Ovid (publius_ovidius) wrote,

  • Mood:

My Foray into Socialized Medicine

My first experience with socialized medicine was as a child. I was a military brat and if you were in the military, you'd sometimes be called upon to protect us from communism and socialism while enjoying the finest socialized medicine our taxes can buy. We never paid for medical treatment. We never paid for medications. If we needed medical attention, we received it, plain and simple. It wasn't always great, but then, as an adult who sometimes not had insurance and sometimes had virtually worthless insurance, I'd happily take the government's socialized medicine over none at all. When you can't get a prescription for antibiotics, much less afford to pay for them, you're pretty damned miserable.

However, despite my experiences, I was nervous about the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. After all, since the news reports the planes which crash and not the planes which land, you only hear the horror stories. I was expecting a long wait for an appointment. I read in the paper today about a woman who waited 13 years for a hip replacement surgery. Just today, there was an article on BBC about a hospital which lost £2.5 million pounds of funding for not making patients wait a minimum of four months for treatment. You also read stories about women getting voluntary mastectomies rather than wait over two years for breast cancer screening results. Or you can read about the NHS IT budget cost overruns in their new National Programme that would link hospitals, patients and doctors. The project was initially said to cost £2.3 billion before the NHS admitted it would actually cost £6.2 billion. The article claims that current projections are that it will £12.4 billion but I was reading in the paper today that they're expecting the final project will cost between £20 to £30 billion. In US dollars, that's an initial estimate (at today's exchange rate) of $4.3 billion up to a possible £56 billion dollar. Fortunately, that's only one sixth of current estimated the cost of the Iraq war, so killing people is still less efficient than saving them, eh?

So I'm expecting a long, painful process. Not only is this a system bogged down in cost overruns and red tape, I'm a foreigner. So I called them and explained the situation. "That's fine", I'm told, "can I come in now?" What? No, I'm at work. Can I get something for this afternoon? Yes, yes I can.

I get to the office in Sneinton, an area of town which I've been warned to avoid. Sure enough, I am walking by people obviously strung out on drugs, people who stink so bad I can't bear to be near them and shady guys drinking beer on the street in the middle of the day. However, the Steinton office is the one assigned to my area, not the Stoney street clinic which is closer, but not overly so. I walk into the clinic and I can't believe what I see. It's not really dirty, but it's obviously run down. The paint is awful, the signs are old and the carpet has plenty of stains. This is not a welcoming place.

I got there half an hour before my appointment because I know how this works. Reams of paperwork need to be filled out. In addition to medical history and payment details, I'm used to filling out promises not to sue, insurance information, if available, and promises to pay up front if it's not. However, this didn't happen. I had a short sheet to fill out stating who I was, when I entered the country, what my address was and a few medical questions. It took about five minutes.

After a bit of a wait, I saw my doctor who examined me, asked me a few more questions (she obviously had not read the information I filled out), and then prescribed antibiotics for my ear infection and made me promise to come back if it didn't clear it up. It was quick, painless, and efficient. Despite the appearance, it was easier than seeing a US doctor (and I've seen many of them).

Interestingly, they never asked for ID and I understand this is common. If you're there, you get basic medical treatment. Anything out of the ordinary, though, can be quite difficult. Fortunately, after I've been on the job for three months, I get supplementary insurance to cover the "out of the ordinary" medical situations.

Medicine, however, is not free, but the prices are capped. For my antibiotics, I only paid £6.65. However, if I couldn't afford that, there are various situations in which I would get the medication for free:

  • Under 18 years old

  • 18 but in full-time education

  • Pregnant or have given birth within the last 12 months

  • Receiving Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance or 'Guarantee Credit' on your Pension Credit - or your partner is receiving one of these

So despite basic care being readily available, the rest of the system is in chaos. How did Britain get into such a terrible situation? Despite what many people believe, economics and politics are not the same thing. However, they are closely intertwined. In chatting with British people about the NHS, I always get the response that basic medical care should be free of charge to anyone who needs it. Even the so-called "Libertarians" I have spoken with over here agree that the government should provide basic medical services. The Brits are quite adamant about this point. When it gets into specialized needs, opinions start to diverge. Following the well-known Pareto rule that 80% of the results stem from 20% of the effort, we can clearly see that most folks over here support that 20% of the effort. Obtaining the last 20% of the results is where things get difficult and expensive. In fact, since the "80%" of results is what most British people see, there's probably far too much political pressure to let up on this, so the common needs are handled quickly and efficiently.

Even though most people need to see doctors for routine issues, few people get hip transplants. Thus, there's far less pressure to handle the unusual issues, but this has led to complacency on the part of the government and the NHS to get things done and by ignoring the situation long enough, the British government appears to have allowed a problem to grow into a crisis.

Contrasting this with the US shows a curious problem. Naturally, there's no socialized medicine. If you can't afford a doctor, you're out of luck. However, the US Congress, faced with the embarrassment of people dying outside of hospitals passed a law requiring that emergency rooms provide the minimum necessary services to "stabilize" a person, then they can kick them to the curb.

This causes a huge problem. If you're familiar with the situation at all, you know that emergency rooms are the most expensive form of routine medical treatment you can get. If you really have to go to an emergency room, you probably need far more medical attention than if you had gone to see a doctor when you first noticed that your headache wasn't going away or that cut on your leg wasn't healing. Worse, you need that attention now, not when the doctors can fit you in the schedule.

This is part of the reason why the US has the most expensive per capita health care costs in the world. This is a major reason why we have the highest infant mortality rate of any major industrialized nation (no pre-natal care for poor women -- kick 'em to the curb!). Congress, in trying to shore up a glaring weakness in the US health care system actually drove up costs to a ridiculous point. There's no reason a homeless person should die because they have the flu.

I think the problem with the British health care system stems from a systemic problem with bureaucracies: they have no incentive to be efficient. Now a Republican or Libertarian would say "that's because they don't have competition!" Perhaps, but that still doesn't explain why the US health care system is still the most expensive in the world but we have lower life expectancies (Andorra kicks our ass here. Andorra!) and higher infant mortality rates than many industrialized nations. Of course, if you want to dig in, you'll find many more problems with the US system and these can often be found to be the result of a lack of basic medical care.

I'm not sure how to fix the British system because it deals with a fundamental problem that all bureaucracies face. How do you give government bodies incentive to be efficient while still providing the services they're supposed to provide? Swimming pools kill far more children in the US than handguns, but politicians are more willing to mandate locks for handguns then to mandate fences around swimming pools that children have access to. Huge pharmaceutical companies spend millions lobbying the government while the everyday worker has no voice. But should the everyday worker have a voice in complex decisions which they have no knowledge of and others spend decades studying? Do you really think you're competent to decide what percentage of the government dollar should be spent on mesothelioma research?

But we can't just leave all of this up to politicians. Central planning is a failure and it has no way of immediately responding to rapidly fluctuating market conditions. Just turning the problems over to individual government units means that they will be sure to spend all of the money they receive lest their budget get smaller. Politicians are subject to political pressures from ill-informed constituencies and lend a willing ear to those who can finance their political campaigns. Yet despite these problems, I'm unwilling to give up on democracy. Democracy is a miserable way to run a country but everything else seems to be far, far worse.

We need a new system. We need a system whereby private goods will be left to the market and public goods will be administered in the public's interest. But how to do we achieve the latter? The only thought I've come up with is offering public servants a percentage of the money they save so long as they are still doing what they're supposed to do. But who would judge if they've accomplished their goals? The public is often ill-equipped to do so but I don't trust the politicians since we've seen what they're incapable of.

I'm at a loss. Ideas welcome.

Update: I forgot to point out that the idea of offering government employees financial incentives for cutting costs is difficult for other reasons. If the incentives are too low, they may not be motivating. If they're too high, corruption will result.
Tags: economics, philosophy, politics
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded