The phrase “medical crisis” evolved a long time ago into a spell, a magic word, to somehow garner public attention.
In most cases it is harmless. However, if you look closely at the column titled “”Two medical cost crises'' Drew Altman, a pillar of the health policy establishment, has suggested that stirring up a crisis too much could hinder the important task of confronting political realities.
If the name “KFF” doesn't sound familiar, it's because the Kaiser Family Foundation has given up on explaining that it's not part of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Plan, and AARP is a combination of initials, like “retirement,” which is retiring. This is because it adopted Since he became chairman of KFF in the 1990s, Mr. Altman has created a group Widely regarded as a source of thoughtful, independent health policy research, polling, and news.
In his column, Altman argues that the national health care spending crisis and the personal cost crisis should be analyzed separately. For example, addressing the second crisis by increasing health insurance subsidies may worsen the first crisis.
A valid insight, to be sure. But my focus is on the impact of the casual application of the label 'crisis'. After all, a crisis requires action.but as I wrote To the forefront of health In 2018, the first president to declare health care costs a “crisis” was Richard Nixon in 1969. Since then, every president has called health care costs a “crisis” or “unsustainable.” “Why has the 'crisis' continued for half a century?” I asked.
Of course you can't do that. Genuine crises produce crisis-level responses. For example, in the medical field, in response to warnings that the Social Security Trust Fund was on the brink of bankruptcy due to soaring medical costs, bipartisan legislation was enacted in 1983 that fundamentally changed the way Medicare pays hospitals. It was done.
Are national health spending facing a similar crisis? Altman himself admits that the current stabilization has made it a “chronic” problem, but he doesn't call it a “problem” or a “problem.” I can't bring myself to say that. Contrary to his own diagnosis, we are facing a “chronic” crisis.
This misuse of language has real-world consequences. When you constantly create a crisis, it turns into background noise.wolf boy” Today, immigration has become a national crisis. This is not the case with national medical expenses. everyone can see it.
If you're concerned that health care costs are crowding out other pressing needs, an issue that liberals and conservatives alike agree is important, it's important to consider the current situation, not what you want. needs to respond effectively to the current policy environment. Altman, a political scientist and former state and federal government official, is ideally suited to break the “always a crisis” spell and set an example for his policy colleagues.
The issue of a “crisis” in personal medical expenses is even more difficult. Mr. Altman cites his awards. Medical debt investigation KFF Health News and its affiliates concluded that 100 million Americans, or 41% of all adults, have unaffordable medical debt. This is a very alarming number and should be taken with caution. This also raises the question.
This figure comes from a KFF survey of 2,375 adults. Since KFF has a wealth of methodology experts, we will limit our discussion to the “sniff test.” Other than this study, where else is the evidence that 100 million American adults have unaffordable medical debt? If her 41% of all adults are suffering this way, you would expect to see the same level of anger and anguish expressed in public as on other serious issues such as immigration.
To be sure, as Altman points out, there has been vocal outcry over certain elements of cost, such as the price of insulin and unexpected medical bills. Would addressing them have eliminated the larger crisis? Did the Inflation Control Act's subsidies reduce what was a crisis to a chronic problem? KFF has researchers and journalists who know how to challenge their assumptions when asked.
As for challenging assumptions, Altman might accuse researchers and journalists of actually asking victims of medical debt what they think should be done. For example, a significant number of people who are in debt are willing to suffer financially rather than risk the consequences that “socialized medicine'' has been said to bring if there was universal health insurance. Don't you like it? Or have they become supporters of universal health care? Would some people prefer personal debt to increasing government debt? People hurt by high out-of-pocket health insurance plans are used by conservatives to make them better “consumers.” Do they understand that it is supported? Do people who are in debt because of “stingy” health insurance have the same fears about themselves that liberals have, or, as conservatives claim? Would you still prefer something to nothing?
The collective opinion of 100 million people can be a powerful political force. KFF is uniquely positioned to capture them.
Altman, on the other hand, rightly bemoans high hospital fees and supports transparency in pricing, but says nothing about transparency in quality of care. Given my own focus, I find it difficult for someone of Altman's stature and influence to repeat the well-worn statistic that life expectancy in the United States is lower than life expectancy in other countries. It's very frustrating that only mentions what you get for your money. Wealthy countries that spend less on health care than we do.
But as Altman certainly knows, a report from the National Academy of Medicine concludes that up to 40 percent of health care dollars are wasted through overuse, underuse, and misuse. That 40% affects not only an individual's wallet, but also their well-being through diagnosis, medical errors, and ineffective or unnecessary care. Compassion for some members of our society overlooks the profound physical and economic impacts to which we are all susceptible by the drastic changes that our care system continues to tolerate in our daily care. It's not a reason.
Leapfrog Group estimates Approximately 160,000 people die each year due to avoidable medical errors that the company tracks in its safety reports. If we focus only on moral factors rather than political realities, we might even call it a crisis.
follow me twitter. check out my Website or my other works here.
