The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months: "It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. 'Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care,' says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy. All this time spent 'queuing,' as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries."
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday, August 15, 2007
The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
1:51 PM
0
comments
Labels: Rationing Health Care, US/World Health Care Comparisons, Waiting Times
Waiting Times for Care? Try Looking at the U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It's Time to Debunk the Myths
Waiting Times for Care? Try Looking at the U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It's Time to Debunk the Myths: "'There’s been a lot of clamor lately about delays in care in some other countries. But if you want to see some really unsightly waiting times, look at U.S. medical facilities,' said Deborah Burger, RN, president of the 75,000-member CNA/NNOC. While the problem has been largely overlooked by the major media, it was quietly exposed by the chief medical officer of Aetna, Inc. late in Aetna’s Investor Conference 2007 in March. In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that 'the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely.' He cited 'recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable,' Brennan said. Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization trying 'to find appointments for people with doctors.' While Brennan's "
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
1:50 PM
0
comments
Labels: Rationing Health Care, US/World Health Care Comparisons, Waiting Times
Angry Bear on OECD Waiting Times Study
Angry Bear:
"The data shows that many countries with 'nationalized' health care systems have little or no waits for elective medical procedures. A 2003 OECD working paper entitled 'Explaining Waiting Times Variations for Elective Surgery across OECD Countries' by Luigi Siciliani and Jeremy Hurst provides some survey evidence of actual waiting times in various OECD countries. The results of that survey are presented below."
Two nice tables here explain a lot...
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
1:20 PM
0
comments
Labels: Rationing Health Care, US/World Health Care Comparisons, Waiting Times
The waiting is the hardest part...
Thanks to Todd Kunkler at MD Net Guide for his excellent post with links to information about waiting times!
I'll repeat the links here in individual posts for easier access. If you go to his original post, they are obviously all there for the investigating.
Cheers,
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
1:10 PM
1 comments
Labels: Access to Treatment, Rationing Health Care, US/World Health Care Comparisons, Waiting Times
US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings - washingtonpost.com
US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings - washingtonpost.com: "Murray, from the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, he predicted, the U.S. won't move up in the world rankings as long as the health care debate is limited to insurance. Policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, said Murray. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar. 'Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States,' Murray said. 'The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does.'"
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
1:05 PM
0
comments
Labels: US/World Health Care Comparisons
Cost Control for Dummies - WSJ
Summary from National Center for Policy Analysis (as I don't get the WSJ)
COST CONTROL FOR DUMMIES
[Source: Merrill Matthews, "Cost Control for Dummies," Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2007.]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118714325206398102.html
Whenever the government controls prices, it arbitrarily determines who it will
pay, how much, and for what, explains Matthews.
Someone explain to me why this is seen as "arbitrary"? Are they tossing coins? As long as we can maintain an open debate about healthcare spending priorities, decisions will not be "arbitrary." Though, I think , the definition of arbitrary for many, is that it didn't go their way.
Cheers, Sphere: Related Content
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
10:28 AM
0
comments
France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe
France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe:
"National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers. Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement. French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market."
I think that, except for the hard core ideologues, physicians would by and large accept this bargain.
Posted by
Christopher M. Hughes, MD
at
10:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: France, Physician Autonomy, Physician Income, US/World Health Care Policy