Comments on: One Percent… http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/health-care-costs/one-percent/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:21:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Derek Koziol http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/health-care-costs/one-percent/#comment-2537 Derek Koziol Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:33:52 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/?p=129#comment-2537 It is amazing how often policy does change for the very rare circumstance. The article mentioned by Charlie and the comments that followed are right on. I'm a big fan of tracking costs/ROI/dashboards etc. and in regards to C-Section, it is amazing how high the costs are and how little people understand what is involved in such a procedure. The processes that must take place for a typical C-Section really adds up if you truly analyze the resources utilized. I wonder how often the average american citizen things about this. It is amazing how often policy does change for the very rare circumstance. The article mentioned by Charlie and the comments that followed are right on. I’m a big fan of tracking costs/ROI/dashboards etc. and in regards to C-Section, it is amazing how high the costs are and how little people understand what is involved in such a procedure. The processes that must take place for a typical C-Section really adds up if you truly analyze the resources utilized. I wonder how often the average american citizen things about this.

]]> By: mt57 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/health-care-costs/one-percent/#comment-2135 mt57 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:03:10 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/?p=129#comment-2135 I am reminded of the statistic in the latest Kaiser Family Foundation survey that 22.5% of all healthcare expenditures in the US were spent on 1% of the population. If you apply that to the proposition that healthcare expenditures represent 16% of the economy, that means that about 3.8% of the economy went to address one need of 1% of the nation. It would be good to study that 1% - obviously they are the critically ill, but what are their demographics, what is the resulting gain for them in terms of lengthening their life expectancy and ability to contribute to society, etc. I am reminded of the statistic in the latest Kaiser Family Foundation survey that 22.5% of all healthcare expenditures in the US were spent on 1% of the population. If you apply that to the proposition that healthcare expenditures represent 16% of the economy, that means that about 3.8% of the economy went to address one need of 1% of the nation.
It would be good to study that 1% - obviously they are the critically ill, but what are their demographics, what is the resulting gain for them in terms of lengthening their life expectancy and ability to contribute to society, etc.

]]> By: Vijay Goel, M.D. http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/health-care-costs/one-percent/#comment-2117 Vijay Goel, M.D. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:07:50 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/?p=129#comment-2117 Charlie, Thanks for highlighting a terrific article. It inspired a complementary post in my <a href="http://consumerfocusedcare.blogspot.com/2007/08/using-bazooka-to-swat-fly.html#links" rel="nofollow">blog on consumerism</a>. The 1% doctrine is extremely dangerous in that it leads to over engineered, highly expensive "solutions" that often don't impact what actually happens (think about all the effort that the French put into fortifying the Maginot Line), and often have detrimental collateral impact (e.g., many french guns were concentrated in the area bypassed) If we are to truly believe in evidence-based medicine, outcomes should be the only markers that matter-- and they may be publicized by several different infomediaries in the unclean way we see in the rest of the consumer space. The process of innovation is untidy, and unfortunately our regulatory bodies tend to hinder, rather than help, those transformations. Charlie,
Thanks for highlighting a terrific article. It inspired a complementary post in my blog on consumerism. The 1% doctrine is extremely dangerous in that it leads to over engineered, highly expensive “solutions” that often don’t impact what actually happens (think about all the effort that the French put into fortifying the Maginot Line), and often have detrimental collateral impact (e.g., many french guns were concentrated in the area bypassed)

If we are to truly believe in evidence-based medicine, outcomes should be the only markers that matter– and they may be publicized by several different infomediaries in the unclean way we see in the rest of the consumer space. The process of innovation is untidy, and unfortunately our regulatory bodies tend to hinder, rather than help, those transformations.

]]>