Currently viewing the category: "health care"

Don’t say I didn’t tell you, cos I remember talking about this ad infinitum over the last two years. But the medical care you knew and loved is going away. And many reading this are perfectly happy about this, but not baby-boomers retiring to rural areas. Yes, seems that primary care physicians are hard to find in many small towns, and it looks like it may worsen.

Baby-boomers, the 78 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964, could have difficulty finding doctors over the next twenty years. With Medicare cuts proposed targeted under the federal health care overhaul, the shortage is likely to get even worse, said Mark Pauly, professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania. Primary care physicians out in rural areas make less per procedure in the Medicare schedule than their city counterparts, and with a cut in the already small reimbursement inherent in the system, doctors are running to the city in droves. Well, no duuuuuuhhhh…….

A 2009 survey of doctors in the Oregon Medical Association showed 19.1 percent of Oregon doctors had closed their practices to Medicare, and 28.1 percent had restricted the numbers of Medicare patients.

The good news is that we knew it was coming, right? Well, there’s at least one solution–Nurse Practitioners (NP). NPs can do medical exams, prescribe some drugs, give shots, take vitals, and so forth…sort of a doctor/nurse hybrid. It’s smart, and I like it. I have worked with a few NPs, and what they  can do—their scope—along with their competency, is top-notch. It’s like an all-in-one healthcare practitioner. I have lots of respect for NPs.

Now for you boomers who have decided to retire to rural communities, you may find that you’ll need to pay some things out of pocket. Just come to terms with that: health care is changing, and there’s no need to protest by neglecting your body. I know we all want to get what has been promised to us, and you know what…we just may, in fact, get that…but if for any reason it doesn’t go back to the way it once was, you still need your health. So take care of it, both by participating in health-enhancing behaviors (like seeing a chiropractor–also a primary care doctor, but sans prescription rights), but also by seeing your NP…hey many of them make house calls.

Listen, our old institutions are changing–in some ways for the better (like you taking a proactive approach to your health), and in others for the worse (quality will ultimately suffer, in my opinion). We’ve got to have creative solutions to these new problems–the easiest is to continue taking care of your body. But creating a self-funded medical account will probably be a wise move too.

I recently posted on some telling “health” statistics in the U.S. It’s so refreshing to know what Americans are really fighting for with regard to health care, because the strong belief of some is that every American has the right to be on as many drugs as their neighbor. For the mass American mentality–that’s health! Awesome.

Americans are fighting for their inalienable right to drug their children. Yes, they are…that’s health, remember? If parents can’t understand their children, and public school officials can’t understand their children, then their good doctors will be there to help. Yes…with anti-depressants. In fact, more children are on psychoactive drugs today than on any other drug ever before in history.

Is it me? Do I just not understand health or health care? Are we blessed–part of the “haves”–if we can get antidepressants for our children? Ohhhhh…maybe I’d better go back to doctor school. I thought health and wellness was something else.

According to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics study published in September 2011, antidepressants were the third most common prescriptiondrugtaken by Americans of all ages in 2005–2008.

And from 1988-1994 through 2005-2008, the rate of antidepressant use in the United States among all ages increased nearly 400%.

Isn’t that awesome? Aren’t we so fortunate here in the U.S.? Hope Obamacare brings antidepressant drugging to every citizen in the nation, especially children. It’s our right to NOT be sad. Yay, Obamacare!!!

Here go some more stats for you:

  • 11% of Americans aged 12 years and over take antidepressant medication.
  • Females are more likely to take antidepressants than are males, and non-Hispanic white persons are more likely to take antidepressants than are non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American persons.
  • About one-third of persons with severe depressive symptoms take antidepressant medication.
  • More than 60% of Americans taking antidepressant medication have taken it for 2 years or longer, with 14% having taken the medication for 10 years or more.
  • Less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant medication and less than one-half of those taking multiple antidepressants have seen a mental health professional in the past year.

I love these statistics. They show how much healthier we are as a result of the mass antidepressant prescription campaign. Thank you Obamacare, for caring so much that you want me and my children to have as many antidepressants as we need. No more sadness for us. We are so fortunate to have real health care in this country; and so fortunate that we may all get even more courtesy of our federal government and caring medical industry. Truly awesome.

I would love to share some interesting, if not telling, “health” statistics with you. Remember from an earlier post that most people in western society use the term health care to describe medical care, but I’ll let you decide how to define things. A big thank you to Don Petersen and Dynamic Chiropractic for alerting me to these numbers.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics study published in September 2011, the percentage of Americans on prescription drugs in a given month has risen from 39.1 percent (1988-94) to 47.2 percent (2005-08). So nearly half of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug!

But wait! It gets better. In the U.S. as of 2008 (you can assume the numbers are even higher today), in any given month:

  • 20.8% of all people are on three or more prescription drugs.
  • 11 %  of all people are on five or more prescription drugs.
  • 25.3%  of children and teens (under the age of 18) are on at least one prescription drug.
  • 52.4%  of all women are on at least one prescription drug.
  • 90.1%  of seniors (ages 65 and older) are on at least one prescription drug.
  • 65%  of seniors are on three or more prescription drugs.
  • 36.7%  of seniors are on five or more prescription drugs.

Nice! And which drugs are Americans popping like Pez?

  • Children (under 12 years of age): asthma (5.7% of children are taking prescription drugs for this), asthma/allergies (3.9% of children), infections (3.7% of children).
  • Teens (ages 12-19): attention deficit disorder (6.1%), asthma (5.4%), antidepressants (4.8%).
  • Adults (ages 20-59): antidepressants (10.8%), pain relief (10.1%), cholesterol-lowering drugs (8.4%).
  • Seniors (60+ years): cholesterol-lowering drugs (44.9%), beta-blockers (26.4%), diuretics (19.9%).
But wait! It gets better. As Don Petersen points out in his article,

“Common over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen (paracetamol) have been found to increase the risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema in children. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are associated with erectile dysfunction. Early antibiotic use increases the risk of asthma and allergies in children. Antidepressants are associated with an increased risk of stroke. For children and adolescents, 90 percent of office visits are ‘associated with unapproved usage of antidepressant medication.’

Finally, a recent study found that expectant mothers who take antidepressants within the year before their babies are born increase the likelihood that the babies will be born with autism. The study found that the risk of a baby being born autistic more than doubled if the mother took antidepressants within a year of the child’s birth. For those mothers who took antidepressants during their first trimester of pregnancy, their babies were almost four times more likely to be born autistic compared to babies of mothers who did not take antidepressants.”

A couple of thoughts before directing you to Don Petersen’s Dynamic Chiropractic video explaining these recent findings. First, let me address the bright side: There are still ~10% of older Americans  (ages 65 and older) on NO drugs! That’s a darn-near miracle considering the massive pressure older people are on to take medications from their doctors, the mass media propaganda, and the inevitable aches, pains and illnesses they encounter (like we all do).

Second, although about half of all Americans are on one medication or another, half are not. Yes, I believe that medications are useful and necessary under certain circumstances, but these numbers tell me that either Americans are sicker than ever before in history (a distinct possibility considering the foods they routinely eat, the amount of soda they ingest, and how many drugs they currently take), OR they are just so indoctrinated by the the medical “health” paradigm that to the American psyche this is health.

In any case, 50% of all Americans are drug free in any given month, so they are experiencing, and hopefully, caring for their health. I guess in today’s pharmaceutical climate that’s something to be grateful for. Watch the video below to get more of an understanding on the current medication stats–forgive me, health stats–for Americans in 2012.

If you want to get a sense of what’s really wrong in health care today, look no further than the Republic of Korea (South Korea).  South Korea is currently a microcosm of the western world with regard to its health care policies, prejudices and oppressions.  Take the current persecution of chiropractic doctors and other health professionals not recognized by Korean law.According to Dynamic Chiropractic:

A World Federation Chiropractic (WFC) press release dated June 30, 2011, the federation notes that the Korean Chiropractic Association, which once boasted upwards of 60 members, “is currently reduced to 17 members because of the hostile environment to chiropractic practice in Korea.” According to the release, the two medical associations have been reporting chiropractors to the police for years and show no signs of letting up.

Sources in South Korea report that the Korean Medical Association (KMA) and Oriental Medical Doctors’ Association (OMDA) are taking measures to rid the country of chiropractic and other alternative disciplines.  The associations are filing formal complaints against doctors of chiropractic and their clinics, and like in the U.S. decades ago, chiropractors are being jailed simply for practicing in accordance with their chosen profession.  Current KCA president, Dr. Taeg Su Choi, has been prosecuted five times since 2003.

Dr. Taeg Su Choi

Chiropractic came to Korea in the early 1990s, when Dr. Yong Serb Song, returned to his homeland from Palmer College of Chiropractic.  The founder and first president of the KCA, Dr. Song was convicted three times, while his son and daughter, fellow Palmer graduates Dr. Joonn-Han (Steven) Song and Su-Hie (Katrina) Song, have also faced prosecution.

Some convicted chiropractors, including Dr. Katrina Song, have appealed to the Constitutional Court, the WFC discloses.  Their argument has been that Koreans have a constitutional right to choose and receive natural forms of health care that relieve pain and suffering, and that chiropractors have a constitutional right to offer those services.  Freakin’ amen and hallelujah!

This type of professional persecution is nothing new to American chiropractors, as many of our ancestors were jailed for providing the–gasp!chiropractic adjustment.  Is anybody else amazed at how powerful a professional organization–like the AMA and KMA–can actually be?  I mean when otherwise upstanding citizens looking to help their fellow man by relieving pain and suffering are jailed, while medical mistakes that actually kill people, and pharmaceutical atrocities (like cooking books, manipulating data, putting out product that hasn’t been approved) are turned the blind-eye, something’s got to be seriously wrong.  Just incredible.

Chiropractors can help their Korean chiropractic brothers and sisters by donating to the KCA here.  Anyone else wishing to help can get more information and also donate here.  Let’s not let another country go the way of the U.S. with a medical monopolization of health care.  Let the people have freedom of choice.

Just to show you that today’s health care is all politics and money, let’s discuss the uproar over new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Thomas Frieden’s latest statement on the six priorities–or winnable battles–that the center should focus on: smoking, AIDS, obesity/nutrition, teen pregnancy, auto injuries and health care infections.

So what’s the uproar?  Think of all the other groups that want political backing and money: cancers, heart disease, eating disorders, mental health…SWINE FLU for crying out loud!  These left out groups just ain’t gonna see the money, baby.

Many advocates, legislators and others in public health have dedicated their lives to problems that did not make Frieden’s short list, so the complaints are rolling in…wah, wah, wah…and you thought health care was just about health.

Part of the problem for the groups left out is that most of Frieden’s “priorities” are long-standing, major challenges that get a lot of attention already.  Like, let somebody else in the club.  Corn nut allergies are grossly overlooked time and time again.

“So is hepatitis C,” cry pundits of this condition.  Heps B and C is are ticking time-bombs ready to explode, according to experts, so why not move smoking to the side for a decade or two?  Isn’t it enough that we’ve banned nearly all public smoking, and have reduced cigarette smokers to ostracized lepers?  


Frieden is known to somewhat shake the system.  As New York City’s health commissioner in 2002, he began by identifying the city’s most pressing health issues, leading campaigns to ban smoking in the workplace, tax soda, cut salt in processed foods, and ban artificial trans fats in restaurants.

Frieden calls his new short list “winnable battles” because, he says, proven programs can save lives and reduce harm from each of these health problems.  He believes government can make dramatic improvements if available money and manpower are focused.

I’ve personally got nothing against the CDC’s fight against “winnable battles.”  I might focus on six different priorities, but Frieden’s choices are certainly noble.   No doubt smoking and poor nutrition/obesity are the cause of numerous health problems.  Auto accidents kill many people unnecessarily, and with texting the new drinking for driving, we are going to have our hands full for quite awhile, I presume.

AIDS, frankly, doesn’t scare me as much as syphilis does, but…well, I’ll just say it…lots of money and politics there.  Reality is that many cases could be prevented through safe sex.  And nobody can convince me that there just aren’t enough free condoms to go around.  Uh huh…and infections continue to soar in certain populations, although we all know better…hmmm.

Health care infections?  Just a part of today’s overuse of medical care.  Got to change a whole paradigm to make a shift there, but the fact that the CDC considers it a priority is a move int he right direction.

I must say that I am pleased at the attention health and health care has been getting nationally.  Everybody is thinking about it these days–good, as it should be.  But I still can’t help but marvel at the bickering among health groups and organizations over which health malady is most important…especially since we all know that would be health maintenance.  But of course.

Ever been out to dinner with drinking friends and been expected to split the bill evenly, despite drinking no wine? Well, looks like health care is the new deadbeat dinner date. According to a new report, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans.

By 2014, the year the new health care bill goes into effect, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. Premiums for young adults is estimated to increase 17% or $42 per month, according to analysis by Rand Health, a research division of the nonpartisan Rand Corp. Nice! The people that use health insurance the least will be expected to pay $504 more per year. Yeah, that’s fair.

Consider 24-year-old Nils Higdon. The self-employed percussionist and part-time teacher in Chicago pays $140 each month for health insurance. But he’s healthy and so far hasn’t needed it. His insurance could go up to $182 per month–$2,184/year. Ask Nils if he’s pleased with this.

“I suppose it all depends on how much more people in my situation, who are already struggling for coverage, are expected to pay,” Higdon says. He’d prefer a single-payer health care system and calls age-based premiums part of the “broken morality” of for-profit health care.

According to Jim O’Connor, an actuary with the independent consulting firm Milliman Inc. “Young males will be hit the hardest,” because they have lower health care costs than young females and older people who go to doctors more often and use more medical services.

However, nationally representative surveys for the Kaiser Family Foundation have consistently found that young adults are more likely than senior citizens to say they would be willing to pay more so that more Americans could be insured. But whether that generosity will endure isn’t clear.

Even Higdon is okay with it overall–he says he supports the principles of the health care overhaul, even if it means he will pay more as a young man to smooth out premium costs for everyone.

Oh well, I guess youth doesn’t understand the financial impact of paying for others until they learn things the hard way–like splitting a $200 dinner bill when all they had was a burger and dinner salad.

Listen up health care reformists: When it comes to mainstream health care–more is less. So says a recent study conducted by the Dartmouth Atlas Project which analyzed data from the government, the American Medical Associations, and the American Hospitals Association. The Project’s findings simply prove my position that America’s health is not dependent on “more health care.”

I recently had a conversation with an ideologue who claimed that what society needs is more health care to serve the people who lack accessibility. I argued, as I do in my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, that what we need is less quantity and more quality when it comes to medical care. You’ve heard me say it again and again in this blog that people do have accessibility to health care in this country. Laws exist which prohibit turning patients away, many hospitals have charity plans, and free clinics are readily available (there is a very busy one just two blocks away from my office near Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles). I also argued that no profession will make itself obsolete–a plumber will find leaks, a business consultant will find flaws, a doctor will find…well, doctor stuff. So obviously, more doctors, more sick people.

Here’s what the study showed: Doctors tend to settle in prosperous cities near medical schools where they studied–think San Francisco, Chicago, New York. San Francisco has 117 primary care doctors per 100,000 residents while less affluent El Paso, Texas has 47.2. At the same time, the availability of hospital beds goes down in more affluent communities. Why? Just like I said, more doctors, more medical care, period. That is not the same as need, understand that; in fact, according to Dr. David Goodman, director at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in New Hampshire,

“While high hospital and physician capacity drives costs upwards, there are many regions that do well with many fewer beds and physicians per capita. Health systems in these lower capacity regions show that efficiency is a partner, not a competitor, of quality.”

So I reiterate, more health care isn’t what this country needs. What would be more appropriate is efficient, high-quality health care, where doctors aren’t hospitalizing people simply because that’s what they do, but instead where they treat illnesses with scrutiny, efficiency, and great care. Perhaps they might start by minimizing antibiotic prescriptions for viral infections, hm? Now that would be efficient.

President Obama and his crew have got this health care thing all wrong. Socializing–damn it, I mean universalizing–health care isn’t the answer. And the data they’re using to come to their conclusions is convoluted.

Take the latest report from the Business Roundtable, a gathering of U.S. CEOs from major companies that provide health insurance to their employees. This meeting produced the usual appeal from American businesses to get medical spending under control. Yeah, no kidding–if you’re footing the bill for hundreds of thousands of people, you’ll want costs to come down significantly. But having the taxpayer pick up the tab isn’t going to change the facts. And the facts are what’s under contention.

The conventional wisdom is that medical care in the U.S. is too expensive. The numbers show that Americans spend $1,928 per capita on health care. That’s two grand a person per year on average. This number is then compared to what’s spent in G-5 countries (Canada, Germany, Great Britain, France and Japan), all with government-funded systems, albeit different from each other. In these countries, the per capita health care spending is $1,100 (all data is from 2006). In the emerging competitive economies, the BIC group–Brazil, India and China–per capita health care spending is about $290. Looking at these numbers, I guess you would conclude that our health care is more expensive and burdensome.

But I think these numbers only tell part of the story. To begin with, I don’t find the BIC group worth comparing. These three countries have huge populations, large numbers of poor people, and they still lag behind the more developed countries in quality of life amenities that we take for granted in the modern western world. This includes health care. In fact, I am certain that hoards of people in those countries have no health care available whatsoever. This isn’t the case in the U.S. where we have free clinics and laws against turning away patients from emergency care.

So, in my opinion, the only worthy comparison is G-5 countries. The only way to know if our care in the U.S. is too costly is to have comparative pricing–that is, we’ve got to know how much mending a fracture is, not only from country to country, but from hospital to hospital. Without that information, we’re shooting blindly in the dark. And how about an overnight hospital stay, or a shot of morphine, or how about a simple doctor’s visit–you know, those useless physicals or whatever it is that we get duped into every year. Without that information, there is simply no way to know what’s too expensive.

Then there is the issue of comfort. Some people demand that their hospital room resemble a suite at the Ritz Carlton. Hey, I’ve got no problem with that concept–money talks and BS walks, so they say (check out how this Japanese mobster got a liver transplant and five-star service in the U.S. for one reason only–cha-ching!). So lowering cost will invariably lower comfort (which I believe will lead to high-priced boutique medical care and private hospitals, and then you’ll really hear the masses scream).

Finally, by the sheer fact that everyone has government-funded insurance, I’m certain that things get pret-ty busy in those G-5 hospitals, probably similar to any big city’s general hospital–you know what I mean, looooong wait times. Swollen elbow? You’re sitting in the waiting room for nine hours, Laddy. My guess is that this keeps only the most critical emergencies from going into the ER. Anything of a lesser severity has to wait for a doctor’s appointment. There you go: controlled visits, controlled costs.

Here’s the real problem as I see it: Americans have been brainwashed–OK perhaps spoiled is a better word–into believing that you run to the doctor for any minor ailment. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to in the last month who have gone to the doctor for antibiotics for that miserable cold and flu that has come upon us–the same one my daughter and I had, and got over with zero medication, just sleep, water and lots of TLC. Listen up people: antibiotics don’t do diddly against the common cold OR the flu–both viruses. So how many of you ran up the nation’s health care costs this month?

And also Americans have immediate access to medical care at any time. Call it an emergency and you can’t be turned away, or the hospital will liable. Can’t pay the bill? Most hospitals have charity plans–they’ll write off your care if you can’t afford it. So add the notion that you’ve got to run to the fancy schmancy hospital or doctor in Century City (Upper East Side, UCSF, whatever) whenever you have a boo boo; and you have the ability to do so no matter what your income level, and what do you think the result will be? You think we might spend a little more money than the Euros who are sitting at home nursing their own colds and flu?

I actually hope we do nationalize the system, because I think it’s the only way Americans will see that it’s their lifestyles that lead to their poor health.

Earlier in the year I wrote a post titled, Are Chiropractors Real Doctors? It has been, by far, my most popular post. The responses were overwhelmingly negative. Aside from the “quack” comments, much was written that I couldn’t keep up–it was nasty, vulgar, insulting, and worst of all, posted entirely by Mr. and Ms. “Anonymous”. That led me to write this post. I, frankly, would have been happy to leave up the nasty comments, and would have loved to respond to them had any author claimed them with a name; but I wasn’t going to get into a debate with a hidden identity–not interested in that.

So what was all the hullabaloo about? The main gist was that chiropractors are NOT real doctors! “Quacks, that’s all,” according to one poster. Well, I think I made my points rather concisely in the blog post, and especially in the concurrent podcast [The Dr. Nick Show (Episode 5)]. But to put a little more weight behind my argument, why not listen to what President-elect Barack Obama has to say on the subject.

In his position statement to the chiropractic profession, he stated:

  • As you know, chiropractic care is low-cost, drug-free, noninvasive, and has been shown to have a positive impact on patients’ health.
  • I believe steps should be taken to acknowledge the important care chiropractors provide, and knock down unreasonable barriers of access and discriminatory insurance coverage that stand between so many patients and the care they need.
  • I have a plan to support doctors of chiropractic. I support expanding the range of chiropractic services covered by Medicare.
  • I support commissioning doctors of chiropractic as officers in the Uniformed Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service…to deliver the nation’s public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science.
  • My health care plan also prioritizes preventive care, and chiropractors play a significant role in this effort. As we shift our health care delivery system towards a culture of wellness and disease prevention, I believe that chiropractors must play an integral role in expanding access to preventive care and strengthening our public health system.

Booyah! There you have it…from the President-elect. To honor this great health-promoting statement by what’s promising to be a great leader, I will leave all comments up on this one, so fire away, Anonymous.

Well, you know what they say, “As Hawaii goes, so does the nation.” OK, nobody really says that. And good thing, too; because judging by what’s just happened in Hawaii with their universal child care program, following suit could be disastrous for American health care.

According to recent reports, Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care system in the country just seven months after it launched. You don’t say…I wonder why. Apparently the program was set up for families who couldn’t afford their own private health insurance; however, many families began dropping their private health insurance to get the freebie. No kidding. Wow, why would they do that? Essentially, the program became unaffordable. Duh.

In another unrelated report, government officials have declared spending on the Medicaid health program for the poor as “unsustainable.” Medicaid benefits will increase by 7.9% per year over the next decade, costing $674 billion by 2017. Woowee! That’s a lot of dough. The program is inflating at a higher rate than the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement, “This report should serve as an urgent reminder that the current path of Medicaid spending is unsustainable for both federal and state governments.”

Yeah. Well, I can’t see a proposed national universal health care plan being any different. For a country as large and addicted to medical care as the good ol’ U.S. of A, the price tag for such a program will be astronomical. Good campaign slogan, poor idea overall. Listen, I’ve got nothing against helping people who can’t afford this and that, but the problem in health care isn’t that people have no access to it–people have access, it’s called Medicaid (50 million cardholders and counting)–it’s that people in this country have become overly reliant on medical care.

This concept is a major premise of my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health. People have simply neglected their health for years. We are one of the most unhealthy industrialuzed countries on the planet. Why? Because people don’t have access to medical care? BS! Walk into any big city ER on a Saturday night. I did it three weeks ago when my daughter was being born, it was packed–packed!–with low income citizens. Go ahead, walk into Cedar Sinai in Beverly Hills on a Saturday night; you’ll see the truth. People have access to care. The bottom line is that the average American takes very little care of their health. THAT’S WHY WE ARE HAVING A HEALTH CARE CRISIS! Not because we don’t have universal health care. It doesn’t matter if we do get this type of system; until people make a conscious effort to change their lifestyles into one of movement, wholesome eating, regular bodywork, proper sleep, mental balnce and conditioning, and toxin avoidance, HEALTH CARE COST WILL CONTINUE TO SOAR!

The only thing we are going to get with a universal health care system is more cost for the taxpayer, to pay for the health care of the people down the street who continue to neglect their health. Mark my words.

You know how I feel about our current health care system–fabulous in many regards, but definitely in need of changes. One obvious change needs to be the enormous waste that goes on in the U.S. hospital system. Along with that needs to be better measures toward curbing medical mistakes, now one of the leading causes of death in this country.

But times, they are a changing: Recent reports disclose that Medicare, the nation’s federal health insurer, will stop paying for medical errors and waste starting October 1, 2008. Whoa. Like what, exactly? Preventable hospital errors that will no longer be covered by Medicare are, among other things, catheter-caused urinary tract infections, injuries from falls, and objects left in the body after surgery. The rationale from Medicare is that not only will hitting hospitals in the wallet press them to tighten up on mistakes, but it will also lower costs, as the government estimates the cost of errors to be $10,000 to $100,000 per mistake, which usually gets tacked on to the patient’s bill ($9.3 billion in excess charges per year). Doh! Next year, there will be three more errors added to the no-pay list–ventilator-caused pneumonia and drug-resistant staph infections head up the list–and Medicare believes that it will save the government $190 million over five years.

Well I guess I have mixed feelings about this latest news out of the federal government. Overall, I think it is a smart move. There is way too much nonchalance about standard medical procedures. For instance, the Medicare report disclosed that 25% of all hospitalized patients receive urinary catheters as standard procedure, despite the fact that many don’t need them. Catheters trigger more than half a million urinary tract infections annually, the most common hospital-caused infection. Ouch! Even worse is that many catheters are left in longer than needed, causing infections. Last year, the University of Michigan conducted the first national study of catheter practices and found that almost 50% of hospitals don’t keep track of which patients get one–now that’s carelessness. Double ouch!

So, as I said, overall it’s a good idea: Money talks; and when you threaten to withhold funds, it’s amazing how fast things get fixed. But I am a bit ambivalent for two reasons. First, it might lead to hospitals and doctors hiding mistakes–not a comforting notion. And when the pressure is on, people and organizations have a way of rationalizing their decisions, even if those decisions lead to mistakes, and that might not be good for consumers. The other thing that worries me, especially as a health care provider, is that the insurance companies might use this move by Medicare to rationalize their own denial of claims. Medical insurers do as Medicare does, and they are notorious for using any weapon at their disposal to withhold payment of claims; because for them, it really is all about the money.

So I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Nothing comes without problems: All good things come with complications, this situation being no different. But, all in all, we need to decrease the amount of medical mistakes taking the lives of Americans annually–it’s just way too high. We have the greatest medical system in the world; it just doesn’t make sense to lose so many people to medical mistakes; 82% of the deaths caused by medical mistakes are preventable, so why not nip them in the bud now? I guess that’s what Medicare is trying to do. We’ll have to see how it turns out, but I’m guessing it’s the right move to make.

 They say we’re in a health care crisis. Everywhere we turn we hear that our system is failing. I would disagree. In fact, I would say that based on the current health paradigm in which we now live, our system works beautifully, and there is nothing to fix.

Huh?!?! Has Campos finally lost his mind?

Hardly. Let me say this loud and clear: WE ARE NOT IN A HEALTH CARE CRISIS. We are in a conceptual crisis–a crisis of paradigms, if you will. Our current approach to health is to take it for granted until something goes wrong, then to run to the doctor or hospital to get cured.

Please tell me what’s wrong with our current system in context of this conceptualization of health care. It’s too expensive? Hey, it costs money to save lives. You think drug research, organ removal training, or high-resolution imaging diagnostics come cheap. Why should the medical industry spend years and years studying, researching and developing, and billions of dollars in funding just to give it away free? Think about that real hard.

Let me add even more perspective–why would you spend years studying in college, and many more years learning a business or craft, no matter what the discipline, to not earn a reasonable and proper paycheck today? Dry cleaning is too expensive! Restaurants are too expensive? Hair stylists are too expensive? Fix these industries! They’re too damn expensive! (Where’s Michael Moore when you really need him?)

Case in point: A new study shows that when women have to pay a portion of a medical bill in the form of a co-payment (sometimes as low as $10), the number who go in for regular mammograms decreases substantially. What the…? This is mind-blowing to me. Women who’d rather not get screened for a life-threatening and essentially preventative (if caught early enough) cancer (breast) to save ten bucks is just incomprehensible. But I think it’s more prevalent a practice than we know right now–among all genders, races, ages, and socioeconomic classes. I see it in my own practice all the time. Does this mean the system needs to be fixed? Well the Federal government seems to be buckling to the pressure–Medicare is now considering waving co-payments for routine mammograms. Hmmm.

The reality is that if we want something more out of health care, we need to put more into our own health. Period. It’s the concept of taking responsibility for our own health; not relying on the government or our employer to foot the bill for our neglect. This is a new way, and one which I heavily believe in and promote. Take better care of yourself and your health care costs will go down. I’ve had one major medical and one major dental situation in the last two years. I paid a pretty penny for sure (about $5,000 total) to get them taken care of. And guess what? It was worth it. You think I just had the money lying around begging for a place to spend it?–oh, wouldn’t that be nice. Sorry, no fat chance–it hurt coming up with the dough. But it was still worth it.

My point is this: Take care of yourself. It will minimize your need for medical care. When something does come up–and it will–your catastrophic medical coverage will come in handy, but it won’t cost you an arm and a leg during more healthy times. Not doing the things necessary to maintain good health in the meantime is just dollar dumb. You might save a penny today, but you’ll be a big contributor to the false notion that our current non-health system needs fixing.

I try. I really do. But sometimes I just can’t help it. As much as I want to leave the political stuff to political writers, every once in a while I’ve got to speak up. According to findings of a new study, education levels and socioeconomic status have important yet different effects on health.

According to the study, a person’s education level independently (when adjusted for income) determined a person’s likelihood of becoming ill or disabled. OK, no problem there. We know that the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she will know which behaviors are health enhancing and which are detrimental. Further, more education leads to a better understanding of various and alternative therapies, thus leading to a greater probability of self-empowerment when it comes to one’s health.

Socioeconomic status, on the other hand, determined how a person’s illness would progress. Whether an illness became chronic and how likely a person was to die during the study also depended on one’s income level. For instance, ill or disabled people with annual incomes below $10,000 were three times more likely of their illness progressing than people earning $30,000 or more per year. Also no surprises here, as lower income individuals are less likely to seek out or afford quality health care.

However, here is what I take exception to: According to Dr. Pamela Herd of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the study’s lead author, the findings are “really about the way that poverty has negative ramifications for health,” noting that poor people may live in worse housing, have a more difficult time obtaining healthy foods, and have a tougher time getting health care. And poverty can increase stress levels, she adds, which in itself can worsen health.

Uh, and how about the other factor? Like how being financially stable, let alone wealthy, requires focus, discipline, and plenty of blood, sweat, and tears. All the same things needed to achieve and maintain good health. It also requires being proactive and empowering oneself in many areas including education, finance, professional life, social life, family life, and spiritual life. How about that?

I know that’s not the PC thing to say. Oh no, it’s much more correct to say that being “stuck” in poverty is a form of victimization; poor people being at the mercy of circumstance, of which they have very little, if any, control at all. Moreover, for one to pull oneself out of poverty, or at least survive, is highly dependent on social and governmental change. I guess this means socialized…oops, I mean universal health care. Says Dr. Herd, “We already know what people need to do to be healthier. What we talk about a lot less is what kind of structural changes need to be made for people’s health to improve.”

What a bunch of baloney. No doubt, education and economic levels enormously influence health. But I hardly think it’s because people don’t have medical care at their fingertips. Hell, in a lot of ways, those that don’t are the lucky ones; at least they can investigate other options. More likely, those people who diligently focus on their mental growth, and in turn their financial growth (even if it’s relatively modest), also focus on their physical health (to varying degrees, of course). And, in general, they probably treat their health with the same care and discipline that they approach other aspects of their lives.

There, I’ve said it and I’m sticking by it. This isn’t a belligerent bout of insensitivity at all; no sir. It’s an observation that any type of growth requires work–hard work–as well as focus, discipline, and a burning desire for evolution, despite one’s obstacles (we’ve all got obstacles, and money is simply one of the many in existence). Achieving and maintaining great health also requires these same things. And the power is in the individual. Everything else is just a cop out.

Just another blow to American health care. New reports show the U.S. slipping in life expectancy rankings compared to other countries of the world. In my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, I point out that the World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. 37th out of 191 nations with regard to overall health. And now we’ve fallen to number 42 on the life expectancy chart with countries such as Jordan, Guam, and the Caymen Islands ranking ahead of us.

Can anybody else see the paradox in all of this? How can one of the richest nations in the world, the most technologically advanced, and the most medically innovative fall so low on the world health scale? Some very important people in health care and politics (as well as one obnoxious film maker) believe it’s because we do not have socialized health care. But is it?

Let’s look at the facts. The biggest killers in this country are heart disease and cancer, both preventable conditions, not a lack of medical care. Perhaps, a lack of access leads to a few less saved lives, but these people are still having heart attacks. The problem, once again, has to do with our current health paradigm. It’s all about saving the lives of people who are dying, rather than preserving the lives of people who are living, before they get ill. Duh. What’s so hard about that concept? Why don’t these brilliant policy makers see that? I just don’t get it.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t focus on saving lives – heck no. Please save my life, my wife’s, or my daughter’s if you can. Please! I’m ever so grateful for having the best system in the world for doing that (there is no denying that we are at the very top in saving lives in the U.S.). But we are talking about health and life expectancy here. Very different concepts indeed. Health and life expectancy depend on what we do to take care of ourselves, not how quickly you can perform a bypass surgery on Mr. Jones, whose left anterior descending artery is clogged shut.

If we continue to make the process of saving lives the focus of health, then we’re fighting a losing battle. Don’t get me wrong, innovation in the medical sciences will continue to flourish, and newer, more incredible ways to save lives will be discovered for years to come. And it will continue to be a trillion, maybe even quadrillion, dollar industry. You certainly can’t complain about that. However, if we are to ever raise our position within the world health rankings, then we will need to start by focusing on the basics – that is, doing the things that preserve and optimize health; diet, exercise, bodywork, rest, and so on. There isn’t a better place to start than by learning how, and I know of a great source coming out this fall that can guide you purposefully. Stay tuned for more.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.