Health Care Reform Idea...

[veritas]

Sorry you can't see beyond the immediate. Like I said (multiple times), I'm looking at long-term savings. Not that either one of us will ever be proven right, as it isn't going to pass regardless.

I think it might just pass. I think its opponents think so too, or they wouldn't have resorted to telling the most easily impeachable lies as they have been.

Obama never said we were going to start saving money right off the bat, nobody did. It was always a comprehensive fix that has to absorb more people and move toward an endpoint. Nothing happens in a vacuum, it didn't help that AIG was hanging fire with all their bogus instruments and was too big to let crash. What most people don't understand is that all insurance is related and if AIG fell nobody would have health insurance or car insurance or any insurance at all, the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down, including the stock market and the entire world's markets. The majority of the money IN the stock market is insurance money gathered by people paying premiums, that's how it works. In fact, Credit Default Swaps were insurance, but not called that so the regulations on their trade were not checked or verified to assure there was the proper collateralization behind them so they wouldn't fail. They failed. Epic fail. This is big picture, complicated stuff and most people don't have the first clue.

Add to that the fact that we are more centralized as far as delivery and underwriting because health care insurance has contracted to a few large mega corps [less than 10, nation wide] and we have a veritable regional monopoly without real competition nor safeguards or alternatives. [AIG again]. People don't realize how close they are to not having insurance, period. Their arrogance about liking their situation just fine is based on a total ignorance of how the world financial system works. It's scary stuff. Instead we are bogged down on "death panel" shit from morons like Palin and Grassley.

 

[Harry Dresden]

then let's put this issue to a vote. i would rather see a ballot initiative on this so we can see what the people really want and not what our so called representatives tell us we want.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Do you actually know how our government is set up?

So. It's time for people to take control from the government and assert our will.

Why would you be against this?

People have been trying for years to do this very thing.

National I&R

People ask for Constitutional amendments for the most trivial shit such as the definition of marriage but when it comes to putting more power in the hands of the people on proposed laws that increase government control we balk

does it matter Skull?...in the state referendums the losers seem to always file a lawsuit...i can see the same happening here.....

 

[The T]

The FIRST THING? Government needs to get their collective noses OUT from under this tent. Healthcare Insurance was created BY the private sector, and thus should remain.

ANYTHING Foisted by Government will be an abject FAILURE.

Just look at Medicare? Socialist Security? VA Medical?

These are RED FLAGS FOLKS.

Government just needs to shut the HELL UP...and move out of the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

Sorry you can't see beyond the immediate. Like I said (multiple times), I'm looking at long-term savings. Not that either one of us will ever be proven right, as it isn't going to pass regardless.

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. "

Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


Good job, Aunt Em, but we're not in Kansas anymore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

You are so typical of the "I got mine, so screw you" mindset. Just lumping the uninsured into medicare would lower the overall risk significantly. The pool would be larger so the income would increase. Medicare is concerned with mainly geriatric medicine and those practitioners that specialize in that field. If the pool was enlarged to include younger people, then more and other different practitioners would be in the mix. Just because I have insurance doesn't mean all of a sudden I am going to start utilizing it at the rate an older person does, quite the opposite is true. In fact, other than having children, I haven't needed much medical services at all in my lifetime so far. I used to have a dangerous occupation, [I have never been a skydiver] so you want to leave people with dangerous occupations out of the mix? I was never injured doing what I did, but only when helping one of my employers do what she wanted to do as a favor. Things happen. She paid for it, it was her fault and I didn't receive much care at all even though we went to Chevy Chase to the most expensive osteopath in the DC area. I muddled through and fixed myself. And what of my employer? She was doing almost the same level of what I was doing for pleasure, should the insurance company have ramped up her premiums? Excluded her?

Then there are victims of violent crime and motor vehicle accidents caused by people with inadequate [or uncooperative] insurance. There is no healthcare available past the shock trauma part of those types happenstances. And so what if "some guy" gets foreclosed upon because he was sick or injured, doesn't affect you does it? Well yes it does, it means less state and local taxes are getting paid and states aren't allowed to run deficits like the Federal government. So on which end would you like to take up the slack? The one that goes in a positive direction or the one that says screw you? You're only an accident away from being on the other side of this argument, perilously close unless you've got a million in cash stuffed in the couch.

"You are so typical of the "I got mine, so screw you" mindset.

And you’ve shown your customary quick command of unknown facts.

I'd like to see the dots you've connected to arrive at that contusion.

Since you've shown an inabilty to either read or intuit, let's review.

What I want is for you to show that ObamaCare would result in savings, as hinted in " The pool would be larger so the income would increase."

This was not the case for Medicare, for other universal schemes in Massachusetts, Oregon, Hawaii, or Tennessee.

As usual, the mantra from the witless is "It's different this time."

 

[Emma]

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

Sorry you can't see beyond the immediate. Like I said (multiple times), I'm looking at long-term savings. Not that either one of us will ever be proven right, as it isn't going to pass regardless.

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. "

Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


Good job, Aunt Em, but we're not in Kansas anymore.

Question... why is the cost of Medicare more than was predicted in the mid-60's? It's certainly not that they didn't anticipate the number of elderly who would qualify for coverage.

And thank you for bringing up Medicare coverage for those on disability, as it makes my point.

Common sense tells you that preventative/maintenance health care is cost-effective. The direct and indirect costs of just one condition alone, diabetes, costs $174 billion a year (that was from 2007, most likely has increased). Treatment itself is expensive, of course, but add to that the cost of all the complications (every system in the body is affected), lost work days and lost productivity from earlier death, disability, etc.

I'm not even for sure they factored in the extended costs of those complications... the complications of the complications, as it were.

I'm constantly amazed that people who wouldn't think of allowing their automobile to run until it broke down, never changing the oil or getting a tune up or whatever, think it's just fine that for far too many we're practicing crisis management instead of healthcare in this country.


I don't believe it's going to be the utopia that many on the left seem to put forth; I also don't believe it's going to bring about all the horrors the right keeps ranting about. But I do believe it will be an improvement over what passes for a healthcare system now.

Also, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (again, not all) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

Your example of Medicare providing for dialysis treatment fits right into what I said above. Want to guess the number one cause of chronic renal failure? How 'bout number two?

Diabetes and hypertension. Together, they account for almost 71% of the primary causes of renal failure. Two conditions that, with proper maintenance health care, can be controlled and their complications (including renal failure) avoided altogether or greatly reduced or delayed.

Care for renal failure cost (in '05) nearly $32 billion (and that doesn't take into account drugs, transportation, etc). "Together, CKD and ESRD patients consume 27.6 percent of general Medicare expenditures and 33.5 percent of those for the dually enrolled population, making kidney disease a central issue for public policy considerations."

Now add to that the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of the complications, disability and lost productivity. And that's the cost of just one complication of two easily manageable conditions.

ADR

Sorry. You will NEVER convince me that this will not provide long term savings overall.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry you can't see beyond the immediate. Like I said (multiple times), I'm looking at long-term savings. Not that either one of us will ever be proven right, as it isn't going to pass regardless.

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. "

Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


Good job, Aunt Em, but we're not in Kansas anymore.

Question... why is the cost of Medicare more than was predicted in the mid-60's? It's certainly not that they didn't anticipate the number of elderly who would qualify for coverage.

And thank you for bringing up Medicare coverage for those on disability, as it makes my point.

Common sense tells you that preventative/maintenance health care is cost-effective. The direct and indirect costs of just one condition alone, diabetes, costs $174 billion a year (that was from 2007, most likely has increased). Treatment itself is expensive, of course, but add to that the cost of all the complications (every system in the body is affected), lost work days and lost productivity from earlier death, disability, etc.

I'm not even for sure they factored in the extended costs of those complications... the complications of the complications, as it were.

I'm constantly amazed that people who wouldn't think of allowing their automobile to run until it broke down, never changing the oil or getting a tune up or whatever, think it's just fine that for far too many we're practicing crisis management instead of healthcare in this country.


I don't believe it's going to be the utopia that many on the left seem to put forth; I also don't believe it's going to bring about all the horrors the right keeps ranting about. But I do believe it will be an improvement over what passes for a healthcare system now.

Also, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (again, not all) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

Your example of Medicare providing for dialysis treatment fits right into what I said above. Want to guess the number one cause of chronic renal failure? How 'bout number two?

Diabetes and hypertension. Together, they account for almost 71% of the primary causes of renal failure. Two conditions that, with proper maintenance health care, can be controlled and their complications (including renal failure) avoided altogether or greatly reduced or delayed.

Care for renal failure cost (in '05) nearly $32 billion (and that doesn't take into account drugs, transportation, etc). "Together, CKD and ESRD patients consume 27.6 percent of general Medicare expenditures and 33.5 percent of those for the dually enrolled population, making kidney disease a central issue for public policy considerations."

Now add to that the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of the complications, disability and lost productivity. And that's the cost of just one complication of two easily manageable conditions.

ADR

Sorry. You will NEVER convince me that this will not provide long term savings overall.

I never expected to convince you, once you convinced me that you were a dyed-in-the-wool lemming.

I believe that Einstein had you in mind when he said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The question was cost savings, and you deftly changed the subject to give a lecture as to why there were no cost savings with Medicare, and in fact had cost overruns by a factor of 9 or 10.

I have no fear that you will look behind the curtain, Auntie Em.

 

[Emma]

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. "

Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


Good job, Aunt Em, but we're not in Kansas anymore.

Question... why is the cost of Medicare more than was predicted in the mid-60's? It's certainly not that they didn't anticipate the number of elderly who would qualify for coverage.

And thank you for bringing up Medicare coverage for those on disability, as it makes my point.

Common sense tells you that preventative/maintenance health care is cost-effective. The direct and indirect costs of just one condition alone, diabetes, costs $174 billion a year (that was from 2007, most likely has increased). Treatment itself is expensive, of course, but add to that the cost of all the complications (every system in the body is affected), lost work days and lost productivity from earlier death, disability, etc.

I'm not even for sure they factored in the extended costs of those complications... the complications of the complications, as it were.

I'm constantly amazed that people who wouldn't think of allowing their automobile to run until it broke down, never changing the oil or getting a tune up or whatever, think it's just fine that for far too many we're practicing crisis management instead of healthcare in this country.


I don't believe it's going to be the utopia that many on the left seem to put forth; I also don't believe it's going to bring about all the horrors the right keeps ranting about. But I do believe it will be an improvement over what passes for a healthcare system now.

Also, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (again, not all) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

Your example of Medicare providing for dialysis treatment fits right into what I said above. Want to guess the number one cause of chronic renal failure? How 'bout number two?

Diabetes and hypertension. Together, they account for almost 71% of the primary causes of renal failure. Two conditions that, with proper maintenance health care, can be controlled and their complications (including renal failure) avoided altogether or greatly reduced or delayed.

Care for renal failure cost (in '05) nearly $32 billion (and that doesn't take into account drugs, transportation, etc). "Together, CKD and ESRD patients consume 27.6 percent of general Medicare expenditures and 33.5 percent of those for the dually enrolled population, making kidney disease a central issue for public policy considerations."

Now add to that the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of the complications, disability and lost productivity. And that's the cost of just one complication of two easily manageable conditions.

ADR

Sorry. You will NEVER convince me that this will not provide long term savings overall.

I never expected to convince you, once you convinced me that you were a dyed-in-the-wool lemming.

I believe that Einstein had you in mind when he said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The question was cost savings, and you deftly changed the subject to give a lecture as to why there were no cost savings with Medicare, and in fact had cost overruns by a factor of 9 or 10.

I have no fear that you will look behind the curtain, Auntie Em.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. Why does Medicare cost more than it was predicted back in the mid-60's?

I also gave you an example of just one complication (of two easily manageable conditions) that accounts for nearly a third of Medicare expenditures --- for care, not including the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of that complication, disability and lost productivity. And that those two easily manageable conditions are the primary cause of 71% of cases of renal failure.

Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money spent on this one complication of these two easily manageable conditions, I'm all ears. And consider too that diabetes and hypertension affect every system in the body.

And hell, that's only two conditions that preventative/maintenance care can control. Heart and vessel disease is the number one killer of Americans (and diabetes / hypertension are two major contributors to same); while there isn't much you can do about genetic influences, access to routine maintenance health care can keep it under control, reducing the incidence --- and cost --- of heart attacks and strokes. And again, that doesn't factor in the cost of treating their complications, the complications of those complications, disability, lost productivity, etc.

The question was cost savings, and you deftly changed the subject to give a lecture as to why there were no cost savings with Medicare, and in fact had cost overruns by a factor of 9 or 10.

I didn't change the subject. I provided you with data explaining how renal failure alone accounts for nearly a third of Medicare expenditures, and that it can be prevented or delayed by effectively managing the two conditions that account for 71% of the cases of same --- thereby reducing the cost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Question... why is the cost of Medicare more than was predicted in the mid-60's? It's certainly not that they didn't anticipate the number of elderly who would qualify for coverage.

And thank you for bringing up Medicare coverage for those on disability, as it makes my point.



Your example of Medicare providing for dialysis treatment fits right into what I said above. Want to guess the number one cause of chronic renal failure? How 'bout number two?

Diabetes and hypertension. Together, they account for almost 71% of the primary causes of renal failure. Two conditions that, with proper maintenance health care, can be controlled and their complications (including renal failure) avoided altogether or greatly reduced or delayed.

Care for renal failure cost (in '05) nearly $32 billion (and that doesn't take into account drugs, transportation, etc). "Together, CKD and ESRD patients consume 27.6 percent of general Medicare expenditures and 33.5 percent of those for the dually enrolled population, making kidney disease a central issue for public policy considerations."

Now add to that the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of the complications, disability and lost productivity. And that's the cost of just one complication of two easily manageable conditions.

ADR

Sorry. You will NEVER convince me that this will not provide long term savings overall.

I never expected to convince you, once you convinced me that you were a dyed-in-the-wool lemming.

I believe that Einstein had you in mind when he said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The question was cost savings, and you deftly changed the subject to give a lecture as to why there were no cost savings with Medicare, and in fact had cost overruns by a factor of 9 or 10.

I have no fear that you will look behind the curtain, Auntie Em.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. Why does Medicare cost more than it was predicted back in the mid-60's?

I also gave you an example of just one complication (of two easily manageable conditions) that accounts for nearly a third of Medicare expenditures --- for care, not including the cost of medications, supportive care, hospitalizations, treatment of complications of that complication, disability and lost productivity. And that those two easily manageable conditions are the primary cause of 71% of cases of renal failure.

Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money spent on this one complication of these two easily manageable conditions, I'm all ears. And consider too that diabetes and hypertension affect every system in the body.

And hell, that's only two conditions that preventative/maintenance care can control. Heart and vessel disease is the number one killer of Americans (and diabetes / hypertension are two major contributors to same); while there isn't much you can do about genetic influences, access to routine maintenance health care can keep it under control, reducing the incidence --- and cost --- of heart attacks and strokes. And again, that doesn't factor in the cost of treating their complications, the complications of those complications, disability, lost productivity, etc.

The question was cost savings, and you deftly changed the subject to give a lecture as to why there were no cost savings with Medicare, and in fact had cost overruns by a factor of 9 or 10.

I didn't change the subject. I provided you with data explaining how renal failure alone accounts for nearly a third of Medicare expenditures, and that it can be prevented or delayed by effectively managing the two conditions that account for 71% of the cases of same --- thereby reducing the cost.

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, the question of "Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money ..." was actually discussed.

According to Chris Wallace, the analysis by the journal Circulation stated that prevention of diabetes would cost approximately ten times what treating those who ultimately developed diabetes would cost. This is because we cannot tell in advance who the diabetics would be.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

Your post simply indicates that those proposing the healthcare plan are unable to predict costs.

Unable, incompetent, have an agenda,...who knows.

But always, always inderestimate the costs by many, many fold.

That is what experience teaches us.

Not you, but those who actually learn from the past.

 

[Emma]

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

In addition to what I posted above, consider the savings (again, looking at the long-term) of having an overall healthier client base as they enter into the Medicare program because they have had access to routine maintenance health care during their younger years.

BTW, are there any studies estimating the impact on healthcare costs for the elderly and disabled had Medicare NOT been available? Crisis management is more expensive.

Also, there are Medicare regulations that have reined in costs for all (including privately insured). We're seeing that in my hospital with the recent regulations I referenced for you in another thread (refusal of Medicare to pay for certain hospital-acquired conditions) which are resulting in less intensive care, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays (in addition to savings for treating those problems after discharge).

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean like the long term savings we've seen in Medicare?

In addition to what I posted above, consider the savings (again, looking at the long-term) of having an overall healthier client base as they enter into the Medicare program because they have had access to routine maintenance health care during their younger years.

BTW, are there any studies estimating the impact on healthcare costs for the elderly and disabled had Medicare NOT been available? Crisis management is more expensive.

Also, there are Medicare regulations that have reined in costs for all (including privately insured). We're seeing that in my hospital with the recent regulations I referenced for you in another thread (refusal of Medicare to pay for certain hospital-acquired conditions) which are resulting in less intensive care, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays (in addition to savings for treating those problems after discharge).

You might want to see post # 89.

"... Medicare regulations that have reined in costs for all ..." Are you proposing that Medicare costs are declining?

"...an overall healthier client base as they enter into the Medicare program because they have had access to routine maintenance health care during their younger years."

Consider:

". Prevention instead of treatment? Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said on March 23 that "we have to get to a system of keeping people well, rather than treating the sickness." That would make sense if all disease were behavior-related, but many cancers and other diseases are linked to genetics or unknown causes. De Parle's pronouncement echoes how Sir Michael Rawlins, a British health official, explains his nation's low cancer survival rates. The British National Health Service, he said, has to be fair to all patients, "not just the patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody."

This approach is deadly for those with serious illness. In the U.S., about 5 percent of the populace needs 50 percent of treatment dollars. The drumbeat for shifting resources from treatments to prevention should worry any family dealing with M.S., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cerebral palsy, or with a history of cancer."

Defend Your Health Care


Although I am not conversant with your hospital, the following is generally true:
Medicaid pays hospitals $.86 for $1 healthcare provided
Medicare pays hospitals $.97-.98 for each $1 healthcare provided
Private Plans pay hospitals about $1.32 for each $1 of healthcare provided.

So any ObamaCare plan that results in fewer private healthcare plans will result not in savings but in dimunition of healthcare, and increase in costs.

There are no saving associated with nationalized healthcare plans. See Massachusetts, Tennessee, Hawaii, Oregon, UK...

And, have you seen this as of this morning?
"SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The Canadian Press: Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

 

[Emma]

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, the question of "Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money ..." was actually discussed.

According to Chris Wallace, the analysis by the journal Circulation stated that prevention of diabetes would cost approximately ten times what treating those who ultimately developed diabetes would cost. This is because we cannot tell in advance who the diabetics would be.

Treating those with diabetes. Thanks for making my point. It is an easily manageable condition where providing routine maintenance care is cost-effective. Prevention? How about early detection and routine treatment (see citation below)?

I'd be interested in reading the cited study. Do you have a link to that?

I'm not sure if this is the article referenced:

Collectively, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), cancer, and diabetes account for approximately two thirds of all deaths in the United States and about $700 billion in direct and indirect economic costs each year. Current approaches to health promotion and prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes do not approach the potential of the existing state of knowledge.

Although the public often expresses confusion about the many health messages that are now available to them, especially when they try to take multiple health risks into consideration, in fact individuals can best protect themselves by following advice that is simple, effective, and agreed upon by the 3 major voluntary health organizations. The 4 key strategies are as follows: (1) Don’t smoke, (2) follow a healthy diet, (3) be physically active, and (4) see your medical caregiver regularly to assess your risk and prevent disease or catch it early, when it can be best managed.

In addition, there are too many individuals who are not able to benefit from the well-demonstrated effects of preventive care and counseling because of a lack of or insufficient healthcare coverage, disparities in the delivery of care, or a lack of recognition that science has indeed discovered information that is important to their lives.

Cardiovascular disease,* cancer, and diabetes account for nearly 2 of every 3 deaths in the United States—close to 1.5 million people in 2001.1 These diseases undermine health, shorten life expectancy, and cause enormous suffering, disability, and economic costs. However, much of this disease burden could be avoided if there were systematic application of what is known about preventing the onset and progression of these conditions. By addressing the underlying causes of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and by improving the systems to detect and treat early-stage disease when interventions are most effective, significant reductions in disability and premature mortality could be achieved.

Despite the incontrovertible evidence supporting the medical and economic benefits of prevention and early detection, current disease-control efforts are underfunded and fragmented. While healthcare costs skyrocket, the national investment in prevention was estimated at less than 3% of the total annual healthcare expenditures.

The evidence base with regard to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of specific components of prevention and early detection is reviewed regularly by many health organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Healthy People 2010 provides the most current and comprehensive health agenda for the nation.4 It addresses 476 specific objectives in 28 focus areas that include nutrition and overweight, physical activity and fitness, tobacco use, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and access to quality health services. The US Preventive Services Task Force periodically reviews more than 200 preventive services offered in primary care settings.5 The US Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends routine screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers; hypertension and lipid disorders; obesity; and tobacco use; as well as the provision of treatment for tobacco addiction in adults. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides similar reviews with regard to community, population, and healthcare system interventions related to cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.6 Criteria for evaluating the delivery of preventive services by managed care plans are provided by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set measures a broad spectrum of preventive services, including provision of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening; blood pressure control; comprehensive care for diabetes; and treatment for tobacco dependence.7 Despite the abundance of data, guidelines, and objectives, progress in the nation’s health falls well short of its true potential, and some trends are worsening.

Circulation -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 Table BL1

Prevalence and Economic Costs

The prevalence and economic costs of the major chronic diseases are equally sobering. Approximately 1 in 4 adults is hypertensive, and the majority of individuals with hypertension do not have adequately controlled blood pressure.12 More than 100 million adults have elevated cholesterol levels; of this group, more than 35 million adults have cholesterol levels that qualify as high risk and that require aggressive medical intervention.4 Recent estimates from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicate that among insured individuals, 28.6% of adults with hypertension and 51.2% of adults with hypercholesterolemia were undiagnosed.13 According to extrapolations from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,10,14 about 64 400 000 Americans (22.6% of the population) had prevalent cardiovascular disease in 2001; between 1988 and 1994, approximately 1 individual in 10 was hospitalized each year for treatment of a cardiovascular problem.

Approximately 9.6 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer were alive in 2000. This estimate includes individuals living with cancer as well as those who were cancer free.11 The estimate does not include persons with cancers that have not yet been detected. Substantial numbers of adults are diagnosed with advanced cancers each year because of lack of screening. Approximately one third of breast and cervical cancers and nearly two thirds of colorectal cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage.11

An estimated 18.2 million Americans had diabetes in 2002.15 This includes individuals who had been diagnosed (13 million) and those who were as yet undiagnosed (5.2 million). According to the CDC, approximately 33.8% of the population have impaired fasting glucose (IFG) levels, 15.4% have impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 40.1% have prediabetes (IFG, IGT, or both).16

The economic costs of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes in the United States in 2003 were estimated at $351.8 billion, $189.5 billion, and $132.0 billion, respectively.17,18 The combined costs of these 3 diseases thus comprises 32% of the $2256.5 billion in total illness costs.19 This amount includes both direct medical costs and indirect economic costs from lost productivity due to illness or death. The estimates for healthcare expenditures include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, medications, and home health care. These medical care costs also include treatment for diseases resulting from diabetes. For example, patients with diabetes, particularly if poorly controlled, may develop blindness, end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, and many other complications, each of which incurs economic as well as personal costs.20–22

Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: A Common Agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 -- Circulation

Your post simply indicates that those proposing the healthcare plan are unable to predict costs.

Unable, incompetent, have an agenda,...who knows.

But always, always inderestimate the costs by many, many fold.

That is what experience teaches us.

Not you, but those who actually learn from the past.

Still haven't answered the question.

 

[Emma]

"... Medicare regulations that have reined in costs for all ..." Are you proposing that Medicare costs are declining?

I'm saying that there are medicare regulations that have reined in costs, specifically referencing the recent regulations regarding HAC.
------
Still no answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, the question of "Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money ..." was actually discussed.

According to Chris Wallace, the analysis by the journal Circulation stated that prevention of diabetes would cost approximately ten times what treating those who ultimately developed diabetes would cost. This is because we cannot tell in advance who the diabetics would be.

Treating those with diabetes. Thanks for making my point. It is an easily manageable condition where providing routine maintenance care is cost-effective. Prevention? How about early detection and routine treatment (see citation below)?

I'd be interested in reading the cited study. Do you have a link to that?

I'm not sure if this is the article referenced:

Collectively, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), cancer, and diabetes account for approximately two thirds of all deaths in the United States and about $700 billion in direct and indirect economic costs each year. Current approaches to health promotion and prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes do not approach the potential of the existing state of knowledge.

Although the public often expresses confusion about the many health messages that are now available to them, especially when they try to take multiple health risks into consideration, in fact individuals can best protect themselves by following advice that is simple, effective, and agreed upon by the 3 major voluntary health organizations. The 4 key strategies are as follows: (1) Don’t smoke, (2) follow a healthy diet, (3) be physically active, and (4) see your medical caregiver regularly to assess your risk and prevent disease or catch it early, when it can be best managed.

In addition, there are too many individuals who are not able to benefit from the well-demonstrated effects of preventive care and counseling because of a lack of or insufficient healthcare coverage, disparities in the delivery of care, or a lack of recognition that science has indeed discovered information that is important to their lives.

Cardiovascular disease,* cancer, and diabetes account for nearly 2 of every 3 deaths in the United States—close to 1.5 million people in 2001.1 These diseases undermine health, shorten life expectancy, and cause enormous suffering, disability, and economic costs. However, much of this disease burden could be avoided if there were systematic application of what is known about preventing the onset and progression of these conditions. By addressing the underlying causes of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and by improving the systems to detect and treat early-stage disease when interventions are most effective, significant reductions in disability and premature mortality could be achieved.

Despite the incontrovertible evidence supporting the medical and economic benefits of prevention and early detection, current disease-control efforts are underfunded and fragmented. While healthcare costs skyrocket, the national investment in prevention was estimated at less than 3% of the total annual healthcare expenditures.

The evidence base with regard to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of specific components of prevention and early detection is reviewed regularly by many health organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Healthy People 2010 provides the most current and comprehensive health agenda for the nation.4 It addresses 476 specific objectives in 28 focus areas that include nutrition and overweight, physical activity and fitness, tobacco use, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and access to quality health services. The US Preventive Services Task Force periodically reviews more than 200 preventive services offered in primary care settings.5 The US Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends routine screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers; hypertension and lipid disorders; obesity; and tobacco use; as well as the provision of treatment for tobacco addiction in adults. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides similar reviews with regard to community, population, and healthcare system interventions related to cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.6 Criteria for evaluating the delivery of preventive services by managed care plans are provided by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set measures a broad spectrum of preventive services, including provision of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening; blood pressure control; comprehensive care for diabetes; and treatment for tobacco dependence.7 Despite the abundance of data, guidelines, and objectives, progress in the nation’s health falls well short of its true potential, and some trends are worsening.

Circulation -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 Table BL1

Prevalence and Economic Costs

The prevalence and economic costs of the major chronic diseases are equally sobering. Approximately 1 in 4 adults is hypertensive, and the majority of individuals with hypertension do not have adequately controlled blood pressure.12 More than 100 million adults have elevated cholesterol levels; of this group, more than 35 million adults have cholesterol levels that qualify as high risk and that require aggressive medical intervention.4 Recent estimates from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicate that among insured individuals, 28.6% of adults with hypertension and 51.2% of adults with hypercholesterolemia were undiagnosed.13 According to extrapolations from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,10,14 about 64 400 000 Americans (22.6% of the population) had prevalent cardiovascular disease in 2001; between 1988 and 1994, approximately 1 individual in 10 was hospitalized each year for treatment of a cardiovascular problem.

Approximately 9.6 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer were alive in 2000. This estimate includes individuals living with cancer as well as those who were cancer free.11 The estimate does not include persons with cancers that have not yet been detected. Substantial numbers of adults are diagnosed with advanced cancers each year because of lack of screening. Approximately one third of breast and cervical cancers and nearly two thirds of colorectal cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage.11

An estimated 18.2 million Americans had diabetes in 2002.15 This includes individuals who had been diagnosed (13 million) and those who were as yet undiagnosed (5.2 million). According to the CDC, approximately 33.8% of the population have impaired fasting glucose (IFG) levels, 15.4% have impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 40.1% have prediabetes (IFG, IGT, or both).16

The economic costs of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes in the United States in 2003 were estimated at $351.8 billion, $189.5 billion, and $132.0 billion, respectively.17,18 The combined costs of these 3 diseases thus comprises 32% of the $2256.5 billion in total illness costs.19 This amount includes both direct medical costs and indirect economic costs from lost productivity due to illness or death. The estimates for healthcare expenditures include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, medications, and home health care. These medical care costs also include treatment for diseases resulting from diabetes. For example, patients with diabetes, particularly if poorly controlled, may develop blindness, end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, and many other complications, each of which incurs economic as well as personal costs.20–22

Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: A Common Agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 -- Circulation

Your post simply indicates that those proposing the healthcare plan are unable to predict costs.

Unable, incompetent, have an agenda,...who knows.

But always, always inderestimate the costs by many, many fold.

That is what experience teaches us.

Not you, but those who actually learn from the past.

Still haven't answered the question.

Excellent research.

No, I do not have the journal, only heard the discussion of same.

But you have yet to explain your claim of cost savings in the light of your acceptance of the huge cost overruns of extant government plans, and the failure of the many attempts by states.

 

[Emma]

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, the question of "Now if you can explain to me how providing routine maintenance care would NOT in the long term save money ..." was actually discussed.

According to Chris Wallace, the analysis by the journal Circulation stated that prevention of diabetes would cost approximately ten times what treating those who ultimately developed diabetes would cost. This is because we cannot tell in advance who the diabetics would be.

Treating those with diabetes. Thanks for making my point. It is an easily manageable condition where providing routine maintenance care is cost-effective. Prevention? How about early detection and routine treatment (see citation below)?

I'd be interested in reading the cited study. Do you have a link to that?

I'm not sure if this is the article referenced:

Collectively, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), cancer, and diabetes account for approximately two thirds of all deaths in the United States and about $700 billion in direct and indirect economic costs each year. Current approaches to health promotion and prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes do not approach the potential of the existing state of knowledge.

Although the public often expresses confusion about the many health messages that are now available to them, especially when they try to take multiple health risks into consideration, in fact individuals can best protect themselves by following advice that is simple, effective, and agreed upon by the 3 major voluntary health organizations. The 4 key strategies are as follows: (1) Don’t smoke, (2) follow a healthy diet, (3) be physically active, and (4) see your medical caregiver regularly to assess your risk and prevent disease or catch it early, when it can be best managed.

In addition, there are too many individuals who are not able to benefit from the well-demonstrated effects of preventive care and counseling because of a lack of or insufficient healthcare coverage, disparities in the delivery of care, or a lack of recognition that science has indeed discovered information that is important to their lives.

Cardiovascular disease,* cancer, and diabetes account for nearly 2 of every 3 deaths in the United States—close to 1.5 million people in 2001.1 These diseases undermine health, shorten life expectancy, and cause enormous suffering, disability, and economic costs. However, much of this disease burden could be avoided if there were systematic application of what is known about preventing the onset and progression of these conditions. By addressing the underlying causes of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and by improving the systems to detect and treat early-stage disease when interventions are most effective, significant reductions in disability and premature mortality could be achieved.

Despite the incontrovertible evidence supporting the medical and economic benefits of prevention and early detection, current disease-control efforts are underfunded and fragmented. While healthcare costs skyrocket, the national investment in prevention was estimated at less than 3% of the total annual healthcare expenditures.

The evidence base with regard to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of specific components of prevention and early detection is reviewed regularly by many health organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Healthy People 2010 provides the most current and comprehensive health agenda for the nation.4 It addresses 476 specific objectives in 28 focus areas that include nutrition and overweight, physical activity and fitness, tobacco use, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and access to quality health services. The US Preventive Services Task Force periodically reviews more than 200 preventive services offered in primary care settings.5 The US Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends routine screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers; hypertension and lipid disorders; obesity; and tobacco use; as well as the provision of treatment for tobacco addiction in adults. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides similar reviews with regard to community, population, and healthcare system interventions related to cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.6 Criteria for evaluating the delivery of preventive services by managed care plans are provided by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set measures a broad spectrum of preventive services, including provision of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening; blood pressure control; comprehensive care for diabetes; and treatment for tobacco dependence.7 Despite the abundance of data, guidelines, and objectives, progress in the nation’s health falls well short of its true potential, and some trends are worsening.

Circulation -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 Table BL1

Prevalence and Economic Costs

The prevalence and economic costs of the major chronic diseases are equally sobering. Approximately 1 in 4 adults is hypertensive, and the majority of individuals with hypertension do not have adequately controlled blood pressure.12 More than 100 million adults have elevated cholesterol levels; of this group, more than 35 million adults have cholesterol levels that qualify as high risk and that require aggressive medical intervention.4 Recent estimates from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicate that among insured individuals, 28.6% of adults with hypertension and 51.2% of adults with hypercholesterolemia were undiagnosed.13 According to extrapolations from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,10,14 about 64 400 000 Americans (22.6% of the population) had prevalent cardiovascular disease in 2001; between 1988 and 1994, approximately 1 individual in 10 was hospitalized each year for treatment of a cardiovascular problem.

Approximately 9.6 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer were alive in 2000. This estimate includes individuals living with cancer as well as those who were cancer free.11 The estimate does not include persons with cancers that have not yet been detected. Substantial numbers of adults are diagnosed with advanced cancers each year because of lack of screening. Approximately one third of breast and cervical cancers and nearly two thirds of colorectal cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage.11

An estimated 18.2 million Americans had diabetes in 2002.15 This includes individuals who had been diagnosed (13 million) and those who were as yet undiagnosed (5.2 million). According to the CDC, approximately 33.8% of the population have impaired fasting glucose (IFG) levels, 15.4% have impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 40.1% have prediabetes (IFG, IGT, or both).16

The economic costs of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes in the United States in 2003 were estimated at $351.8 billion, $189.5 billion, and $132.0 billion, respectively.17,18 The combined costs of these 3 diseases thus comprises 32% of the $2256.5 billion in total illness costs.19 This amount includes both direct medical costs and indirect economic costs from lost productivity due to illness or death. The estimates for healthcare expenditures include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, medications, and home health care. These medical care costs also include treatment for diseases resulting from diabetes. For example, patients with diabetes, particularly if poorly controlled, may develop blindness, end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, and many other complications, each of which incurs economic as well as personal costs.20–22

Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: A Common Agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association -- Eyre et al. 109 (25): 3244 -- Circulation

Your post simply indicates that those proposing the healthcare plan are unable to predict costs.

Unable, incompetent, have an agenda,...who knows.

But always, always inderestimate the costs by many, many fold.

That is what experience teaches us.

Not you, but those who actually learn from the past.

Still haven't answered the question.

Excellent research.

No, I do not have the journal, only heard the discussion of same.

But you have yet to explain your claim of cost savings in the light of your acceptance of the huge cost overruns of extant government plans, and the failure of the many attempts by states.

I'd like to see the article cited... not sure how to find it, though.

I do have access at work to certain resources I can't access from home. I'll try to remember to look for that publication and see if I can find that specific article.

As far as the rest of it, I'll continue to research. Right now, I need to get off of here and actually get some stuff done (and give my swirling brain a rest lol). Nice discussion. I enjoyed it

 

[Emma]

Oh. Something else I saw while poking around was the difference between cost-effective and cost-saving. I'll see if I can figure out where that was; I do recall getting a bit dizzy trying to decipher what they were saying

ETA: I admit that logic and common sense tells me that routine health care will save money in the long-term, but I realize I need to find studies/research to back that up. I'll do my best to that end.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Oh. Something else I saw while poking around was the difference between cost-effective and cost-saving. I'll see if I can figure out where that was; I do recall getting a bit dizzy trying to decipher what they were saying

ETA: I admit that logic and common sense tells me that routine health care will save money in the long-term, but I realize I need to find studies/research to back that up. I'll do my best to that end.

Cost effective sounds simple enough, but its a tricky idea. Basically, it measures whether you are getting a good value for your money. But what criteria do you use to determine value? About ten years ago cancer treatments in the UK that would extend life for a year but cost over $16,500 were generally not available under the NHS; they were judged not cost effective.

BBC NEWS | Health | Rationing care from limited funds

As it applies to preventive health measures, the CBO considered a procedure cost effective if it produced good health outcomes regardless of cost, and it found 80% of cost effective preventative procedures actually increased overall health care costs.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

 

[Emma]

Oh. Something else I saw while poking around was the difference between cost-effective and cost-saving. I'll see if I can figure out where that was; I do recall getting a bit dizzy trying to decipher what they were saying

ETA: I admit that logic and common sense tells me that routine health care will save money in the long-term, but I realize I need to find studies/research to back that up. I'll do my best to that end.

Cost effective sounds simple enough, but its a tricky idea. Basically, it measures whether you are getting a good value for your money. But what criteria do you use to determine value? About ten years ago cancer treatments in the UK that would extend life for a year but cost over $16,500 were generally not available under the NHS; they were judged not cost effective.

BBC NEWS | Health | Rationing care from limited funds

As it applies to preventive health measures, the CBO considered a procedure cost effective if it produced good health outcomes regardless of cost, and it found 80% of cost effective preventative procedures actually increased overall health care costs.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Thanks. I'll read that in a bit when I have some time to study it.

What I have found so far regarding preventative care seems to take into account universal screening rather than screening of those at risk. If that's the case, of course cost is going to be higher and the relative benefits lower.

I'd like to know if there are any studies regarding cost savings for early detection and routine maintenance care opposed to the cost of treating conditions that are advanced and/or have complications that could have been prevented, delayed or lessened if that care had been available early on.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Oh. Something else I saw while poking around was the difference between cost-effective and cost-saving. I'll see if I can figure out where that was; I do recall getting a bit dizzy trying to decipher what they were saying

ETA: I admit that logic and common sense tells me that routine health care will save money in the long-term, but I realize I need to find studies/research to back that up. I'll do my best to that end.

Cost effective sounds simple enough, but its a tricky idea. Basically, it measures whether you are getting a good value for your money. But what criteria do you use to determine value? About ten years ago cancer treatments in the UK that would extend life for a year but cost over $16,500 were generally not available under the NHS; they were judged not cost effective.

BBC NEWS | Health | Rationing care from limited funds

As it applies to preventive health measures, the CBO considered a procedure cost effective if it produced good health outcomes regardless of cost, and it found 80% of cost effective preventative procedures actually increased overall health care costs.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Thanks. I'll read that in a bit when I have some time to study it.

What I have found so far regarding preventative care seems to take into account universal screening rather than screening of those at risk. If that's the case, of course cost is going to be higher and the relative benefits lower.

I'd like to know if there are any studies regarding cost savings for early detection and routine maintenance care opposed to the cost of treating conditions that are advanced and/or have complications that could have been prevented, delayed or lessened if that care had been available early on.

That's exactly what the CBO document I posted a link to addresses. When you find the time to read the CBO letter, you will see:

Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that
the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the
savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England
Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how
preventive care affects costs.3 After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of
preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the
services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs. Providing a
specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study
conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American
Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of
achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures
aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for
diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and
using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps
would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that
occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the
ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive
services, on average. Of particular note, that study sought to capture both the
costs and benefits of providing preventive care over a 30-year period.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

 

[Emma]

Cost effective sounds simple enough, but its a tricky idea. Basically, it measures whether you are getting a good value for your money. But what criteria do you use to determine value? About ten years ago cancer treatments in the UK that would extend life for a year but cost over $16,500 were generally not available under the NHS; they were judged not cost effective.

BBC NEWS | Health | Rationing care from limited funds

As it applies to preventive health measures, the CBO considered a procedure cost effective if it produced good health outcomes regardless of cost, and it found 80% of cost effective preventative procedures actually increased overall health care costs.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Thanks. I'll read that in a bit when I have some time to study it.

What I have found so far regarding preventative care seems to take into account universal screening rather than screening of those at risk. If that's the case, of course cost is going to be higher and the relative benefits lower.

I'd like to know if there are any studies regarding cost savings for early detection and routine maintenance care opposed to the cost of treating conditions that are advanced and/or have complications that could have been prevented, delayed or lessened if that care had been available early on.

That's exactly what the CBO document I posted a link to addresses. When you find the time to read the CBO letter, you will see:

Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that
the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the
savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England
Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how
preventive care affects costs.3 After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of
preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the
services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs. Providing a
specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study
conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American
Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of
achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures
aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for
diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and
using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps
would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that
occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the
ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive
services, on average. Of particular note, that study sought to capture both the
costs and benefits of providing preventive care over a 30-year period.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Well, no, that's not quite what I was asking.

"widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness"

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned universal screening and I agree that would be costly.

I can't find anything addressing the cost benefits for early detection and maintenance care, though. I will read the link, thanks.

The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive services, on average.

I also wonder what the costs are they claim will increase even as incidence of strokes and heart disease are 'substantially reduced'? It says spending on medical care. Is that just for those conditions specifically? Does it include the cost of treating their complications as well? What about the indirect costs of those conditions and complications, for example lost wages and productivity, disability, etc.