|
| |||||||
|
March 23, 2009 Inequities in socialized health careBy Danny Huddleston
The goal of socialized health care is not to provide exceptional health care to the few but to provide "cost-effective" health care to everyone. In theory this may be a worthy goal, but how does it work in the real world?
The UK's National Health Service was created in 1948 and you would think by now they would have their act together but as any regular reader of this website knows, no one can outdo the British when it comes to health care horror stories. Here are just a few examples:
The Canadian system may be slightly better than the NHS in the UK. Of course it's lucky for Canada that the excellent health facilities in the U.S. are just across the border and act as a safety valve. As Dr. Alastair S.E. Younger explains in this article at aaos.org:
And from Lisa Priest at globeandmail.com:
Stories like this show that government run health care can be hazardous to your health. But even with all these problems you would think there would be one area where it would work. And that would be the elimination of inequities between the rich and the poor. Well, guess what? They can't even do that right. The Canadians have been trying to eliminate inequities in health care for five years now and the situation is worse than before. The results of a five year study from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) has recently been published. At the beginning of the study the affluent citizens of Ontario were 25% more likely to receive a MRI than the poorer citizens. After the study began the province put in place a strategy to increase access to MRI scans and reduce wait times. In a little over three years $118 million was spent and the number of scans performed doubled. There was only one problem, now the wealthier Ontarians are 38% more likely to get a MRI scan than their less well-to-do counterparts. The health care inequities are markedly worse! Here is an excerpt of the report on the ICES study from the Canadian Health Reference Guide:
That last sentence seems slightly ominous, "strategies that aim to improve the appropriateness of MRI scanning" in other words wait lists and rationing are coming back. They spent all those millions and it only benefited the wealthy. The government bureaucrats never learn this simple law of economics, if something is free or relatively free it will be over-used by the public and the only way to limit it's use is to make it so difficult to obtain that only the most desperate will put up with the wait lists and rationing. Here is a radical idea: how about letting the free market work? In America -- at least for the time being -- if there is a shortage of MRI machines in the city a savvy entrepreneur can buy some machines, rent a space and open up for business. A few years back I needed a MRI scan, my doctor didn't send me to the hospital located next to his office, he sent me to a privately run facility. The appointment was a few days after my visit to the doctor, there was no waiting. My insurance paid most of the cost and the owners of the facility made some profit.
Now imagine you are a government bureaucrat running a government health care program. There is no incentive to buy more MRI machines, it's only going to cost the government more money. You would do everything you could to get by with what you have. While it is true that there are inequities in our current health care system, this study shows that adopting a system like the one they have in Canada will not solve the problem. on "Inequities in socialized health care"
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|