Skip to comments.Costliest 1 percent of patients account for 21 percent of U.S. health spending
Posted on 10/19/2013 10:37:13 AM PDT by Java4Jay
One percent consumed 21 percent of the nearly $1.3 trillion Americans spent on health care. Five percent of patients accounted for 50 percent of all health-care expenditures. By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of patients accounted for just 2.8 percent of spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at minnpost.com ...
Sounds like laziness to me
Lawyers account for another 21 percent.
Obamacare is the pinnacle of wealth distribution
and we knew this 20 years ago, this looks like a federal agency trying to justify itself by copying someone else’s work.
This will be solved by the death panels.
Don’t worry. Obamacare has a provision for dealing with the 1% .. They call um death panels.
Many suffer from the phenomenon known as “extreme uncoordinated care.”
It’s no coincidence they’re pushing this in the schools right now.
Prepping little johnny for the death panel rejecting his grandfathers heart surgery as ‘too expensive’ and a ‘waste of resources’.
“Many suffer from the phenomenon known as extreme uncoordinated care.”
Iatrogenic. It means physician induced illness. (For example: One physician treats for hyperactivity with, say, a downer and the other treats for the resulting near comatose state with an upper.)
Could also mean the patient seeking a second opinion.
Those will likely not be allowed for the non politically connected.
Or anyone who is conservative.
my one sil has had gastric bypass, is at least two foot surgeries, visits to the eye dr and of course hysterctomy....on mulitple meds and seems like she sees the dr every other week....also back surgery...all on the public dime since she got "disabled" and was on SSD from the early 20's until early 40's, then worked for a few years before she got "disabled" again...turns out she is diabetic, took horrible care of herself and now is facing dialysis and of course wants to get a transplant too....
these three people alone have cost the taxpayer a few million dollars.....three people....
“This will be solved by the death panels.”
Let’s start by refusing heart bypasses and replacement parts to 95 year olds. You can’t rely on the common sense of doctors because they don’t have any objections as long as the taxpayers are paying for it.
"Ok, you're ugly, too."
Sorry, that was actually Henny Youngman.
I’ll bet that these consumers of the biggest portion of the Healy care budget are drug and alcahol abusers and AIDS virus carriers.
Yep and perhaps this is why insurance companies have lifetime caps.
Liberals always like to put a price on life. Don’t fall for their “you are too expensive to let live” crap. Always respond, “Well, then we should proactively kill you to prevent the risk that you one day might become expensive.”
They wind up in emergency rooms....because there is a sign that says no one will be turned away....aka...medical welfare.
Criminals account for a lot of healthcare spending too.
My friends grandson went to an autism rehab camp this summer. She finally realized after watching the rehab process...."What a lot of cr**".
I think I agree with you. The 91 year old woman down the street has had both of her knees replaced in the last year. Each required a week in the hospital and several weeks in rehab.
On the other hand I also know a 60 year old woman, who is at least 200 lbs overweight, that has had both of her knees replaced, also in the last year. No doctor required she lose weight before these surgeries, What do you think is going to happen to the new knees. The taxpayers also paid for her new knees because she’s on disability because she’s obese.
The problem I see is, how can we deny the older woman new knees when she has at least taken care of herself over the years, while replacing the knees of the younger woman who has not taken care of herself.
No, it is actually the very elderly that are willing to spend any amount of the public’s $$$ to stave off the inevitable for another few months.
It is spent on things like dialysis on nursing home patients, including expensive ambulance transport to/from three times a week.
It is spent by MD’s prescribing the latest drug, when a 50 year old cheap generic would do as well or better....
AND it is spent by the indigent seeking expensive ER care for bullsqueeze like colds and minor aches and pains.
I see it every day. These issues could easily be fixed - and it doesn’t take a top-down takeover of people’s lives, like obamacare, to fix them.
If its not taxpayer money, then I don’t care what they spend
If you don’t give an incentive for the 1% - 5% to save money, then they have no reason to do avoid what they are doing now; and it is an easy remedy! Problem is, it would be an antithesis to government run care. Try convincing people (outside of Free Republic) that you can do something without government taxing it’s people.
Thanks to zerOcare, those slackers not utilizing health care will have to pay.
AND it is spent by the indigent seeking expensive ER care for bullsqueeze like colds and minor aches and pains
I have a cousin who has a daughter who has a baby. They are all indigent or on welfare of some kind. Every week they post on FB one of them is at the ER for some reason. Sometimes they post they are all at the ER at the same time. Make it a threefer and save the gas.
“You cant rely on the common sense of doctors because they dont have any objections as long as the taxpayers are paying for it.”
I know an 85 year old with severe Alzheimer’s on Medicare who just had a knee replacement. THAT was sure money well spent.
For people on limited incomes who may not have doctors, insurance, reliable transportation, and often don’t seek attention until it’s too late medical help right on the property can be a godsend. And save hundreds of dollars in pharmacy/emergency room/ambulance costs. Almost any exam or treatment that can be done in a real doctor’s office can be done in the rolling clinic. A trip to the emergency room for flu shots, checkups, prescription renewals, and other non-emergencies can be done for 100-200.00 vs. costing the public health care system about $1,000 a visit.
While one could easily assume that the poor and elderly take up the biggest chunk of medical care $$$ a study by England’s NIH concluded that it was well-off people who take good care of themselves who were the biggest problem. Their reasoning, which made perfect sense in the world of bureaucrats but met with understandibly scathing criticism when it was released to the public, was that the poor generally didn’t take care of themselves (maybe because they couldn’t afford to?) put off medical care until it was too late and basically just went off on their own and died. The better off, on the other hand, stayed fit, exercised, watched their diets and were quick to seek medical attention. Not only that they were brazen enough to demand expensive treatments that dragged on at much expense before dying. In the topsy-turvey world of medical bureaucrats the achievers were once again seen as the drain on the system.
My grandfather suffered kidney failure. He was 80 at the time. Not diabetic, overweight or otherwise unhealthy. He got bronchitis one winter and the (new, since taken off the market) antibiotic his doctor prescribed shut down his kidneys. He was living at his own home by himself, independently, at that time.
Should he have just died of kidney failure?
Is 80 old enough?
Good thing you weren’t in charge of that decision.
He had 6m of dialysis, his kidneys restarted and he continued to live, independently for nearly a dozen more years.
Got another one for ya. My great aunt was in an auto accident, not her fault and she was a passenger (her grand daughter was taking her to the store and they were t-boned by a nice ‘immigrant’ with no insurance). Broke her hips, pelvis and femur. She was 84 at the time.
Would you have just given her the blue pill?
Good thing you weren’t making that decision. She had all of the above fixed and continued to live, independently, for another dozen years as well. She moved to an assisted care home when she was 96 (and paid for by her children btw) and lived another 3 years. She died just short of 100.
Both of those elderly people would have lost 10-15% of their lifetime. Neither used an appreciable amount of healthcare dollars in their last decade of their life. Unless you’re willing to forego their flu shots and annual physicals?
I’m not so sure I believe the government ‘medicare’ numbers about the elderly when I haven’t seen any numbers for those people who shouldn’t be here sucking up medical resources at all. Ie, illegals and the medical tourists who fly here to receive ‘public assistance care’ at the ER.
Remember, now that we are ALL on the government dole for healthcare essentially it might be YOUR healthcare they deny.
Ummmm, this is pre-Obamacare and has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Obamacare sucks, but our medical system has been broken for quite some time.
For the most part, medical personnel will continue with expensive medical procedures provided the money keeps coming in. It’s good for their business. To spend $500,000 to extend life for 6 months is debatable.
A very Kevorkian solution.
BTW, when we took my grandfather to his dialysis appointments he was easily the oldest and one of the only whites there. Most of the patients were middle aged grossly overweight black people. The rest were similar aged, grossly overweight Mexican/Central Americans.
yep...and a lot of it to illegals!
I’m so torn on this whole subject.
A friend just lost her husband. He had a bad heart and she confided in me that his pump, then transplant and all that came after cost upwards of $1 MILLION dollars. The past 6 months of his life had been pretty good, but he died in his sleep of natural causes; nothing related to his heart at all.
How do you tell someone that her husband of 39 years wasn’t worth that kind of cash?
How do you tell someone what the life of their CHILD is worth?
And then there’s my own Dad who is a raging alcoholic and has ruined his health through his own choices. Everything he worked so hard for is going to be sucked up into the healthcare system and I KNOW he’ll keep limping along until he’s 100 just to spite me. ;)
And then there are the 3K abortions in our country every damn day.
It boggles the mind. We are SO FAR from God it just sickens me. And yet we feel qualified to PLAY God?
You do realize most of the modern techniques were developed on patients in this age group.
They’re the only group willing to risk it for an entirely experimental therapy.
You need to read this book:
“Because the Texas Heart Institute receives no patient care revenues, philanthropy plays an important role in maintaining our contributions to society and health throughout the world.”
Ping to Post 41.
Would you deny a severly autistic child necessary but expensive medical care?
What about a down’s syndrome child?
Would you forcibly prescreen pregnant women for this and mandate they abort the child? Downs kids can be costly what with heart issues and the like.
If you agree that 95yr olds aren’t worthy of medical care, who else would you deem unworthy?
Just for example?
Just a supposition here and I’ve read through the comments here - mostly about how costly old people are. But I really haven’t seen anything that jumps out at me that says GAY AIDS and HIV. Likewise, I didn’t see anything about exotic illnesses of illegal aliens and some of the outright ridiculous - like gender reassignment...
At one point in the company I worked where there were thousands of employees, it was a common knowledge that nearly every increase in premiums were due to three employees - all gay with aids.
One doctor’s reaction to these statistics: But they’re the ones who need it!
Read further down.
I give two distinct examples where these death panels would have deprived real live human beings of at least 10% of their lives.
It's one of the the situational ethics scenarios from the black heart of madman Joseph Fletcher:
I dropped in on a patient at the hospital who explained that he only had a set time to live. The doctors could give him some pills (that would cost $40 every three days) that would keep him alive for the next three years, but if he didn't take the pills, hed be dead within six months. Now he was insured for $100,000, double indemnity and that was all the insurance he had. But if he took the pills and lived past next October when the insurance was up for renewal, they were bound to refuse the renewal, and his insurance would be canceled. So he told me that he was thinking that if he didn't take the pills, then his family would get left with some security, and asked my advice on the situation.
I don't give a damn about any propaganda coming out of England.
Just look around and you'll see who is using up our health resources. It's the millions of illegals, the obese overeaters who are likely to get diabetes and not take their meds or change their lifestyle, the welfare queens popping out babies (and overeating),the drug addicts, the non-citizens and prisoners on the transplant list.
We have one of the best health care systems in the world and it's being destroyed.
The article indicates that the costliest patients are not necessarily those with a single, very complex and serious disease, but a collection of chronic conditions including in most cases some psychiatric issues combined with poverty.
A logical approach to solving the real problem would be to devise a new method of care for the people that make up the top 1% of patients. Cutting the cost of their care by one half would reduce the nation's total health spending by ten percent if the data reported in the article is correct. That is a staggering amount of money.
The article is full of examples of how simple techniques, like making sure the patient gets to the doctor's appointment, or takes the right medicine, can make a large difference in the cost of their treatment.
Instead of tangling up the entire nation in a giant, expensive, and ultimately futile effort the government should have focused on solving the actual problem. It would be far cheaper and better for everyone to simply devise treatment plans, clinics, doctors and nurses who travel to these patients, and so on to address the problems of the top consumers of medical care.
Considering that they average almost $88,000 in medical expenses per year, assigning a nurse to visit each of a group of ten of the patients once or more per week would actually save money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.