New York Times highlights Richmond’s health care
Remember back on October when the New York Times spent 36 hours in Richmond? Well, it seems the folks in the Big Apple are still pretty interested in what we’re up to. In an article published yesterday, David Leonhardt examined the current state of our health care system. At the heart of the health care […]
Remember back on October when the New York Times spent 36 hours in Richmond?
Well, it seems the folks in the Big Apple are still pretty interested in what we’re up to.
In an article published yesterday, David Leonhardt examined the current state of our health care system.
At the heart of the health care debate is the question of whether it’s possible to cut medical costs without harming patients. What has happened here in Richmond helps to answer that question.
Since 1996, the Richmond area has lost more than 600 of its hospital beds, mostly because of state regulations on capacity. Several hospitals have closed, and others have shrunk. In 1996, the region had 4.8 hospital beds for every 1,000 residents. Today, it has about three. Hospital care has been, in a word, rationed.
Neither the House health reform bill nor the Senate version would impose any such reductions on the nation’s hospitals. But the basic idea behind the bills’ cost-control measures is similar. They would try to slow the growth of medical treatments, be it through new rules for Medicare, a Cadillac tax on the costliest insurance plans or other measures.
So take a glimpse at what our future may look like:
The quality of care in Richmond is better than in most American metropolitan areas, according to various measures, and it continues to improve. Medicare data, for example, shows that Richmond hospitals do a better-than-average job of treating heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.
When I recently asked patients in Richmond whether they felt as if their care had been rationed, they found the question bizarre. “I feel like there’s nothing cheap about the care,” Janet Binns, a retired school district employee, said. After her elderly father fell down one morning, she e-mailed a doctor and was on the phone with him in minutes.
Yet when it comes to health care costs, Richmond’s rationing has made a clear difference. In 1992, it spent somewhat less than average, per capita, on Medicare — 126th lowest out of 305 metropolitan areas nationwide. Since then, though, costs have risen at a significantly slower pace than they have elsewhere. As a result, Richmond had the 39th lowest costs in 2006.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Valerie Catrow
Valerie Catrow is editor of RVAFamily, mother to a mop-topped first grader, and always really excited to go to bed.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
I take great issue with the article.
For one thing, the question at the heart of the health care debate is NOT (N-O-T) whether its possible to cut medical costs without harming patients. The question is if can we supply a basic modicum of care for everyone without harming patients and/or bankrupting the country. Because we are still one of the wealthiest countries in the world (despite our growing national debt), I think its safe to say we can do it without bankrupting the country, especially since poorer countries all over the world already provide good examples.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that the article does not detail just how much ‘free’, indigent health care is provided by VCU/MCV to area patients. Again, the fact that many of Richmond’s homeless are able to get treated gratis in the emergency room, while working citizens have to figure out their insurance while bleeding and negotiating a complex system, has a huge effect on the overall state of our health care. I am not trying to discriminate against the homeless, who I have sympathy for, but I am trying to show how it is impossible to discuss this rationally without acknowledging the huge distortions in access. I would also note the high salaries that VCU/MCV and other hospital doctors and administrators make.
As for the certificate-of-need debate, the state is in control- so much for ‘free market’! But what is really interesting is when private doctors AND THEIR AILING PATIENTS have to plead before the General Assembly for the ability to create new facilities. Richmond is a (major) city and capital, but rural areas have difficulty getting MRI’s and even mobile MRI’s- patients often have to travel to Richmond for care. Its an issue that deserves more attention.
The NYT, like most of the country’s mainstream media continues to frame the health care debate in a way that will not challenge the health insurance industry and hospital corporations- the very entities that stand in the way of getting this country the prescription it needs- universal, single payer health care- the type of health care system the REST OF THE WORLD uses.
I think there’s an opening for the position of Surgeon General, Scott.