Home | Mission |
Editorials | Ideology |
Archive |
Links
|
Contact Us
The 15-Point Solution to the Health Care Crisis
By: Joe Messerli
I work for a small technology company with less than 100 employees. Like all companies around the nation, we've been hit hard
in health insurance premium increases. After two consecutive years of over 40 percent increases, the current increase was
quoted at 52 percent. At this rate, in 5 more years, insurance will have gone up about 500
percent for the period. For a large company like
GM, health insurance increases are tough to absorb. For small businesses, they are absolutely
devastating.
Virtually every company in the country has similar complaints. The costs are increasing at a ridiculous rate. We have to ask
the question, did we as a nation get that much sicker over the past few years, or is there something wrong with the whole
system? Politicians, journalists, and intellectuals around the country are full of ideas on how to pay for the spiraling costs,
including revised insurance schemes and a government-paid universal health care plan
similar to Canada's system. While all these payment plans have advantages and disadvantages, they don't address the underlying
problem, which is "How do you keep costs down?" What difference does it make how your structure payment when costs are so
out of control that no one can afford them?
This article discusses the effects of spiraling health care costs along with a 15-point plan for solving the problem.
Why This Problem Is Now a Crisis
- Increase costs to the individual. We've all felt the hit from increased monthly premiums, higher deductibles,
higher co-pays, and so on. The increase in costs over the past few years have in effect wiped out any
employment raises. Health costs will soon surpass housing as our biggest monthly expense. Between premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, an individuals
can end up paying several thousands of dollars before insurance kicks in dollar one. Things will only get worse
as the population ages.
- Increase costs to businesses. Most employees don't realize that the insurance premiums deducted from their checks
are only part of the monthly insurance cost. The businesses providing the plan often shoulder a much bigger burden.
When health costs go up, less money is available for raises, new hires, and profits. In other words, stock values of our
401(k)'s are affected by shrinking profits and businesses are less able to hire new employees. Many of the smaller businesses,
especially the service-oriented ones, are forced into bankruptcy.
- Tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
The number of uninsured Americans is already over 35 million, and it's growing at an exponential rate. More and more people,
if they can afford insurance at all, are finding it's easier to go without insurance than pay the exploding costs. When
a person doesn't have insurance, he's less likely to seek medical help when problems arise. Thus, prevention costs as well
as the modest cost of catching certain problems in the early stages lead to the much greater costs of full-blown illnesses &
diseases. The costs of these full-blown problems must be absorbed by all the insured individuals.
- Longer wait times and less access to health care.
Have you ever gone to a doctor's office and been seen by your physician within 5 minutes? Times vary, but it's not unusual or
unexpected to wait 30-60 minutes after your appointment time before being serviced. Depending on specialty, it may take weeks or
months to even get an appointment. It's rarely the fault of the medical professionals. They are simply too overworked and
understaffed. Beyond the inconvenience, this contributes to lost productivity of
the entire nation.
- Businesses pass on costs as higher consumer prices.
Health insurance is simply another component of labor costs. Just like costs of energy, equipment, and rent are factored into
the cost of a product, so are labor costs. To ensure a profit at a level that makes it worthwhile to stay in business,
companies must raise prices. Thus, rising health costs lead to inflation throughout the economy.
- Economy is hit by redirection of consumer spending.
Since consumers must spend a larger percentage of every dollar on health care, less money is available to buy cars, computers,
clothes, and other items that fuel a thriving economy. Rising health care costs could easily throw us back into a recession.
- Unhealthy individuals may have trouble finding employment.
A sad fact of the current system is that monthly premiums are determined by the cost of your insurance pool. In the same way
that you're charged higher auto insurance premiums when you have multiple accidents, a poor health record can increase the
costs for everyone in the pool. For example, if you have one employee in a pool of 50 people that gets cancer or some other
expensive illness, everyone in the 50 must absorb higher premiums. Although it's technically illegal to make hiring
decisions based on health conditions, some businesses may find other reasons not to hire a potentially expensive
individual. In fact, for small businesses on the edge of financial ruin, there may be no choice.
- National & worldwide shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals.
Hospitals simply cannot keep up with the rising demand for health care. There's obviously a shortage of medical professionals
or you wouldn't be forced to wait for appointments, and salaries wouldn't be so high. This is more than an American problem
since the high salaries are pulling professionals to the U.S. from India, Britain, Canada, and other areas around the world. We have
a shortage in America despite the most advanced medical training system in the world; you can imagine the shortage in 3rd
world countries such as those in Africa or South America.
A 15-Point Solution
- De-regulate the medical profession.
It's time the government ease restrictions on who can do what in medicine. Does it make sense that someone who wants
to perform heart surgery has to go through the same amount of education as someone who wants
to set broken bones and prescribe infection remedies? Does it make sense that 3rd-year med students
are allowed to perform medical tasks that a nurse with 30 years of experience can't? Does it make sense that a Ph.D.
psychologist can't prescribe Zoloft or Prozac but a psychiatrist who can prescribe the drugs must go through 8 years of education
almost completed unrelated to psychology? Medicine is probably the most complex subject in existence; still, the vast
majority of medical tasks don't require someone with 12 years of tortuous training. Health care costs are so high because tasks
that could often be performed by nurses, physicians assistants, paramedics, and CNA's are restricted to fully-licensed
doctors. De-regulation would reduce costs in three ways: 1) Routine tasks can be billed out at the much cheaper rate of the
non-doctor; 2) Doctor salaries would fall since they wouldn't have to handle the same case load and
pressures; and 3) Competition
would increase, which always leads to lower prices and better quality. Doctors
would also have more time to devote to the tougher cases, and you'd draw more students to medicine since they'd be able to do
more meaningful work without having to devote the time and money of becoming a full physician.
Why, in a nation of 280 million people do we have only 600,000 doctors? There
are millions of potential students out there who have the intelligence to do the work but can't go all
the way through med school because of financial, work, or family obligations. Or
maybe they're part of the 95 percent of applicants that are denied entrance to
medical school because of rigorous requirements and few open admission spots.
Yes, we want and need an elite class of physicians, but given the dire
situation, maybe we need to open certain tasks to lesser-trained individuals.
Some may worry that this opens the door to more medical mistakes. Yes, lesser-trained individuals will make more mistakes, but
remember, people have a choice. If they want to save some money and
possibly take a little more risk (which may be more perception than reality), they'll choose a
nurse or other lesser-trained individual. If
it's a more complex problem, they'll go to a fully-licensed physician. Think about how many doctors refer their patients
to specialists anyway. What difference does it make if the first cog in the machinery is a nurse? Also remember that a
medical professional always has the threat of a lawsuit if he or she screws up.
- Create a range of new medical training levels and specialties.
Despite the vast number of medical problems, there are very few specialties. Sure, there are specialties, but they're all at
the doctor level. It takes almost a superhuman to get through the rigorous training requirements we have for our
physicians. Each student must spend an average of $150,000 and devote 8 years to a grueling education program. Then, he or
she must complete a slave-labor 4-year residency with 80+ hour workweeks. This is just to start their medical career.
Almost anyone in medicine will agree that while a solid base of knowledge is important, you don't really know what you're doing
until you've accumulated years working on real cases. Think about it. If you had a certain medical problem, would you rather
see someone with 12 years of general education and no expertise in your problem area, or would you rather see someone with
12 years of experience working specifically in the area you need help?
I'm suggesting that in addition to de-regulation, we develop several new specialties and education levels. Obviously, to work
in medicine, you'd want to require a base set of classes in anatomy, chemistry, biology, etc. But after that, training can
be ultra focused to areas of specialty. Students could be given hands-on and written certification tests at multiple levels
to demonstrate their ability in their area. We could have several levels of doctors or nurses. Think about
how achievement in martial arts is structured. You
start out at white belt and proceed through various colors all the way to black belt. To advance to each new level, you must devote a certain amount of
time and demonstrate a certain set of skills. By looking at the color of belt, we instantly can guess a person's
ability and level of training. Think about the financial planning
profession. A 2 or 4-year degree may get a professional his or her first
job, but customers may not want to go to that person unless he or she has CPA,
stock broker license, Certified Financial Planner qualification, etc. Now consider how doctors are currently ranked: there's really
only one level: DOCTOR!
Again, it's all about choice. We still need the heavily-trained individuals for the complex cases. We can save money by
going to a lesser-trained, lesser-experienced individual if we want. Insurance companies could offer incentives to use the
cheaper alternatives. For example, go to a nurse for your physical and it doesn't count towards your deductible.
One last idea when it comes to specialties: allow the creation of businesses that specialize in performing certain
types of tests; for example, CT scans, X-rays, etc. Businesses could be set up to do nothing but the type of test that's
required. A specialist could streamline operations and squeeze out levels of efficiency like never before.
Once again, regulation constrains true reform.
- Develop a new no-patent government drug research & development facility (or contract with a private firm).
Prescription drugs are undoubtedly one of the most expensive components of rising health care costs. However, the actual
production of drugs is usually pretty cheap. The expense comes from the research and development. Remember, creating new drugs can take years or even decades of meticulous, expensive research & testing. And for
every successful new drug, there are hundreds that turn out to be a waste of time. Drug companies must charge exorbitant prices
to recoup their costs and ensure an adequate profit. Unfortunately, because patent laws create a virtual monopoly on their
product for 17 years, they can charge whatever they want (subject to market
price demand). I'm proposing the government start a not-for-profit drug
research facility where patents laws aren't applied and all experimental learning is shared with the public. There are
several advantages of such a facility.
First of all, once a drug is created and approved, anyone would immediately be allowed to make and sell it. Competition would drive the
price to rock bottom levels. Second of all, time could be devoted to curing illnesses and diseases that aren't always the
most profitable. For example, certain types of fevers such as malaria are almost non-existent in the U.S., but are major
problems overseas. We could develop remedies that were never dreamed of, possibly prompting other countries to do the
same. Lastly, we will be able to build the knowledge base for everyone, leading to the faster develop of new life and
pain-saving drugs. In the current system, drug companies almost have an incentive not to share their knowledge since
doing so might lead to other companies gaining a patent first. In a government-controlled facility, we could,
for example, require the results of certain experiments be posted online.
- Create a new statute to punish those who bring frivolous malpractice suits and extort money from doctors.
Frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, especially ones with
outrageous verdicts, have led to skyrocketing medical liability insurance. Many lawyers will extort money by
threatening lawsuits, even though they have no chance of winning. Doctors may opt for a quick settlement anyway since the cost of
a malpractice lawsuit is enormous compared to paying the lawyer to just go away.
A solution to this is to get back at the lawyers responsible
for attacking the doctors or hospitals that haven't done anything wrong. What I
suggest is a new law that requires that not only should the plaintiff have to
pay court & attorney fees to innocent defendants, but lawyers who encourage
the case be forced to pay a matching amount as a fine. The lawyer would also
lose "points" on his legal license, so those with a track record of bringing
frivolous lawsuits would lose their license to practice law.
- Develop a new court system to deal with medical malpractice lawsuits.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are by far the most expensive to bring to trial.
This makes sense when you consider the subject matter of the trials involves
doctors who go to school for 8 grueling years, endure 4 years of 80-hr week
residency, and then work several years on their specialty. Can we really expect
a jury of 12 people who have little or no medical training to understand what's
going on? Not only is it expensive, but too often juries who don't understand
the facts must pick between a rich doctor and a feeble, dying, or disfigured
patient. So even if the doctor has done nothing wrong, he or she may get the
shaft. And that cost is of course passed down to us in increased health
insurance premiums. I propose setting up a specialty court system similar to
what we have for tax and bankruptcy disputes. Decisions would be made by trained
medical professionals who can better understand the issues and render fairer
verdicts.
- Create liability caps on damages for pain & suffering and punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits.
Doctors across America are walking off the job or giving up their practice
because of the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance
is passed on to all of us in higher insurance premiums. There should be no limit
to damages for lost income or medical bills caused by malpractice since they can
be objectively measured. However, pain/suffering and punitive damages are
intangible amounts that need to be reined in. Juries often come back with unjust
awards because they feel sympathy for the patient and figure a rich doctor or
insurance company can afford the loss. Everyone makes mistakes, and doctors
should be held accountable, but excessive lawsuits are changing the medical
system as we know it. Doctors are practicing expensive defensive medicine to
avoid getting sued as well as curbing or eliminating risky areas of practice.
Remember, there are plenty of punishment options for doctors that screw up that don't involve money; for example,
suspension or revocation of their license to practice. This solves both problems: getting the poor-performing doctor out of the
profession while keeping our health insurance premiums from going up. A $250,000 or $500,000 cap
on damages would be a reasonable
start in addressing all these problems.
- Build a series of lawsuit-prohibited medical facilities.
If you could save thousands of dollars by going to a doctor with the same expertise as other clinics but for which there
was no chance to sue if a mistake was made, would you go? Some people would say yes; some would say no. There's always
the chance you'd get lesser quality because the threat of lawsuit isn't there to
keep up the pressure; however, you may get better care since
doctors can concentrate on curing the patient rather than covering their butts. I suggest clinics be set up where patients
must sign a release preventing any legal action if they want to be treated. Doctors would be able to charge a
small fraction of what they currently do since they wouldn't need to pay hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance.
You'd also be able to save money arising from unnecessary tests that are often
carried out to minimize legal
liability.
Remember, people are required to sign do-not-sue releases to go bungee jumping, sky dive, take a karate class, and
do a number
of other activities. Does this stop people from going? People will come to such a
medical facility often because they have nowhere
else to go or because they're not worried about malpractice when getting an antibiotic prescription. Is
such a facility an
unrealistic idea? Not by a long shot. Patch Adams, the doctor on whom a movie was based, founded a free clinic called the
Gesundheit Institute and ran the clinic without malpractice insurance. He
has since expanded and introduced all kinds of revolutionary medical ideas. Thousands of doctors have volunteered their
time to his program. It's not realistic to operate all free clinics, but the
costs of a clinic that doesn't need malpractice insurance is
dramatically cheaper.
- Streamline or eliminate the FDA, and de-regulate the process of approving drugs.
While the FDA's purpose of protecting the public is noble, the organization has
become increasing less useful and is causing more problems than it solves. It was
originally set up to protect the public from charlatans selling snake oil and
other potions, but in today's complex pharmaceutical market, the organization
isn't as necessary.
Consider the problems caused by the FDA: 1) The FDA costs the taxpayers an enormous amount of money
to function; we should always be looking for ways to cut government waste so the funds can be redirected to other areas.
2) The FDA delays the release of drugs, causing pain and death in patients. Like all government offices, bureaucracy slows
operations to a crawl. It can take months or years to get a new drug through the screening process, even though the seller
has already screened the drug thoroughly. For patients who are suffering and those who will die without a new drug, this
delay is unacceptable. The FDA will bring criminal procedures against the seller even when the patient is willing to
assume all risks. 3) The FDA drives up the cost of prescription drugs. The impractical requirements placed on drug makers
along with the added layer of screening forces companies to charge more for their products.
Some may ask "What about the consumer? Won't this increase the chances of unsafe drugs being put on the market?" The
answer is a possible yes, but only marginally so. Remember, drug companies are worried about their reputation and don't
want to be sued. One class-action lawsuit or the bad press of one unsafe drug could put them out of business. Thus, they
take great pains to make sure their drugs are safe. And drug companies are run
by human beings who obviously don't want their products to cause harm. The FDA just adds a repetitive layer that isn't necessary.
Patients and the doctors from whom they get a prescription are going to
factor safety into their decision to use a drug.
Thus, even without the FDA, it's likely a private screening company will develop to certify the drugs. Private policing
of the industry is faster, cheaper, and more flexible. It's time to cut some of the FDA fat from the budget.
- Streamline the process of purchasing drugs for consumers.
I went to the drug store last week to pick up some asthma meds. Despite the fact that I called a day ahead, I had to wait
45 minutes for my prescription. Why? Because I had to have a pharmacist explain to me how to use an inhaler I've been using
regularly for over 15 years. Have you ever gone to pick up a prescription and not been subjected to a wait in line? The cost
of pharmacy employees is part of the drug distribution cost. Wait times are ridiculous because overprotective,
condescending politicians have passed laws forcing pharmacists to read you a label that says "Take this twice per day
with meals." After all, it's possible you can't read or didn't hear when your doctor told you the same thing the day before.
The average hourly cost of a pharmacist is over $65. Multiply the hours you'd save by the number of pharmacists in the country.
- Pass a law requiring publication of price lists of all medical services.
Did you ever stop to think that medicine is the only business that doesn't publicize it's prices? Can you imagine dropping your
car off for repairs and having the mechanic pick any price he deems appropriate? Publication of prices leads to more-informed
consumers. Consumers would be able to shop around for better prices and question
unreasonable fees.
- Set up a new scholarship/grant program for those that want to enter the health profession.
The average medical student graduates with over $100,000 in debt. Then he or she must work a 4-year residency at close to
minimum wage. Is it any wonder that few doctors want to volunteer time or work in low-cost clinics? Is it any wonder they
try to squeeze in as many revenue-generating patients per day? They have
to just to pay school loans, malpractice insurance, and other overhead! The nursing shortage gets worse every year, which leads to
longer hours for the current staff and more potential for costly mistakes. We should be doing everything we can to get
more students into the medical profession. The economic laws of supply show prices will drop proportionately, so the
scholarships should pay for themselves.
- Increase awareness of WebMD, Ask-a-Nurse, and other free medical advice.
There is an endless wealth of free information on the Web and on phone hotlines that people simply don't know about. Most
minor problems could be solved by the patient if he or she took the time to look up the ailment. Part of the problem is that
people don't know you can get diagnoses, symptoms, causes, related illnesses, etc. without paying a dime. Most of these
medical data banks will have a section "When you should visit a
professional", so the basic problems can be solved with minimal risk.
- Develop a national health information system that centralizes all medical information.
Did you realize that 60-70 percent of your medical dollar goes towards administration and insurance costs? How many
times in your life have you filled out a full medical history? How many times have you had to re-explain your medical
background to a new doctor?
Every medical office has its own set of medical records that
must be organized, filed, data-entered, and maintained. Every medical office must duplicate insurance information,
organize claim procedures, and manage their own computer system. This redundancy causes two major problems: 1) It creates a greater chance for error, by both the patient and
the hospital staff; 2) It doubles the administration costs which are passed on to all of us
as higher premiums. Think about
how much money we could save in the future if we integrated all this health information into one national database. Consider
how much better doctors could do their job if they could pull up a full medical history of the patient's treatment, including
treatment at other hospitals.
- Ease right-to-die rules.
By far the biggest advantages to physician-assisted suicide are the preservation
of dignity, minimization of suffering, and the easing of anguish on family
members. These cannot be underestimated. It's almost callous to think it,
but there's another advantage that most people don't consider, which is the
savings of health care costs and freeing up of hospital staff resources.
Money and hospital staff time mean nothing compared to human life, but for a
person who wants to die and faces a certain painful death, wouldn't it
make more sense to re-direct money and hospital resources to patients that can be
saved and want to live? For example, does it make sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping a suffering
bone cancer patient alive to the last excruciating breath while occupying the time of a doctor, nurse, and CNA--all when
the patient wants to die gracefully?
Savable patients suffer and die every day because of hospital understaffing. We
need to be smart and practical if we are to achieve maximum benefit for society.
- Design new insurance plans that shift more costs from premiums to out-of-pocket costs.
Perhaps the biggest reason why health care costs are out of control is that the economic laws of
supply and
demand have been removed from the industry. I've already talked about how stifling government regulation has limited the
supply of medical resources; now, let's consider demand. The U.S. has the most diverse and advanced access to medical
care of any country in the world. Consequently, we've become a bit spoiled. We've developed an entitlement mentality in this
country. We feel we are entitled to the best medical care regardless of expense, and we
think we should have to pay little or
nothing for it.
Unfortunately, the best technology, the best trained professionals, and the best prescription drugs cost money. If we were
forced to pay out-of-pocket for all our medical care, we would be a little more frugal. We would discipline ourselves
and modify our habits--Do I really need this CT scan? Should I run to the doctor
every time my child sniffles? Do I need a
doctor with 20 years experience to perform some routine surgery or would a new graduate be able to do it just as well? Do I
need the latest and greatest surgical equipment or would the cheaper conventional equipment do the job? Should I go to
the doctor for some antibiotics to cure this problem immediately or should I let my body fight it off?
Imagine if we had the same entitlement mentality with housing. After all, housing is a basic need that all Americans
must have for survival. Imagine you had a $5000 annual deductible, but after that all your
housing costs were paid for by insurance. Would you choose
a small basic apartment that costs $5200 per year or would you go for a $15,000 penthouse with swimming pool, hot tub, and fire place?
Would you like a small townhouse by the airport or a 100,000 square foot beach
house?
The whole purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and costs of unusual and
unexpected events. It was never designed to pay expenses from
your daily lives. Health insurance premiums should be reduced to the same rate range as life insurance premiums and cover only
the major medical problems costing, say $10,000 or more. Currently between
business and individual contributions, $3500 is paid out on average per person
every year before insurance starts to help out. Then you have to deal with co-pays and
other costs. An out-of-pocket focused plan would mean that $3500 normally spent
on premiums would be available to the consumer. For years where patients have no
medical problems, the money could be pocketed. Obviously, people will be much more frugal shoppers.
They will go only when they really need to and will demand better value for their money. Thus, economic laws of supply and
demand would go back into health care, lowering prices to the point that $3500 per year will easily take care of
almost all individuals. Remember
that 60-70 percent of each health care dollar is spent on administration costs.
An out-of-pocket focused plan would mean hospitals could eliminate the tedious
insurance claim process for most of their charges.
There are secondary benefits to such a shift in cost. If people are forced to pay more out-of-pocket for all health care, they're
more likely to exercise, eat right, and practice preventive medicine, all of which are vastly cheaper in the long run.
It's all about personal responsibility. We'd shift the focus of our society away from the pill-popping solution to every
medical problem, which is counter-productive and causes a host of new problems.
For example, overuse of antibiotics has led to the breeding of new superbugs. In other words,
infections that used to be easily cured with antibiotics have grown resistant and now cannot be fought at all. The human
body was built for one thing--survival. It can fight off most health problems if we simply let it.
Conclusion
Admittedly, some of these suggestions may be very difficult to implement. And there are plenty of disadvantages to following
this plan. But the fact is, any controversial issue is going to have advantages and disadvantages. There is no easy
solution. Otherwise, the issue wouldn't be controversial. However, the downsides
of any action can paralyze us to the point where we
do nothing. We have to analyze all the choices and come up with the solution that has the greatest weight of pros over
cons. You might have noticed, but the old system also has a few flaws.
"Always listen to the experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it."--Robert Heinlein
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same
level of thinking we were at when we created them."--Albert Einstein
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting a different result."--Albert Einstein
Email any additional ideas and comments to Joe at
balancedpolitics@yahoo.com.
Last Updated: 01/10/2008