The results of the CARP survey indicates that improvements are needed to how health care is delivered in Canada QJ
Government out of step with out of country care
Consistent with our findings in the past, most respondents, despite their high ratings of their care at home, are willing to travel outside the system if they had to and to expect reimbursement. Almost 40% said such care should be reimbursed by the Canadian health care system without conditions. Many more (59%) said that there should be reimbursement with conditions. Only 2% said there should be no reimbursement. Belief in full unconditional reimbursement is far higher in Quebec (53%) than elsewhere.
Only 30% thought that reimbursement should require prior approval. 27% thought approval could be given after treatment was started or completed and over 42% said reimbursement should just require a referral from your doctor. In Quebec, that figure was even higher (48%).
Clearly, the policy makers that insist on strict application of the prior approval requirements are way out of step with CARP ActionOnline readers who answered our survey and we will be drawing this response to their attention.
These survey results, based on over 5,600 CARP ActionOnline readers, are considered reliable within plus or minus 1.4 % 19 times out of 20.
Showing posts with label myth buster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label myth buster. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Board Heads In Wrong Salary Direction - Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA
Board Heads In Wrong Salary Direction - Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA: "Board Heads In Wrong Salary Direction
Posted By
Overpaid for what they do - citizens finally speak out -QJ-- good for them "
Posted By
Overpaid for what they do - citizens finally speak out -QJ-- good for them "
Thursday, April 02, 2009
SOS wary of new hospital talk - Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA
SOS wary of new hospital talk - Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA: "SOS wary of new hospital talk
HEALTH CARE: Wesley believes it won't have an ER
Posted By BOB BOUGHNER, THE DAILY NEWS
Posted 4 hours ago
Despite talk of a new hospital in Wallaceburg, the Save Our Sydenham Committee is forging ahead.
'It's just more babblegap to confuse the issue,'' Jeff Wesley, SOS spokesman, said yesterday.
Wesley said he's convinced the plan is to build a 'glorified primary and urgent care clinic with no emergency room.''
Chatham-Kent Health Alliance officials said Tuesday they plan to replace the 55-year-old Sydenham campus and the 50-year-old Public General campus in Chatham."
" This illustrators what happens to those that over promise and do not deliver or has cried wolf to often. The skepticism is well earned and the vigilence by the citizen is needed ' QJ
HEALTH CARE: Wesley believes it won't have an ER
Posted By BOB BOUGHNER, THE DAILY NEWS
Posted 4 hours ago
Despite talk of a new hospital in Wallaceburg, the Save Our Sydenham Committee is forging ahead.
'It's just more babblegap to confuse the issue,'' Jeff Wesley, SOS spokesman, said yesterday.
Wesley said he's convinced the plan is to build a 'glorified primary and urgent care clinic with no emergency room.''
Chatham-Kent Health Alliance officials said Tuesday they plan to replace the 55-year-old Sydenham campus and the 50-year-old Public General campus in Chatham."
" This illustrators what happens to those that over promise and do not deliver or has cried wolf to often. The skepticism is well earned and the vigilence by the citizen is needed ' QJ
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Solution: Pilot proposal to improve the Ontario Health Care system
Proposal for Pilot Scale Modifications to the Ontario Healthcare System
Executive Summary
The Ontario healthcare system is in need of an overhaul. Not only are costs skyrocketing, but also the public perceives that the treatment of patients is critically ill with unacceptable waiting times. Real and needed procedures are being cut while the administrative costs of the system continue to escalate unabated.
The last two statements are keys to the puzzle. In the Brantford health catchments basin, The recent removal of beds from the Willett Hospital in Paris is a prime example. These beds have allowed the Brantford General Hospital an additional $10 million without doing anything to reduce waiting times or improve patient care. A full-fledged hospital is turned into a glorified office building. The LHIN has consequently approved a new CHC building to reduce waiting times after 2 local care facilities have been decommissioned. These are indications that the system has been bureaucratized; with internal patient delivery standards compromised and that a total collapse of the system could be imminent. The present system is financially unsustainable, the golden age of health has become tarnished with limited service, that is very expensive and that is not user friendly.
Healthcare is too critical a service to be allowed to collapse. The system needs major corrective surgery to survive. To date, successive governments appear to be "tinkering" with solutions that have little apparent positive impact to the patient or caregiver. What this means is more of same with large infusions of cash and absolutely no real improvement. The Supreme Court has deemed that Healthcare is a Section 7 Charter of Rights issue. This means that an "out of the box solution is required – sooner rather than later.
The Ontario Government is now in a bind. If delays in service provision cause damage or death, the Supreme Court's decision could put the government in the crosshairs of litigation. This proposal can form the basis of a "due diligence" defense. The government can also legitimately claim that they are trying something new and different in Ontario – something that has worked in Europe and which has a good chance of working here. It is a no-lose option.
What follows is an out of the box solution. This is somewhat similar to what the Swedish public health used to be, before it was radically reformed and competitively re-invented. Add to that some innovative revenue streams, and we may have options for the government to allow them to extricate themselves from a situation that has been brewing for 15 to 20 years.
There must be radical surgery for the business of providing healthcare systems. We can no longer afford to have unimaginative and ill-conceived tinkering. We need full blown, out of the box solutions for the system to avoid implosion and collapse.
Let us consider healthcare as a business for a moment. If a business is alienating and not delivering services to its customers, and its costs are soaring, there are really two solutions - let it die, which is not an option, or restructure and re-invent it to deliver better service. What are the reality pill options?
We propose to expand the customer and revenue base to allow the system to breathe again. To date, expanding the system revenue base has meant that the government has to cough up more public "taxpayer" money. This solution means that the people have to pay and that the administrative bureaucracy expands to "take care of" the investment, particularly at the provincial level. The spending priorities are obviously misaligned.
Our proposed solution involves a reduction in the bureaucracy. It also involves a reduction in government involvement. What would happen if healthcare became a profit centre instead of a cost centre, or an increasing sinkhole for public money? "Private Healthcare", screams the bureaucrat. No, it is just an opportunity to make money by providing service for non-Ontarians in the worldwide market place. Medical tourism is a proven and accepted practise
Executive Summary
The Ontario healthcare system is in need of an overhaul. Not only are costs skyrocketing, but also the public perceives that the treatment of patients is critically ill with unacceptable waiting times. Real and needed procedures are being cut while the administrative costs of the system continue to escalate unabated.
The last two statements are keys to the puzzle. In the Brantford health catchments basin, The recent removal of beds from the Willett Hospital in Paris is a prime example. These beds have allowed the Brantford General Hospital an additional $10 million without doing anything to reduce waiting times or improve patient care. A full-fledged hospital is turned into a glorified office building. The LHIN has consequently approved a new CHC building to reduce waiting times after 2 local care facilities have been decommissioned. These are indications that the system has been bureaucratized; with internal patient delivery standards compromised and that a total collapse of the system could be imminent. The present system is financially unsustainable, the golden age of health has become tarnished with limited service, that is very expensive and that is not user friendly.
Healthcare is too critical a service to be allowed to collapse. The system needs major corrective surgery to survive. To date, successive governments appear to be "tinkering" with solutions that have little apparent positive impact to the patient or caregiver. What this means is more of same with large infusions of cash and absolutely no real improvement. The Supreme Court has deemed that Healthcare is a Section 7 Charter of Rights issue. This means that an "out of the box solution is required – sooner rather than later.
The Ontario Government is now in a bind. If delays in service provision cause damage or death, the Supreme Court's decision could put the government in the crosshairs of litigation. This proposal can form the basis of a "due diligence" defense. The government can also legitimately claim that they are trying something new and different in Ontario – something that has worked in Europe and which has a good chance of working here. It is a no-lose option.
What follows is an out of the box solution. This is somewhat similar to what the Swedish public health used to be, before it was radically reformed and competitively re-invented. Add to that some innovative revenue streams, and we may have options for the government to allow them to extricate themselves from a situation that has been brewing for 15 to 20 years.
There must be radical surgery for the business of providing healthcare systems. We can no longer afford to have unimaginative and ill-conceived tinkering. We need full blown, out of the box solutions for the system to avoid implosion and collapse.
Let us consider healthcare as a business for a moment. If a business is alienating and not delivering services to its customers, and its costs are soaring, there are really two solutions - let it die, which is not an option, or restructure and re-invent it to deliver better service. What are the reality pill options?
We propose to expand the customer and revenue base to allow the system to breathe again. To date, expanding the system revenue base has meant that the government has to cough up more public "taxpayer" money. This solution means that the people have to pay and that the administrative bureaucracy expands to "take care of" the investment, particularly at the provincial level. The spending priorities are obviously misaligned.
Our proposed solution involves a reduction in the bureaucracy. It also involves a reduction in government involvement. What would happen if healthcare became a profit centre instead of a cost centre, or an increasing sinkhole for public money? "Private Healthcare", screams the bureaucrat. No, it is just an opportunity to make money by providing service for non-Ontarians in the worldwide market place. Medical tourism is a proven and accepted practise
"Last year Canadians spent $172 billion a year up from $79 billi0n in 1997. What accounts for these increases and how can Canadians receive better value for money? This proposal could be part of the solution." QJ
S. Holle BS MBA
backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
http://www.backtoeden.bravehost.com/
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -quality 24/7 care
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Where is the most government control - Communist China or the USA?
An interesting - and hilarious - take on China/U.S. relations Tuesday, March 17, 2009 from the S&A Digest:
Today the federal budget accounts for nearly 30% of GDP - the most since WWII. Add in the highly regulated and highly subsidized health care industry and you've got the government in control of nearly half the economy. Now add in the banking system - which couldn't exist without the FDIC, which would already be insolvent without the backing of Congress. Now add in the insurance industry, which will surely collapse next. Now add in all the state governments' spending and employees.
Most Americans don't understand: The government is now running most of the economy, by a wide margin. And who keeps the government afloat? The Chinese.
Think about that for a little while... The so-called "Communist" Chinese, whose government makes up about 10% of China's GDP and who control the No. 1 freest city in the world (Hong Kong), are now paying for the most government-controlled economy in the world - the so-called "land of the free."
Central planning did not work in the USSR- the top down management and funding from the central committee model was flawed because it did not provide products and services to diverse market segments or the grassroots effectively. Competition, and more de-centralized market choice improved conditions in Russia. Is there a lesson here for the entrenched Ministry of Health and Long Term planning -an organization that dictates market conditions and is a protected public health service monopoly? QJ
Today the federal budget accounts for nearly 30% of GDP - the most since WWII. Add in the highly regulated and highly subsidized health care industry and you've got the government in control of nearly half the economy. Now add in the banking system - which couldn't exist without the FDIC, which would already be insolvent without the backing of Congress. Now add in the insurance industry, which will surely collapse next. Now add in all the state governments' spending and employees.
Most Americans don't understand: The government is now running most of the economy, by a wide margin. And who keeps the government afloat? The Chinese.
Think about that for a little while... The so-called "Communist" Chinese, whose government makes up about 10% of China's GDP and who control the No. 1 freest city in the world (Hong Kong), are now paying for the most government-controlled economy in the world - the so-called "land of the free."
Central planning did not work in the USSR- the top down management and funding from the central committee model was flawed because it did not provide products and services to diverse market segments or the grassroots effectively. Competition, and more de-centralized market choice improved conditions in Russia. Is there a lesson here for the entrenched Ministry of Health and Long Term planning -an organization that dictates market conditions and is a protected public health service monopoly? QJ
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Health myth busted
Fat people cheaper to treat, study says By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer - Mon Feb 4, 11:58 PM PSTProvided by:
As adult obesity balloons in the United States, being overweight has become less of a health hazard and more of a lifestyle choice, the author of a new book argues.(AFP/File)
LONDON - Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
lifetime cost per health type
healthy 84 years $ 417,000 from 20 on
obese 80 years $ 371,000
smoker 77 years $ 326,000
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.
As adult obesity balloons in the United States, being overweight has become less of a health hazard and more of a lifestyle choice, the author of a new book argues.(AFP/File)
LONDON - Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
lifetime cost per health type
healthy 84 years $ 417,000 from 20 on
obese 80 years $ 371,000
smoker 77 years $ 326,000
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)