|
Full Table of Contents Abbreviated
|
Notes_14
Medical StatisticsAssume that there is a disease that effects only people over 60 years old. It is studied in a community in which people live to be 75 years old. People who don't go to doctors regularly tend not to get diagnosed until they are in their 70s. People who do go to doctors regularly get diagnosed in their 60s. When people are diagnosed with it in their 60s, they are put through a regimen of treatments and therapies that are expensive and time-consuming and have nasty long-term side effects, but the 5-year survival rate is 100%, because they all live to be 75. The people who do not go to doctors regularly and do not discover they have the disease until they are in their 70s do not endure the expensive and debilitating treatments and suffer no long-term side effects. But the 5-year survival rate of that group is 0% because they all live to be only 75. The conclusion of the people earning livings by diagnosing this condition is more diagnosing is the answer - screening should be universal. Everyone should be required to be checked for it early, because when it is diagnosed early enough there is a 100% survival rate. The conclusion of the people earning livings by treating it is that it is a 100% effective life-saving treatment. Everyone who is diagnosed with it should pay for and endure the expensive and debilitating treatments. It is a no-brainer. Too bad patients are not allowed to read the experiences of other patients, amass data, and avoid bad medicine. If you think things don't work this way, you probably work in medicine, and that's why things work this way.
According to yet another an article about
liability limitations, this time in the NEMJ about malpractice suits:
Legitimate grievances that received no compensation occurred more frequently than did payment for frivolous claims. Portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown. "Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation"by David M. Studdert, LL.B., Sc.D., M.P.H., Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D., M.Phil., Atul A. Gawande, M.D., M.P.H., Tejal K. Gandhi, M.D., M.P.H., Allen Kachalia, M.D., J.D., Catherine Yoon, M.S., Ann Louise Puopolo, B.S.N., R.N., and Troyen A. Brennan, M.D., J.D., M.P.H. New England Medical Journal, Volume 354:2024-2033, May 11, 2006, Number 19
Hit your back button to return to where you were
Hit your back button to return to where you were
The head of
the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Hit your back button to return to where you were
ADR A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
The Caduceus Copies and pasted from: Hit your back button to return to where you were
Canadian Health Care"The Supreme Court of Canada declared in June 2005 that the government health care monopoly in Quebec is a violation of basic human rights." This is a July 8, 2007 piece by Sally Pipes in The New
York Daily News that challenges Michael Moore’s “Sicko” movie assertions. Government-run health care in Canada inevitably resolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago – she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest quality care in the government’s eyes – I can honestly say that Moore’s preferred health care system is something I wouldn’t wish on him. In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If he’d lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn’t approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer. But don’t take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore’s endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards. Just last month, the Star’s Peter Howell reported from the Cannes Film Festival that Mr. Moore became irate when Canadian reporters challenged his portrayal of their national health care system. “You Canadians! You used to be so funny!” exclaimed an exasperated Moore, “You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?” Moore further claimed that the infamously long waiting lists in Canada are merely a reflection of the fact that Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and that the sterling system is swamped by too many Canadians who live too long. Canada’s media know better. In 2006, the average wait time from seeing a primary care doctor to getting treatment by a specialist was more than four months. Out of a population of 32 million, there are about 3.2 million Canadians trying to get a primary care doctor. Today, according to the OECD, Canada ranks 24th out of 28 major industrialized countries in doctors per thousand people. Unfortunately, Moore is more concerned with promoting an
anti-free-market agenda than getting his facts straight. “The problem,” said
Moore recently, “isn’t just [the insurance companies], or the Hospital
Corporation and the Frist family – it’s the system! They can’t make a profit
unless they deny care! Unless they deny claims! Our laws state very clearly that
they have a legal fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for the
shareholders … the only way they can turn the big profit is to not pay out the
money, to not provide the care!” Moore ignores the fact that 85% of hospital beds in the U.S. are in nonprofit hospitals, and almost half of us with private plans get our insurance from nonprofit providers. Moreover, Kaiser Permanente, which Moore demonizes, is also a nonprofit. What’s really amazing is that even the intended beneficiaries of Moore’s propagandizing don’t support his claims. The Supreme Court of Canada declared in June 2005 that the government health care monopoly in Quebec is a violation of basic human rights. Moore put me, fleetingly, into “Sicko” as an example of an
American who doesn’t understand the Canadian health care system. He couldn’t be
more wrong. I’ve personally endured the creeping disaster of Canadian health
care. Most unlike him, I’m willing to tell the truth about it.
Semmelweis Society
(On this site the quote is on the links page under Semmelweis.)
Discussions about how to fix health care: I’ve been in the discussion when I was the only one in the group who wasn’t a physician or nurse. I’ve been in the discussion when all the others were relatives of victims, but not victims themselves. I’ve been in the discussion with victims with fresh injuries and old injuries, small ones and life ruining ones, intentional and unintentional ones. For as much as can be understood about the ocean by looking at one drop of water, it is rare for any of these people to see much beyond their own reflection on the surface of that drop of water.
By whitewashing history, it continually distorts the public
policy debate. |
_____________________________________________________________Home |
Table of Contents |
It's a Path
|