Cost and Consequences of Government Health-Care Decision Making

From Heritage.org

Several leading European and Canadian health economists, physicians and scholars — in Washington recently for the Galen Institute’s conference, “Lessons from Abroad for Health Reform in the US” — met with analysts from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think-tank leaders.

They wanted to explain why Americans should be concerned when officials push for government-controlled, universal health care coverage that includes innocuous-sounding but largely intrusive and prohibitive health measures.

“We were told single-payer health care would be a true liberation for Canada when they enacted it 40 years ago, and the opposite has become true,” says Brian Lee Crowley, president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Canada.

Not only do Canadians face extraordinary wait times to get specialized treatments (the average wait time from getting a referral from a general practitioner to receiving a treatment was 17.3 weeks in 2008), but they also have limited access to new drugs, thanks in part to the country’s “comparative effectiveness” body known as the Common Drug Review, says Brett Skinner with the Fraser Institute.

In Switzerland, “compulsory health insurance has moved the objective from being access to health care and quality of care to largely cost containment measures,” says Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon who also runs research for the Institut Constant de Rebecque in Switzerland.

Next door in France, government policies are undermining patients’ choice of care and the private sector’s involvement in health care delivery. “France is on its way to joining the nationalized health care system of the United Kingdom,” says Valentin Petkantchin with the Insitut economique Molinari.

British oncologist Dr. Karol Sikora says greater government control over the health care system is a bad idea for any industrialized country. “Americans may want some form of universality in health care, but entities like NICE [Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] are nothing more than government-inspired, political rationing tools,” says Dr. Sikora, who has seen his cancer patients receive newer, more effective drug treatments over others simply based on their where they live.

“Having seen firsthand over many years just how inhumane this system can be, it is remarkable that other countries would even consider it,” Dr. Sikora says in his latest paper presented at the Galen Institute’s conference.

But indeed, Americans could face similar problems in securing high-quality health care of their choice based on the ongoing efforts in Congress and the Obama administration to centralize health-care decisions making in Washington. The many well-documented experiences of patients in countries that are America’s allies and friends certainly attest to that.

Other Quick Hits From Heritage.org
This week's Profiles in Conservatism: Nebraska Congressman Adrian Smith

Mere weeks after ramming through a $3.27 trillion “stimulus” by claiming failure to pass it would result in “catastrophe,” President Barack Obama said yesterday, the economy is “not as bad as we think.“

The chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board admitted yesterday that “waste and fraud is unfortunately inevitable” in Obama’s spending plan.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) helped secure $50 million in special bailout funds for a bank: her husband owned at least $250,000 worth of stock in the same bank.

Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) plans to increase Illinois income tax rates by 50%.