LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Better leaders would lead to better care

Bonnie L. Armstrong, Henderson

Sunday, July 5, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

I am firmly in favor of a single-payer health insurance program. There are many pros and cons, but one of the main problems seems to be the fear of government deciding who gets what treatment.

A recent issue of Time magazine had a very good article written by Michael Grunwald headlined “More Data + Less Care = Lower Cost + Better Health.” It cites a $40,410 difference between what the Mayo Clinic’s flagship hospital spends per Medicare patient in the last two years of life, $53,432, and UCLA Medical Center’s total of $93,842. That’s a pretty significant difference.

Other well-known clinics practice superior medicine while watching the costs. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Geisinger in Pennsylvania and Intermountain in Utah are mentioned as having lower costs and higher satisfaction. Could we possibly entice some of these leaders to form a panel or even be in charge? Who could argue with that?

Also, there was an Associated Press story last week that discussed $1.1 billion having been set aside by the federal government to try to uncover the best treatments for a number of medical conditions, such as irregular heartbeat, prostate cancer, back pain and hearing loss. It seems like a no-brainer not to seek help from the above-mentioned groups and others.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By neiman1

7/5/09 at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Just one item. How can the elimination of all competition lower cost and improve any products? It has never done so before.

The government currently runs the Veteran's Medical Care System. From rat infested buildings at it's flagship, Walter Reed, near Washington D.C., to the HIV exposure of hundreds, to the improper radiation therapy of thousands, the VA System has failed. Long waits, poor care, and all run by the federal government without competition.

Do you really want your health care delivered like this?
By GordonShumway

7/5/09 at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Medicare works fine and so does the government provided insurance for millions of federal workers including politicians.
Cut out the fraud in medicare and it's a winner.
By jldour

7/5/09 at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Medicare works fine except the 60 billion dollars of fraud EACH YEAR. The fraud is known about and is still there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921

The government is not capable of running ANY business in an efficient manner. No competition, no meaningful oversight and then throw in a powerful lobby group feeding members of congress who are full of greed and you have a recipe for disaster.
By Future

7/5/09 at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

It cites a $40,410 difference between what the Mayo Clinic's flagship hospital spends per Medicare patient in the last two years of life, $53,432, and UCLA Medical Center's total of $93,842.

The Medicare payment schedule shift $1400/year to private plans. And Obama wants to cut out another $200 million.

So this is the Medicare we should look forward to.

The following story reveals why many fear government run healthcare where the Doctor and Patient do not get to decide to treatment.

In this case a proven effective 5-year old technology using non-invasive, precision-targeted stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer is being dropped by Medicare.

The stated reason "The literature does not support an outcome advantage over other conventional radiation modalities."

Medicare does not see an advantage -- meaning it is as good as other methods, less invasive than other methods, has much shorter treatment time (usually five days), reduced side-effects, and hence preferred by many men.

So regional Medicare bureaucrats are saying you cannot have it.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jun/...
By zerstuckelung

7/6/09 at 2:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Correcting factual errors is often rather useless, but all the same:

Walter Reed is a DoD hospital, not VA.
The VA consistently beats the private sector in patient and physician satisfaction.

Regarding the VA's HIV scare, I call your attention to our own Endoscopy Center hepatitis scandal last year. That case of negligence can hardly be said to impugn the very model of privately provided medical care, can it?

I'll not attempt to change anyone's mind about the efficiencies of publicly provided (or merely publicly insured, as in Medicare/Medicaid) health care--it's quite clear that no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you. I do, however, take exception to those who attempt to use the VA as their political cudgel. Many veteran's organizations have worked hard to turn that institution into a model for coordinated, evidence-based care--care that in my personal experience has met or exceeded anything I've encountered in the private sector. Indeed, why would the more than 400,000 veterans who've applied--and been rejected for enrollment because their incomes were too high--queue up for a "failed" system?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

7/9/09 at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

gota correct some of Zucks facts,

1) Reed is the Army's flagship hospital it is supposed to be the best of the best.
2) DOD hospitals are universal health care, just like the VA
3) The VA still has its problems and scandals.
4) The Medicare, Medicaid efficiency number is made by ignoring costs outside the program - such as billing.
5) Additionally, having a low overhead does not mean efficiency, if they were efficient their cost would not be rising so quickly because they would figure out ways to do more with less.