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
(Score: 2, Troll) by bob_super on Monday October 08 2018, @06:06PM (14 children)
We could save a lot of money by just finishing off most people with major injuries.
That's both the most humane and most cost-effective thing to do.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 08 2018, @06:30PM (3 children)
Define humane, because I'm not sure your version syncs with mine.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 08 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)
They ain't suffering no more.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 08 2018, @06:46PM (1 child)
So why are you still alive?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:13PM
masochists, the lot of ye
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @06:58PM
Agreed, but only if /you/ go first... (of course the usual legalese applies: we reserve the right to re-evaluate after our pilot program, you have no right to sue, you basically will do as you're told)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:03PM (7 children)
To put it one way, if you like Monty Python:
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the socialism!
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the socialism! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
If you prefer William Shakespeare:
What's in a name? That which we call a death panel
By any other word would smell as vile
This is how it goes, always, when somebody else is paying. There will be euphemisms for euthanasia and eugenics. Some treatments will be deemed to be not cost-effective. Sometimes this only applies to undesirables, like old people or the mentally retarded. This is what many modern socialized systems do, and it is literally how Hitler (a nationalist socialist) started his killing spree. Another tactic is to make underfunded promises, letting people die on a waiting list, of course with some people jumping the queue because some animals are more equal than others.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 08 2018, @07:09PM (4 children)
So you prefer privatized death panels where accountants with no medical training make those decisions behind a wall of corporate bureaucracy that makes sure the people who die and their loved ones never get to see the death panelists face to face?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @09:10PM (3 children)
With private death panels, I can shop around for one that meets my personal choice to trade cost against chance of death. Even when they say "no", I might still find some way to raise the funds.
With government death panels, there is no escape unless you leave the country. The UK is notorious for blocking escape, with a pair of babies having made headlines in the past couple years. The government won't allow treatment, and the government won't let you go elsewhere for treatment. I guess it would be embarrassing if the treatment worked after the parents are told that their baby is to die.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @02:02AM (2 children)
Citation needed. "Pair of Babies" is not useful even as a Google term.
But at this point, if you're trying to raise funds for something insurance won't cover, odds are you'll need to leave the country anyway to be able to afford it.
Note: if you're talking about Alfie Evans, no doctor anywhere in the world suggested anything but palliative care. The very best possible outcome based on any known treatment would have been a prolonged vegetative state. I don't blame the parents due to their understandably desperate emotional state, but this miracle result you seem to think was just across the border is part of fantasyland. It's sad, but that's the fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @05:26AM (1 child)
This is about Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard. That "miracle result" is a straw man. Nobody was expecting a miracle. People are expecting freedom, parental rights, autonomy, the right to die peacefully at home, the right to go elsewhere for a second opinion, and the right to go to a hospital that is willing to put in more effort.
So what if no doctor anywhere in the world suggested anything but palliative care? Why can't the baby get care elsewhere, as had been offered? What justifies the legalized kidnapping and imprisonment of a sick baby?
Charlie Gard had been offered free care in the USA. The NHS determined that he absolutely must die in an NHS hospital.
Alfie Evans was even given Italian citizenship in a failed attempt to get her out. As with Charlie, the NHS fought to have her die in an NHS hospital.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:07AM
For the same reason it would be illegal to sell miracle radium water to someone with a terminal disease.
The straw man belongs to you:
More like it would be utterly earth shatteringly amazing if a baby with practically no remaining brain beyond the brain stem did anything but vegitate and then die.
As for the Charlie Evans case, the treatment was not free, the parents had to raise the funds. NHS, the hospital, and finally the courts acted to protect the parents and potential donors from predatory vultures who had anything but the child's best interests in mind.
But before you decide that this is because of socialism, note that there have been cases in the U.S. where a hospital has attempted to wrestle custody away from parents or even attempted to hold a legal adult that wanted to go elsewhere (and was competent to make that decision) where other doctors in good standing disagreed with the diagnosis or even the need for further treatment. In the cases I am aware of, the patients recovered after ultimately getting the other treatment.
In one case at the Mayo clinic [cnn.com] the parents of an 18 year old actually snuck her out to the curb and ended up leaving with her with tires screeching as nurses and orderlies attempted to pull her from the car. After a multi-day debacle where the family was wanted for "kidnapping" the daughter was taken to a hospital in another state where she was pronounced well enough complete her recovery at home. Ultimately, police decided the kidnapping report was without merit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:29AM (1 child)
Victors Care brings class-based medical care to University of Michigan hospital [wsws.org]:
After all, it is only fair that those who can pay more, if they like their doctor, can keep their doctor. /s
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:26AM
$200/month for cable TV. $100 month for smartphone service. That's $3600/year.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 08 2018, @09:02PM
Or... (shudders)... you could save a lot of money by reducing the price of heath care. [cnbc.com] in line with the rest of the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zinho on Monday October 08 2018, @06:59PM (3 children)
So far, so good, even if it is an incomplete and somewhat distorted version of the heirarchy of hazard controls. [wikipedia.org]
This is why we can't have nice things: people who really won't choose to protect themselves or the people around them unless threatened with state-sanctioned violence. I was going to comment on how putting everyone in a padded room would keep everyone safe, too, but that doesn't seem to be where this article is taking us. They'd rather build invisible walls around us, and imprison us in a cage created by our own fear. At least they're not saying that we should stop participating in sports (extreme or otherwise) as leisure activities; hopefully they already knew that would get no traction.
Last gripe:
I guess you can put a dollar value on losing a limb, and that's 80% of the cost they're accounting for. Is this quality-of-life dollar value an industry-standard actuarial value calculation, or did the researchers make up those numbers themselves? If the latter, I can't blame them for making the number bigger to get more attention, but I have trouble taking it seriously.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:40PM
At my old job, they made us wear goggles while programming because (the very old director) had been around since any room with a computer was called a computer lab and you had to wear goggles whenever you were in a lab.
This was a typical PC office environment and the only chemicals were in the lunchroom and the copier machine.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday October 08 2018, @08:48PM
Tulloch [wikipedia.org] spikes [gizmodo.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by splodus on Monday October 08 2018, @09:47PM
I'm old enough to remember when seat belts were made compulsory in the UK.
Most people did not wear seatbelts at the time, even when they had them in their cars. When the new law was being discussed, there was a lot of opposition to it - lots of people objected to it on principle, a few claimed that seatbelts could actually be dangerous...
The law passed, and seatbelts have saved lives ever since. I don't know why people would not wear their seatbelts until they were threatened with a punishment if they did not?
I guess we weigh the perceived risk against the immediate inconvenience? I wouldn't climb on a roof without a safety harness, cos I don't do that often and it's bloody scary every time I do! But I drive every day without incident; it's easy to disregard what would happen if I crashed the car...
We do need laws to protect us from ourselves - or more to the point, to protect us from the faults in our brains that give us an inadequate grasp of risk and consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @07:11PM
Maybe there should be smart phone zombie surcharge. On the other hand, perhaps there should be a natural selection discount.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 08 2018, @07:19PM (9 children)
The paper has a lot of facts and figures in it. What I didn't find, is the cost of a profit motivated insurance industry. The concept of a single payer system really isn't all that bad. The concept of a government agency running the health "industry" doesn't sound all that bad, either. The implementation seems to suck ass, here in the states, but the idea seems sound.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday October 08 2018, @07:42PM (4 children)
My dog got three stitches (staples) in her leg and it cost me $700.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @09:20PM
My cat died and it cost me $900.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 08 2018, @09:24PM (2 children)
You need to find a new vet.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday October 08 2018, @10:13PM (1 child)
I was on vacation and it was the only emergency room vet in town.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 08 2018, @10:21PM
My father-in-law took his cat to an "emergency room" vet on the weekend. They asked obscene amounts of money to help him. He said no thanks. They called animal control on him. He did go to a different vet, but definitely never going to that one again.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 08 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
If you're talking about the Affordable Care Act, that wasn't single payer. Its basic design was proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as a capitalist alternative to Hillary Clinton's attempt at creating single payer health care in the US.
Really what's needed (assuming the goal is to make people healthy in a reasonably efficient way) is an NHS, similar to what works quite well throughout much of the British Commonwealth. But the US will never go for that because those $1.4 trillion are massive profits for the owners of the various industries involved in health care: hospital networks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:51AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @10:29PM (1 child)
The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. 1.853-1.853/1.0525=$93billion
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052515/what-usual-profit-margin-company-insurance-sector.asp [investopedia.com]
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:46AM
Payouts for the insurance industry as a whole are about 65% of premiums. That suggests an inefficient industry and/or a lot of people in the industry earning a lot more than they're worth.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 08 2018, @07:38PM (21 children)
We can pass a bazillion poorly considered laws to chip away at that price tag percent by percent, or we can implement a single payer healthcare system and slash the bill by 75%.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 08 2018, @09:20PM (3 children)
Did you think of teh impact on the
whealth of the donors ? I, for one, am glad that Congress always thinks of the donors.(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 08 2018, @11:36PM (2 children)
I did consider the health and wealth of the taxpayers. All of whom will no doubt enjoy the benefits of a 75% reduction in healthcare costs at some point in their lives. That includes employers that offer health insurance as a benefit. Are you suggesting that they wouldn't enjoy a 75% reduction in that expense?
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:28AM (1 child)
If there taxes went up by a couple of percent, they'd be screaming about the theft, who cares if overall they're wealthier.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:38AM
Sadly, that sort of knee-jerk reaction is quite common.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:26AM
You still get laws with single payer as the government doesn't like spending so much money on preventable problems. OTOH, you also get things like free vaccinations, free stop smoking help and drugs, government buildings with no junk food (unless you bring your own) and lots of propaganda designed to make you act safer, things like ads encouraging not using cell phones when driving or encouraging exercise.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:05AM (15 children)
Health care spending per GDP is much more rational a measure. Not much point to halving one's GDP in the process of achieving that cheaper health care system.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:18AM (14 children)
How would we reduce the GDP by cutting the per-capita health care costs by 75%? Unless you mean GDP as measured in such a way that we could triple it by sending out crews to break windows.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:14AM (13 children)
Because countries with a quarter the health care spending per capita have far less than the GDP per capita of the US. In practice, you're just not going to get a factor of four improvement, because nobody has gotten a factor of four improvement. [healthsystemtracker.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:02PM (12 children)
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:22AM (11 children)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Yes, but that just means the US is failing faster than elsewhere.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:28PM
So, you prefer to fail bigger and faster?
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:21AM (1 child)
"For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion" ($152.2bn).
Seriously, guys, wake up.
Your "non-fatal" healthcare costs TEN TIMES AS MUCH as our ENTIRE healthcare for the whole country that we give to everyone for free (you can pay if you like, but on top of basic care).
For a country that has a population which is only one fifth of your own.
However you look at it, you're paying AT LEAST twice as much as you should be doing because of your ridiculous system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:48AM
Correction: our health care industry is raking in AT LEAST twice as much profit. The system is working as intended.