Best Healthcare in the world? Riiiight.

[ElanthianSiren]

Cancer Misdiagnosed in 12% of Cases: Study By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter
Mon Oct 10, 7:02 PM ET



MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Upwards of 12 percent of U.S. cancer patients are initially misdiagnosed, a new study suggests, leading to repeat testing, treatment delays, increased health-care costs and patient anxiety.

Improper tissue and blood sampling, sometimes coupled with inaccurate reading of hospital lab results, are the twin culprits for cancer diagnosis error, according to a team of Canadian, Chinese and American researchers.

A wide range of cancers -- including both gynecologic and non-gynecologic disease -- are vulnerable to such detection mistakes, while the absence of uniform standards to evaluate error frequency across U.S. hospitals complicates efforts to combat the problem, the study authors said.

The authors point out that health-care centers are also often reluctant to tackle the issue head-on for fear of the adverse legal and public relations consequences related to error disclosure.

Nevertheless, they stress that diagnostic confusion rarely poses a significant threat to the long-term health of a patient.

"I want to make clear that the major consequence is not that patients unnecessarily have organs removed or have a false diagnosis of cancer, but rather that they have cancer and it is not diagnosed," said study author Dr. Stephen S. Raab, a professor of pathology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "Fortunately, patient symptoms almost always lead clinicians to do the right thing and retest, and this will lead to finding the cancer and a proper diagnosis."

Raab and his team observe that because U.S. hospitals lack national standards to help guide efforts to monitor error occurrence, it is difficult to compare the frequency, cause and effect of cancer misdiagnoses across facilities.

The researchers nonetheless sought to do exactly that, by focusing on four American medical institutions located in the mid-Atlantic or Midwestern region of the country.

Since 2002, the four centers have participated in an ongoing five-year project to reduce cancer misdiagnoses and improve error detection.

The researchers first standardized the process by which all four institutions reviewed problematic diagnoses -- meaning those instances in which lab work examining two separate specimens taken from a single patient resulted in conflicting diagnoses.

Raab and his colleagues then focused exclusively on those examples of diagnosis discrepancy that had been collected in 2002, analyzing patient tissue samples, blood work and medical records.

In the Oct. 10 online issue of the journal Cancer, the authors report that the institutions varied widely in their diagnosis error tallies -- a fact they attributed to a subjective bias in error evaluations that the newly established standardization process did not completely eliminate.

For example, doctors at one institution very often disputed the findings of another facility in terms of the assignment of error cause or the patient harm an error was determined to have provoked.

"Harm," the authors noted, signified a host of clinical consequences, ranging from the minor inconvenience of needing an additional blood test to the much more serious problem of a six-month delay in proper diagnosis and treatment. Loss of a body part, or even death, was also an extremely rare but theoretically possible harmful consequence of misdiagnosis.

Gynecological diagnosis errors (involving such tests as Pap smears and cervical biopsies) occurred somewhere between just under 2 percent to just over 9 percent of the time, depending on the facility. In 46 percent of such cases, such errors were found to have had no negative treatment consequence, while an almost equal number of cases did provoke some form of harm.

Non-gynecological diagnosis errors (involving such tests as bronchial lung brushing and biopsies) were found in the range of between 5 percent and nearly 12 percent. No harmful consequences were provoked in 55 percent of such cases, while harm of some kind was evident 39 percent of the time, the study found.

In all the institutions, the majority of errors seemed to have occurred during laboratory-setting searches for evidence of abnormal cells, rather than during either surgical tissue extraction or the post-lab pathologist review of test results.

Despite their findings, the researchers emphasized that their efforts to create a uniform assessment system across medical care centers is still in the early stages, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about either error frequency or the effect of errors on cancer patient care.

In that light, they suggested that even the highest error frequency percentages revealed among the 2002 patient pool should be viewed as low-range estimates.

Even at the observed rates the potential number of Americans who encounter diagnostic error is large, they noted.

About 150,000 cancer patients who undergo Pap tests annually may be subject to such mistakes, the researchers estimated, while a similar number of non-gynecological patients may also face diagnosis problems each year.

Noting that yearly an estimated 128,000 Americans have to deal with some kind of error-related "harm," Raab and his team called for the medical community to actively support the establishment of error assessment criteria and monitoring guidelines.

"The concept of standards just doesn't exist yet," said Raab. "So, there are no really good ways to evaluate and compare the quality of testing and no standard for the measuring of harm as a result of error. Clearly, there's enormous differences between institutions and we have to figure out why."

"It's a real problem," added Raab, "because people don't want to say they're making an error. But these findings are the result of standardizing the process, and we learned aspects of doing that, and so now we're heading towards bringing the error frequency to a norm, at least across these four institutions."

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the

American Cancer Society, expressed enthusiasm for the attempt to get a better handle on the big diagnostic picture, but he said that cancer patients should not meanwhile become unduly concerned about such errors.

"Patients need to know that, yes, there is real interest and concern about the quality of care in medical practice in general," he said. "But for the most part, care is excellent."

"Even though there's a discrepancy which is classified as an error, most of the time no meaningful harm came to that patient," added Lichtenfeld. "It doesn't mean there weren't some errors, but it's not as bad news for the patient as it might appear to be in terms of numbers. So, I would not have people become panicked."

[Killer Kitten]

Actually our healthcare system blows.

You have a problem. You call your GP. They can fit you in next week.

Once you get there, he has his suspicions, but is not sure. He sends you on to a specialist. The specialist can't fit you in for 3 to 5 weeks.

The specialist needs a bunch of tests run. These tests take several weeks to schedule.

Once you're done with testing, you wait another couple of weeks for your next specialist appointment.

The specialist tells you that whatever you have is not something they specialize in. They send you on to another specialist. You wait another month for that appointment.

The new specialist wants his own diagnostics run. Another two week delay while all of that is done.

The new specialist FINALLY diagnoses your ailment, then tells you he can't cure it but he's going to send you on to still another specialist who can teach you to live with it.

The third specialist fobs you off on a physical therapist, who assigns you an exercise regimen that, as far as you can tell, changes nothing.

Your steadily deteriorating condition is having a very negative impact on your job performance. Finally your boss suggests you go out on disability. You file the appropriate paperwork, and the disability people send a thick stack of forms for your doctor to fill out.

You take the forms to specialist 3. He tells you he doesn't fill forms out and that you have to go to your GP. You take the forms to your GP. He charges you $30 to fill them out, then won't sign them because he is not the specialist who diagnosed you in the first place. You go back to the specialist, who again tells you that signing the forms is your GP's job.

No, I'm not bitter or in pain all the time, why?

[Hulkein]

The US fucking sucks we should kill ourselves.

Am I the only one that gets an appointment within a day or so and have no problems?

Go health insurance, I guess.

- Arkans

[Hulkein]

I've never had any bad experiences with our healthcare, either.

[Warriorbird]

My experiences have been pretty good with the healthcare system (other than one particularly unpleasant emergency room situation). With that said...events like my grandmother being strapped down improperly during knee surgery and losing all nerve action in her right hand/lower arm (and ending up much worse off than before the knee surgery) leave me not blindly trusting the system.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I've never had any bad experiences with our healthcare, either.

What was the last major illness you had?

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The US fucking sucks we should kill ourselves.

Nah, we just need to ship the assholes to the moon.

[ElanthianSiren]

The problem with our healthcare system as Kitten pointed out is that it's not a system. Due to cost, it actually trends more toward emergency care when you are in dire need (and that's why it fails people with chronic conditions the way that it does).

The problem illustrated by this study is that, due to hospital beauracracy and lack of standards, that same laissez-faire attitude is spilling into disease diagnosis. As the study pointed out, the poor performance of major hospitals, if proportionate to the ones studied, is harming quite a few individuals. Follow-up will be interesting to keep a heads up on.

-M

edit: I can promise you that misdiagnosis is common, however, having been misdiagnosed as having kidney failure (and needing dialysis) for a UT infection and having two opportunistic infections misdiagnosed by LPs AND ER staff.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hulkein
I've never had any bad experiences with our healthcare, either.

What was the last major illness you had?

Well my one physical I got an EKG just to check up on things, something showed up wrong. Got a cardiologist appointment for a week later, turned out nothing was wrong, but the whole process was pretty good and hassle free.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hulkein
I've never had any bad experiences with our healthcare, either.

What was the last major illness you had?

He's a phillies fan, thats one of the nations leading causes of depression.

[Hulkein]

I will say I've had experiences with my family being misdiagnosed, but in those situations it wasn't because of the healthcare SYSTEM, just some unattentive doctors. The title of the thread is just pointless, imo. Are illnesses less misdiagnosed in other countries? If so, do you have the statistics to show this? No ones healthcare is perfect.



Originally posted by Tijay
He's a phillies fan, thats one of the nations leading causes of depression.

Haha

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Hulkein]

[ElanthianSiren]

So what you're basically saying is that you were misdiagnosed? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you just illustrated the point of the article.

Doctors were part of the healthcare system last I checked.

-M

[Warriorbird]

Not, mind you, that I think we have that bad a healthcare system (my views on insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a bit different) but aren't percentage based studies what you use to analyze a system rather than individual cases? What ES showed was a percentage based study.

[Hulkein]

No, I wasn't misdiagnosed, the thing that showed up on the EKG could've been more serious but after they checked me out further they said I was good to go. It wasn't a misdiagnoses, it was my primary physician being more careful than she had to...

That'd be one of the reasons why I posted in defense of the healthcare system.

[Soulpieced]

The process you described would lead me to say that you probably have an HMO? I love my BlueCross PPO. When my knee started acting up again, I went my ass straight to an Orthopedic Surgeon, who was actually the primary doctor in the office who does the surgery. That story is now history. I've also had no problems going to my General Practice people either.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not, mind you, that I think we have that bad a healthcare system (my views on insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a bit different) but aren't percentage based studies what you use to analyze a system rather than individual cases? What ES showed was a percentage based study.

I was talking about my personal experiences in which it wasn't a system problem, it was unattentive doctors. I never said her article wasn't about the system.

[ElanthianSiren]

How long did you wait to see the specialist?

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not, mind you, that I think we have that bad a healthcare system (my views on insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a bit different) but aren't percentage based studies what you use to analyze a system rather than individual cases? What ES showed was a percentage based study.

I was talking about my personal experiences in which it wasn't a system problem, it was unattentive doctors. I never said her article wasn't about the system.

You just said your doctor was being MORE careful than she had to. You're confusing me.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Soulpieced
The process you described would lead me to say that you probably have an HMO? I love my BlueCross PPO. When my knee started acting up again, I went my ass straight to an Orthopedic Surgeon, who was actually the primary doctor in the office who does the surgery. That story is now history. I've also had no problems going to my General Practice people either.

BCBS PPO as well. I simply haul ass right to emergency whenever there's a problem. Diabetes is like that. Last time I tried to hydrate myself again while ill, I got a bunch of shit when I did end up in ER for not going there at the first signs of dehydration.

-M

[Soulpieced]

Exactly. While people say it's not necessarily the "best" insurance per se, I'd trade the ability to go wherever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want any day of the week.

[Warriorbird]

I think of emergency rooms as worse than doctors/hospitals in general to be honest. The worst quality care I've gotten has been in them.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not, mind you, that I think we have that bad a healthcare system (my views on insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a bit different) but aren't percentage based studies what you use to analyze a system rather than individual cases? What ES showed was a percentage based study.

I was talking about my personal experiences in which it wasn't a system problem, it was unattentive doctors. I never said her article wasn't about the system.

You just said your doctor was being MORE careful than she had to. You're confusing me.

-M

Two different discussions.

[Drezzt]

ES,

The problem with a genuine healthcare "system" is that several hundred problems can have the same symptoms. It's not like diagnosing a PC where you can limit the trouble in a step by step fashion. It's more of a general narrowing.
Granted, several mistakes are made each DAY, but given the rest of the world's "systems", including Canada's "wait and die" system, we're definitely not bailing water from a sinking boat.

That said there's always room for improvement, take ER's for example. They cater to more toe stumpings than they should have to simply because if someone that won't spend the 35.00 to see a GP (general practitioner/regular MD) they immediately run to the ER for a dose of Sudafed. Growing up poor I saw this firsthand over and over again. It's sickening to say the least.

<begin mini-rant>
It's called "Emergency room" for a reason. If you're not dying, call a GP and help keep the hospital bills down for the rest of us.
</end mini-rant>


Edited to add:

It's about time to change that pic on your sig too. How can I quietly stalk you if you don't make it interesting with a little switcharoo?

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Drezzt]

[Gan]

Chiming in here:

1. The article mentioned in the initial post describes one area within our health system, and that area deals with the great unknown of cancer. Of course there's going to be mistakes in that field, and of course the lawyers are going to be all over it for malpractice. Is there a problem? Yes, does it mean that the US Healthcare System sucks? No, if you're concluding that from just 1 study of a miniscule area of acute care then you're laughably incorrect.

2. I have not seen the issues Killer Kitten has described since I switched from an HMO to a PPO.

3. Do you have your ticket yet Backlash?

4. Quality physicians will advise you to seek an second opionion on diagnosis that is unclear or that fall out of the realm of their specialty. That does not elude to incompetence.

Living in Houston I have the opportunity to go to any one of 9 acute care major hospitals within a short drive. The key to remember is that each facility is known for excelling at certain things. One is an outstanding trauma for gunshots - but it is also the county indigent care location which denotes my instructions should I ever need it: stabilize me if I'm shot then get me to a different facility where the rate of nosocomial infections are lower. Another facility is a level 1 trauma center for burns; send me there if I'm burned. And yet 2 others are noted for their transplants and one specifically is the home of the Texas Heart Institute where Denton Cooley and Bud Frazier practice - plz take me there for cardiac issues. Broken bones or other minor maladies can be treated at any one of the above mentioned with little or no concern over degree of speciality. Discretion in your selection of which facilities you can go to is one of the reasons why I pay more for health insurance than those with an HMO.

Compare these to socialized medicine where everything is driven off of state budgeted dollars where you will suffer the same wait times for emergent care, and once you're stabilized you are sent home until you can be scheduled to see a GP. Your prognosis and treatment is even more ruled by the almighty dollar than that of the US. So comparing US Healthcare against socialized medicine is not a definate loss for the US. What does that leave? Third world medicine, NOT... while they have some good facilities, they do not have the stringent safety/sanitization requirements that we have nor do they have the medical license requirements that the US has for their medical students to obtain their MD. Or the credentialing and continuing education requirements for their nursing vocation.

I personally think the US is the place to be to receive healthcare.

edited to add:

I agree totally with your mini-rant Drezz.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Ganalon]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Well my one physical I got an EKG just to check up on things, something showed up wrong. Got a cardiologist appointment for a week later, turned out nothing was wrong, but the whole process was pretty good and hassle free.
While I'm glad everything was alright, that does not count as a major illness.

Only when you are facing a life altering or threatening illness will you have to place your life and faith in the system and then you will be able to say how it has served you.

I think as others have said that it depends, too much i feel, on the health insurance company you have.

Having just had over the last 18+ months been dealing with a family member with a serious medical condition I have to say that there are both good and bad points of our medical system.

My aunt who resided in Peru died of a medical condition that in the US she would have been easily treated for. My mother has also been treated for a rare and very difficult to treat form of cancer. That treatment so far seems to be successful and I am grateful for the advanced medicines and surgical techniques used to help her in this fight.

The medical system in this country however IS the Insurance company.

Your medical care depends on several variables.

1- Your health insurance and what they will cover or more rarely what you can personally afford.

2- The quality of care rendered by the health profesionals engaged in your personal care. This ranges from the Physicians and Nurses to the technicians and clerical staff. Any one of these levels can drop the ball and reduce the quality of care received by you.

and

3- You. You and your family are the final safety net that will help ensure you receive the care that you need. When in doubt, or faced with any surgery or life altering treatments at all, ask for a second opinion. Don't back down if faced with a physician with a wounded ego, his or her ego will heal easier than your body will from a misdiagnosis.

Be strong, be polite but be vigilant.

If any of the above fail at any point you will not receive the best care possible and unfortunately only the one of the three is yours to control directly.

We have in my immediate family two doctors and three nurses so we are not exactly outsiders and still it was a fight at times both with the insurance company and with some of the medical personel to make sure everything was done and on time.

I have to wonder how difficult it can be for some who encounter such roadblocks without having such insider assistance as we had and shudder to think how upsetting and diffcult it must be for both the patient and family in such situations.

[ElanthianSiren]

You mean like.... walking out of an ER specialist AMA because you refused to go on dialysis, all the while being told by doctors you're going to die in a few weeks because of renal failure. Nah, Skirm, that's not traumatic at all. I don't know what you could be talking about :)

Urinary Tract infections be damned.

-M

edited to add: I'm not changing my sig pic. I de-cock stalkers, so it's good you've kept your distance. I have my period, a knife, and I'm irritated.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[ElanthianSiren]

Dealing with PPO is really fun as well when they dispute your billing and try to get you to pay 2 grand for a hospital visit that should be covered.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
You have a problem.All my problems (especially the serious ones) were taken care of in less than a week. I don't know what your deal is.

As per Skirm's life-threatening requirement, when my dad was in an extremely life-threatening position (requiring quadrouple bypass), he was treated that day and was home in a week. One extremely bad nurse (if it hadn't been for me being such a great guy [:saint:], she would be missing some teeth), one twit of a rehab guy, and everyone else was between decent and very good.

[Drezzt]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
edited to add: I'm not changing my sig pic. I de-cock stalkers, so it's good you've kept your distance. I have my period, a knife, and I'm irritated.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

like...ow...and stuff....

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
You have a problem.All my problems (especially the serious ones) were taken care of in less than a week. I don't know what your deal is.

As per Skirm's life-threatening requirement, when my dad was in an extremely life-threatening position (requiring quadrouple bypass), he was treated that day and was home in a week. One extremely bad nurse (if it hadn't been for me being such a great guy [:saint:], she would be missing some teeth), one twit of a rehab guy, and everyone else was between decent and very good.

Latrin, multiply dealing with that many twits on a life basis several times a month. You have what someone with a chronic condition sees.

-M

edited to add: I don't mean to come off snippy toward you Latrin. I'm simply irritated by a system that wastes my time and money (healthcare). The large (IMO) life threatening failure rates in that study simply set me off on something that was already irritating to me.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[xtc]

The United States is the only first world country that doesn't have a comprehensive universal health-care system. According to the W.H.O., American ranks 37th in healthcare. I think Costa Rica ranked better than America.

http://hsa.usuhs.mil/mph/courses/02-03/pmo526/readings/who.pdf

45 Million Americans have no healthcare coverage.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-26-04health.htm

I think you would have to be deluded to believe America has the best healthcare system.

Countries with socialised medicine consistently scored in the top spots for healthcare.

[Hamurr]

Socialized medicine is no panacea by any stretch of the imagination let me assure you.

Due to a shortage of specialists (our socialized wage caps drive them out of Canada), our waiting times are obcene and healthcare needs to be rationed. In Saskatchewan for example, the average wait for an MRI is 22 months. Hardly a "universal healthcare" heaven.

As well, our ERs and doctors offices are bunged up by people such as overprotective moms who rush their precious little kids to the hospital for a case of the sniffles since they are under the impression that healthcare is "free" in Canada.

When you pay 60% of your income into taxes for a subrate, rationed healthcare system, rest assured that things are far from "free".

[xtc]

Originally posted by Hamurr
Socialized medicine is no panacea by any stretch of the imagination let me assure you.

Due to a shortage of specialists (our socialized wage caps drive them out of Canada), our waiting times are obcene and healthcare needs to be rationed. In Saskatchewan for example, the average wait for an MRI is 22 months. Hardly a "universal healthcare" heaven.

As well, our ERs and doctors offices are bunged up by people such as overprotective moms who rush their precious little kids to the hospital for a case of the sniffles since they are under the impression that healthcare is "free" in Canada.

When you pay 60% of your income into taxes for a subrate, rationed healthcare system, rest assured that things are far from "free".

I live in Toronto. First off get your facts right. One out every 10 tax dollars goes to healthcare in Canada. No one pays 60% of their income in taxes, over $52,500 every dollar is taxed at 50%.


Saskatchewan has the worst waiting times for MRI's in the country with the average being 33 weeks or about 7 months not 22 months. They are putting in more MRI's in Saskatchewan to deal with the load. These numbers are from the Fraser Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=206

I use the healthcare system regularly and have yet to see any evidence of what you posted.

I needed an MRI for a non-life threatening injury. My wait time was 7 weeks. My friend's wife needed an MRI for a growth that may have been cancerous, she waited one week for the initial MRI. They now believe her growths are benign (non-cancerous) but they want to have a better look at one of them so she is going for another MRI, her wait time is 3 wks.

We in Canada are one example of socialised medicine. France ranked number one in medicine according to the W.H.O. and they have a socialised system.

Canada has consistently outranked the U.S. in healthcare.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by xtc]

[Hamurr]

May I suggest that you get your facts right.

Yes people only pasy up to 50% on income alone. Lets not forget GST, Excise taxes, customs taxes, fuel taxes, healthcare premiums in some provinces etc.

It actually adds up to more than 60% for some high income people. Look up tax freedom day sometime.

I guess all those people waiting years for hip replacements are MRIs in some provinces should head to Toronto.

They have been draining dollars from Alberta to shore up their system anyway.

By the way, your Fraser numbers are out of date. The 22 month waiting scandal in Saskatchewan broke 2 years ago.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Hamurr]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
According to the W.H.O., American ranks 37th in healthcare. The article is pretty ridiculous. We were actually 24th in Disablitiy Adjusted Life Expectancy in the 2000 WHO report, which is a bit different than flatly saying we are 37th in healthcare (Uruguay was actually 37th). Not only that, the rating of countries was abandoned by the WHO the very next year, and the DALE(/HALE) index itself isn't even used in the 2005 report. Get your facts straight indeed.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I don't mean to come off snippy toward you Latrin.I did not feel snipped. :heart:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Hamurr
May I suggest that you get your facts right.

Yes people only pasy up to 50% on income alone. Lets not forget GST, Excise taxes, customs taxes, fuel taxes, healthcare premiums in some provinces etc.

It actually adds up to more than 60% for some high income people. Look up tax freedom day sometime.

I have my facts straight, the average family in Canada pays less than 50% total tax. This is from The Fraser Institute, the people that publish Tax Freedom Day every year.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/2001/20010628/table2.html


I guess all those people waiting years for hip replacements are MRIs in some provinces should head to Toronto.

No need to head to Ontario, Saskatchewan is opening their MRI's longer and putting in more MRI's.

http://www.gov.sk.ca/newsrel/releases/2004/11/02-677.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2005/2005-09-23_e.html



They have been draining dollars from Alberta to shore up their system anyway.

Ontario citizens pay more in Federal taxes than they receive, so Alberta certainly isn't subsidizing us.

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
45 Million Americans have no healthcare coverage.
And the fucked up thing about that is millions of those Americans are actually working adults. Emergency rooms serve as GP's for many of the poor and homeless in major cities.

Add to that, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills according to The New Yorker.

[Skirmisher]

Health insurance companies are the bane of the american health system.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[The article is pretty ridiculous. We were actually 24th in Disablitiy Adjusted Life Expectancy in the 2000 WHO report, which is a bit different than flatly saying we are 37th in healthcare (Uruguay was actually 37th).

Here is a press release from the W.H.O, stating the OVERALL ranking for the United States was 37th.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-000/en/pr2000-44.html



Not only that, the rating of countries was abandoned by the WHO the very next year, and the DALE(/HALE) index itself isn't even used in the 2005 report. Get your facts straight indeed.

They are using a new method to rank healthcare systems in 2005. How do you think the U.S. will rank in this one?

[Jazuela]

I have BlueCare Plus. It's sort of a hybrid between an HMO and a PPO I guess. All the doctors I want to go to, are participants, so I never have to worry about "out of network" at home. If something happens while I'm not home, I'm covered 80%/20% with I think a $250 deductible or some such. And even then, BlueCare Plus here participates with BlueCare Plus in other states, so I could supposedly go to an in-network doctor in the Florida branch and only have to deal with the co-pay there as well.

I've never had any problems going to any doctor I wanted, for any reason. If I need a specialist for something and don't know any doctors in that field, there are lists of specialists in the area that are participating. And every one of them is Board Certified, and most of them went to Yale Medical School (I tend to prefer Yalies for medical care, because they're a top-notch school).

I get quick service, if I need an MRI I can get one the same week. When I had a lump on my throat, it went something like this:

Day 1 - walk in on a Saturday during walk-in hours at the primary physician's office. He sends me to a ENT guy.
Day 2 - ENT guy sets me up with some tests he wants to do, he thinks it's a tumor.
Day 2, afternoon: I have the tests
Day 3 - Inconclusive - definitely a tumor, but not sure if it's malignant or benign. Surgery recommended.
Day 5 - out-patient one-day surgery. It was benign, but it was big and interfering with thyroid production. One node (of two) completely removed, the other node fully functional.
Day 10 - recuperating just fine and dandy, and now take a maintenence dose of synthroid daily for the rest of my life.

So from the time I noticed the lump until the scar tissue was starting to heal, was 10 days. Only 5 days from the time I noticed it until I went into surgery.

The same thing happened with a lump in my breast, and the same when they found cancer in my cervix as a result of a yearly pap smear. Less than a week for surgery from the time I went to the doctor's office for each of these things, all were dead on with the diagnosis, each doctor involved was professional, courteous, empathetic, kind.

If you're having trouble with your HMO or PPO, I suggest that it isn't the "country's health care" that's the trouble but rather that particular company covering your medical insurance.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
While I'm glad everything was alright, that does not count as a major illness.

Only when you are facing a life altering or threatening illness will you have to place your life and faith in the system and then you will be able to say how it has served you.

LOL, my bad then, I guess since my life wasn't on the line (only potentially life altering from the time I found out something could be wrong until the cardiologists appointment) I have no experience with the system.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein

LOL, my bad then, I guess since my life wasn't on the line (only potentially life altering from the time I found out something could be wrong until the cardiologists appointment) I have no experience with the system.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Hulkein]

Correct.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Here is a press release from the W.H.OMy bad.
How do you think the U.S. will rank in this one?11-20.

[Gan]

I remember this topic in a previous thread, and yes the findings as well as the methods of WHO in their analysis of the data was heavily scrutinized and disputed.

I also look forward to seeing what the new rankings will be as well as what benchmarks were used to derive the rankings.

I'd pull up the thread but I lack the time to do a search at the moment.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Ganalon]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hulkein

LOL, my bad then, I guess since my life wasn't on the line (only potentially life altering from the time I found out something could be wrong until the cardiologists appointment) I have no experience with the system.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Hulkein]

Correct.

Actually, that was sarcasm, because you don't have to almost die to have experience with the healthcare system.

You've made an error, dear ;)

[Skirmisher]

I understood your sarcasm.

I simply disagreed with your assertion.

[Hulkein]

So what exactly is yours?

That one has to be in critical life threatening condition to have any experience with the healthcare system?

[DeV]

I think in order to determine if our healthcare system including healthcare access is the best we have to include the haves as well as the have-nots. Those who've had positive as well as negative experiences.

Edited out alot of shit. They relate what I originally intended the best.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by DeV]

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
You have a problem.All my problems (especially the serious ones) were taken care of in less than a week. I don't know what your deal is.


Maybe my problem isn't as easy to fix as yours. I just posted what my experiences with doctors have been since I got sick.

As for my health coverage, I can go to any doctor I want anywhere I want. I have a 20 dollar copay on doctor visits and 30 on emergency room visits. There's a ten buck maximum copay on all prescriptions. I pay nothing else out of pocket. I've never encountered a doctor who doesn't accept my health plan, even the storefront clinic I limped into in Vegas a few years ago when I injured my knee on vacation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Maybe my problem isn't as easy to fix as yours.Maybe you shouldn't have used the second person in your first post then.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Arkans
Am I the only one that gets an appointment within a day or so and have no problems?

Go health insurance, I guess.

- Arkans

I'm living a charmed life too I guess. I have never had a problem.

If I were some people, I would think that maybe the Government is really out to get me and maybe move to Canada, where there are no problems at all, since it's a state run healthcare system.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Soulpieced
The process you described would lead me to say that you probably have an HMO? I love my BlueCross PPO. When my knee started acting up again, I went my ass straight to an Orthopedic Surgeon, who was actually the primary doctor in the office who does the surgery. That story is now history. I've also had no problems going to my General Practice people either.

You are still bitching about your SOFTBALL INJURY??

Pussy.:smug:

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Arkans
Am I the only one that gets an appointment within a day or so and have no problems?

Go health insurance, I guess.

- Arkans

I'm living a charmed life too I guess. I have never had a problem.

If I were some people, I would think that maybe the Government is really out to get me and maybe move to Canada, where there are no problems at all, since it's a state run healthcare system.

Conspiracy Theorist.

-M

[HarmNone]

I'd be interested in hearing from someone in New Zealand regarding their health plans and associated costs, waits, etc. :)

[ElanthianSiren]

HN should have made the angellic face.

-M

[Skirmisher]

Hrm, I guess I should amend my position to add that for those with sufficient personal resources or the best insurance possible, then yes the US still has the best available health care.

For many of the less well off members of our society however, yes the care in Canada or the UK would be far superior.

And if we insist on cutting off our noses and not funding proper stem cell research, we not even have the claim to having the best possible care that money can buy for much longer.

When the day comes that we see people flying to South Korea or the like for cutting edge medical treatment, it will be a sad day indeed.

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Skirmisher]