Israel's Health Care: A Comparison
Among the many blogs I read, there is one that focuses on Michigan politics that I very much enjoy. The author appears conservative/Republican, but his blog does stick to issues and I find it very thought provoking. He addresses some health care issues here.
There is an interesting discussion brewing over nationalized or socialized medicine in the US. Israel has some good ideas that seem to be working, and though it isn't perfect (what is?), maybe the US needs to think about what other countries are doing right. I have no doubt the insurance executives are having fits over any debate on this subject.
Kol Tuv
posted by Shlomo Leib Aronovitz @ 1:07 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Shlomo, that was an informative article in the link to the Jewish Journal of Greater L.A. by Mordechai Shani. Without redundantly copying the entire text (on your blog ;), it's interesting to note a few of his main points:
"In the United States today, more than 43 million people, including 12 million children, are uninsured.
In the United States, more than 100 million citizens are *underinsured* — including 40 million with Medicare, 50 million with Medicaid and at least 10 million who are employed in large companies that have self-insurance.
The main health care delivery system for all Israelis is through primary and secondary clinics. These clinics, which are present throughout the country, provide easy and efficient access to care."
He mentions that 95 % percent of general care hospitals in Israel are public, and that "caring for the elderly is a core social policy and an integral part of health care in Israel".
We certainly CAN learn a lot from the Israeli government's model in this respect: they actually value the health of their citizens! Apparently, the U.S. government is actively showing us they are more concerned with the investments ($$$) and funding at stake from private sectors with a vested interest in treating the healthcare industry as just another lucrative "business as usual"...
Working in healthcare, I have seen some repercussions of these facts firsthand and the dire need for a radical reform in our system-- primarily a shift from private to public. I resent that the U.S. government continues to allow their financial interests to interfere with meeting the true needs of U.S. citizens. It amounts to nothing more than gambling with the future of our nation.
AC,
Please feel free to share with us some of the problems you encounter. I would really like to hear from the 'front lines.'
Thanks.
I may sound like the nurse who blows the whistle on healthcare: what Morgan Spurlock is to the cursed fast food industry (He produced the documentary "Super Size Me"--watch it. It's hilarious!)
Instead of giving juicy generalities about how pharmaceutical companies sponsor hospitals for kickbacks and promotion of their products (hehe), I'm first going to give you an example I see constantly in my own "microcosm" of the hospital. I see that care is compromised and skimped on according to which floors/units are the most lucrative. For example a cardiology floor has patients who come in to be monitored on EKGs if they have had chest pain or a recent procedure. The patients truly fall into the acute care category, but their floor is the big money maker of the facility... therefore they are adequately staffed. Go figure. The same for medical-surgical floors where a patient recovers for several days after surgery and goes home (QUICKLY I would add, if insurance companies have their say...)
However, oncology (cancer) and hematology is with the exception of ICU, perhaps the busiest unit in the hospital and the patients are easily some of the sickest. Our unit performs stem cell transplants which is a fairly new and risky procedure and requires strict isolation and monitoring afterward. Average length of stay also exceeds that of most patients and can turn into weeks or even months. Often our unit must "eat the cost" for some necessary treatments and procedures that insurance companies refuse to cover. The unit is continually, deliberately restricted in the number of staff we are allotted. This might sound like "the resounding cry of all nurses", but I've floated to other floors in the hospital and had the chance to compare. I can assure you that oncology patients NEED every extra pair of hands we can find. Things can turn on a dime in their treatment: their blood counts fall extremely low, they are at high risk for bleeding, infection and sepsis, and routinely need to be transfused with blood products. Radiation treatments, administering chemotherapy (which of course, is toxic) and use of additional I.V. antibiotics presents a whole world of risks and patients need close monitoring.
I do ($$$) and yet I absolutely DON'T understand why staff/patient ratio should be dependent on how much money a particular unit makes. This isn't supposed to be a crapshoot; it's people's lives we're dealing with!
Shouldn't a hospital function as a unit, not be divided up like a cake? It seems some layers get the icing and some don't!
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it" --Albert Einstein
AC,
Wow. That is shocking.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home