Yesterday’s WSJ has an interesting look at Britain’s health care system and the rationing that, of necessity, takes place. Lots of horror stories, which make a nice accompaniment to previous stories of filthy wards and rampant infections, but since we all know that Bamma would never let that happen to us, who cares? Still here’s a great tidbit:
In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: “When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients.”
Come on, you don’t need two eyes, really. And it’s selfish of you to ask for them. The editorial concludes,
The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration’s argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out “waste.” Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration’s new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.
Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can’t possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care fo
5 Comments
July 8, 2009 at 8:07 am
Top 1% of taxpayers pay ~40% of taxes
IIRC, top 5% of hc consumers are responsible for ~40% of hc costs: likely our fat/diabetic masses (prob many of whom are rabid MJ fans) who prob pay no taxes b/c of their low welfare income or underemployment
Reduced lifespans for economic underachievers are ultimately accretive to economy, no?
July 8, 2009 at 8:59 am
Dude -
Come on now. Who should decide on your medical treatment? You or the government?
You are a moron for Pete’s Sake, so let them decide. Why should we have any say about our lives? Barack knows best. He is our Big Brother!!!
Just look at how well the S.E.C. operates. Or the D.M.V. And the IRS. And the Pentagon – $5,000 toilet seats. How cool is that?
So when you go in for your head transplant, let them decide. They know what is best for you.
Your Pal,
Walt
July 8, 2009 at 10:40 am
I am no fan of the Obama crusade, but did you read that interesting article in the New Yorker last month on health care spending?
It suggests that we all might be better off with less health care attention (gasp). Furthermore, that statistically speaking, when comparing overall American health care spending by region and “proactive measures” by region, we have very little to show (ie longer lives) for unlimited health care spending. I don’t have an answer to our health care challenge, but I am curious what your take is.
This ditto-head needs direction.
July 8, 2009 at 10:43 am
Don’t kid yourself. Rationing is already happenthing thru the private insurers. Recently MD ordered 30 days of a med, insurance said NO, only 6 days. Insurance Company’s or the government? Take your pick.
July 8, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The choice of words in this article was poor. The NICE doesn’t “restrict access” or “block” use of anything. It decides what the govt will pay for and what it will not pay for. Doctors can prescribe and patients can purchase these drugs on their own dime—a situation similar to that in the US with many pharma products—where doctors generally prescribe generics if insurance plans won’t reimburse for on-patent stuff.
The question is not whether it’s flawless. The question is whether it’s an improvement over the status quo. The yardsticks are spending per capita and longevity. And the largest consumers of health care are the elderly, where even with Bush’s $450 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit, some seniors still cannot afford the co-pays for all of their medicines, so they skip. That, my friends, is called (insert drum roll) . . . . rationing.
Comments are closed.