Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 08 2018, @06:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-think-healthcare-is-expensive,-try-going-without-it dept.

A new analysis by researchers from Brown University and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation has found that nonfatal injuries in the U.S. in the year 2013 cost more than $1.8 trillion.

And nearly all injures are preventable, said Dr. Mark Zonfrillo, an associate professor at Brown University's Warren Alpert Medical School and a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Hasbro Children's Hospital.

The study, led by Zonfrillo, found that in 2013 about one in 10 individuals in the U.S. was treated for an injury at a hospital, resulting in an annual cost of $1.853 trillion. The findings were published on Monday, Oct. 8, in the journal Injury Epidemiology.

Annual price tag for non-fatal injuries in the US tops $1.8 trillion

[Also Covered By]: EurekAlert


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:02PM (12 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:02PM (#746535) Journal

    So no causal link that you know of? But even based on your data and assuming you are correct even without being able to show a causal link, I'll bet a 50% savings would still make a lot of people very happy. Note in the graph in your link how far out of line the U.S. is with the rest of the world (on the expensive side). That includes other countries with a higher GDP/capita.

    The crazy billing back and forth, multiple different billing procedures, multiple billings for a single event, and dizzying statements from multiple entities are all a drag on our economy.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:22AM (11 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:22AM (#746852) Journal

    So no causal link that you know of?

    I can't prove a negative, but I can note that no one is doing this at the country level, thus, diving in on such a scale is probably a very stupid idea.

    I'll bet a 50% savings would still make a lot of people very happy.

    So is that working that way with Medicaid and VHA? Not last I checked. The cost doesn't come from market versus single payer. It comes from people separating the cost of health care from decisions on how to consume it. Whether you have a "death panel" or the patient themselves paying for health care and making decisions about it, that's a big step to reducing costs.

    The crazy billing back and forth, multiple different billing procedures, multiple billings for a single event, and dizzying statements from multiple entities are all a drag on our economy.

    None of that is required by a health care system, even a market-driven one.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:10PM (10 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:10PM (#746976) Journal

      Nobody asked you to prove a negative. Just admit it, you don't know of any causal link, it's just your feelz.

      The vast majority of the 1st world (and much of the rest of the world) does some version of a single payer system. It's hardly unprecedented.

      Medicare and VHA are not single payer universal systems. Medicare has too many holes in it (due to monkey wrenching) and the voting block of people in VHA isn't large enough to force improvements. Both only cover parts of the population.

      Your assertion that the problem is "It comes from people separating the cost of health care from decisions on how to consume it." is falsified by the many single payer solutions that exist in the world that provide results superior to healthcare in the U.S.

      None of that is required by a health care system, even a market-driven one.

      It is, nevertheless a situation that has naturally evolved from the market driven U.S. system, I don't see any proposals on the table to make it go away other than single payer universal healthcare and it shows no signs of going away on it's own. If you have some ingenious proposal for it that doesn't involve just letting people die, now is the time to propose it. Otherwise it looks like single payer universal healthcare is the winner.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:56AM (9 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:56AM (#747379) Journal

        Just admit it, you don't know of any causal link, it's just your feelz.

        Again no. Since you keep demanding a "causal link", I'll provide one. There is a causal link between GDP and cost. Things cost more when there's more wealth in the society, which GDP is a crude proxy for. Thus, one would expect a floor to just how cheap one can make health care, due to the cost of wages, real estate, equipment, etc.

        Further, there is some correlation between the wealth of the patients (and of society in the case of single payer systems) and how much they are willing to spend on health care. The more money is available, the more health care that tends to get consumed. That provides a second causal link.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:31PM (8 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:31PM (#747486) Journal

          Care to explain countries with higher GDP/capita where healthcare costs half what it does in the U.S.? Look at the graph in the link YOU posted. See how far the U.S. is above the line plotting GDP and healthcare costs?

          I don't see your proposal for how to bring that figure in line with the rest of the world by some means other that single payer universal healthcare.

          You'll also need to consider what willingness means in the context of go to the ER or die. Also consider that using healthcare services in those countries where healthcare expenditure per capita is half what it is in the U.S. carries no additional cost to the patient at point of use. That is, they don't pay any more or less if they decide to go to the hospital vs. treat themselves at home.

          The explanation is fairly simple: single payer universal healthcare is more economically efficient than the U.S. system. The lack of it is why the U.S. is so far out of line with the rest of the world.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @07:43PM (7 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 12 2018, @07:43PM (#748016) Journal

            Care to explain countries with higher GDP/capita where healthcare costs half what it does in the U.S.?

            You were speaking of reducing it by a factor of four. Sure, I buy that we can reduce such things by a factor of two. But as in the two examples I gave of US single payer systems, don't expect single payer to fix what's broken. You'll need more than that.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 12 2018, @09:00PM (6 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Friday October 12 2018, @09:00PM (#748036) Journal

              More than the fact that single payer works everywhere else in the 1st world?

              More than the obvious efficiency of eliminating the huge administrative overhead of crazy cross billing?

              More than the obvious simplification for every citizen of not having to wonder how many different entities are planning to bill them for a single visit to the ER? And having to go through the process of submitting (and re-submitting) to insurance for each?

              If you just enjoy throwing away money, I'll tell you what, we can go to single payer universal healthcare and you can write me a check for whatever amount you feel you underpaid. I'll even let you decide what interval you'd like to send the checks.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @09:06PM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 12 2018, @09:06PM (#748041) Journal

                More than the fact that single payer works everywhere else in the 1st world?

                Let's not get hasty. We don't actually know that they work. A key problem is that everyone's health care consumption is going up as a fraction of GDP. I think the US is merely in first place in exploring how bad one can make this problem. But the others will arrive in time.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 12 2018, @09:40PM (4 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Friday October 12 2018, @09:40PM (#748057) Journal

                  We do know they all pay less than the U.S. and I have already given several plausible reasons. We also know that most people would appreciate the financial certainty that comes from universal single payer. The rest of the world is flabbergasted that Americans actually go bankrupt from medical bills

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 13 2018, @06:27AM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 13 2018, @06:27AM (#748193) Journal

                    We also know that most people would appreciate the financial certainty that comes from universal single payer.

                    Would those people also appreciate the financial uncertainty that comes from a government that can't pay for basic services because it's paying for health care instead?

                    My rebuttal here is that single payer fails too, just slower than the US system. Single payer isolates the purchaser of health care from the costs of their purchase. I think that'll be what destroys any single payer system in the long term. There's no end to the wants of patients using the system, but there is a limit to society's ability to pay for those wants. And spending on health care as a fraction of GDP has been going up over the past few decades as one would expect in this situation for the developed world.

                    The rest of the world is flabbergasted that Americans actually go bankrupt from medical bills

                    The problem is that one can bankrupt countries like one can bankrupt people.

                    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @02:14PM (2 children)

                      by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 13 2018, @02:14PM (#748300) Journal

                      Expenditure/GDP is going up faster in the U.S. than it is where socialized healthcare is implemented. That trend was firmly in place before AHA as well, so don't bother blaming Obama.

                      You seem to be assuming that healthcare demand is fully elastic. It is not. The situation of go to the ER or die comes up too often to call healthcare demand elastic.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 13 2018, @06:22PM (1 child)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 13 2018, @06:22PM (#748361) Journal

                        Expenditure/GDP is going up faster in the U.S. than it is where socialized healthcare is implemented.

                        Yes, but that just means the US is failing faster than elsewhere.

                        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:28PM

                          by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:28PM (#748376) Journal

                          So, you prefer to fail bigger and faster?