by Alex
Grady Memorial Hospital is to Atlanta as Wishard Memorial Hospital is to Indianapolis. Like Wishard, Grady is a teaching hospital, it serves nearly all the region's uninsured, and it has the only Trauma 1 center in Atlanta. Unfortunately, like Wishard, Grady is facing financial troubles. In fact, there are about 300 fewer public hospitals today than there were 15 years ago because of this reason. The current Grady model is unsustainable. One third of their patients are uninsured. Another third are covered by Medicaid, which reimburses at a really low rate. The point is many hospitals, many of the nation's safety nets, of Grady and Wishard's form share the same problems. The healthcare "crisis" is debatable, but the state of our countries hospitals is not. Somewhere in our system, synapses are not firing.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
What is the Value of Life?
by Alex
A healthcare system is in place to prevent and treat different ailments and conditions so to protect the mental and physical well-being of our lives. The problem is that every healthcare system allows some to slip away. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimates that the United States allows for about 100,000 unnecessary deaths per year. These are the people who lack health insurance and the ability to access proper care. Policy-makers and other experts debate whether providing care to the uninsured would actually be better and less costly than the status quo. (I have my own opinion and you have yours, so we will just leave that for another day.) In this case, we always think in terms of how much it will cost to cover them and whether the benefits outweigh the costs. But what if all the sudden we were to consider the options based on the actual cost of life?
What does your life cost? I have really no clue, but many economists have recently tried to figure out just that. They measure it by observing real choices, for instance whether you will cross the street at the cross walk or play Frogger during rush-hour. One of the largest choices you make is in choosing your profession. In that case, people who choose a more risky occupation (e.g. drug dealer, prostitute, stunt driver) value their life less and vice versa. (If you are interested, economists have measured a Mexican prostitutes life value at around $50,000 per year and that of a Chicago drug dealer a little more than that.) So, we could add up all of the 47 million people who are uninsured and find out how much we value their life collectively. That price tag would be compared to the amount it would cost to provide them with healthcare coverage. Would it be worth it? (Ok, I know I am leaving many factors out of the equation, but I am just trying to make a point.)
In summation, I do not know if that is the best metric to use in deciding whether the costs of healthcare is worth it, but it certainly brings up a different way of thinking. Is a system that allows for 100,000 preventable deaths per year justified? I guess that is up to you. What do you weigh the cost of life?
A healthcare system is in place to prevent and treat different ailments and conditions so to protect the mental and physical well-being of our lives. The problem is that every healthcare system allows some to slip away. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimates that the United States allows for about 100,000 unnecessary deaths per year. These are the people who lack health insurance and the ability to access proper care. Policy-makers and other experts debate whether providing care to the uninsured would actually be better and less costly than the status quo. (I have my own opinion and you have yours, so we will just leave that for another day.) In this case, we always think in terms of how much it will cost to cover them and whether the benefits outweigh the costs. But what if all the sudden we were to consider the options based on the actual cost of life?
What does your life cost? I have really no clue, but many economists have recently tried to figure out just that. They measure it by observing real choices, for instance whether you will cross the street at the cross walk or play Frogger during rush-hour. One of the largest choices you make is in choosing your profession. In that case, people who choose a more risky occupation (e.g. drug dealer, prostitute, stunt driver) value their life less and vice versa. (If you are interested, economists have measured a Mexican prostitutes life value at around $50,000 per year and that of a Chicago drug dealer a little more than that.) So, we could add up all of the 47 million people who are uninsured and find out how much we value their life collectively. That price tag would be compared to the amount it would cost to provide them with healthcare coverage. Would it be worth it? (Ok, I know I am leaving many factors out of the equation, but I am just trying to make a point.)
In summation, I do not know if that is the best metric to use in deciding whether the costs of healthcare is worth it, but it certainly brings up a different way of thinking. Is a system that allows for 100,000 preventable deaths per year justified? I guess that is up to you. What do you weigh the cost of life?
Doctors Can Prescribe Off-Label Drugs
by Alex Beeman
I will stumble upon many interesting things throughout my research. While most of these issues and factoids will not be referred to in the movie, I will try to shed some light on them in this blog. So without further ado, I was reading an article on Slate that really surprised me. As the title of the post proclaims, doctors actually have the ability to prescribe prescription drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Why? Well, the government actually cannot regulate or tell a doctor how to practice medicine. This article supports doctors' autonomy in this instance, explaining that it allows for innovation. the author, who is a physician, cites that two-thirds of off-label drugs have resulted in the discovery of other uses. The number of off-label prescriptions is not insignificant either. One study showed that "roughly one-fifth of prescriptions for the 169 most common drugs were for off-label uses."
I will stumble upon many interesting things throughout my research. While most of these issues and factoids will not be referred to in the movie, I will try to shed some light on them in this blog. So without further ado, I was reading an article on Slate that really surprised me. As the title of the post proclaims, doctors actually have the ability to prescribe prescription drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Why? Well, the government actually cannot regulate or tell a doctor how to practice medicine. This article supports doctors' autonomy in this instance, explaining that it allows for innovation. the author, who is a physician, cites that two-thirds of off-label drugs have resulted in the discovery of other uses. The number of off-label prescriptions is not insignificant either. One study showed that "roughly one-fifth of prescriptions for the 169 most common drugs were for off-label uses."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)