5% of patients account for half of health care spending

<p>Lung transplants can cost $1,000,000 apiece + all the post-transplant visits & medications to prevent rejections. There used to be an age limit cut-off as to who could get these but it is getting extended further & further upwards. At what point does it no longer make sense? What about other expensive treatments? Should it matter if the person ever smoked? How long they have remained tobacco & lung irritant free? Other factors?</p>

<p>There are many, many people who are medically fragile and living in acute care hospital beds in our state (& likely other states as well). They have chronic health issues but nothing ACUTE, just no where that they can go & be cared for. This includes some infants/young kids as well as elders & everyone in between.</p>

<p>I’ve seen very young octogenerians & folks still “young” and active in their 90s & beyond (one of my great-uncles was teaching econ @ flagship U & playing doubles tennis through his 90s–died at home at around 107!</p>

<p>There is indeed rationing–there are over 100,000 kidney & liver transplant patients on the list but the list of donors & transplant facilities is short. These are VERY expensive to perform as well as care for those who receive transplants. Should an acoholic get a liver transplant? Should it depend on whether he has been sober for X years?</p>

<p>Micropremies/extreme premature infants not only cost the health care system millions of dollars in NICU costs, but also for years on down the line. Many of these ex-extreme premies are afflicted with cerebral palsy, seizures, feeding disorders, are non-ambulatory, require feeding tubes for life. I am not judging whether is this “right” or not but these are facts. In addition, these children will require special education services mandated till they are 22 years of age. This is a huge drain on educational funding as well.</p>

<p>

This is a good point. But others have addressed the unspoken fact that we’re doing it already - it’s just that we’re doing it haphazardly, irrationally, and without transparency. Most bizarrely (in my opinion) anyone over 65 has an entitlement to Medicare. Anyone under 65 - fuhgeddaboudit!</p>

<p>Yeah, I know this brings up the “death panels” BS, etc., but I’d like to see a rational discussion of tapering off subsidies for medical care in old age in order to subsidize better care for the young. How about an increase in co-pay of 5% of the cost of medical services each year after age 80? Yeah, I know I’m going to be inundated with stories about Aunt Tillie who was playing tennis in her 90’s - but I’m not proposing to line the Aunt Tillies up against the wall - just give them greater personal participation in the cost of their medical care, to facilitate that personalized rationing process UCBalumnus writes about. As it stands, the only people who don’t have to concern themselves with the cost of their medical care are those who are approaching their actuarial life expectancy - which makes an election not to agree to heroic life extending procedures akin to suicide. Seriously - old people have to be almost belligerent to avoid being subjected to medical procedures that aren’t realistically likely to improve or significantly extend their lives. Does that make sense?</p>

<p>I don’t feel that our nation’s health care financial problem is going to be solved at the level of the patient deciding whether or not a particular treatment is “worth it” financially or not. Our problems are much deeper and more systemic, with profits of the corporations involved in health care being a much bigger determinant of escalating costs.</p>

<p>My preemie twins were in the NICU for over two weeks at a cost of over $250,000. They are now both honors students at the University of California. D is a Regent’s Scholar which is the absolute cream of the crop. Wasn’t it worth it?</p>

<p>And yes, some octogenarians have very full lives. They travel, see grandchildren and enjoy themselves. </p>

<p>The point is that ‘society’ or the government cannot and should not make any decisions as to whose life is worth saving, which treatments are ‘worth’ it, or where dollars are better spent. That should be up to each individual and each family and their medical advisors. </p>

<p>Having said that, there needs to be some sort of financial incentive for people to live healthy lives. Insurance rates that penalize smoking, drinking, obesity, drug abuse, etc are fine with me. </p>

<p>As for Medicaid, the citizens’ tax dollars should be spent on citizens. There are stories of illegal aliens living in hospitals for years, or on dialysis here soaking up millions each in tax dollars. They should be sent home for their home countries to pay the costs.</p>

<p>I don’t think we have to do ANY rationing, any “tapering-off”, any of those “hard” decisions. I think there’s more than enough money in the health non-system. But with 20%+ overhead for multi-billion-dollar private health insurance companies (much of it spent trying to keep people away from the care they require), doctors being paid by the procedure rather than to practice evidence-based medicine, no incentives for prevention, and people having to use emergency rooms for primary health care, there’s no way to get a rational system of health care.</p>

<p>There’s no shortage of money. And the beginnings of a solution are NOT difficult. There’s just a lack of political will, and a stacked deck.</p>

<p>I agree with mini.</p>

<p>This country needs to allocate health care costs better…away from administrative costs and to actual health care.</p>

<p>There is a huge shortage of money. We are basically own our lives and lifes of our kids to China… But this was original goal anyway. So, it is achieved. There is no money for health system, period. Even if whole Gross National Product is used to pay our debt including Health Care, we are still in red. “You can’t always have what you waaant”, “…work only until you run out of somebody else’s money”. We can celebrate reaching this point.</p>

<p>I am all for eliminating waste (a lot of overhead) and egregious profit! I am also highly in favor of prevention, early management of disease, and education as a way to control future costs. We will ALSO have to address the spiraling costs of caring for our growing aging population (the procedures that aren’t realistically likely to improve or extend good quality of life, paraphrasing another poster).
It won’t be ethically or politically easy, but there are only so many dollars to go around and only so many taxpayers to pay in. Way too much accumulated debt and demographics that are impossible to overcome without structural changes in status quo.</p>

<p>All the prevention in the world does little to change the cost of end of life care if you want it all. The unhealthy might save us money in the long run by dying faster and not taking other benefits. The idea that there going to be big net savings by “healthy living” are unproven.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Paying doctors by the procedure instead of by effectiveness is effectively a rationing decision as it exists right now – one that increases costs while arguably reducing effectiveness. You probably agree that the use of evidence based medicine will likely reduce costs and increase effectiveness. But that is a rationing decision, and one that will be fought by both doctors and patients who believe that “more is always better”.</p>

<p>An example is that when the US Preventive Services Task Force gave a [url=<a href=“http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm]C”>http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm]C</a> recommendation<a href=“%22Clinicians%20may%20provide%20this%20service%20to%20selected%20patients%20depending%20on%20individual%20circumstances.%20However,%20for%20most%20individuals%20without%20signs%20or%20symptoms%20there%20is%20likely%20to%20be%20only%20a%20small%20benefit%20from%20this%20service.%22”>/url</a> for breast mammograms for women under the age of 50, there was a huge outcry from breast cancer advocacy groups and radiologists. Many of those arguing in favor of routine screening for women age 40-49 and against the USPSTF’s recommendation tried to raise the fear of rationing of mammograms by insurance companies.</p>

<p>More recently, the USPSTF’s proposed revision of recommendations about PSA screening has generated an uproar among urologists (no surprise).</p>

<p>Making sound medical decisions is not rationing. In a system with even unlimited resources, such decisions would still have to be made. We’d need to know what improves or maintains health, and what doesn’t. Mammograms, for example, carry a health risk, and someone would still have to decide whether that risk is worth it, and surely that decision wouldn’t be one to be made by patients. </p>

<p>But currently, we have a non-system where sound decisions cannot be effected. </p>

<p>At a per capita spending rate 40% or more higher than Canada’s, we wouldn’t be even close to having to come up with “rationing” decisions. Doesn’t mean that decisions wouldn’t have to be made about what should and should not be covered.</p>

<p>"The total Medicare budget for FY '12 is $468 billion. That’s not chump change but it’s only about 12.6% of total federal spending. It provides health care for 47.5 million seniors and disabled persons, at an average annual cost of about $9800 per person. "</p>

<p>That also leaves out that medicare spending is increasing at a rapid rate and represents the second largest discretionary spending line in the federal budget behind defense (also bloated and also politically difficult). What that also leaves is the hidden cost of medicare, the number above is what medicare pays out. What that doesn’t talk about is the amount of cost shifting that goes on in medicine that helps subsidize medicare and the uninsured. When medicare pays 100 bucks for a procedure that costs 200 bucks to do, hospitals and doctors routinely add to the cost of private insurance patients to pay for it (for example, someone cited a medication that cost 800 bucks being billed at 3800, that is a classic example, or an aspiring costing less then a dollar being billed at 20). Those ‘cost savings’ in medicare come at the expense of others, in effect we pay not only a medicare payroll tax, but also in effect a de factor ‘medicare surcharge’ when we get healthcare from hospitals and doctors who take medicare (and obviously, same applies to medicaid and the uninsured)</p>

<p>I agree with mini, there are answers to the problems with health care, but there is no magic bullet that everyone seeks. For example, one of the reasons health insurance has soared (as have other types of insurance) is insurance companies have changed their business models. Insurance companies used to take the money they get in premiums and invest it in markets and such, and they made most of their profits from the investments, typical difference between premiums gathered and payouts was roughly 10% back then or less…today insurers are building cushions of 20% or more, and to do so they not only have restricted payouts, they also have raised premiums aggressively, and despite all the blather about lawsuits and so forth, the reality is they did so because financial markets were not giving them returns (want some proof? California put caps on payouts on malpractice suits, and malpractice insurance premiums have continued to soar there…). The head of United Health Care a couple of years ago had compensation of 100 million dollars.</p>

<p>Others have made very valid observations about the current health care system and it needs re-evaluating all the way down. The employer paid health insurance system, for example, is burdening employers with rapidly escalating premiums something companies in places like Canada don’t have or Europe, and it also gives employees very little control over their health care decisions, most companies for example have few if any options when it comes to medical insurance, you take what they have. Another problem (part of the problem with the health insurance companies competing with each other, across state lines, whatever) is the industry is capital intensive, and the number of companies able to enter the market is small, these days there basically are a handful of health insurers. On the treatment side of things, things like MRI’s, CAT scans and the like are expensive, and continue to be with upgrades and such, so there is huge incentive to use them on as many people as possible, so you get people being given MRI’s and such who shouldn’t be…and the list goes on, the problem with the current system is there is no rational basis for a lot of it, it is haphazard, disconnected from each other and so forth.</p>

<p>Want a big example? Take a look at preventative medicine. Medicine today is as it has been for a long time, it is on treatment of disease, not preventing it. I just had a physical exam, it lasted about 15 minutes, and hasn’t changed since the dark ages, and really tests very little. Likewise, we don’t do a good job with nutritional counseling or with preventative things like supplements and vitamins (though some doctors have started to use them, especially when many of them figured out they could get a piece of the action with the products patients buy). Employers pay huge health care premiums, yet they do little to encourage employee health (subsidize gym memberships, on site gyms for big companies, employee cafeterias), and this has especially gotten worse now that people are working much longer hours, and the list goes on. The government subsidy programs to farmers and food producers often encourage the very things that make us less healthy, cheap processed food (high fructose corn syrup anyone?), hormone and antibiotic laced meat, you name it. We spend money on vaccinations, but we don’t spend it on the other factors that cause issues, many of which are lifestyle…We also have things like allowing pharm companies to heavily advertise products, which leads to people going into their doctor and saying “I want X, on the ad they say it is the best” when another drug might do just as well, but people believe advertising (for example, there are natural alternatives to Viagra and Cialis that have been proven to work, but MD’s will prescribe the expensive, lucrative drugs). When you have such a disconnected market as we do it leads to all kinds of waste, duplicated effort and also it leads to the kind of things where someone goes into the ER for a couple of stitches and ends up with a 5k bill. </p>

<p>And yes, this is difficult,people have been complaining about the health care system for years, I was debating it 30 years ago in High School, and very little real change has happened, there are all kind of political and moral issues we don’t want to deal with. Want a classic example? When Obama was proposing his health care initiatives, people at Tea Party rallies with their signs “No Socialized Medicine” and on the other side “Government, hands off my Medicare”, it tells the story in a nutshell.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It will be seen and described as rationing by those who benefit from the unsound medical decisions that result in wasteful or even statistically harmful medical care, such as radiologists promoting earlier and more frequent mammograms, and urologists promoting PSA testing. It will also be seen and described as rationing by those patients who think that “more care is always better”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Medicare (CMS) realizes that private sector does a better job in administering claims, and subcontracts all claims processing to “Fiscal Intermediaries” such as the Highmark, which runs Blue Cross in Western PA. So yes, if you look at the volume of Medicare claims processed and the number of employees directly employed by CMS for the claims function, it looks great, but only because they don’t do all the grunt work. Any argument that touts Government to be an order of magnitude more efficient than the private sector ought to be looked into in a bit more depth.</p>

<p>As far as rationing is concerned, how would you feel about spending about a hundred grand to treat prostate cancer where the results have shown a few months of extra life expectancy, while some European countries recommend just observation? Medicare has made just such a drug available - Dendreon:
<a href=“http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/can-we-foot-bill-pricey-prostate-cancer-meds/2011-06-28[/url]”>http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/can-we-foot-bill-pricey-prostate-cancer-meds/2011-06-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Number-needed-to-treat and number-needed-to-harm are very important statistics in regard to screening tests, and the public needs to have a better handle on statistics in general for their medical care.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>there is no reason to spend tons of money on people that are dying. What kind of investment is that?</p>

<p>the public should not be paying thousands of dollars a day for people to prolong their lives by a few months.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The trouble is, sometimes you don’t know if the expensive treatment will extend life by just a few poor quality of life days, or if will result in complete recovery that will extend life by years with good quality of life.</p>

<p>In the first case, the treatment will result in a lot of spending in the last few days of life, but in the second case, the treatment will be effective and the money not wasted.</p>

<p>Not every case is as obvious as [a</a> patient found with metastatic pancreatic cancer](<a href=“http://ohiosurgery.blogspot.com/2009/06/microcosm.html]a”>Buckeye Surgeon: The Microcosm) where aggressive treatment has practically no likelihood of success, which is what you are probably thinking of.</p>

<p>With Prostate Cancer, chances are you are going to die of something else before if kills you. The standard recommendation is observation and treatment of symptoms, i.e. increased urination.</p>

<p>For most, you’ll use 80% of your lifetime healthcare dollars in your last 6 months of life.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is there a reason to spend $100k/year for a chemo drug on a 41 year old parent with two young children, where that expensive drug has a 90% success rate and offers good quality of life? Assume that the $100k/year drug has to be taken indefinitely, because it suppresses but not eliminates the disease.</p>

<p>Where would you draw the line?</p>