Comments on: Health Care Reform Needs Primary Care

By: zombieville usa

zombieville usa — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 04:17:30 +0000

Thanks i love your article about Health Care Reform Needs Primary Care | A Smarter Planet Blog

By: Maguire

Maguire — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:50:56 +0000

But we also need to focus on the overall cost of health care on the part of the medical industry itself. Preventative care is very important at this point, considering how out of control most Americans’ health has become, but medical costs need some control as well. Insurance premiums have increased about 125% in just 10 years, and it isn’t solely due to corporate greed. Medical costs for procedures and treatments have continued to climb in the past decade alone and there are many in the health care industry who are aware of it.
I found an article on the health care debate written by 23 medical professionals and doctors who stand on both sides of the health care debate, but many of their viewpoints tend to correspond. http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid107
The current model is based on treatment, but there needs to be focus on prevention. This is one factor, along with information and communication technologies, as well as procedural pricing.

By: Earl

Earl — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:53:01 +0000

Bruce, I need some help too. 450,000 reasons. I am not sure how old his data, but most reports that I see have IBM with 398,000 employees. 71% of those live outside the US. I am not following how we spent $1.3B on healthcare when many of the countries that have high populations of IBM employees like in Europe have national healthcare systems. Tort reform to keep the multi-million dollar lawsuits and allowing insurance companies to sell cross state lines will lower cost. I recently moved, and the State where I live now only has one option as the insurance company.

By: Deanna

Deanna — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:12:39 +0000

Another area that I believe needs to be addressed is unnecessary tests and procedures driven by doctors’ fear of litigation. If a doctor has any hint at all that something might be wrong, and they don’t do something about it, they risk being sued. I think they also feel they are acting in the best interests of the patient by following up on absolutely everything, even if it’s only a million-to-one chance that there’s truly a problem. But I’ve gotten to the point where I am afraid to mention any minor symptom or discomfort to a doctor for fear of being sent for a barrage of tests. And going through pregnancy and childbirth in this environment is quite an experience – I felt I was constantly fighting with medical professionals to prevent them from intervening in a perfectly normal, healthy pregnancy.

Of course there must be some recourse in the case of true malpractice, so I am not advocating eliminating all litigation, but I think the medical community, and the courts, need to recognize that while death and disability are certainly negative outcomes, excessive interventions and unnecessary treatments and tests are also negative outcomes and we must find the balance between the two.

To give an example, if we decided c-sections should be performed on every pregnant woman as the standard method of birth, perhaps it might reduce the infant mortality rate by .01% (I’m making up a number for the sake of example, but I think it’s plausible that eliminating natural births would eliminate a very small number of unforeseen deaths and serious injuries that occur during the process of birth and would very, very slightly decrease the mortality rate.) Would it be worth it to perform major surgery on hundreds of thousands of people every year, either in terms of the outcome for the patients or monetarily?

I believe this issue is driving many of the increases in health care costs we’ve seen in recent years. People are simply getting more tests, more procedures, and more interventions, but are we any healthier for it?

By: John

John — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:08:19 +0000

Bruce, you ask a good question. But I’m sure there are many variables as IBM has a cafeteria plan approach and choices vary from area to area. In my case we have Kaiser Permanente mentioned in Dr. Grundy’s remarks, and for a family of 4, (Self + Spouse + 2 Children our cost is $229 / month ($2748/Year) for Medical Only (does not include dental, vision or HCSA). We are very happy with our Kaiser coverage and the comprehensive care we receive with reasonable co-pays of $20 per doctor visit, $10 prescriptions, $250 hospitalization, $0 for labs. It is my great hope that these healthcare reform efforts move the country in similar directions as Kaiser rather than putting at risk our continued access to this level of care, at what I believe is a reasonable cost given the overall care we receive. As you ask, it would be very interesting to know the actual cost and IBM’s actual share vs. mine.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:20:29 +0000

Can someone help me with the math? IBM spent $1.3B on 450K people, or approx. 3K / person. My contribution to the plan is approx. $1800/year so I’m covering a little over 50% of the avg. cost/ person. I’ve been under the impression that IBMers cover approx. 20% and the company covers 80%. If all 450k of us each put in $1800 that would be $810M of the $1.3B.

By: Adam Christensen

Adam Christensen — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:08:07 +0000

Susan/Dennis. you both bring up good points.

Dennis, systems most certainly need to center around – and reward – wellness (i.e., “Stop eating crap, get off the couch, go for a walk). Does current legislation being debated have enough wellness / disease prevention built into it?

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:12:37 +0000

1) People have to take responsibility for their own lives!! Stop eating crap, get off the couch and go for a walk.
2) Health Insurance and Medical Litigation Reform.
3) Too many elective procedures are mandated by the gov’t to be covered by the insurance companies.

Health CARE is great.

By: Susan P. Sidway

Susan P. Sidway — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:49:14 +0000

To reduce costs, we need to reduce unnecessary tests. To do that we must address defensive medicine.

By: Chris Caron

Chris Caron — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:50:14 +0000

Does Prevention Reduce Costs?

“One of the common memes in the health debate is the claim that increased spending on preventative medical care (e.g., cancer screening) can reduce overall health spending.

That idea is very attractive, since it seems to offer a free lunch: greater health at lower cost. It has just one small problem, though: it isn’t true.”

http://dmarron.com/2009/08/10/does-prevention-reduce-costs/