Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Toward a Free Market Solution to Healthcare and a Hell of a Good Lesson to Learn.
Singapore spends approximately 4% of its GDP on healthcare and their current life expectancy is 82. How do they do it? Try, it seems as if John Mackey of Whole Foods isn't the only person who has a handle on bending the cost-curve here..............................................................................Yeah, that's right, folks. Singapore's system is one of personal health savings accounts (mandated but with subsidies for people who need it) supplemented with catastrophic plans for emergencies. And, while, no, it isn't perfect, it has in fact produced solid healthcare outcomes while at the same time bending the cost-curve. I mean, just take a look at these huge comparisons; hysterectomy - $20,000 in the U.S., $7,000 in Singapore, hip replacement - $43,000 in the U.S., $12,000 in Singapore, heart bypass - $127,000 in the U.S., $22,500 in Singapore....I don't know, folks, it sure as hell sounds like a decent plan to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Sounds like a win win win win to me. It avoids the disaster of lurching toward fascism by placing everything in the hands of unaccountable government elites, who then seek to kill those they consider inferior in order to cut costs.
One could argue that the Singapore plan favors the plutocrats, if by plutocrat they mean the average person. Well, that sort of crap has been said before.
I got to spend some time in Singapore on business a couple years ago. First impression is how clean it is....I mean spotless.The people are friendly,the food is excellent,ground transportation is very good.....they do have some pretty strict laws and rules that are made very clear.
The unemployment rate is under 2% and they have to import entry level workers....housekeepers and hotel workers and it is very,very business friendly.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't Indiana have something very similar in their state; health savings accounts that roll over and a maximum out of pocket if those particular funds are used up?
Singapore must be on to something:
Brookings admires
their success. Curious about the
huge difference in costs, I checked around, but only could find that many physicians there
are salaried and some think they
are overworked. Not sure, either
if that would fall in the category
of single payer. IMO, it may be
that when the costs are more direct, the patient (consumer) resists 'doctoring' and 'drugging' that we see in this country? It seems pragmatic, eliminates the insurance business and is successful. but it appears there is still a strong public sector
input/control in their system.
I like the fact that it empowers the consumer and that it a) gives the individual a powerful incentive to take better care of himself and b) fosters much more in terms of competition which we know will keep the costs much lower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otn375mggeM - They don't call them health savings accounts but their Medi-Save policy is very similar in that X number of dollars are put aside every week, accumulate, and are utilized for healthcare expenditures. They then supplement this with a catastrophic plan for much larger emergencies. I personally like this approach in that it empowers the patient, incentivizes healthy living, and fosters competition (which in turn reduces costs). And look that the results; an 82 year life span and ridiculously low prices. Win, win!!
Post a Comment