Wednesday, October 28, 2009
2009 Our National Struggle for Health Care Reform in America
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Health care debate's language needs clarification for electorate
As negotiations continue on reforming our healthcare
system, it is more important than ever to ensure
we have clarity on key policy terms - especially some of
the most politically loaded terms: universal health care,
single-payer health care and socialized health care.
Some news reports inaccurately use these terms.
Universal health care should describe a system of
organizing benefits. It means to establish a "floor" of
benefits that all people have a right to access. People in
a universal health-care system can purchase benefits
above the floor. There does not have to be a ceiling.
Universal health care can parallel the universal education
system we have in this country. All people have
a right to access K-12 education. Parents can send their
children to public schools or purchase private education.
Given the acceptance of our universal education
system, universal health care should not be viewed as
an enemy of the liberty we enjoy in this country.
Single-payer health care means the centralization of
payment for health-care services from one organization,
such as the government. We already use a singlepayer
system for large parts of our health-care system
(Medicaid, Medicare and Veterans Administration
programs).
Socialized medicine means health-care providers are
employees of the government. We already have socialized
medicine, such as in the VA health-care system.
Universal health care does not require a single-payer
approach, nor does it require socialized medicine.
We need to understand these terms to improve the
health-care debate and policies so that we can compete
in a global economy and for the sake of our children.
Democracy hinges upon an informed electorate.
system, it is more important than ever to ensure
we have clarity on key policy terms - especially some of
the most politically loaded terms: universal health care,
single-payer health care and socialized health care.
Some news reports inaccurately use these terms.
Universal health care should describe a system of
organizing benefits. It means to establish a "floor" of
benefits that all people have a right to access. People in
a universal health-care system can purchase benefits
above the floor. There does not have to be a ceiling.
Universal health care can parallel the universal education
system we have in this country. All people have
a right to access K-12 education. Parents can send their
children to public schools or purchase private education.
Given the acceptance of our universal education
system, universal health care should not be viewed as
an enemy of the liberty we enjoy in this country.
Single-payer health care means the centralization of
payment for health-care services from one organization,
such as the government. We already use a singlepayer
system for large parts of our health-care system
(Medicaid, Medicare and Veterans Administration
programs).
Socialized medicine means health-care providers are
employees of the government. We already have socialized
medicine, such as in the VA health-care system.
Universal health care does not require a single-payer
approach, nor does it require socialized medicine.
We need to understand these terms to improve the
health-care debate and policies so that we can compete
in a global economy and for the sake of our children.
Democracy hinges upon an informed electorate.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fresh Ideas for Chronic Disease Prevention
Increased chronic disease is eroding the health of our nation and community. According to the Centers for Disease and Prevention, over 45% of the U.S. population has at least one chronic disease. Chronic disease is responsible for seven out of every 10 deaths in the U.S., killing more than 1.7 million Americans every year (over 4,500 per day). People with chronic disease are the most frequent users of health care services, accounting for 81% of all hospital admissions, 91% of all prescriptions filled, and 76% of all physician visits. Overall, people with chronic conditions account for 83% of all health care spending in the U.S.
The Milken Institute (2007) analyzed the tangible costs of chronic illness to the U.S. and to individual states. Seven categories of chronic disease were considered: cancer (all types), diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, and mental disorders. In Ohio, the direct cost to treat these seven categories of disease totals more than $13.5 billion annually. These conditions led to lost workdays (“absenteeism”) and lower employee productivity (“presenteeism”), resulting in another $43.4 billion in economic loss in 2003.
What should our community do to reverse this epidemic?
We can’t continue to ONLY pour more money (that we don’t have) into expanding health care delivery that treats chronic disease downstream. What we need is a commitment to explore innovative ideas that focus on upstream solutions!
Resources such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America (commissiononhealth.org) can help inform our local public policy to promote health by encouraging healthy behaviors and making it easier to adopt and maintain them.
One way to practice this is to integrate a HEALTH perspective into our public policy decisions, such as:
- Nutrition: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of making healthy foods more affordable and junk food more expensive as an investment in our health?
- Safety: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of increasing safety in our neighborhoods as an investment in our health?
- Exercise: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of providing sidewalks and green space in all neighborhoods as an investment in our health?
No doubt these issues (and others) will be tough public policies to address. However, if we do not make a stronger commitment to integrate a HEALTH perspective in our public policy decisions, we will continue to get more of what we got.
The Milken Institute (2007) analyzed the tangible costs of chronic illness to the U.S. and to individual states. Seven categories of chronic disease were considered: cancer (all types), diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, and mental disorders. In Ohio, the direct cost to treat these seven categories of disease totals more than $13.5 billion annually. These conditions led to lost workdays (“absenteeism”) and lower employee productivity (“presenteeism”), resulting in another $43.4 billion in economic loss in 2003.
What should our community do to reverse this epidemic?
We can’t continue to ONLY pour more money (that we don’t have) into expanding health care delivery that treats chronic disease downstream. What we need is a commitment to explore innovative ideas that focus on upstream solutions!
Resources such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America (commissiononhealth.org) can help inform our local public policy to promote health by encouraging healthy behaviors and making it easier to adopt and maintain them.
One way to practice this is to integrate a HEALTH perspective into our public policy decisions, such as:
- Nutrition: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of making healthy foods more affordable and junk food more expensive as an investment in our health?
- Safety: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of increasing safety in our neighborhoods as an investment in our health?
- Exercise: Should we explore the VALUE PROPOSITION of providing sidewalks and green space in all neighborhoods as an investment in our health?
No doubt these issues (and others) will be tough public policies to address. However, if we do not make a stronger commitment to integrate a HEALTH perspective in our public policy decisions, we will continue to get more of what we got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)