Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

I have had a number of emails, both from doctors and members of the public, asking about the ethical position of doctors who publicly promote the services they offer. Twenty five years ago any form of advertising would have resulted in a doctor being hauled up in front of the GMC. Nowadays, in the age of information technology it is accepted, and rightly so, that doctors may advertise the services they offer and draw attention to their particular areas of expertise as well as all the mundane information about location and opening times. But are doctors allowed to promote themselves, canvass for business and, indeed, offer inducements to patient to sign on with their practice?

I am not so sure about that.

The Department of Health "Code of practice for promotion of NHS services" is available on the DoH web site here.

Section H: Inducements to the public
No financial inducements or benefits for treatment (including by way of salespromotions) shall be offered to the public, their carers or advocates...

That seems clear to me. So what precisely is the Melbourne Grove Group Practice, part of Concordia Health, up to?
Concordia Health is an innovative healthcare company comprising expert doctors, nurses and highly experienced managers. Our directors were involved in national NHS reforms to create a healthcare environment where you can get a faster, more convenient, premium quality service. We go far beyond traditional general practice services.



Enjoy one month’s membership – FREE and with no obligations!

By registering as a patient with Concordia Health, you will benefit from one month’s free gym & leisure centre membership with Fusion Lifestyle – free and with no commitments. The offer includes full use of Fusion’s leisure centres across Southwark, PLUS a waiver on the usual membership joining fee.

The offer includes:

  • unlimited swimming
  • a consultation with a fitness trainer
  • unlimited use of the gym & weight training
  • fitness class
  • studio classes & complementary therapies
  • sauna and Jacuzzi
  • activities for over 50s including ballroom dancing and bowls
  • badminton & five-a-side football
  • Pilates

Register now and become a member!

All you need to do is register as a patient with Concordia Health, and we will send you confirmation of your membership offer. It’s easy and quick to register – just click here.



What, Dr Crippen wonders, do the other family doctor practices in the Dulwich area (and there are several excellent ones) think of this? How will they compete? What inducements do they propose to offer? And who, exactly, are Concordia Health? The plot thickens.

Take a look at this article in the BMJ.
The contracts for the management of the Melbourne Grove practice in Dulwich and Parkside in Camberwell have been awarded to Concordia Health, an organisation led by GPs John Chisholm and Simon Fradd together with NHS specialist lawyer Andrew Lockhart-Mirams.
Just a minute. Chisholm? Fradd? I know those names.
Dr Chisholm, a former chairman of the BMA's General Practitioners Committee, and Dr Fradd both had key roles in negotiating the new General Medical Services contract.
Ha! Ha! Ha!

Last week, in Greedy GPs - the Devil has his say, I drew your attention to the BMA description of the GPC:
"The General Practitioners Committee (GPC) is a committee of the BMA with authority to deal with all matters affecting NHS general practitioners. It is the only body which represents all GPs in Great Britain, whether or not they are members of the BMA. (BMA)"
I then went on to say:
A characteristically arrogant and dishonest statement by the BMA who are so far up the arse of the government that they are close to being an official spokesman. Let us not forget their cynical betrayal of the junior hospital doctors during the MTAS battles. The BMA is not authorised to speak for me. The BMA does not represent me, it does not represent most of my colleagues. The BMA represents the BMA. Pass the port, Charles
A regular correspondent of NHS BLOG DOCTOR who I happen to know is a doctor of the utmost integrity was not best pleased. He said:
Sorry John, but I really, really resent this. Some of us in the BMA are working our arses off to try and help colleagues. We are dealing with the aftermath of MMC, a GOVERNMENT sponsored lunacy that the BMA had tried to warn them about as far back as 2004, the establishment of PMETB when the Colleges rolled over and gave away ALL influence over training and standards (why does no-one ever criticise them? What happens to our college fees now they no,longer pay fro training? Perhaps we should be told?)
A heartfelt response with which I sympathise. Trouble is, though, despite the obvious integrity of this correspondent a lot of us have lost confidence in the BMA. Is it any wonder? Patricia Hewitt is now working as a consultant for a private equity company that buys up hospitals, Peter Hain is paying his 80 year old mother a House of Commons salary of £5400 a year (Daily Telegraph) and Chisholm and Fradd have set up a company to compete against the family doctors they once purported to represent.

Perhaps you will pardon my cynicism but is seems that, in all walks of life, everyone is at it. It must be the new morality.

Labels: , , ,

59 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, John, the true agenda of some of those who negotiated the new contract is now clear. Include a nice open door for private business to walk through, and then set up a private business yourself. Also, as a previous post shows, Judas Chisholm and his sidekick Fragg are very happy to parrot the Nulabour claptrap of the joys of doctor-free treatment. A fantastic money saver. So now you all know for certain. Some of your representatives have betrayed and betrayed and betrayed. And in a typical supine attitude the BMJ reports this without comment. You are right; ethics ain't what they used to be. Keep shouting. It's sadly all any of us can do.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why has the Concordia Health website got the NHS logo prominently displayed? Is it part of the NHS. ie. the not for profit organisation which the British public love and put up with precisely because it is not for profit.

This is also from their website.

"Your responsibilities as a patient.
Our nurses and doctors are here to help, and we aim to provide you with the best possible care. In order for us to do this we expect you to be considerate, courteous and not to make unreasonable demands. You can leave a message or telephone us when a face-to-face contact is unnecessary. This will help us to function more effectively and allows us to be more available."

Asking patients not to make unreasonable demands....ah, wish I had thought of that 20 years ago!

I do not think the local friendly family GP has anything to fear just yet. We just have to let the politicians know that we do not want polyclinics run by impersonal for profit organisations, we want to stay local family doctors.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous DrCrippen said...

the use of the NHS logo is worrying; I assume it is with permission, in which case, well.....this is the future.

John

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, my ... fetch the sal volatile ... I don't know whether I can bear it ... that health care has been reduced to a matter of ... oh, I can't say it ... to vulgar trade! Oh, the horror! Is nothing sacred?

Grow up.

In every field of human endeavour, free competition improves the outcome for the vast majority. Competition makes goods and services cheaper, better, more available. This is true for groceries, and automobiles, and it is true for healthcare too.

All this clap-trap about 'ethics' is just that - clap-trap. The reason that doctors are up-in-arms about a medical practice that advertizes its services and offers inducements is that it threatens their comfy closed shop. There's nothing 'unethical' about letting the public know what you have to offer and offering incentives to them to choose you over someone else.

Resistance to this sort of thing is nothing more than blind adherence to an outdated, paternalistic and neo-Stalinist model of central control in which the peasants are to be kept in the dark and made to accept what they are given without question.

Let doctors advertize. Let doctors compete in a free market, using all the tools of the free market. Let cosumers decide what's best for them, and let them enjoy the same free-market benefits in healthcare that they enjoy in all other areas of commerce. What are you afraid of?

As regards the BMA - Adam Smith wrote

'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'

and this applies to the BMA just as it applies to the TGWU or the IoD.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:28:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Use of the NHS logo is available to ALL private contractors who provide services to the NHS, including GP practices whether they are run by GP partners or private companies. The same is true of pharmacies and opticians...nobody seems to complain about that, do they?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger Dr John Crippen said...

I did not know that David.

I though use of the NHS logo would imply that the NHS approved of what you were doing.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger steveg said...

llamas said

Let doctors advertize. Let doctors compete in a free market, using all the tools of the free market. Let cosumers decide what's best for them, and let them enjoy the same free-market benefits in healthcare that they enjoy in all other areas of commerce.

**************************

Fair enough, that would be OK though if it were allowed, which is the first point that Dr C was making; that inducements or benefits for treatment are not allowed. Well not for the majority of practitioners apparently.

Another case of some being more equal than others? Or am I becoming a cynic too? - I sure hope so, because I find it helps to have a healthy suspicion of people motives.

Steve

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:06:00 PM  
Blogger Dr John Crippen said...

Oh, my ... fetch the sal volatile ... I don't know whether I can bear it ... that health care has been reduced to a matter of ... oh, I can't say it ... to vulgar trade! Oh, the horror! Is nothing sacred?

Grow up.

In every field of human endeavour, free competition improves the outcome for the vast majority. Competition makes goods and services cheaper, better, more available. This is true for groceries, and automobiles, and it is true for healthcare too.

+++++

Sad that you resort to abuse.

Once again, it is a matter of opinion, not of growing up. I suspect medicine is being reduced to a trade and, if that is what people want, that is fine.

Personally, and of course predictably, I do believe in professional ethics and, for all the restrictive practices, I do believe that professional standards protect the public.

Chisholm and Fradd are doing nothing illegal; nor is Peter Hain when he pays his elderly mother a salary out of taxpayers' pockets.

What you have missed, Llama, is that there is not a level playing field and so ordinary family doctors, even if they wished, cannot compete on equal terms against private companies like Concordia. Although notionally self-employed we are tied to government imposed contracts, contracts negotiated by shitbags like Chisholm and Fradd who have now buggered off to start earning money. I am not legally allowed to do the things that a private company can do. I cannot offer any private services to my patients and, if I started offering them inducements, I would risk being struck off.

If we are going to have free competition, I am happy. But what we have instead is family doctors being constrained by their contracts whilst Concordia skims of the cream by running a medical service proudly front ended by nurse practitioners.

If that is what you want - and it is a much more economic service - then fine.

But be aware (most are not) that the government agenda is to have the NHS front ended by NPs in general practice and HCPs in hospital. A two tier service is emerging. Free entry to the dumbed down "new" NHS for the poor folk, whilst the well-heeled middle class will pay to see doctors privately.

This is exactly what happened to the education system. Dumbed down crappy comprehensives for the poor folk, and private schools for the well off...oh and for Labour politicians like Charlie Faulkener, and "left wing" Diane Abbott.

It is not so much what is happening that annoys me (though is does annoy me) but the fraudulent and dishonest way in which it is being presented.

Finally, never forget that there is no profit to be made from most healthcare. Caring for elderly dements and the mentally ill will never generate profit. It has to be paid for by citizens, either by tax, or by private health insurance. Then it is just a question of choosing your master. Do you want the insurance companies and big business to control healthcare as in the USA, or do you want a democratically elected government, with all the problems that brings, to take control. You can at least vote out a government.


John

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

llamas

i suspect you are not a doctor. you say

"There's nothing 'unethical' about letting the public know what you have to offer and offering incentives to them to choose you over someone else."

how are you going to 'choose' one family doctor over another. i suspect you will go to one who offers you one months free gym membership and one that has a shiny new website.

but hang on, what if in one year all the other local doctors have also started to offer one months gym membership and they all have shiny new websites. Has the 'doctoring' got any better? See where this is going...any similarity to the US presidential elections?

let's start with basics. on the Concordia website, i do not see which doctor i can register with, what his qualifications or experience are and how many days he works there.

secondly, it is not a free market. and i agree with you there. it should be a real free market where any GP can open up a GP surgery anywhere as long as he is qualified and meets building/medical regulations. then the GP will rise or fall according to the service provided.

and we also would not have the profession being taken over by multinationals who are the only ones who have the buerocratic manpower to bid for new practices.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Dr Snuggles said...

The current demands for longer opening hours of GP practices are part of the Government agenda to favour private providers. Large corporate 'health centres' will find it easier to cover these hours, traditional two or three man operations will not. That is why the BMA seem to be quibbling over what may seem small beer - it is another step along the road to the destruction of the family doctor service.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Crippen wrote:

'Sad that you resort to abuse.'

I was aiming for sarcasm - I guess I missed. I apologize if I offended.

The fact that the playing field is not level has not escaped me - the difference is that I do not see this as being a bad thing, or unfair, or somehow 'wrong'. It is, what it is. It is, in fact, the natural order of things. When Edison introduced the electric light bulb, the playing field suddenly got very un-level for the makers of candles and oil lamps.

At the risk of offending (again), what you are saying reads very much as if you would like the NHS to be a full-employment scheme for MDs, with any competitive pressures rigourously suppressed.

Your very words, about medicine being 'reduced to a trade', speak to your biases. Medicine has a long tradition of altruism and high ethical standards, but it is and always has been a commercial enterprise - which, surprisingly enough, does not have to be at odds with those proud traditions. It does your argument no good to look down your nose at the commercial pressures which drive medicine, as they drive any other commercial enterprise. To do that is to commit the same sort of fraud as that which you deride in the UK government - selling the NHS to the public on the basis of moral, social and political arguments and preferences, rather than on the down-and-dirty fact that it's an economic activity that is mostly-driven by economic pressures.

As to whether I prefer the UK vs the US system - I have lived under both and experienced them first-hand. I don't like either one - but given the choice, I will take the US commercial, for-profit competitive model over the UK single-provider State-controlled model, any day. And, as the Don said, I will give you my reasons.

The NHS is the ward of the state, and is therefore subject to any and every political and budgetary whim of whoever happens to be in power. And those in power care about one thing and one thing only, which is getting enough votes to win their next election. And they will say, and do, anything to achieve that. That is not a good basis on which to grant governance of a healthcare system, because the motives of those in charge may - will - almost never have anything to do with obtaining the best healthcare outcomes for the users.

The US system, by contrast, ir gloriously, riotously for-profit. Which is a motive that all can understand - and it is consistent, no matter what flavour of government happens to be fleetingly in power. Once again, to quote Adam Smith:

'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

and the same goes for healthcare providers. A doctor who does not satisfy his patient's healthcare needs will soon be in another line of work. An insurer who does not offer the coverage people want at a price they are willing to pay, will soon be out of the insurance business. And the powerful blast of free competition drives standards up and prices down. There's a reason that so many healthcare outcomes of so many conditions are so much better in the US than in the UK - it's because those outcomes are market-driven. And the users - the consumers - can see what their choices are, they can shop their choices, and so they can tell the martket what it should be providing.

Unlike the NHS, which is stuck (as you said) in the Dr Findlay model of 50+ years ago, and which now answers to a horde of political masters and entrenched special-interests, with the users - the consumers - the people who pay for it - trailing a very long way behind when it comes to getting their needs and desires met.

Once again, if I offended, I apologize.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you are quite right. I am not a doctor - I never said I was. What I am is a health-care consumer - and one who, unlike almost-all of you here, has lived under and experienced more than one system of healthcare, including the NHS and the US for-profit system. I live in the US now.

Funnily enough, I have absolutely no problem selecting my PCP aka 'family doctor'. I have changed PCPs more than once over the last 20 years, as my needs change. And none of them offered me free gym memberships or had snazzy websites. I sipmply applied the same level of research and caution to (re)selecting my PCP as I would to any other major life decision, like buying a house. My last PCP selection was based upon a personal recommendation, and I made an appointment to meet the doc in person and judge whether she would work for me and whether her approach to PCP service aligned with mine. It did, it does, and she's my 'family doctor' now. And very good she is, too.

And what, pray tell, is your objection to 'the profession being taken over by multinationals'? Large corporate entities - whether or not multinational - always reduce consumer prices. Always. It is an immutable law of economics. It's why WalMart can sell the 300 most-used prescription drugs in America for $4. And your objection to this is....? but wait, I think I know. Call for Dr Findlay . . . .

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:05:00 PM  
Blogger steveg said...

Llamas said:

"It is an immutable law of economics. It's why WalMart can sell the 300 most-used prescription drugs in America for $4. And your objection to this is....?"

*************************

Where on Earth can I start with my objections to WalMart? There are so many of them...

Why can they sell these drugs for that price? Again the reasons are so many as be almost impossible to list, but lets make a start with just 2 shall we?

1) WalMart has a well documented and reported on policy of paying their employees so little in wages that they are forced onto welfare for their healthcare - in fact that has become company POLICY (although they deny it)

2) Suppliers are sourced at the lowest possible prices with no care for any level of "fair trade" or how the workers live in the countries where their products are made, it is all about profit for the retailer and nothing else.

Big business does not "always" bring benefits, just sometimes.

For information, I too have lived in both countries (I am married to an American) and we both would chose, without hesitation, the NHS (when working as it should) to any other system we have experienced.

Regards

Steve

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve - I wasn't asking you to comment on WalMart so much as on the your objection to 'the profession being taken over by multinationals'. But since you did . . .

You make a lot of noise about WalMart's wages. But the fact is that they pay (on average) just about exactly twice the Federal minimum wage, and their pay is, on average, completely consistent with pay rates in their market - consumer retail. They also offer company-subsidized healthcare, a 401k savings plan, and group life insurance - all of which are definitely not average in the consumer retail sector. That's why new WalMart stores always have many more applicants than they have jobs - because their pay and benefits are better than most others.

Your comment about 'forcing' their employees onto welfare for their healthcare is simply untrue - WalMart does not have the power to force anyone to do anything, only the state can do that - and far from denying that some employees may chose to do this, they freely admit that some state health-insurance programs, in some states, may benefit their employees more than the company-provided plan does. What of it?

Suppliers are 'forced' - there's that 'forced' idea again. Where do you get these ideas from? WalMart has no power to force anybody to supply them with anything, at any price. They drive a hard bargain - to be sure - but that's a good thing. Independent studies show that WalMart alone - by itself - has reduced US consumer prices by more than 3% - consumer savings which totalled some $290 billion in 2006, or some $2,500 per US household. You didn't know that - or you don't care. Which is it?

That's why I said that large corporate entities always - always reduce consumer prices - because it's true. You talk vaguely of 'benefits' - which are, of course, etirely subjective, such as your plaintive wail that WalMart doesn't do enough for 'fair trade' - whatever that is - or for how the workers live. It's been my observation that workers in far-flung countries who make goods for companies like WalMart always - always - earn more and have a better standard of living than most of their countrymen - Or Why Else Would They Do It?

You want to try again?

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:55:00 PM  
Anonymous david said...

Dr Crippen said:
"Do you want the insurance companies and big business to control healthcare as in the USA, or do you want a democratically elected government, with all the problems that brings, to take control. You can at least vote out a government."

The big flaw in this argument (pro government control) is that the Government machine lacks competence. Witness the bodging-up of the GP contract which resulted in the take-home incomes of individual practitioners being elevated to eye-watering levels compared to every other comparable profession in the UK! Not surprising that the contract is so attractive to private healthcare companies who would like a piece of the action. I watched a recent programme "Doctors To Be-20 Years On" featuring a GP who has taken an MBA degree to hone his business skills so that he can compete against these companies. What a waste - I expect my GP to spend time honing his clinical knowledge, not obtaining a qualification more appropriate to a practice manager. But then, I don't suppose many traditional GPs would be prepared to pay their practice managers the appropriate salary for someone with that sort of qualification.

The American model is always quoted as the extreme example of how a commercially run healthcare system would operate in the UK, but what about the European insurance-based systems which are by all accounts far more efficient than the old NHS?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:58:00 PM  
Anonymous DrCrippen said...

David

I agree.

I was taking the two extremes. We need to be freed of Gordonian micromanagement but, on balance, better Gordon than Richard Branson.

We should explore the middle ground


John

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:10:00 PM  
Blogger steveg said...

Llamas said:

"You want to try again?"

***************************

Ok, seeing as you asked so nicely....(but just this once more)

I shall reply simply by quoting Sam Walton (WalMart's founder) from his book (which I have a copy of at home)

"I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

Cheers

Steve

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David wrote:

'The big flaw in this argument (pro government control) is that the Government machine lacks competence.'

Bingo!

The Government - any Government - has amply demonstrated, by repeated example, that it is the absolute worst choice to organize - virtually anything. Put bluntly, the State (generally speaking) couldn't run a whelk stall and make it pay. Things run by the State always - always - cost more than they should, take longer than they should, and work worse that they could. It's another immutable law of economics.

That's why the more-successful systems of socialized healthcare - France, Germany, the Netherlands, et al - are not run by the state.

And why the worst - Canada and Cuba spring to mind - are run exlcusively by the state, with all private alternatives banned.

The MDs here would really like the Canadian model, I think. Did you hear the one about the Canadian MD who was rousted out of his bed by bailiffs of the court, bundled into a car, driven to a hospital several hours away, and compelled by the bailiffs to work an A&E shift?

http://www.cmaj.ca/news/16_09_02.shtml

Are you ready for that?

And then David wrote:

'The American model is always quoted as the extreme example of how a commercially run healthcare system would operate in the UK, but what about the European insurance-based systems which are by all accounts far more efficient than the old NHS?'

Another 'Bingo' moment. Perhaps there's actually a continuum of different ways of delivering healthcare, and perhaps that continuum is a better model than the one-size-fits-all NHS? What a concept . . . .

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39:00 PM  
Anonymous the a&e charge nurse said...

'What are you afraid of', asks llamas (when proposing that health should be placed in the hands of the market/multi-nationals).

Well, if we take the USA as an example, I would worry about it being the most expensive health system in the world, and by some way (15.3% of GDP according to recent OECD stats, almost twice that spent on the NHS until relatively recently).

Consistently low ranking(s) by the WHO.

Or maybe the burgeoning list of uninsurable health conditions.

Or how about 18,000 avoidable deaths every year simply due to lack of universal coverage.
http://iom.edu/?id=17846

Or worse, 1.7million hospital acquired infections resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/hicpac/infections_deaths.pdf

Mortality rates at both ends of the life spectrum do not compare very well to other industrialised nations.

I'm struggling to see why anybody would wish to embrace a model that could be even more problematic than the NHS ?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:49:00 PM  
Blogger Rohin said...

Dr C, to your correspondent:

"We are dealing with the aftermath of MMC, a GOVERNMENT sponsored lunacy that the BMA had tried to warn them about as far back as 2004, the establishment of PMETB when the Colleges rolled over and gave away ALL influence over training and standards (why does no-one ever criticise them?"

The BMA did precious little to warn anyone, unfortunately they were all too complicit with MMC. I was a representative on a BMA craft committee back in 2004 and I felt as you do now - hurt by the categorisation of the BMA as useless or worse, harmful. But 2004 was the year I left after several years' service, realising that the BMA is quite simply not serving doctors well. It has not been a positive force whatsoever in the last few years and despite your intentions, your voice is drowned by colleagues' egos, agendas and indecision.

Talking of doctors giving incentives, surely no one match Dr Nick's amazing giveaways:

"We're not only a surgery, we're also a certified traffic school"

"Come in for brain surgery and receive this free Chinese finger trap!"

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The A&E Charge Nurse wrote (in part)

Well, if we take the USA as an example, I would worry about it being the most expensive health system in the world, and by some way (15.3% of GDP according to recent OECD stats, almost twice that spent on the NHS until relatively recently).

Consistently low ranking(s) by the WHO.

- except that the WHO rankings are heavily weighted by factors like the 'social justice' of healthcare funding - whatever that means. Note that people who actually need healthcare tend to vote with their feet and get it in the USA if they possibly can.

Or maybe the burgeoning list of uninsurable health conditions.

- which are, of course, nothing like the growing list of health conditions that will not be treated under the NHS and similar state-run systems because they are too expensive or becasue there are not enough resources? Or - to look at it another way - is it better to die of something because insurance won't cover it, or to die of something while on a waiting list?

Or how about 18,000 avoidable deaths every year simply due to lack of universal coverage.
http://iom.edu/?id=17846

- as opposed to - how many avoidable deaths each year due to the denial of treatment or while waiting for treatment? I've read proposals that patients will be denied NHS treatment if they drink, smoke or are obese - how many 'avoidable' deaths will follow from that, I wonder?

Or worse, 1.7million hospital acquired infections resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/hicpac/infections_deaths.pdf

- spelled 'MRSA.

Mortality rates at both ends of the life spectrum do not compare very well to other industrialised nations.

- Mortality rates at both ends of the life spectrum? What's the mortality rate at the upper end, if not 100%?

Infant mortality rates in the US appear to be high compared to other industrialized nations simple because there are many more survivable premature and high-risk births in the US - precisely because of the superior standard of healthcare. Also, the US abortion rate is significantly-lower than most of the rest of the industrialized world. Many severely-challenged neonates who would be stillborn or survive only minutes or hours (or worse yet, who would be allowed to die) in other healthcare systems, and who are often not even recorded as live births, do survive in the US - often for tragically-short lives, but long enough to become statistics.


llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:20:00 PM  
Anonymous ZT said...

'Consistently low ranking(s) by the WHO.' The latest WHO survey was weighted so that 25% of the result was based on the quality of health care and 75% was based on how close the system came to meeting Socialist ideals.
For just about every disease, where actual outcomes are compared, such as cancer survivor rates, the USA ranks near the top.
The USA does pay more. Some reasons are a flawed legal system; USA patients pay all of the development costs for drugs, not just the manufacturing costs, as in price controlled countries; and for better availability (you don't have waiting lists for waiting lists in the USA).

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:52:00 PM  
Anonymous the a&e charge nurse said...

Yes, llamas - the NHS is problematic, I accept that, but the point I was trying to make was that business driven alternatives (if we take the USA as an exemplar of the fatcats being given free reign to orchestrate certain health services) well, it hardly seems much of an improvement, does it ?

One thing I hear time and again about market solutions is that competition invariably reduces costs - so if we take this simple principle as a starting point why is it that the USA spends almost twice the amount on health (when compared to the NHS) - and consistently has the HIGHEST health expenditure in the world ?

I have heard about exhorbitant drug charges, or families being forced to liquidise assets (such as selling the family home, etc) in order to obtain life saving services like chemotherapy, and dialysis. Remember cancer and end stage renal failure are both 'uninsurable' (as are many other conditions, ranging from hepatitis to heart disease).

As I say I accept criticism of the NHS, it is certainly justified in many respects, but a family having to sell their home to afford chemo......I wonder how many people (if offered the choice) would sign up to such a barbaric system, or are you not so keen on the fatcats when they are too busy rewarding themselves to provide universal and equittable health care ?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:53:00 PM  
Anonymous ZT said...

a&e charge nurse: Don't believe everything Michael Moore says. He's got an agenda too.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:04:00 PM  
Anonymous the a&e charge nurse said...

zt - I am no fan of Michael Moore, you will see that I have cited data supplied by the OECD & CDC, as well as WHO, surely you are not suggesting that these august authorities have been influenced by a self-aggrandising documentary film maker ?

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:18:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

- as opposed to - how many avoidable deaths each year due to the denial of treatment or while waiting for treatment?

llamas, the figure A & E charge nurse quoted comes from a comparative study (in which the UK comes out poorly, the US, worse -- but there isn't much in it).

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:23:00 PM  
Anonymous PharmaCynic said...

zt wrote:

"US patients pay all of the development costs for drugs, not just the manufacturing costs, as in price controlled countries"

This is a crock, and has been repeatedly debunked, see e.g. here in the BMJ. However, it is widely believed in the US, where it is repeated ad nauseam - like a mantra - by PharmaCo spokespersons to justify their pricing policies. It is a very useful message for them, and is often believed by the consumers as - apart from seeming to explain why US precription drug costs are high - it speaks to their readiness to believe that non-US countries are "victimizing" US consumers by refusing to pony up.

The reality is that drug pricing for the US market represents "what the market will bear". Full stop. If any US PharmaCo felt it was losing money selling its products to Canadians then it could stop advertising and selling in Canada. But don't hold your breath.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Long Term Listener said...

Llamas,
The comment about "there are many more survivable premature and high-risk births in the US - precisely because of the superior standard of healthcare" is utter, utter arrogant bollocks.

You call the NICU's and ask who makes the decisions about which prem babies are "saved". Tell you know- it sure ain't the neos or the parents. go on - call 'em - ask who writes the resus rules.
And when these children do get to go home, often with multiple disabilities, the healthcare system you seem to rate so highly do not offer these families the appropriate and relevant support and therapies as it so sodding costly.
Is there room in the NHS to improve - shit yes. But I tell you now, the NICU's in the UK do not make clinical decisions based on economics.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on llamas, where's your evidence. Your arguments are childish.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Crippo said...

'In every field of human endeavour, free competition improves the outcome for the vast majority. '

Ah. Good ol' Jeremy Bentham. Always liked him. Millbank prison anyone.

Tell you what, for all you 'let's have business run healthcare' try the following:

Get epilepsy. Renal failure. Leukaemia. Pre senile dementia. See the insurance company run away so fast the siound of footsteps will Doppler down the corridor. Marvellous.

When I was in Arizona last year, USA Today carried a piece on how outrageous Sicko was. I quote: 'it was disgraceful of Moore to say in his film that 47 million Americans have no access to healthcare. The true figure is no more than 42 million'

Obviously, they don't do irony.

Sure, there are huge faults with the NHS. But it is still the most comprehensive health care system in the world. Can it be better Damn right. Establish an independant NHS board along the lines of the Bank of England, and remove state control.

And also, make a decision. Either privatise it, or don't. Stop this appalling fiddling while pretending that you are keeping it public. We don't believe you.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pharmacycnic - you are right - and you are wrong.

US consumers pay far more, on average, for some drugs than consumers in other nations, for several reasons

- the US patent system gives makers a limited monopoly, and allows them to charge what they can get - whatever the market will bear, as you say - because competition is excluded. This means that US cosumers pay a disproportionate share of the development costs of any new drug that comes to market under patent. These tend to be the very good drugs that work.

- in other nations, where the state decides what drugs their citizens shall have available to them, the makers are told what they may sell for. Using their sovereign powers, states have threatened drug makers with simple exclusion from their markets, or with deliberate infringement of their patent rights. Most makers comply, on the 'half-a-loaf' principle.

- Drug makers also base their brand name prices, in part at least, on median national income, those heartless bastards, so the result is the the US consumer - who has high median income - pays higher prices.

- everything changes when a drug goes off-patent, and anyone can apply to the FDA for a license to make it. Then the normal market comes into play, with predictable results - US prices for generic drugs are lower than almost-anywhere. So you end up with the silly situation of Americans slipping over to Canada for their brand-name, patented drugs, because the Canadian government tells makers what they may charge - but Canadians slip over to the US to buy their generics, becasue the US free market means that they are cheaper here.

As is usually the case, it is market distortion which creates artificially-high prices for some drugs in the US. In this case, the distortion is the patent system, which is a monopoly. This is only tolerated because the monopoly allows the emakers to recoup some of their vast development costs. If the monopoly power was removed, US drug prices would fall to those of other nations, as they already are for generic drugs. The only problem is that new drug development would stop in its tracks and never start again. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote-

'Come on llamas, where's your evidence. Your arguments are childish.'

- and right.

What would you like evidence for? Are you Google-incompetent? Most of the things I have described are perfectly-easy to verify. Pick any fact I mention, search out the data for yourslef, and report your findings. I'm not your personal verification service.

In the meantime - like the poster above, cuss me out and call me names, and you simply go on 'ignore'. Grown-ups are talking about grown-up subjects here, so don't waste our time with name-calling.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crippo wrote:

'Get epilepsy. Renal failure. Leukaemia. Pre senile dementia. See the insurance company run away so fast the siound of footsteps will Doppler down the corridor. Marvellous.'

Typical of the scare stories told about US healthcare. Rest assured that many Americans have epilepsy, and renal failure, and leukemia - and the insurance companies pay up for their treatment as agreed. And the fact is - if you have leukemia, or renal failure, or many sorts of cancer - your life expectancy is likely much better, and your quality of life much higher, if you are treated in the US. You won't believe me, of course, and you certainly won't go and look up the statistics that prove what I say is true.

You then claimed this quote from USA Today:

'I quote: 'it was disgraceful of Moore to say in his film that 47 million Americans have no access to healthcare. The true figure is no more than 42 million''

Your quote is entirely fabricated. Here's is the actual quote from USA Today:

'Some facts and figures in Sicko are misleading. The film says nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance; 44.8 million people were uninsured in the USA in 2005, including non-citizens, the Census Bureau says.'

(Go ahead. Look it up. I did)

But, of course, that all depends what you mean by 'uninsured'. The number of 44.8 million (now about 46 million) refers to a very-specific definition of what 'uninsured' means. When a more realistic definition is applied, the number suddenly becomes much-more realistic - somewhere in the 10-15 million range.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:17:00 PM  
OpenID rebecacaca said...

Speaking of Walmart -

My problem is that they can choose not to sell something. The example that I heard most about was a refusal (on a company side basis I believe) to sell the contraceptive pill and emergency contraception. That's fine, if there's local competition. Its not fine if its several hours journey to another shop.

Imagine if an anti-abortion group were to gain a monopoly in UK healthcare. I'd much rather have professional individuals being paid by our government, who if they start making moral decsions for us, will be held accountable for them.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:29:00 PM  
Anonymous PharmaCynic said...

Interesting arguments, llamas. But they don't contradict the basic point that the "we US consumers pay for ALL drug development" is a bunch of b*ll.

From the reference I linked to before (written by an American and a Canadian, for what it's worth):

"Contrary to claims of American dominance, pharmaceutical research and development in the US has not produced more than its proportionate share of new molecular entities. The US accounts for just under 48% of world sales and spent 49% of the global total on research and development to discover 45% of the new molecular entities that were launched on the world market in 2003, less than its proportionate share. European countries account for 28% of world sales, 36% of total research and development spending, and 32% of new molecular entities, more than its proportionate share."

It also has to be remembered that these days a lot of the "new" entities marketed are not really new or particularly better than the older stuff. The classic example is Nexium, which is infinitesimally better (if that) than the now-generic omeprazole it replaced, but which has generated bucketloads of sales driven largely by "It's NEW and BETTER!" saturation-bombing direct-to-consumer-advertising.

Nexium, the trade joke, goes, isn't even a "Me Too" drug. It's a "Me again".

[Nexium is basically a single optical isomer - one structural variant - of a "two mirror image structures" drug. The older drug was a mix of both the isomers in equal proportions]

And an even more cynical joke, told to me by an ex-employee of Nexium's owner AstraZeneca:

"We've got a secret strategy for future profitability... When the patent on Nexium runs out we're going to market the OTHER optical isomer as Hexium"

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebecaca wrote:

'The example that I heard most about was a refusal (on a company side basis I believe) to sell the contraceptive pill and emergency contraception.'

This is simply a lie.

WalMart sells a range of oral contraceptives. It's easy to find this out. Why would you believe such a tale?

You know, I'm getting really, really tired of trying to discuss a serious subject on the basis of data with a bunch of people who would prefer to discuss stories they've heard (like this one) or things they made up (like the last one), or just call me names. This is policy discussion by urban legends - and a waste of my time.

Come on back when you have data.

llater,

llamas

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:41:00 PM  
OpenID rebecacaca said...

llamas,

Aparently I'm a little behind.They do now. After government intervention (surely against the free-market idea?):

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:48:00 PM  
OpenID rebecacaca said...

Sorry, it ate my link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/15/walmart.contraception/

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:50:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

This is *lan B -- the morning after pill -- I Walmart may now stock in in all states.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Crippo said...

''Some facts and figures in Sicko are misleading. The film says nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance; 44.8 million people were uninsured in the USA in 2005, including non-citizens, the Census Bureau says.''

Quite impressed my memory is that good after a year. Alzheimer's hasn't kicked in yet, then.


'somewhere in the 10-15 million range.'

Is that all?

So that's OK then.

Irony.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:54:00 PM  
Anonymous ZT said...

Crippo: 'No health insurance' is NOT synonymous with 'no health care'. Hospitals in the USA are required by law to provide emergency treatment, whether the patient can pay or not. Most non-profit hospitals will write off their bill if the patient can't pay, and other charity is available. Of course, the patient may not be able to choose his doctor, may have to wait for an appointment, and not all drugs are approved because of the cost. Sort of like the NHS (as described by this blog).

Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Crippo said...

'emergency treatment'.

Sure. Very noble. And then?

Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

llama,
i understand you prefer the completely for profit system of medicine because it provides better service.

in that case how do you know that a doctor is not recommending treatments and interventions which you do not actually need, but they would increase his profits?

Don't say you trust the doctor to tell you, because from your point of view, a doctor and a Walmart accountant, should be the same. Free marketeers.

Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I see minds closing, all over.

I see where those challenged to refute what I have said, all suddenly faded into the woodwork. It's becasue you went and looked it up and found I was right - isn't it? Will it change your minds? Of course it won't.

The 'irony' of Crippo's repeated statements about how many people in America do not have health insurance is that he/she does not bother to look an inch further and understand what that might mean. After all, UK politicians have told everyone for years that 'if you don't support the NHS, you'll end up with a system like America, where if you don't have health insurance, you'll be thrown out in the street to die! Vote for Me!' So it must be true then, mustn't it?

The truth - as it usually is - is somewhat more nuanced.

Rebecacaca hears a story that WaMart refuses, as a corporate policy, to sell contraceptives and the morning-after pill - and she believes it! The suggestion being, of course, that WalMart chose to do this for some dark moral objection that it has to these products.

Which is really irrational, if you think about it. One minute, we're being told that WalMart is the capitalist Devil Incarnate, concerned only with profit, which would sell Passing Clouds to nursery-school children if they could turn a dollar doing it - and the next minute, we're supposed to believe that they would refuse to sell a product because they suddenly developed moral qualms about it? One of these positions must be untrue.

We find the actual story may be that WalMart decided not to sell some products in some places - certainly not the contraceptive pill - for the simple reason that those products don't make money. Now they are forced to do so, by State fiat - the State can now order you to lose money.

Actually, since the point is raised - I do most-strongly object to the idea that the state can tell anyone what they must sell. Remember - when politicians decide what is to be bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold - will be politicians. If politicians can be lobbied by special interests (= bribed by campaign donations) to mandate the sale of Plan B one day, they can also be lobbied (= bribed by campaign donations) to ban it the next. These are simply not matters that the state has any business being involved in.

And before I hear an outraged chorus of 'Well! That could Never Happen Here!', I have two words for you:

Peter Hain

And I go all the way back to the days of T. Dan Smith, and I know that party-political corruption is a universal ill - it happens everywhere.

Another anonymous poster claims that I 'prefer the completely for profit system of medicine', which only proves that I've been typing into space for days and nobody is actually reading what I say. It's like a Pavlovian reaction - after 50 years of indoctrination, all you have to say is 'American-style for-profit medicine' and all the dogs begin to salivate 'profit - doctor over-treats you so he can make more money - no insurance - die in gutter'. It's so predictable, it's actually not very amusing anymore.

So - since noone is actually reading and comprehending what I say - and since everyone seems to prefer their urban legends and fictional stories over the facts I'm bringing - I'm out of here. I'll leave you with something to think about. here's a story on cancer survival rates - from a UK newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

Read the text of the story.

It's all about comparative cancer survival rates between the various European countries. It's quite detailed.

Now look at the tables on the right side of the page, and see how all European countries stack up vs the US.

I wonder how that got past the editor? Data that shows that (in some cases) you have a 50% better chance of surviving cancer in the US than you do in the UK? I mean, it's plainly impossible that this can be true - after all, everybody knows that 1 person in 6 in the US doesn't have any health insurance, and you can't get or keep insurance anyway if you have cancer, and you'll get thrown in the gutter to die the minute you've sold everything you own and spent your last dime on treatment, and you can't buy drugs anyway becasue WalMart doesn't sell drugs unless they make a profit.

How can this be? Think about it - for once.

Have a good day, y'all.

llater,

llamas

Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:19:00 AM  
Blogger jayann said...

We find the actual story may be

and may not be; but it does look as though Walmart may have refused to stock it -- except in Illinois -- for financial reasons (they claimed a lack of demand)


certainly not the contraceptive pill

certainly yes Plan B. An emergency contraceptive pill.

do most-strongly object to the idea that the state can tell anyone what they must sell.

'sell; well yes, but the issue was that patients took their prescriptions to the pharmacy and were refused (because it wasn't stocked). If that happened to me here (because a pharmacy'd run out of a drug or because a pharmacist had a conscientious objection to it), I'd have to travel all of twenty yards to the next pharmacy. Some people in the US, it seems, have to rely on Walmart.

Further, you have a Constitution, you have national and state laws, you have courts; you register and regulate pharmacies. In MA. the Board of Registration told Walmart they'd have to fill prescriptions for Plan B. I don't really see that as telling shops what to sell but YMMV, and given your Randian stance, it does.



I wonder how that got past the editor?

I wonder how you could have missed all the coverage of this in our media?


(Sorry, what was it Peter was bribed to do?)

Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:09:00 PM  
Anonymous MacMedic said...

Does the UK not look bad in the cancer survival stakes as we keep better statistics than other countries? We have registries for all neoplasms. Also bear in mind that cancer stats are generally based around 5+ year survival rates, so all statistics are automatically at least 5 years old.

Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jayann - I can't resist. It's like fish in a barrel. You wrote:

'(Sorry, what was it Peter was bribed to do?)'

I don't know. Do you?

For sure, anyone who thinks that donations amounting to £100,000, from people of the like of Isaac Kaye (there's a name to conjure with, on this blog ....) were simply donations made from only the purest of altruistic motives which just happened to get overlooked - a secretarial error, could happen to anybody - really need a good strong dose of reality.

H.L. Mencken once described elections as 'an advance auction ...of stolen goods'. The fact that we don't know exactly what favours these donors were hoping for when they donated to the cause of a man with aspirations to be the Labour leader - and maybe PM - one day, is neither here nor there. You know and I know they were trying to buy something. To suggest otherwise speaks of a delightful innocence, to be sure - but also of an amazing ignorance of the ways of the world.

As to your semantic parsing of the words 'contraceptive pill' - worthy of a Bill Clinton, I congratulate you - you'll note that the original poster claimed that WalMart refused to sell both the contraceptive pill and emergency contraception. I went with her form of words - I note that you have to conflate the two together in order to salvage some semblance of verisimilitude from your position. Note that WalMart has always sold a range of conventional, pill-a-day oral contraceptives - what any reasonable person would understand is meant by the term 'contraceptive pill'.

I have read the US Constitution - have you? - and nowhere do I find that it grants to the states or to the Federal government the power to prescribe, by law, that anyone can be made to sell anything which it is legal to sell.

By the thinking you describe, the state should likewise have the power to compel, for example, a doctor who declines to perform abortions, to perform abortions - under penalty of law. Abortion is a legal therapy, MDs are qualified to perform it - do you suggest that an MD can/should therefore be compelled to do so? Yes, or no?

llater,

llamas

Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:19:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

You know and I know they were trying to buy something.

agreed. So are all the contributors to the current US primary campaign, including the ones who donated equal amounts of money to Obama and Clinton. 'Bribery' suggests rather more.


(I add that Peter Hain should have resigned earlier, as he has, as he should know, to look above suspicion.)


I have read the US Constitution - have you? -

Yes. (I may even have read it more often than you.)

to your semantic parsing of the words 'contraceptive pill' - worthy of a Bill Clinton, I congratulate you - you'll note that the original poster claimed that WalMart refused to sell both the contraceptive pill and emergency contraception.

Clearly Rebecaca had misunderstood the situation radically, not knowing that it was Plan B Walmart had not stocked (except in Illinois), hence my comment -- which I quote here --

This is
*lan B -- the morning after pill -- I Walmart may now stock in in all states.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:12:00 PM


(I agree it's also possible she was taken in by a lie; but I've read the discussions on Plan B and come across no claim that Walmart refused to sell both it and the contraceptive pill.)

You replied

find the actual story may be that WalMart decided not to sell some products in some places - certainly not the contraceptive pill

a reply I found,
in the context of this thread, obfuscatory and, let's say, even better than Bill Clinton...


nowhere do I find that it grants to the states or to the Federal government the power to prescribe, by law, that anyone can be made to sell anything which it is legal to sell.

(There is much that is not in the US Constitution, of course, that is nonetheless a valid and legal aspect of US life, but) my point was more general. I do though
suspect it is not unconstitutional to order a pharmacy to fill prescriptions or cease to be regarded as a pharmacy (e.g.). A pharmacist, of course, may have conscientious objections, and in the UK, such a pharmacist may refuse to fill a prescription but must direct the patient to another pharmacy. If, though, the nearest one is miles away, that is not really satisfactory; and it is my understanding that there are places in the US where Walmarts --
which is of course anyway not an individual -- is in effect the only pharmacy. (And I think I made that point above.)

By the thinking you describe, the state should likewise have the power to compel, for example, a doctor who declines to perform abortions, to perform abortions - under penalty of law.

wrong**. But anyway, Walmart appears to have decided -- it says -- to stock Plan B in Illinois only because of lack of demand elsewhere, not as a matter of corporate conscience.


** I had best repeat a comment yet again. I said


If that happened to me here (because a pharmacy'd run out of a drug or because a pharmacist had a conscientious objection to it), I'd have to travel all of twenty yards to the next pharmacy.
<

I'd have thought that would give some indication that I do not object to a failure to stock a drug when that failure does not really impede access to a drug.


I do have some points to make about the cancer statistics but they will have to wait till I can type more easily. Meanwhile: it is a pity that the point you made about access to NPs and PAs, and other early comments of yours about the US system (of which you take, I accept, a nuanced view) have been lost in needless US v UK row of some sort (I now forget how it began).

Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jayann - fair enough. Don't call me names, we can talk all you like.

Since what I'm suggesting apparently has a very hard time getting through, perhaps I should be more clear.

I think everyone, everywhere, should have the free-est possible access to as much healthcare as possible. The more, the better.

I think that healthcare services are like coal and copper - they will be available in the greatest abundance, at the lowest prices, if they are provided in as free a market as humanly possible. In short, I believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'.

I think that governments are absolutely wonderful at setting standards and policies, and absolutely lousy at implementing them. I believe that government action is the absolute worst way to do anything practical, and for my proof, I merely say - circumspice. Look around you.

I think that people respond the very best to rational incentives which touch them personally, and that while benevolence, good-will and love for your fellow-man are wonderful things, they are a lousy basis for any sort of public policy. Nothing gets things done half as well as greed does, and so any desired public policy outcome should be based on incentives of greed and not love.

I know - it sounds awful. doesn't it? We all tell ourselves that we only ever act from the highest motives - but we don't.

I know that the poor will always be with us, and I have no objection at all to making provision for their needs and reduced or zero cost by means of a system of progressive taxation. I have been less-than-wealthy at times in my life, and I accept that my access to healthcare should not be predicated solely upon my ability to pay for it on-the-spot.

What I do object to is having that system of taxation go from being a means to provide for the truly needy into a system for redistributing wealth and building state oligarchies that live for their own increase while their customers die on gurneys in the hallways. Like - oh, like the NHS.

So - what does all this mean? When the Emperor Llamas rules, what will you get?

I think you will get a system somewhere between those of France and the US.

The state will mandate some basic level of health insurance for all. This will cover basic healthcare and catastrophic care. For the very poorest, the state will subsidize the cost of the basic-level system - but almost-everyone has to pay something, be it ever-so-little.

How you pay for it is up to you. If you have a mattress full of tenners, pay for it that way. If you and your employer reach a contract whereby it's part of your compensation package, that's fine. If you want to pay it out of your paycheck, that's fine. Whatever.

The provision of insurance coverage would be by private insurers ONLY. The state is not involved, except insofar as it may regulate any insurer to guard against fraud and loss. You pick the insurer you like to provide the base-level, mandated health coverage.

There is no upper limit of coverage. You can buy as much as you like over-and-above the mandated minimum.

Healthcare services are all private enterprises - all of them. The only state involvement is to regulate for clinical competence - that MDs have passed their exams, that RNs have done their hours, and so forth. Doctors and hospitals and physiotherapists and nursing homes and every other sort of healthcare provider can set themselves up in any legal form they like that meets their market needs.

You want to set up shop as a one-man practice in some tiny village? Go ahead. You want to set up a multi-layer in-depth clinical practice in the tony suburbs with CAT scanners and specialists and NPs and all sorts? Knock yourself out. Whatever you like.

No restrictions whatsoever on who can and can't get the basic coverage. No denying insurance to smokers or drinkers or the obese. This plan addresses the terrain - not some theoretical map. It serves the people as they are - not as we would like them to be.

BUT - if an insurer wants to offer lower premiums to non-smokers, or people with better BMI's - that's great. Just as your car insurance rates are lower if you don't have DUI convictions, if an insurer wants to assign you to a lower-risk pool - that's what insurance is.

Let people choose. Let people decide. The results will always be better. Al-Ways.

What you'll get will be akin to what you see in some European nations - a selection of health insurers - some not-for-profit - who offer a whole range of health care products. The very poorest have basic coverage. But a free-er market in services, more along the American model, ensures an adequate amount of high-quality health care services. And the State is simply not involved in the actual provision of, or paying for, healthcare. At All. And the health outcomes are good.

There. Now discuss.

llater,

llamas

Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:44:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

Thank you, llamas. I have to go out now but will try to reply properly later.

Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:59:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

The thing is, llamas, the 'invisible hand' mechanism doesn't always apply.

Also...

and building state oligarchies

I agree, but I'm currently struggling to deal with an insurance company that makes state oligarchies look rather feeble, and I may well have to leave my house -- assuming I can sell it -- as a result. And no I can't walk out on the insurers: the house is subsiding. (I've also had a medical insurer declare a condition for whose treatment they were paying 'chronic' and so not covered by the policy; before I could even think of trying to bring a legal challenge they
stopped doing that kind of insurance... the non-profit insurer who took the policy over are good but don't pay for that kind of (outpatient) treatment... and no I can't change insurers, a different insurer would refuse to cover the condition at all (the one that took over will pay if I need an op).

So, well, there'd need to be some heavy regulation of the insurers. I accept that in your system, there would be, at the level of the most basic cover guaranteed to all, anyway. So an issue is, how basic is that basic cover?

want to set up shop as a one-man practice in some tiny village? Go ahead. You want to set up a multi-layer in-depth clinical practice in the tony suburbs with CAT scanners and specialists and NPs and all sorts? Knock yourself out.

but what if everybody wants to set up shop in Boston and nobody wants to work in rural Kentucky? The market, you reply, will drive someone to work there.. well perhaps...


- if an insurer wants to offer lower premiums to non-smokers, or people with better BMI's - that's great.

I believe they do here. But that's for insurance that's an add-on to the NHS.

(I need to look for the writing on why health is not the same kind of good as copper, but I am tied up with, yes, insurance-related matters. -- have a look at the Swiss medical system, it may be the closest thing in Europe to your proposal, but it differs in one crucial respect.)

Friday, February 08, 2008 2:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no profit in old age medicine and incurable cancer. Discuss.

Friday, February 08, 2008 3:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jayann. Keep talking. This is good stuff. I await more.

The model I have in mind for private health insurance is somewhere between what they have in the Netherlands and the US Blue Cross/Blue Shield system, which is not-for-profit.

Anonymous wrote:

'There's no profit in old age medicine and incurable cancer. Discuss.'

Sure. There's no profit in the doing of those things, in the sense that there's no profit in any medical intervention, because people are not worth money and your net worth doesn't increase if you have a successful angioplasty.

But there manifestly is a profit to be made in funding those activities - by means of - insurance! (By which I mean, real insurance, not the organized larceny of 'socialized' healthcare systems which are sold under that name. If I sold car insurance on the same basis as some places sell socilaised 'health insurance', I'd be in jail.)

I can buy long-term care insurance which will provide me with private nursing-home care until my dying day, at various benefit levels. This is real insurance - actuarially-based on real claims experience.

My current health insurance covers incurable cancer. Funnily enough, I know a man, here in the US, of just 28 years of age who is presently engaged in the unpleasant business of dying of colo-rectal cancer - well, that's the primary site, it's all through him now. His remaining life will be short - but his insurer is paying all of his bills, well north of $250,000 so far, as contractually agreed. His costs will be a lot worse than that before he's done - but that's how real insurance works. His insurer will take the hit on this one, but will not stop insuring people against incurable cancer on account of that - in the long term, it's a profitable business.

And - speaking of cancer - I refer you again to the cancer survival statistics linked above. If there is no profit in treating cancer, then how come that the US, which has a riotously for-profit healthcare system, has far-and-away the best survival rates for cancer?

Discuss.

llater,

llamas

Friday, February 08, 2008 3:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jayann wrote:

'The thing is, llamas, the 'invisible hand' mechanism doesn't always apply.'

No, it always applies. It may not always provide the outcome you would prefer, but it always applies.

Take your own example - what if everyone wants to set up shop in Boston, and no-one in Kentucky?

Well, pretty soon, the market for medical services in Boston will be saturated, and prices will fall as doctors compete. Prices will fall to the lowest rate that the greatest number of doctors can stand and still make a living.

Meanwhile,, in Kentucky, where doctors are scarce, the price that people will pay for medical services will rise, to the point where some of the doctors in Boston will say 'Sod this for a lark. We're all going broke together here. I'm off to Louisville, where I can make more money and there's all the work I can do. So long, suckers!'

Or - as has already been practised fro years in the US - the folks in Kentucky will band togther and they will formulate incentives - for example, they will pay a student's way through medical school and residency in return for (x) years of directed service in an agreed location in Kentucky. Alaska has done this very successfully for years, so has the US military.

Incentives, incentives, incentives. It is not through the benevolence of the butcher and the brewer and the baker that we get our dinner, but out of their regard for their own interest.

Altogether now . . .

Adam Smith!

The 'invisible hand' always works. The trick is to get it to do, what you want it to do. But you can't force it.

llater,

llamas

Friday, February 08, 2008 4:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is we see systems we want...we see systems that are good.
These are not the systems we will get.

I saw a woman refused to have her treatment paid for on a replapse of her cancer. The firs time her insurance covered her the second time it all all NHS, She was in her 20's too.

I see in theatre all tiem time people who would not be treated if there was a for profit organisation running the UK health service.

In the USA how much would a facial reconstruction cost? Or more exactly how much would follow up operations cost as the reconstruction is complex and though almost normal a girls face could still benifit from further surgery.

Friday, February 08, 2008 5:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

'I see in theatre all tiem time people who would not be treated if there was a for profit organisation running the UK health service.'

You simply have no basis for saying this. What you are saying is - in effect - that many surgical procedures, by definition, cannot be profitable, and that therefore would not be done under the auspices of a for-profit organization.

This sort of attitude displays perfectly what 50 years of all-NHS-all-the-time propaganda will do to a population.

Once again - look over the pond. Surgery here isn't much different in its nature, although of course there's no waiting lists for it here, and you won't be turned away just because you're too old, or too sick, or a smoker, or overweight. How can it be that so many surgeries (according to you) cannot be profitable, and yet they still get done - in the most for-profit system in the world?

It's because those indoctrinated in the NHS simply don't have the mental tools to comprehend how other systems might work.

Look, no surgery is 'profitable', in-and-of itself. A person's body has no value, regardless of condition, so doing surgery on it does not increase its value, and not doing the surgery does not decrease it. An angioplasty is like a tattoo - its value to the recipient is entirely abstract
and internal, it cannot be bought or sold, and so the mental model of 'profit' simply doesn't apply.

What counts is simply this - can an incentive structure be put together that makes that surgery an attractive deal for the person getting it and for the people doing it? It's no different than buying carrots - the grocer doesn't sell you carrots because he thinks carrots are a good thing that everybody should have, and he's providing them as a public service - he sells you carrots, and you buy them, at a price you both agree on.

You cannot divorce a discussion of why things get done from a discussion of incentives, for all that the salesmen of the NHS have tried to do so for 50 years. - and not without success, based on some of the thinking I see displayed here. You really think that the NHS performs surgeries because the State loves you and wants you to be happy? The NHS performs surgeries in an attempt - sometimes successful - to keep up their end of a bargain that was made to get your vote. And for no other reason. That was the price you agreed on.

Let me lay it on the line. The NHS is a wealth-distribution system with a health-care annexe. It takes money out of people's pockets in proportion to their income, and redistributes it strictly in accordance with a vote-based algorithm. In a nutshell, it takes a lot of money from a very few people, and gives a little of it to each of a very large number of people. It distributes the money in the form of healthcare benefits - after, of course, peeling a nice little earner off the top for itself. The results of its confiscations (the amount of money it can wring from people's pockets at a tolerable level of voter dissatisfaction minus the costs of maintaining and growing its own structure) will buy exactly so-much healthcare. Historically, chronically, it is not enough to go around. And so it gets rationed - by time (waiting lists), by cost-benefit analysis, by political pressure (conditions that will win votes get funded) and, increasingly, by moral judgement - you're too fat. No surgery for you! You don't have the right opinions about abortion. No artificial hip for YOU! And so forth.

Profit and loss simply don't come into it. It's a political machine, not a financial one.

A for-profit system doesn't make money on the healthcare - like I said, an angioplasty has no instrinsic value. It makes money by organizing the financing of healthcare - in other words, by insurance. It makes no sense to look at something like an angioplasty in terms of what it costs to do - so much for the surgeon, so much for the anaesthetist, and so forth - you have to look at the whole transaction and grasp the whole incentive structure that made it happen. Virtaully noone can afford an angioplasty out of their own pocket, yet they happen every day. The incentive structure is there that makes the facilities and the people be there, and the money to pay them, and the people who are willing to pay into the system to fund it. That's the agreed price - pay me a little each month, I'll pay your huge bills if you get real sick.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

llater,

llamas

Friday, February 08, 2008 6:59:00 PM  
Blogger jayann said...

llamas, Adam Smith didn't think the invisible hand always worked! I agree that crudely, in a sense, it will, in that as you say, a doctor in Boston may have to move or -- I didn't know about this -- Alaska will create its own doctors. (But isn't Alaska a special case, given its 'minority'/native population?) But that really is 'crudely'.

(Incentives. Yes. But even the most determined rational choice theorists have to fall back on non-monetary incentives for their theories to work -- otoh, I admit, rational choice theorists of collective action may point to the role of selective incentives in overcoming free riding.
But I'd best stop talking about that and return to the main topic... .)

OK so your insurance companies would be different from the ones I'm struggling with!, and more like my current non-profit one. I do still have problems with them as private individual entities allegedly competing, as I think we know which patients they'd compete for.

I can buy long-term care insurance

So can I. It is though very expensive indeed (I'd have thought it would be even more expensive there, as nursing homes are more expensive there).

My current health insurance covers incurable cancer

Mine covers a fair amount of treatment for cancer -- more than most similar (i.e. not all that expensive) policies. But I assume your policy has a high co-pay? I knew someone in the US who died recently; her insurance was good, her husband's insurance was good, but so much money went, in co-pay, that he took a massive hit. (She got terrifically good care, BTW.) And I think your proposed system might have some co-pay?

(I am sorry about the young man you know, that is terrible.)

If there is no profit in treating cancer, then how come that the US, which has a riotously for-profit healthcare system, has far-and-away the best survival rates for cancer?

I wanted to look at the data and some analyses before talking about this again. But one thing is clear. Sweden in fact runs the US a very close second. US medical care for advanced cancer at, say, Sloane Kettering, is of course outstanding; I'm sure there are other places over there I sim ply haven't thought of, that are almost as good. So, it's worth asking why/how Sweden is so close behind.

Also, the survival rates are (I assume) for survival for five years after diagnosis? The fact is, the US often picks up cancer earlier, and treats earlier, yet -- in the case of some cancers anyway -- doesn't add that much to survival time beyond the 'diagnosis gap'. (I do have a reference for this but not anywhere nearby.)

Profitability, anyway, wasn't actually my argument, so I won't take it on fully. (Someone in the next house is anyway playing the piano in a slightly irritating way, one that gives me a negative incentive to carry on here... .)

Friday, February 08, 2008 7:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very Good article , this article make some interesting points.


Tactical Flashlights
r c helicopter
video game
Tactical Flashlight

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

福~
「朵
語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:28:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

DR CRIPPEN'S DIARY

Dr John Crippen's weekly diary. The trials and tribulations, the pleasures and pitfalls of family medicine in the modern British National Health Service.

Powered by WebRing.


Add to My AOL ATOM

Number of online users in last 3 minutes
used cars
Top of the British Blogs Health Blogs - Blog Top Sites  View My Public Stats on MyBlogLog.com Locations of visitors to this page

Powered by Blogger

DK Enhanced

View blog top tags Healthcare 100

Web Hosting Uptime Monitor

    Best Medical Weblog

    Best Literary Medical Weblog

    Best Health Policies/Ethics Medical Weblog

    Google

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

View blog authority

-->