments, but the government refuses to impose their cost on taxpayers.

Remember the conservatives are not against Obamacare because they fear that it will NOT work, they are against because they know that it WILL.

15 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:05 AM

    Off topic but about our "favorite" uh well you know. Amazing her hair is shorter today. Fox and Friends this morning with Megyn Kelly from 8-9 AM http://conservatives4palin.com/ open thread. I don't know how to attach just the picture.
    NoMooseStew

    ReplyDelete
  2. Leland6:09 AM

    While I completely agree it can be done - and Sweden is only one of the nations doing it decently - the question is WILL it be done here?

    The existing system has been in place so long that there would be MAJOR, serious obstacles raised by people and groups other than just the GOP.

    Doctors would worry about their debt they incurred for their education and office equipping. Insurance companies would loose a tremendous amount of profit, which would would mean their investors would raise hell! Loosing profits means laying LOTS of people off.

    Our entire medical education system would have to change as well - if only in pricing and philosophy.

    And those are just SOME of the things that pop into MY head.

    Another thing. Sweden is TINY compared to the US. Consolidation of medical facilities into huge centers might work there or any of the other European nations, but they have nowhere near the rural areas we do, with their equally spread out populations.

    That means the entire medical INFRASTRUCTURE would have to undergo massive rethinking.

    Don't get me wrong, I think we need it. I just think it will have a LOT more holding it back than just repubes.

    Obamacare is needed and will succeed as people finally realize what it REALLY means. The question is can we ever implement TOTAL medical care for everyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:55 AM

      As a person with dual citizenship Canada/US I will be retiring in Canada, I can still be down here 6 months a yr and keep my Canadian healthcare. Luckily we worked YRS ago to get my husband his citizenship in Canada and I'll take Canadian healthcare any day over medicare. And I have never heard one, even one of my Canadian relatives or friends wanting the system we have here in the US, in fact, they make fun of it.
      The USA already has a comprehensive healthcare system, it's called Tricare and that's what the military and their families have, there is no reason NOT to expand it to include everyone on a sliding fee scale, or a percentage of federal tax.

      Delete
  3. Maple6:38 AM

    My (Canadian) doctor's office consists of the doc, a nurse practitioner and an administrative assistant. It's totally computerized. No need for several staff to sort through and argue with umpteen different insurance plans. The Admin Asst bills the Ontario government directly and the doc is re-imbursed promptly. It's a fair estimate that less than 3% of all medical costs are non-medical (i.e. administrative -- salaries etc.) compared to 30% in the U.S.

    Insurance companies NEVER really go out of business -- they just merge with other companies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland8:13 AM

      You are so right, Maple. Staffing is really expensive here. When I had my own business in my home town, my silent partner was an OB/GYN doctor. And because of all the unnecessary and screwball codings and everything - that EVERY insurance company did DIFFERENTLY - he had to have a staff of 3 just to do the insurance filing!

      And insurance companies CAN go out of business under the right circumstances. If the US did go to single payer system such as the government paying it all, then around here they WOULD go out of business. There just wouldn't be enough work for all the staffing currently being used! SOME would survive, of course, because there would always be a market for High End insurance policies. But medical insurance is a HUGE industry here.

      And as I said above, that's only ONE hurdle such a thing would have to get over. I'm not saying it can't or won't be done, just that it will face tremendous obstacles from huge numbers of people, not just repubes.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous9:43 AM

    I have noticed one glaring statistic that gets over looked in most of these US vs. other countries in almost every category. None of the higher ranking countries has as diverse a group of people as we do. It's all well and good to say a mostly homogenous country like Sweden or Iceland has better X, Y and Z than we do. But they also only have one basic culture and race. It's way easier to get a group of folks to do something if they all come from the same basic set of genetics or culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:55 AM

      Providing adequate health care access should not be something that racial or cultural diversity would deter. Come on. Can't we as Americans do better than we have so far?
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    2. Canada is as (if not more) racially diverse as the U.S. I believe the UK is too. Your argument is hollow and has no bearing in fact.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous10:46 AM

    I have a question and I'm hoping someone here can answer it. I can't seem to find the information on the internet.

    I was reading a short comment in my local paper from a gentleman who said he was retired but had some kind of supplemental insurance through his employer. However because of Obamacare the employer dropped the coverage. And he said the result was that his medicare payments went up from something like $250 a month to $500 a month.

    A friend also told me another similar story where her employer opted to buy a cheaper insurance because the bar was lowered somehow by Obamacare and now she can't ge some kind of test that she could before.

    Does anyone here have knowledge about this?
    Live in MA BTW if that makes any difference.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:51 AM

    Repealing Obamacare
    Will make US healthcare a lot better

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:54 AM

    Anymore I will not contribute to any of the host of organizations that send address labels, etc. and tout curing one or another disease because none of these organizations has come out in support of universal health care. Maybe they're afraid that, if we had universal health care in this country, their organizations would become redundant. However, one would think that their goal is to become redundant by eliminating the need for them. Imagine if the groups sending all those mailings about one or another form of cancer, tb, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, etc. put out mailings asking donors to write to their members of Congress demanding universal health care.

    I also saw an episode of Rick Steve's public television show about Norway in which he talked to a relative about the social system in that country. He asked if having universal health care, education, housing availability and old age protection didn't stifle creativity and productivity. The answer was a resounding "NO" for many reasons including the fact that people do better if they are not worried about paying for health insurance and education and old age and the fact that Norwegians believe that all people should have access to health care, education, adequate housing and old age protections. If we Americans really believe is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we should share the Norwegian viewpoint.
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:22 PM

    Canada

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:33 PM

    That's a picture of a hospital in Seattle, no Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anita Winecooler5:42 PM

    There are so many variables that we don't even think of that effect the health of citizens. A lot of countries eat seasonally with far greater percentages of vegetable protein vs animal protein and fats. Advertising different products is dealt with differently, and a greater percentage of their health care dollars go to things like preventative health, lifestyle changes etc.
    Part of the gap has to do with the percentage of health dollars that go to drug research. Every other commercial is for new drugs or newly approved uses of drugs for off label uses. We need to find a way to cut the research and development costs for our drugs as we learn to boost preventative measures and other methods of cutting the infant mortality rate.

    I wonder how the rates of deaths due to gun violence compare between Sweden and the U.S.? Drug Abuse? Alcohol abuse?

    We've got some of the best teaching hospitals in the United States, Obamacare has shown is we need to spend smarter, cut out fraud, and get more coverage for more people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:49 PM

    Countries with universal healthcare are able to offer preventive care and early diagnosis and treatment - things that are totally unavailable to the poor and uninsured in the US. If the GOP really cared about babies, it would emphasize women's health and preventive care, because a healthy mother has. Much better chance of birthing a healthy baby than does a sick mother.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.