Medical Bankruptcy, American Journal of Medicine | 06/05/2009 11:10 am
Got a Serious Illness? You May Go Bankrupt From Your Medical Bills

If you have a stroke, heart disease, diabetes or any other serious issue that lands you in the hospital for any substantive amount of time, your medical bills just may bankrupt you.
A new study in The American Journal of Medicine shows that nearly two out of three — two out of three! — bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. And that number doesn’t even take into account today’s economic malaise. Even if you have health insurance, you’re not out of the woods. You still could meet your financial demise with that quasi-safety net, since the average bills were only about $10,000 less than those of the uninsured. In fact, in 2007, of those who filed for bankruptcy, about 80 percent had insurance. Consider these numbers: In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies, and during the six years prior, the proportion of all medical-related bankruptcies rose by about 50 percent. Many others had to file because they lost much of their income due to illness, or mortgaged a home to pay their doctor’s bills. And these people aren’t poor — most, in fact, were well-educated, middle-class homeowners.
The Washington Post has the full study here. The New York Times notes that the health problems that left patients with the most out-of-pocket expenses were:
Neurologic (i.e., multiple sclerosis): $34,167
Diabetes: $26,971
Injuries: $25,096
Stroke: $23,380
Mental illnesses: $23,178
Heart disease: $21,955
"Our findings are frightening. Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said lead study author Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
With scary numbers like that in mind, President Obama and Congress have big plans to overhaul the nation’s health-care system. But there seems to be a conflict between Republicans and Democrats over whether to include a "public option" in the bill — a government-run insurance program that would compete with private plans. That public plan would be similar to Medicare and would cover Americans who don’t have private insurance. President Obama and Democrats support the idea, but Republicans oppose the public option, and there’s no agreement on how to pay for it. One way may be to take $200 billion to $300 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade. There could be other cutbacks, as well.
“If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said health-care reform is a great idea, but the "devil is in the details."
"Health reform will fail unless we get serious cost control — and we won’t get that kind of control unless we fundamentally change the way the insurance industry, in particular, behaves," Krugman wrote in The New York Times today. His advice to Congress? "Don’t trust the insurance industry," and "Don’t trust the insurance industry."























394 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
-Ben Eisen, Policy Analyst, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
"The Canadian health care system is opaque, unconcerned with patient satisfaction and, of course, has lengthy waiting times for medical services as a defining feature. Canadians are aware of these problems but many accept them as the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of universal coverage; that’s because they believe our model is better than what many posit as the only alternative, a supposedly wholly private American-style system which leaves millions uninsured and without access to quality care.
But the Canada-U.S. comparison is stale and unhelpful. A better one is to compare Canada with Europe. There, universal coverage is achieved through a publicly-funded system but without the inefficiencies and delays which plague Canadian health care.
The gap between the quality of health care enjoyed by most Europeans and that received by Canadians is strikingly large. A recent Frontier Centre study compares Canada to European countries on a wide variety of indicators of health care quality and ranks Canada 23rd out of the 32 nations surveyed.
That Canada’s health care system falls far short of the wealthy countries of Western Europe might come as no surprise. But what is startling is that Canada also ranks below several poorer nations in Eastern and Southern Europe, such as Slovakia and Estonia. Despite levels of per capita health care spending near the top of the pack, Canada shares the bottom tier in the results rankings on health care systems with middle-income nations like Latvia and Romania.
One critical difference between European health care systems and Canada’s is that Europeans rarely endure the stressful and often painful waiting periods with which Canadian patients are all too familiar.
For example, when sick, consider the reasonable desire of patients to see their family doctor as soon as possible. When asked how quickly they received an appointment with their family doctor the last time they requested care, just 22 per cent of Canadians report receiving an appointment on that same day. What’s more, 30 per cent endured a lengthy wait of more than six days before they could see a physician. By comparison, in the United Kingdom, 41 per cent of respondents received an appointment on the same day they requested care and only 12 per cent were forced to wait for more than six days.
Or another example. The typical waiting period for an MRI examination in Canada is over two months; in Ontario, the median wait time is two-and-a-half months. In the high-performing European health care systems, the waiting period for an MRI exam is generally less than three weeks; in Switzerland, the waiting period is routinely less than seven days.
These examples illustrate how many European countries succeed in providing health care coverage to all citizens but avoid the delays and inefficiencies endemic in Canada’s system.
In addition to these long wait periods, Canada’s health system appears sub-standard when compared to Europe in other important ways. For example, several European countries have enacted laws which clearly establish the right of patients to access useful information about their treatment options. Health care consumers in many European countries have access to provider catalogues, which provide quality rankings and other information about health care facilities such as hospitals. In Canada, hospitals are not required to publicly report their success rates or survival percentages, which often makes it impossible for Canadians to distinguish between good health care providers and bad ones.
In addition to being denied access to information about health care providers, Canadians are even restricted from accessing information about their own medical condition. The right to a second opinion and the freedom to access one’s own medical record are clearly established throughout most of Europe. By contrast, bureaucratic processes often make it extremely difficult for Canadians to exercise these basic rights to which all patients should be entitled. These examples illustrate why Canada is ranked above just two European countries in terms of patient rights and access to health-related information.
So how do they do it? European governments embrace delivery models that foster competition between insurers and providers within a universal publicly funded system, and which by their design reward excellence among health care institutions and professionals.
In Sweden, for example, hospitals compete for customers and are paid (by the government) a per-treatment fee for each different service provided. This approach has led to dramatic increases in hospital productivity and efficiency since its introduction in the early 1990s; it’s provided a powerful incentive for hospitals to focus on the needs of health-care consumers. Under this model, hospital budgets are determined by productivity and responsiveness to consumer demand and not the confusing and opaque bureaucratic processes that govern hospital budgets in Canada.
By looking to Europe for inspiration on health care, Canada can transform our inefficient and bureaucratic system and yet maintain universal coverage. Canadians have spent enough money for a world-class health system for decades. It’s about time we get what we’ve paid for.
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has just released the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index 2009, a comparison of Canadian and European health care systems."
you are right S G. when companies are making BILLIONS in profits while people can’t afford to visit the doctor, that is a sure sign that something is very wrong.
fiscal conservatives should not be involved with health care reform.
i can’t imagine how any of that would cost anywhere near that amount. it’s robbery.
i knew a young mother who had divorced the father of her baby and had to go on welfare.
because even working 2 fulltime jobs, she couldn’t pay her hospital bills or the medical bills of her child, plus rent, electric, heat, food, clothing, baby stuff, not to mention babysitting fees while she went away to work.
the state finally located the divorced father and began garnishing his wages and sending her checks for child support.
the welfare department took every single child support check because they said she was already getting enough assistance.
JULY 9, 2007
STORY TOOLS Printer-Friendly Version E-Mail This Story Reader Comments
RELATED ITEMS Graphic: A Tale Of Two Countries
HEALTH
The French Lesson In Health Care
The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months
HEALTH
The French Lesson In Health Care
The nation’s system isn’t quite as superb as Sicko maintains, but it’s pretty good
Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system—a complex mix of private and public financing—offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S.
In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France’s experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage…[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France’s infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.
That’s not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.
To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.
SAFETY NET
But the french system is much more generous to its entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors. Unlike with Medicare, there are no deductibles, just modest co- payments that are dismissed for the chronically ill. Additionally, almost all French buy supplemental insurance, similar to Medigap, which reduces their out-of-pocket costs and covers extra expenses such as private hospital rooms, eyeglasses, and dental care.
In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.’s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.
France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits.
A typical PMI can be found in Goutte d’Or, a poor neighborhood at the foot of Montmartre that has been home for the past 20 years to a swelling population of immigrants from Africa and Southeast Asia. On Rue Cavé, a tidy modern building is given over entirely to caring for expecting mothers, infants, and young children. The place usually is bustling with kids scrambling over toys, while mothers, often immigrants in colorful headdresses and with babies strapped to their backs, talk to their doctors as part of twice-monthly evaluations.
PMI and other such programs are starting to get attention in U.S. health-care circles. "If we really want to ensure that no child is left behind, then the PMI system is a good way to do it," says Daniel J. Pedersen, president of the Buffett Early Childhood Fund. "It’s based on the practical idea that high-quality investments made at the start of a child’s life will pay huge dividends to both the child and society in the future."
To make all this affordable, France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than U.S. physicians would accept. However, French doctors don’t have to pay back their crushing student loans because medical school is paid for by the state, and malpractice insurance premiums are a tiny fraction of the $55,000 a year and up that many U.S. doctors pay. That $55,000 equals the average yearly net income for French doctors, a third of what their American counterparts earn. Then again, the French government pays two-thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians—a tax that’s typically 40% of income.
Specialists who have spent at least four years practicing in a hospital are free to charge what they want, and some charge upwards of $675 for a single consultation. But American-style compensation is rare. "There is an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can charge," says Dr. Paul Benfredj, a gastroenterologist in Paris.
Many French doctors, in fact, earn more by increasing their patient load, or by prescribing more diagnostic tests and procedures—a technique, also popular in the U.S., that inflates health-care costs. So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it’s still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion.
That’s why France is gearing up to make changes. It already requires patients to register with a general practitioner before visiting a specialist, or else agree to a lesser reimbursement, much like many U.S. insurance plans. But France isn’t likely to make major changes to a system most citizens say they like. Why would they? Says Shanny Peer, policy director at the independent French-American Foundation: "France gets better results for less money and everyone is covered."
READER REVIEWS
Good post Deber….as Madam Chief Beverly McLaughin, Canadian Justice said, "We may have universal health care, but they do not have universal access to care". BIG difference…Millions on a long waiting list just for primary care doctors….hundreds of thousands waiting for proceedures….
A former member of the Canadian parliament, Melinda Stronick had opposed the opening up of health care to private medicine. She then got breast cancer and sought treatment here, in America at UCLA.
We have the BEST health care in the world. Yes, we can improve, not by a government run system that seeks to contol ALL of our decisions and money.
Consider that 7 out of 10 with job related health care will lose it. Along with those that are now without health care, and those that will forced onto the government plan, we are looking at nearly 200 million more people in line…waiting…All waiting for government boards such as the "Institute of Comparative Effectiveness" to RATION and decide just WHO qualifies for WHAT proceedure and WHEN they can recieve it by WHOM and WHERE.