Penny wise
The health commissioner of Baltimore ponders what she would have faced if she had had no health insurance when she got pregnant.
Even though I’m a relatively healthy 34-year-old, I have several medical conditions that call for more frequent monitoring. My doctor recommended that I return every two weeks for a physical exam and ultrasound. Closer to delivery, I should plan to see him every week.
I didn’t hesitate to follow my doctor’s recommendations. I have excellent health insurance with no copay for doctor’s visits and a minimal cost for tests.
But what would I have done if I didn’t have insurance?
One obstetrician visit would cost $150. With an ultrasound each time, it would be $400. A Pap smear would cost $53. One set of blood tests would add another $300. All told, my prenatal care with all visits and tests included would be over $10,000. This is not counting labor and delivery, which in my area is estimated to be up to $30,000 for a vaginal birth and $50,000 for a cesarean section.
Facing these astronomical costs, would I be forced to pick and choose care based on my ability to pay, rather than the best available medical evidence? What services would I forgo, and with what consequences?
If she had no insurance, of course she would be forced to pick and choose according to what she could pay for. That’s why universal insurance should be the universal goal.
The Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act would drastically cut Medicaid, which provides health coverage for women, children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. In Baltimore, where I serve as the health commissioner, the majority of pregnant women are insured through Medicaid. Thousands of low-income women could lose coverage and have to pay out-of-pocket for services; others who have insurance may only be able to afford bare-minimum plans that don’t cover needed services.
As a physician who worked in the ER before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, I have seen what happens when patients forgo needed interventions because of cost. I have treated patients who end up in irreversible comas because they couldn’t afford seizure medications. I have treated people who died from drug overdoses because their insurance didn’t cover addiction treatment. And I have treated women who were priced out of prenatal care, whose babies suffered the consequences in the form of preventable diseases, prematurity, birth defects, and even death.
…
Women without prenatal care are seven times more likely give birth to premature babies, and five times more likely to have infants who die. The consequences are not only poor health, but also higher cost passed down to taxpayers. The average medical cost for a baby with problems of prematurity is $79,000, compared to $1,000 for a healthy newborn. Hospitalizations for a preemie in the first year can be upwards of $500,000; intensive care can cost in the millions.
Conversely, studies have shown that for every dollar spent on prenatal care, there are expected savings of nearly $5. Early intervention saves lives and cuts cost. Our health care system should incentivize prevention and discourage rationing of needed services.
It’s better for the people who need the care, and it’s much cheaper overall. But hey – the Republicans want to punish the poor and cut taxes for the rich, so whaddya gonna do.
“You see? It’s all about the freedom to make choices!” — Paul Ryan
I don’t want to come off as smug, but socialised universal care is a thing of great desirability. Not perfect by any means, but so much better (and cheaper) than the mess you guys have.
Certainly there are cases in our media recently of diagnostic testing that was denied under the Public system because the patient didn’t meet certain risk criteria resulting in a condition not being found until it was too late. However these cases are relatively rare and, critically, the patients also didn’t have and could not afford private insurance. Our private insurance is still cheaper than yours…
I recently had a melanoma removed by my GP ($276). I could have gone on the Public waiting list and had it done for free, but might have had to wait 8-12 weeks. My doctor did it there and then. The second excision was carried out by the Public system the recommended 6 weeks later, for free. I have a follow on consult with the plastic surgeon, again for free.
My partner had a sever accident years ago that resulted in ongoing complications. Didn’t cost us a cent. under the US model it could well have proved financially ruinous.
Although not directly related to health care, we also have an accident compensation scheme which is partially State funded and partially funded through levies on employers and personal earnings. In the event of an accident or medical misadventure earnings are paid at 80%, medical and rehab fees are paid (up to a point) and your job is protected (again up to a point). the flip side of this is we can’t sue unless we can establish gross negligence.
Not perfect, but the combined effect is that a much greater proportion of our economy is spent on achieving a health outcome than generating profit, mitigating legal risk and spending time in court.
And, no, the absence of the fear of being sued hasn’t turned us all into careless asses.
Oh that’s not smug, and I know, and I’ve always wished we had it. My Congressional Rep – Jim McDermott – tried hard to promote it during the Clinton fiasco, but…we’re a stupid country.
So many careless typos in that post of mine. Apologies to those of you shuddering…
And, Rob, that situation you describe is not unique to universal care. It is extremely common for insurance here in the states to deny a patient the testing they need, and also to interfere in what treatments a patient can receive. My insurance tells my doctor if I can be treated, and if my doctor disagrees, he is forced to jump through a thousand hoops to get the treatment I need. Fortunately, I have been lucky in doctors that are willing to do that; my husband? Not so much. I have to go to the wall to fight for him with his doctors, and make him fight, because his doctors will just say, oh, well, insurance says no.
@5, funny, because proponents of the libertarian way over here promote the free market US model as the cue to all things healthcare. Which requires an awful lot of finger-in-ear-chanting-with-eyes-closed to avoid the bleeding obvious.
Who would have thought! Interesting to get confirmed that big corporates behave like we expect, well, big corporates to do.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/20/how-does-australias-medicare-compare (scroll down to the inset)
Australian health care spending: 8.9% GDP.
American health care spending: 17.7% GDP.
Free market systems are so efficient!!21