• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Screening tests in USA v universal healthcare countries

They have routine colonoscopies in the US to detect bowel cancer, whereas the NHS uses a FOB test with colonoscopies on those with abnormal results.

"Routine" - by that I presume they would mean some insurance policies offer this? If so I would again like to see the number of people who actually are entitled to this "routine" screening test.

It was brought up in a previous thread but in the UK every woman above the age of 25 (and 20 I believe in Wales & Scotland?) is entitled to a regular cervical smear test (up to a certain age). Given the USA does not have UHC what percentage of USA women are entitled to such a screening?
 
Last edited:
They have routine colonoscopies in the US to detect bowel cancer, whereas the NHS uses a FOB test with colonoscopies on those with abnormal results.


Although I realise that was a response to Volatile, it's a bit off-topic. National screening programme comparisons might be a topic for another thread.

I'm trying to concentrate on the availability of cutting-edge and high-tech treatment for people who are actually sick, not screening tests on asymptomatic people.

Rolfe.
 
They have routine colonoscopies in the US to detect bowel cancer, whereas the NHS uses a FOB test with colonoscopies on those with abnormal results.

Do you happen to know anything about relative effeciveness of the tests? Does the NHS method result in undiagnosed cancers?

Also, the tests aren't quite so "routine" here as you might think. Typically, an insurance company establishes guidelines under which a test can be paid. What happens typically is that someone goes to the doctor. The doctor tells the patient he needs a test performed. The patient follows the doctor's instructions. The insurance company reivews the submitted claim, and decides that the test wasn't necessary, and the patient pays the full cost of the test.

I happen to have gone through this process with a colonoscopy myself. The insurance company rejected my claim. They ended up paying, but not without me spending considerable time and effort to convince them that the test was justified. My brother in law wasn't quite so fortunate, financially. His doctor ordered a biopsy that the insurance company decided was unnecessary, and he ended up paying 1200 dollars out of pocket.

ETA: Just read the response to Professor Yaffle. To try to drag it back on topic, what might happen in the US is that someone will order a doctor will order a high tech procedure, a patient will follow the instructions, and the insurance company will decide retroactively if it was necessary. If they decide it wasn't, or that a cheaper procedure was available, the patient can be on the hook for the full cost.
 
Last edited:
Do you happen to know anything about relative effeciveness of the tests? Does the NHS method result in undiagnosed cancers?

Also, the tests aren't quite so "routine" here as you might think. Typically, an insurance company establishes guidelines under which a test can be paid. What happens typically is that someone goes to the doctor. The doctor tells the patient he needs a test performed. The patient follows the doctor's instructions. The insurance company reivews the submitted claim, and decides that the test wasn't necessary, and the patient pays the full cost of the test.

I happen to have gone through this process with a colonoscopy myself. The insurance company rejected my claim. They ended up paying, but not without me spending considerable time and effort to convince them that the test was justified. My brother in law wasn't quite so fortunate, financially. His doctor ordered a biopsy that the insurance company decided was unnecessary, and he ended up paying 1200 dollars out of pocket.

How can an Insurance company deem something unnecessary when your doctor deems it to be? I am amazed this isn't a bigger issue in US politics.
 
I happen to have gone through this process with a colonoscopy myself. The insurance company rejected my claim. They ended up paying, but not without me spending considerable time and effort to convince them that the test was justified. My brother in law wasn't quite so fortunate, financially. His doctor ordered a biopsy that the insurance company decided was unnecessary, and he ended up paying 1200 dollars out of pocket.

ETA: Just read the response to Professor Yaffle. To try to drag it back on topic, what might happen in the US is that someone will order a doctor will order a high tech procedure, a patient will follow the instructions, and the insurance company will decide retroactively if it was necessary. If they decide it wasn't, or that a cheaper procedure was available, the patient can be on the hook for the full cost.

That's horrendous. And you guys hear "bureaucrats between me and my healthcare" as a constant argument against universal care? Strewth.

Anyone even proposing a system in Britain would be chased down with pitchforks.
 
That's horrendous. And you guys hear "bureaucrats between me and my healthcare" as a constant argument against universal care? Strewth.

Anyone even proposing a system in Britain would be chased down with pitchforks.
In America, people aren't allowed to have pitchforks. Too many product liability suits.

But seriously, I agree. There is a tremendous amount of bureaucracy in the US system, but because it is on the commercial side, the right wing is ok with it

Most Americans can get the high tech treatments Rolfe is describing, but if they don't follow the right path, they could be out hundreds or thousands of dollars, and it might depend on where a blood sample is sent out to for test. I changed which emergency room I go to, which fortunately doesn't happen often, when I realized that one hospital's billing procedures resulted in an extra 500 dollars out of pocket cost for me. It wasn't the type of care they provided. It was the way they filled out the forms.
 
Would that be the US political system that is heavily reliant on contributions from healthcare providers and insurers?


That just doesn't wash though, the electorate drives (or should) the topics. Look at the NHS a while back - the electorate pretty much demanded that it became a political issue and improvements were made.

I struggle to believe the Americans are sheep who believe what their leaders tell them, well I hope they aren't. This is ideology left over from the cold war by the looks of things.
 
In America, people aren't allowed to have pitchforks. Too many product liability suits.

But seriously, I agree. There is a tremendous amount of bureaucracy in the US system, but because it is on the commercial side, the right wing is ok with it

Most Americans can get the high tech treatments Rolfe is describing, but if they don't follow the right path, they could be out hundreds or thousands of dollars, and it might depend on where a blood sample is sent out to for test. I changed which emergency room I go to, which fortunately doesn't happen often, when I realized that one hospital's billing procedures resulted in an extra 500 dollars out of pocket cost for me. It wasn't the type of care they provided. It was the way they filled out the forms.

Wow. Just - wow. That is literally jaw-droppingly horrendous. It beggars belief that anyone can be against reform or even pro-market-solution if this is the type of treatment even someone with an insurance policy gets.

I cannot believe that if what you say is true that anyone would have the temerity to say the Canadian or British systems treat their patients worse than the American system. I cannot believe that anyone can, with a straight face, defend the system you describe. And yet it seems there are plenty who will.

Wow.
 
I struggle to believe the Americans are sheep who believe what their leaders tell them, well I hope they aren't. This is ideology left over from the cold war by the looks of things.
Perhaps people who have lived in both countries can comment.

My impression is that UK politicians are far more reactive to the wishes of the public than their American counterparts.
 
Now, now, we don't want to have to split this again, do we? "responsiveness of different healthcare systems to public demand" is over thataway....->

Screening tests for apparently healthy individuals. This is a difficult subject, and I didn't want to go into it in detail in the original thread.

Population screening for anything costs money, and you have to balance any benefits of early disease recognition against that cost. OK, but how can you put a price on a life? I hear you scream. Isn't is worth any price even if only one life is saved?

Well, OK. Go and have that argument with your bank manager. The real issues are more complex.

Any such test has a rate of false positives and a rate of false negatives. The false positives have a cost, both in monetary terms for the follow-up work-up the patient then requires, and in emotional terms for the patient who may be frantic because she (or even he) believes she has a serious illness, possibly cancer. This is a significant issue with mammograms, so much so that the cost-effectiveness of the breast screening programme has been questioned.

The false negatives have a more insidious cost, because they can lead to a false sense of security. So even when the first niggling signs appear, the patient may ignore these, because the screening test was negative. Thus the screening programme can lead to some people actually being diagnosed later than would otherwise have been the case.

Then there is the cost to the patients in general. Simply having the test heightens anxiety for quite a large proportion of those tested, causing disruption to their lives and sleepless nights.

Rather than simply hailing every proposed screening programme as automatically A Good Thing, we have to look at how many true positives are being found significantly earlier than they would have presented in the normal course of events. We also need to know if the early presentation is actually resulting in better clinical outcomes. We then need to balance these better clinical outcomes for some people against the worse clinical outcomes for others - the breast surgery to remove the lump that might never have grown another millimetre, and so on.

This sort of decision is something that the NHS, and universal systems in general, tend to do quite well. While I would always urge the NHS to look at schemes in operation in other universal healthcare countries, I wouldn't necessarily be that impressed by being told what the Americans do. This is because there, the profit motive is at the bottom of just about everything. So the but isn't it worth it even if you only save one life camp tends to get the biggest hearing. The downsides I pointed out are likely to be ignored, because actually doing the tests is profitable for someone.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Then there is the little matter of population screening. In universal healthcare systems, once a decision has been taken to screen a particular segment of the population for a particular condition, everybody in that segment gets tested, unless they actively run away. At no cost to them. And pretty much automatically.

I hear about US screening programmes. But are they actual population screening? Who is going round every woman over the age of 50 and handing her her appointment card for her mammogram (as happens here)? If only certain provoleged groups are being screened, I don't think it's fit for purpose.

Rolfe.
 
In America, people aren't allowed to have pitchforks. Too many product liability suits.

But seriously, I agree. There is a tremendous amount of bureaucracy in the US system, but because it is on the commercial side, the right wing is ok with it

Most Americans can get the high tech treatments Rolfe is describing, but if they don't follow the right path, they could be out hundreds or thousands of dollars, and it might depend on where a blood sample is sent out to for test. I changed which emergency room I go to, which fortunately doesn't happen often, when I realized that one hospital's billing procedures resulted in an extra 500 dollars out of pocket cost for me. It wasn't the type of care they provided. It was the way they filled out the forms.
You're kidding, right?
This can't be true, can it?

I can see why supporters of the status quo need to lie about conditions under various UHC systems, because they'd have to make out that doctors on the NHS were actively killing people in order to make it worse than the current lottery which US health care seems to be.

Actually, has the name "shipman" come up in any US based anti-NHS propaganda yet?

If not it's only a matter of time.
 
You're kidding, right?
This can't be true, can it?


No. It's true. Here's why.

Under most insurance programs in America, the cost of providing care is shared between the insured patient and the insurance company. To determine how much the patient pays, there are four different aspects to the equation.

There is a "co-pay". This is an amount paid per visit by the patient, regardless of other factors. If you make a doctor's visit, you pay a 20 dollar co-pay. The insurance company doesn't even look at that 20 dollars. At the emergency room, the co-pay is 75 dollars.

Then there is an "annual deductible". I don't know if that term is used in Europe, so I'll explain it. Basically, it means that until your expenses reach the deductible, you pay everything. My deductible is $1,000. That means I pay the first $1,000 each year of submitted costs.

Then there is the actual cost of providing care, especially procedures. A visit to the doctor is covered at 100% of the cost. However,If that doctor does anything, there's a separate charge. Example: Applying a splint to a broken finger, which is why I was in the emergency room most recently, is a procedure. Procedures are paid at 80% if you at an "in-network" provider, but 60% for an "out of network" provider.

In case those terms aren't known, I'll explain them. An insurance company contracts with some doctors who agree to charge certain fees for certain procedures. Those doctors, or other medical providers, are called "in network". It is cheaper for the insured patient to use an "in network" provider. Each insurance company has a different network, and doctors are usually in many networks.

Finally, there is an "out of pocket maximum". I pay no more than $3,000 care per year. After that, the insurance companies pick up 100% of the rest. Of course, that's for in network providers. For out of network providers, that out of pocket maximum is $6,000.

So why are two emergency rooms different in cost? Let's start with the co-pay. A co-pay comes up each time you make a visit that results in a bill. Some hospitals are organized as a single business entity. From the time you walk in the door, to the time you leave, you are dealing with one company. Others have sub-units inside them. The X-Ray and Medical Imaging Lab might be a separate business entity with its own set of books, and its own contracts. So, if you go to the emergency room, you might actually be dealing with two different businesses. That means two different co-pays.

Next, what about labs? The hospital takes your blood. They might send it to a lab for analysis. Just because the hospital is an in network facility does not mean that the lab they use is an in network facility.

And the doctor who sees you? Is he a hospital employee? Or is he an independent provider providing services to the hospital? If the latter, he has his own billing. And possibly co-pay.

So, at one hospital, I go in, everybody sees me is an employee, and all the labs are internal. That means everyone is in network and there's a lower bill. At the other hospital, there are lots of sub units, and not all of them are in network.

Of course, a doctor's office or hospital might use different labs on different days, depending on availability, for bloodwork. Some are in network, some are out of network. Depending on where they send the blood, your bill might be substantially different. I have had insurance reps explain patiently to me that as a consumer, it is my responsibility to ensure that the blood goes to an in network lab after some nurse draws it. No I am not making that up or exaggerating.

And of course, each insurance company has its own rules as to what's covered and not. A doctor might be in several networks, so when he orders a test for one patient, that patient might be fully covered, but a second patient might have coverage denied.

It's a total mess, and a nightmare of paperwork, and a major reason we spend so much more per capita than European citizens for health care.
 
Last edited:
Quite truthfully I just do not know how USA folk, even those with good insurance cover, cope if they require medical treatment. Kafkaesque!
 
:hb:

If I broke a finger, I'd get someone to take me to the nearest hospital with an A&E or a minor injuries unit, a doctor would at least give me a nod, I'd get an x-ray, a radiologist would look at that and dictate what should be done, and probably a nurse would do the actual splinting.

I know nothing and care less how the hospital arranges its finances to do that. Because at that point I go away again, and money is not mentioned. Neither me, nor the casualty doctor, nor the receptionist, nor the radiologist, nor the radiographer, nor the nurse, will have to give a single thought to money the entire time.

Rolfe.
 
My daughter hurt her foot a couple of years back. She went to the Emergency Room and after being seen, was told that it was sprained - here's some anti-inflammatories (sp?) and crutches, see ya later! We had a $75 co-pay at the door (before her being seen) and because I paid in-full, in cash, got a 10% discount off (I still don't understand why). She had X-rays, a doctor looked at her foot, a nurse wrapped it up and showed her how to use the crutches propertly and we headed out the door to get the prescription filled (another $10 co-pay).

Two weeks later, I got a bill for $600 from the radiologist who had reviewed her X-ray. He/she was not in the insurance's network, so I had to pay it because that was my daughter's first time that year to use her out-of-network coverage.

Of course, medical expenses are tax-deductible, but unless you've got some chronic condition, it's rarely worth itemizing.
 
Last edited:
As to the original topic - screening tests. My insurance "pays" for one well-woman visit per year at which time, I'm given a pap test. I pay a $10 co-pay for the office visit, but nothing additional for the test.
 
As to the original topic - screening tests. My insurance "pays" for one well-woman visit per year at which time, I'm given a pap test. I pay a $10 co-pay for the office visit, but nothing additional for the test.

How much does your insurance cost, if you don't mind me asking?
 

Back
Top Bottom