The Urine Taste Test

American health care was a tangled Gordian Knot, needing a bold Alexander to slash it. Instead we got Obamacare, tangling it even more. Tragically, it probably postpones genuine reform for decades.

One of my book groups decided to read T.R. Reid’s The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care. I wanted to read a whole book on health care policy about as much as eating broken glass. But actually it was pretty good (written pre-Obamacare).

Here are some observations.

Health care debate is full of comparison arguments, but making valid comparisons is dicey. Example: we’re continually told the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries, but gets poorer results. However, health outcomes are dramatically worse for those without insurance, skewing our national averages downward. For the 85% who are “in the system” (and bear its costs, either as patients, insurance payers, or taxpayers) results are probably at least as good as anywhere.

It’s also tricky to determine what a nation “spends” on “health care.” French doctors earn a fraction of American levels. But their medical education is totally paid by government (i.e., taxpayers). Shouldn’t that be counted in France’s “health care” spending?

We’re also constantly told that while administrative costs (this includes profit) are 20% of U.S. health spending, it’s only 2-5% for government-run systems like Medicare or Britain’s NHS. But it’s easy to “forget” many government overheads. For example, a private company incurs costs in billing and collecting its revenues. Government does that through the IRS – a very costly operation – but none of that IRS overhead is allocated to Medicare. More important, a private company has to pre-fund its pension plan. Government does not (though it does pay pensions). Thus its administrative overheads might appear lower.

 The chief reason why nations with universal care spend less than America is that they pay doctors and hospitals way less. Government just sets prices. In Japan, an overnight hospital stay is $11 (including dinner of course). In the U.S., they charge so much because they can. The U.S. system makes shopping around by patients largely both impossible and pointless. Thus we have the worst of both worlds: the profit-seeking aspect of a market system, without a free market’s discipline of competition. In countries where providers and insurers can’t compete on prices (which are fixed), they at least tend to compete vigorously on service. (Click here for an excellent discussion by David Goldhill of how U.S. health care is messed up by not functioning as a market. Our system has all the wrong incentives, and Obamacare does nothing to fix this.)

Other nations also have lower costs because they ration care in ways we don’t. A big chunk of U.S. health spending goes on terminally ill elderly patients whose quality of life doesn’t really benefit; other countries don’t thusly waste resources.

Reid’s book presents health care as a moral issue, with the obligatory horror stories of deaths from non-insurance. Is medical care a universal right? But what does that really mean?

America’s poorest have long been covered, through Medicaid. And prisoners get free care. But if you’re not a criminal, and too “rich” for Medicaid, and too young for Medicare (and if your insurer, after years of taking your payments, tells you to get lost), you can die from a disease whose treatment you can’t afford.

Germans are quoted saying doctor visits should simply be “free.” That may be humane and reasonable for those who can’t afford to pay. But by what moral principle should it be “free” for others? Nobody gets free car mechanic service or lawn care. Yes, health care is different – indeed, probably the most important and valuable product we consume. Why should we not pay for this – handsomely? But resistance to that idea is a key factor screwing up U.S. health care.

Another catch phrase is “treating everyone the same.” As though it’s immoral if the rich get better care. (Canada even tried outlawing any health care outside its national system.) Choosing how to spend your money is a basic freedom; and yes, the rich have more. We shouldn’t let a poor person die of a routinely treatable ailment; nor do we let him starve; but we don’t give him caviar, just because the rich can afford it, on the principle of treating everyone the same. The aim should instead be treating people humanely. What the rich can afford, society as a whole cannot. Remember, there’s no such thing as “free” care. We all, actually, pay.

But how we pay is the problem. We have a perversion of the insurance concept, originally invented to protect against a catastrophic expense, by pooling risk. Like a home burning down. We don’t expect insurance to cover every little home expense. Yet that’s exactly how we treat health care. This is why it doesn’t function as a market, with transparent pricing, and providers competing for the consumer’s dollar.

We evolved into this because employee health insurance is not treated as “income” for tax purposes, making this the cheapest way to pay for all health costs (though not from the standpoint of the nation). (Note that middle class incomes have actually grown dramatically in recent decades if you consider as income the huge cost of health care people don’t directly pay for, which in reality we’ve taken in lieu of higher salaries.)

There are certainly things done elsewhere we should emulate. The French all carry a “carte vitale,” with a computer chip recording their entire medical history, which also processes all billing. (The system was designed by – you guessed it – Americans.) In Britain a doctor gets a fixed annual payment for every patient on his roster, giving him an incentive to keep patients healthy (and out of his hair). In America, doctors and hospitals are paid for every little thing they do, incentivizing lots of doing; indeed, the sicker the patient, the greater the profit.* And U.S. insurers have scant incentive for long-term preventive care because by the time the benefits materialize, the insured person has likely turned 65 and switched to Medicare.

 And what about that urine taste test? Author Reid was told by an Indian doctor that he couldn’t diagnose Reid’s ailment without tasting his urine. I guess American medicine does have a lot to learn.

* Goldhill’s father was made sicker, and eventually killed, by the hospital; but that enabled the hospital to rack up a gigantic bill – paid by Medicare.

3 Responses to “The Urine Taste Test”

  1. Kim Draiss Says:

    Wow- It’s been quite some time since I have been able to peruse your posts, but I must say I agree with you and appreciate many of the points you raise.
    I have often found it troubling that there seems to be no authority to which the obscenely over-charging health care providers must answer; everything is dismissed since the “insurance company will pay for it”- unless, of course, you do not wish to participate in the insurance industry’s offerings on the grounds of a religious objection (as is the case with my Mennonite friends), in which case the provider will sometimes reduce his fee! This seems immoral on so many levels; I also recall a conversation with my obstetrician who informed me that the insanely high costs are a direct reflection of his malpractice insurance costs.
    Now we get into the issue of these astronomical lawsuit payouts at the hands of unscrupulous trial lawyers. Don’t get me wrong here- we were involved in a wrongful death suit when by all accounts (including my own, now as an RN with both education and three other childbirth experiences to provide hindsight) our first childbearing experience was grossly mismanaged on several levels, so I may appear hypocritical by my judging the merit of other people’s cases. However, I think any reasonable person would agree that there are far too many monetary payouts that are extremely disproportionate to the damage done. [You might be surprised if I told you that the life of a child that dies is worth a sum of money based solely upon their age, which stems from archaic laws leftover from an agricultural society where children equaled workers on the family farm, etc., so in reality, my baby was worth less than my van.]
    I think there is extensive corruption in our healthcare system; I could go off on a tangent here about the “nutritionist” who gave my friend a “diabetic” diet that consisted of far too many carbohydrates, as even the most basically educated lay person could observe, and was- coincidentally- sponsored in the fine print by Eli Lilly, the makers of insulin!!! And my own personal pet peeve is the rampant “self-diagnosing” that occurs as a result of TV advertisements, “Doctor” shows, and supermarket women’s lifestyle-influencing periodicals. I get very annoyed about this whole trend; everyone is an expert now, after all- they read an article!
    I miss you guys! Please say “hi” to your better (!) half for me, and I look forward to our seeing you at the coin club meetings when they start up again.

    [FSR response: Thanks for your comment. Re “self-diagnosing,” this is really only the tip of an iceberg, what with all the recourse to “complementary” and “alternative” and “holistic” medicine — i.e. quackery — a subject discussed in a book I just read, Michael Specter’s Denialism. Stay tuned for a future blog post about it. Only one of many spheres in which human beings are often seduced into fantasy worlds rather than accept facts and reality. If you get my drift.]

  2. Kim Draiss Says:

    I defy you to refrain from these displays of anti-religious zeal. Just for one post? One hour?? 😉
    But on the “holistic” front; I can’t for the life of me understand why the FDA allows the purveying of this snake oil just so long as the labeling doesn’t suggest an indication for medical purposes. That floors me. And yet clinically proven, highly effective and safe medications in use in other countries are subjected to myriad hoop-jumping for years before their being considered for use here. Go figure.

    [FSR comment: “anti-religious zeal”? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I did not mention religion at all in my post; nor even, actually, in my response to your comment, though admittedly you might choose to so interpret my oblique remark. In any event, what you might call “anti-religious zeal” probably equates to what I would call normal rational reality-based thinking.
    But I totally agree with you about medicines.]

  3. Jayson Says:

    Today, I went to the beachfront with my children.

    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She
    placed the shell to her ear and screamed. There was
    a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go
    back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s