TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.04.2008
McCain: U.S. Health Care Is Just Dandy

John McCain's new health care advertisements states--not once but twice--that the problem with American health care isn't the quality. The problem, he says, its its high cost--and how that high cost frequently makes it inaccessible. You can see the ad here, via Marc Ambinder.

He'll get no argument from me on the second part: Cost and access are indeed huge problems. If only he dealt with them adequately! (For more on this, see Ezra.)

But quality is a huge problem, too. In fact, the problems of cost and quality are closely related.

I could explain why, but I thought TNR readers might benefit from hearing from a real expert on this. So I asked Shannon Brownlee, author of superb book Overtreated, what she thinks of the ad. Her response:

John McCain telling the American people that there isn’t a problem with the quality of our health care has got to be causing at least a little cognitive dissonance right now. Anybody who has spent any time in the hospital as a patient or as the family member of a patient knows better. Our “high-quality” system kills between 40,000 and 90,000 people through avoidable medical error, and harms another 400,000 with side effects from drugs. Then there’s the little problem of unneeded care, which consumes 30 percent of our health care dollars and puts patients at unnecessary risk. What McCain should have said is health care is a leading cause of death in this country, and we need to improve the quality as well as make it more affordable and available.

The really weird part here is that, as I wrote a while ago, the most redeeming part of McCain's health care plan were his promises to tinker with Medicare payment formulas so that they provided incentives for higher quality care--an idea that Shannon, among others, has advocated in the past. But I guess the McCain policy shop, such that it is, doesn't have much pull with the communications department.

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:55 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Annabella2 said:

The health care delivery system in the Us is broken more ways to Sunday... too many people uninsured, too much burden on employers, not enough preventive medicine, too much spent on unnecessary tests to avoid malpractice claims no computerized medical records... as well as the problems Cohn points out... so chalk up another one for McCain being out of touch with what concerns voters... that and as much time in Iraq as necessary when he himself said we couldn't stay indefinitely before he said we must... The Democrats should get their nominee in place and start taking some of this nonsense on... it is amazing that he still has any image as a reasonable man...

May 1, 2008 2:16 AM

aeromonas said:

Hmmm.  

I'm a doctor, and as I've noted several times on this site I've spent years working both in the US and in Australia's universally free, public health system.  I support a move to a system of single payer, universal heath insurance in the US, and I consider McCain's assertions that access isn't a problem both false and politically obtuse.  I also think his approach to cost-containment is simple-minded and doomed to failure.  In fact, I rather doubt McCain has any intention about doing anything whatsoever about health care in America.  He's just blowing smoke.  

With that said, I'm not sure that your response focussed upon medical errors and unnecessary treatment is entirely on target.  Medical errors are a big problem, but you'll have to show me some data before you can convince me that they're a bigger problem in the US than in any other country with a comparably advanced health care system.  For sure, if you give more treatment, almost of necessity you'll give more erroneous treatment.  For a while I worked in an ICU.  We stuck all sorts of needles and tubes into our patients and gave lots of potent medications to thin the blood and support the blood pressure and keep patients sedated and sometimes paralyzed.  Every so often, somebody would screw up and do the wrong thing--I know that I dropped at least one patient's lung putting in a central line--and a small proportion of the time such screw-ups would have fatal consequences.  Contrast that with Namibia, where I worked for a while more recently.  In the public heath system in Namibia, covering the vast bulk of that nation's 2 million people, there are exactly four ICU beds.  As a result, vanishingly few Namibians die as a result of ICU-related medical errors.  Instead they die of congestive heart failure, asthma, gallstone pancreatitis and a hundred other conditions that would be fairly easy to manage in a modern ICU.  

Also, how are you defining unnecessary treatment?  The "necessity" of various treatments seems to me a nebulous concept indeed.  Here's an example: Two patients each have an ankle sprain.  By any objective measure, the injuries are of identical severity.  One patient is offered analgesic medication and he declines, and he declines saying he'll be fine without it.  He won't even take a Tylenol.  He goes home on crutches, ices the joint, and in a few days he's back to work and even taking a light jog around the block.  The second patient, on the other hand is in the emergency department writhing in pain.  He refuses so much as to touch his toe to the floor.  The only way to get him to stop crying is to give him a shot of morphine, and the only way to get him home is with a script for oxycodone.  A week later he's still not bearing weight on the ankle and his family doctor makes a referral to a physical therapist.  After two months of PT and going off and on and off opiates with several visits to the doctor with blood tests and an MRI scan of the joint to rule out some serious underlying pathology such as a bone infection or malignancy, patient 2 is finally back to some semblance of normality.  Now, I ask you, was patient 2's several thousand dollars worth of treatment necessary or not?  There are some advanced health care systems where at least some of that treatment would have been omitted.  There are a lot of places where he wouldn't have been able to get an MR scan.   And it's a dead certainty--in retrospect--that the MRI scan did him not a bit of good.  But does that mean it was "unnecessary?"  A sizable minority of people who present with persistent ankle pain will have something seriously wrong underlying it, and I know a lot of us would be pretty steamed if we had a late diagnosis of limb-threatening osteomyelitis or life-threatening cancer when there was a completely non-invasive test (MRI) that could have diagnosed it earlier.  

May 1, 2008 8:00 AM

roidubouloi said:

Thank you aeromonas.  Such a pleasure to read something from someone who knows what he is talking about.

May 1, 2008 8:54 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Wait....so if we quote him saying that US healthcare is great, will the RNC sue us? Will the Associated Press write an article calling us all liars? Are they working on a story righht now about how Virginia Centrist, evil liar commenter on TNR, is lying about John McCain, the greatest man who ever lived?

May 1, 2008 9:11 AM

ratnerstar said:

Excellent post, aeromonas.  I was going to ask the same questions, although with less sophistication as I have very little knowledge of the health industry.  But when people throw out raw numbers like that, I immediately get suspicious.  40,000 people die due to avoidable medical error?  Where did that number come from?  How does it compare to other countries?  What is the percentage of error vs. overall treatment?

May 1, 2008 9:12 AM

virginiacentrist said:

One more thing:

What an out of touch prick. This is a real issue where we can nail him for being a rich bastard. While the top level care in the US is unquesionably better than other countries, that's only available for the top level citizenry.

A friend recently told me: "The election will come down to this: Who will learn first? Will Barack Obama learn how to connect with culturally conservative white voters? Or will John McCain learn how to talk about the economy?"

I'm betting on Obama. You can't teach an old man new tricks.

May 1, 2008 9:13 AM

Jonathan Cohn said:

aeromonas -

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest quality in other countries is better than it is here.  I've seen some surveys from the Commonwealth Fund to suggest that; in particular, the countries with centralized electronic medical records (Taiwan, for example) may have lower rates of medical errors. But I can't say it's true with any serious confidence.

No, my point was simpler: Just that quality here *isn't* great and that suggesting as much is really misleading.

As for your deeper critique, Shannon is the real expert--which is why I kicked it over to her. She addresses these very questions in her work. I'd check out her book, if you haven't alraady, or at least google some of her work.

Reasonable people can, I think, disagree about the finer points of her argument. But most people I know think she's basically on target.

May 1, 2008 9:47 AM

virginiacentrist said:

"Just that quality here *isn't* great and that suggesting as much is really misleading."

Not only that, but suggesting as much demonstrates a lack of compassion.

May 1, 2008 10:08 AM

dhauck said:

As I clicked on the TalkBack link, I was actually thinking, "Jeez, man, raw numbers can be made to say anything - I wonder what aeromonas would have to say about them?"  Now I know.  Thanks for the insight.

May 1, 2008 12:45 PM