The cost of saving a life

-
Today I researched on the internet the cost of the maintenance drug that I take to help extend the length of my remission. Although I could not find 2017 prices or the price at which the pharmaceutical company had sold the drug to the government in prior years, I did find lots of prices for the drug sold to individuals or non-federal healthcare providers in prior years. A reasonable estimate is that my monthly maintenance dose costs approximately $15,000.
When that cost is combined with other treatment and healthcare that I have received because of having cancer, in the eight months since being diagnosed with cancer my care has cost more than $200,000. Ongoing care in years while I remain in remission plus additional costs related to forcing the cancer into remission a second and perhaps third time could easily drive the total cost of treating my cancer to well over one million dollars.
Few Americans can afford to pay one million dollars to treat a catastrophic illness.
On the other hand, few Americans would opt to refuse treatment to a person who suffers from the type of cancer that I have who cannot pay for treatment when the person can reasonably expect to enjoy several or more years of healthy, productive life.
The best way forward in dealing with the cost of catastrophic illness is for the US to implement single payer, universal healthcare. The single payer would be the federal government. Universal access means that everyone would have access.
Half of all persons employed in the healthcare industry, which is 20% of the US Gross Domestic Product, are not healthcare providers but administrative, etc. A quarter of healthcare costs is attributable to billing and associated costs. Eliminating private payers would shutter the immensely profitable private health insurance corporations, but would concurrently generate tremendous savings in healthcare related costs for the entire nation.
Two examples of a single payer system – with the federal government as that single payer – already exist in the US, though both systems limit access. The first is Medicare, available to everyone over 65 and the lowest cost provider of healthcare. The second is the military healthcare system, available to active duty and retired military personnel and their families.

Congress should replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with a single payer system that provides universal access.

Comments

Student22314 said…
Do you expect that a single payer/universal access health care system would increase keep same, or decrease the total share of GDP allocated to health care services? Would overall administrate costs increase, stay the same, or decrease? How much, if any, of the administrative costs now included would be eliminated, rather than merely shifted from the private sector to the public sector? What is the government administrative cost per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid? Is this more or less than the administrative cost per beneficiary of the private health insurance system? If the administrative cost per beneficiary for Medicare/Medicaid is greater, does this imply that s single government payer system would experience a net increase in the administrative cost component, eliminating the anticipated resource saving? If not, how much would be the efficiency gain of shifting resources from administration to direct services provision? The U.S. devotes a larger share of GDP to health care than many other economically advanced countries, but what is the reason for this and how, if at all would the adoption of a single-payer, universal care system affect the causes of the U.S. outcome? How much of the cause of higher GDP proportion allocated to health care is the result of administrative inefficiency; how much is the result of poorer health condition of the U.S. population because of behavioral choices; how much is the result of a greater desire to consume health care services, especially near the end of life? How would a single-payer universal access system constrain utilization to control and ration total resources available for health care? or would it or should it constrain individual choices to consume health care services? There are both ethical and economic issues here that need to be addressed carefully and honestly.
February 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM
George Clifford said…
You ask a plethora of good questions. Medicare/Medicaid currently provides the lowest cost option for healthcare in the US, so costs should decrease. Administrative costs for all healthcare averages 25% of spending on healthcare, so both administrative costs and total healthcare spending should decrease. Most importantly, a single payer system would provide universal access. Presumably, behavioral choices in the US are not dramatically different than in developed European countries (there are differences, but I'm guessing that the differences as a whole do not represent a huge difference in health outcomes); substantial differences in outcomes are attributable to how the US funds healthcare and the disproportionately large expenses on people near the end of life on treatments that neither improve their quality or length of life in a way commensurate with the cost. We now ration healthcare based on ability to pay, a very unethical approach that values the well-being of the affluent over all others.
February 19, 2018 at 4:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-election blues

-
 This Veteran’s Day has prompted some musings about the color blue, the election and Veteran’s Day. First, former Vice President Biden is now President-elect Biden. The Democrats, generally depicted by the color blue in color graphics, won the presidential election. The chaos and lack of character widely associated with President Trump will soon vacate the White House. The US has now had both a Black president and a Black woman Vice President-elect. When I was born, both were unimaginable in the segregated Jim Crow south as well as, if we're honest, in the rest of the US. Second, President Trump probably feels depressed, an emotion associated with the color blue. His depression is obvious in his mien. He, from all appearances, is not a person who copes well with losing or rejection. Similarly, other candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, who invested considerable time, emotion and resources in losing campaigns for office also probably feel depressed. Yet, I’m grateful f
Read more

Why won't Trump release his tax returns?

-
President Trump’s refusal to make his tax returns public is intriguing and troubling. The IRS routinely audits Presidential and Congressional tax returns. Yet former Presidents and most members of Congress have made their tax returns public. Possible explanations for Trump’s refusal include: His tax returns may reveal that he is not as wealthy as he would like for people to believe. Many real estate investments are heavily leveraged (i.e., mortgaged), so perhaps his substantial real estate holdings represent a relatively small net worth totaling in the hundreds of millions instead of billions. His tax returns may reveal that he derives a disproportionate share of his income from licensing his name instead of the successful real estate deals about which he boasts. His tax returns may reveal aggressive interpretations of the tax code that trigger repeated audits that are not always resolved in his favor. If Trump’s tax returns would enhance his public image by showing th
Read more

Mass murder in Orlando

-
The recent mass murder at a gay nightclub in Orlando has prompted four musings. First, the shooters in both the Orlando and the San Bernardino attacks apparently fully complied with Federal firearms laws when the attackers purchased the weapons used in those attacks. This is not an argument against background checks and other requirements. Instead, this observation points to the inadequacy of present laws to keep people safe. Second, the shooter in Orlando, like the shooters in San Bernardino, appears to have had no links to any terror group, domestic or foreign. As I have previously argued in Ethical Musings, considering all mass murder as terrorism unhelpfully conflates two different types of crime. Tightening immigration policies would not have prevented the Orlando attack. Third, the ultimate path to a safer society consists of promoting respect for the dignity and worth of all persons. Laws that encourage divisiveness (e.g., laws in North Carolina about who can use which pu
Read more