The Main Reason for the Increases in Health Care Costs

[Christopher]

Notice I included the whole internet ... for a good reason. Wicrapedia is just a hub ... sources are still opinion based anyway ... so you will only trust sources that agree with your opinion no matter how "reliable" they are.

Here is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources:

Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

I always check the sources from Wiki, and look at other reliable sources which base their information on facts to confirm the information.

Gut ... splitting ... open!



Using the source as proof of the source's reliability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh damn! This shit is too funny ... I need some serious valium ... can't ... stop ... laughing!

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it ... especially online. That's like Fox saying they're "honest" or CBS saying they're "fair and balanced" ... seriously, it's not smart by any measure or spin. But ... at least now I know what level of intellectual absence I am dealing with ... complete and total.

All I was showing is what Wikipedia’s policy says, not that it is followed all the time. In other words, I’m not using the website to prove it always has reliable sources. Perhaps you missed the multiple times where I said that there can be crap on Wikipedia. Or maybe you missed the multiple times where I discussed that we should check the sources Wikipedia provides. Do you really not understand my position on it yet?

Perhaps you could also now go back to the quote I provided on Wikipedia (remember, the quote which started us on the discussion), check the source Wikipedia uses and try to say that source is “crap”.

 

[Christopher]

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.

That is a bullshit report. The author knows or should have known what caused the costs of healthcare to go up dramatically:


MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

.

You should have read the next sentence after the one you bolded. There is a general consensus of the main cause of increasing healthcare costs:

Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.

 

[Old Rocks]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

The Japanese use more of the most modern technology that we do, yet only pay half as much per capita, and all of their people are covered.

 

[Christopher]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

The Japanese use more of the most modern technology that we do, yet only pay half as much per capita, and all of their people are covered.

Do you have a link showing they use more of the most modern technology? Regardless of whether they do or not (and I would not be surprised if they do), this was already brought up. The point is we spend more on development of technology and that our spending on development of medicial technology (including development of new drugs) is the principle cause of our increases in health care costs.

We should implement technology more efficiently, perhaps like the Japanese do. You do realize what it takes to get approval of new drugs through the FDA, right? At least part of the problem is in our inefficent regulation process.

 

[Care4all]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending



This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

The Japanese use more of the most modern technology that we do, yet only pay half as much per capita, and all of their people are covered.

Do you have a link showing they use more of the most modern technology? Regardless of whether they do or not (and I would not be surprised if they do), this was already brought up. The point is we spend more on development of technology and that our spending on development of medicial technology (including development of new drugs) is the principle cause of our increases in health care costs.

We should implement technology more efficiently, perhaps like the Japanese do. You do realize what it takes to get approval of new drugs through the FDA, right? At least part of the problem is in our inefficent regulation process.

But how would you solve the FDA regulation, "problem" as you say?

We certainly do NOT want even MORE drugs released on to us that harm us or cause death, than we already do have with the FDA supposed checks....?

I certainly DO NOT IN ANY WAY trust peer review on this or the judicial system because that relies on class action law suits which take a long long long time and many will die or get sicker in the mean time.

Is there some sort of 'inbetween' that can happen that can still give us new drugs without killing a bunch of collateral damage in the mean time?

Pharma has introduced many drugs, too early as it is....only to have to pull them back.

And as far as medical equipment, it costs way too much, for what the material and intellectual costs and R&D costs are to make them....the same thing with another label on it, would be a quarter of the price from any other industry.

 

[saveliberty]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

Chris got his butt kicked about this report on the other thread. Now he is trying to pedal it here. Technology is used in defensive medicine and to diagnose frequently. This adds costs to the practice medicine. Malpractice insurance costs our little local hospital $1.5m each year. That is with a $1m. deductable. That doesn't include the individual doctor's coverages. The writeoffs for unpaid care are $8m. Basically, doctors could cover the cost of unpaid care with their insurance premiums. Health care coverage solved.

 

[PeterS]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

Last winter when I had surgery for skin cancer there was a $175 charge for "surgical supplies." Since I had already been charged for a "surgical tray" I had to question whether I was being charged for the tray to hold the surgical supplies? This prompted a laugh and I was told, "no", the surgical supplies was the roll of tape, gauze, and small tube of ointment I was sent home with. Ok, I get it, $175 for $10 worth of supplies I could get in any drug store.

While I have every respect for the CBO they tend to be very myopic in their analysis. Let us not forget that just a few short years ago this is the same group that projected trillion dollar surpluses as far as the eye can see. Reality and CBO analysis are seldom one and the same.

Technology plays a part but since the cost of healthcare is uniformly high with no signs of depreciation for aging technology you can't look at technology as being the driver. Heath care is an item of infinite demand. A doctor can charge $175 for a band aide because 1) we trust them and 2) we will pay it via health insurance. The real question is who negotiated the $175 price between the doctor and health insurance company. Certainly not the consumer and therein lies the reason for high health care costs...

 

[Care4all]

i agree with you Peter on most, except the CBO analysis of surpluses of $5.6 trillion WAS ACCURATE, but president Bush gave 2 rounds of tax cuts, that brought in less revenues fo 4 years, until 2005, before our tax revenues met the level we were collecting before the tax cuts, in 2000...and of course, all of the overspending also....

 

[Care4all]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

Last winter when I had surgery for skin cancer there was a $175 charge for "surgical supplies." Since I had already been charged for a "surgical tray" I had to question whether I was being charged for the tray to hold the surgical supplies? This prompted a laugh and I was told, "no", the surgical supplies was the roll of tape, gauze, and small tube of ointment I was sent home with. Ok, I get it, $175 for $10 worth of supplies I could get in any drug store.

While I have every respect for the CBO they tend to be very myopic in their analysis. Let us not forget that just a few short years ago this is the same group that projected trillion dollar surpluses as far as the eye can see. Reality and CBO analysis are seldom one and the same.

Technology plays a part but since the cost of healthcare is uniformly high with no signs of depreciation for aging technology you can't look at technology as being the driver. Heath care is an item of infinite demand. A doctor can charge $175 for a band aide because 1) we trust them and 2) we will pay it via health insurance. The real question is who negotiated the $175 price between the doctor and health insurance company. Certainly not the consumer and therein lies the reason for high health care costs...

are the insurance companies in cahoots with the Hospitals? You would think that the insurance companies would negotiate for the best price?

 

[Chris]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

Chris got his butt kicked about this report on the other thread. Now he is trying to pedal it here. Technology is used in defensive medicine and to diagnose frequently. This adds costs to the practice medicine. Malpractice insurance costs our little local hospital $1.5m each year. That is with a $1m. deductable. That doesn't include the individual doctor's coverages. The writeoffs for unpaid care are $8m. Basically, doctors could cover the cost of unpaid care with their insurance premiums. Health care coverage solved.

Universal coverage would reduce the number and costs of lawsuits as well.

Healthcare coverage solved.

 

[Christopher]

The Japanese use more of the most modern technology that we do, yet only pay half as much per capita, and all of their people are covered.

Do you have a link showing they use more of the most modern technology? Regardless of whether they do or not (and I would not be surprised if they do), this was already brought up. The point is we spend more on development of technology and that our spending on development of medicial technology (including development of new drugs) is the principle cause of our increases in health care costs.

We should implement technology more efficiently, perhaps like the Japanese do. You do realize what it takes to get approval of new drugs through the FDA, right? At least part of the problem is in our inefficent regulation process.

But how would you solve the FDA regulation, "problem" as you say?

We certainly do NOT want even MORE drugs released on to us that harm us or cause death, than we already do have with the FDA supposed checks....?

I certainly DO NOT IN ANY WAY trust peer review on this or the judicial system because that relies on class action law suits which take a long long long time and many will die or get sicker in the mean time.

Is there some sort of 'inbetween' that can happen that can still give us new drugs without killing a bunch of collateral damage in the mean time?

Pharma has introduced many drugs, too early as it is....only to have to pull them back.

And as far as medical equipment, it costs way too much, for what the material and intellectual costs and R&D costs are to make them....the same thing with another label on it, would be a quarter of the price from any other industry.

I think some sort of “in between” should happen to help resolve this. I think the solution would involve restructuring the process the FDA is using and other regulating agencies. First we should stop pointing towards more government control as the answer and realize the government is a great part of the problem. Here is some of what the CBO analysis concluded about how to reduce cost:

According to available estimates, the main factors underlying long-term spending growth are technology-related changes in clinical practice, a growing share of funding from third-party payers (and thus a declining out-of-pocket share of medical spending), rising income, and rising prices in the health care sector. Among these factors, technological change and cost sharing are perhaps the most amenable to changes in policy. Since technological change is the biggest contributor, an effective long-term strategy for controlling health care spending will probably have to address the health care system’s way of incorporating new technologies into practice.

Future increases in spending could be moderated if costly new medical services were adopted more selectively in the future than they have been in the past and if diffusion of existing costly services was slowed. Although this approach would mean that fewer medical services were available, evidence suggests that savings are possible without a substantial loss of clinical value.

More information on the comparative effectiveness of alternative medical treatments could offer a basis for ensuring that future technologies and existing costly services are used only in cases in which they confer clinical benefits that are superior to those of other, cheaper services.24

…The Medicare program has not taken costs into account in determining what services are covered and has made only limited use of data on comparative effectiveness in its payment policies; but if statutory changes permitted it, Medicare could use information about comparative effectiveness to promote higher-value care.

We need to do something to change the process of technology adoption and implementation; make it more effective and more efficient.

 

[Christopher]

I posted this in as a response in another thread and thought it would be useful information for those who do not understand why our health care costs are rising. Since, if we do not address the root causes of the increases we do not have a shot at health care reform that really works long term. This is from the CBO, Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5

This is a very good report and discusses some of the other issues with health care costs.

Last winter when I had surgery for skin cancer there was a $175 charge for "surgical supplies." Since I had already been charged for a "surgical tray" I had to question whether I was being charged for the tray to hold the surgical supplies? This prompted a laugh and I was told, "no", the surgical supplies was the roll of tape, gauze, and small tube of ointment I was sent home with. Ok, I get it, $175 for $10 worth of supplies I could get in any drug store.

While I have every respect for the CBO they tend to be very myopic in their analysis. Let us not forget that just a few short years ago this is the same group that projected trillion dollar surpluses as far as the eye can see. Reality and CBO analysis are seldom one and the same.

Technology plays a part but since the cost of healthcare is uniformly high with no signs of depreciation for aging technology you can't look at technology as being the driver. Heath care is an item of infinite demand. A doctor can charge $175 for a band aide because 1) we trust them and 2) we will pay it via health insurance. The real question is who negotiated the $175 price between the doctor and health insurance company. Certainly not the consumer and therein lies the reason for high health care costs...

Just to add to what Care4All said, which I agree with, the CBO stated that it was a general consensus that technology is the main factor in health care increases. So, it would seem to be not just the CBO saying this.

 

[MajikMyst]

sounds like bunkem.

Regardless of what it "sounds like", it is based upon fact. If you can find another credible source that shows it is crap, please provide it.

According to a study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine, increasing numbers of people are going bankrupt because of illness and medical costs. Health-related debts caused 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007, up from 46 percent six years earlier.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the study's senior author, expects about the same percentage of this year's anticipated 1.4 million to 1.5 million bankruptcies to be caused at least in part by medical expenses.

The increases are caused largely by "health coverage that is getting skimpier and skimpier," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Health care bills would limit out-of-pocket costs | McClatchy

Hmmm.. Now it looks like bunkem!! lol

Out of pocket expenses have dropped?? ROFL! I hope you enjoyed that shulacking!

 

[editec]

We have an inefficient payments system. 25% of HC dollars goig to insurance companies are profits and advertising.

HC is getting more expensive because of newer techology without doubt.

Our population is getting older, hence we are consuming more HC per capita.

The HC establishment is making more money, now, in comparison to the rest of us, than it once did.

The above are ALL reasons why HC is getting more expensive in comparison to what we are making, folks.

Some of these factors causing HC prices to rise we can do something about.

Others of them?

Proably not. (not ulness we want to start killing off the old, at least)

 

[Annie]

The best way to contain costs is a 'pay as you go' for most health care services. Physicals, stitches, innoculations, eye glasses, dental. Any visit under say $500. Most people, smart ones anyways, don't buy insurance for car repairs or on their appliances.

Doctors would need to set up payment arrangements. There should be care available for those without the means, but then there was back when this was the general system.

The majority of people have insurance, most of those 'good insurance.' It's the insurance companies that set the 'price.' People pay their $10 or $20 co-payment and don't think about costs, unless claim is denied or the physician charged 'over.' People are not even asking the cost, they are THAT removed from the services.

Save 'insurance' for hospitalization and 'big items' such as chemo/radiation.

 

[saveliberty]

We have an inefficient payments system. 25% of HC dollars goig to insurance companies are profits and advertising.
HC is getting more expensive because of newer techology without doubt.

Our population is getting older, hence we are consuming more HC per capita.

The HC establishment is making more money, now, in comparison to the rest of us, than it once did.

The above are ALL reasons why HC is getting more expensive in comparison to what we are making, folks.

Some of these factors causing HC prices to rise we can do something about.

Others of them?

Proably not. (not ulness we want to start killing off the old, at least)

Source please.

 

[Christopher]

Regardless of what it "sounds like", it is based upon fact. If you can find another credible source that shows it is crap, please provide it.

According to a study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine, increasing numbers of people are going bankrupt because of illness and medical costs. Health-related debts caused 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007, up from 46 percent six years earlier.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the study's senior author, expects about the same percentage of this year's anticipated 1.4 million to 1.5 million bankruptcies to be caused at least in part by medical expenses.

The increases are caused largely by "health coverage that is getting skimpier and skimpier," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Health care bills would limit out-of-pocket costs | McClatchy

Hmmm.. Now it looks like bunkem!! lol

Out of pocket expenses have dropped?? ROFL! I hope you enjoyed that shulacking!

I will ask you the same question I asked Chris when he posted this (see post #18):

How does this prove that the CBO is wrong in their analysis of health care costs and out of pocket expenses? Chris never answered the question. Maybe you can.