Skip to main content

Home/ CUPE Health Care/ Group items tagged costs

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Govind Rao

'We have the evidence ... Why aren't we providing evidence-based care?'; Mental illness... - 0 views

  • The Globe and Mail Sat May 23 2015
  • It's 4:30 on a Friday afternoon at her Sherbrooke, Que., clinic and Marie Hayes takes a deep breath before opening the door to her final patient of the day, who has arrived without an appointment. The 32-year-old mother immediately lists her complaints: She feels dizzy. She has abdominal pain. "It is always physical and always catastrophic," Dr. Hayes will later tell me. In the exam room, she runs through the standard checkup, pressing on the patient's abdomen, recording her symptoms, just as she has done almost every week for months. "There's something wrong with me," the patient says, with a look of panic. Dr. Hayes tries to reassure her, to no avail. In any case, the doctor has already reached her diagnosis: severe anxiety. Dr. Hayes prescribed medication during a previous visit, but the woman stopped taking it after two days because it made her nauseated and dizzy. She needs structured psychotherapy - a licensed therapist trained to bring her anxiety under control. But the wait list for public care is about a year, says Dr. Hayes, and the patient can't afford the cost of private sessions.
  • Meanwhile, the woman is paying a steep personal price: At home, she says, she spends most days in bed. She is managing to care for her two young children - for now - but her husband also suffers from anxiety, and the situation is far from ideal. Dr. Hayes does her best, spending a full hour trying to calm her down, and the woman is less agitated when she leaves. But the doctor knows she will be back next week. And that their meeting will go much the same as it did today. In its broad strokes, this is a scene that repeats itself in thousands of doctors' offices every day, right across the country. It is part and parcel of a system that denies patients the best scientific-based care, and comes with a massive price tag, to the economy, families and the health care system. Canadian physicians bill provincial governments $1-billion a year for "counselling and psychotherapy" - one third of which goes to family doctors - a service many of them acknowledge they are not best suited to provide, and that doesn't come close to covering patient need. Meanwhile, psychologists and social workers are largely left out of the publicly funded health-care system, their expertise available only to Canadians with the resources to pay for them.
  • ...42 more annotations...
  • Imagine if a Canadian diagnosed with cancer were told she could receive chemotherapy paid for by the health-care system, but would have to cough up the cash herself if she needed radiation. Or that she could have a few weeks of treatment, and then be sent home even if she needed more. That would never fly. If doctors, say, find a tumour in a patient's colon, the government kicks in and offers the mainstream treatment that is most effective. But for many Canadians diagnosed with a mental illness, the prescription is very different. The treatment they receive, and how much of it they get, will largely be decided not on evidence-based best practices but on their employment benefits and income level: Those who can afford it pay for it privately. Those who cannot are stuck on long wait lists, or have to fall back on prescription medications. Or get no help at all. But according to a large and growing body of research, psychotherapy is not simply a nice-to-have option; it should be a front-line treatment, particularly for the two most costly mental illnesses in Canada: anxiety and depression - which also constitute more than 80 per cent of all psychiatric diagnoses.
  • Why aren't we providing evidence-based care?" .. The case for psychotherapy Research has found that psychotherapy is as effective as medication - and in some cases works better. It also often does a better job of preventing or forestalling relapse, reducing doctor's appointments and emergency-room visits, and making it more cost-effective in the long run.
  • Therapy works, researchers say, because it engages the mind of the patient, requires active participation in treatment, and specifically targets the social and stress-related factors that contribute to poor mental health. There are a variety of therapies, but the evidence is strongest for cognitive behavioural therapy - an approach that focuses on changing negative thinking - in large part because CBT, which is timelimited and very structured, lends itself to clinical trials. (Similar support exists for interpersonal therapy, and it is emerging for mindfulness, with researchers trying to find out what works best for which disorders.) Research into the efficacy of therapy is increasing, but there is less of it overall than for drugs - as therapy doesn't have the advantage of well-heeled Big Pharma benefactors. In 2013, a team of European researchers collated the results of 67 studies comparing drugs to therapy; after adjusting for dropouts, there was no significant difference between the most often-used drugs - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - and psychotherapy.
  • The issue is not one against the other," says Montreal psychiatrist Alain Lesage, director of research at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute. "I am a physician; whatever works, I am good. We know that when patients prefer one to another, they do better if they have choice." Several studies have backed up that notion. Many patients are reluctant to take medication for fear of side effects and the possibility of difficult withdrawal; research shows that more than half of patients receiving medication stop taking it after six months. A small collection of recent studies has found that therapy can cause changes in the brain similar to those brought about by medication. In people with depression, for instance, the amygdala (located deep within the brain, it processes basic memories and controls our instinctive fight-or-flight reaction) works in overdrive, while the prefrontal cortex (which regulates rational thought) is sluggish. Research shows that antidepressants calm the amygdala; therapy does the same, though to a lesser extent.
  • But psychotherapy also appears to tune up the prefrontal cortex more than does medication. This is why, researchers believe, therapy works especially well in preventing relapse - an important benefit, since extending the time between acute episodes of illnesses prevents them from becoming chronic and more debilitating. The theory, then, is that psychotherapy does a better job of helping patients consciously cope with their unconscious responses to stress.
  • According to treatment guidelines by leading international professional and scientific organizations - including Canada's own expert panel, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments - psychotherapy should be considered as a first option in treatment, alone or in combination with medication. And it is "highly recommended" in maintaining recovery in the long term. Britain's independent, research-guided scientific body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has concluded that therapy should be tried before drugs in mild to moderate cases of depression and anxiety - a finding that led to the creation of a $760million public system, which now handles therapy referrals for nearly one million people a year.
  • In 2012, Canada's Mental Health Commission estimated that only about one in three adults and one in four children are receiving support and treatment when they need it. Ironically, anti-stigma campaigns designed to help people understand mental illness may only make those statistics worse. In Toronto, for instance, putting up posters in subway stations in 2010 had the unexpected effect of spiking the volume of walk-ins at nearby emergency rooms by as much as 45 per cent in 12 months. Dr. Kurdyak treated many of them at CAMH. The system, he says, "has been conveniently ignoring this unmet need. It functions as if two-thirds of the people suffering won't get help." What would happen if the healthcare system outright "ignored" two-third of tumour diagnoses?
  • Essentially, argues Dr. Lesage, adding therapy into the health-care system is like putting a new, highly effective drug on the table for doctors. "Think about it," he says. "We have a new antidepressant. It works as well as many others, and it may even have some advantages - it works better for remission - with fewer side effects. The patients may prefer it. And [in the long run] it doesn't cost more than what we have. How can it not be covered?" ..
  • A heavy price This isn't just a medical issue; it's an economic one. Mental illness accounts for roughly 50 per cent of family doctors' time, and more hospital-bed days than cancer. Nearly four million Canadians have a mood disorder: more than all cases of diabetes (2.2 million) and heart disease (1.4 million) combined.
  • Mental illness - and depression, in particular - is the leading cause of disability, accounting for 30 per cent of workplace-insurance claims, and 70 per cent of total compensation costs. In 2012, an Ontario study calculated that the burden of mental illness and addiction was 1.5 times that of all cancers, and more than seven times the cost of all infectious diseases. Mental illness is so debilitating because, unlike physical ailments, it often takes root in adolescence and peaks among Canadians in their 20s and 30s, just as they are heading into higher education, or building careers and families. Untreated, symptoms reverberate through all aspects of life, routinely trapping people in poverty and homelessness. More than one-third of Ontario residents receiving social assistance have a mental illness. The cost to society is clearly immense.
  • Yet, when family doctors were asked why they didn't refer more patients to therapy in a 2008 Canadian survey, the main reason they gave was cost. For many Canadians, private therapy is a luxury, especially if families are already wrestling with the economic fallout from mental illness. Costs vary across provinces, but psychologists in private practice may charge more than $200 an hour in major centres. And it's not just the uninsured who are affected.
  • Although about 60 per cent of Canadians have some form of private insurance, the amount available for therapy may cover only a handful of sessions. Those with the best benefits are more likely to be higherincome workers with stable employment. Federal public servants, notably, have one of the best plans in the country - their benefits were doubled in 2014 to $2,000 annually for psychotherapy. Many of those who can pay for therapy are doing so: A 2013 consultant's study commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association found that $950-million is spent annually on private-practice psychologists by Canadians, insurance companies and workers compensation boards. The CPA estimates t
  • These are the patients that family doctors juggle, the ones who eat up appointment time, and never seem to get better, the ones caught on waiting lists. Sometimes, they have already been bounced in and out of the system, received little help, and have become wary of trying again. A 40-something mother recovering from breast cancer, suffering from chronic depression post-treatment, debilitated by fear her cancer will return. A university student, struggling with anxiety, who hasn't been to class for three weeks and may soon be kicked out of school. A teenager with bulimia removed from an eatingdisorder program because she couldn't follow the rules. They are the ones dangling on waiting lists in the public system for what often amounts to a handful of talk-therapy sessions, who don't have the money to pay for private therapy, or have too little coverage to get the full course of appointments they need.
  • Canada's investment does not match that burden. Only about 7 per cent of health-care spending goes to mental health. Even recent increases pale when compared to other countries: According to a study by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Canada increased per-capita funding by $5.22 in 2011. The British government, meanwhile, kicked in an extra 12 times that amount per citizen, and Australia added nearly 20 times as much as we did. Falling off a cliff, again and again
  • In Winnipeg, Dr. Stanley Szajkowski watched for months as his patient, a woman in her 80s, slowly declined. Her husband had died and she was spiralling into a severe depression. At every appointment, she looked thinner, more dishevelled. She wasn't sleeping, she admitted, often through tears. Sometimes she thought of suicide. She lived alone, with no family nearby, and no resources of her own to pay for therapy. "You do what you can," says Dr. Szajkowksi. "You provide some support and encouragement." He did his best, but he always had other patients waiting.
  • hat 30 per cent of private patients pay out-ofpocket themselves. When the afflicted don't seek help, the cost isn't restricted to their own pocketbook. People with mental-health problems are significantly more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become physically sick, further increasing health-care costs. A 2014 study by Oxford University researchers found that having a mental illness reduced life expectancy by 10 to 20 years, roughly the same as did smoking and obesity. A 2008 Statistics Canada study linked depression to new-onset heart disease in the general population. A 2014 U.S. study found that women under the age of 55 are twice as likely to suffer or die from a heart attack, or require heart surgery, if they have moderate to severe depression. The result: clogged-up doctors' offices, ERs, and operating rooms. And an inexorable burden for the patients' families forced to fill the gaps in caregiving - or carry on when they lose a loved one.
  • Patients refer to it as falling repeatedly off a cliff. And they can only manage the climb back up so many times. Family doctors interviewed for this story admitted that they are often "handholding" patients with nowhere else to go. "I am making them feel cared for, I am providing a supportive ear that they may not get anywhere else," says Dr. Batya Grundland, a physician who has been in family practice at Toronto's Women's College Hospital for almost a decade. "But do I think I am moving them forward with regard to their illness, and helping them cope better? I am going to say rarely." More senior doctors have told her that once in a while "a light bulb goes off" for the patients, but often only after many years. That's not an efficient use of health dollars, she points out - not when there are trained therapists who could do the job better. However, she says, "in some cases, I may be the only person they have."
  • Family doctors aren't the only ones struggling to find therapy for their patients. "I do a hundred consultations a year," says clinical psychiatrist Joel Paris, a professor at McGill University and research associate at the Montreal Jewish General, "and one of the most common situations is that the patient has tried a few anti-depressants, they have not responded very well, and from their story it is obvious they would benefit from psychotherapy. But where do they go? We have community clinics here in Montreal with six-to-12-month waiting lists even for brief therapy." A fractured, inefficient system
  • "You fall into the role that is handed to you," says Antoine Gagnon, a family doctor in Osgoode, on the outskirts of Ottawa. He tries to set aside 20-minute appointments before lunch or at the end of the day to provide "active listening" to his patients with anxiety and depression. Many of them are farmers or self-employed, without any private coverage for therapy. "Five of those minutes are spent talking about the weather," he says, "and then maybe you get into the meat of the problem, but the reality is we don't have the appropriate amount of time to give to therapy, even to listen, really." Often, he watches his patients' symptoms worsen over several months, until they meet the threshold of a clinical diagnosis. "The whole system could save on productivity and money if people were actually able to get the treatment they needed."
  • But these issues aren't insurmountable, as other countries have demonstrated. Britain, for instance, has trained thousands of university graduates to become therapists in its new public program, following research showing that, as long they have the proper skills, people don't need PhDs to be effective therapists. Australia, which has created a pay-for-service system, also makes wide use of online support to cost-effectively reach remote communities.
  • Except for a small fraction of GPs who specialize in psychotherapy, few family doctors have the training - or the time - to provide structured therapy. Saadia Hameed, a GP in a family-health team in London, Ont., has been researching access to psychotherapy for an advanced degree. Many of the doctors she has interviewed had trouble even producing a clear definition of therapy. One told her, "If a patient cries, than it's psychotherapy." Another described it as "listening to their woes." A 2007 survey of 163 family doctors in Ontario found that almost four out of five had not received training in cognitive behavioural therapy, and knew little about it. "Do family doctors really need to do that much psychotherapy," Dr. Hameed asks, "when there are other people trained - and better trained - to do it?"
  • What further frustrates treatment for physicians and patients is lack of access to specialists within the system. Across the country, family doctors describe the difficulty of reaching a psychiatrist to consult on a diagnosis or followup with their patients. In a telling 2011 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, researchers conducted a real-world experiment to see how easily a GP could locate a psychiatrist willing to see a patient with depression. Researchers called 297 psychiatrists in Vancouver, and reached 230. Of the 70 who said they would consider taking referrals, 64 required extensive written documentation, and could not give a wait-time estimate. Only six were willing to take the patient "immediately," but even then, their wait times ranged from four to 55 days. Psychiatrists are in increasingly short supply in Canada, and there's strong evidence that we're not making the best use of these highly trained specialists. They can - and often do - provide fee-for-service psychotherapy in a private setting, which limits their ability to meet the huge demand to consult with family doctors and treat the most severe cases.
  • A recent Ontario study by a team at CAMH found that while waiting lists exist in both urban and rural centres, the practices of psychiatrists in those locations tend to look very different. Among full-time psychiatrists in Toronto, 10 per cent saw fewer than 40 patients, and 40 per cent saw fewer than 100 - on average, their practices were half the size of psychiatrists in smaller centres. The patients for those urban psychiatrists with the smallest practices were also more likely to fall in the highest income bracket, and less likely to have been previously hospitalized for a mental illness than those in the smaller centres.
  • And those therapy sessions are being billed with no monitoring from a health-care system already scrimping on dollars, yet spending a lot on this care: On average, psychiatrists earn $216,000 a year. There is nothing to stop psychiatrists from seeing the same patients for years, and no system to ensure the patients with the greatest need get priority. In Australia, Britain and the United States, by contrast, billing for psychiatrists has been adjusted to encourage them to reduce psychotherapy sessions and serve more as consultants, particularly for the most severe cases, as other specialists do.
  • As the Canadian system exists now, says Benoit Mulsant, the physician-in-chief at CAMH and also a psychiatrist, the doctors in his specialty "can do whatever they please. If I wanted, I could have a roster of actor patients who tell me entertaining stories, and I would be paid the same as someone who is treating homeless people. ... By treating the rich and famous, there is zero risk of being punched in the face by a patient." Left out in all this, by and large, are other professionals who can provide therapy. It doesn't help that the rules are often murky around who can call themselves psychotherapists. While psychologists and social workers are licensed under their professional associations, in some provinces a person can call himself a marriage counsellor or music therapist with no one demanding they be certified. In 2007, Ontario passed a law to regulate psychotherapists, requiring them to register with a provincial college that would set standards and handle complaints. Currently, however, the law is in limbo, although the government has said it will finally bring it into force by December. The brain keeps many secrets
  • Science, however, has yet to find depression's equivalent of insulin. Despite being scanned, poked and stimulated over and over and over again, the brain keeps its secrets. The "chemical imbalance" theory is now viewed as simplistic at best. It may not do much for patients, either: A 2014 study published in the journal Behaviour Research and Therapy suggested that, rather than reassuring them, focusing on the biological explanation for depression actually made patients feel more pessimistic and lacking in control. SSRIs work by increasing the amount of serotonin, a chemical that helps deliver messages within the brain and is known to influence mood. But researchers aren't sure why the drugs help some patients and fail with others. "Basically, it's like we have a bucket of water and we pour it over the patient's head," says Dr. Georg Northoff, the University of Ottawa's Michael Smith chair of Neurosciences and Mental Health. "But you want a drug that injects the water in a very specific brain regions or brain system, which we don't have."
  • Critics of therapy have argued that it's basically "good listening" - comparable to having a sympathetic friend across the kitchen table - and that in the real world of mercurial patients and practitioners of varying abilities, a pill just works better. That's true in many cases, especially when the symptoms are severe and the patients is suicidal: a fast-acting medication is safer, and may even be necessary before starting talk therapy. The staunchest advocates of therapy do not suggest it should be the first course of treatment for psychosis, or debilitating chronic depression, or mania - although, in those cases, there is evidence that psychotherapy and medication work well in tandem. (A 2011 meta-analysis found that patients with severe depression who received a combination approach had higher recovery rates and were less likely to drop out of treatment.) But drugs also don't work as well as the manufacturers would like us to think. Roughly one-third of patients given a drug will see no benefit (although they often respond to a second or third medication). In randomly controlled trials, drugs often perform only marginally better than sugar pills.
  • Yet it's talk therapy that the public often views most skeptically. "Until you go to a therapist, or a member of your family has a serious psychological problem, people are unsympathetic [about therapy]," says Dr. Paris, the Montreal psychiatrist. "They are very skeptical, and they don't believe the research. It's amazing, because pharmaceutical trials will get approval for a drug on the basis of two clinical trials that they paid for. And we have 100 clinical trials and no one believes us."
  • Dr. Ajantha Jayabarathan, an assistant professor at Dalhousie University's medical school, spent her early years as a family doctor in Spryfield, N.S., trying to manage an overload of mental-health cases. Most of her patients had little insurance; there was one reduced-cost counselling service in town, but the waiting lists were long. In 2000, her group practice became a test site for a shared-care project, which gave the doctors access to a mental-health team, including weekly in-person consultations with a psychiatrist. "It was transformative," she says. "We looked after everything in-house.
  • Over time, Dr. Jayabarathan says, she learned how to properly assess mental illness in patients, and how to use medication more effectively. "I just made it my business to teach myself what to do." It's the kind of workaround GPs are increasingly experimenting with, waiting for the system to catch up. Who would pay - and how?
  • The case for expanding publicly funded access to therapy is gaining traction in Canada. In 2012, the health commissioner of Quebec recommended therapy be covered by the province; it is now being studied by Quebec's science-based health body (INESSS), which is expected to report back next year. A new Quebec-based organization of doctors, researchers and mental-health advocates called the Coalition for Access to Psychotherapy (CAP) is lobbying the government.
  • In Manitoba, the Liberal Party - albeit well behind in the polls - has made the public funding of psychologists one of its campaign platforms for the province's spring 2016 election. In Saskatchewan, the government commissioned, and has since endorsed, a mental-health action plan that includes providing online therapy - though politicians have given themselves 10 years to accomplish it. Michael Kirby, the former head of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, has been advocating for eight annual sessions of therapy to be covered for children and youth in need.
  • There are significant hurdles: Which practitioners would provide therapy, and how would they be paid? What therapies would be covered, and for how long? Complicating every aspect of major mentalhealth change in Canada is the question of who should shoulder the cost: the provinces or Ottawa. In a written statement in response to questions from The Globe and Mail, federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose lobbed the issue back at her provincial counterparts, pointing out that the Canada Health Act does not "preclude provinces and territories from extending public coverage to other services or providers such as psychologists."
  • One result can be overloaded family doctors minimizing mental-health problems. "If you have nothing to offer someone," asks Dr. Anderson, "how much are you going to dig around to find out what is going on?" Some doctors also admit that the lack of resources can lead to physicians cherry-picking patients who don't have mental illness. And yet family physicians alone bill about $361million a year for counselling or psychotherapy in Canada - 5.6 million visits of roughly 30 minutes each. This is a broad category, and not always specifically related to mental health (some of it includes drug counselling, and a certain amount of coaching is a necessary part of the patient-doctor relationship). When it is psychotherapy, however, doctors admit it's often more supportive listening than actual therapy.
  • So how would Canada pay for access to such therapy? It wouldn't be cheap, in the short term. The savings would come from what Canadians would not have to spend in the long term: in additional medical and drug costs, emergency-room visits and hospital stays, and in unnecessary disability payments, to say nothing of better long-term health outcomes for patients given good care earlier. Some of the figures being tossed around sound staggering. Rolling out a version of Britain's centre-based program across Canada would cost $950-million. Michael Kirby's plan would amount to $1,000 annually per patient. A 2013 report commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association calculated that, based on predicted need, and assuming no coverage from private health-care plans, providing an average of six sessions of therapy a year would cost an estimated $2.8-billion annually.
  • But any of those figures would still be a fraction of the roughly $210-billion that Canada spends annually on health care. Figuring out how to make the system most costeffective is, according to sources, currently delaying the INESSS report to the Quebec government. "You need to facilitate the government," says Helen- Maria Vasiliadis, a professor of community health at the University of Sherbrooke. "You can't be going to policymakers and showing them billions and billions of dollars. People start having heart attacks. With evidence in hand, we have to present possible solutions."
  • An insurance-based plan is the proposal that has emerged from the Quebec-based CAP group, which sent its proposal to Quebec's health minister last month. In its design, the system would work much like Quebec's public drug plan - Quebeckers not covered through work plans would contribute to a provincial insurance program for therapy. That would be similar to the system that Germany has used for decades. One step forward, one step back
  • Last year, the Sherbrooke clinic where Marie Hayes works received provincial funding for a part-time psychologist and a full-time social worker. With a roster of 25,000 patients, the clinic team laid out clear guidelines for the psychologist, who would consult on cases and screen patients, and be limited to a mere four sessions of actual counselling with any one patient. "We wanted to be careful she didn't become a waiting list - like everything in the system," says Dr. Hayes. The social worker helps guide patients into services such as housing and addiction counselling. They have also offered group sessions for depression management at the clinic. As stretched as those new professionals are in such a large practice, Dr. Hayes says the addition of that mental-health team is improving the care she can provide patients. Recently, for instance, the 32- year-old mother with anxiety attended sessions with the psychologist. "She is making progress," says Dr. Hayes, "slowly."
  • At Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Dr. Grundland is not so lucky. Asked to describe a difficult case, the family-practice physician mentions a patient suffering from depression after a lifechanging accident. Every month, doctor and patient would repeat the same conversation they'd already had more than a dozen times - and make little real headway. Her patient, says Dr. Grundland, needs a trained therapist: someone she can see regularly, to help her move past her frustration, counsel her about addiction, and ease the burden on her family.
  • But there's no extra money in the patient's budget for a psychologist. "I do my best," Dr. Grundland says, "but it's not my area of expertise." Meanwhile, the patient isn't getting better, and in the time that it takes to make it through one appointment with her, Dr. Grundland could see three other people with problems she was actually trained to treat. "But," says Dr. Grundland, "she has nowhere else to go." Erin Anderssen is a feature writer at The Globe and Mail. OPEN MINDS How to build a better mental health care system
  • The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has purchased advertisements to accompany this series. While CAMH professionals are quoted in this story, the organization had no involvement in the creation or production of this, or any other story in the series. $20.7-billion The cost, according to a 2012 Conference Board of Canada report, of lost productivity each year due to mental illness. What else does $20-billion represent?
  • $20B: Canadian spending on national defence, 2012-13 $20B: Market valuation of Airbnb, 2015 $21B: Kitchener-CambridgeWaterloo region's GDP, 2009 $21B: Amount food manufacturing contributed to the economy, 2012
Irene Jansen

Healthcare Policy, 7(1) 2011: 68-79 Population Aging and the Determinants of Healthcar... - 0 views

    • Irene Jansen
       
      Rising hospital expenses, use of specialists threaten system; Aging population accounts for one third of increase, says UBC study Vancouver Sun Tue Aug 30 2011 Page: A4 Section: Westcoast News Byline: Matthew Robinson 
  • our study cohort included 3,159,900 residents in 1996 and 3,662,148 residents in 2006
  • research dating back 30 years illustrates that population aging exerts modest pressure on health system costs in Canada (Denton and Spencer 1983; Barer et al. 1987, 1995; Roos et al. 1987; Marzouk 1991; Evans et al. 2001; McGrail et al. 2001; Denton et al. 2009)
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • To shed new empirical light on this old debate, we quantified the impacts of demographic and non-demographic determinants of healthcare expenditure using data for British Columbia (BC) over the period 1996 to 2006. Using linked administrative healthcare data, we quantified the trends in and the determinants of expenditures on hospital care, physician services and pharmaceuticals. To our knowledge, this is the first time that all three of these major components of healthcare costs have been analyzed in a single Canadian study.
  • We found that population aging contributed less than 1% per year to spending on medical, hospital and pharmaceutical care. Moreover, changes in age-specific mortality rates actually reduced hospital expenditure by –0.3% per year. Based on forecasts through 2036, we found that the future effects of population aging on healthcare spending will continue to be small. We therefore conclude that population aging has exerted, and will continue to exert, only modest pressures on medical, hospital and pharmaceutical costs in Canada. As indicated by the specific non-demographic cost drivers computed in our study, the critical determinants of expenditure on healthcare stem from non-demographic factors over which practitioners, policy makers and patients have discretion.
  • We found that population aging in British Columbia contributed less than 1% per year to total growth of expenditures on hospital, medical and pharmaceutical care from 1996 to 2006. We also found that changes in age-specific mortality rates reduced (albeit modestly) per capita healthcare costs over time, confirming what other researchers have suggested (Fries 1980; Breyer and Felder 2006). With rigorous analysis of recent healthcare data, we can therefore confirm what studies spanning earlier decades for British Columbia, elsewhere in Canada and other comparable health systems have found: the net impact of demographic factors on major components of the healthcare system is moderate (Denton and Spencer 1983; Fuchs 1984; Barer et al. 1987, 1995; Gerdtham 1993; Evans et al. 2001; McGrail et al. 2001). Moreover, when we forecasted the effects of expected demographic changes in British Columbia through 2036, we found that the future effects of population aging on healthcare spending will continue to be modest (1% or less per year).
  • Our findings also indicated that average payment per unit of hospital care increased over the period. The increase in hospital unit costs may have been an appropriate policy response to increases in age-adjusted clinical complexity per patient remaining in care following reductions in the average length of stay
  • After taking into account population aging, the average number of days of prescription drug therapy received by British Columbia residents grew more than 5% per year during the first half of our study period and plateaued in the latter half of the period (data not shown)
  • Despite popular claims about population aging and the sustainability of healthcare in Canada, demographic changes exert steady, predictable and modest forces on the cost of major components of our healthcare system. This is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future.
  •  
    Despite popular claims about population aging and the sustainability of healthcare in Canada, demographic changes exert steady, predictable and modest forces on the cost of major components of our healthcare system. This is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. Changes in the age-specific profile of healthcare costs, by contrast, can exert and have exerted significant pressures on health system costs. Clinicians, policy makers and patients have some discretion over the non-demographic sources of healthcare cost increases - unlike population aging. Though these results are largely confirmations of studies from past decades, it is nevertheless important to update the scientific basis for policy debates. Moreover, close attention to recent trends and cost drivers - such as the price of prescription drugs that drove pharmaceutical expenditures in the past decade - also helps to illuminate the non-demographic forces that seem most amenable to policy intervention. Ultimately, then, research of this nature is a reminder that the healthcare system is as sustainable as we want it to be.
Doug Allan

Reforming private drug coverage in Canada: Inefficient drug benefit design and the barr... - 0 views

  • Reforming private drug coverage in Canada: Inefficient drug benefit design and the barriers to change in unionized settings
  • The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, concerned about the sustainability of private drug coverage in Canada, has asked for government help to reduce costs [11x[11]Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. CLHIA report on prescription drug policy; ensuring the accessibility, affordability and sustainability of prescription drugs in Canada. Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc., ; 2013See all References][11]. Growing administrative costs of private health plans continues to put additional financial pressures on the capacity to offer private health benefits [12x[12]Law, M., Kratzer, J., and Dhalla, I.A. The increasing inefficiency of private health insurance in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2014; 186See all References][12].
  • Most Canadians are covered through private drug plans offered mostly by employers through supplemental health benefits: 51% of Canadian workers have supplemental medical benefits [2x[2]Morgan, S., Daw, J., and Law, M. Rethinking pharmacare in Canada. CD Howe Institute, ; 2013 (Commentary 384)See all References][2], and since work-related health insurance also covers dependents of employees with coverage, as many as two-thirds of Canadians are covered by health insurance plans.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Prescription drug spending in Canada's private sector has increased nearly fivefold in 20 years, from $3.6 billion in 1993 to $15.9 billion in 2013 [3x[3]Express Script Canada. 2013 Drug trend report. ESI, Mississauga; 2014 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/FINAL_executive%20summary_FINAL.pdf [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][3].
  • Private drug plans in Canada are often considered wasteful because they accept paying for higher priced drugs that do not improve health outcomes for users and use costly sub-optimal dispensing intervals for maintenance medications. As a consequence, it is estimated that private drug plans in Canada wasted $5.1 billion in 2012, which is money spent without receiving therapeutic benefits in return [4x[4]Express Scripts Canada. Poor patient decisions waste up to $5.1 billion annually, according to express script Canada. (June)Press release, ; 2013 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/about/canadian-press/poor-patient-decisions-waste-51-billion-annually-according-express-scripts [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][4]. This amount represented 52% of the total expenditures of $9.8 billion by private insurers on prescription drugs for that year [5x[5]Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985 to 2012. CIHI, Ottawa; 2013See all References][5].
  • Respondents from all categories mentioned that, in contrast to employers, the over-riding objective of unions is to maximize their benefits with minimal co-payments for their employees.
  • The study focused on large unionized workplaces that had Administrative Services Only (ASO) plans, where the employer is responsible for the costs of benefit plans and bears the risks associated with it, while insurers are just hired to manage claims.
  • This study focused on ASO arrangements because they are the most common insurance option chosen by large private-sector firms [16x[16]Sanofi. Sanofi Canada healthcare survey. Rogers Publishing, Laval; 2012See all References][16]. Those organizations whose activities resided solely in the province of Québec, where the regulation of private drug plans differs [17x[17]Commissaire de la santé et du bien être du, Québec., Les médicaments d’ordonnance: État de la situation au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, Québec; 2014See all References][17], were excluded.
  • Respondents from all categories indicated that consistency of benefits with other market players is of significance to employers.
  • Sean O’BradyxSean O’BradySearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsÉcole de relations industrielles, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaInteruniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Marc-André GagnonxMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600.xMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600., Alan Cassels
  • Finally, employers were most concerned with the government's role in distributing the costs associated with drug coverage among public and private players in the system. In fact, each employer expressed concern over this. Three of the four employers expressed concern over the government's role as a plan sponsor and how governments shift costs to the private sector. As described by one employer, “the government is a very big consumer of drugs” and if the drug companies “start losing money on the government side, they pass it on to private insurance”. Thus, government regulations that help employers contain costs are desired.
  • the employer always has the advantage in this stuff because they have all of the information with respect to the reports and the costs from the insurer or the advisor”
  • According to one consultant, “no one knows the cost of drug benefit plans.” This respondent was arguing that few involved in benefit design, either in private firms, unions, or insurers, are sufficiently competent to undertake proper analyses of claims data so they do not really know how proposed plan changes could affect them. This lack of expertise has ramifications for the education of stakeholders on the outcomes of benefit design.
  • However, when speaking of for-profit insurers, participants from all groups argued that insurers have no financial incentives to cut costs for employers, as indicated by one employer saying: “from my experience on the committees, I don’t get the impression that the insurers are there to save costs for the employers. I haven’t seen it. It's always been the other direction.” This claim was also corroborated by a benefits consultant, who argued that “there has been a fair bit of inertia, you know, amongst the providers out there in actually doing something too radical, too leading edge” because “there's no direct financial incentive for insurance companies or pharmacy benefit managers to actually help employers save money”.
  • Expanding on this, another consultant argued that an insurer's commission structure, which is based on volumes of claims expressed in a dollar value, may in fact discourage insurance companies from proposing plan designs that reduce the volumes of claims, as doing so would adversely affect company profits. Furthermore, another benefits consultant indicated that insurers are experts who calculate risk and thereby have no aptitude for the creation of formularies. According to this respondent, the impact is that insurance companies excel at managing risk, yet fare poorly in designing cost-effective plans that rely on the design and implementation of formularies.
  • An interesting finding from the interview data was that respondents from all interviewed groups declared being in favor of introducing some sort of arrangement for a national drug plan. Some favored having a universal pharmacare program which would apply to all drugs, while others favored programs tailored for catastrophic drug coverage. Two of the insurers that responded to this question explicitly favored some form of universal catastrophic drug coverage while the other favored universal pharmacare.
  • Each of the union representatives and one employer interviewed for this study expressed their support for universal pharmacare. Three out of five consultants argued in favor of a national pharmacare plan while the other two favored some other form of national risk pooling or formulary management to address costs.
  • While a majority of interviewees favored some form of universal coverage, a few respondents from the insurer and employer sides expressed concerns that universal pharmacare is not feasible.
  • The employers indicated that their over-riding strategy is to maintain cost-neutrality in providing drug benefits – in the context of overall compensation – to employees: any increases in the costs of a particular benefits area must be off-set by cost-savings elsewhere. Controlling knowledge was also frequently reported by the union-side respondents (and by one consultant that services employers) as a strategy to achieve greater control over negotiations and plan design by firms. According to one union representative, “
  • Marc-Andre Gagnon has received research funding by the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions for a different research project related to drug coverage in Canada. Alan Cassels is co-director of DECA (Drug Evaluation Consulting and Analysis). The authors would like to acknowledge the financial contribution of the Canadian Health Coalition in order to pay for the transcription of interviews.
Govind Rao

Lack of national drug plan is costing us a fortune - Infomart - 0 views

  • The Province Tue May 26 2015
  • Canada's cities face a number of problems, including traffic congestion, housing costs, crime rates and shabby infrastructure. Now prescription drugs can be added to the list; it is a problem that is costing local governments as much as $500 million every year. Recognizing that access to necessary medicines is critical for health and well-being, many cities offer their employees private insurance coverage for prescription drug costs. For example, the cities of Toronto and Calgary spend about $43 million and $20 million, respectively, on private drug-insurance plans for their employees.
  • The coverage they offer is relatively comprehensive, resulting in costs per employee that are equal to private-sector averages. Vancouver and Halifax offer less comprehensive drug coverage for their employees, but still at considerable cost - about $3 million each. There are more than 600,000 local government employees across the country, according to Statistics Canada, and two-thirds of them receive private health insurance from the cities, towns and districts they work for. Based on the cost of such coverage for the four cities mentioned, it is a reasonable estimate that local governments are spending $500 million a year on private drug insurance for their employees. Cities have to spend this money - taken from local taxpayers - because Canada's medicare system is the only universal, public healthcare system among developed countries that does not include universal coverage of prescription drugs.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • It is not wrong for cities to care for their employees. But leaving these costs to the cities makes about as much sense as requiring every homeowner to maintain the roads and infrastructure surrounding their properties. Just as would happen if infrastructure were left to individual homeowners, the system that leaves drug coverage to individual patients and employers - including cities - creates an unco-ordinated patchwork. Most cities provide coverage, but some can't afford to. Some workers qualify for coverage, but some don't.
  • The same pattern plays out in cities, hospitals, schools and businesses across the country. As a result, millions of Canadians are without drug coverage and one in 10 Canadians cannot afford to fill their prescriptions. This patchwork is inequitable and profoundly inefficient because it fails to place responsibility for drug coverage and costs with the right level of government.
  • Provinces and the federal government are responsible for Canada's health-care system. They are best suited to manage access to medicines as an integral part of health care for all Canadians. They are also best positioned to reduce waste and overspending on pharmaceuticals. Having multiple drug plans operating in every province - including multiple private plans for public-sector employees - needlessly duplicates administrative costs. This fragmentation also diminishes Canadians' purchasing power on the global market for pharmaceuticals. Provincial governments wield about $10 billion in purchasing power when negotiating rebates for prescription drugs. This reduces public drug-plan costs by millions of dollars, but it does not lower costs for cities and other organizations that insure their workers through private drug plans that are minuscule in comparison. No matter how hard they try, cities would have about as much chance of negotiating competitive drug prices as homeowners would have of securing the best prices for infrastructure planning, engineering and construction.
  • Some things are best done through well-planned, population-level procurement processes. A recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows how a universal public drug plan run by the provinces could provide all Canadians coverage for prescription drugs while saving taxpayers $7 billion per year. Such a program would end the downloading of prescription drug costs to local governments and thereby allow cities to better address problems like traffic, housing and crime.
  • The federal and provincial governments should take responsibility for our prescription drug problem by implementing universal pharmacare for all Canadians. Doing so would support the health and wellbeing of public-and private-sector workers alike at far lower cost than Canadians are paying for our disorganized, patchwork system today. Steve Morgan is a health policy professor at the school of population and public health at the University of B.C.
Govind Rao

Canada can afford universal pharmacare - no more excuses - 0 views

  • Matthew B. Stanbrook, MD PhD, Deputy Editor
  • Correspondence to: CMAJ editor, pubs@cmaj.ca See also page 491 and www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.141564 Canadians embrace universal public health care as a core national value. We are proud to say that we live in a country that ensures access to health care for all, regardless of means — the problem is, that statement isn’t true. A gaping hole in our supposedly universal system is the lack of public coverage for prescription drugs for most Canadians. Many Canadians face drug costs they can’t afford, forcing them to either take their medicines less often than prescribed or do without them entirely, with predictable adverse health consequences.1
  • Universal pharmacare has been recommended by virtually every national study and Royal Commission from the time medicare was first introduced in Canada to the 2002 Romanow Report, yet we still don’t have it. Governments past and present have defended their inaction on this issue by arguing that pharmacare would cost too much. Although it’s not clear that there was ever good reason to assume that would be true, providing scientific evidence to refute such a claim requires a study with access to comprehensive data about the sources and magnitude of drug costs, prescribing patterns and the effects of introducing universal drug coverage from the experience of other national and international jurisdictions.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • In their recent CMAJ article, Morgan and colleagues present just such a study.2 Using recently available national data on drug use and costs, they report an economic model that estimates the cost of implementing national public drug coverage. The model anticipates several key evidence-based consequences of universal pharmacare. Patients who were previously unable to access drugs would now receive them, which would drive up costs. However, the greatly enhanced purchasing power of a single national third-party payer would be expected to confer an ability to negotiate substantial reductions in the prices of many drugs, as other countries have experienced and as Canadian provinces are already trying to achieve through collaboration. The model also assumes that patients would incur modest copayments, as is the case in other countries with universal pharmacare.
  • The bottom line? The best estimate would require the federal government to spend an extra $1 billion per year. That’s a lot of money, but considering that federal transfers for health care to the provinces and territories amount to $35 billion — not to mention everything the federal government spends directly on health — relatively speaking, it’s not that much of an increase. As with all modelling studies, these estimates rely on assumptions, and the associated uncertainties mean that costs could be higher — as much as $5.4 billion per year in the worst imaginable case. Equally, though, national pharmacare could well result in net savings for government — perhaps as much as $2.9 billion per year.
  • Morgan SG, Law M, Daw JR, et al. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ 2015;187:491–7. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • A small number of drug classes are key drivers of overall costs and would continue to be so with or without pharmacare. Some (e.g., biologic agents) represent classes in which many emerging new therapies are expected to arise. Thus, the $1 billion estimate might not be stable going forward. But knowing this information may now enable policy-makers to develop specific interventions focused on reducing the impact of these key cost drivers even further.
  • Although the Canada Health Act has long enshrined the value of equitable, public health care coverage for all Canadians, its enactment by governments to date has been hypocritical in the absence of pharmacare. Canada has the dubious distinction of being the only country with universal health care coverage, but not universal pharmacare. As we have said before,3 the time to end this hypocrisy is long overdue; all of our peer nations have already done so. The moral case for universal pharmacare has always been apparent. With a strong economic case for pharmacare also evident, there can be no more excuses for delay. In this election year, it is especially timely for Canadians to demand that their next government enact national pharmacare.
  • Tang KL, Ghali WA, Manns BJ. Addressing cost-related barriers to prescription drug use in Canada. CMAJ 2014;186:276–80. FREE Full Text
  • Even more striking are the potential benefits to the private sector: no matter what, it would save a lot of money from pharmacare. Currently, nearly half of all drug expenditures in Canada are incurred by the private sector, divided almost evenly between individuals, whose costs would drop by more than half under pharmacare, and private drug plans, whose current costs for nearly all prescription drugs would disappear completely. Of note, a big chunk of public savings would arise from what governments presently spend on private drug coverage, such as for civil servants. With projected savings like these, one would expect that private companies, governments and individuals alike should be clamouring for pharmacare.
  • tanbrook MB, Hébert PC, Coutts J, et al. Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already? CMAJ 2011;183:E1275. FREE Full Text
Govind Rao

Privatization: what it is, why it matters - Infomart - 0 views

  • The Telegram (St. John's) Tue Jun 23 2015
  • With oil prices down, an aging population and high unemployment, the conservative government of Newfoundland and Labrador is looking for a silver bullet to cut costs for public services and infrastructure. Their sights are settling on privatization to be that silver bullet. What is privatization? In its most narrow sense, privatization is the whole or partial sale of public services and/or infrastructure. It can include the sale of assets, functions or the entire institution.
  • With privatization, the service or infrastructure becomes funded and/or run by a private corporation. Privatization usually includes not only a change in ownership but also a change in the priorities, responsibilities and role of the state. Advocates of privatization offer free-market competition as the path to economic and social success, with promises of cost savings, lower risk, greater efficiency and more individual choice. Privatization takes several forms in Canada, including:
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • ? full privatization: where a government enterprise is sold in full to private investors. ? publicly funded with services and management delivered privately, sometimes unknown to the consumer. ? public funding of private services: government provides vouchers to consumers for the purchase of goods and services from private providers.
  • ? public/private partnerships (P3s): full outside contracting, management and service delivery of traditionally delivered public services such as hospitals, roads, schools and prisons. This can include private finance, design, building, operation and possibly temporary ownership of an asset. Can privatization deliver? After decades of experimentation with privatization in different forms across Canada, the data is clear on the failure to deliver on its promises and the high cost society pays - multiple costs, not only in economic terms but also quality and access to services, quality and quantity of jobs, as well as transparency and accountability.
  • Public/private partnerships (P3s) are the fastest-growing model of privatization in Canada. The P3 models vary but all include the reliance on private sector borrowing to finance the development of public infrastructure projects in a long-term lease arrangement; it is effectively leasing rather than owning and sometimes that lease includes maintenance as well. P3s cost more. Governments have always been able to borrow money more cheaply than private corporations. According to a University of Toronto study of 28 P3 projects in Ontario, P3s cost, on average, 16 per cent more than a traditional public contract. A recent auditor general of Ontario report found that P3 projects cost the province $8 billion more than if they were done under the traditional model.
  • If they cost more, why do politicians promote them? Political expediency - in P3 lease agreements the debt stays off the books or is postponed for decades. P3s hide debt - which is a dream for politicians looking for easy wins in hard economic times. It is also ideological and it is about private sector lobbying and influence. Public services are a boon to private sector deliverers with guaranteed public payments and profit margins over the long term. Supporters of privatization claim that it leads to better pricing for the public as consumers. A comparison of privately owned Manitoba Telecom Services, privatized in 1997, to SaskTel, Saskatchewan's publicly owned telecommunications crown corporation shows this to not be true. Twenty years after privatization of MTS, the cost of a basic phone with SaskTel is $8 less per month than from MTS.
  • Private corporations demand a shroud of confidentiality in order to protect their competitive position. This means that privatization reduces both transparency and accountability. An example of this is the Ontario privatization of municipal water testing which has been linked to the May 2000 bacterial contamination of municipal water in Walkerton, Ont., led to the deaths of at least seven people and the serious illness of 2,300 more from water contaminated with E. coli. The absence of criteria governing quality of testing, and the lack of provisions made for notification of results to authorities contributed to the worst public health disaster involving municipal water in Canadian history.
  • Health care is a sector where there is huge pressure on government to control cost, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador with the aging demographic. Private interests see great profit opportunities. But in health care, for-profit does not deliver. In Manitoba, living in a for-profit long-term care facility increased the odds of dying in hospital or being hospitalized.
  • In a metadata analysis of hospitals in the U.S., Dr. Philip Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University, concluded that the death rate in for-profit hospitals was two per cent higher than in not-for-profit facilities. In Alberta, the Health Quality Council of Alberta's Long Term Care Family Experience Survey in 2012 found that, on average, private and volunteer operated facilities offered poorer quality in terms of staffing levels, care of residents' belongings, and assistance with daily living activities such as toileting, drinking and eating, than publicly operated ones.
  • The scathing Ontario auditor general report indicates that there needs to be extensive and comprehensive reviews of provincial privatization projects. Until proper cost-benefit analyses and public reviews and reform of private funding and procurement models occur, governments and public bodies should place moratoria on further public-private infrastructure contracts. The citizens pay either way, but they pay more in a privatized model - either as tax payers or out of pocket.
  • The government has alternatives. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour has published a number of reports and fact sheets on the progressive revenue options open to the provincial government. There are a variety of progressive revenue options open to municipalities as well. There are no silver bullets. It is time to stop stigmatizing government and public services and recognize them for what they are: the way we pool our resources to buy services cheaper, control costs, and maintain accountability for quality.
  • his should be a debate based on evidence, not ideology. Mary Shortall, president, Unifor Local 597
Govind Rao

Pharmacare article Aug 27 2014 - 0 views

  •  
    Waterloo Region Record  Wed Aug 27 2014  Page: A7  Section: Editorial  Byline: Marc-André Gagnon  Canadians pay among the highest costs per capita among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for prescription drugs, with one Canadian out of 10 unable to fill their prescriptions because of financial reasons. According to the recently released study, A Roadmap to a Rational Pharmacare Policy in Canada, commissioned by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, there are two main reasons why prescription drug costs are so expensive in Canada. First, we have a fragmented system with multiple public and private drug plans. In a fragmented system, attempts to reduce costs normally result in shifting the cost somewhere else in the system. Although provincial public plans have managed to significantly reduce drug costs since 2010 by reducing the price of generics and by negotiating confidential agreements with drug companies, there have been significant cost increases in private plans as drug companies and pharmacists seek compensation for their losses from public plans. Second, according to the study, Canadians pay artificially inflated prices for both brand-name drugs and generics in order to support the national pharmaceutical sector. But this strategy has not delivered what was promised, namely, investment and employment in Canada. Studies show that paying higher prices for drugs does not result in a thriving pharmaceutical sector in the country. Numbers alone tell the story; employment in the Canadian brand-name pharmaceutical sector went from 22,332 employees in 2003 to 14,990 in 2012. Instead of 
Govind Rao

We have lots to learn on health care; Spending: Systems in other countries lead way in ... - 0 views

  • Vancouver Sun Sat Feb 28 2015
  • Americans spend a king's ransom on health care - 17.9 per cent of GDP, versus 10.9 per cent here - yet the U.S. finishes last in a Commonwealth Fund ranking based on 11 developed countries' health care quality, access, efficiency and equity. Before you start feeling too smug about this, consider that Canada ranked second-last. And before you reject everything in the Americans' health care tool chest, consider that some approaches they embrace and we shun - letting private insurance plans run in parallel to public plans, for example, or allowing private payments for services exclusively covered by government insurance in Canada - have been adapted and adopted by the higher-ranked countries in limited and careful, but highly effective, ways.
  • And here's the kicker - all of these countries' public systems cover a broader range of services than Canada, with its narrow focus on doctors' fees and hospital costs. Blomqvist and Busby note that Canadian governments cover about 70 per cent of our health care expenditures, roughly the average of all 34 OECD countries. But, thanks to pervasive restrictions that prevent or sorely limit private funding of ever-rising hospital and doctorrelated costs, little or no public money is available to fund things like universal outpatient drugs, eye care and dental plans that other countries routinely provide for citizens.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • As analysts Ake Blomqvist and Colin Busby note in a new C.D. Howe Institute study, "Many other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, also have systems that cost much less than the American one and that, arguably, are at least as equitable as Canada's, if not more so." Yet, "No other country is modelling their health-financing system around the Canadian example," they add. "None of them seem to think that a monopoly approach to paying for most health services is the best way to achieve equity and efficiency goals."
  • Many of these restrictions do not flow from the Canada Health Act, but rather from provincial laws. For example, Victoria, not Ottawa, prohibits doctors who opt out of the Medicare system from getting any payments from public funds, or doctors who work within the public system from billing patients over and above what the government pays. These restrictions, the study argues, impose big costs. To illustrate this, it focuses on how health care is paid for in four countries - the U.K., Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands - whose health systems are considered to be among the world's best.
  • "Their guiding principles are similar to those within the Canadian health care system. All endorse universal public coverage and access for a defined core set of services, the belief that costs should be borne by society at large ... and high standards of care." In all these countries, public spending covers a significantly smaller percentage of hospital and doctor-related costs than in Canada, leaving the balance to be paid by private insurance for those who have it. (The range is from 65-85 per cent for hospital costs, compared to 92 per cent in Canada, and 60-90 per cent for doctors fees, compared with 99 per cent in Canada.)
  • But their governments also cover 45-67 per cent of drug and other outpatient medical costs, compared with 35 per cent in Canada. The authors consider, and ultimately dismiss, the view that any deviation from Canada's single-payer system would result in higher costs - an often-cited factor when sky-high U.S. health costs are dissected, but not an issue in countries that have a more carefully balanced mix of public and private funders.
  • Nor do they buy the argument that the public sector would lose out if privately paid health services were allowed to compete for doctors and patients. Indeed, other countries have found that competition can improve service and lower costs. The bottom line is that Canada's health care system only looks as good as many of us like to think it is when we compare it to the American system. And other countries have figured out better ways to fully respect the same vaunted principles Canada aspires to while providing more or better care at comparable cost. We could learn from them.
Govind Rao

How B.C. balanced its books by controlling health-care costs - Infomart - 0 views

  • The Globe and Mail Wed Feb 18 2015
  • When B.C. Premier Christy Clark made debt reduction an early priority of her government, it was understood the job would be all but impossible unless health-care costs - escalating at alarming and unsustainable rates - could be contained. On Tuesday, Ms. Clark's government tabled its 2015-16 budget, where the increase in the Ministry of Health was again kept under 3 per cent - not that much greater than the rate of inflation. It is the fourth consecutive budget in which the B.C. government has been able to achieve this goal, which has helped put it in a position to not only balance its books - for the third straight year - but also begin paying down overall debt.
  • B.C. has put itself in an enviable position. The estimated surplus for the current fiscal year ending March 31 is nearly $1-billion. The government is projecting surpluses in the next two budgets as well. The province's debt to gross domestic product ratio - the number credit rating agencies really keep an eye on - will hit 17.4 per cent this fiscal year and is forecast to decline to 16.6 per cent by 201718. This compares to a debt-toGDP ratio of 54.3 per cent for Quebec and 39 per cent for Ontario. It would appear there are no immediate threats to B.C.'s plum Triple-A credit rating.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Meantime, other important measurements of debt are also in retreat, including debt to revenue, direct operating debt and overall growth of debt. When you talk to people in the Clark administration, there is near-unanimous agreement that one of the key factors in the government's ability to begin getting its fiscal house in order was its single-minded focus on health care. "Addressing health-care costs is one essential prerequisite [to balancing budgets]," Finance Minister Mike de Jong said. "And I think the other is addressing costs around your overall labour costs. They both accumulate and aggregate and continue to build year over year."
  • From 2001-02 to 2011-12, Health Ministry costs grew at an average of just over 5 per cent annually. But the last three years of that period - from 2009 to 2012 - department accounts grew at rates of 5.7, 4.9 and 6.3 per cent respectively. When Ms. Clark became Premier in 2011 and made balanced budgets a priority, pressure built inside government to find ways to start containing those costs. Government bargained tough new agreements with nurses and doctors and also drove better deals with medical laboratories throughout the province. It urged greater collaboration among health authorities in an effort to find efficiencies that would save cash. It introduced patientfocused health care, a change from the block-funding model in which hospitals were given a set amount of money each year. Under the new formula, the funding moved with patients; consequently, the more patients a hospital handled, the more money it received. This set up a competition among hospitals for customers, which helped drive further cost savings. The other major price escalator was Pharmacare - drugs are expensive.
  • Again, B.C. began driving harder bargains with drug manufacturers. It joined with other Western provinces to make bulk buys, which also helped lower costs. It looked more often at generics. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, Pharmacare costs increased an average of 5.6 per cent annually. From 2011-12 to 2013-14, that number fell to an average of just 1 per cent, according to the Ministry of Finance. Mr. de Jong believes that containing health-care costs is getting harder, with the province set to receive less in health transfer payments from Ottawa in 201718, under a new funding model linked to nominal GDP and population. "To the extent there was ever low-hanging fruit - generic drugs, laboratory costs, etc. - I think we've dealt with most of those," Mr. de Jong said. "But with a [Health Ministry] budget of $18billion, I'd like to think there are other efficiencies that can be found." He believes rate increases that hover near or slightly above the rate of inflation could become the new normal. "I believe it is sustainable," he said, "and when you look around the country, more and more jurisdictions are coming to the same conclusion, mostly out of necessity."
Govind Rao

Nursing home bills keep rising: a year now costs $91K, according to industry survey; El... - 0 views

  • Canadian Press Thu Apr 9 2015
  • NEW YORK, N.Y. - The steep cost of caring for the elderly continues to climb. The median bill for a private room in a nursing home is now $91,250 a year, according to an industry survey out Thursday.
  • The annual "Cost of Care" report from Genworth Financial tracks the staggering rise in expenses for long-term care, a growing financial burden for families, governments and insurers like Genworth. The cost of staying in a nursing home has increased 4 per cent every year over the last five years, the report says. Last year, the median bill was $87,600. "Most people don't realize how expensive this care can be until a parent or family member needs it," said Joe Caldwell, director of long-term services at the National Council on Aging. "And then it's a real shock."
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The annual report from Genworth, which sells policies to cover long-term care, looks at costs for a variety of services, including adult daycare, and home health aides. And nursing home bills are rising at the fastest pace, twice the rate of U.S. inflation over the last five years. One year in a nursing home now costs nearly as much as three years of tuition at a private college. For its report, Genworth surveyed 15,000 nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other providers across the country in January and February. It found wide differences from state to state. In Oklahoma, for instance, the median cost for a year in a nursing home came out to $60,225. In Connecticut, it was $158,775. Alaska had the highest costs by far, with one year at $281,415. So, who pays the nursing-home bill? "A lot of people believe Medicare will step in and cover them, but that's just not true," said Bruce Chernoff, president and CEO of The Scan Foundation, a charitable organization. Medicare will cover some short visits for recovery after a surgery, for instance, but not long-term stays.
  • Often enough, experts say senior citizens wind up spending their savings until they hit their last $2,000, and at that point they can turn to Medicaid, the government's health insurance for the poor, to help cover the bill. As a result, Medicaid pays for more than half of the country's long-term care bill. That cost accounts for more than a quarter of Medicaid spending, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Genworth and other insurers offer long-term care policies to help people shoulder the financial burden. But people have to be healthy enough to qualify for coverage. Those who take out policies find their insurance bill rises steadily as they age. Caldwell described Genworth's survey as essentially a marketing pitch. "Of course they want people to see how much it costs to sell long-term care insurance," he said. "What they're not telling you is that the long-term care coverage is becoming more and more unaffordable for middle-class families." Mounting costs have also pushed many insurance companies out of the business. Four of the five largest providers have either scaled back their business or stopped offering new policies. The largest provider, Genworth, has struggled under the weight of old policies. Less-intensive care remains much cheaper than staying at a nursing home, according to Genworth's survey. One year in in an assisted-living facility runs $43,200. A year of visits from an agency's home health aides runs $45,760.
Govind Rao

The median cost of a US nursing home tops $91,000 a year, forcing families to reconside... - 0 views

  • Canadian Press Mon Jul 20 2015
  • NEW YORK, N.Y. - Doris Ranzman had followed the expert advice, planning ahead in case she wound up unable to care for herself one day. But when a nursing-home bill tops $14,000 a month, the best-laid plans get tossed aside. Even with insurance and her Social Security check, Ranzman still had to come up with around $4,000 every month to cover her care in the Amsterdam Nursing Home in Manhattan. "An awful situation," said her daughter, Sharon Goldblum. Like others faced with the stunning cost of elderly care in the U.S., Goldblum did the math and realized that her mother could easily outlive her savings. So she pulled her out of the home. For the two-thirds of Americans over 65 who are expected to need some long-term care, the costs are increasingly beyond reach. The median bill for a private room in a U.S. nursing home now runs $91,000 a year, according to a report from the insurer Genworth Financial. One year of visits from home-health aides runs $45,760.
  • Goldblum estimates that she and her mother spent at least $300,000 over the last two years for care that insurance didn't cover. "If you have any money, you're going to use all of that money," Goldblum said. "Just watch how fast it goes." How do people manage the widening gap between their savings and the high cost of caring for the elderly? Medicare doesn't cover long-term stays, so a large swath of elderly people wind up on the government's health insurance program for the poor, Medicaid. For those solidly in the middle class, however, the answer isn't so simple. They have too much money to apply for Medicaid but not enough to cover the typical three years of care. Some 60 per cent of Americans nearing retirement - those between the ages of 55 and 64 - have retirement accounts, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The median balance is $104,000.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Combined with other savings and income, that amount might provide some retirees with all they need for decades. But everything changes when, for instance, an aging father struggling with dementia requires more help than his wife and children can manage. Plans that looked solid on paper are no match for their bills. "Within the first year most people are tapped out," said Joe Caldwell, director of long-term services at the National Council on Aging. "Middle-class families just aren't prepared for these costs." Many who can afford it buy insurance to help pay for long-term care years in advance, when insurers are less likely to reject them. But even those with insurance, like Ranzman, come up short. Forced to improvise, they sell the house and lean on family. They move in with their adult children, or arrange for their children to move in with them.
  • Some can save money by switching to different facilities. On average, a shared room in a nursing home runs nearly $11,000 a year less than a private room, and a room in an adult-family home runs cheaper still. Still, there's not a lot of room for creativity, said Liz Taylor, a self-employed geriatric care manager in Lopez Island, Washington. "The amount of care you need dictates the price," she said, "and there aren't that many ways around it." Hiring an aide to spend the day with an elderly parent living at home is often the cheapest option, with aides paid $20 an hour in some parts of the country. But hiring them to work around the clock is often the most expensive, Taylor said. "Needing help to get out of bed to use the bathroom in the middle of the night means you need a nursing home," she said.
  • EVICTED To Roslyn Duffy, it seemed that her mother, Evelyn Nappa, had everything she needed. After a stroke made it difficult to live alone, Nappa moved from Arizona to Seattle to be near her daughter and soon settled into The Stratford, an assisted-living facility, where she quickly made friends of fellow residents and the staff. "The care was great," Duffy said. "We loved that facility." With the sale of the house in Arizona, Nappa's savings appeared sufficient to cover 10 years at The Stratford, enough to last until she reached 100. Duffy said that the home's directors told her not to worry about her mother running out of money and winding up on Medicaid, even though the government program pays just a portion of what many facilities charge. After all, many of the same homes that refuse to admit seniors on Medicaid will keep those who spend all their savings and wind up on the program. "'We will keep her here' - that's what they said," Duffy recalls. "But I didn't get that in writing." A representative from the nursing home declined to comment.
  • As Nappa's dementia progressed, she needed more attention. That meant moving her from an independent unit that cost $3,000 a month, to a dementia unit that cost $6,000. Trips to the emergency room, hearing aids and other costs that Medicare didn't cover added up. Soon enough, the money that was supposed to last 10 years was gone in two. Duffy enrolled her mother in Medicaid, confident that The Stratford's management would keep its promises. Two months later, she received a letter saying her mother had 30 days to find a new home. Duffy protested, writing letters to the management and local newspapers, and succeeded in keeping her mother at the Stratford for two months until social workers helped line up an adult family home willing to take Medicaid payments.
  • But the stress and the change of surroundings strained her mother's health, Duffy said. Six weeks after moving, she was dead. "She declined so quickly," Duffy said. "Being in familiar surroundings is hugely important for dementia patients. There's no doubt in my mind that the move hastened her death. It was devastating, just devastating." NEW HOME Ranzman's story has a happier ending. Her daughter pulled her out of the Amsterdam Nursing Home and rented a house in Smithtown, Long Island, with a patio and a backyard full of azaleas and trees. It was Ranzman's own space. She had round-the-clock aides, a large window and plenty of sunlight. Her daughter, Goldblum, noticed that Ranzman's memory improved quickly. Her mother seemed happier and more alert. "It was less than half the cost of a nursing home and a million times nicer," Goldblum said. "She showed such improvement." Goldblum paid $36,000 a year for the house and her mother's long-term care insurance paid the home-health aides. The move saved around $250,000 a year in expenses. What's more important to Goldblum is that her mother seemed content when she died in April at age 86, lying in bed and surrounded by family. "It was a wonderful ending," she said.
Irene Jansen

Price of new facilities may triple. Montreal Gazette. - 0 views

  • A gazette analysis finds numerous factors - including a price tag of $300 million just for planning - have conspired to inflate the bills for Montreal's biggest construction boom since the 1976 Olympic Games to about $7.1 billion
  • Montreal's two superhospitals now under construction will end up costing taxpayers nearly three times the original estimates
  • planning costs alone will soar to more than $300 million by the end of this year for the superhospitals, as well as for the Ste. Justine Hospital expansion
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • $18-million annual budget of an 18-person task force of the health department, called Modernization of Montreal's University Health Centres, whose mandate is to keep a lid on cost overruns
  • In 2004, MUHC and government officials told The Gazette that the total cost of the superhospital would not exceed $1 billion.Today, the MUHC redevelopment - the superhospital plus the Montreal General expansion - has been budgeted at $2.355 billion.
  • As for the second superhospital project, the Centre hospitalier de l'université de Montréal (CHUM), costs have also skyrocketed. In 2004, the CHUM project was estimated to cost $1 billion as well.Today, the total budget for the CHUM hospital and adjoining research facility has jumped to more than $3 billion.
  • the cost estimates of the two superhospitals combined have climbed by an average of more than 15 per cent a year since 2004, according to the Gazette's analysis. That's seven times the average annual rate of inflation during that period.
  • Initially, the expansion of the Ste. Justine pediatric hospital was supposed to cost $350 million. Today, its construction budget is $995 million.
  • a variety of reasons
  • I spent four hours in front of a (National Assembly) commission explaining all this last year. People were satisfied with the explanations.
  • the Montreal General and the MUHC superhospital at the Glen Yard will have a total of 768 beds, down from the 1,100 that were available in 2000. There are also plans, once the redevelopment is completed, to cut back clinical services such as dialysis - a concern to at least two MUHC board members.
  • any cost analysis must take into account the government's decision to build the superhospitals as public-private partnerships
  • in the case of the MUHC and CHUM, the government still had to provide 45 per cent of the financing upfront, because the consortia were unable to raise all the money on their own
  • Certainly, the PPP model has created more bureaucracy, as the government set up the Agence des partenariats public-privé du Québec to scrutinize such deals. The agency (whose 2006 payroll nearly tripled to $3.1 million) has since been incorporated into Infrastructure Quebec.
  • all the hospital construction in Montreal adds up to more than $7.1 billion - a building boom that rivals the construction of facilities for the 1976 Games
  •  
    Montreal P3 hospitals
Irene Jansen

Health Council of Canada / Conseil canadien de la santé - How do Sicker Canad... - 0 views

  • This bulletin reports the results of the 2011 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey and compares the experiences of sicker Canadians with chronic conditions to those of the general public.
  • Cost was shown to be one of the most significant barriers: 23% of sicker Canadians said they had skipped a dose of medication or did not fill a prescription due to cost, compared to just 10% of the general population. 12% of sicker Canadians reported not visiting a doctor due to cost concerns, compared to just 4% of the general population.
  • Sicker Canadians also fare worse when it comes to the coordination of their care and being engaged in their health care. These issues, as well as recommendations to eliminate the barriers this population faces, are outlined in the bulletin.
  •  
    The 2011 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy survey involved about 19,000 randomly chosen adults from 11 countries, who were interviewed by telephone between March and June. The survey included 3,958 Canadians. Almost 60 per cent of those with ongoing health concerns have below-average household incomes, making it difficult to afford certain types of care and medications. Secondary costs such as paying for transportation to appointments, child care and lost wages from time away from work can also present obstacles to care, the Health Council said. The report recommends a number of ways to eliminate cost barriers, including increasing use of alternatives to face-to-face visits, such as telemedicine, email and phone consultations. To improve co-ordination of care, widespread use of electronic medical records in Canada would reduce costs and improve efficiency, the council said.
Doug Allan

Reining in ballooning medical costs - 0 views

  • Retired hospital CEO Murray Martin has suggested that Ontario's health care system is unsustainable in the absence of dramatic cost-saving changes, such as further hospital mergers. However as with many other health care policies, there is a serious disconnect between the problem — sustaining free, universal health care — and his solution.
  • The report found that although the appeal of hospital mergers is powerful, the evidence supporting mergers is weak. It concludes that "the urge to merge is an astounding, runaway phenomenon given the weak research base to support it, and those who champion mergers should be called upon to prove their case."
  • We are getting older/living longer because at each age level, average health is better than it was 10, 20 and 30 years ago. Health care needs per person are falling at each age, which is healthy aging. But the methods governments use to plan health care services, the number and type of health care providers and expenditure on health care are not based on the health care needs of the population. Instead they are based on the assumption each age group will need the level of care it received in the past. We simply increase expenditures to allow for the increased numbers in each group, never realizing the savings from healthy aging.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Failing to link the supply of health care to the needs of the population means the cost of our health care system is determined by the number of providers. Because the number of suppliers has been increasing at a rate far faster than the size of the population, even after allowing for an aging population, we now face a crisis in meeting the costs of keeping the increasing supply of health care providers fully employed.
  •  
    This piece argues that the evidence does not show that hospital mergers will save money.  Moreover it argues that our improving health reduces costs naturally:  with improving overall health, our health care needs per person are falling.  Instead, cost increases are driven by health care providers.
Govind Rao

What's really driving high-cost use of health care - Healthy Debate - 0 views

  • by Laura Rosella, Andrew Pinto & Jeremy Petch (Show all posts by Laura Rosella, Andrew Pinto & Jeremy Petch) May 8, 2015
  • Once a patient is older and has developed multiple chronic conditions, it may be that a substantial portion of the health care resources they consume are medically necessary, and simply can’t be significantly reduced through better coordinated care or fewer visits to the emergency department. If the central policy goal of concentrating on high-cost users is to save money, then the best approach may not be to focus so exclusively on people who are already high-cost users, but also strive to prevent people from becoming high-cost users in the first place.
  • So what, at a fundamental level, is driving high-cost use? In a word, poverty.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • This should be no great revelation – research has shown for some time that there is an association between high-cost use and socio-economic status. Yet this knowledge has not been enough to shape the policy agenda with respect to high-cost users, perhaps in part because solving poverty seems a monolithic problem well beyond the means of a health care system to address.
Govind Rao

$3.37m in unreleased health merger costs angers opposition | The Chronicle Herald - 0 views

  • November 16, 2015
  • The cost of merging the province’s district health authorities was $3 million more than the previously discussed total. The Nova Scotia Government & General Employees Union recently released the results of a freedom of information request about the amalgamation cost and that document showed an additional $3.37 million the Health Department hasn’t discussed.
  •  
    A freedom of information request showed that the true cost of merging Nova Scotia's nine district health authorities into one was much higher than reported by the government. The previously reported $5.7 million price tag for the merger didn't include the $3.37 million required to create a new payroll system, bringing the total cost to more than $9 million.
Cheryl Stadnichuk

Surrey Board of Trade Receives Support for a Universal Pharmacare Program for Business ... - 0 views

  • KELOWNA, BC – The Surrey Board of Trade is calling on the provincial government and the federal government economic benefits of universal pharmacare for businesses at the BC Chamber of Commerce Annual General Meeting and Conference, May 29 – 31 in Kelowna. This policy was approved at today’s BC Chamber policy session as a priority to the BC Government. “Drug coverage in Canada is provided through an incomplete patchwork of private and public programs that varies across provinces. This fragmented system reduces access to medicines, diminishes drug purchasing power, duplicates administrative costs, and isolates pharmaceutical management from the management of medical and hospital care. It is needlessly costing Canadian businesses billions of dollars every year,” said Anita Huberman, CEO Surrey Board of Trade.
  • There is a better option. A universal, comprehensive public drug plan that was consistent throughout BC and across Canada would be a wise investment for BC’s economic prosperity. Research has shown that such a plan would reduce employer-sponsored drug costs in Canada by up to $10.2 billion per year – a $570 million annual savings for businesses in British Columbia alone.4 This would boost Canada’s labour market competitiveness.
  • A universal pharmaceutical program would be economically viable not only by taking advantage of the power of a single purchaser, but through the following: Reduction of administration costs for businesses and unions Elimination of the need for tax subsidies to encourage employer funded benefit packages Decreased direct emergency and acute care medical costs due to inappropriate or underuse of drug 28therapies Reduction of other health service costs 28Because of these increased efficiencies, a universal pharmacare program would increase government costs by only $3.4 billion, $2.4 billion of which could be financed by the reduced cost of private drug benefits for public sector employees. The 2015 Angus Reid Institute poll found that most taxpayers would support such a program, even if it required modest increase in taxes.
Irene Jansen

NYT: Fixing Medicare - 0 views

  • Medicare is nothing less than a lifeline for 49 million older and disabled Americans.
  • The federal government spent about $477 billion in net Medicare outlays in fiscal year 2011 - 13 percent of its total spending. By 2021, it is projected to spend $864 billion - or 16 percent of the total - according to figures derived by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
  • There are three key drivers of Medicare spending: the spiraling cost of all health care as new technologies and treatments are developed; much greater use of medical services by the typical beneficiary; and an aging population
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • The health care reform law enacted last year calls for cutting more than $400 billion from Medicare over the next decade, primarily by slowing the rate of growth in payments to health care providers and phasing out unjustified subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that insure roughly a quarter of all enrollees. Republican leaders, who denounced those cuts in 2010, have since embraced Representative Paul Ryan's proposal, which adopts virtually all of the same reductions. Even these will be difficult to achieve without driving out providers, according to the government's nonpartisan budget analysts.
  • Since January 2010 the growth in Medicare spending has actually slowed to an annual rate of about 4 percent, less than half the annual rate for the previous decade
  • The only way to make Medicare sustainable is to have it grow at the same rate as the economy that provides the tax base to support it. In recent years, Medicare spending has been growing faster than gross domestic product, by roughly 1.7 to 2 percentage points.
  • Policy experts of varied political stripes have proposed a host of ways to eliminate excess spending without harming beneficiaries or the medical system. Some would charge higher Medicare premiums for those able to afford them, or raise the age of eligibility, or increase cost-sharing by beneficiaries to deter unnecessary use of medical care. All such proposals have strengths and weaknesses that need to be carefully analyzed.
  • A more radical proposal, championed primarily by Republicans, is to stop providing Medicare payments for specified benefits no matter the cost and instead give beneficiaries a set amount of money to buy private insurance policies that might not provide the same benefits. These so-called premium-support or voucher plans come in many flavors - some good, some bad - and would need to be carefully vetted. The most extreme version, proposed by Representative Ryan, would save the federal government a lot of money mainly by shifting big costs to beneficiaries and driving up costs for the rest of the health care system.
  • Medicare's system for paying health care providers is a big part of its spending problem. The traditional Medicare program pays doctors separate fees for each of 7,000 different services, such as a diagnostic test, office visit or surgical procedure. This encourages excess use of medical tests and procedures
  • The solution, most experts agree, is to have Medicare pay doctors and other health care providers fixed sums to manage a patient's care and then let the doctors decide which services are truly necessary. Close monitoring would be needed to ensure that doctors don't deny medically important services to improve their bottom lines.
  • Medicare's coverage has some glaring gaps that need fixing. There is no provision for long-term care in nursing homes or at home, forcing many middle-class people to impoverish themselves to qualify for Medicaid. And patients can be socked with very high or very low rates of cost-sharing depending on whether care is delivered in a hospital, nursing home, by a doctor or at home. This crazy-quilt pattern confuses patients about the costs they will have to pay and almost certainly complicates and drives up the costs of administering the program.
Irene Jansen

Center for Medicare Advocacy - 0 views

  •  
    JUDITH STEIN Executive Director in NYT December 2011: Your editorial about changing Medicare into a voucher system wisely states many of the problems with public subsidies of private health insurance for Medicare beneficiaries. All such experiments have cost more and provided less value to those in need of coverage. I have been an advocate for Medicare beneficiaries for almost 35 years. I've seen numerous forays into privatizing Medicare. Clinton-era plans, Medicare Plus Choice, Medicare Advantage: none of them have provided better coverage more cost-effectively than the traditional Medicare program. I don't recommend a private plan to my mother. That should be a good test for anyone championing premium support. Additionally, ever-increasing private options have made Medicare too complex, especially given the very limited number of advocates available to help beneficiaries understand, choose and navigate the system. Call it what you will, "premium support" is the latest jingle for privatizing Medicare. It's not a new or creative idea, and it will only add more costs and confusion. What we need is an objective look at what's needed to encourage participation and cost efficiencies in traditional Medicare, not further adventures in privatization.
Govind Rao

COST OF HEALTH CARE MORE THAN DOUBLE FOR CANADIANS WITH DIABETES - Infomart - 0 views

  • The Globe and Mail Thu Aug 20 2015
  • A new study has determined that the average cost of health care for Canadians with diabetes is $16,000 over eight years, compared to $6,000 for those without the disease. The analysis published in the journal Diabetic Medicine shows that caring for the 3.4 million Canadians with diabetes costs the health system billions of dollars each year. Lead author Laura Rosella of the University of Toronto says diabetes is one of the biggest public health challenges of the 21st century because of how much it costs to manage.
  • The study captured health care costs for almost three million people with diabetes from 2004 to 2012 using patient data that included hospitalizations, emergency room visits, surgery, kidney dialysis and medications. Rosella says the prevalence of diabetes is expected to rise as a result of the aging population, as well as increasing rates of obesity and sedentary lifestyles. She says it's critical that diabetes-related costs be estimated in order to properly allocate future health care resources and to determine cost-savings from prevention strategies. Dr. Janet Hux, chief science officer at the Canadian Diabetes Association, says the disease decreases a person's quality and length of life. "This study documents the heavy and potentially unsustainable burden the condition poses to the health care system," she says.
1 - 20 of 1077 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page