In the article, “A Case of Getting What You Pay For,” by David Brown of the Washington Post, Mr. Brown discusses the advances of treatment for coronary heart disease, or more commonly known as heart attacks and acute myocardial infarction, which are the greatest components. This year, $93 billion of the total $2.3 trillion spent on medical care in the United States, is directly related to coronary heart disease. Today, 35% of deaths in America each year are attributed to cardiovascular disease.
That statistic may seem alarming, but over the past 20 years, Mr. Brown discusses that medical success in treating someone with a heart attack has risen greatly. However, that does not come without a hefty price. In 1977 the bill for treating a heart attack was $5,700 and in 2007 that same bill can cost a patient $54,000 without adjusting for inflation. However in 1977 the chance of dying within the first week after a heart attack was between 30%-40% but now that chance of dying is an amazing 6%.
This shows that over the past 20 years, doctors have been able to reduce the chance of death after a heart attack by 500%, however the costs have clearly risen. This is due to massive spending, research, and testing, but it clearly comes with a hefty price.
The issue Mr. Brown raises is, with 47 million people uninsured who would not be able to finance a procedure to save themselves from a heart attack, where do these people fall in with the new health-care reform? Will the health-care reform be able to accommodate newly insured people who have a heart attack at such a great expense? And even for those people who are insured, but could not afford insurance for heart attacks, where do they fall in line?
Should the health-care reform, that would provide insurance for all, apply to people with heart attacks, and at what cost? Yes, medical advances are continually validating the money invested in saving people with coronary heart disease, but can the new bill realistically support these people?
No comments:
Post a Comment