« It Was The Christian Thing To Do | Main | Oil Baby »
August 23, 2005
Well Said
I'll have more to say on the whole article later, but for now, this hyper-long paragraph of Malcolm Gladwell's in his New Yorker article on moral hazard is about the best indictment of our health care system that I've seen. It's large enough that I'm going to put it under the fold, but trust me, it's worth the read:
One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in the past century—during the First World War, during the Depression, during the Truman and Johnson Administrations, in the Senate in the nineteen-seventies, and during the Clinton years—efforts have been made to introduce some kind of universal health insurance, and each time the efforts have been rejected. Instead, the United States has opted for a makeshift system of increasing complexity and dysfunction. Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance. A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy—a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper—has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.
August 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83458e4f169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Well Said:
» More on Medicare from One Caveat
In addition to Ezra’s post about the current state of the health care system in the U.S., there is good piece in the New York Times about the increases in staff in lobbying and consulting firms before the start [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2005 11:35:24 AM
» Healthcare Blues from Political Animal
HEALTHCARE BLUES....Via Ezra, Malcolm Gladwell asks the key question about American healthcare in the New Yorker:One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2005 2:19:06 PM
» Healthcare Blues from Political Animal
HEALTHCARE BLUES....Via Ezra, Malcolm Gladwell asks the key question about American healthcare in the New Yorker:One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2005 2:21:02 PM
» Healthcare Blues from Political Animal
HEALTHCARE BLUES....Via Ezra, Malcolm Gladwell asks the key question about American healthcare in the New Yorker:One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2005 2:21:46 PM
» America’s Health Care Caste System from Outside The Beltway
Malcolm Gladwell argues that irrational reluctance to embrace nationalized health care has created a bizarre caste system.
THE MORAL-HAZARD MYTH (New Yorker)
People without health insurance have bad teeth because, if youre paying for everything ou... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2005 3:09:52 PM
Comments
I agree, and look forward to your expanded comments. As a historical (and personal) point of reference, my paternal grandfather, who was a sharecropper in East Texas, also used pliers to pull his own teeth in the 30s and 40s.
Posted by: David | Aug 23, 2005 11:42:19 AM
Outstanding article. Thank you for the link, and please do follow up.
Posted by: Larry | Aug 23, 2005 11:56:21 AM
Hmmmm.
I think you should read this and then this.
Just a little perspective.
Posted by: Adam | Aug 23, 2005 12:29:13 PM
Yes, we are morally deficient in the policies we keep in place for health care.
Why do we do this?
Fear of change, ignorance about how we compare, rejection of the 'foreign', focus on 'me' as opposed to 'us', belief in our inherent superiority, leaders lobbyists, and corporations who obscure the facts or select the facts and resist change with all of their influence, a medical profession that aligns more with their personal stake than with the good of society. And some et ceteras as well.
Doing over and over again what is shown as not working or sub-optimal IS insane. But it is OUR insanity, and therefore not challenged.
As an aside, I might point out that virtually no major health insurance plans include dental coverage. It is always separate and medically insufficient even though it is now understood that dental health greatly affects general health - cardiac health for instance.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 23, 2005 12:36:29 PM
And besides the fact that most dental plans are crappy anyways. The usual yearly maximums are around $1000 or $1500; about the same they were in the sixties and seventies. You'll easily put that much into one tooth that needs a root canal and the crown to restore it. Oral health is a big deal and severly neglected my many people (including highly educated ones).
I think a way to go would be to have a hybrid universal/private system where everyone is guaranteed (and I'd prefer it to be mandated) check-ups for medical, dental, mental, etc health and for basic preventive care. That same root canal that cost you $2000 would only have been a few hundred bucks if you had regular preventive care. Everyone knows things cost more the longer you wait on them, so why don't we get people to stop waiting?
Posted by: Brent | Aug 23, 2005 12:53:23 PM
"A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy—a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper—has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers."
Ahem. Every aspect of its economy apart from agriculture, aerospace, steel, pharmaceuticals, and any other industry with a sufficiently powerful lobby.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Aug 23, 2005 1:07:03 PM
I'm sorry adam, I don't understand what help I'm getting there. So in 1998, European life expectancy, which includes Yugoslavia and Turkmenistan, dropped a smidge, but is still significantly higher than America's? Pretty impressive record considering the various levels of devlopment they have among their countries.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 23, 2005 1:07:26 PM
here is something of a response, if you are interested.
Posted by: Adam | Aug 23, 2005 1:30:36 PM
I decided some time ago that fear of moral hazard is a defining characteristic of the conservative mindset, and not only in the health insurance context.
For example, we mustn't supply free condoms or host needle exchanges, because one extra person might have sex or drugs. End welfare, because otherwise there might be someone who might willingly live off that instead of seeking employment.
Posted by: Allen K. | Aug 23, 2005 1:52:41 PM
Your rebuttal over there, so far as I can tell, doesn't make sense. You hop back and forth between using the whole of Europe (which includes a spate of non-devloped or little-developed countries), you don't seem to get what per capita means (or why it invalidates the argument that the France aren't having many children). Oh, and when you say the French aren't having any kids, you might want to remember that they're having 12.54 per 1,000 to America's 14.4. Lower, sure, but hardly nonexistent.
As for the blurb on premature death, you're right, it's bad in Europe to. But it's much worse in America. You know why blacks have shorter lives? Premature death. You know the majority of the reason men die sooner? Rpemature death. You didn't even bother to do a comparison, which is the only way in which that data could matter.
As for the last, and supposedly crowning argument, it's a total non sequitur. I hear it every so often and it never fails to seem bizarre. Elderly deaths from a remarkable heat wave have nothing to do with the system of health insurance and how payment and organization are structured. They have to do with community services and the interconnection between the elderly and social workers. You think this somehow has something to do with how the French pay to see doctors? You're going to have to prove it.
On the overall, your post is also unfair. We're not talking about Europe here, we're talking about industrialized, developed European nations with government-run health care systems. Your comparison is more like adding Mexico, Brazil, and Chile into the America column -- it's total apples and oranges. That's why people serious about this stuff use the OECD information -- it's apples to apples.
Did I miss anything?
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 23, 2005 2:04:54 PM
Ok, fair enough--I realize, in retrospect, that having those statistics about Europe as a whole was pointless and added nothing to to argument. Sorry about that, that was poor filtering on my part.
But I disagree with your argument that the mass death of the elderly in France is a non sequitor. It's in situations such as those that we see precisely how well health organizations are equipped to look out for their respective populations, and I'd say that in the case of the 2003 heat wave, the French Health Care System proved to be a massive failure.
The reason I brought it up was because I wanted to ask people to give me an example, in the United States, where people were dying due to some failing in our hospital organizations. We talk about Health Care as if it there were a great catastrophe going on right now, but are people dying? Are the sick not being treated?
So I still respectfully disagree with your main point. But in any case, thank you for taking the time to look over my response, and thank you for pointing me towards the great statistical breakdown.
Posted by: Adam | Aug 23, 2005 2:26:25 PM
From Adam's blog:
But it's easy to lose fewer babies when you're not really having any babies at all...That is my personal speculation--fewer babies, lower death rate.
Huh? The x out of 1000 figure while being a number, is acutally a percentage. It is the only way to compare different countries because population sizes are different. If you want to compare total number of infant deaths in one country to the next, you are welcome to do so. But it is of no use for comparison because it has no correlation to "rate."
Hell, the only way that the total death number would be worthwhile is if these deaths were attributed to a lack of accessible services because we were having too many babies. But then again, that would just prove that our healthcare system is inadequate.
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 23, 2005 2:37:50 PM
But the question remains, how is that a failure of the health care system? Let's say Phoenix has a massive heat wave, as they have had. Let's say some elderly die, as has happened in the past. The elderly were in their rooms, trying to stay cool, but didn't have ac, fell asleep and never woke up. Why is that the health system's fault?
If your point is that France's emergency response doesn't coordinate well with their health system, that's fine, I agree. But the point with universal health care isn't how it coordinates with FEMA, it's how it deals with you when you seek a doctor (in France, you're wondering why doctors didn't seek them). If we want to keep our FEMA, that's fine. What we shouldn't do is keep our health care.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 23, 2005 2:44:15 PM
When lazy people get free health care, we all lose. Lose what? I don't know. Maybe sleep since we're lying awake at night in a some kind of snit about the moral wrongness of it all.
I think we don't change these things because so many people are really, really dumb. In a democracy people have the power to effect change just by casting a vote. If we don't get a good deal, who is to blame?
Posted by: Neil Paul | Aug 23, 2005 2:47:58 PM
Ignore him. He posted a giant rant while
a) having no clue what the numbers said
b) not spending five Google minutes to find 'em
c) making rank, idle and uninformed speculation
Anyone dumb enough not to know the New Yorker's
reputation for fact-checking its nonfiction is
too dumb to engage in discussion.
Gladwell is hardly expert, and I don't like his
writing much ('tipping point', feh). However,
even he can't screw up an article on health care
policy, given the facts on the ground.
Posted by: wcw | Aug 23, 2005 2:50:03 PM
Americans don't take a month off. Just because we would adopt a European Healthcare system, doesn't mean we would adopt their working habits either.
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 23, 2005 2:50:23 PM
Actually, Gladwell is an expert. He got his start as the lead health care reporter for the Washington Post/
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 23, 2005 2:56:08 PM
"Anyone dumb enough not to know the New Yorker's
reputation for fact-checking its nonfiction is
too dumb to engage in discussion."
Right. So naturally, they should be taken at their word, and anyone who questions this should be ignored. Forgive me.
"Americans don't take a month off. Just because we would adopt a European Healthcare system, doesn't mean we would adopt their working habits either."
True enough. I concede that that takes care of what I was talking about, in terms of the elderly example.
"But the point with universal health care isn't how it coordinates with FEMA, it's how it deals with you when you seek a doctor (in France, you're wondering why doctors didn't seek them). If we want to keep our FEMA, that's fine. What we shouldn't do is keep our health care."
Hehe, ok, I bow to the good logic here--my ass has been majorly kicked on the France example. :)
"When lazy people get free health care, we all lose. Lose what? I don't know. Maybe sleep since we're lying awake at night in a some kind of snit about the moral wrongness of it all."
Ok, a few questions, then, since I think you've demonstrated how much I suck at sorting through all the stats.
1. About how many of the most cutting-edge medical procedures and drugs would you say come from Europe and how many come from the United States?
2. How many of the people who go without health care go without it for longer than a few months? How many for longer than a year?
3. How many instances are there of people without health care who need medical attention being turned away from hospitals?
Posted by: Adam | Aug 23, 2005 2:58:56 PM
It's an interesting article - I'm not sure I agree with all of it, or completely get what the solution is, based on the problem identified - lots of people, both right and left, are skeptical of health insurance as the best solution for the cureent crisis. (Also, along the lines of, but not in agreement with, Adam's statistical questions, I question measuring doctors on a per capita basis. There are better ways to get at what I think Gladwell's driving at, a lack of GP's relative to other countries) Also, dental is a large separate issue and there's surely a measure of public discomfort with dentistry (and, by extension, pain) to be factored into the reasoning about why people don't get treated properly in a timely fashion. One could make a similar, if not more appalling, case regarding eye coverage which is often all but nonexistent. I also question making the HSA supporters out as purely anti-insurnace types. I think the approach was to develop a creative, free market approach to paying for care. It doesn't really work, but dismissing the whole thing out of hand seems hasty.
I think the question that remains from an article like this is... now what? We're too expensive, don't insure enough people, plan badly and seem to not wantt o do the hard work. None of that seems like a recipe for success (or the groundwork for the single payer option people around here so fervently support)...
Posted by: weboy | Aug 23, 2005 2:59:01 PM
ezra
it is a good article. i'd argue, however, that gladwell is giving the other side far too much credit for actually believing in an idea (moral hazard) and not just invoking it to (1) not actually do anything about health care and (2) expanding the range of instruments available for rich, healthy people to shelter income from taxation (the functional outcome of HSAs).
as evidence of this, i'd point to all the health economists (like, say, Mark Pauly) who both worry about moral hazard as a stumbling block to creating efficient health care systems and *still* favor universal coverage.
jb
Posted by: joshb | Aug 23, 2005 2:59:39 PM
Yeah Ezra! Just keeping wiping the floor with 'em ;)
Posted by: Kate | Aug 23, 2005 3:01:35 PM
Ezra,
I hesitate to agree with Adam here, but I think that you're wrong to say that the co-ordination of services for vulnerable populations is somehow not part of the healthcare system.
The French and Vermont have a social worker do a home visit for every new mother who would like one. They're able to pick up on things like post partum depression or poor parenting skills. I think outreach that makes sure that people get adequate care is as important as making sure that people get the right care when they go to the doctor or that they can pay to go.
Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Aug 23, 2005 3:20:31 PM
Most Americans just can't visualize how our health care system compares with others. I also think that we tend to focus on the un- and under-insured problem, when that doesn't resonate very well with most Americans. What would resonate? That we get poor value for our money.
Here are two graphs that may help the visualization issues. They show that we actually get reasonably good (overall) quality of care--where our system sucks is in delivering good quality for a reasonable price:
Life expectancy and percent of GDP spent on healthcare
Life expectancy and child death rate
Posted by: Robert | Aug 23, 2005 3:29:46 PM
The French and Vermont have a social worker do a home visit for every new mother who would like one. They're able to pick up on things like post partum depression or poor parenting skills. I think outreach that makes sure that people get adequate care is as important as making sure that people get the right care when they go to the doctor or that they can pay to go.
Yeah, let a government agent come into my home and look for problems. God, in his wisdom, has kept people like you from power.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 23, 2005 3:41:02 PM
Revised title: (Glad)Well said
Posted by: Allen K. | Aug 23, 2005 3:44:12 PM



