How Does Missouri Health Care Compare?
A recent news article compared cost and quality of health care across all the states of our country. We are in the middle of the United States, so it was good to find that our state was near the middle of Medicare spending per beneficiary, and close to the midpoint in terms of the “overall quality of health care.” Of the states that border Missouri, only Iowa was listed as having better quality, and more than half of the other bordering states were found to have both poorer quality and to be more expensive.
That is good to know, but that data was just for the Medicare population, a group that is mostly made up of people over age 65. What about the rest of us? To look at this, it is best to use information about life expectancy. In the medical community the phrase “life expectancy” describes the number of years a person would be expected to live if the current health care system remained as it is now, without any changes for the duration of that person’s life. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau said that life expectancy in Missouri was 76.2 years, and since that time it has improved to 76.8. Well, that is pretty good, and it is even better for you and me that it is getting longer. However, in 2009, the average life expectancy for the entire United States was reported to be 78.11. At that same time, in most of the industrialized nations of the world, life expectancy was reported to be 79.0. I guess that means that in Missouri, life expectancy is not as good as in most of the nation’s other states, and life expectancy is poorer than in of most of the industrialized nations of the world.
Why should that be? Could it be something simple, like there being not enough doctors for the number of people who are in need of medical care? That may be. (See my recent report on rural health care in Missouri.) The OECD tells us that in most of the industrialized nations of the world (that is, in the countries where people live longer than we do in Missouri), there are 2.9 practicing physicians per 1,000 people, while in the overall United States, there are only 2.34, and in Missouri there are only 2.24.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are spending more for health care than anybody else. Everyone knows that in the United States, we spend more than 16 percent of our Gross Domestic Product for health care, or $7,290 per person, while in Missouri it is $7,709 per person.
So, there you have it. As everyone knows, we are spending more and getting less. This needs to be changed. It may seem simplistic, but wouldn’t we be better off if there were more physicians? That would certainly reduce one complaint about there not being enough physicians to supply the current needs in this country. But, beyond that, wouldn’t an increase in physicians produce more competition among health care suppliers, and a corresponding reduction in fees?


Yesterday NPR did a lengthy report on the efficacy of our health care. The upshot of a very rigorous study revealed that 30% of the care delivered to patients was not improving their health situation. The culprit is the “fee for service” model that our health care system is based on. This, unfortunately, is not being addressed in the health care reform Congress is now debating.
Comment by Anne McGregor — October 9, 2009 @ 1:33 p.m.
I don’t think its fair to simply say that we are spending more and getting less. We are also far more obese than other nations (something like 30% compared to 20%) which is a product of our lifestyles, not our health care. Something needs to change, but targeting health care may not be the most effective solution.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — October 11, 2009 @ 10:54 a.m.
Anne,
I listened to the same report while driving home from work. I thought that it gave a thorough account about how the incentives to provide quality healthcare are distorted in the status quo. Under methods like “fee for service,” physicians are rewarded for performing unnecessary services; those who provide efficient health care are paid less.
If we really wanted heath reform, we should concentrate on changing on how it is delivered, not how it is financed. We should encourage programs like “fee for performance,” evidence-based medicine, and alternative staffing models like the medical home mode. I agree with you that this is not being addressed in Congress or in the media.
Caitlin,
I agree that there is a myriad of lifestyle decisions that would better affect a person’s health than having additional procedures. More often than not in health care, less is more.
Comment by Christine Harbin — October 12, 2009 @ 4:29 p.m.