• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

US Health Care Score

A

Anonymous

Guest
Why Not the Best? Results from the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008
July 17, 2008 | Volume 97
Authors:The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System


Overview

Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008, updates the 2006 Scorecard, the first comprehensive means of measuring and monitoring health care outcomes, quality, access, efficiency, and equity in the United States. The 2008 Scorecard, which presents trends for each dimension of health system performance and for individual indicators, confirms that the U.S. health system continues to fall far short of what is attainable, especially given the resources invested. Across 37 core indicators of performance, the U.S. achieves an overall score of 65 out of a possible 100 when comparing national averages with U.S. and international performance benchmarks. Overall, performance did not improve from 2006 to 2008. Access to health care significantly declined, while health system efficiency remained low. Quality metrics that have been the focus of national campaigns or public reporting efforts did show gains.


Executive Summary
Every family wants the best care for an ill or injured family member. Most are grateful for the care and attention received. Yet, evidence in the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008, shows that care typically falls far short of what is achievable. Quality of care is highly variable, and opportunities are routinely missed to prevent disease, disability, hospitalization, and mortality. Across 37 indicators of performance, the U.S. achieves an overall score of 65 out of a possible 100 when comparing national averages with benchmarks of best performance achieved internationally and within the United States.

Even more troubling, the U.S. health system is on the wrong track. Overall, performance has not improved since the first National Scorecard was issued in 2006. Of greatest concern, access to health care has significantly declined. As of 2007, more than 75 million adults—42 percent of all adults ages 19 to 64—were either uninsured during the year or underinsured, up from 35 percent in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. failed to keep pace with gains in health outcomes achieved by the leading countries. The U.S. now ranks last out of 19 countries on a measure of mortality amenable to medical care, falling from 15th as other countries raised the bar on performance. Up to 101,000 fewer people would die prematurely if the U.S. could achieve leading, benchmark country rates.

The exception to this overall trend occurred for quality metrics that have been the focus of national campaigns or public reporting. For example, a key patient safety measure—hospital standardized mortality ratios (HSMRs)—improved by 19 percent from 2000–2002 to 2004–2006. This sustained improvement followed widespread availability of risk-adjusted measures coupled with several high-profile local and national programs to improve hospital safety and reduce mortality. Hospitals are showing measurable improvement on basic treatment guidelines for which data are collected and reported nationally on federal Web sites. Rates of control of two common chronic conditions, diabetes and high blood pressure, have also improved significantly. These measures are publicly reported by health plans, and physician groups are increasingly rewarded for results in improving treatment of these conditions.

The U.S. spends twice per capita what other major industrialized countries spend on health care, and costs continue to rise faster than income. We are headed toward $1 of every $5 of national income going toward health care. We should expect a better return on this investment.

Performance on measures of health system efficiency remains especially low, with the U.S. scoring 53 out of 100 on measures gauging inappropriate, wasteful, or fragmented care; avoidable hospitalizations; variation in quality and costs; administrative costs; and use of information technology. Lowering insurance administrative costs alone could save up to $100 billion a year at the lowest country rates.

National leadership is urgently needed to yield greater value for the resources devoted to health care.

Full Story:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=692682
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some comparisons--like the report says-looks like we end up spending a whole lot more than most countries do- to get less.....

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/healthinsurance/graphics/graphic1.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Something I will put on here just for information...This mainly involves folks that have an off farm job that they get their health or accident insurance thru- but can affect fulltime ranchers that just purchase their insurance straight out...

I found out while negotiating for management/union contracts that some insurance firms are using snidely small print ways to get out of paying for a lot of work accident injuries with riders in them that won't cover you if you are performing a 2nd job- which they consider farming to be...

Some also won't cover you if you are injured doing swap of work jobs, like helping a neighbor brand for return work- expecting the neighbor to have insurance to cover you...

And you almost need to be an attorney to interpret the way they have these snidely exemptions worded....

Its just something to pay heed to...They almost force you to be a liar to get the coverage you've paid for..... :(
 
Top