Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Introduction

I started this blog out of a deep sense of disappointment at the quality of public discourse on the Health Care Reform debate currently taking place. Articles in newspapers have described the efforts being made by the White House to convince both the Congress and the citizens, of the need for reform of the health care system in the US. Other articles have focused on the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Whilst, more recently, much has been focused on the internecine battle in various committees between Blue Dog democrats and the rest of the party. Columns have been wasted on describing the political horseplay. TV of course has been a wasteland with some exceptions.

Equally depressing have been the discussions posted in response to online newspaper articles. The responses have tended, on the one extreme, to be from liberals who are desperate to believe that some change is possible and desirable- however meager it may turn out to be. At the other extreme have been the responses of the right-wing diehards, whose common tendency has been to raise the specter and threat of socialism.

What I have found missing has been a discussion where participants honestly state the problem to be solved, their positions and the manner in which the problem may be solved. Stock positions are taken based on ideological proclivities and neither party is the better for the discussion. The media have spectacularly failed to present information that educates their readers and helps them understand the reason for the positions being taken by the players (the President, the Democrats, the Blue Dog Democrats, the Republicans, the Insurance industry and the Medical Service providers.)

In the interest of full disclosure, let me be clear- I believe that the state of health care in our country should be a matter of national shame. We spend more than any other country on health care, yet upwards of 47 million citizens are without health care. A smaller fraction are under insured. It is true that in some cases those that choose not to get health care insurance, have the means and choose not to be insured. What is more problematic is the efficiency of the health care system. We pay more for health care than other countries- by far, and have less to show for it- in terms of generally accepted measures of health and well being.

In this blog I will attempt to provide non-partisan information that readers may use to inform themselves. I hope that readers will feel free to add links to information that will move the debate forward and add to the general body of knowledge.

For starters, I am providing links that I have found useful.
1) OECD Health Data 2009- "How Does the United States Compare"
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Description- A comparison of US healthcare against other developed countries.

2) Healthcare Reform in the United States- Economics Department Working Paper #665
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Description- A discussion of issues in the US Healthcare system along with suggestions for remedies.

3) Accounting for the cost of US health care: A new look at why Americans spend more.
McKinsey Global Institute, December 2008
Description- An excellent analysis of US Healthcare cost drivers
(You will need to register, for free, at the McKinsey site in order to read the paper).

4) The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Description- Excellent source of information for all things to do with the health care system.

5) "McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care", Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, June 1 2009.
Description- Discusses the regional cost disparities on health care costs caused by the pay for service system.

I will add other links as I find them. This is a moderated blog and the purpose is to educate us all. I also acknowledge that there may be differences in opinion, however ideology is no excuse for ignorance. So, I will delete posts that are abusive.

3 comments:

  1. Excellent references. I skimmed 4, downloaded 4, and read most of the remaining one. Is there anyway to structure this blog to enable a graphical dashboard for the 'key' insights from data, so that it's not hidden in verbiage or referencing?

    How can interested parties assist you, and what should be the common intention?

    Key factors not being displayed / discussed well (enough):
    * potential impact of technology on administrative results, process, and costs
    * visualization of the impact of changes (this is where Forrester's System Dynamics and Beer's Viable System Model can be used to 'see' what's happening
    * sifting through all the perspectives (including people who could easily be labelled 'opponents' or 'disruptors'), for insights that apply to solving this systemic problem

    Whatever, I congratulate you on taking a principled, disciplined approach to what is a true 'Gordian knot' of money, emotions, policies that exist, policies that are desired, and those that are feared.

    Bottom line: coverage + competition + cost control = re-energized US in the global game

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zach49,
    Good points. I need to figure out a way to have the key statistics stand out from the rest of the blog.

    One area that has been a struggle is an unbiased understanding of the population that are uninsured or under-insured. While, this necessarily has to be a statistical exercise, determining affordability is more difficult.

    That being said, I liked the way that you formulated the problem in the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad that you found it useful. You might want to take a quick look at The Power of the 2x2 Matrix (http://preview.tinyurl.com/kva7tq) which gives a comprehensive overview, via use cases, of how to get the key factors articulated in any multi-variate discussion.

    Also, if you're on twitter, using that would probably benefit 2-way communication.

    Some thoughts on the under-/un-insured:
    * Assume 50M (doesn't matter for this that it's 'right') is the total of under-/un-
    * uninsured are made up of can't afford and can afford but choose not to insure
    >assume total uninsured is 25M, and that can't afford is 20M and choose not to insure is 5M
    > if health is normally distributed (probably wrong, based on general health of US population), then catastrophic event occurs at one end of curve, and beyond 3-sigma (catastrophe, not just very sick); percent out on that end is about .5 x 1% *sample size = .5*.01*20M = 100K catastrophic patients; covering them fully (assume $100K each patient for 5 years, then transition to long-term stable state); year 1: $10 B; y2: $20B; y3: $30B; y4: $40B; y5: $50B; so first 5 years, we're at $150B; same thing for 'choosers', except they're 1/4 sample size, so they're about $40B for those 5 years; total catastrophic for all un-insured is $200B for 5 years
    * underinsured are made up of not aware of under-insurance, and aware of under-insurance and either can't or choose not to remedy the problem
    >total under-insured is 25M (also: 50M-25M), and not aware is 10M, and aware is 15M
    * uninsured major non-catastrophic: make it one end of curve (again), but now it's at 2 sigma to 3 sigma (don't double count the catastrophic folk); that's about (.06*.5 - .005)*25M(take away the castastrophic from the unhealthy end (about .03*25M) ~= 750K people; guesstimate: annual per patient for this sample: $10K, so total $7.5B; same kind of analysis for the unders

    Let me know where you see this breaks down.

    ReplyDelete