Health Populi discusses “The Global Epidemic of Rising Health Costs.”
The benefits consulting group [Watson Wyatt] found that health cost increases are growing faster than rates of inflation in 80% of countries surveyed. Thus, hyperinflation of health costs isn’t just an American malaise, but a problem for most economically developed countries. Watson Wyatt discovered that the factors that drive health spending up in the U.S. are the same things that increase spending elsewhere: medical technology, increased utilization of health services, and the aging of the population. Aging’s significant impact on health and pensions is particularly acute in Japan and western Europe, regions that are ahead of the U.S. on the demographic age wave.
Most of Africa and Asia, and much of Latin America (except for Brazil and Chile, which have their own health system and economic challenges) expect double-digit health cost increases this year. When you’re feeling sick about double-digit health cost increases in the U.S. hitting 10-12%, ponder this: medical inflation in Venezuela this year will hit 25%, and in China, nearly 20%. On the hand, it’s nice to live in Switzerland and France, where health inflation is expected to be 6% and 7%, respectively.
You can run but you can’t hide (behind “Health Populi Global Costs blah blah blah – how much is the US ALREADY SPENDING?????)
or put another way
If you’re not part of the solution than you’re part of the problem
MA HCFA is part of the problem until they change theyre ways of taking insurance company money to prop up halfbaked so called reforms
dont take my word for it read this
http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=362#comments
MORE FISCAL TROUBLE LIES AHEAD
by David Himmelstein, MD
Posted by CommonHealth, Thursday, February 7, 2008
Last week the news leaked out from the Patrick administration that public spending for the health reform plan in the coming fiscal year will be about $400 million over the original projections. This follows a $146 million cost overrun in the current year.
Why are such miscalculations the norm? Are the costs of health reform unknowable? Or did politicians (and the media) listen only to the “experts” who told them what they wanted to hear?
As I wrote here several months ago, the Census Bureau has been saying for years that there were far more uninsured in Massachusetts than state leaders cared to admit. But politicians and the economists who advised them stuck to their guns. It turns out the Census Bureau was right. The result is that many more people are eligible for the subsidized coverage than the legislature or governor planned for. And, by the way, the demand for free care from safety-net hospitals and clinics is not dropping as fast as projected, again a result of undercounting the uninsured and ignoring the large number of immigrants who are mostly ineligible for insurance under the reform.
Of course, the economic advisors also underestimated the impact of rising medical costs, taken in by claims that that the “Quality and Cost Control Council” would rein in costs, and that the computerized health records and improved prevention touted in the bill would save money. I laughed those off last May in this space.
(By the way, the same health economist who advised the legislature as it was drawing up the original budget, recently told a real whopper in the letters section of the Boston Globe – claiming that a single payer reform “would cost many multiples of the current Massachusetts reform effort.” He chose to ignore the reams of evidence that single payer would save vast sums on bureaucracy and profits. Indeed, the CBO, the GAO, and even the Lewin Group, a consulting firm which is owned by a health insurer, have all projected that single payer would cover everyone without any increase in total costs).
Unfortunately, any reasonable forecast sees more fiscal trouble ahead for Massachusetts’ health reform. The $400 million overrun estimated for the coming year doesn’t account for the recession that looks to be headed our way. If we’re lucky, it’ll be no worse than the fairly mild downturn in 2001-2003. Back then, the number of working age people who didn’t have jobs climbed by 167,000, and the number of uninsured rose by 168,000 – presumably including many of those who lost jobs, as well as some of their dependents. So a modest downturn is likely to swell the ranks of the low-income uninsured by about 165,000 – adding perhaps $400 to $600 million to the bill for public subsidies.
So as we plan for the next year or two, let’s factor in the real costs that lie ahead, not the fantasy projections politicians would like to believe. If those realistic cost estimates look unsustainable, then lets get ready to talk about a reform that we can afford – like a single payer program.
David Himmelstein is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program
This entry is filed under David Himmelstein MD. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments
* Norma posted:
Comment posted February 7th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Thank You Doctor Himmelstein your honesty on this blog is refreshing.Some powers that be think because we don’t have insurance we also must be stupid.Beleive me most the citizens writing on this blog know more about this law than the lawmakers.I watched Michael Moore on Larry King and I agree with his ideas also.”Getting rid of insurance companies entirely.” The state also needs to do away with Commonwealth Connector Authority and Health Care for All that are bureaucracies that are wasting taxpayers money. All people would benefit not just the uninsured.