mindstalk: (thoughtful)
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physicians-per-1000-people?tab=table

Selecting some countries of interest:

Italy: 8.01
France: 6.53
Belgium: 5.96
UK: 5.82
Israel: 5.47
Portugal: 5.21
Chile: 5.18
EU: 4.93
Mexico: 4.85
Switzerland: 4.33
Sweden: 4.33
Germany: 4.3

Colombia: 3.84
High income: 3.75

Latin America: 2.98

United States: 2.6
Japan: 2.48
Canada: 2.44
mindstalk: (atheist)
Wrapping up.

Read more... )

Standard principles are a unified system, with simple administration and single buying power; non-profit finance; and universal coverage. Obamacare doesn't live up to any of those, though comes closest on the third. 23 million people are predicted to still be uninsured in 2019; I don't know how much of that is voluntary non-compliance with the mandate. Insurers will still be for profit, and allowed to have 20% overhead (15% for the shrinking employer plans). The crazy quilt of Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Bureau, and private insurers, with different payment systems, won't be simplified at all, so doctors will still have their own high overhead costs just to be paid.

So we've made a step forward. But compared to extending Medicare to all, or making insurers non-profit, price-regulated, and using a standard payment system, it's a very small step.

Note that a really unified system would mean either getting rid of Medicare and putting old people into regulated insurance, or getting rid of insurers (and Medicaid, and the VA) and putting everyone on Medicare. Both seem politically... difficult. (Putting everyone on VA? Ha ha!) So the US seems doomed to have wastefully expensive health care into the indefinite future.
mindstalk: (Default)
Misc notes
Some overlooked stuff before I move on.

One of my newer readers is from Japan, and goes back to Japan fairly frequently. She told me that Reid's tuition numbers are low -- did he ask his middle-aged doctors what they paid for tuition, without thinking about how that number would change over time? She says it'd be more like $6000/year at the elite and public National University. 6 years, + $3000 start fee, call it $39,000. Add in living expenses and you'd be looking at upward of $100,000, unless you were living with parents (likely?) or student housing is cheap. Against a GP income of $130,000 that seems non-trivial debt. At, if I understood her correctly, easier to get into but more expensive (like Phoenix U and other degree mills?) university, $100,000/year, which seems substantial for even a specialist

OTOH, she confirmed something I forgot to pass on: far from having waiting lists, the Japanese don't even seem to go in for appointments, expecting to be able to walk in off the street to see a specialist. (And without GP referral.) Waiting room, but not list.

Oddly, national insurance won't cover pregnancy or childbirth. "That's not a disease." (Assuming nothing goes wrong, I assume.) But local governments will step in with money for that.

French and German health payments are a fixed percentage of income. The French smart cards, carte vitale, were designed in the USA. But not for us!

Not part of the book, but Romney's latest gaffe leads to a brief description of Israel's health care system. Sounds like another Bismarck system, ironically enough, with about 8% of GDP spent. (My table says 8.7, that link says under 8.)

Canada

You know, what he calls National Health Insurance and I call Medicare was designed by Tommy Douglas, hero of Canada. Why isn't it called the Douglas movel, like the Bismarck and Beveridge models? I don't know if these are his own terms or standard in health economics. I guess he didn't design it from scratch; Henry Sigerist of John Hopkins told him him to gradually move to government payment of private medical bills, and Douglas cut the 'gradually'. Started with hospital care in 1947, in Saskatchewan, and it got copied by other provinces. In 1961 he launched Medicare, paying all bills; doctors went on strike for 23 days, then folded. A few years later the federal government got in on it, providing support and guidance for all the other provinces to do the same. Kind of like Romneycare turning into Obamacare, only without the same national public support. Douglas would later be rated the greatest Canadian of all time, beating A. G. Bell or Wayne Gretzky.

Huh, Romney could have had that kind of immortality, if he embraced and sold it rather than squirming away.

The system is called single-payer but that's true at a provincial level, so sort of 13-payer. Details vary: 100% payment, or small co-pays, or deductibles. Federal level sets a lot of rules and gives a lot of clout in negotiating drug prices, though you have to pay those unless you're poor, old, or chronically ill. Most Canadians have a private insurance too, to pay for dental, or nicer hospital rooms, or prescriptions. Since most of the actual medicine is paid for by Medicare, private insurance is cheap. (This pattern probably holds in the other countries too, just haven't gone into it much.)

Medical ecords are digital, and I infer accessible across the country. No filing cabinets.

A distinct feature is fear of a "two-tier" system where the rich get better care, so it is illegal to pay privately for procedures that Medicare will pay for. In a way that's more socialized than the UK, where specialists tend to be NHS employees but private medicine can exist in parallel.

Waiting lists

According to Reid, the US-conservative warning about dread waiting lists is true... for Canada. For France and Germany, it wasn't worth mentioning. For Japan, as above, they don't even make appointments. In the UK, his GP said a 2-3 month wait to see a specialist; that's comparable to the US. But in Canada he was told it'd be a year just to consult with an orthopedist, with another 6-8 months to schedule an operation after that.

(Oh yeah, I haven't mentioned that. Reid has a mildly bum shoulder -- limited movement, occasional pain -- so part of the book is his asking doctors around the world for help. So he has personal experience of how low-priority problems are treated. So that UK wait is to see an orthopedist about "my shoulder kind of hurts and we know why".)

A Canadian friend I told wasn't too surprised to hear that, especially in Saskatoon (population 260,000, in the middle of Saskatchewan.) Maybe Toronto would be better. I think he tended to live in more urban places in the other countries; I suspect Japan wouldn't look so cool in rural Hokkaido. And emergency times would be much better. But still.

OTOH, after an 18 month wait, he could get a free shoulder replacement. Beats the US, except for old people on our own Medicare. And the myth of Canadians flocking to the US for faster care is just that, a myth. (Never was plausible to me: how would most Canadians pay for US medical bills out of pocket? Especially when the exchange rate was worse for them?)

After an old man in pain had to wait 9 months and sued Quebec, the Supreme Court said in 2005 "no, you can't ban private care *and* have ridiculous waiting lists, that combination is unconstitutional", and the governments have been trying to cut down on waiting times. Still, it does seem a relative problem. And Canada already spends 10% of GDP on health care, so my usual answer to complaining Brits, "spend more you cheapskates", doesn't apply so well. (Though that 10% is after the decision, and might reflect increases in spending.)

Part of the problem is that in 1991, a commission recommended reducing the number of medical students. Reid calls the system underdoctored, and this agrees, with Canada having fewer doctors per capita then the US. (But Japan is said to have even fewer still. Odd.)

The doctor he talks to makes half as much as an American GP, but doesn't know how much malpractice costs since the provincial government pays it for him. Tuition costs for a medical degree run "half as much as they would be at a public university in the US", I'm not sure if Reid is comparing to public medical schools or to public undergraduate tuition.

And Canada looks poor only in comparison with other universal health countries, and at that does better than the UK in every simple metric except cost, let alone the US: longer life, lower infant mortality, much lower cost, people who really need care get it, and get it without going bankrupt.
mindstalk: (Witch)
Healing America continues!

Japan

Read more... )

Edit to add: doctors in both countries make house calls.
mindstalk: (atheist)
I'm reading this book by T. R. Reid, on his investigation into universal health care systems around the world. I think I've seen predecessor essays online. It's interesting, and may make you want to emigrate, if you're American.

Four basic health care models:

* Bismarck: heavily regulated private insurers, often tied to employers. It's what Obamacare wants to be when it grows up into a real system. Reid compares it to our existing system of employer provided insurance, but of course there are lots of differences. Insurers take everyone, everyone gets insurance, insurance rates are set by law (note different with Romney or Obamacare), insurers are non-profit (ditto.)

* Beveridge: "socialized medicine" at its purist, doctors as salaried government employees at government hospitals. Like the UK NHS, or US VA, or in the private market, Kaiser.

* "National Health Insurance", which for some reason he doesn't call by the much snappier name of "Medicare": Single-payer, a government insurance plan paying private doctors. Like, er, Medicare. (Or Medicaid). Or Candadian Medicare. Or Australian Medicare.

* Out of pocket: yeah, you know this one.

The US is, shall we say, uniquely complex in how we provide health care. And in having competing for-profit insurers, who are allowed to spend 20% of premium money on non-health care, compared to 2-5% elsewhere. Just changing that would save a couple percentage points of GDP!

Number of medical bill bankruptcies in other developed countries: allegedly zero "and how can you even ask?" Like asking how many flying saucers land in front of the courthouse. USA is the butt of health care economist meetings and the bogeyman of health care politics fights. "Grumble grumble." "At least we're not like America. You don't want us to become like America, do you?" "Oh god, no!'"

Hey, I just realized, it's like "socialism!" in America in reverse. We say "socialism!" to shut down debate, they say "like America!" Only with more justification, given that we spend twice as much to live not as long and to not treat many curable diseases.

Supposedly 20,000 Americans die in the prime of their life every year due to treatable diseases they couldn't afford to treat. That's like 7 9/11s a year.

Countries:

* France: Bismarck model. Rated #1 in the world. Only a few insurers, which you might stay with for life. France is into making you pay co-pays out of pocket unless you're destitute, even though you'll get most or all of that co-pay back from the insurer shortly; the ritual of actually paying seems to be valued. What you pay is set by the government, and there'll be a handy chart in the office telling you the prices. Contrast with the US, where the doctor may not know what something will cost. There are house calls, in fact there's extra compensation to the doctor for house calls. Everyone's covered, the "last 1%" got covered in 2000. Everyone has a smart card which contains all their medical records and facilitates electronic payments; no filing cabinets full of records, no complex or delayed payments. Go to any doctor, zip, they can see your whole medical history. Doctors make 1/3 of what US ones do (say, $60,000 for a GP), but have no college or med school loans, and pay 1/50th what US ones do in malpractice insurance premiums, while expected to never be sued. 11% of GDP.

* Germany: Origins of the Bismarck model, from the Iron Chancellor who wanted to cover workers without raising explicit taxes. (Sound familiar?) So they've been at it for 120+ years, through Kaiser, Weimar, Nazis, and postwar. After recent mergers, there are "only" 200 sickness funds, which you can shop around and change at short notice. Premiums are set by law, but what they pay doctors is negotiated with doctors' groups. You don't care, apart from a recently small quarterly co-pay you don't pay anything. They also have smart cards, though only since 2008; France beat them to it. Everyone's covered, even illegal immigrants, except for a 7% rich enough to be allowed to opt out. Otherwise similar to France, including making house calls. More doctors per capita in both countries than the US. One doctor mentions the new quarterly co-pays, and how Germans grumble, and an American quietly paid. Then, on his next visit, he tried to pay again! As if you had to pay every time you saw a doctor! Isn't that funny? 10.4% of GDP.

* Japan: Bismarck again, but I just started the chapter. Lots of advertising by the doctors. Lots and lots of doctor visits and longer stays in the hospital, but still really cheap.

Profile

mindstalk: (Default)
mindstalk

June 2025

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated 2025-06-04 23:37
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios