Comments on: CONTROLLING COSTS MEANS…CONTROLLING COSTS by Eric Schultz http://commonhealth.wbur.org/eric-schultz/2008/04/controlling-costs-meanscontrolling-costs-by-eric-schultz/ CommonHealth Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:04:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michelle Rodriguez http://commonhealth.wbur.org/eric-schultz/2008/04/controlling-costs-meanscontrolling-costs-by-eric-schultz/comment-page-1/#comment-9819 Michelle Rodriguez Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:34:44 +0000 http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=417#comment-9819 I know exactly what you mean. I've been a smoker for decades and although I know it's killing me I don't have the willpower to quit. But I found these new, "healthy" cigarettes that let me get my fix without damaging my lungs. Check out my blog! I know exactly what you mean. I’ve been a smoker for decades and although I know it’s killing me I don’t have the willpower to quit. But I found these new, “healthy” cigarettes that let me get my fix without damaging my lungs. Check out my blog!

]]> By: Leonard Glantz http://commonhealth.wbur.org/eric-schultz/2008/04/controlling-costs-meanscontrolling-costs-by-eric-schultz/comment-page-1/#comment-6616 Leonard Glantz Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:36:53 +0000 http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=417#comment-6616 David Himmelstein is quite correct when he says smoking cessation will not reduce health care costs. The problem with the numbers used by the Department of Public Health’s is that they do not take into account the added costs of longevity. Smokers and non-smokers actually die from the same things-heart disease, cancer and strokes. The difference is that smokers tend to die of these conditions earlier in their lives and therefore do not incur the additional expenses associated with longevity and particularly extreme longevity. This is also true of reducing obesity. For a detailed analysis see Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029#cor1 It is also quite clear that cancer rates will be increasing over time because aging is the primary risk factor for cancer. Cancer care is expensive and this will inevitably lead to spending even more resources on the care of the elderly. None of this is to say that we should not spend resources on smoking cessation and obesity reduction. What it does mean, however, is that we cannot justify these programs on cost-saving. Rather it requires us to spend money on these programs because it is the right thing to do, an argument that is rarely seen in the healthcare cost debate. The discussion of health care costs will be much better informed, although more difficult, what we address the issue of the proper and ethical way to spend limited resources on healthcare. And the driving force should not be how we save money but how we make the lives of people better even when it costs money. David Himmelstein is quite correct when he says smoking cessation will not reduce health care costs. The problem with the numbers used by the Department of Public Health’s is that they do not take into account the added costs of longevity. Smokers and non-smokers actually die from the same things-heart disease, cancer and strokes. The difference is that smokers tend to die of these conditions earlier in their lives and therefore do not incur the additional expenses associated with longevity and particularly extreme longevity. This is also true of reducing obesity. For a detailed analysis see Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029#cor1
It is also quite clear that cancer rates will be increasing over time because aging is the primary risk factor for cancer. Cancer care is expensive and this will inevitably lead to spending even more resources on the care of the elderly.
None of this is to say that we should not spend resources on smoking cessation and obesity reduction. What it does mean, however, is that we cannot justify these programs on cost-saving. Rather it requires us to spend money on these programs because it is the right thing to do, an argument that is rarely seen in the healthcare cost debate. The discussion of health care costs will be much better informed, although more difficult, what we address the issue of the proper and ethical way to spend limited resources on healthcare. And the driving force should not be how we save money but how we make the lives of people better even when it costs money.

]]> By: Ann Malone, RN http://commonhealth.wbur.org/eric-schultz/2008/04/controlling-costs-meanscontrolling-costs-by-eric-schultz/comment-page-1/#comment-6610 Ann Malone, RN Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:51:05 +0000 http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=417#comment-6610 Priceless quote that says it all from Mr Schultz, an HMO Executive!: "Co-payments and deductibles are not about shifting costs to consumers; they are about giving consumers “skin in the game” and thereby changing behavior." As my niece would say, "yeah, right". I dare say that most MA health care professionals--the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTH CARE--would agree that Mr. Schultz's perspective is more a part of the problem than the solution. I invite Mr. Schultz to have a public debate with me over the points he makes here, or perhaps he would prefer a debate with Dr. Himmelstein--or the both of us--and Mr. Schultz can bring along a colleague, too. Only through open dialogue in community forums across the state can the public finally have an opportunity to understand and address the root causes of our "unsustainable medical cost trend" and to make well-informed decisions on whether or not to support streamlined single payer public financing for a program of affordable comprehensive coverage for all. I await your reply, Mr. Schultz. Sincerely, Ann Eldridge Malone, RN, MSN ann-dot-eldridge-dot-malone--at--gmail.com ---- To learn more about streamlined single payer financing, there are a number of excellent online resources to help you get started: 1. www.MassCare.org/about (statewide coalition) 2. www.amsa.org/uhc (American Medical Students) 3. www.pnhp.org (Physicans Nat'l Health Program) 4. www.healthcare-now.org (Nat'l community group) and 5. herndonalliance.org/tools.php Herndon's projects provide new and important tools for health reform in the public interest. Priceless quote that says it all from Mr Schultz, an HMO Executive!:

“Co-payments and deductibles are not about shifting costs to consumers; they are about giving consumers “skin in the game” and thereby changing behavior.”

As my niece would say, “yeah, right”. I dare say that most MA health care professionals–the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTH CARE–would agree that Mr. Schultz’s perspective is more a part of the problem than the solution.

I invite Mr. Schultz to have a public debate with me over the points he makes here, or perhaps he would prefer a debate with Dr. Himmelstein–or the both of us–and Mr. Schultz can bring along a colleague, too.

Only through open dialogue in community forums across the state can the public finally have an opportunity to understand and address the root causes of our “unsustainable medical cost trend” and to make well-informed decisions on whether or not to support streamlined single payer public financing for a program of affordable comprehensive coverage for all.

I await your reply, Mr. Schultz.
Sincerely, Ann Eldridge Malone, RN, MSN
ann-dot-eldridge-dot-malone–at–gmail.com

—-
To learn more about streamlined single payer financing, there are a number of excellent online resources to help you get started:
1. http://www.MassCare.org/about (statewide coalition)
2. http://www.amsa.org/uhc (American Medical Students)
3. http://www.pnhp.org (Physicans Nat’l Health Program)
4. http://www.healthcare-now.org (Nat’l community group)
and
5. herndonalliance.org/tools.php
Herndon’s projects provide new and important tools for health reform in the public interest.

]]>