I missed this at the time, but it's never too late.
For-Profit Hospitals Cost More -Canadian Study
Speaking of new efficiencies, I saw a nifty book in Paragraphe that I must track down: Prescription for Excellence, by Michael Rachlis.
For-Profit Hospitals Cost More -Canadian Study
"In Canada, there has been an intense debate for a number of years now over whether we should move beyond our current not-for-profit health care facility," [Dr. P.J. Devereaux, chief investigator] said.Is this the answer to our medicare problems? Sadly, no -- but it's more evidence that suggests that we should think carefully before we mess with our current system. Medicare isn't as broken as some people would like to think.
"We all want to know what is the most effective way to deliver health care," he added. "It should be driven by evidence, not people's ideology."
Devereaux and colleagues earlier showed that for-profit hospitals had higher death rates.
"The reality is that for-profits face significant economic challenges. The first is they have to generate revenues that will satisfy shareholders," Devereaux said.
"Second, they have high executive bonuses. Thirdly, they are very top-heavy and have high administrative costs. Also, they have to pay taxes. That is a lot of extra money that they have to come up with," Devereaux added.
"Instead of finding new efficiencies, folks were cutting corners in quality health care, and also people were having to pay more for care."
- The article
- Editorial in CMAJ
Speaking of new efficiencies, I saw a nifty book in Paragraphe that I must track down: Prescription for Excellence, by Michael Rachlis.
oh look at that...
Date: 2004-06-16 11:18 pm (UTC)*snerk*
Followed quickly by a *STERN LOOK*
And here I was lecturing Kate for not being in bed 2 hours ago (ie: 12:30 your time). At least SHE was at HOME....
Have a great visit with everyone!
Re: oh look at that...
Date: 2004-06-16 11:21 pm (UTC)Also done with work. I think.
I reckon it's too late to call Kate now. If she sees this tomorrow, she will understand.
Did I mention that taking 2 days off should not be this big a production? Actually, in terms of hours worked, I've just done a 4-day week. And that's allowing for slacking off on LJ and food and things. Ugh.
Re: oh look at that...
Date: 2004-06-16 11:27 pm (UTC)Won't keep you longer, 'cept to send you {{Hugs}} and sleep vibes.
I'll save the lectures for later. But no, it should NOT be this big a production. Bad work. BAD I tell you!
Re: oh look at that...
Date: 2004-06-21 04:51 pm (UTC)But, new editor! No help for me, but it means 2 new writers instead of only 1! Hurray!
Re: oh look at that...
Date: 2004-06-16 11:28 pm (UTC)Sleep well! and enjoy TO, say happy b-day to Jen for me!
no subject
Date: 2004-06-18 07:25 pm (UTC)You might want to check out the latest Economist (for rural West Aus - it's probably a couple of weeks old). They had an article on Canada (!) and health care costs.... that lent the other way.
Ta,
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 04:50 pm (UTC)Of course, you can basically play with the numbers until you're blue in the face. The concern SHOULD be on how to make whatever system you're using better, but TPTB so often seem to overlook that...
no subject
Date: 2004-06-22 01:21 am (UTC)It's difficult trying to estimate costs... for example here in rural West Aus, the flying doctors will fly you to Perth for serious treatment. Higher costs are incurred when the person is in the bush and they have to be found.
Unusually common stories are of children walking for 20 k's or more to find the nearest settlement to be able to contact medical assistance for something that's happened to one of their siblings or parents. It can be incredibly expensive to have an accident in the bush...
Off to work, for the second time today...