4 years in office and babies are dying in increasing numbers.

[scrapinpeg]

Reuters reports on this issue:

Low Birth Weights Fuel Infant Mortality Rise -CDC
Mon Jan 24, 2005 01:12 PM ET

By Paul Simao

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A jump in the number of babies born at abnormally low birth weights was the main reason why the U.S. infant mortality rate rose in 2002 for the first time in 44 years, according to a federal study released on Monday.

Almost 500 more babies weighing less than 1 lb, 10.5 oz, or 750 grams, were born in 2002, compared to 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report.

The majority born at this weight die within a year, the Atlanta-based agency said.

The increase was primarily among babies delivered by women aged 20 to 34, the peak childbearing ages, which appears to contradict speculation that the recent rise in U.S. infant mortality was linked to the tendency of many American women to delay motherhood until later in life.

Women who give birth in their 30s and 40s are more likely to have babies born with birth defects or other complications.

CDC researchers said on Monday that multiple births, which accounted for about 3 percent of all births in 2002 but about 25 percent of the overall increase in infant mortality, may have contributed to the rise in low birth-weight infants.

Delivering twins, triplets and other multiple babies carries a higher risk of premature labor and low birth weight, both of which can be fatal to infants.

But the agency said other factors such as the health of expectant mothers also could have played a role. It noted that rates of maternal anemia, diabetes and chronic high blood pressure increased slightly between 2001 and 2002.

The report was published less than a year after government statisticians revealed that infant mortality rose to 7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2002, up from 6.8 deaths per 1,000 in the previous year.

It was the first time since 1958 that the rate had not declined or remained unchanged.

There were 27,970 infant deaths in 2002, compared to 27,568 in 2001, out of about 4 million births a year. The CDC said on Monday that provisional data for 2003 suggested that the increase in infant mortality may not be continuing.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

[ElMariachi]

So health care sucks, its been like that for years.. but I'd still rather live in the US than cuba...

[jeff]

Me too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better. Other countries manage to both be democratic and have better health (and at lower cost, too)

[ElMariachi]

Well obviously most democratic countries don't have the problems the US has what with the huge influx of illegal immigrants every year. Not to mention the ludicrous lawsuits doctors have to suffer through making their malpractice insurance sky high which in the end drives up cost.

[darius]

Well obviously most democratic countries don't have the problems the US has what with the huge influx of illegal immigrants every year.

You're right. They have it worse, since they provide full social services. Anti-immigrant racism is far worse in Europe than it is in the United States.

Not to mention the ludicrous lawsuits doctors have to suffer through making their malpractice insurance sky high which in the end drives up cost.

Has anybody ever really investigated whether that's the case? Or, like music piracy, the insurance industry uses that as an excuse when confronted with their high premiums?

I'd be curious to see ... shouldn't jury awards be rising, compared to costs? How about executive payouts? Surely these wonderful insurance companies who provide malpractice insurance to poor doctors aren't overcompensating their CEOs.

I've also read that it's a small percentage of doctors who are involved in the majority of malpractice suits. Shouldn't doctors found to be incompetent multiple times face a loss of accreditation? Shouldn't insurance companies insist on that, since they're the ones taking the bath?

This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm definitely wary of the claims of the tort reform folks.

darius

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by darius

{snip}
Has anybody ever really investigated whether that's the case? Or, like music piracy, the insurance industry uses that as an excuse when confronted with their high premiums?
{snip}

The Congressional Budget Office (a nonpartisan group that reports to Congress) did. Here is there Report

It's interesting reading if you're truly interested in the subject.

Among other things, they found that malpractice costs constitute about 2% of health care costs.

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Well obviously most democratic countries don't have the problems the US has what with the huge influx of illegal immigrants every year.

Wal-mart is busy taking care of that problem for us.

Illegal immigrants come here for the jobs. We get incensed about people who will work for $.50/hr, but in their homelands they can only make $.10/hr, if they can even find any work. So this looks like paradise to them.

Ah, but Wal-mart (and the other mega-stores) are squeezing their suppliers, forcing them to outsource their production jobs overseas where labor costs are lower.

So you see, once we've exported all the jobs there, the immigrants won't need or want to come here anymore.

Problem solved.

[keith]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Well obviously most democratic countries don't have the problems the US has what with the huge influx of illegal immigrants every year. Not to mention the ludicrous lawsuits doctors have to suffer through making their malpractice insurance sky high which in the end drives up cost.

hah aha ha hah ahh hahaha

... the nurses are putting some good stuff in your drip.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Me too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better. Other countries manage to both be democratic and have better health (and at lower cost, too)

Lower apparent costs, perhaps. What about opportunity costs?

[ElMariachi]

You're right. They have it worse, since they provide full social services. Anti-immigrant racism is far worse in Europe than it is in the United States.

That may be the case but my point was that a democratic country of oh.. say France for example simply does not have the same immigrants entering their country annually that the US does.

"The United States admits approximately 900,000 legal immigrants every year, and annual immigration is swelled by another 300,000 people who illegally cross the borders of the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about 5 million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States."
-http://www.closeup.org/immigrat.htm#today

On the other hand the UK has an influx of only 106,820 immigrants.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/...ydata/data.cfm

Now some might say that this is the result of tougher legislation in Europe but I believe it's because of the United States close proximity to Latin America which is chracteristically has the highest outflux of immigrants. Because these people have no money and no insurance they cannot afford health care, so what happens when they stumble bleeding into an ER? Well you can't just let them die in the doorway, so you stabilize them and they leave without paying a cent. What can a hospital do? It just spent 2000$ in care to stabilize a person who will never pay. So costs for people who can pay go up. It seems like a logical argument to me, immigration increases health care costs.

Has anybody ever really investigated whether that's the case? Or, like music piracy, the insurance industry uses that as an excuse when confronted with their high premiums?

Well my Dad certainly has, he's been a Neurosurgeon for 55 years and he told me not to go into medicine because of this.

Among other things, they found that malpractice costs constitute about 2% of health care costs.

The wording you used was incorrect, malpractice insurance is not payed by people like you and me who wish to recieve healthcare, it's payed by the Doctors out of the money that they make from patients. Malpractice insurance in California for example is over 40,000 dollars annually. In other states the premium is 100,000 dollars for the insurance company to fight the suit if a doctor is sued. In California also there is a Pain and Loss payout act which limits plaintiffs to 120,000 dollars if they win a suit. In other states however the payout can reach into the millions! This arguement is a little over my head but 2% seems a little low if we are getting figures like this. It leads me to question the reliability of this report.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

"The United States admits approximately 900,000 legal immigrants every year, and annual immigration is swelled by another 300,000 people who illegally cross the borders of the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about 5 million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States."
-http://www.closeup.org/immigrat.htm#today

On the other hand the UK has an influx of only 106,820 immigrants.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/...ydata/data.cfm

What's the per capita comparison? I mean, the population of the US is a lot larger than that of the UK, too...raw figures are often meaningless.

[ElMariachi]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the US per capita immigration rate is much higher than britains. If I find any information to disproove or support my claim I will post it.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Lower apparent costs, perhaps. What about opportunity costs?

Whatever do you mean by that? Other developed countries spend less by per capita and % GDP on health care than we do, with better longevity and mortality. Opportunity costs are heavier where more money is spent, preventing it being spent on new opportunities - that is, here, not in Japan, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, etc.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

I have a sneaking suspicion that the US per capita immigration rate is much higher than britains. If I find any information to disproove or support my claim I will post it.

Immigration is a hot topic right now in UK (as it was since Enoch Powell and his "rivers of blood"). Don't be so sure that the per capita numbers are higher in US...

[ElMariachi]

Oh I forgot about all the illegal french sneaking into the UK...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by darius

You're right. They have it worse, since they provide full social services. Anti-immigrant racism is far worse in Europe than it is in the United States.

Quite so, at least for the "provide full social services" part.

Originally Posted by darius

Has anybody ever really investigated whether that's the case? Or, like music piracy, the insurance industry uses that as an excuse when confronted with their high premiums?

I'd be curious to see ... shouldn't jury awards be rising, compared to costs? How about executive payouts? Surely these wonderful insurance companies who provide malpractice insurance to poor doctors aren't overcompensating their CEOs.

I've also read that it's a small percentage of doctors who are involved in the majority of malpractice suits. Shouldn't doctors found to be incompetent multiple times face a loss of accreditation? Shouldn't insurance companies insist on that, since they're the ones taking the bath?

This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm definitely wary of the claims of the tort reform folks.

darius

To your points:
1. HMO CEOs get paid a lot of money
2. Get rid of the bad doctors. Great idea, we should do it. Problem is, that doctors and medical boards have to worry about being sued by those doctors.
3. Be way of tort reform: the purpose there isn't to protect the doctors, it's there to
3a. Partisan politics: Defund the revenue that streams today into Democrat party
3b. Economic: make it harder for future claims for any corporate malfeasance, from product liability to environmental damage. That's where the real purpose resides, not medicine.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Oh I forgot about all the illegal french sneaking into the UK...

No doubt for the superior food, wine, and weather.

Only $40K for med-mal? That's peanuts, sad to say

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

{snip}The wording you used was incorrect, malpractice insurance is not payed by people like you and me who wish to recieve healthcare, it's payed by the Doctors out of the money that they make from patients.

And then the Doctors (or, more accurately, Hospitals or Physician's groups) increase the prices they are charging, and this increased cost is either directly paid by the consumer, or is a portion of the increase in general medical insurance, which causes an increase in premiums to the consumer (or his employer, who is then willing to offer less of a salary due to the increase in insurance premiums).

{snip}
In California also there is a Pain and Loss payout act which limits plaintiffs to 120,000 dollars if they win a suit. In other states however the payout can reach into the millions! This arguement is a little over my head but 2% seems a little low if we are getting figures like this. It leads me to question the reliability of this report.

Health care costs in the US are well over a trillion dollars a year. 2% is in the $20 billion range (The CBO report put it at $24 billion, IIRC). Of course, a few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money...

--Philistine

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Philistine

And then the Doctors (or, more accurately, Hospitals or Physician's groups) increase the prices they are charging, and this increased cost is either directly paid by the consumer, or is a portion of the increase in general medical insurance, which causes an increase in premiums to the consumer (or his employer, who is then willing to offer less of a salary due to the increase in insurance premiums).

Alas, the HMO doesn't care in the least about how much the doctor's malpractice insurance costs, and they, not the doctors or hospitals, dictate how much is paid for a particular treatment or procedure. I'll restate this for emphasis: the HMOs fix the price and tell the providers what they're willing to pay. If the providers' expenses go up, they don't have the ability to raise their rates because the HMO won't pay.

Originally Posted by Philistine

Health care costs in the US are well over a trillion dollars a year. 2% is in the $20 billion range (The CBO report put it at $24 billion, IIRC). Of course, a few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money...

--Philistine

I always like that line of Senator Dirksen

[ElMariachi]

Alas, the HMO doesn't care in the least about how much the doctor's malpractice insurance costs, and they, not the doctors or hospitals, dictate how much is paid for a particular treatment or procedure. I'll restate this for emphasis: the HMOs fix the price and tell the providers what they're willing to pay. If the providers' expenses go up, they don't have the ability to raise their rates because the HMO won't pay.