SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Socio-Capitalist Healthcare Systems Around the World (Coronavirus Spin-Off)
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Socio-Capitalist Healthcare Systems Around the World (Coronavirus Spin-Off) Login/Join 
SIGforum's Berlin
Correspondent
Picture of BansheeOne
posted
As noted on the main Wu-flu thread with its recurring debates on how different systems are able to respond to crises:

quote:
Figuratively speaking I'm actually two or three doors down, have only ever been to Italy for any significant length of time once in 1993, and luckily never needed medical treatment there, so I'm just as much an outsider. But as a general observation, the current articles going on about Italian "socialized healthcare" seem to have the same motivation to me as those trying to pin responsibility for the situation in the US (whatever it is) on the Trump administration - just in reverse, by arguing "this is what Democrats would foist on us". Either camp is trying to make partisan hay with a global health crisis, which is pretty ghoulish IMO.

I have noted that those articles really have to tie themselves into pretzels to make their case, and as I said when I saw the first tweet about "socialized Italian healthcare" posted, let's come back to that in two weeks. Meanwhile, I'm somewhat well-acquainted with the German healthcare system via family; dad was a surgeon, brother #2 served at the Berlin military hospital (which are tied into the civilian system to generate revenue here - how's that for market orientation) as an air force surgeon for about 20 years and now works in controlling for a major national hospital operator, and his wife is an internist now working in political liaison for the Federal Medical Council. If I get around to it, I might start a separate thread on comparing different healthcare systems, since this one is already pretty bloated. As we seem to have various medical professionals here, it should be interesting.


Some background on the local system. Germany has two-tier health insurance. The first tier is statutory insurance, which was the first of the public welfare schemes introduced by Bismarck from 1883 to cut the ground from under the feet of socialist movements. Enrolment is generally mandatory for anybody who can't provide for his healthcare by other means. Contributions are paid 50:50 by employee and employer (or social insurance for unemployed, the public retirement fund for retirees, etc.), currently 7.85 percent of the wage respectively, with some variations over the years.

Non-working spouses and kids up to age 18 (25 for students) are co-insured. Insurees must chip in a little for prescription drugs (usual five or ten Euros depending on type and package size) and dental replacement. The insurances are responsible for their own budgets and can demand limited extra contributions beyond the legally mandated rate, but must pay for a defined list of services. Since 2009, payments are no longer direct from insuree to insurance, but are distributed via a national health funds which also gets some federal money for services beyond the strict scope with which the government has tasked insurances.

The second tier is private insurance, for which anybody beyond a certain income threshold (currently 62,550 Euro per year) is eligible; or people just can drop out entirely and pay for their own health cost, which about 0.2 percent of the German population do. Private insurers set their own premiums, depending on the insuree's health status (and they can reject people depending upon pre-existing conditions), though employees are still being paid an allowance corresponding to the 7.85 percent of their wage by the employer. Self-employed pay in full, of course.

Private insurance may include additional services beyond the legal scope, and their insurees are generally treated preferentially by doctors; mostly because they get their money faster. Getting an appointment can be much quicker than with statutory insurance. Some doctors treat private patients exclusively, in part because you cannot just open a practice accepting statutory insurance anywhere but have to get a slot allocated to certain areas by the respective state's association of statutory health insurance physicians, self-regulatory organizations overseeing supply and competition of medical services. Still, there tends to be an abundance of GP and specialist practices in urban areas, while it's hard to get and hold doctors in rural regions with dwindling populations.

My goal was long to make enough to become eligible for private insurance; but when I finally did I didn't switch, prefering to pay for extra services with my own money, because there are some pitfalls. Private premiums rise with age, and if your income drops, you may no longer be able to pay them, while statutory insurance won't take you back after more than five years if you're over 55. The line is also blurred because statutory insurers offer additional services for extra money. A problem for them is that private insurance tends to snap off the young and healthy, while they have to take anybody, with corresponding higher cost at legally fixed contributions. The political left has of course long demanded to switch to a unified statutory system and abolish "two-class medicine".

The cost, or rather payment of individual medical services by statutory insurance are negotiated via the Joint Federal Committee of insurers, doctors, dentists, therapists and hospital operators (unified in 2004 from previous separate committees for the different fields). Insurers also strike their separate deals with drug suppliers. As for the meat of this topic, hospital cost are set by an institution under commercial law involving the national associations of statutory insurers, private insurers and hospital operators established in 2001.

Previously, stationary hospital services were paid for via day rates for time spent in-house by the patient at 80 percent, the rest via case rates and individual payments for specific treatment. By the Millenium, it was becoming obvious that the traditional German healthcare/welfare system was becoming unsustainable due to a ageing population with less contributors and more recipients. The growing senior age bracket also needed more and longer medical treatment (which of course in turn made them live even longer). German hospitals were criticized for being cost-ineffective because patients were spending too much time in them.

So the system was changed as part of the post-millenial welfare/healthcare reforms under chancellor Gerhard Schröder (which started the decline of his Social Democrats as disgruntled leftwingers abandoned them). The new basis were Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), originally developed by US hospitals as a patient classification system and later adapted for cost determination purposes; i. e. hospitals don't get paid mostly for the time a patient spends in the house, but lump sums based upon what is considered necessary to treat specific diagnoses. The German G-DRG system was adapted from Australia specifially and became effective in 2003.

This forces hospitals to treat patients as economically, and discharge them as quickly, as possible, or they will lose money on them. As a result, staying times and hospital bed capacity in general have gone down, mostly by closing smaller houses, often in the course of operators being taken over. At the same time, just like in the US the number of ICU beds has actually risen (from 23,000 in 2007 to 28,000 in 2017, currently at 79 percent capacity). It has also saddled hospitals with a greater administrative burden, increased by refinement of DRG keys to match variations in diagnoses to necessary treatment cost.

Generally, it has been criticized as commercializing healthcare and letting the market dictate treatment; though I'm not sure if there is a better solution for a system that provides as excellent care by international standards as the German, but with the associated cost and under the ambient demographic conditions.

Ressources:

OECD numbers for hospital beds per capita, by country

Growth of critical care beds in the US

Critical Care Bed Capacity in Asian Countries and Regions

Variability of critical care beds in Europe



(2012 numbers)
 
Posts: 2419 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
SIGforum's Berlin
Correspondent
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
Also just found this report which is very apropos, thought it comes with the "Spiegel"'s left-wing slant.

quote:
The Battle Begins

Are Hospitals Ready for the Coming Wave of Corona Cases?

The German health-care system is considered one of the best in the world. But the corona-virus is mercilessly exposing its weaknesses, with some hospitals already facing difficulties. Can Germany prevent the kind of collapse seen in Italy?

21.03.2020, 10:58 Uhr

By Matthias Bartsch, Jörg Blech, Annette Bruhns, Lukas Eberle, Katrin Elger, Markus Feldenkirchen, Kristina Gnirke, Annette Großbongardt, Hubert Gude, Veronika Hackenbroch, Julia Jüttner, Martin U. Müller, Cornelia Schmergal and Steffen Winter

The man with the white shock of hair in Room 4 of the intensive care unit wasn’t able to breathe. But now, a tube has been placed in his throat and oxygen is flowing into his lungs. You can see through the window on the door to the room how his chest is moving up and down in time with the ventilator, 28 times a minute. The 83-year-old is fighting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It’s Monday, and during the course of the day, nurses and doctors have to watch as his condition deteriorates. They notify his wife and daughter, who arrive around noon. Under the new rules for these corona times, only one relative is allowed into the isolation room for 30 minutes. The woman sits beside her husband in full protective clothing and gloves and places one hand on his forehead and one near his heart. The head of the ward responsible for care decides to bring the daughter in as well. He equips her with protective clothing and lets her go to her father. Both are permitted to sit there for as long as they want.

The man passes away at 3:15 p.m., with the resident issuing the death certificate. The immediate cause of death given: "Hypoxic respiratory failure. A complication stemming from COVID-19 pneumonia."

The man passed away at St. Antonius Hospital in Eschweiler, North Rhine-Westphalia, only 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Heinsberg, the largest known cluster of infections in Germany to date. A ventilator was available for him, but the help came too late.

There’s some good news and some bad news for people in Germany right now. The good news is that Germany is home to one of the most modern, richest and most powerful health-care systems in the world. We have an "excellent health-care system, perhaps one of the best in the world,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her address to the nation on Wednesday night. It is better equipped for dealing with the corona epidemic than the systems of many other countries.

The bad news is that large parts of this system are already overwhelmed. Depending on how fast the number of infections increases in the days and weeks to come, we could experience a collapse and failure of the system. And it will be deemed to have failed if people have to die because of a shortage in staff, beds and equipment -- and not because this illness is incurable.

[...]

In recent days, a chief physician from the Rhineland had to admit to a colleague that he only has seven ventilators at his hospital. He said he needs 13 in order to get through a major wave of serious infections.

And that wave will come - that much is certain. "We expect that things will really heat up in the next two weeks, also here in Germany," says Axel Fischer, managing director of the München Klinik, a Munich-based chain of hospitals. His hospital treated the first patients infected with the coronavirus in January. He fears the crisis will have a "massive impact.”

The coronavirus is mercilessly exposing the problems that have been burdening the German health-care system for years: the pitfalls of profit-driven hospital financing. The pressure to cut spending. The chronic shortage of nursing staff. The often poor equipping of public health departments. The lag in digitalization.

"We are preparing for imminent catastrophe,” says Rudolf Mintrop, head of the Dortmund Klinikum, the city’s main hospital. He calculates that the wave of sick will hit hospitals at full force in 10 to 14 days. The chancellor has warned that German hospitals will be "completely overwhelmed" if too many patients with serious coronavirus infections have to be admitted within a very short period.

Ultimately, the question of life and death will be decided in the intensive care units. The answer will depend on how many ventilator beds there are, how many doctors are on call and how many nurses are able to provide care for critically ill patients.

To prevent a collapse of intensive care units, the German federal and state governments have taken drastic measures that are bringing public life in the country to an almost complete standstill. They have closed stores, sealed borders and shuttered schools, daycare centers and playgrounds.

One of the primary reasons for the steps taken is the imminent shortage of ventilators. German hospitals currently have access to around 25,000 deployable ventilators. The federal government is making efforts to acquire thousands of additional devices, but their manufacture and delivery may take time. There are far more of the devices available in Germany than in Italy and there are also more health-care workers to operate them. But doctors and medical experts still fear supplies could fall short here.

The number of infected in Germany who will have to be provided with artificial respiration will depend on whether people get serious about what virologists and politicians have been warning about for weeks: social distancing. The more consistently all contact is avoided, the greater the chances are of slowing down the rapid rise in new infections.

Another determining factor will be whether doctors and hospital directors go along with the government’s request that they clear their wards in preparation for the expected onslaught of coronavirus patients, particularly given that there is often already a lack of nursing staff and equipment even at hospitals that are operating under normal circumstances.

Under the German Social Code, health-care providers are required to promise every insured patient an economical and efficient treatment based on state-of-the-art knowledge. It does not entail any restrictions. "Rationing” is a word that has never been heard before in our postwar health-care system. But it appears to be one that people in Germany might have to get used to, right along with the even scarier word "triage.”

In any case, the fight against the virus in German hospitals has already begun. The coming weeks will determine whether it can be won.

Intensive Care Beds

Last week, German Health Minister Jens Spahn sent a personal letter to the managing directors of almost 2,000 hospitals in Germany. To keep enough intensive care beds free, he requested: "In principal, all operations and procedures that can be planned in advance are to be postponed and suspended immediately in all hospitals, from Monday onward.” Almost pleadingly, Spahn asked for doctors to be brought out of retirement, for students to be hired to help and for more intensive care beds to be made available. "Now!"

Some hospital bosses like Michael Albrecht at University Hospital in Dresden followed suit. The hospital said beds would be deliberately cleared and operations postponed if possible. "But it’s hard to decide sometimes,” says Albrecht. "Should a necessary tumor operation be postponed because of corona?" He says you can set priorities, but you can’t make overly hasty decisions.

"Right now, we’re only postponing operations if the patients won’t suffer disproportionately as a result,” says Andreas Meier-Hellmann, the head of the coronavirus crisis team at the Helios Kliniken chain of private hospitals. Helios is also permitting tumor operations to go on "even if the patients might have to be put in the intensive care unit afterward.”

Many hospital managers are actively ignoring Spahn's appeal. This could in part be due to the fact that their facilities are under economic pressure and depend on the revenues provided by procedures like knee prostheses, hip replacements or heart catheter examinations. These kinds of procedures, which experts say are often unnecessary, are the most lucrative for the hospitals.

[...]

Nursing Shortage

It’s in the nursing divisions that Germany is currently the most ill-equipped for dealing with the crisis. One 50-year-old nurse who works in an intensive care unit at a university hospital in Lower Saxony says she and her colleagues were already pushed to their limits before the coronavirus struck. She asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals. "The system actually doesn't have any buffers anymore, and we often exceed our capacity."

She says some of the intensive care beds in her hospital can’t be used because of a lack of staff. When she first started working in the field 25 years ago, she says, one nurse was responsible for taking care of one or two ICU patients, but now that number is two or three. "We're writing overload reports that should be called danger reports." At the end of the shift, she sometimes feels her feet are "three times as thick, and as if somebody beat me up. Then I practically crawl home.”

The nurse sees serious ethical conflicts ahead for society. "Everyone has become accustomed to the maximum care system, under which everyone gets everything they can." But this cannot be sustained if the number of critically ill people increases as feared.

It’s a problem that Health Minister Spahn has identified. A law was passed requiring hospitals to have a minimum number of nursing staff in 2018. But it has barely gone into effect, and Spahn will now have to suspend it again -- otherwise the hospitals won’t be able to cope

The staff shortage in German hospitals is chronic, with at least 17,000 nursing positions vacant in the country. The hospitals share some of the blame for this state of affairs. They’ve been cutting back spending in recent years, especially on nursing staff. At the same time, the German states have withheld billions of euros from the hospitals that should have been spent on investments in infrastructure.

"The reductions in beds and staff shortages didn’t occur suddenly and unexpectedly," says Asklepios Group works council Chairman Martin Schwärzel, whose organization represents employees in the hospital chain. "The number of nursing staff in the clinics was used as a key financial figure in the hospitals and was reduced as far as possible. Now, everyone is working at their limit."

[...]

The Lessons

Germany, which exalts about having one of the world’s best health-care systems, has a number of dangerous weak spots. Contrary to popular belief, the system has not been starved by budget cuts. Instead, health spending has been going up for years. Between 2009 and 2019, Germany’s spending on public health insurance has risen from 167 billion to 246 billion euros.

But the money was often channeled to the wrong places, to radiologists and orthopedists instead of general practitioners, who represent a desperately needed place of first resort for rattled patients. And the money has definitely not gone to the nurses.

The poor monetary distribution has a lot to do with the financing of German hospitals. Since 2003, hospital services have been remunerated on the basis of set prices for procedures, according to which hospitals receive a set amount of money for every knee or spinal surgery -- no matter how many days the patient has to spend in the hospital, or the extent of his or her care. For hospital managers, this means pre-scheduled operations are the best way to make money, provided that as little as possible is spent on care.

And as a result, Germany, one of the world’s richest industrialized nations, has operating rooms with cutting-edge technology, but fewer nurses per hospital bed than Estonia or Slovakia. Karl Lauterbach, a respected health-care policy expert with the center-left Social Democrats, puts it in dramatic terms: "Since the implementation of the set prices, a doctor has become an investment, but nurses are a financial burden.” For years, the health economist has warned that the set-price policy increases incentives for poor care.

Doctors are also suffering under the system. "For years now, hospitals have been subjected to an industrial logic. But it doesn’t make any sense to run hospitals like factories. It cannot primarily be about money,” says Peter Hoffmann, the chief physician at a Munich hospital and chairman of the Association of Democratic Doctors, which views itself as a counterpoint to the traditional doctor’s associations.

"We will not simply be able to return to everyday life after this,” says München Klinik Managing Director Fischer. "We will need to conduct a review of our entire health-care system."

Perhaps a pandemic was needed to come to that realization.


https://www.spiegel.de/interna...bb-8caf-8f6074e641cf
 
Posts: 2419 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
Here's another perspective.

https://mises.org/wire/markets...PajuLWAwKEtNwVvYYgcw


-----------------------

Markets vs. Socialism: Why South Korean Healthcare Is Outperforming Italy with COVID-19


Everyone is vitally aware of the spread of the novel COVID-19 pandemic as it rages in early stages across the globe. Travel restrictions are everywhere as people are trying to get tested, prepare for possible quarantines, and worrying about their jobs and their families. Events involving large groups of people are canceled, and in some cases entire countries are being locked down.

But in all this flurry of reaction over the crisis, there is an almost natural experiment in how well a socialized healthcare system can respond to such a problem. And the answer appears to be…not well. To demonstrate, we can look at the two cases of Italy and South Korea. As of the time of this writing (3/12/2020), Italy has experienced 15,113 cases while South Korea has confirmed 7,869. However, the South Korean number is rising at a relatively tepid ~100 cases a day to Italy’s roughly 2,500 added today. (Data on the spread of the novel coronavirus was obtained from this site tracking the outbreak.) Overall, Italy and South Korea have similar populations (around 60 million and 50 million, respectively), although the South Korean half of the Korean Peninsula is about a third of the size of Italy in terms of land area.

Italy is experiencing a quickly spiraling exponential growth in confirmed cases despite shutting down the entire country with curfews and travel restrictions and heavily focusing on the provision of care. By contrast, even with a cult that essentially spread the disease on purpose, South Korea has gained a strong foothold in containing COVID-19. There are many reasons for this difference in outcome, but some of them are directly related to the far more socialized healthcare system in Italy.

South Korean Healthcare

Although South Korea does have a state-monopolized system providing a universal health insurance, this state-provided insurance is not able to set prices in the market for healthcare. Hospitals and clinics routinely charge patients more than the state insurance will pay, which has caused many Koreans to take out private insurance to cover the difference. TheKorea Bizwire reports that eight out of ten Koreans take out such insurance, with the average Korean paying just over 120,000 won (about $120) a month for it.

Care is provided by a set of hospitals that are 94 percent privately owned, with a fee-for-service model and no direct government subsidies. Many of these hospitals are run by charitable foundations or private universities. Private hospitals in the country exploded in number from 1,185 in 2002 to 3,048 in 2012. The result is that South Korea has 10 hospital beds per 1,000 people, more than twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average (and nearly three times as many as Italy’s 3.4 beds per capita). These private hospitals also charge significantly less (between 30–85 percent of the price) than US hospitals (which are also often required to get a “certificate of need” from the government before construction, depending on what state they are built in).

Italian Healthcare

In Italy, by contrast, surgeries and hospitalization provided by public hospitals or by conventional private ones are completely free of charge for everyone regardless of their income. This is entirely paid for by the the national health service, the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) (as are family doctors' services). Waiting times can be up to a few months for large public facilities, though they are somewhat shorter for small private facilities with contracts to provide services through the SSN. Public and private medical providers offer “free market” options in which the patient pays directly, but this is rarely taken up and thus contributes very little to hospital revenues. Emergency medical service is always free of charge.

Italy experienced an ongoing health worker shortage even before COVID-19 struck the country. The number of hospitals in the country has been on a steady decline over the last couple of decades, from 1,321 in 2000 to 1,063 in 2017. SSN prices for payments to hospitals were set below market rates for the purpose of saving money on healthcare, and the results were as expected for a de facto price control.

Conclusion

Currently, the Italian healthcare system is overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of COVID-19 cases it is already facing. They have turned to rationing care to prioritize the young, leaving those most at risk of the virus to essentially fend for themselves. Most just chalk this up to the severity and danger of the pandemic. However, the evidence tells a different story. It portrays a situation made far worse by a reliance on government-centralized healthcare that manages costs by de facto price rationing rather than a free market system. Although South Korea provides a basic safety net, it is also one of the closest healthcare systems in the world to a free market, outpacing to a significant degree even the US system (which includes a great number of supply-restricting regulations that only drive up costs and hurt availability). As a result, South Korean healthcare did what Italy’s already undersupplied system could not do—cope effectively with the pandemic and manage to get it under control without shutting down the entire country in the process.

If US officials wish to effectively handle the rising number of cases in big cities, they would do well to take lessons from South Korea and start freeing the market for healthcare rather than bungling a monopolized testing protocol that did not need to be monopolized, and thereby preventing people from getting tested. This would not immediately resolve the problems created by bad regulation in the past, but it would certainly reduce its negative consequences while improving the healthcare system's ability to deal with these sorts of crises going forward. It would also have the benefit of reducing the cost of healthcare generally.



.
 
Posts: 8628 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of craigcpa
posted Hide Post
Tagged for use.


==========================================
Just my 2¢
____________________________

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right ♫♫♫
 
Posts: 7731 | Location: Raleighwood | Registered: June 27, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The lessons you list in the 2nd article are pretty much was my physician of 23 years told me as we talked about health care in this country.

I read a piece in the WJS 20 years or so back talking about how the private sector health care system here was moving toward rationing health care.

People here might be surprised to learn how many H1B's are medical related - especially in Texas. Of course these foreign Physicians make more here than in their home country's socialized medicine world, but also forces them to do certain things to keep their H1B status (like pushing pills for the legal drug pimps in the U.S.).

For my last colonoscopy, the facility was not too happy with me, as I took too long to come out of anesthesia - taking up a bed longer than proscribed in the industrial assembly line process in place for this procedure. And after I came out, I was a tad woozy - BP of 101 over 74, but got kicked out regardless. I was ok 10 minutes later.

To me today, there really is no significant difference between private and public health care. They both ration services.

Germany's health care is not what it was once when my mother used it before the leaving in '69. Don't even launch her about medical care / private insurance in this country.

PS: I still remember standing in lines with my school mates in West-Berlin '68 or '69 and getting our mandated immunization(s) (Impfungen) for what ever. Somewhere I think I still have my WHO Impfung Buch.


-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Ayn Rand


"He gains votes ever and anew by taking money from everybody and giving it to a few, while explaining that every penny was extracted from the few to be giving to the many."

Ogden Nash from his poem - The Politician
 
Posts: 1687 | Registered: July 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by icom706:

I read a piece in the WJS 20 years or so back talking about how the private sector health care system here was moving toward rationing health care...

Healthcare here in the US isn't really private. Medicare drives much of the policy and the quasi-governmental oligopoly of medical insurance does the rest. Hospitals are jumping to their tunes, because they own the revenue stream.



.
 
Posts: 8628 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Socio-Capitalist Healthcare Systems Around the World (Coronavirus Spin-Off)

© SIGforum 2024