Slashdot Mirror


Medical Errors Are Number 3 Cause of US Deaths, Researchers Say (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A study by researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine says medical errors should rank as the third-leading cause of death in the United States -- and highlights how shortcomings in tracking vital statistics may hinder research and keep the problem out of the public eye. The authors, led by Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Martin Makary, call for changes in death certificates to better tabulate fatal lapses in care. In an open letter, they urge the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to immediately add medical errors to its annual list reporting the top causes of death. Based on an analysis of prior research, the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. On the CDC's official list, that would rank just behind heart disease and cancer, which each took about 600,000 lives in 2014, and in front of respiratory disease, which caused about 150,000 deaths. Medical mistakes that can lead to death range from surgical complications that go unrecognized to mix-ups with the doses or types of medications patients receive. The study was published Tuesday in The BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal.

247 comments

  1. Best Care in the World! by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We spend so much money for so little.

    1. Re:Best Care in the World! by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      We have so much faith in our medical system, but not every doctor is great and our health care system gives little incentive for meaningful results. The best medical results I hear about are from docs who take responsibility for their own care.

    2. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who is we? I fucking hate doctors and have for nearly all of my adult life. I don't want health insurance because it's a scam. They definitely get my money via premiums and *maybe* I'll get some treatment every 10 years that isn't absolute shit. I shouldn't have to visit and argue with 4 doctors about the symptoms I truly am experiencing before I find one who isn't totally clueless. And I don't want to spend my life hopped up on meds. Next time I see a doctor if they don't actually resolve my symptoms then I'm declining payment along with destroying their reputation on every site I can find. If I'm lucky I'll get banned from all insurance providers so my wages can stop being garnished for this bullshit. If you want the best care in thr world, then take care of yourself, exercise, be healthy, and avoid doctors like the plague.

    3. Re:Best Care in the World! by Trax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A major portion of the money that is spent in the United States healthcare system is for end of life care. No one wants their elderly mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, etc. to die and wants "everything to be done" despite our recommendations that these interventions will not prolong their life. See http://khn.org/morning-breakou.... The emergency department is most likely the most efficient part of our health care system. See http://newsroom.acep.org/fact_...

    4. Re: Best Care in the World! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      The plague doesn't avoid doctors, you idiot.

    5. Re:Best Care in the World! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And why? Because of greedy pharma, hospitals and lawyers. This monopoly needs to be busted.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Instead they will garnish your taxes for being uninsured. Welcome to affordable care.

    7. Re:Best Care in the World! by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My grandmother (on my mother's side) passed away about a decade ago after 'routine' heart surgery (no double or triple bipass). However it wasn't the heart surgery that got her, it was the infection after. The doctor's however had been 'confused' by her lack of progress and didn't believe she had an infection. At the same time I picked up on her having an infection after one visit and with no tests. She was never treated for an infection, though the autopsy proved that was the cause of death in the end. After that I truly understood why the US has such a high malpractice rate. The Doctor's had continued to rely on tests which told them the wrong answers and had so little time to actually see a patient that she was never treated properly.

      In my own personal experience I had a diseased gall bladder since I was a teenager, however it went misdiagnosed for a decade and a half as IBS. However it finally got so bad that I couldn't function normally and for about the fifth time in my life I returned to the hospital to finally get a real explanation of what was wrong with me. When they removed my gal bladder the doctor who had performed the surgery had said it was the most diseased gal bladder he'd ever seen in a living patient.

      All that money we pay for medical care seems utterly wasted between the insurance companies and the hospitals.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    8. Re:Best Care in the World! by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare.

      A single-buyer can negotiate prices from Big Pharma and limit their meddling with doctors and practices. Government-run hospitals don't have to spend money on marketing and all sorts of things traditionally associated with car dealerships rather than treating people. Government-run healthcare can include a reasonable arbitration system for dealing with claims of medical malpractice, etc. Plus if people aren't paying out of pocket for treatment, there are far fewer financial issues relating to needing extra/different treatment. No more government picking up the massively-inflated bill for someone who wandered in to an ER with holes in them.

      This is hardly esoteric - just look at the other developed countries with comparable/better healthcare systems, and see how much they actually cost. This experiment has been running for decades, and the outcome is staggering.

    9. Re:Best Care in the World! by Imrik · · Score: 1

      The emergency department is efficient because that's where people without insurance get their care.

    10. Re:Best Care in the World! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Lots of people like to point to the numbers instead of actually looking at the reasons and being honest. The medical professionals are also more willing to try riskier and newer things than they are in other countries. We also report our medical data differently than other countries.

      That is not to say that it is good, that it is better, or that it is ideal but it is to say that it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the reality and just point to the numbers as if they alone are significant. Juxtaposition is also nice.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just look at the other developed countries with comparable/better healthcare systems

      There aren't any. England? Walk into a hospital with a million euro's and say "I want a new kidney, now!" and see if you get one.
      --
      roman_mir

    12. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Be healthy"

      Why didn't anyone think of that earlier? If everyone did that then no one would be sick!

    13. Re:Best Care in the World! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      And the government wants us to buy more!

    14. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Back up those assertions.

      Your healthcare system is shit because its a business, bought and paid for by the insurance companies and health providers. Your value to the system ceases once they cant wring any more money out of you.

      I have seen it with my own eyes. Patients discharged on the say so of the insurance company who refuse to pay any more, not on the advice of their treating doctors.

      US healthcare is broadly equivalent to other developed countries if you have a wall st salary. If youre an average joe youre fucked.

    15. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Let me just go to the bank and withdraw a million euros.

    16. Re:Best Care in the World! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare

      There is that - I agree wholeheartedly. There is also some incompetency involved. Some years back my mother in law had a TIA - a mini stroke. At the hospital she noted that she was peeing a lot. While talking with the doctor, the doctor expressed concern that my MIL's potassium level was low. I noted that they probably administered a powerful diuretic, because she was urinating a lot, and that was likely the cause of the low potassium level. The number of expressions that flew across the doctor's face were amazing, from the "Who are you to decide that?", to "Oh, shit, he's right!" to finally recomposing herself and agreeing.

      My wife then and there decided to post herself and verify everything they did, and found a couple life altering mistakes that almost happened.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Slashdot is all the way gone when this paranoid drivel is modded up.

    18. Re: Best Care in the World! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      One of the problems with healthcare is, the average doctor is mediocre. Half of them are below average!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    19. Re:Best Care in the World! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, I really really wish more people would be honest and actually try to look at the numbers (I mean, at least try).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Best Care in the World! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare.

      So, you want to bring the best parts of the DMV and the IRS to health care. That should turn out great.

      Instead of having to choose between Android and Apple, maybe we need a nationalized smart phone designed by a committee.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    21. Re:Best Care in the World! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, the credentials of the researchers notwithstanding, I find the notion that medical errors are the "third-leading cause of death" in the US is hard to swallow.

      Alcohol, car accidents, heart disease, smoking, stroke, cancer....all those things kill millions. The idea that improper diagnosis and/or treatment outweighs those things just seems unrealistic to me.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    22. Re:Best Care in the World! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Well said, and you are entirely correct.

      Single-payer has advantages that private, for-profit hospitals cannot compete with. No marketing, tremendous bargaining power, and more standardized care make a huge difference. Other countries have been doing it successfully for decades, and the VA here shows it can be done.

      Some things should NOT be run for profit, including health care, education, and prisons.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    23. Re: Best Care in the World! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Which is why he put in the line about being banned from all insurance providers.
      If you can't get coverage then they can't tax you for it. Yes, it's a tax.

    24. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the UK pays a third per head for healthcare, covers 100% of the population and has better health outcomes for the population. What is your argument against it again?

    25. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare.

      A single-buyer can negotiate prices from Big Pharma and limit their meddling with doctors and practices. Government-run hospitals don't have to spend money on marketing and all sorts of things traditionally associated with car dealerships rather than treating people. Government-run healthcare can include a reasonable arbitration system for dealing with claims of medical malpractice, etc. Plus if people aren't paying out of pocket for treatment, there are far fewer financial issues relating to needing extra/different treatment. No more government picking up the massively-inflated bill for someone who wandered in to an ER with holes in them.

      This is hardly esoteric - just look at the other developed countries with comparable/better healthcare systems, and see how much they actually cost. This experiment has been running for decades, and the outcome is staggering.

      Like, did you watch the implementation of the ACA? The government can't design a marketplace website without a 10X cost overrun and making it a giant cluster. Why would you want them running your heatlh?

      No, anyone who believes in single payer systems have lofty ideals but are completely divorced from how government operates. Single payer makes sense in theory but in execution will be a damned nightmare to our society.

    26. Re:Best Care in the World! by larkost · · Score: 1

      No, he wants to bring the best part of Medicaid to the rest of healthcare. You know, the most efficiently run insurance system in the country (seriously, they are head-and-shoulders above any private organization by any metric). This is not about replacing who controls hospitals, or makes the drugs. It is about who pays, and thus negotiates, for these things. If you look just at drug pricing, comparing the U.S. prices to anywhere else in the world (Canada is an easy example, and hard to argue that it is a meaningfully different environment) you will see how much that lack of negotiating power hurts us. Imagine how much more efficient Medicaid could be if they were not legally prevented from negotiating! Then remember that the insurance companies are not prevented from negotiating, and wonder why they are still less efficient.

    27. Re:Best Care in the World! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "There aren't any. England? Walk into a hospital with a million euro's and say "I want a new kidney, now!" and see if you get one."

      Obviously not, they'll send you to a bank getting British pounds for your Euros and even then, there's no place to pay for anything, only a counter where you _get_ money back for your transport to the hospital.

    28. Re:Best Care in the World! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Well the UK pays a third per head for healthcare, covers 100% of the population and has better health outcomes for the population. What is your argument against it again?"

      He's obviously a millionaire who wants it faster and he's angry that they don't take any money in hospitals.

    29. Re: Best Care in the World! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Your healthcare system is shit because its a business

      No, it's shit because it's not allowed to operate as a business. The federal government regulates how many doctors can become licensed, how hospitals are run, and how ailments are categorized. State governments have more regulations beyond that. Most costs of care are set by Medicare, based on treatment codes mandated by government. The FDA is supposed to regulate the pharmaceuticals, but they are almost completely funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    30. Re:Best Care in the World! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      We spend so much money for so little.

      One of the problems with the disproportionate cost of medical care in the USA is the huge amount of malpractice insurance that the medical professionals have to pay.

      Evidently the reason they have to pay so much for malpractice insurance is because malpractice is a huge problem. If they didn't do so much malpractice maybe the premiums would come down so the costs to the customer would come down and you wouldn't be spending so much for so little!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    31. Re:Best Care in the World! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      All that money we pay for medical care seems utterly wasted between the insurance companies and the hospitals.

      I think its actually more corrupt than you are guessing.

      The cost of medical care, that you pay health insurance to cover, is inflated by the malpractice insurance that the medical professionals have to pay, ie they pass this cost on to the customer.

      So the insurance not only get paid twice, they get to dictate the inflation of the medical bills by controlling the cost of malpractice insurance. So the insurers can artificially jack up the cost of medical care and thus artificially jack up the cost of your medical insurance.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    32. Re:Best Care in the World! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.privatehealth.co.uk... Seems trivial to find a hospital that will take your money.

    33. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your healthcare system is shit because its a business

      No, it's shit because it's not allowed to operate as a business. The federal government regulates how many doctors can become licensed ...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association

    34. Re:Best Care in the World! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Alcohol, car accidents, heart disease, smoking, stroke, cancer....all those things kill millions. The idea that improper diagnosis and/or treatment outweighs those things just seems unrealistic to me."

      Unrealistic? Don't you get it?

      They are all alcoholic car drivers with heart disease because of smoking and their cancer caused a stroke because of a doctor's misdiagnose.

    35. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it better for the community if transplants can't be bought?

    36. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, anyone who believes in single payer systems have lofty ideals but are completely divorced from how government in America operates.

    37. Re:Best Care in the World! by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      What symptoms did you have that got you misdiagnosed as IBS?

      I got an IBS diagnosis half a decade ago and also wonder what it could be as it's one of exclusion.

    38. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Well, that really depends on how this compares to the medical error rates in other countries, doesn't it?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    39. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You wanna back up your assertions? Kind of funny how you want citations for what other people say but provide none yourself.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    40. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell that to the 4 Doctors I had to fire to get my mother on hospice. they all said, "you don't want to give up yet." when the best we could hope for was a return to chronic pain, and inability to swallow caused by a diabetic coma a decade before (insulin pump get set incorrectly and her we found her at 4 am with a blood sugar of 6.) She was ready to die and had been for a couple of years, but the Drs on her case fought me for 2 weeks while she was in another coma.

      I'm nervous for a few years when my dad Alzheimer's is bad enough that we should help him die, but otherwise he is healthy enough to live another 15 years.

    41. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You know what's interesting? The US subsidizes drug costs for the rest of the world. Because Americans (and the US Medicare/Medicaid systems) cannot negotiate for drug prices, they end up paying much more for drugs, and that is largely what funds R&D. They make money selling in most countries they operate in, but only if you don't include R&D costs - production is often relatively cheap. Allowing the US to negotiate prices would either stifle pharma R&D or cause prices in other countries to rise.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    42. Re:Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of medical care, that you pay health insurance to cover, is inflated by the malpractice insurance that the medical professionals have to pay, ie they pass this cost on to the customer.

      Maybe we can finally get lawsuit reform and lower malpractice insurance and finally get these problems up to the #2 cause of death?

    43. Re: Best Care in the World! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Yep - that's how the US government works. Trade organizations bribe ... err. I mean "lobby" congress to create laws that help them extract maximum profit from consumers.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    44. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an open topic.

    45. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His argument is against doing it badly.
      I'm totally pleased with nhs, but lots of people are dissatisfied by the care.

    46. Re:Best Care in the World! by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Basically I had 'stomach pain' and an 'upset' stomach every morning causing me problems with eating until later in the day. Enough stress caused the pain to increase until I felt like I had an ulcer and I couldn't eat. In fact I went to the doctors twice because I literally thought I did have an ulcer. The final test I had that proved it was a diseased gal bladder was a stomach ultrasound.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    47. Re:Best Care in the World! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it sure makes it easy to point and say stuff like, "Those stupid, ignorant, Americans."

      Another one... This one is a bit more complex. Look at the actual root causes for the military actions taken by the United States and figure out who it is that actually set those situations up. What, were we supposed to just let the abuses continue?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re:Best Care in the World! by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      "You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare. A single-buyer can negotiate prices"
      Completely wrong, both in your analysis and causal claim.
      Reduction in tool failure means human failure will be statistically more common. That does not mean human failure has increased nor does it mean aggregate failure has increased. The "rise" of human failure, all things being equal, is GOOD NEWS. It means tools and methods are far more reliable.
      To illustrate: Human failure is far more likely an issue of injury in a vehicle incident now than 40 years ago. Fatality rates are dramatically lower while human cause has increased.
      Competition lowers price and increases quality.
      It is a system in which success ultimately requires being more productive than your competition.
      Monopoly is incentive to do as little as possible while demanding as much as possible.
      Competition encourages altruism.
      Monopoly encourages extortion.
      "Single payer" requires the impossible condition of maximum efficiency and altruism from the most inherently selfish and lazy structure possible.

    49. Re: Best Care in the World! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Who's supposed to fund the FDA's regulation of meds? It sounds like they're getting user fees, which seems reasonable to me. My friend in the FDA said the FDA would not hesitate to pull approval if they had a reason. (The FDA recognizes darn few things as safe. They recognize a lot of things as safe enough unless and until they get a reason to think otherwise.)

      Medicare costs apply to those over 65, and providers are free to charge differently for those of us still under that age. A friend of mine was complaining that she lost money on Medicare patients, because what Medicare would allow her to charge was less than her overhead for the appointments. (She's a good surgeon, but I have doubts about her as a businesswoman.)

      There's an increasing tendency for the minor stuff to be handled by nurses, not doctors, to cut costs. The number of doctors is limited, but I don't think the number of nurse practitioners is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    50. Re:Best Care in the World! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Would that work in the US (well, with a million and a half dollars)? Transplant eligibility is based on the ability to pay for the transplant and follow-up, along with tissue matches, so the money does show you can pay for everything. Do you really want a new kidney now that's not a good match and is likely to be rejected?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:Best Care in the World! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So you believe that something that works reasonably well in literally every other developed country in the world would only get screwed up here? So you're another one who thinks the US is special as in Special Ed or the Special Olympics? Where did this can't-do attitude come from?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re: Best Care in the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered how difficult it is to become a doctor. The licensing and testing. Etc. Doctors are held to a far higher standard then we computer geeks are.

    53. Re: Best Care in the World! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Who's supposed to fund the FDA's regulation of meds? It sounds like they're getting user fees, which seems reasonable to me. My friend in the FDA said the FDA would not hesitate to pull approval if they had a reason. (The FDA recognizes darn few things as safe. They recognize a lot of things as safe enough unless and until they get a reason to think otherwise.)

      How about the people they are charged to protect, instead of people wanting to make a buck no matter who gets hurt? Don't think that you can get a paycheck from someone and then work AGAINST their interests. Just look at the story of statin drugs and the FDA's ban of red yeast rice. Who was that for?

      Don't forget that the vast majority of total health care costs are spent on people over 65. Medicare (and Medicaid, which covers about 30% of the under-65) is basically the biggest payer (insurance company) in the country - other insurance companies follow their lead on charges and covered treatments. It just makes sense. Insurance companies don't just pay whatever health providers charge - they have agreements that set prices. So, yea, doctors charge what they want, but they'll get what the insurance companies pay, as they agreed. That's what "out of network" charges are all about.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    54. Re: Best Care in the World! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The FDA is not paid by the number of drugs it accepts, but by the number submitted, and there is no alternative to submitting to the FDA if a company wants permission to sell a drug in the US. If a pharma company believes the FDA is acting against their interests, what are they going to do? Submit the drug to the FAA? Sell it in the US without FDA approval? They're not going to figure it's too much hassle to sell it in the US, because that's where the big profits are. There's no harm in making the pharma companies pay for the approval process, and it puts the burden of cost in the right place.

      "It just makes sense." - words that should never be relied on in US medical billing. Look to actual practice instead.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:Best Care in the World! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yea, you really can't trust doctors. There are some good ones, but even the best of the bunch make mistakes. The majority though, are hopped up on meds in order to get through ridiculously long shifts, don't really give a shit about you in the first place, and make major mistakes on a routine basis.

    56. Re:Best Care in the World! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that there have been several bills proposed that would prevent medicare and medicaid from negotiating prices. Want to make a wild guess which two groups lobbied for those?

    57. Re:Best Care in the World! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      So, do you people willfully ignore the healthcare in norther Europe and Canada, or are you just too stupid to comprehend how it works?

    58. Re:Best Care in the World! by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Supportive anecdote: When I was 10 I had appendicitis. Went to one or two different doctors many times and visited the ER three times over about a month.

      And then I didn't have appendicitis anymore. Because my appendix ruptured. Fourth trip to the ER they took an X-ray and saw it (or its remnants) and said "huh, that shouldn't show up on an X-ray" and two hours later I was in surgery. My understanding is that routine appendectomy is only slightly more severe than a tonsillectomy: a day or two in the hospital and then you go home and take it easy for a week. In my case I was hospitalized for a week, with three blood draws a day to make sure the infection didn't travel around, then still bedridden for two weeks and walked funny for another month.

      To this day I wonder if certain intestinal ailments I suffer are a consequence of the doctors continually missing it.

  2. US healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    Is the worst in the world. Cuba is the best, by far.

    1. Re:US healthcare by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, Cuba is behind us.

      http://thepatientfactor.com/ca...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:US healthcare by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Having a lower rate of reported medical errors is easy. Just don't report them. Same as having a better reported infant mortality rate.

    3. Re:US healthcare by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      37th rank vs. 38th is hardly much to boast about though.

    4. Re:US healthcare by Malc · · Score: 1

      Sorry typo: 37th vs. 39th. Still nothing to boast about.

    5. Re:US healthcare by OakDragon · · Score: 0

      Is the worst in the world. Cuba is the best, by far.

      Just use your real name, Mr. Moore.

    6. Re:US healthcare by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between being 37th and "worst in the world". And there's also a big difference between claiming Cuba is best, and them not even being ahead of the U.S. Pay attention.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:US healthcare by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And it's embarrassing when your best praise is "slightly better than Cuba".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:US healthcare by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And it's embarrassing when your best praise is "slightly better than Cuba".

      Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing, so kiss my ass.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors"

    Fuck fighting terrorism. This deserves more attention.

    1. Re: Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should have police patrol hospitals instead of highways.

    2. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and yet doctors sneer at you when you tell them you looked something up on the internet.

    3. Re:Perspective by sir1963nz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next thing we will find is that they are training doctors and sending them to America because it is a more effective way to kill more americans.

    4. Re:Perspective by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      To be fair, many of the people dying from these medical errors are really sick, and would have soon died from something else anyway. Also, killing off old people helps keep Social Security and Medicare from going bankrupt. I am not saying killing them is a good thing, just that it is not all bad.

      Some hospitals have dramatically cut medical errors using a very simple tool: Checklists.

    5. Re:Perspective by Trax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't sneer at my patients in the ED (emergency department) when they say they've looked up their symptoms on the internet. Most of the time they have been looking them up in WebMD or other non-clinical websites that ultimately tells them that they are either having a heart attack, cancer, or our about to die. I hear them out and see what their worries are and attempt to assuage them of their fears. I'm hearing to teach them about their symptoms and get them involved in their care. There's nothing wrong with looking up symptoms but it is incumbent on us to teach patient where to look up this information, what questions to ask their doctors, and what to worry about or not worry about.

    6. Re:Perspective by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      "250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors"

      Fuck fighting terrorism. This deserves more attention.

      In the sense that people should be aware of it, yes. Every trip to the doctor is a risk. Prevention is much better than any kind of medical intervention.

      In the sense that these errors are avoidable, no. Medicine is intrinsically inexact and difficult.

    7. Re:Perspective by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      They have introduced checklists here as well recently, and they were oh so proud of coming up with this wonderful "new" tool that pilots have been using for about 80 years. What took doctors so long to follow suit?

      One magazine (might have been the Economist) called medical care the "least innovative industry" a few years ago. Not medical technology or medicine, both of which are making tremendous strides, but the way we organize and administer that care.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Perspective by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      and yet doctors sneer at you when you tell them you looked something up on the internet.

      Because the vast majority will do a simple Google search, and not do any serious homework. That doesn't mean that others won't do some significant reading, but the likelihood of you picking up more knowledge with your internet search than someone who does this fulltime with a medical degree is slim. And either way, they shouldn't sneer.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:Perspective by compro01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What took doctors so long to follow suit?

      Same reason it took pilots a long time to adopt them : Ego.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    10. Re:Perspective by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

      Also the the realization that people are not built to nor adhere here the engineering specifications of an airplane. Every patient's anatomy, symptoms, disease processes etc..are relatively unique to them. There are several thing that work for checklists, but they aren't going to save the day.

      Also, in some ways we are spoiled by modern medicine - what exactly is "routine" heart surgery. You have 1 pump in a system that has no backup or redundancy. How is altering that or taking it offline for repairs ever routine?

      Medical errors are real. They are often not malignant or obvious at the time, hindsight is 20/20. In addition patients are older, sicker, fatter, and with more co-morbidities all while living longer with these chronic serious diseases then ever before.

      It is a recipe for this.

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
    11. Re: Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not defending medicine, but how can the least innovative industry be anything but LAW?

    12. Re:Perspective by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What took doctors so long to follow suit?

      Same reason it took pilots a long time to adopt them : Ego.

      Most pilots I know put their ego aside when it comes to flying.
      Unlike doctors, they put their own life on the line and self-conservation instincts keep them in check.

    13. Re:Perspective by houghi · · Score: 1

      Saw a documentary on the BBC a few years ago where they addressed this (the rest from memory)
      One of the issues was that the operating surgeon is the big boss and all others are his minions. It is his theater. It is his show. Many of them will not want to be corrected. So if a nurse or an anastesist sees something or has an idea how to handle an emergency, they are afraid to speak up. Because that could make the surgeon look stupid.
      Solution: give them the power to do so and do not reprimand them when they speak up.
      Examples were even given where the correct suggestion was given, but ignored and not brought up again.

      Another was giving the wrong medicine or instruments being used.
      Solution: checklists
      In fact from what I remember, using checklists (think FAA) would prevent a LOT.

      They tested this in various hospitals in the world. From the most expensive in the US to the cheapest with a lack of medicine in Africa and at all (all of them) the death rate went down.

      I know some surgeons and it does not surprise me at all as many of them are prima donnas.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Perspective by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I just give mine a fist-full of antibiotics and enough opiates to make them settle down and not worry about anything.

      Yes, yes I really am a doctor.

      No, I'm not a medical doctor. I prescribe four quadratic equations and tell 'em to call me in the morning.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Perspective by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      It is interesting that as a male and a scientist, whenever I make small talk with a doctor they are always thrilled to hear I am a microbiologist and switch gears to discussing things with me as a peer. My wife has the same education but gets this response less frequently from what she's told me. When I was in school I started pre-vet, and working with a veterinarian he said that in that field, anyhow, you generally just treat symptoms and see if they get better since diagnostics are so expensive. For medicine anecdotally I think it is similar: it isn't like they regularly type out what kind of infection you have, they just give you a broad spectrum antibiotic and switch if it doesn't work. The vet also hated when people looked things up online as they were generally not educated enough to know if they were doing harm or not following some goofy protocol. Perhaps some basic medicine would be more useful in high school health class...

    16. Re:Perspective by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to judge, but when I was having an appendicitis and thinking it was food poison searching on the internet gave me better control of the situation than the ED Doctor. He was so excited after the CAT Scan that it actually was an appendicitis and I was going to need surgery, rather than discharging me.

      Point being we all have access to different information. As a patient, I didn't know how to filter relevant from non-relevant information. My pain was somewhat asymptomatic due to another problem that I didn't fit neatly into the right box.

      I have know three other people who were discharged from the ED, only to be back an hour or three later when their appendix bursts. As a patient, you need to be your own advocate. The "guess what's wrong with me"game just doesn't work.

    17. Re:Perspective by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the errors often drive up costs rather than down, forcing more time in an ICU etc.

    18. Re:Perspective by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, last time I went to the doctor, she listened carefully to my self-diagnosis, and what symptoms I had that led me to that diagnosis. Then she gave me warnings about other things to watch for. She was actually great.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re: Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reason does medicine have to innovate? It is all about profits.

    20. Re:Perspective by sexconker · · Score: 1

      and yet doctors sneer at you when you tell them you looked something up on the internet.

      Because the vast majority will do a simple Google search, and not do any serious homework. That doesn't mean that others won't do some significant reading

      Are you talking about doctors or patients here?

    21. Re:Perspective by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Next thing we will find is that they are training doctors and sending them to America because it is a more effective way to kill more americans.

      Moderation error. I'd say that's more like "funny-ish". As in, boy I wish that didn't sound maybe real.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    22. Re:Perspective by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What took doctors so long to follow suit?

      Same reason it took pilots a long time to adopt them : Ego.

      Most pilots I know put their ego aside when it comes to flying.
      Unlike doctors, they put their own life on the line and self-conservation instincts keep them in check.

      Thats what malpractice insurance is for! The doctors can relax knowing they are covered when they fuck up and kill a patient!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re:Perspective by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Most pilots I know put their ego aside when it comes to flying.

      Yeah, they do that now. They (as a profession) didn't used to.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  4. The Low Hanging Fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After eliminating deaths from diseases and occupational situations, it stands to reason that something else would then be ranked number one.

    1. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yes, but that something shouldn't be medical errors, especially in the most expensive healthcare system in the world.

      It also shouldn't be choking on unpeeled pineapples.

    2. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's after eliminating cancer and coronary disease. It's beating respiratory disease.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One should ask where is all the money going. It isn't going to the doctors. It is going to the parasitic medical establishment. e.g. the lawyers, the administrators, the FDA, the AMA, the insurance companies, etc.
      If you want to solve the health care crisis:

      1) eliminate the health care companies. We need direct pay!
      2) eliminate the AMA. There are not enough doctors. Patients are dying in the emergency room waiting to be seen.
      3) kill all malpractice lawyers. A doctor practising in good faith should never ever be sued
      4) curtail the power of the FDA. The FDA does more harm than good.

      Our current system has the doctors working for the hospitals, who work for the insurance companies, who work for the patient's employer. Can you see the problem? This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. It is no wonder health care costs have risen astronomically. The patient is only a very very marginal control over her or his health care and associated costs. It is all controlled by third parties who have a vested interest in not providing care.

      There is no difference between big government and big corporations. You do not want you health care being run by the insurance companies or the government. Re-establish a doctor patient relationship with the direct pay system. It worked in the United States for 215 years. It can work again. Medical costs rose astronomically with the advent of wide spread insurance and malpractice lawyers. It used to be a few people fell through the cracks, now just about everyone falls through the cracks of the medical bureaucracy.

      Direct Pay will save the day!
      Disagree with me, you are probably a lawyer, or a medical industry bureaucrat.

    4. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'm mostly with you on the malpractice lawyers, but tell me, should my mother pay for her own care, when she got her cervix perforated in a doctor's office? What about her lost time at work, and any pain & suffering, or should she just suck it up?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "3) kill all malpractice lawyers. A doctor practising in good faith should never ever be sued"

      Until you come across that one flagrant case of malpractice that you really want to pursue.

      Malpractice actions are civil suits, and reform of this whole area of law would be a better solution. My reform would be to eliminate the procedural advantages to the lawyer lobby that civil procedure has over the much stiffer standards of criminal procedure. Require a unanimous jury vote for the plaintiff in civil trials, rather than a majority vote, and on a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of evidence, rather than 'preponderance of evidence'. Eliminate all the junk forms of evidence, such as hearsay, that civil procedure permits but criminal procedure does not. These changes would place a civil plaintiff in the same position as a prosecutor in criminal trials. Junk cases are filtered out, while no one is denied access to the courts.

    6. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "4) curtail the power of the FDA. The FDA does more harm than good."

      The FDA performs the vital function of getting new compounds and devices tested, but I would strip it of the power to keep products off the market. Let "FDA Approved" be taken as a gold standard of quality for those who insist on it, while allowing patients to try drugs that are still in the testing process if they and their doctors want to take the risk. And for approved medications, putting an end to the FDA's ability to support the pharma monopoly would allow Americans to shop overseas for branded drugs - the real thing, not knockoffs - exactly as we shop for electronics. The effect on prices would be similar.

    7. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fully on-board with 1,2, and 4. 3 is more complicated. First, not all doctors are practicing in good faith and those who aren't should be sued. Second, we need to solve the lack of a proper social safety net that leads patients left with a disability to sue out of desperation for a way to live. It's notable that states that imposed limits on malpractice settlements as part of tort reform have seen no improvements in the cost or quality of healthcare. Cover those issues somehow and I'll sign off on 3 as well.

      I would add in billing control. The patient has a right to know the actual cost up front and to shop round unless it's an emergency. Once offered, no surprise bills from additional parties. Where legitimately necessary, a price range can be offered but if they end up charging the max every time there will be an investigation. The price for common procedures should be published.

      That may actually do the job for elective procedures and to some extent, non-emergency healthcare. But we will still tend to see significant market distortions for emergency procedures that will need to be addressed.

      We will also need to address unnecessary tests and procedures.Some of that is CYA from fear of lawsuits, but just among friends and acquaintances I have seen doctors include tests that couldn't possibly come back positive given that the patient was awake and alert. Perhaps egregious cases should be considered malpractice much like it is in many engineering fields.

    8. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The doctor messed up. He should apologize and do everything he can to make it better. I feel bad for your misfortune, but don't think the doctor should be brought though a multi million dollar lawsuit that takes years of time to get worked through the system. No one is perfect, even doctors. If we could have an open system where doctors are not afraid of getting their asses sued off they would be more willing to admit mistakes, and more importantly take corrective actions to fix the problem.

    9. Re:The Low Hanging Fruit by sjames · · Score: 1

      In most cases of successful lawsuits, the defendant should have apologized and then made the plaintiff whole, but it didn't happen without the court. That's not to say there aren't suits with no merit whatsoever, but absent the court, how do we decide?

  5. Oblig Redd Foxx quote by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

    Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  6. Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by BoRegardless · · Score: 5, Informative

    When you look up the rates for problems, you see huge % of the staff have problems.

    The non-stop pressure from management to work faster coupled with major decisions being made with often not enough diagnostics or time means burnout is high and part of that is the recognition they make mistakes.

    A friend who works the ED noted he had an inconclusive diagnosis of a new patient and took extra time to get other tests done. He got the results and the patient was moved into the hospital and he was on to his next patient when a 'bean counter' shows up and says "We noticed you took an extra 20 minutes on your last patient. You are slowing down. etc. etc."

    Then to counter the stress and sometimes double shifts, they start taking drugs.

    1. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. Really this. You don't want people who make life and death decisions overworked, yet that's how it normally is. How can that be normal? How can it be allowed to be normal?

    2. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 'bean counter' shows up and says "We noticed you took an extra 20 minutes on your last patient. You are slowing down. etc. etc."

      Sounds like your average service industry workplace. People who spend years training and educating themselves might not expect to be treated like a telemarketer, or a customer service person at their chosen work that they have a significant personal investment in. Conveyor belt operations belong to the proper settings when there are no question of the diagnosis, or else people will die.

    3. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Trax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am an ER doctor and I can say that this occurs throughout hospitals throughout the United States every day. I have friends who work in emergency departments (ED) who have such bean counters tell them to see more patients and admit or discharge patients too soon. I work in an emergency department that does not have these bean counters yet but we do have "patient satisfaction" scores based on Press Ganey surveys. We are graded on how well we kept patient informed, spent time with patient, our friendliness, our skill, etc. Patients can score us from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) in 7-8 different categories. Most give us 1s or 5s and those that give us low numbers go on to state in the comments that "I didn't get a blanket, water, pain medication, etc" fast enough or "doctor didn't care about my condition". Mind you, most of these folks should not be in the ED in the first place and are at most urgent care patients. No one cares that you were tied up in the back with 4-5 critical patients who are trying to die on us and that we were busy for the past 2 hours to get them up into the ICU with the appropriate interventions made so that they will have a successful outcome. Instead, people are pissed off that you didn't take care of them right away for their symptom(s) or condition(s) and don't care that you (I) was busy elsewhere.

      This is the reality of medicine in the United States these days. A doctor who must appease every patient (paying or non-paying thanks to EMTALA) as a waiter must his or her tables so that our patient satisfaction scores do not drop appreciably or else the bean counters will not be happy. if the bean counters are not happy, then you will be looking for another job.

      If you want to be treated as a real patient, you better start looking for direct primary care physicians who take your money on a monthly or annual basis. In exchange they will give you their undivided attention in the form of hour long visits, communication via email, and your ability to reach them 24/7 as needed.

      http://epmonthly.com/article/2...

    4. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want treatment by a stressed out doctor, or no treatment at all?

      There is more need than can be met by the supply of doctors. Lowering standards to admission seems like a bad idea, and the pay is already quite high.

    5. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be allowed to be normal?

      In a word- management. They are so far removed from the daily grind on the floor that what ever advice they could offer is completely divorced from reality. And don't think this is unique to megacorp HMOs bleeding you dry. I work in a government hospital. It's the same where ever you go.

      Healthcare, much like education, has become exceedingly top heavy, with more administrators inflating the overall costs dramatically. And there is the constant flow of pronounces from on high to justify their jobs that they can't even keep track of them, nevermind evaluate their effectiveness. And this endless parade of meaningless "improvements" costs manhours to fulfill, and are given the same urgency as double checking that a dose is correct.

      Meanwhile, common sense approaches, like utilizing checklists and mechanizing med administration are fought tooth and nail by management, stating there isn't enough money. We spend over half a million yearly on the salaries of these dolts. and we can't afford to make a compendium of best practices? Are you fucking insane?

      It came to a head when one managerial mistake ended up killing a patient. She was given early retirement, and it was all quietly swept under the carpet.

      Burn it to the ground. It can't be saved.

    6. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you want treatment by a stressed out doctor, or no treatment at all?

      False dichotomy.

      There is more need than can be met by the supply of doctors.

      Many other countries deal with this by having PAs and nurses handle routine cases, and only get a doctor involved if symptoms are unusual. Oh, and these countries have far lower costs and better health outcomes than America.

    7. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appreciate your insight but: "In exchange they will give you their undivided attention in the form of hour long visits, communication via email, and your ability to reach them 24/7 as needed." Simply isn't true.

      You are lucky to get 10 minutes in an office visit. Email? Reaching them 24/7? That's hilarious. The minute they step into the room they have their hand on the door knob. They don't care, period. In 37 years I have never seen what you describe and I practically live at the doctors office.

    8. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trax, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you're referring to concierge style service, no? My wife and I signed up for this kind of service about a year ago, at a cost of $2k each. It's been night and day better than my old primary care. We get same day appointments, email responses (from our doctor) to medical questions, and it included the most complete (4-5 hour) physical I've ever been through, and additional time with a personal trainer and dietitian. For me, it's been well worth the cost.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to sign up for concierge service but I was refused as a patient. I was told I posed too high of a risk because I had just had back surgery and was still taking pain medication at the time. What is the point if the service only takes healthy patients?

    10. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll see what happens when we cut the funding through a single payer system.

    11. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by chooks · · Score: 1

      What is the point if the service only takes healthy patients?

      I think that is exactly the point. It's a fixed bid type thing as opposed to T&M.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    12. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      I am a physician who practices in the U.S. as well, and I mirror your sentiment.

      Things have really gone from bad to worse in the last five years. The number of patients we each have to see has dramatically increased, and the level of staffing is either the same as or worse than five years ago. Certainly staffing is worse than ten years ago.

      I'm hoping that more money gets put into the system for physician extenders and that society as a whole realizes that the extenders are 'good enough' for the vast majority of patients. (Knock on wood, I'm relatively healthy. My primary care physician is actually a nurse practitioner. The only reason his supervising physician even knows I exist is that he refers a lot of patients to me -- I'm a cardiologist.)

      As a physician, I've become exhausted over the past few years. I think you're going to see a lot more physicians take earlier retirement or dramatically cut back hours or something. The stresses are horrible at this point.

      Another outlet for physicians is to stop going to hospitals and extricate themselves from the hospital-employed model. But that's going to be impossible, as reimbursement for private physicians has dramatically dropped. We need the economics of scale a hospital can bring in order to stay solvent.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    13. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Why do people keep confusing single payer with all-government medicine? The two concepts are not necessarily related.

      Being able to buy medicine and contract for care in bulk saves a lot of money on marketing and distribution costs. This should be available to any mass buyer, public or private.

    14. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is due to lobbying by the American Medical Association to arbitrarily limit the number of new doctors allowed each year as well as prevent relatively simple tasks from being delegated to Nurse Practitioners (who have more education than a regular RN).

    15. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many other countries deal with this by having PAs and nurses handle routine cases, and only get a doctor involved if symptoms are unusual.

      We do that here, too. Though, the doctor also bills you for the time that the PA spent with you.

    16. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you find such a thing?
      I'm willing to give it a shot, but I don't know where to look...

    17. Re: Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can be great, just keep an eye on their service level over time. My previous employer began offering OneMedical memberships as a benedfit on top of regular health insurance. It was great at first, short wait times, attentive doctors, but OneMedical signed up too many people and the service started to degrade and become more like any other medical group. Sounds like your group may be charging more and signing up fewer patients, so hopefully you won't encounter the same problem.

    18. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      [...]

      The number of patients we each have to see has dramatically increased,

      [...]

      reimbursement for private physicians has dramatically dropped.

      [...]

      This makes me wonder if per patient reimbursement for hospital employed physicians and for private physicians are about the same. Do you know any private physicians who would compare notes with you on numbers? It sounds like you, your nurse practitioner and his supervising physician have the start of a nice network there.

    19. Re:Burnout, Depression, Anxiety in Em Dept staff by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm in a HMO. I can see a doctor any time I need one, and typically can get a next-day appointment with my primary physician. My appointments with him involve both of us explaining things and asking questions, and do not feel hurried. It can be done, guys.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. IPl Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. Not really that surprising by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People vastly overestimate how infallible people are (especially themselves). The rate at which humans make errors is about 0.5%. Which if you think about all the things you do in the course of a day, is a really big number.

    About 7.3% of the population were hospitalized overnight or longer (23 million people).

    If 250,000 of them died, then fatality rate due to medical errors is about 1.1%. Which is in line with the average error rate compounded over multiple ways in which errors could kill a hospital patient.

    If you want to reduce the fatality rate, you either need to get people out of the system (e.g. autonomous cars - but they make people uncomfortable even though they're statistically safer), or implement automated checks to supplement people's work. We're already doing the latter with prescriptions - computers now automatically check for dangerous interactions between medications prescribed to the same person. More operating rooms scan all equipment used during surgery, and re-scans at the end to make sure it's all accounted for, and nothing has accidentally been left inside the patient. And some hospitals are starting to use barcode and RFID scanners to double-check that the medication being administered is the proper one for that particular patient.

    1. Re:Not really that surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You are only partially correct:

      From the evidence I have gathered here on /. You should have said Republicans and climate change deniers vastly overestimate how infallible people are. Liberals of coarse are in fact infallible and are correct about everything especially climate change and white privilege. Don't believe me, they will tell you how great they are and how stupid everyone who disagrees with them is in as smug and condescending manner as possible.
       

    2. Re:Not really that surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If 250,000 of them died, then fatality rate due to medical errors is about 1.1%. Which is in line with the average error rate compounded over multiple ways in which errors could kill a hospital patient. "

      Likely a specious conclusion. Even if we assume 0.5% error rate applies to medicine, that's just the rate of doing something wrong. You can also make errors that favour the patient. Or make errors that are simply neutral.

    3. Re:Not really that surprising by symes · · Score: 1

      Assistive tech in the medical setting is something that really can have a positive impact. And there are so many opportunities going forward. My slight concern is that we end up pitching a clinician's opinion against some algorithm.

    4. Re:Not really that surprising by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      An error that favours the patient would have to be something like a billing error, or perhaps a one-in-a-million case where providing the wrong treatment per our current knowledge was actually better / running the wrong test found something more important than you would have found by running the right test.

      Neutral errors are, I expect, dominant. And of the negative errors, I expect many of them are not all that severe, eg. dentist's hand slips and he drops a mirror on your chin vs. dentist's hand slips and drills through your throat.

    5. Re:Not really that surprising by KGIII · · Score: 1

      WTF? Do you think hospitalization is like Monopoly? "Medical Error in Your Favor, Collect 50 Hit Points!"

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Not really that surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, billing me for an expensive hospital bed I don't need that sets off an alarm if I get up in the night to try to take a piss because I had to check myself into the ER after my sodium level crashed thanks to following the popular doctor-pushed wisdom that salt == bad.

      Yeah, real fucking advanced. They could have released me within hours of putting the saline IV in me and determining that the only thing wrong with me was low sodium. The only thing I really needed prescribed was Gatorade! (Adds a new dimension to the "it's got 'lectrolytes" thing, but that's just my morbid sense of humor.)

      So instead they note that I have $juicy_insurance_plan, see $$$$$, and keep me detained in this fucking bed, forcing me to call for assistance any time I need to take a piss (while they're pumping water into me intravenously!), even fuck with it by switch out saline for just water, which causes my sodium level to stop recovering (duh!), all the while threatening me that if I left because I couldn't afford the lost wages after the 3rd day, that my insurance wouldn't cover any of it.

      Lo and behold, my ass is now on the hook for every last penny!

    7. Re:Not really that surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You overestimate technology. Automated checks really suck in medicine, and are worse than useless. I work with an EMR that warns me not to use blood pressure medication on 70 year old females due to possible birth defects during pregnancy. I trained myself to ignore all warnings now, making automated checks worthless, and a waste of my time. We need gods, not people or machines, to run the world. That is the only way to avoid these mistakes.

    8. Re:Not really that surprising by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      If anyone in pharma is reading this someone needs to implement a system to help make sure people have adequate medication. Patient #52041983 has medication X side effects include sudden death if stopped abruptly. Patient has 3 days of pills remaining it will take 4 days to get the new prescription filled. Maybe something should be done?

      If someone has already come up with a system for this maybe you could bring it to oklahoma?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  9. Would probably be #1 cause if numbers were real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who's tried to get a doctor to admit a medical mistake knows how difficult that can be. It's nearly impossible to find someone else in the medical community that will stand with you to acknowledge that there was a problem in the first place - the appearance being that they all have a "gentlemans' agreement" to cover each others asses. I'd wager that if the number of unproven complaints were taken into account it would be the #1 cause.

    1. Re:Would probably be #1 cause if numbers were real by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to incriminate themselves when they know that doing so is likely going to result in a malpractice suit, or higher payout if one was already started.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  10. Re: As long as Republicans keep getting elected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Bernie is elected, he'll disrupt the medical cartel.

  11. I was almost one of them by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

    I was almost one of these statistics.

    A 'pain physician' providing after-care for a skull fracture prescribed me 80 mg of straight oxycodone every three to four hours, as needed. That is over HALF A GRAM of oxycodone per day! Talk about a pain roller-coaster... My fiancee would spend the entire day watching me, just to make sure that my chest was moving. It was a deadly dose.

    I went back to this bad MD, once, and she tried to place all the blame on me. "You follow what's on the label". I replied, "YOU wrote the scrip, which determined what was on the label!" This idiot was blaming me for her near-deadly error, trying to escape the risk of losing her medical license. Well, she soon got fired from a third institution within a year...

    I immediately found an actual Pain Management Physician. He prescribed a 24-hour time-release oxycodone, plus a few on the side for pain-spikes. I got off of that crap in less than three months with no withdrawal issues at all.

    This is just an example of how physician errors kill people.

    1. Re:I was almost one of them by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Oh, I forgot to mention that she was lecturing me like a school-child.

      So, I had to remind her several times of my PhD in Chemistry & Physics. I also corrected her a couple of times on points of chemistry, after she lied to my face regarding basic chemistry that every physician should know---She did not enjoy that. But I did.

      I told her to just write a scrip for a bucket of oxycodone -- to hold me over until I found the Real Pain Management Physician, or I would talk to her supervisor immediately. She complied, quite unhappily, having a subordinate deliver the scrip to me.

      No wonder she got fired.

    2. Re:I was almost one of them by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Oh, I forgot to mention that she was lecturing me like a school-child

      Indeed. One book you may be interested in is "A leg to stand on" by the recently late Dr Oliver Sachs. He was a world leader in his field of medicine and even had a movie made about his achievements (with Robin Williams playing his role) but when he was in hospital with a broken leg he was lectured like a school-child. The bits where he got to see the doctor-patient relationship from the other side and how ridiculous it can be sometimes were interesting.

    3. Re: I was almost one of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I try to avoid going to see doctors because I really don't trust them. It seems like some diseases are overdiagnosed and medicine is overprescribed. One example is statins, which reduce cholesterol but have nasty side effects. They're supposed to be prescribed when diet and exercise are ineffective at correcting the issue, but seem to be prescribed first in many instances. My sister has nasty mental health issues and was once taking over 10 different drugs per day. She's been pulled off many of those because they either weren't necessary or actually causing more problems. And while I forget the drug, I remember a pharmacist telling my dad that a doctor had prescribed him a lethal dose of a medication and corrected the issue. I know that medicine is necessary sometimes, but it seems like it's prescribed in a very irresponsible manner.

    4. Re:I was almost one of them by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That is over HALF A GRAM of oxycodone per day! Talk about a pain roller-coaster... My fiancee would spend the entire day watching me, just to make sure that my chest was moving. It was a deadly dose.

      OK, so you knew that the subscription was for a ridiculously huge amount and that it would almost certainly kill you if you took that much, and yet you took it anyways? Ya, I am with the doctor on this one. The pharmacist should of caught that, and if they did not, you should have. If you found a razor blade in a candy bard would you just assume that the candy bar makers know what they are doing, and swallow it?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:I was almost one of them by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      OK, so you knew that the subscription was for a ridiculously huge amount and that it would almost certainly kill you if you took that much, and yet you took it anyways? Ya, I am with the doctor on this one. The pharmacist should of caught that, and if they did not, you should have. If you found a razor blade in a candy bard would you just assume that the candy bar makers know what they are doing, and swallow it?

      Yes, I'm sure he was thinking very clearly immediately after skull fracture.

    6. Re:I was almost one of them by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You asked her to write you a provisional certificate of money subscribed to a bank or company, entitling the holder to a formal certificate and dividends? No wonder she was confused!

    7. Re:I was almost one of them by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Clearly enough to get his wife to stand over his bed for the entire day. Even if he was too dazed to understand the concept that taking so much medication that your lungs will likely stop functioning is bad, than you think his wife could of figured that aspect out.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  12. And they want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $15 an hour?

  13. Let Me Get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The expert researchers did an expert study that determined that all the 'evidence based' medicine that all the expert researchers have been promoting the last 20 years is garbage, and they have scientific evidence to back it up. Is that correct?

    I have no idea why anyone would ever question an expert.

    1. Re:Let Me Get this straight by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      No, that's not even remotely what this is about. It doesn't sound like you've even read the title on the summary, let alone the story itself.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: Let Me Get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experts should question themselves.

      There are things I've done in computing countless times, yet I often double check what I'm doing makes sense, see if new/better approaches exist, question conventional wisdom and has no ill side effects.

      Sometimes I feel more meticulous doing basic development or system administration than some MDs do when dealing with peoples' lives.

  14. Re:Terrorist Cell at 1600 Pa. Avenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one listened when I called for shutting down all of the hospitals.

    Maybe because that's a very stupid idea. The worst idea I've ever heard.

  15. Re:Terrorist Cell at 1600 Pa. Avenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one listened when I called for shutting down all of the hospitals.

    Maybe because that's a very stupid idea. The worst idea I've ever heard.

    It's not stupid. If hospital are closed, the number of death due to medical error will decrease, and the number of death from other cause will increase. So the problem of medical errors being 3rd cause of death should be fixed rapidly!

  16. Straw meet camel's back by dbIII · · Score: 1

    When you are near death a mistake that would be trivial if you are healthy is enough to kill you. That's not excusing the mistakes just explaining some of the statistics.

  17. Re: Would probably be #1 cause if numbers were rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had three doctors misdiagnose a systemic infection I had that could have lead to serious complications if untreated, and due to the circumstances, it would have went untreated without dubious research on my behalf. One doctor even prescribed a medication that exacerbated the infection. The third doctor I informed of my theory, concern for medication, and the evidence for diagnosis which they brushed away. I had laboratory testing ordered myself from labcorp which confirmed the case.

    I discussed the issue with future doctors and they covered the ass of the other doctors involved. As someone relatively young with a fairly strong science background, ability to research, and logical reasoning skills now encountering the medical world... I have lost faith with the majority of physicians and specialists. Their knowledge sets are often dated and they discount edge/corner cases in diagnostics. Several of the physians even provided incorrect information about laboratory test capabilities, treatment options, and progression yet they gave their answers with confidence in the face of reasonable alternatives.

  18. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went over that digit few years ago. It appears, that percentage-vise even countries like Cuba and People Republic of China are close to 14 and 21 times better than US at this.

    I believe that too much bydlo thinks of acquiring an MD to be a ticket to carefree life

  19. Motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until patient outcome has as much influence on medical practitioner compensation as mere throughput there will be no incentive for clinicians to up their game. While I've been out of the medical industry for nearly a decade I've heard of no changes that would lead me to believe that there has been any appreciable change to this situation in the US. Obviously there are societal factors such as obesity that the clinical industry cannot tackle alone it seems they do bear some responsibility as they disproportionally profit from the outcomes caused by such conditions.

    1. Re:Motivation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Until patient outcome has as much influence on medical practitioner compensation as mere throughput there will be no incentive for clinicians to up their game.

      Then no doctors will undertake the riskier surgeries that are difficult and have a lower chance of success. Yup... Sounds like a good plan to me. Let's run with it!

      (That's also a part of why the numbers are as high as they are. Yeah, you make more mistakes when you try difficult and new things. Imagine that.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re: Motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. Back up your assertion.

      New and risky is practiced all around the world. The difference is that in the UK, Norway or Australia your doctor is calling the shots, not an accountant from the insurance company armed with a profit/loss algorythm.

      Read the comments in this thread from actual real US doctors all telling it like it is, from the coalface. Do you need someone to explain all the big words perhaps ?

  20. it's all them foreign docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they're everywhere, they don't know english from klingon, and when they do, their accent and enunciation is absolutely horrid; they routinely fuck shit up.. simple stuff even a first year resident wouldn't.. dosages, units, standard abbreviations, incomprehensible dictation, you name it. h1-b will kill us yet. i could cite countless examples just from our work in medical records -- we see it all.

  21. Con game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Peter principle shows that all systems tend toward maximum incompetence. To correct this, it must be recognized but the system exists to deny, deny, deny, since there is so much profit in it. So doctors can diagnose cancer and declare you cured after taking $50,000 from you. It's a con, you never had cancer.

  22. Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work for the single payer health care system of Finland on the administrative side (IT & stats related) and partly because of that, health care has always been one of my favorite subjects to discuss. However something I've noticed when talking with Americans about it is a certain type of illusion/fallacy that many seem to be under, which is that because you pay so much for it, it must be the best system out there.

    Just yesterday I had a lengthy conversation on fb about the problems with a purely insurance based model, and even though I tried linking a couple of studies as to the amount of deaths caused by lack of access due to costs, I was labeled a liar because apparently 'everyone in the US now has the opportunity to get health insurance" (a direct quote from him) despite the fact that it's known that there are people who do not meet the criteria under the ACA to qualify for the cheaper/low income insurances whilist also not being able to afford a private one AND that there are also still issues with insurances not covering certain operations. Don't get me wrong, the ACA was a small step in a better direction but the gutting of the public option for all sort of killed the best potential about it. Yet my counterpart in said discussion was adamantly of the opinion that anyone who dies in the US for not getting treatment dies purely because he/she didn't bother to get insurance and hence the system is not to blame.

    You've plenty of things where you lead the world, and the medical R & D and high level expertise in the US is unparalleled. However I do wish that more Americans would realize how much you're paying for simple base level health care. I've seen hospital invoices from the states where simple over the counter ibuprofen pills are billed at several dollars a piece. That's a a margin of several thousand percentages. The fact that this is allowed is unfathomable to me. Even if one is of the opinion that a life-saving basic service should be allowed to remain a profit-driven business, having no controls on pricing combined with the insurance lobby has created a gigantic price bubble. This is why the US spends combined (private and tax spending) the most money on the planet per capita on health care, and still the results are far from the top. (Source (wiki))

    The profit motive needs to be either removed or curtailed heavily, so that more of the money that's spent can actually be used to improve the level of care and oversight, instead of just increasing the profits of the insurance giants and private hospitals.

    We get comparable treatment results and universal coverage (at about 3500 dollars a year per capita) than the US does when it comes to life expectancy, cancer survival rates (in fact, with certain types of cancers we're ahead of the US even) and so on. You spend more than DOUBLE that (8700 dollars according to OECD when totaling private and public spending, though interestingly, the CDC puts this figure even higher at 9500) and the massive increase in spending doesn't get you the kind of results that such an investment should.

    You could and should easily be able to arrange for the hands down best universal health care system without spending a dime more than you already are. Don't spend more, spend smarter.

    Just my 2 cents, feel free to mod me down for being a socialist scum now.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    1. Re:Facing facts by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America doesn't understand that certain things everyone has to pay for, and then everyone benefits from.

      Police and other emergency services
      Street lighting and road maintenance.
      Healthcare.

      Why anyone would want to involve a third-party insurance company into their payment of such things, or be able to "opt-out" of any of those, I can't fathom. You can't just say "Oh, I'll save a few dollars and the police won't be available to me". That's ridiculous and dangerous and burdensome.

      Same with healthcare. Provide basic healthcare for everyone. If you want, provide "above-and-beyond" healthcare that can be insured for. Like almost every other first-world country that provide "state" and "private" healthcare side by side.

      But if you need to pay into a fund just to ensure that if you accidentally break your leg you're not going to be put out on the streets because you can't work and/or pay the medical bills, then that fund needs to be centralised, non-profit and available to all. Not some private stash.

      You honestly might as well not have any healthcare at all, and just pay for the operations YOU need. It's honestly how it works out, but with a 50% profit for the insurers thrown in for good measure. At least without the insurers the poor would still die, the sick would still have to fund an unfair proportion according to how sick they are, but the insurers wouldn't be taking their cut.

      The biggest problem with America is that it doesn't see outside its own borders. The next is that, because of that, it thinks it's the best at everything. Sure, you're the best. If you never look at anyone else, ever. But the second you start to compare, it all falls apart.

      Maybe that's why they never do that comparison.

    2. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 0, Troll

      We get comparable treatment results and universal coverage (at about 3500 dollars a year per capita) than the US does when it comes to life expectancy, cancer survival rates (in fact, with certain types of cancers we're ahead of the US even) and so on.

      How nice for you. Finnish incomes are also thousands of dollars less per year compared to Americans, and that already takes into account the money you "save" on medical care; sounds like you're getting a bad deal.

      Furthermore, you're living in a tiny, sparsely populated monoculture at the ass end of Europe. The rest of the world doesn't work like your country. In fact, the US already has a large single payer, public health care system. It spends more per capita than Finland, but only manages to cover 1/3 of the population. Scaling that up to the whole population wouldn't reduce medical spending, it would massively increase it.

      Just my 2 cents, feel free to mod me down for being a socialist scum now.

      No, you're just a run of the mill European nationalist who knows little about the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Finland we have this thing called "terveyskeskus" ("health-care center") which is free. However it's usually not used by those who have work and need diagnosis and treatment fast. Many call it "arvauskeskus" ("guess center") here: usually you have to prove your own ailments in order to get a time from real doctor (the first step is for you to visit a public health nurse (a "generalist" who probably doesn't even want to touch you)).

      The first step, however, is for the "client" to explain his/her problem to the public health call center first. It will take hours or days for them to call back to you. Then, if you are lucky, you will visit a nurse who will say you're just OK and no problems. Then soon after that you will die from the same undiagnosed blood clot you found or you were wise enough for it to be diagnosed by the private sector.

      That's why many people in Finland skip the "arvauskeskus" part and just use private sector first. And if surgery is needed the private sector doctor will write a referral to the public health surgery (so you don't have to pay it 100%). It seems the "arvauskeskus" in Finland is for the poor (students, elderly, lo lifes) where "the client is always wrong" while the public health surgery/specialists services is used by everyone in Finland.

    4. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from Finland too and "Kiuas" really did tell a very rosy story of our country. Our public sector is constantly being criticized for being too broad and expensive. The latest trend is for people to start switching from public daycare to private because of the "tax progression". Because of the multiple "progressions" we have very high real-life taxation and many try to avoid earning "too much" because earning too much will cause you to lose more money (in %). This is almost a socialist country in the brink of total collapse from the heavy public sector and uncompetitive companies constantly being sold to foreigners.

    5. Re:Facing facts by mindstormpt · · Score: 2

      How nice for you. Finnish incomes are also thousands of dollars less per year compared to Americans, and that already takes into account the money you "save" on medical care; sounds like you're getting a bad deal.

      Depends on how you look at it. While the average household income in the US is significantly higher, it is top-biased. The average income for the bottom 20% is higher in Finland at $13253/year vs $11194/year in the US. Suffice it to say that it is not the top 20% who need universal health care.

      Furthermore, you're living in a tiny, sparsely populated monoculture at the ass end of Europe (...) Scaling that up to the whole population wouldn't reduce medical spending, it would massively increase it.

      There's plenty of countries larger than Finland with effective and efficient single-payer health care.

    6. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what sense is Finland on the verge of collapse as compared to the US?

      Finland's national debt is 53.5% of its GDP.
      The US national debt is 104% of its GDP.

    7. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      It spends more per capita than Finland, but only manages to cover 1/3 of the population. Scaling that up to the whole population wouldn't reduce medical spending, it would massively increase it.

      Of course the spending is massive, because currently the cost of procedures is massively inflated. My whole point is that in the current american model the pricing of standard procedures is way high precisely because the hospitals are in it to make profit and they have fairly free reign to set the prices as the money comes from either the insurance companies or the government. Of course they're going to ask for as much as they can, which leads to situations in which simple procedures like getting some stiches and an x-ray can rack up a bill of over a thousand, or pills that cost a cent or 2 being sold with several dollars.

      I at no point said that you must scale the current system up, it's not doable that way. I said you could establish a better functioning universal system if you controlled the pricing better and/or eliminated the insurance companies from base level medical care and treated it - like most of the rest of the industrialized world - as a public expense altogether.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    8. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Then soon after that you will die from the same undiagnosed blood clot you found or you were wise enough for it to be diagnosed by the private sector.

      There are problems in the current system here as well, but this is not representative of them for several reasons. If you have acute symptoms you do not go to a health centre, you go directly to an ER. Something like a blood clot which causes clear and immediate symptoms like possible slurring of speech, impeded movement ie. these are things for which you call an ambulance and treatment is started usually within hours, and recovery rates are quite good. Misdiagnoses do happen, but it's not as if people - young or old - are dying en mass from conditions that health centers failed to diagnose.

      The system is not problem free, but it's not dysfunctional: people do get treated and most often successfully so. I agree with you that the role of health centers in the current system is problematic, and it is being reconsidered currently. but it's not as bad as you make it seem when you look at actual data on performance and how people get help.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    9. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      This is almost a socialist country in the brink of total collapse from the heavy public sector and uncompetitive companies constantly being sold to foreigners.

      Erm... the policies of the last three cabinets have been far from socialistic. They've sold of core infrastructure as you mentioned to foreign capital investment firms (not a socialist policy), they've cut the corporate tax rate by quite a huge chunk in the false hope that that would have created more jobs, (which it didn't) and now they're cutting from the poor and the elderly. These same methods have now been tried in various forms for several election-cycles, and we haven't seen a turn for the better because the government cutting its spending and giving corporations tax-breaks does not automatically turn into (export) jobs. Make matters worse they're now cuting education, further making it less likely that we get the types of innovations they themselves say that we need to get the economy flowing properly again. These policy-decisions are not helpful in the long term, and they're certainly not socialistic policies.

      Point being: our economy has issues yes, structural issues, but those issues are not because of 'socialism'. Sweden has highly similar tax structure (in fact, their corporate tax rate is higher than ours) and social policies yet their economy is doing much much better. The problem is the current government is only trying to reduce spending for the most part, which will not solve/help unemployment, or for that matter help our companies to export more. The problem is not costs of production (on which we're about at the same level as Germany), or the unemployed being too lazy, yet these two have been the ones the government has been yelling about the most, even though they're not central issues.

      There are actual issues which could be addressed, such as making hiring less of a risk for starting companies etc, better support for people starting export businesses, etc... but it's false to say that the current situation is because we're a socialist country: we lost Nokia and nearly a fourth of all our exports with it, and still haven't fully recovered from that and the latest recession.

      Also, as has already been pointed out, we're nowhere near any collapsing point.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    10. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, in this case, the U.S. is the outlier -- not Finland, or even Europe. There are large, densely populated countries spending a lot less and getting a lot more.
      Most of the top 20 GDP countries spend less and get more -- and the rest spend a lot less but still follow the curve.

      The point is that the U.S. system sucks for the majority of people and we'd be better off emulating the systems in the rest of the world that work.

      Sure, it'd suck for private insurance companies, though they would still exist, but it follows that the nation should eventually spend less and get more out of it.
      Well, unless you're going to say that U.S. cultural diversity somehow impacts the ability to run a successful health care system.

       

    11. Re:Facing facts by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Just curious ... do you realize the awesome R & D is because of the profit motivation?

      And just curious, does Finland ever learn things from that US R&D effort? Does it ever reap any benefits?

      I love how countries who depend on the US to live the cushy life they live pretend that the US has it all wrong.

      Our for profit-medical industry is bullshit, but lets not over look the forest for the trees when you start acting like your system has the problem solved.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:Facing facts by Malc · · Score: 1

      There was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine back in 2003 that showed that the difference in spending between Canada and the US came down basically to the additional admin costs in the US:
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      In fact it's unbelievable how much the admin costs are. It's interesting looking at those numbers and the ones you quoted, which if accurate surely show costs are increasing far faster than the rate of inflation.

    13. Re:Facing facts by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The US still has the material wealth to pretend to be able to pay it - we've loads of national resources and the military might to silence critics if need be. Finland hasn't got that. I do seem to recall that Finland now has an oil industry but that it's not actually their oil - it's just getting refined there and it comes from Norway and Russia. So, there's that but they tell me oil's going to keep having production issues and the usage will continue to decrease.

      Maybe that's what they're suggesting?

      But yeah, the US has a whole bunch of resources left and, equally important, has been investing in military tech for a very long time. It's not polite to mention that but it is the reality. Also, don't blame me - I didn't do it. I'm just sharing the information.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Facing facts by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If I may...

      While it's great that you're close and can give personal anecdotes and even cite select figures, has it occurred to you that you're incapable of being objective? I'll also add that the news is generally only going to show you the bad because the normal, every-day, fairly standard stuff isn't really that interesting. It doesn't get eyeballs, excitement, or result in charged emotions.

      Get out, travel the world. Most of all, visit America - if you want. Spend some time and actually meet some people.

      Let's start with the number of people treated... Then, let's consider the types of treatments that are available? Then, let's consider cultural differences where one group may try to do everything to save an elderly person and the other is more stoic and realistic. Consider then the complexity of the newer and riskier procedures.

      No system is perfect and it probably won't ever be perfect. I've stomped across the planet and seen a whole lot of it - in person and up close. The US system isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. There are a lot of improvements to be made but that's true everywhere. There's a reason that those who can afford it will often travel to the US for specialty care. That reason is because it's well documented that the care can be about the best on the planet.

      I realize that the concept above, in that last sentence, sounds a bit barbaric but welcome to America. I say that the US system isn't as bad as it could be because there are really people here who'd be quite content to know that the poor people were getting no treatment at all. We're a very... Hmm... We're a very selfish people here but that's not universal. I'm a pretty hard-core Libertarian, for example, but I strongly support single-payer health care. I'm also big on personal responsibility and yeah, I guess that does mean that people have to accept the consequences of their choices. I'm okay with that, within reason.

      So, there's more to the story and you don't look to be objective enough to actually be able to voice a valuable opinion. Yeah, it's great that you're involved and that you're really happy about your system (I notice there are some huge tonal differences between your first post and your replies - and it's okay - we're all nationalistic but eager to accuse others of it and refuse to see it in ourselves) but that actually means you're probably not really going to give an objective and accurate portrayal of your system. Note, really, the differences between your first comment and then the tone of your replies when called out by it by a fellow citizen.

      It's okay... In all my travels I've learned one important thing. We're pretty much all just humans underneath.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada also has a single payer health system (socialized medicine if you prefer).

      We spend less per-captita AND less of our GDP on healthcare than the USA, and have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate.

      (you can google all this info)

      And despite what most people think, our tax rates (Canada vs USA) are a lot closer than you think.

      http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans.aspx

      I'll finish this off by saying I'm not a socialist. I struggle with my belief that gov't should be small, and stay out of our lives, yet in the specific case of healthcare, I truly think it's an "essential service" like Police, EMS and Fire.

    16. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at it. While the average household income in the US is significantly higher, it is top-biased.

      We're talking about medians; they are not "top biased".

      The average income for the bottom 20% is higher in Finland at $13253/year vs $11194/year in the US. Suffice it to say that it is not the top 20% who need universal health care.

      I'm sorry, but you don't understand the numbers you're quoting: that's not "average income", it's "disposable income", and it excludes "in-kind benefits".

      In any case, the US has much larger per capita social spending than Finland, so the bottom 20% in the US are likely going to be a lot better off than the bottom 20% in Finland. On top of that, the fact that the US does not have universal health care but targets its health care based on need means that there is more money for those who need it, while high income earners in the US are forced to pay for their healthcare themselves. That seems like a more sensible system, doesn't it?

      There's plenty of countries larger than Finland with effective and efficient single-payer health care.

      You're Finnish, I'm originally from one of those other countries. Why don't you stick to opining about the system you are actually familiar with?

    17. Re:Facing facts by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The profit motive needs to be either removed or curtailed heavily

      What motive is there then? Apparently Finland doesn't pay doctors much, maybe it doesn't matter because medical results mostly depend on the patient's lifestyle...

    18. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I said you could establish a better functioning universal system if you controlled the pricing better and/or eliminated the insurance companies from base level medical care and treated it

      You aren't listening. The US has a public system, a system that already has eliminated insurance companies, and that already has controlled prices. And that public system is horrifically expensive. The fact that the massive public health care system in the US is unable to achieve the kind of price controls that the Finnish system can achieve is not going to get fixed by eliminating the private healthcare system in the US.

      The "private" health care system in the US also has its problems, but that's because it isn't really a private system at all; it's little more than a privately administered public system, with massive monopolies and few free market components left to it.

    19. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Just curious ... do you realize the awesome R & D is because of the profit motivation?

      Yes, but I wasn't talking about eliminating profit motives from manufacturers of medical tech. We still buy and use american medical tech here, and the companies manufacturing those make profit on them.

      The point is, if you install something like a pacer on someone of course the pacer has a margin on it and is sold for profit. In the US however, on top of this the hospital then adds its own margin and finally after the insurance companies pay the bills they take their own margin on top of that. Eliminating the latter 2 will not effect the capabilities of R&D companies and tech companies to make business.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    20. Re:Facing facts by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Healthcare scales with population size nicely, as the people it serves pay for it. You can't pull the usual "but we so biiiig!" argument we see when discussing shitty broadband, as it simply does not apply. And "monoculture"? What's that supposed to mean? Can you elucidate as to: a. what that is, and b. how it matters? Not to mention "ass end of Europe" - what does that have to do with anything, apart from you showing your emotional side and trying to stave off this attack on your beloved, sacred homeland's institutions by slinging some random shit?

      The US system, as was outlined in the post you replied to (but seemingly didn't read) is inherently broken. It would cost more to cover the other 2/3 because the system is fucked up. Plenty of developed countries the world over have healthcare systems similar to Finland's, and they have outcomes comparable to the US's.

      You countered a post saying "Finland spends less money on comparable healthcare" by mumbling some nonsense about how the numbers don't add up because of some weird way you want to look at the numbers? Your argument smacks of desperation and ignorance.

      He's done nothing to be called a "run of the mill European nationalist". He just pointed out some demonstrable facts about the failings of the US healthcare system and how they have been handled in other countries. Are you somewhat patriotic yourself? Do you take criticism of the US personally? Does it feel like stabbing in your heart or stomach when someone besmirches the pristine name of the US? It sure as hell sounds like it.

    21. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      has it occurred to you that you're incapable of being objective

      Yes and I'm very aware that obviously I have certain biases, as do most people, I try my best to control them, albeit not always successfully.

      The US system isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

      Oh I know, and I wasn't saying that it's bad. It's quite good, even top class in many ways, my gripe is just that from my perspective as someone who knows something about the cost-structure of health care the system is just inefficient at producing health. Simply put, it works great for those that have access to it, but it does so at a greater cost than any other system per capita, which in turn makes achieving functional universal coverage difficult, This is largely why the US is distinct from all other western nations. But again this doesn't make the system bad per se, just cost-heavy.

      Yeah, it's great that you're involved and that you're really happy about your system (I notice there are some huge tonal differences between your first post and your replies - and it's okay - we're all nationalistic but eager to accuse others of it and refuse to see it in ourselves) but that actually means you're probably not really going to give an objective and accurate portrayal of your system. Note, really, the differences between your first comment and then the tone of your replies when called out by it by a fellow citizen.

      Well my replies are my attempt in trying to be more objective. The first post was meant to highlight the problems with the out of hand costs in the US, not as an in-depth analysis of the issues with the system here. Obviously our system is not perfect either, but by all standard measures it achieves results very much comparable to the results in the american model, not better (for the most part), but pretty much on par in most metrics. So I stand behind the point in the original message. I understand it may come across as overly nationalistic but that wasn't exactly my point, as I'm not suggesting the US directly copies its system from here or anywhere else for that matter. I'm just trying to say that I firmly believe based on the figures I've seen from here and from other countries, that you can get the american system to perform better and achieve better coverage without increasing spending. The problem is this requires meddling with the business of insurance companies and private hospitals, which for political reasons is obviously much more of a difficult thing to pull off in the US than in many other places.

      It's okay... In all my travels I've learned one important thing. We're pretty much all just humans underneath.

      Yup, 100 % agreed. I do apologize if the tone came off as arrogant, that wasn't intended.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    22. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      And that public system is horrifically expensive.

      If you look at the numbers spent per patient, both Medicare and Medicaid are cheaper than private alternatives already. So your point is wrong: the costs of the system to the state have increased as people enrolled in these programs have increased, but the cost per member when compared to private insurers is still cheaper.

      Point being, if you replaced medicare and medicaid with some type of single public insurance that would still be free/cheap for people of low income, but open for everyone (at a cost for those making above a certain amount if you wish to avoid tax-funding it), it would be cheaper. The point about public insurance -. even if it's not a single payer model - is that as its funded by a public entity and is non-profit, obviously it's going to be cheaper than an insurance ran by a company for profit. If you then further either ran more hospitals with public funds, or alternatively had more control over the pricing of the hospitals, you would further cut the costs.

      None of this even requires the elimination of private clinics and insurers. Models such as this are in pretty widespread use in places like Germany,

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    23. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Can you elucidate as to: a. what that is,

      Small, ethnically homogeneous countries are quite different on many dimensions from larger and more ethnically diverse countries.

      mention "ass end of Europe" - what does that have to do with anything,

      It refers to the fact that Finland's geographic situation and history is rather exceptional and very different from the US. It's also expresses a certain disapproval for how Finland has used its position in the past.

      The US system, as was outlined in the post you replied to (but seemingly didn't read) is inherently broken.

      I agree completely that the US health care system is broken. But covering everybody with national single payer health care isn't going to fix the US health care system.

      Are you somewhat patriotic yourself?

      No, I actually dislike the country I was born in.

      Do you take criticism of the US personally? Does it feel like stabbing in your heart or stomach when someone besmirches the pristine name of the US? It sure as hell sounds like it.

      Much simpler than that: I've emigrated once, I don't want Europe's bad political ideas to follow me to the US.

      He's done nothing to be called a "run of the mill European nationalist".

      Well, why do people like him and you have such an obsession with US politics? What business of yours is it how the US organizes its health care system? I don't even vote anymore in Europe since I left, let alone participate in European political discussions. Why don't you mind your own business?

    24. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The point about public insurance -. even if it's not a single payer model - is that as its funded by a public entity and is non-profit, obviously it's going to be cheaper than an insurance ran by a company for profit.

      You're thinking of healthcare prices as cost+profit, and assume that if you deliver health care via a non-profit entity, prices will drop to cost. That's not how economics works. The difference between the Finnish and the US system isn't profits. In fact, most of the differences are simply consumer choice and government-imposed price fixing.

      Point being, if you replaced medicare and medicaid with some type of single public insurance that would still be free/cheap for people of low income, but open for everyone (at a cost for those making above a certain amount if you wish to avoid tax-funding it), it would be cheaper.

      You keep saying that but that doesn't make it true. In fact, we know what the per-patient spending for a fully public, non-profit, non-insurance, single payer system is in the US: it's about three times what it is in Finland, and (despite your claims) even significantly higher than private insurance in the US. Obviously, if you covered everybody with that system, medical spending would likely go up, not down, and it certainly wouldn't go down to Finnish levels. And the reason spending is higher is because Americans consume health care differently. It may not be rational (neither were those big old 60's automobiles), but it's a choice Americans happen to make.

      What I really can't figure out is why Europeans constantly feel a need to chime in on US political issues; you have enough problems of your own, why do you stick your noses into American problems?

    25. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you could compare to the UK then which is very comparable to the US in most terms, and virtually everything he said about Finland is also true of the UK system in comparison to the US. Lot's of stuff is better in the US than other places, but you're allowed to admit some aspects of your country are not the best possible system you know.

    26. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine back in 2003 that showed that the difference in spending between Canada and the US came down basically to the additional admin costs in the US:
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      In fact it's unbelievable how much the admin costs are. It's interesting looking at those numbers and the ones you quoted, which if accurate surely show costs are increasing far faster than the rate of inflation.

      I work in a hospital, I can tell you the administration costs are ridiculous. There are many people walking around with hospital badges on that I want to ask, tell me your job in one sentence and if you can't your fired. There is WAY to much administration and it eats our healthcare dollars from the inside out.

    27. Re: Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they put something in the water over there ? I swear..trying to educate Americans about healthcare or firearms or religion is an almost impossible task. Any facts that fly in the face of their social conditioning is screamed down with the sort of hysterical nonsense usually only seen in North Koreans when Dear Leader is criticised.

      The brain washing really is extraordinarily effective. Their corporate masters have pulled off miracles.

    28. Re:Facing facts by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem here is that the U.S. is running short of options when it comes to employment, so a lot of people have jumped on the medical bandwagon because money still seems to be flowing in that sector. Across the U.S., approximately 12% of the total employed population works in the healthcare field (http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2009/health_care/). That means expenses for medical treatment (the product of such employment) needs to cover the salaries of almost a tenth of the total payroll in the country on average. For comparison, in 1978, less than 7% of the population worked in healthcare. If, as I suspect might be the case, the metoric rise of healthcare costs is more related to the lack of living-wage jobs available in other sectors, it makes sense that the end bill will come out higher but results don't necessarily have to improve.

    29. Re: Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind your own business? You are a fool smiling while you champion your embrace of ignorance. This is slashdot. I for one welcome any debate on this topic from any one who is even remotely qualified to talk about it. Ignoring lessons learned from other countries is simply an ignorant policy for simply ignorant people like you. Please emigrate again soon.

    30. Re:Facing facts by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      The difference between the Finnish and the US system isn't profits.

      Yes, yes it is. It's not the only difference between the 2 systems but it's a major one.

      even significantly higher than private insurance in the US.

      This is simply not true. Source

      As younger baby boomers join Medicare, the average amount that the program spends per beneficiary will be slightly reduced over the next decade. Overall, however, it appears that public programs control per capita spending somewhat more effectively than private coverage does. That may be just the opposite of what many would presume in a country where the private market is generally expected to outperform the public sector.

      Here’s another way to think about it: While Medicare and Medicaid are far from perfect, the purchasing power and policy levers available to large public programs appear to give them an edge over our fragmented private insurance system when it comes to controlling spending.

      The problem with trying to have his discussion with you is that you're misinformed about facts, and make claims that are not consistent with reality.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    31. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it is. It's not the only difference between the 2 systems but it's a major one.

      The health sector has profit margins between -11% (medical practitioners), 4.3% (hospitals), and 21% (major drug manufacturers), so it isn't a "major component" even numerically.

      More importantly, though, that profit represents the investments and risks needed to run those businesses. If government takes over those functions, that cost is still paid. So, even if government managed to be just as efficient as a private business, you'd still pay for this, you just don't think you do because it doesn't show up on any balance sheet.

      This is simply not true. Source [wsj.com]

      The WSJ talks about growth in spending, not absolute spending.

      Furthermore, my point isn't that the US private system is better than the public system; the US private system sucks as well. My point is that the public system is so costly and inefficient that proposing covering all Americans at Finland-like costs is delusional.

      The problem with trying to have his discussion with you is that you're misinformed about facts, and make claims that are not consistent with reality.

      Your problem is apparently that you simply can't read and can't do basic math.

    32. Re:Facing facts by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that you took my post as it was intended. It was not meant as a pejorative, nor a slight, nor an attempt to put you down. It was mostly meant to do exactly what it seemed to have done. It was interesting to see your initial posts and then your follow up posts to those who replied to you - there was quite a change.

      If you're willing to accept a compliment - one with some barbs, then I'll say this, "It's good to be able to acknowledge one's frailties and there are few people who seem willing to admit they've said things that might not be accurate." Yes, there are some barbs in that but I've chosen the verbiage carefully. They're meant to stick because, as you indicate, you make an effort to improve.

      I am JUST as guilty as you are. Let me be clear about that. To add to that, I'd appreciate 'barbed compliments' and consider the sticking a feature - they're reminding and we all must make an effort to improve. Then again, there are times when objectivity is simply not a realistic option.

      The tonal differences between your first post and the follow-up replies are quite vast. That does tell me that you're MUCH better than some folks - perhaps even better than I. ;-)

      To get back to the subject, there's a huge cultural difference that many aren't aware of so I'm sure it seems amazing and barbaric to them. In this thread, someone mentioned a person who was working at a B&B instead of working as a carpenter - while they saved money for an operation. What also needs to be realized is there's a really, really good chance that the person who was doing that actually *wanted* to do that. He wanted to "earn" the surgery. Otherwise, he could probably have gone through some hardship and managed to get State funded health care which does, indeed, cover things like that - it's not a cosmetic thing but it does require they swallow their pride.

      The end result of this is that I am glad that you read it the way I meant. I realized it was a bit muddy but it was written more as a commendation than a condemnation. (If that makes sense. Who am I to condemn you or anyone else?) Instead, I was mostly hoping to bring to light the lack of objectivity and the need to be aware of it.

      See, I'm quite familiar with your posts. I read *every* username before I read the post. Yes, yes I do. I read at -1 and I read every single username for every post that I read. You're not known (to me) to be necessarily wrong but sometimes a bit skewed and biased. I figured this was a good example.

      Thank you for your patience, understanding, and openness to discuss this without needing to have the dialogue devolve into stick throwing. I have every reason to believe that you'd point it out to me if I were engaging in similar behavior. In fact, there are some subjects that I simply refuse to comment on. I am unable to do so without inserting my own biases. My goal is to learn and share what I know. I think we're similar in those regards. ;-)

      And, in closing, yup... Humans are humans. I've traveled to places where my own government reached out to me and warned me to not go there. I've been told (several times) that the government will not be able to lend me any help if I went to those areas and that the State Department was not going to be able to get me out of any trouble. Oddly, I've also been asked to come see said department when I returned but I'm not sure how much I'm supposed to disclose about that. My doing so was strictly voluntary and was not some sort of "spy stuff" or anything like that. It's still an interesting topic.

      Really, we're humans anywhere.

      If you do get to the US and its in the North East, I live in Maine. Let me know. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, who the f*ck cares? Stop sticking your nose into American politics and take your national politics to Finnish websites.

    34. Re: Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any facts that fly in the face of their social conditioning is screamed down with the sort of hysterical nonsense usually only seen in North Koreans when Dear Leader is criticised.

      Yes, that just about describes your average European. I know: I'm from Europe.

    35. Re:Facing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that the U.S. system sucks for the majority of people and we'd be better off emulating the systems in the rest of the world that work.

      We are already emulating what the rest of the world does. Half of the US system is already a single payer public system, and the other half is a strongly regulated private system. That puts the US somewhere in the middle between countries like Germany, Switzerland, and the UK.

      Well, unless you're going to say that U.S. cultural diversity somehow impacts the ability to run a successful health care system.

      Europe lowers its health care costs by limiting services (e.g., forcing people to use generics) and imposing strict cost controls on doctors and pharmaceutical companies. For whatever reason, the US government is incapable of doing that, which you can see when you look at Medicare/Medicaid, so handing over the entire health care sector to the US government is just not going to change anything.

    36. Re:Facing facts by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      There are many things wrong with the US system. What I am saying, and what should be bloody obvious, is that adopting a UK-style single payer system isn't going to work in the US. How do we know that? Because the US already has a single payer system and it is even less efficient than the US private system.

      The cause for the excessive US healthcare spending is largely excessive spending on end of life care; if you reduced that to European levels, US health care costs would be at European levels. But it is Medicare that engages in this excessive spending, so switching to a single payer system isn't going to fix this.

  23. "Errors" by axewolf · · Score: 1

    Maybe on the part of the front-line physicians.

    Does no guilt lie with the designers of protocols? Can not the possibility be acknowledged that protocols were designed to cull people who "aren't worth saving"?
    There is no accountability. The tone of the article proves it. Where accountability is lacking morality is exceeded. This is not some irrelevant generalization. This is natural law, provable by induction.
    As though such thoughts would never cross the mind of every ordinary person, let alone one who acts as society's interface to life and death: "If they have lived a full life, have been productive in their career and the raising of their family, what else could they offer? Their days of productivity are at an end, and it would perhaps be cruel to make them go on hobbled or lame."

  24. The American medical sets goal to be number 1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that we can get from number 3 to number 1 in just a few years!

  25. And if this is true in the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine how bad it is where I live, in the Czech Republic. Doctor errors must be our number one cause of death.

  26. And if this is true in the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine how bad it is in the Czech Republic, where I live. Doctor errors must the number one cause of death. Especially when it comes to diagnosis. Who has the time or will to listen when you are expected to see 8-10 patients per hour? When your training was incomplete anyway, because the medical schools don't have the resources (try training a class of 20 students in anatomy when they only have a single cadaver between them. And it's often the head professor!) I would like to move to America to lower my chances of premature death at the hands of the half-skilled.

  27. Third worlders are the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you know it...

  28. Re: As long as Republicans keep getting elected... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    When Bernie is elected, he'll disrupt the medical cartel.

    Bernie wants to make all of US health care as efficient as the VA and Medicare, meaning he will about triple the cost per patient. And doctors and hospitals will love him for it.

  29. Re:As long as Republicans keep getting elected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, the stupid is really out in full force today.

  30. Health insurance is useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the purpose of health insurance is to -prevent- people from receiving healthcare.

    And the insurance companies have become very skilled at this purpose.

  31. Simple but wrong ideas by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) eliminate the health care companies. We need direct pay!

    The costs are too large to not have either insurance companies or the government involved. The majority of Americans would be bankrupted by a single major surgery and that would be true even if healthcare costs weren't completely out of hand.

    2) eliminate the AMA. There are not enough doctors. Patients are dying in the emergency room waiting to be seen.

    First off, the AMA has nothing to do with the quantity of doctors. They do not directly control the supply of doctors and in fact the number of medical schools has been increasing in the last decade. Second, there is no epidemic of patients "dying in the ER waiting to be seen". Emergency Departments (they aren't typically called Emergency Rooms because - well, they're not a room) are actually quite good at triaging patients and taking care of those in greatest need first. There is however the problem of people coming to the Emergency Department for conditions that clearly are NOT emergencies because our screwed up system gives them no other options.

    3) kill all malpractice lawyers. A doctor practising in good faith should never ever be sued

    And exactly how do you plan to distinguish between doctors acting in good faith and those that aren't? While the vast majority of doctors are good, hard working people who care greatly about their patients, there are exceptions. Furthermore there sometimes are doctors of questionable competence. An incompetent person acting in good faith is just as dangerous as a competent person acting in bad faith. Either one is dangerous and there has to be a mechanism for dealing with them.

    4) curtail the power of the FDA. The FDA does more harm than good.

    Spare me. While nobody would argue that the FDA is without problems, the FDA is one of the most successful and vital government organizations we have. Their prime directive is to actually make sure that medical treatments actually work before they can be sold to the public. Without the FDA you would have absurd levels of quackery and fake "treatments" being sold to people who don't know any better. One merely has to look at the market for "alternative medicine" (particularly homeopathy) to see what would happen. You know what they call alternative medicine that is proven to work? Medicine.

    There is no difference between big government and big corporations. You do not want you health care being run by the insurance companies or the government.

    If you think there is no difference between government and business you don't understand either one adequately. There are no other payment options available without involving either insurance or government. Most countries have (sensibly) picked the government option since EVERYONE needs health care at some point but insurance can be made to work. But unless you are privately wealthy there aren't any third options. Your notion of everyone paying directly is pure fantasy because the costs are and will remain too high to be feasible.

    1. Re:Simple but wrong ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say the costs are too large for individuals to bear the burden. I say when 18% of gdp is going to health care, the costs are too big to be borne by society as a whole. The reason costs are so high is BECAUSE a bureaucracy is rich off the suffering of individual patients. You are right the costs of some of these advanced life saving procedures is astronomical. But if we had patients paying directly, the costs would be forced to come down to the point where most people might be able to afford them. The best health care is a system that we can afford. The current situation is untenable. Currently the LASIK and some cosmetic surgery is affordable by most people living in the USA. They might have to save a year to afford it, but it can be done. Now if Insurance was paying for these procedures, the costs would easily be triple what they are today, and we would have less LASER eye surgeries being done, not more.

      Some say the single payer system is the answer. I agree it would be better than the current system, but you would have the danger of it turning into something like the VA, or medicare. Those are bureaucracies, just like the insurance companies. We need direct pay.

      Some say this is heartless, but it really isn't. Economics says there are unlimited needs and only limited resources. Would you rather have Adam Smith do the rationing, in such a manner that the best care can be given to the most people most of the time, or you rather have the rationing done by a medical bureaucracy at an insurance company, or some medical review board at some VA like institution (in a single payer system)

      Direct Pay is the Way.

  32. Doctors think they're smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    And hey, they're right, but they're not infallible.

    Neither are computers, but they're closer.

    Right now, expert systems are ALREADY better than doctors at making diagnoses. The only part they can't handle is doing the actual inspection and questioning of the patient, and that part is coming fast.

    What will prevent us from using them? The AMA. They lobby to make it harder to become a doctor, in order to keep down the supply of health care professionals. The AMA is evil, and must be destroyed.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Doctors think they're smart by jittles · · Score: 1

      And hey, they're right, but they're not infallible.

      Yes and no. I've dated two doctors and a PA. One doctor was a surgeon and the other handled critical care at an ICU. About half of the doctors I met during that time were idiots - I would feel more comfortable making my own medical choices over having them make any. I'd let the nurse make decisions over some of those doctors. The PA knew her shit better than a lot of the doctors I met during the time I dated those three women. All of her doctor friends were geniuses. In my experience there are a lot of really smart doctors and a lot of really stupid / lazy doctors. Those two groups compromise a solid 70% of the doctors I've met. The rest are somewhere in between. My guess is the poor quality doctors are driven by greed over a true passion for medicine and science.

  33. Could be good news (without further information) by kleinesRaedchen · · Score: 1

    As long we're not treated by intelligent roboters, this seems unavoidable. Humans will always err. If treatment of cancer and heart diseases further improves, medical errors will be (in all likelihood) number 1 cause. So this seemingly shocking news might be a sign of advancement in medicine. Just playing devil's advocate.

  34. Re:Terrorist Cell at 1600 Pa. Avenue by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

    A modern day modest proposal. I like it.

    --
    Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  35. Just another line item... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Medical errors leading to death is just another line item to our insurance industry. Being as it doesn't cost the industry anything for you to die (in fact they come out even further ahead at that point), there is no reason for them to do anything to prevent it. The insurance industry, far more than anyone else, dictates how much work a hospital or clinic needs to do in order to keep the lights on; they could bring down medical errors by lowering that threshold. Doing so would of course eat in to profits so they'll keep it right where it is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  36. Number 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps on a list of all causes it might rank 3, but as a preventable cause of death (murder, pool drownings, etc) it ranks 1 by leaps and bounds (250k vs 42k for suicide). I suspect what we have here is a similar situation to that of law enforcement, those making the "mistakes" are often those making the determination.

  37. Re:Terrorist Cell at 1600 Pa. Avenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen them post before. They're not that stupid so that's surely their attempt at humor. I do pay a bit of attention to the names of who posts (I wasn't doing anything better) and they're not usually exclaiming any zealous political opinions at either end of the spectrum. So, I'm pretty sure it's a joke.

  38. "Medical Errors" by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Are they grouping inherent risks with medical errors?

    Medicine definitely falls into the Rocket Science category of difficult.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  39. Statistics by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

    So your are roughly 20 times more likely to be killed by a medical professional than by a firearm.

  40. Re: As long as Republicans keep getting elected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medicare controls costs and has better outcomes than any other public or private institution in the US.
    I very much wish our entire health care system was run by them.

  41. We barely see Dr as often as we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switch to Canada's model where our insurance doesn't dictate which specialists we can see, and when we can see them. People aren't taking care of their problems because of the cost of doing so makes them put it off until it's serious. My aunt died from stomach cancer because she thought it was just stomach cramps or a food allergy that she could put up with and she didn't have the cash to spend on a visit just for that.
     
    Also please let's get job protection for people with medical problems. My mother in law is going to be fired from her job, and has been in the past, because of polycystic kidney disease preventing her from being able to walk or move. She has 20% kidney function but can only get a new kidney when it's at 10%, and in the meantime she has to try to be at work enough to not get laid off.
     
    Medical system in the US just doesn't work for the average person, we can't even people in to be diagnosed, or get proper care without risking their employment.

  42. If medicine could treat any condition ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    If medicine could treat any condition (including anything age-related), then the only thing people would die from are medical errors.

  43. one of the authors is the "checklist guy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the authors of the article is, in fact, the guy out promoting the use of checklists in surgery.

  44. Sooooooo.. where do I pick up my ammo? by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

    So statistically speaking, I'm safer around guns than doctors?

    --
    Stop signs are only Suggestions
  45. Maybe more opiates is the answer by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A friend's wife is senior management with a hospital system and we were talking about some of the impossible challenges of medical care and cost.

    I kind of wondered if more opiates, doled out in small doses & quantities, wasn't actually partly the answer.

    1) Pacifies the hypochondriacs and people with vague and poorly defined "symptoms" who end up getting a bunch of expensive tests to rule out rare conditions they don't have. They go home, feel better from the opiates and maybe find something else to be distracted about because they feel better. Eliminates a lot of doctor time, lab time and expensive time on limited access equipment like MRIs.

    2) Masks symptoms in people who have chronic conditions and have no actual cure. These people may have expensive and marginally effective therapies for what actually ails them, but quite often these are expensive drugs, demanding physical therapies or other treatments that don't much improve their actual condition or how they feel and won't cure them anyway. A lot of the time is strikes me that these people are on expensive medications with weird side effects and marginal primary effects whose principal value seems to be they aren't opiates.

    OK, there would be downsides, some of these people would develop low-level habits, but that's where the small doses and quantities part comes in. Given opiates under managed conditions, most would not spiral into raging junkies and many may actually experience an improved quality of life because they *feel* better. Even if they did have low-level, maintenance habits they could be on opiates for years without any significant side effects, and as drugs they are dirt cheap.

    The up side is that a lot of people who clog the medical system with non-problems and conditions that mainly need to be managed to keep them living functional lives, probably saving a bunch of money and resources for people with treatable or more life-threatening conditions.

    In a way, it's kind of a rationing of medical resources but with potential state-of-mind improvement for those rationed out of the system.

    1. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by mi · · Score: 1

      I kind of wondered if more opiates, doled out in small doses & quantities, wasn't actually partly the answer.

      Yep, this is, what treating the Population, rather than the Patient leads to. When the needs of the Collective trump those of the Individual...

      probably saving a bunch of money and resources for people with treatable or more life-threatening conditions

      How would you distinguish the two groups from each other? If the customer has already paid (for "insurance" — public or private) and expects to be treated for free, what other criteria is there to decide, whether he gets real treatment or opiates (and End of Life Counseling)? In some cases it may be obvious, but — and this can be concluded from your post — such clear-cut situations are a minority.

      You still need to run those "expensive tests", you wanted to avoid. And you will avoid them with patients less equal than others... And if you do not, the "senior management" of the hospital will make you... In USSR patients were accustomed to having to bring "gifts" to doctors for routine visits and paying (with money or other favors) for more serious treatment — to get themselves more equal than the rest.

      In a way, it's kind of a rationing of medical resources

      Of course, it is. And it is unavoidable — even if the Collectivists of various stripes do not get it (or would not admit to). When you do not have enough of something — such as doctor's time, or particular medicine, or sneakers — for everybody, somebody will not get it — no matter, how you slice or dice it. Who will be left without (or with less) depends on how you decide, but scarcity makes rationing inevitable. You can have "death panels" deciding, who gets treated, or you can raise prices. The former approach may seem fair, but does nothing to alleviate the shortage and is so fertile to corruption, it is unacceptable. The latter, on the other hand, is objective and — by rewarding the service-providers and/or manufacturers more — helps lower the scarcity.

      Sadly, with the current healthcare (and public schooling, BTW) setup in the US, paying for your own is only possible for the very rich — one is legally obligated to carry "health insurance" from one of the very few "approved" insurers, which all have a dim view of private clinics. So, anything one pays for such unapproved doctors is on top of their spending on collectivized healthcare.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re: Maybe more opiates is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where are the H1B1 doctors... I mean there is obviously a lack of skilled US workers to fill the positions.

    3. Re: Maybe more opiates is the answer by swb · · Score: 1

      I've been to urgent care clinics outside of the normal bankers hours a doctors office has been open and more than once gotten a doctor who is very likely an immigrant -- heavily accented English, age of 40-55, etc.

      I suppose they *could* have immigrated and gone to medical school in the US, but that seems like an awfully difficult process. I always assumed they were doctors who came to the US with medical degrees and jumped through whatever hoops they had to jump through to get credentialed in the US.

      They probably had limited employment opportunities (accent, questions of credential quality which may or may not be justified, etc) so they found work at the urgent care clinic.

      The care I needed was minor and they were just fine. I liked the Ukrainian woman better than the guy from India.

    4. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its not the answer. If people keep complaining about how ill they are when they aren't actually ill, then its a mental problem that should be dealt with through counseling. Don't just drug them because they're annoying. You could help them but are instead too focused on what they're saying and not what's actually wrong with them. This is a big reason why doctors suck so much today.

    5. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am not objective enough to give you an answer. I was a functional user for... Hmm... For over 40 years with addiction, true dependence, kicking in probably at about five years. Except I was a functional user and some would call it a "chipper." I'd chip but I really just chipped every day, all day. I'd leave meetings to shoot up. I'd send drugs ahead if I had to fly. I was a functional addict until I retired and my brain felt like it no longer had to be functional (I have no better words than that.)

      I went to quite. I spent five days in a world that does not (nor can not) exist. I was living in a science-fiction world, in post WWI history, and many other things - for at least five days. A good part of that mental break meant I thought I was actually in rehab (and in much worse shape than I was - we're talking skin grafts and metal reconstructed bones and an inability to get out of bed on my own. I called a neighbor asking them when my worker was going to show up and empty my damned catheter bag. They responded that I had no such thing. I didn't believe them. Then they showed up in my door and it was like a movie where things fade into focus and it was one of the scariest things I've seen in my life.

      So, I don't have answers but I think I can safely say that there's potential for long-term maintenance care so long as we're willing to accept that there's going to be addiction and, with that, there will be abused.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by swb · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that people given very low dose tablets in a controlled (from a doctor, small quantities) way wouldn't spiral out of control, at least not most of them. My guess is that a threshold dose of about 2.5 mg oxycodone would provide enough euphoric effect to make people feel like they were getting some value out of it without providing enough to be overly euphoric.

      It'd be very hard to get very high with that size dose, and with limited quantities and dosing instructions advising only every 8 hours or something, the half-life would make it difficult to develop much if any actual physical addiction.

      Now, this is for most people -- will there be corner cases of abuse? Sure, some people will *try* get addicted, some people will simply have genetic predispositions that make them addicted. But limited how much you hand out per visit and how often you're willing to give it out will also hinder development of a lot of accidental addictions.

      And even if it became actually habit forming, you're still talking about something that could mostly be safely used for decades, and by that time a lot of the people who got it may be dead from other unrelated diseases or stop using it for other reasons.

    7. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single person addicted to opiates will tell you they got hooked after they had a knee surgery or something that gave them legit & necessary reason to use them. But the problem is that once the pain goes away, the craving for the high doesn't. It doesn't matter how strong or controlled a person you think you are - when that situation arises, you along with hundreds of thousands of Americans will throw away their whole lives in pursuit of more and more and more pills which often leads to heroin because pills are expensive. To suggest that patients be given opiates "in small quantities" for non-excruciating pain reasons is the height of irresponsibility.

    8. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... Hmm... You might want to check that figure again. They've got hydrocodone in very low amounts - down as low as 2.5 mg and it's much weaker than oxycodone - the smallest of which that I've seen is 5, 7.5, and 10 mg. They'll get a low-level user a euphoric state but tolerance will be built up quickly. Codeine, in lo quantities, does the same - a 1 mg dose of hydromorphone will get you a decent rush if administered via IV - not so much orally but it will still get you the euphoric state.

      It really varies with the person. It really varies with the tolerance. It really varies with history, weight, and chemicals - as well as the number of receptors that are built in - prior to their growth and whatnot.

      So, I don't know? In other words, I think it'd be possible to become physically dependent on them but that people would be LESS likely to do so. That's discounting abuses - it's VERY likely that such low doses will not have the desired effect. That WILL lead to abuse. That WILL lead to surreptitious acquisitions. (Probably starting with friends and family and then working to street and, eventually, to harder things as those are often more readily available and that dosage will continue to climb.)

      I don't know how many people will "try" to get addicted but you're probably right - there probably will be some. There are those with a genetic predisposition to it - they call that an addictive personality and those people are not often physically addicted (in case you're curious) but have underlying mental issues.

      Absolutely. Something habit forming and even addictive does not need to be life crippling. I was a functional user for many, many years. I started using in the end of the 1960s. I stopped using opiates, pretty much entirely, just a few months ago. I stopped using ILLEGAL opiates about a year ago. (I'd been on Suboxone since then.)

      I was/am very successful. I am well rewarded and have more money than I deserve. I can continue my drug use with absolutely zero chance of that use affecting my financial situation - I simply make more money by means of my investments than I can even possibly use - I could supply multiple addicts, indefinitely, with just the income from my investment-based income. In fact, I have. I used to keep as much as full 8 ounces of coke on hand (I don't mind coke, I don't seem to be able to get addicted. After a couple of days, I put it away and don't touch it again for a while. I have no idea but it might be because my preference is downers.) I used to order Fentanyl patches by the 5000 lot - yes, 5000. Fentanyl is 80 times more powerful than 100% pure heroin. It's the strongest opiate meant for human consumption that's available from a pharmacy. There's a slightly stronger version that is developed but it is for animal use - largely used for animals the size of elephants.

      I found out they were cutting shitty h with Fentanyl and that's when I went and found me some Fent and had a good old time. (I was also smart(ish) in that I made sure to remember that you can put more in but you can't take it back out - I've never once ODed to the point where I needed intervention. - with all those years of use.)

      I didn't use via IV until the mid-1980s. I was a snorter, sublingual, and eater. Even then, that didn't scale up until the 1990s - I had work to do. My tolerance got to the point where it became uneconomical to consume it in any other way - I wasn't always financially secure. My retirement seemed to tell my brain that it no longer had to work. As near as I can tell, my use didn't actually increase - it stayed largely the same. It's that something in my brain changed - something that I don't really understand. It's like it said, "Well, I no longer have to be functional. Cool." This also happened with alcohol. I drank longer than I used. I did, with a lot of illness, quit drinking over 3.5 years ago and have remained sober since - I have had as many as two beverages at one sitting since but never more and never frequently. I've probably done so less than a half-d

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Maybe more opiates is the answer by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I can say that it is not "every single." I know this for a fact. I know, for example, some who got addicted without having ever had any surgeries at all.

      Now, in the Western world, they are, more likely than not, introduced by the method you mention but it is not exclusive.

      I, myself, entered the world of opiate use by the route you mention. The majority seem to have done so. However, that is not exclusive.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  46. Re:So..... by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

    we do have the worlds best doctors.. we just happen to have some of the worlds worst too :D

    --
    Stop signs are only Suggestions
  47. Re:Could be good news (without further information by Kant_resistor · · Score: 1

    So much this. Doctors are just juggling knives; the more diseases and treatment, the more knives; the better the doctor, the more knives. Eventually the best docs create a system where it's a medical error as likely as anything that terminates this recursive "complex system" catastrophically.

  48. Immigrant doctors by mi · · Score: 1

    So where are the H1B1 doctors...

    Due to government's licensing-requirements, an immigrating doctor effectively has to go through Medical School again in the US — however accomplished and acclaimed he may be in his home country. I know some permanent residents who have done this (and one, who settled for becoming a nurse instead), but holders of temporary visas understandably would not.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  49. Caused by these Economic Realities by Slim_Jack · · Score: 0
    The poor medical environment in the U.S. is caused by these poitica and economic factors: 1) Extensive defensive medicine practiced means 90% of the time doctors send patients for improper, expensive testing that wastes time knowngly, because for the sake of their malpractice liability insurance, they test for the 1% probable scenario with a high lawsuit ouctome (death) rather than the 65% likely outcome with no expensive lawsuit outcome. When President Obama and the Republicans sat down at the table to discuss the upcoming healthcare law, he immediately declared efforts to reform that probem 'off the table' as it threatened the Trial Lawyers Association, a major Democrat party backer (see: Howard Dean's speech the next day).

    2) The wide usage of insurance shifts the bulk of the medical market into an insurance focused market, Rather than having an interest in having a patient with a positive and improved outcome, the physician has the two incentives of 1) not being sued (see above) and 2) placating the beancounters at the insurance company. The actual happiness of the patient ranks a distant third.

    The focus on the ACA and the nominal dollars being thrown around is one of the examples of mass naivete that harm most Americans medically. see: http://sti2.blogspot.com/

  50. I wonder about the European socialist health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the United States, the attitude is that doctors are among the highest paid occupations, and medical stuff is very expensive, so it had better work, unless you are trying to be cheap. I wonder what the error rate is for the European nations, especially the NHS.

  51. For the health care provider perspective: ZDogg MD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the /. readers don't have access to much information about this other than personal anecdotes and popular press. Clearly the best way to start fixing this is to go youtube ZDogg M.D.

  52. Mandoline dirge by epine · · Score: 1

    From the makers of the milli-Helen (the amount of beauty required to launch one ship) comes the fabulous milli-why (unit m?).

    5 ?
            The amount of directed inquiry necessary to fully explicate root cause.

    1 m?
            The least amount of brain-cell electrical exchange required to ascribe blame.

    1. Re:Mandoline dirge by epine · · Score: 1

      Perhaps my first cut was slightly too oblique. How about we visit the other extreme?

      medical blunder
              when the medication prescribed after your quadruple bypass interacts with your erection pill (clearly stated in the fine print of a 2000-page pharmaceutical bible), leading to catastrophic failure of your on-again/off-again donor kidney

      Doctors also make basic mistakes, but whooey is the complexity floor rising.

  53. I hope you understand.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....that the US model is held up all over tje world as an example of what NOT to do ?

    "Mr Speaker, if we continue down this path to ruin we will end up with American style healthcare, and no one wants that. So I would ask the honourable member, why does he want to destroy the healthcare system and turn it into a facsimile of the US system?" .

    US healthcare is used to frighten small children into eating their greens.

  54. Improved communication could help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More communication between doctors could probably help. Medicine seems to be (in my non-doctor's perspective) a relatively solo practice. Online doctor-only communities like SERMO (http://www.sermo.com/what-is-sermo/overview) could help there. There are also patient-run communities (like MD Junction http://www.mdjunction.com/) that might be useful for patients who want to take a more active role in their treatment.

  55. Tech & Tools & Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have more than we have ever had this shouldn't be on the rise. Influx of low quality foreign doctors with low quality standards.