Faced with runaway medical spending and tightening resources, communities across the country are finding themselves with no choice but to get back to basics: investing in primary care and front-end measures to stop costly problems before they start.
In some states, insurers and government funders are experimenting with cost-cutting schemes that invest in frontline primary care services, which traditionally pay less than downstream specialty care. The programs focus on giving physicians extra funding to boost frontline care and creating a "medical home" for families to maintain good health, rather than just treat sickness.
On Long Island, the concept is inspiring Nassau Healthcare Corporation's nascent NuCare program--a system of care that gives sustained support to underinsured and uninsured people, treating them like long-term rather than one-time patients.
Albany has begun to respond, with a plan to shift Medicaid funding from inpatient care to cheaper, less intensive preventative and primary care services. The state budget also seeded a program to offer tuition reimbursement for doctors who commit to providing primary care in underserved areas for several years.
Nationally, community-based health centers have expanded in recent years, with the aim of meeting the primary care needs of underserved populations, including low-income families, immigrants, the uninsured and the homeless. The program, according to government statistics, covers "an estimated 20 percent of the 48 million underserved in areas lacking access to primary care providers."
A study released last week by the Trust for America's Health found that such modest steps add up: If the state spent $10 per person on preventative health programs (initiatives to boost nutrition and exercise, for instance), New York could save $1.3 billion in health care spending--a 7-to-1 return on the investment.
And the cost of putting off investment in frontline care? An international study by the Commonwealth Fund hints at the human toll of a system that ignores problems until crisis hits:
"The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on... deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind."
Comments (4)
you aleady wrote this editorial and as usual the sane minded people of long island resoundingly ripped it. The proponents of the socialist state at Newsday will keep on putting out this trash.
OK, if I accept the premise that medical costs are "running away", and "resources are tightening" then why are our elected representatives voting to include everyone without a job or the smarts to insure themselves with full medical coverage? Why is a candidate who promises to insure every smoker, every alcoholic, and every drug addict in the land leading in the polls? The state could save a lot more money by making people responsible for themselves. The individuals who use these services would then have the incentive to use preventative care themselves and enjoy the 7:1 savings.
Me, I'd prefer to save 100% of that money by cutting it out of the budget entirely
"Michael Link, a senior survey methodologist at CDC, criticized the Trust for America's Health study, which he said "is not a valid statistical comparison" because sample sizes varied between states." (USA TODAY)
Just for your reference: the above-cited quote refers to a study published in 2005 on obesity rates, not related to the study mentioned in the blog post. Read more here:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29661.php