Remember how back in high school and/or college you got to the nitty gritty of a difficult to understand novel by reading the “Cliff Notes?” Well, just a FYI about a rather straightforward article in yesterday’s New York Times that summarized weight loss regimens based on cost, starting with the least expensive approach (zero dollars). I thought the information in the article was pretty accurate and a good place to start for those who want to lose weight (like about 98% of people I know) but aren’t sure how to go about it. Don’t be expecting to find some new sure-fire diet plan; it’s still all about motivation, calories in, and calories burned.
Challenging Dogma: Is It Really True That “ACE” Inhibitors Do Not Slow The Development/Progression Of Diabetic Nephropathy?
There was a very interesting article in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine. The article was written by Michael Mauer and associates and entitled “Renal and Retinal Effects of Enalapril and Losartan in Type 1 Diabetes. Before I get into the study findings, I need to provide a bit of background information for those readers not up on treatment of diabetic nephropathy ( kidney disease). Diabetic nephropathy is the most common cause of kidney failure in the U.S. and the most common reason for chronic kidney dialysis. It is clear from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and other studies that the two biggest risk factors for the development and progression of diabretic nephopathy (in both type 1 and 2 diabetes) are blood glucose control and blood pressure. A number of studies have also shown that use of a certain class of antihypertensive agents called angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or “ACE” inhibitors for short, can slow progression of diabetic nephropathy. It is more or less established dogma that ACE inhibitors prevent progression of established diabetic nephropathy. Even the American Diabetes Association strongly recommends treatment with ACE inbibitors in patients with diabetes who show even early signs of diabetic nephropathy (typically, leakage of small amounts of protein in the urine which is called microalbuminuria. Many physicians treat their diabetic patients who do not show excessive microalbuminuria with ACE inhibitors on a prophylactic basis although the scientific evidence for such a treatment strategy is not well established.
The Mauer study design
Mauer and colleagues studied 285 people with type 1 diabetes at least 18 years of age with diabetes duration 2-20 years. Patients were excluded from the study if they had hypertension or any evidence of diabetic nephropathy. Most patients had kidney biopsies at the beginning and end of the study which lasted 5 years. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: placebo, Losartan (an ACE inhibitor) or Enalopril (an ACE inhibitor.
Study results
Basically, the study showed no benefit in terms of development of elevated microalbumin levels with the ACE inhibitors; in fact, the Losartan group actually showed a statistically significant higher incidence of elevated microalbumin levels than did the placebo group. Among the three treatment groups, there were no differences in the extent of morphologic kidney changes over the 5-year period. Both ACE inhibitor groups showed significantly less progression of diabetic retinopathy (65-70% less risk for progression).
So now what?
These results were, to say the least, surprising to many experts. The question remains how to reconcile the Mauer study results with results of earlier studies and what to do with patients who are now being treated with ACE inhibitors? In my opinion, we should not panic, but sit back and try to sort this all out. There are some important limitations of the Mauer study that cannot be ignored. First, only 25-40% of patients with diabetes ever develop diabetic nephropathy. It seems clear that some patients are not prone to develop diabetic nephropathy despite having risk factors such as hypertension and poor glycemic control. Some studies suggest there are genetic factors that either decrease or increase patient risks for the development of nephropathy in addition to the known clinical risk factors. So, it is hard to know what to make of the fact that the placebo group showed only a 6% increase in cumulative incidence of abnormal levels of microalbuminuria. Ideally, the study should have excluded patients who were at little or no risk for the development of nephropathy regardless of blood glucose control and blood pressure. Of course, there was no way to do that.
Also, I wonder whether the investigators should have looked at their data with regard to patients’ levels of glycemic control? The only A1c data in the study were baseline A1cs in the three treatment groups to show that the groups were similar at baseline in terms of glycemic control. We already know that the level of HbA1c is a strong risk predictor for the development/progression of diabetic nephropathy. Maybe the A1c trumps the effects of the ACE inhibitor; perhaps the ACE inhibitor is not protective unless the A1c is low?
So, for now I would recommend using an ACE inhibitor as a first line choice for treating hypertension in a patient with diabetes. I would not, however (and never did) consider using ACE inhibitors to prevent the development of diabetic nephropathy. I am still undecided whether to recommend an ACE inhibitor to a patient with abnormal and steadily increasing levels of microalbuminuria. Of course, what complicates all of this are the Mauer study data on diabetic retinopathy; maybe the new dogma will be that ACE inhibitors should be used in all patients with diabetes to prevent/slow progression of diabetic retinopathy? Most important, we should not forget the old dogma which still stands- glycemic control and blood pressure are both proven powerful risk factors for the development/progression of all diabetic complications. If one “covers” all the risk factors for diabetic complications, there is no need to debate whether ACE inhibitors help or not.
How Should We Pay For Health Care In the U.S.?
The national debate continues to be a contentious one regarding just how we will pay for universal health care. What seems clear is that at current costs, it will be virtually impossible to come up with a workable plan. So, let’s just assume that we have figured out how to trim costs appreciably (you might want to check out my plan as discussed in previous entries, including the last one, June 24, 2009) and we are ready to implement the plan whatever it might be. Who will pay for their health care? The answer is clear- all people with sufficient income to cover the costs. These people will by necessity be required to cover their own costs and also those of people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to cover the costs. Who can’t afford to cover their own (and, perhaps other family members as well) health care costs? The answer is that more or less, it’s the same people who now can’t pay for their health care by virtue of low income or, perhaps, no income, with one big exception- people who now would purchase health insurance if they could but at current costs, they can’t afford it. Thus, if we can lower costs appreciably, the individual who does not have health insurance coverage through his employer, may be able to afford it. At any rate, the burden for providing health care coverage to all will fall on those who can pay. That’s just how it is.
Payment options
So, now I hope it’s clear that the collective “we” will be paying for our health care. There are only so many ways to come up with the bucks to pay the bills. Let me list the ways:
1. Payroll tax for employers and employees
2. National consumption tax (a sales tax)
3. Higher income taxes
I can’t think of any other ways to pay for universal health care. None of the ways are likely to be very appealing to very many people, but what else can we do? My libertarian friends tell me that we should just drop all government and employer involvement in health care and let the market “do it all.” Their hypothesis is that if we just “let go,” the market will “re-equilibrate” with dramatically lower costs for all. Sure thing.
Right now what I see is that all the major players (e.g., Congress, President Obama’s team, the health care industry) are working around the edges with this proposal and that proposal to trim health care costs. None of them really address the rather fundamental need for a real plan as to how we will pay for what we supposedly want which is universal health care. I’m not optimistic that we yet have the political will to what we need to do to get where we want to go. Too bad since the destination is a very nice place indeed.
Why Does U.S. Medical Care Cost So Much? Lessons From McAllen, TX
I finally got around to reading the “hot” article in the June 1,2009 New Yorker magazine written by Atul Gawande. The article which is entitled “The Cost Conundrum” with subtitle, “What a Texas town can teach us about health care,” has been making the rounds in Washington,D.C. since it addresses the cost issues in U.S. health care. It has been said that President Obama has made the article must reading for all of the White House staff that are working on health care issues.
A summary of the article
Dr. Gawande has written yet another excellent article in a long series of article he has written about U.S. health care. Here he explores the reasons that per capita Medicare spending in McAllen, Texas is about twice the national average- about $15,000 per enrollee vs. about $8000 per enrollee nationally (2006 data). I don’t want to ruin a good story for you but basically, the reason for the cost differential is pretty simple- the physicians in McAllen, Texas order many more tests and procedures on average than do physicians in other places. Furthermore, Dr. Gawande’s conclusion based on pretty good research, was that the reasons for the high costs in McAllen, Texas were partly a “culture” within the medical community of ordering lots of tests but also simple greed. Dr. Gawande described the situation well but as in many of his other articles, he was short on solutions (not a criticism, just disappointment on my part). He mentioned what some other communities were doing to keep costs down but seemed to end with the notion that we will need to “experiment” with different approaches if we are to find an effective way of controlling costs.
Do we really need to carry out extensive studies to figure out how to save costs?
Dr. Gawande has done an admirable job in describing one major reason for the astonishingly high U.S. health-care costs. I disagree with him with respect to how difficult it will be to improve things. It is true, the solution might be difficult politically, but in my opinion, not otherwise. In earlier entries I discussed the issue of high costs and offered some solutions. Let me try again. Let’s focus on Medicare.
First, we should require that all Medicare enrollees have a “medical home.” This could be a clinic or a hospital or a group of hospitals and clinics. The medical home is responsible for maintaining the enrollees’ medical records, presumably in an electronic form that is at least available to all caregivers within the medical home system. Every enrollee has to have a primary care giver or at least a group of primary care givers within the same medical home. The primary caregiver decides when the enrollee should see a specialist, get an MRI, etc. The referral for the test, specialist appointment or whatever must be well documented in the medical record, particularly the justification. What I am describing may seem quite a bit like the “managed care” of 10-20 years ago that went over like a brick balloon. The difference here is that in the medical home, healthcare professionals make the care decisions not a clerk who decides yes or no on treatment requests by looking up the request on a big list (with managed care the answer was usually “no” regardless of the situation).
To summarize: each Medicare enrollee will have a medical home that is responsible for orchestrating all of the enrollee’s medical care. The medical home’s performance will be monitored regularly and unusual patterns of referrals, test ordering, etc. will be investigated.
So, what’s in it for the medical home? Clearly, the medical home will need some incentives for signing up Medicare enrollees. I would recommend first that the reimbursements to primary caregivers be comparable to that paid by private insurers. Second, I would eliminate the “facilities fees” that Medicare currently pays to hospitals and some clinics for seeing Medicare patients (these “fees” can be more than the caregiver charges for the clinic visit) and set up some system for providing a modest annual fee to the medical home for each Medicare enrollee in their system.
How will the medical home plan save money?
The problem in McAllen, Texas is inappropriate referrals to specialists and the ordering of inappropriate tests and procedures. This over-utilization of the health-care systemclearly makes medical care for Medicare enrollees in McAllen, Texas very expensive. Sadly,the over-utilization doesn’t even result in better medical care and/or better health-care outcomes for the patients; it just puts more money in the pockets of the health-care givers. If each Medicare enrollee has a medical home that is responsible to the government for every referral and for every test that is ordered with financial penalties for inappropriate use of the health-care system, I guarantee that serious efforts will be made to change medical practice behaviors. Of course, it’s not about getting health-care givers to order as few tests as possible; obviously, many patients do need referrals to specialists and for various laboratory tests and procedures. Rather, it’s about appropriate ordering. There shouldn’t be a prize to the doc whose Medicare enrollees account for the lowest cost per capita. Maybe those patients are not getting referrals and tests that they truly need?
One last thing. In Dr. Gawande’s article there is a section about the cooperative approach physicians in Grand Junction, Colorado are taking to minimize costs. Likewise, there is a section about the way physicians practice medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Even I as a jaded old physician, was excited to learn how well we really can do if we set our sights first on providing excellent care to our patients and make financial gain a lower priority. Three cheers for physicians and other health care workers in Grand Junction and at the Mayo Clinic.
No Gain Without Some (actually considerable) Pain: More Bad News
Earlier today I wrote an entry emphasizing the simple fact that we cannot hope to come up with a satisfactory plan to make major improvements in the U.S. health care system without first addressing the costs. This afternoon as I was surfing the net, I saw a” hot off the press” post in the online New York Times. It was an article written by Derrick Henry entitled “Obama may lack votes on health, Democrat says.” Henry quotes Senator Dianne Finestein from California who apparently has made clear that she does not intend to vote for the health care overhaul bill as it stands because of the cost provisions. Henry also quotes a number of other important senators who will not support a bill that is now estimated to cost up to 3 trillion dollars. So, maybe I’m not alone in my concern that we are not on a path to pass legislation that will actually improve our ailing health care system? People, I will repeat: we can control costs and get universal coverage but we will need to feel some pain along the way. It is the only way forward.
U.S. Health Care Reform: Is It Possible to Gain Without Pain?
The recent media frenzy surrounding the current health care debates in Washington has driven me to take a slight detour back to health care issues (I had been focusing on a series of entries about diabetes care). In the fall of 2008 and extending into early 2009 I wrote quite a number of entries about the problems with U.S. health care and a proposal for fixing our ills (literally and figuratively). Through the spring of 2009 I sat on my hands and listened to the debates and I have become increasingly dismayed at what I have been hearing. I am now not one bit optimistic that the U.S. Congress will be able to enact any meaningful health care fixes.
Where do things stand at the moment?
It’s hard to be sure exactly what is happening in Congress. The current debate seems to have centered on whether to have a government run health insurance (I’m not sure “insurance” is the correct term) option that would compete for customers with traditional health insurance companies. The idea would be to keep the insurers “honest.” It is my assumption that “keeping the private health insurance companies honest” means forcing the private insurers to compete with a reasonably priced government insurance option. There is a long editorial about this subject in today’s New York Times (Sunday, June 21, 2009) as well as an article summarizing a recent national survey on people’s views about universal health care. These are both worth reading but neither get at what I view as the “missing link” in almost all of the discussions about health care reform, namely, just how are we going to pay for things?
In my earlier entries about the U.S. health care mess I tried to emphasize over and over that the 2 big problems were inadequate access to health care and high and ever increasing costs. I must have sounded like a broken record when I said over and over that we cannot hope to fix either of the 2 problems unless we fix both of them at the same time. It’s all good and well to have a government health care option that competes with private insurers but no one has spelled out how we will be able to afford it. The fact that a government plan would have lower administrative costs than private insurance plans does not in any meaningful way explain how we will be able to pay for coverage for many millions of Americans who currently have no health coverage or inadequate coverage. Look at Medicare, another government run health care option. It is fast going broke. If we cannot control health care costs, not just slow the inevitable increases over time, we are doomed to failure. We MUST “bite the bullet” and deal with the costs. That is not a very appealing notion since there will need to be quite a bit of pain spread around. We will need to pay primary care givers a little more and specialists much less. We will need to pay hospitals and medical supply vendors much less for their services. There is no way to decrease costs without paying some people, companies, and institutions less, and I mean, far less, than what we are now all shelling out for health care (over $8000 per year per man, woman, and child in the U.S.).
Just what am I trying to say?
Unless we tackle health care costs NOW, none of the current proposals for health care reform will stand any chance of getting through Congress when the costs of providing universal coverage are presented. Remember Massachusetts; they had a relatively easy time dramatically increasing the number of insured people when they passed a law requiring all people to have health insurance, but they didn’t work on the cost side and the plan as it stands is not economically viable. The New York Times survery on health care I mentioned above found that a majority of people in the U.S. who currently have health coverage would be willing to pay $500 more a year if it meant all people would have health care coverage. That’s a laugh- unless we get our arms around health care costs, $500 will be only a small fraction of what the extra costs would be to provide universal health care coverage. Then how willing would our good citzens be to chip in?
Barriers To Success In Managing Diabetes: How To Quantify What Success Means
In my last 2 entries (June 8 and June 11, 2009), I did my best to present the problem- a disconnect between what we know about preventing diabetes complications, and the fact that many patients still develop them. In this entry, I want to explore some possible reasons for the “disconnect.”
Using the A1c test as a measure of the degree to which a patient’s diabetes care is being managed optimally
In previous entries, I have discussed the importance of hemoglobin A1c measurements, often called “the A1c test,” in quantifying blood glucose control in people with diabetes. The A1c test is a tremendous advance in diabetes. As recently as the early 1980s, physicians really had no objective way to assess long-term blood glucose levels in patients. Patients could do fingerstick blood glucose testing at home on a regular basis which helped give both patients and physicians some idea of how things were going. But it was not until the A1c test became widely available AND the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial results showed that the A1c test was a powerful risk predictor for diabetes complications that the wheels of progress started moving fast.
We now know that the A1c test is a reasonably reliable measure of a person’s average blood glucose level over the preceding 3-4 months. I say “reasonably,” because the test really quantifies a “moving average,” not strictly speaking, an average over time x to time y. But, even given the test’s limitations as a measure of average blood glucose, it is useful in relating daily patient blood glucose testing to an overall average. But, where the test really shines is as a very reliable predictor for patient risks of developing and showing progression of all diabetes chronic complications. Furthermore, the test is more or less standardized among laboratories in the U.S. and most of the result of the world through a National Institutes of Health supported program called “the NGSP.”. Thus, a simple blood test that requires only a small drop of blood and can be performed in less than 30 minutes can tell a patient and his doctor roughly what the patient’s average blood glucose level has been over the past few months and whether the test result is in a desirable range with respect to risk for the development/progression of diabetes complications. The test has been used not only for routine patient care but also in quality assurance programs. So the point I want to make here is that we now have a tool that lets us quantify how well a patient is doing overall with their diabetes care.
What do A1c test numbers mean?
With respect to interpreting A1c test results, I would consider a level of 4-6% as normal (in my laboratory, the upper limit of normal is actually 5.7%). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recommended that patients with diabeetes aim for levels <7% (an A1c of 7% reflects an average blood glucose of about 150-170 mg/dl, with normal about 70-100 mg/dl). The ADA used to recommend that most people with diabetes maintain A1c levels <8% with higher levels requiring “action.” I was disappointed when, several years ago, the ADA abandoned this care goal recommendation. Many patients with diabetes simply cannot achieve A1c levels <7%. It is my opinion that having a single care goal that many people cannot achieve is not the way to help patients achieve care goals. An A1c test result of 7.9% (i.e., <8%) reflects an average blood glucose of about 180-200 mg/dl. Data from the DCCT/EDIC and the UKPDS show that patients’ risks of developing diabetes complications are quite low if the A1c level is maintained at <8% long-term, but not as low in patients whose levels are <7%. Anyway, that’s what the numbers mean. In my discussions I will define “optimal control” as levels <7% and “acceptable control” as levels <8%. But it is important to remember that lower is always better unless the patient is having frequent episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood glucose levels). In fact, a drop in A1c from 10% to 9% decreases risks for complications much more than a drop from 9% to 8%, which in turn decreases risks more than a drop from 8% to 7%. This means that for some patients unable to achieve A1c levels in the desirable range, we as health care givers should be willing to applaud any improvements that the patient makes. This doesn’t mean we (patients and health care givers) should be satisfied with A1c levels that are above desirable levels, but rather, accept that incremental improvements are better than no improvements.
Why Do Patients With Diabetes Still Develop Chronic Complications?
In my last entry (June 8, 2009), I began a discussion about why, given how much we now know about preventing diabetes complications, patients still get retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular diseases. I presented thumbnail sketches about 3 adolescents with type 1 diabetes whose medical histories ran the gamut from excellent to poor diabetes control. Now I want to explore the subject in some detail.
What do we know about the relationship between the quality of diabetes care and the risks for developing chronic complications of the disease?
First, long-term studies such as the Diabetes Control and Complications trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study(UKPDS) have shown clearly that development and progression of all major diabetes complications are strongly related to 3 factors- blood glucose control, blood pressure, and blood lipid levels. So, simply put, the risk factors for diabetes complications are blood glucose levels, blood pressure levels, and cholesterol levels. These risk factors are all controllable; hence, in 2009 it is possible to have diabetes, and with proper treatment, be at little or no risk of developing diabetes complications. That is good news indeed. Unfortunately, what is possible, is not happening for many people with diabetes; diabetes remains a leading cause of vision loss, nerve damage, kidney failure, and heart disease.
How can we tell if a person with diabetes is actually doing well in managing the condition?
It’s pretty easy for a physician to assess how well people with diabetes are doing in terms of the known risk factors for the development/progression of diabetes complications. First, just measuring the blood pressure covers that risk factor. Second, just measuring blood lipid levels covers another major risk factor. Typically, physicians order a fasting lipid profile which measures blood cholesterol, tryglycerides, LDL-cholesterol (“bad” cholesterol), and HDL-cholesterol (“good” cholesterol). Third, physicians can assess blood glucose levels by ordering hemoglobin A1c (also called the A1c test). The A1c test measures the amount of glucose attached to a person’s red blood cells, which is directly related to the average blood glucose level over the previous 3-4 months. This test has been shown to be a powerful risk predictor for the development and progression of all diabetes complications (you might want to check out some of my previous entries that discuss this test in great detail). In summary, all it takes is a stethoscope, a blood pressure cuff, and a bit of blood to assess/monitor risks for the development/progression of all diabetes complications.
Measuring risk vs. doing something about it
So, it’s quite easy to assess how well a person with diabetes is doing in terms of their risk for developing this or that diabetes conmplication. It’s quite another thing to actually modify (i.e., decrease) a person’s risk factors once it has been determined that risks for this or that complication are increased. For blood pressure and lipids, assuming the patient will remember to take a pill reliably (and can afford the medication), improving risks is easy. For blood glucose control it’s not so simple since the solution generally requires that patients make changes in the way they manage their diabetes. This is the area that I want to focus on in my next entry.
Now That We Know How To Prevent Diabetes Complications, So How Come So Many People Are Still Getting Them?
Last week I had a very interesting clinic in which the first 3 patients were teenagers with type 1 diabetes. The first patient was a 16 year old boy with onset of diabetes at about age 6 years. He was being treated with an insulin pump and had always done extraordinarily well with his diabetes care. He never missed clinic visits, he tested blood glucose levels 4-6 times daily, he made appropriate insulin dose adjustments, and he never had a hemoglobin A1c over 7% (that’s the test that measures overall blood glucose control during the preceding 3-4 months and is a strong risk predictor for the development of diabetes complications). The second patient was a 16 year old female with onset of diabetes at age 7 years. She was being treated with an insulin pump and had always done reasonably well with her diabetes. She rarely ever missed clinic visits, she tested blood glucose levels 3-4 time daily and usually made appropriate insulin dose adjustments. Her hemoglobin A1c levels had been consistently in the 7.5-8% range. The third patient was a 16 year old female with onset of diabetes at age 9 years. She was being treated with an insulin pump and had never done particularly well with her diabetes self-management. She tested blood glucose levels 1-2 times daily at most and not at all on some days. She had a history of several hospitalizations with diabetic ketoacidosis. She occasionally missed clinic visits. Her hemoglobin A1c values had been in the 8.5-9% range up until about age 12 years, and in the 11-12% range thereafter.
Enter the “shadowing” students
That particular clinic day I had 2 undergraduate pre-med students following me around- they call that activity “shadowing,” and the idea is that students can get a feel for what medicine practice is really like before they actually decide to make a career of it. One additional practical reason for pre-med students to shadow is that most medical schol admission committees look more favorably on applications that list shadow experiences than those that do not (personally, I wouldn’t think more or less about an applicant based on his or her shadowing experiences). Anyway, after we had seen the 3 teenagers with diabetes, one of the students asked me why the first patient was doing so well and the last patient so poorly. It was a great question but I was not able to give a very good answer. I told the student that I didn’t really understand why some patients with diabetes do so well and others so poorly, even when cared for by the same physician. We then had quite a long discussion about what is known about patient compliance and why the question was so important in diabetes.
Why Do Patients With Diabetes Develop Chronic Complications?
First, the chronic complications of diabetes can be divided into so-called “microvascular complications,” those of the eyes, kidneys, and nervous system, and “macrovascular complications,” those of the heart and blood vessels. Although we still have an imperfect understanding of the precise mechanisms responsible for the various complications, we do know there are 3 principal risk factors involved: blood glucose levels, blood lipid levels, and blood pressure levels. These risk factors account for approximately 90-95% of the risks for the development and progression of the various diabetes complications. These risk factors are also treatable and I don’t think I am being overly optimistic when I say that we know how to prevent almost all diabetes complications. Yet, many patients with diabetes are still developing these devastating complications at enormous personal and societal costs. So, what gives? This is really the question that my shadowing student asked.
Over the next few weeks, in a series of entries, I want to explore this question of why some patients with diabetes do better than others. Perhaps, that is the most important question we should be asking these days in the management of patients with diabetes. If we can come up with some answers, perhaps, short of a cure, we can have a menaingful impact on long-term outcomes.
Controlling Health Care Costs
Just a “FYI” in case you are interested- there is a “Letter to the Editor” in the New York Times today that summarizes pretty well my thoughts about the necessary approach to fixing the U.S. health care mess. As I have discussed ad nauseum in earlier entries we cannot control costs with out having some form of universal health coverage and we cannot have universal health coverage without controlling costs. I would add to the comments of Arnold Relman and Marcia Angell, both former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, that to control costs to the extent that we will be able to afford high quality universal health care coverage we must do much more than simply trim administrative and technology costs; we must completely revamp the way we pay for all aspects of health care. For example, what kind of system do we have that pays a physician less than the office overhead for a patient visit yet pays $2000 for a wheelchair that sells for $200?
One More thing
As I read about and listen to radio and television news reports about the current debate on how to fix our health care mess, I am becoming increasingly concerned that the main focus of the debate seems to be whether to have a government run single payer system or a system built on private insurance (or a combination of the two). It seems clear to me that the majority of people in the U.S. are leary of switching to a government run single payer health care system at this point and there is no need; as I have discussed in earlier entries, we should build on what we already have in place rather than debating topics about which we will never come to any consensus and which will keep us from moving forward. We can control costs and achieve universal health care coverage but there will be considerable pain for many of those who have gotten fat at the health care feed trough.