Posts Tagged ‘MRIs’

Americans Spend More on Healthcare Than Comparable Nations

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

The United States spends far more on healthcare than other countries, although Americans visit the doctor and are hospitalized less often than most of the other 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD).  In its Health at a Glance 2011 report, the OECD shows that the United States spent about $7,960 per person on healthcare in 2009 – approximately 2.5 times the average of the countries studied.  It also determined that health spending in the U.S. has grown faster than in all other high-income OECD countries since 1970, even accounting for population growth.

“Why?” asks Julie Appleby in Kaiser Health News.  “Generally, prices for medical care are higher in the U.S. – and some services are performed more often.  Hospital prices are 60 percent higher than the average of 12 selected OECD countries, and the U.S. also generally pays more for each appendectomy, birth, joint replacement or cardiac procedure.  Americans have more imaging tests, such as CT scans and MRIs, than residents of other countries and are far more likely to have knee replacements, coronary angioplasty or surgery to remove their tonsils.  Even with all that, compared with most of the other developed countries, the U.S. has fewer practicing physicians per person, fewer hospital beds, and patients don’t stay as long in the hospital.  Administrative costs in the U.S. are also high, the report notes, accounting for about seven percent of total spending.  That is roughly comparable to what is spent in France and Germany, which have universal health coverage.  In Canada — another country with national healthcare – administrative costs are about four percent of health spending.”

“The U.S. is just this astonishing outlier compared to everyone else,” said Mark Pearson, the head of the OECD’s social policy division. A significant part of the difference relates to pricing.  American patients don’t spend more time in the hospital or visit more doctors than patients in other OECD countries; they pay more for everything.  Physician fees are more than twice the average cost, for example, while drugs and hospital care cost 60 percent more.  In terms of results, however, the U.S. does not come out on top.  Life expectancy in 2009 was 78.2 years, below the OECD average of 79.5.  That puts the nation closer to the Czech Republic and Chile, “not countries you would usually expect the U.S. to be compared to,” Pearson said.

The U.S. also has one of the poorest records in terms of premature mortality in general and mortality from heart disease in particular.  Americans have the highest obesity rate — with more than one-third of the population considered obese.  They also have one of the highest rates of hospital admission for illnesses that are optimally managed by primary-care physicians, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (including emphysema), and diabetes.

The news isn’t all bad.  The OECD report notes that the U.S. does an excellent job of cancer care, with very high survival rates and low mortality rates.  Stroke deaths are well below average in the United States.

Americans spend approximately 17.4 percent of its gross domestic product on healthcare; other OECD nations spend an average of 9.6 percent of their GDPs on healthcare.  According to OECD, the U.S. has an “underdeveloped” primary-care system that physician shortages only intensify.  There are 2.4 physicians for every 1,000 Americans, compared with an average of 3.1 in other countries.  Additionally, there are 3.1 hospital beds per 1,000 Americans, compared with 4.9 per 1,000 in other countries.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks that Americans spend too much on healthcare. According to Klein, “There are a lot of complicated explanations for why American healthcare costs so much, but there are also some simple ones.  Chief among them is ‘we pay too much.’  And I don’t mean in general.  I mean specifically.  Mountains of research show that for every piece of care you might name — a drug, a doctor visit, a diagnostic — you’ll pay far more in the United States than in other countries.  That’s why seniors head to Canada to buy drugs made in the United States.  In Canada, the government negotiates one low price.  In America, insurers with much less bargaining power negotiate many higher prices.”

According to Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute The Hastings Center, “Unfortunately, few people really understand how much we spend on healthcare, how much we need to spend to provide quality care, and the difference between the two.  Do we spend too much?  Let’s begin with the costs.  In 2010, the United States spent $2.6 trillion on healthcare, over $8,000 per American. This is such an enormous amount of money, it’s difficult to grasp.

“Consider this: France has the fifth largest economy in the world, with a gross domestic product of nearly $2.6 trillion.  The United States spends on healthcare alone what the 65 million people of France spend on everything: education, defense, the environment, scientific research, vacations, food, housing, cars, clothes and healthcare.  In other words, our health care spending is the fifth largest economy in the world.

“The fact is that when it comes to healthcare, the United States is on another planet.  The United States spends around 50 percent more per person than the next highest-spending countries, Switzerland and Norway.”

Brain MRIs May Predict Who Will Get Alzheimer’s Disease

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

A recent study that will be published in the June issue of the medical journal Radiology has determined that MRI brain scans may be useful in predicting whether people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) — early-stage memory problems that don’t interfere with daily living — are more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease. The scientists analyzed baseline MRI exams from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a study comprised of healthy individuals and others with MCI and early Alzheimer’s.  They determined that those with MCI had a one-year risk of progressing to Alzheimer’s ranging from three to 40 percent.  Often, adults who have MCI will develop Alzheimer’s disease at a rate of 15 to 20 annual percent, according to the researchers, which is strikingly higher than the one to two percent rate of the general population.

The study analyzed MRIs of the brains of 203 healthy adults, 164 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and 317 patients with mild cognitive impairment.  Each participant had their brain scanned at the start of the study and again a year later.  “In the last few years we’ve seen a real explosion of biomarkers related to Alzheimer’s disease,” said lead study author Linda McEvoy, assistant professor of radiology at University of California-San Diego School of Medicine.  “Our ability to detect this has improved. I wasn’t surprised by the strength of the results.  Currently there’s no cure or prevention for Alzheimer’s disease.  But there’s a lot of research going on right now into different potential therapies.  If any of those therapies turn out to be useful, then this kind of information will be crucial — a doctor needs to know who’s at higher risk in order to treat them,” McEvoy said.

A similar technique could determine the Alzheimer’s risk for patients with mild cognitive impairment.  McEvoy cautions that the patients studied were not representative of the general population — they had been picked to exclude people who experienced other types of memory problems, such as those resulting from a stroke.  A larger study is needed before the results can be used by physicians in an everyday setting.

“The study is pretty robust,” countered Bill Thies, chief medical and scientific officer of the Alzheimer’s Association.  “It’s an area of great activity and interest at the moment.  This paper is a really good attempt to sort out biomarker information.”  Other experts warn that an improved ability to predict who will develop Alzheimer’s doesn’t give physicians the means to prevent its terrible prognosis.  Although several medications can temporarily improve thinking skills in some early-to mid-stage Alzheimer’s patients, no treatments exist that prevent or cure the condition.

What Country Has a National Healthcare Plan? Rwanda, For One

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Rwanda’s national healthcare plan covers 92 percent of its citizens at just $2 per year.  Although the African nation of Rwanda ranks as one of the world’s poorest, it does have something that the United States lacks – a national health insurance program.  Started in 1999, the program covers 92 percent of Rwandans and carries a premium of just $2 per year. Even though Rwanda’s healthcare facilities may be primitive by American standards, the fact remains that more of its citizens are insured than in the United States.

While the most common causes of death in Rwanda remain diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, malnutrition and infected cuts, community health centers typically stock all the drugs that the World Health Organization recommends as essential.  They tend to be generic copies of name-brand medicines.  These centers usually have laboratories where patients can have routine blood and urine tests, as well as tuberculosis and malaria screenings.

Since the national health plan – called health mutuals – was introduced, the average life expectancy has climbed from 48 to 52, despite Rwanda’s ongoing AIDS epidemic.  Deaths from malaria and childbirth have fallen significantly, according to Dr. Agnes Binagwaho, permanent secretary of Rwanda’s Ministry of Health.  Tests and treatments routinely performed in American hospitals such as MRIs and dialysis are not available, and patients may have to wait weeks for general surgery.  Fortunate patients who require advanced surgery can get free treatment from physicians visiting from the United States, Cuba, Australia and elsewhere.  On rare occasions, the Health Ministry will pay for a patient to be treated in Kenya, South Africa or India.

A recent study published in Tropical Medicine & International Health found that total healthcare spending in Rwanda totals approximately $307 million annually.  Given that Rwanda’s population is just over 10.7 million, total healthcare spending averages $28.60 per person a year.  Co-pays, even though low by American standards, can be unaffordable for a national populated largely by subsistence farmers whose primary currency is barter.

How Much Will That MRI Cost? Depends on Who You Ask

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Price transparency may be one welcome element in healthcare reform legislation. The proposed bipartisan bill written by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and his Senate Finance Committee includes a provision that will require hospitals to list standard charges for their services.healthcare-cost

As the system currently works, insurance companies enter into agreements with hospitals and physicians to determine how much they will pay for hip replacement surgeries, cataract procedures and MRIs — all long before the patient enters the scene.  Hospitals and doctors tend to charge the uninsured significantly higher rates than they do the insured.  Medicare sets its own rates, which typically are lower than commercial rates.

“The pricing model is ridiculous,” said Brad Myers, a founder of Pensacola, FL-based NewChoiceHealth, Inc., an online tool that allows consumers to compare healthcare prices.  Myers bases his information on estimates gleaned from Medicare data.

The states of Maine and New Hampshire have addressed this partially with online cost comparison websites that are accurate because they are based on insurance claims paid for real procedures.  Consumers can use the information posted to shop around or to get the best deal possible.  A visit to the Maine website finds that one hospital charges the uninsured $1,326 for a colonoscopy.  The insured pay the hospital between $800 and $950 for the same procedure, depending on who carries their coverage.  Medicare pays the same hospital just $793.

Healthcare Reform Will Not Mandate Rationing

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer’s negative assessment of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform package is based on his belief that the plan is economically feasible only if that care is rationed.

180px-rationingboardnolavachoncTo quote Krauthammer:  “Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think.  We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria, as well as by queuing.  A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by myriad similar criteria.”

Krauthammer’s personal preference is “for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability, breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment.  But if you believe healthcare is a public good to be guaranteed by the state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative.  Unfortunately, it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.”

Krauthammer is wrong!  In the United States, healthcare is rationed but it is according to your income and insurance status.  And for the 47 million Americans who don’t have insurance, we ARE already rationing everything, “from MRIs to intensive care (to use Krauthammer’s examples)”.  We have to accept that no matter what the system is that we adopt, that rationing will occur.  The issue is rationing that is unethical and doesn’t meet the mission of healthcare.  The way to mitigate rationing in a nationalized system may be to do what the British Medical Association has suggested, which is to define a set of core services – cardiac care, for example – -which may fall under the rubric of life threatening.  These would never be rationed regardless of who you are.  More elective procedures or non life-threatening procedures, on the other hand, would be rationed.  We can’t expect our health system to do it all and this seems a modest proposal.