In the Public Interest/By Ralph Nader 2/1/12
Looking at millions of individual bills that makeup the
2.7 trillion dollars of annual health care costs opens a gigantic window on the
massive waste, redundancy, profiteering, fraud and sometimes criminal
over-billing.
Here is a partial example of what I mean, in the words of
Philip M. Boffey, the estimable science writer for the New York Times:
“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a
quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an
MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared
to $1,009).
“Americans continue to spend more on health care than
patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as
France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all
that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some
inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”
Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada,
Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover
almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are
uninsured.
Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of
Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science),
under our sponsorship in 1975 goes on to cite the comparative price report of
the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For
Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in
dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the
U.S. $59,770. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and
in the U.S. $14,764.
Boffey adds other explanatory factors. These include
higher administrative costs to deal with insurance paperwork, higher insurance
company profits and executive compensation and less developed electronic health
records leading to costly errors.
Except for Germany there are somewhat longer waiting
times for some patients to see a specialist in these countries. But in the U.S.
seeing specialists is often prohibitively expensive, and if you cannot afford
such services, that is the longest waiting time of all.
A recent commentary in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings last
August by Charles. W. Slack and Warner V. Slack, MD suggests another compelling
comparison—between outcomes in different states in the U.S. They ask “why, for
example, do Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia have such a high rate of
mortality amenable to health care when compared with Idaho, Oregon and
Washington.” Wide differences between states and counties have been documented
regarding the cost of identical operations, frequency of operations such as cesarean
sections or hysterectomies and other surgical disparities studied under
controlled variables.
Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From
the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of
the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this
field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of
all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and
abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.
Dr. Sparrow, an applied mathematician, says it could be
higher if the federal government would simply do a more detailed study. He adds
that the enforcement budget should be one percent of the estimable volume of
fraud. In actual practice, the enforcement budget is less than one/tenth of one
percent, even though every dollar of enforcement brings in at least seventeen
dollars back. (See Dr. Sparrow’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/
)
Obviously the corporate fraud lobby is stronger than the
taxpayer/consumer lobby in Washington, D.C. But why the health insurance
companies, a formidable force in their own right when it comes to protecting
its turf against single payer or full Medicare insurance (see
singlepayeraction.org) do not do more to stop fraudulent billing practices, is
a puzzle.
All in all, the health care industry is replete with
rackets that neither honest practitioners or regulators find worrisome enough
to effectively challenge. The perverse economic incentives in this industry
range from third party payments to third party procedures. Add paid-off members
of Congress who starve enforcement budgets and the enormous profits that comes
from that tired triad “waste, fraud and abuse” and you have a massive problem
needing a massive solution.
So, voters, why not start challenging all candidates for
elective office to make this vast daily heist a front burner campaign issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment