Dan L. writes:
There seems to be a singular focus on case count along with some mentionRW response:
of deaths. Is there anywhere to track how many of the identified cases
require hospitalization? I would assume it is very low, maybe even lower
than the death rate (currently less than .5% here in NY). I'd like to
use this stat to counteract some of the panic in the family. I
appreciate your efforts through this situation.
I am not aware of any other than anecdotal reports.
However, I would caution about any data coming out of hospitals.
As far as I am concerned they are one of the biggest scamming industries in America. Probably the worst. They will distort numbers whenever it makes opportunistic sense for them to do so and I would think overflow capacity during this COVID-19 panic is a sweet song for them to sing.
Just consider the outrageous fees they charge individuals without insurance and the significantly lower fees they charge insurance companies for the same procedure. This is nothing but a crony deal between hospitals and insurance healthcare companies to push individuals toward buying health insurance.
Hospital administration is truly despicable. The sector is literally playing with people's health and lives for crony gains.
Just keep in mind, there were more hospitals (7,156) in America in 1975 than there are now (6,210).
How does that happen when during the same period the population has climbed by 114 million from 216 million to 330 million. It's all about shady stuff going on between hospitals, insurance companies and government.
While I completely agree with the sentiment there is a hyper projections and reaction this situation... I think a reasonable assumption there are less hospitals, even with a larger population, is that the system is more efficient.
ReplyDelete* Outpatient surgeries are very common now
* Many surgeries can be done much less obtrusively than before, much smaller incision point.
* New medicines cure faster and medical treatments are more effective preventing hospitalizations.
Please study how government mandated changes to hospital stays and insurance payments have been made.
DeleteThat is when the decline in hospitals started--mostly local hospitals.
There are efficiencies but having fewer hospitals across the country which makes it more difficult for the sick and elderly to get to them makes no sense and that is what has been going on--a cut in local hospitals---which you think would boom with all the new efficiencies.
Not to mention that the crony deals with the insurance companies pretty much spelled then of charity hospitals. Now only hospitals that are big business can survive.
DeleteAnalysis would have to be extensive to give further insight... Is the number of beds a better data point rather than hospitals? Some hospitals expanded significantly, adding beds. Many local hospitals, such as in rural areas like my home state of Iowa, have closed by a number of factors, including: availability of doctors to live in rural communities. Many doctors commute 60+ miles going around to multiple hospitals/clinics from a central hub, like Omaha or Des Moines. Plus capital investment necessary for hospitals to provide certain care is prohibitive. (think MRI, CT, etc.).
ReplyDeleteGeneral populations in rural Iowa towns that formally had hospitals have declined, thus hospitals closed. My parents travel 70 miles each way multiple times per month for medical visits. Now, mind you, there are certainly regulations that cause the high tech medical devices to be so expensive, which clearly keeps the small hospitals in rural areas from installing them. And regulations for licensing keeps the number of doctors down, causing shortages in rural areas.
This is all the analysis you need:
Delete" My parents travel 70 miles each way multiple times per month for medical visits."
This would never happen in a free market.
I'm sure that the CON requirements in most states are also responsible for there being fewer hospitals than we would see in a free market.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“Just consider the outrageous fees they charge individuals without insurance and the significantly lower fees they charge insurance companies for the same procedure. This is nothing but a crony deal between hospitals and insurance healthcare companies to push individuals toward buying health insurance.”
I have experienced the opposite. I have paid for treatments that were not covered by insurance. I was charged less than what was to be charged to the insurance company.
DeleteI was thinking the same thing. I thought that hospitals charge less to uninsured individuals, and more to insurance companies (third-party payers, which are a reason for rising prices).
I have responded here: THE BIG SCAM: Understanding How Hospitals Price Individuals Versus Healthcare Insurance Companies
DeleteWhy are we continuing with the needless medical martial law?
ReplyDeleteWe have enough data and research now to know this may actually cause the virus to spread faster from the information from China & the Princess Cruise ship and also the counter examples of S Korea & Japan who did not do lockdowns.
Again, read the CDC & WHO data on this in the Ginn report.
Asymptomatic transmission (people passing it on without knowing it) occurs in only 10% of the cases
The data from China suggests 78-85% of the cases occur from someone within the home.
The worst policy possible is "lockdown" because the virus spreads best in
confined spaces when people are trapped inside for several hours.
Which is exactly the course of action several states & cities have done in major metro areas. This is either blind stupidity, "cover my back" mentality on steroids, or a political & government power grab beyond all imagination
It's almost if they want people to get sick and/or die to wrack up a huge "panic" count. Yes, I know all state operators including Trump are out for more government & more personal political power but leftist Governors & Mayors seem to be willing to even kill to make sure that people know "Orange Man Bad"!