FEELING LUCKY? WELL ARE YA?

Public health is a truly public good.
Let me give an example.
Yesterday was the Biggest Guy’s last day here before he headed back East. So here were our schedules:
Tenacious G took me to the doctor, where the packing was taken out of my nose…wow!! Who knew all that stuff would fit?? And I don’t even have that big a nose!! We stopped off and had brunch at a café on the way home from the Doctor’s office.
Biggest Guy slept in, as he’d been out with friends the night before. When we got home from the doctor, we went to the car wash, then I crashed for a few hours (made easier, now that I can breathe). When I woke up, we took Biggest Guy down to the beach in Redondo for a walk, some time to talk, and a snack. Then we came home, he went out to dinner, and when he came home, we took him to the airport, where, after secondary screening, he left.
What the hell does this have to do with public health? Here goes.
I’m guessing that we each swapped germs with maybe a hundred people that day. TG and I shook the doctor’s hand; we were served brunch by a server at the café, and water and tea by the busboy; the guys at the car wash sat inside the car; we walked down the bike path in Redondo, where we brushed against (as opposed to walking past) thirty or forty people; we had lunch, where we were again served and bussed; finally, we handed bags over to screeners, got tickets from ticket agents, and probably brushed against another ten or fifteen people. I’m sure each of us used a public restroom at least once that day.
So our health…our physical health, as opposed to our moral, or spiritual health, is dependent on the physical health of roughly a hundred strangers we each encountered that day.
For a long time, the growth of cities was essentially self-limiting. It was limited both by economics, in that the ‘support area’ for the city had a size limited by transportation technologies. But there was another, darker limit, which was plague. Periodically, a germ culture would arise in the human petri dishes of cities, and lots of people would die.
As noted above, it’s hard to prevent this, because it’s hard to live in cities and not contact lots of other people.
So you and I have a direct interest in the health of every person we contact in the course of a day.
I want everyone I contact to have access to a doctor for that ugly rash, dripping nose, draining sore…not only out of humane considerations, but because I want it to be cured before they come in contact with me and mine.
The ultimate social capital a society can create is embodied in healthy and productive people. But so far, we have three systems for delivering health care in most of the Western world…and none of them seem to work.
Our system here in Southern California is imploding as we speak.
The LA Times (intrusive registration required, or just use ‘laexaminer/laexaminer’ – thanks Matt) has one of the ‘deep and slow’ series running on this. The first story is on the slow-motion collapse of the trauma network, triggered by the crisis in emergency room healthcare.

“People call 911 and they think if we bring them in, they’ll get seen by the doctor faster,” said Los Angeles Fire Department paramedic Orville Wright, who waited more than two hours last week with a respiratory patient at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. “That’s not the case.”
Hospital officials say the most critically ill patients are treated immediately. But paramedics and some emergency physicians say the congestion is endangering patients’ lives.
The danger extends beyond the ER. While paramedics are waiting for a bed to open up in the emergency room, ambulance responses are often delayed in the communities they cover. If an ambulance is taken out of commission, response times in its service area increase by four to five minutes on average, fire officials say.
Ambulance backups are worsening because more patients are seeking emergency-room care, even as hospitals are closing ERs. In the last decade, more than 20 ERs have shut down in Los Angeles County, narrowing treatment options in a sprawling region of 9.6 million people.

Today’s story is about the larger decisions being made to try and keep the public health system afloat.

One night a few years ago, a man crashed his car into the side of Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. In his hand, doctors recall, was a crumpled piece of paper from a local physician’s office. On it was a map showing how to get to the Boyle Heights hospital and the words: “You are having a heart attack. Go to County-USC.”
County-USC doctors recount this story to illustrate a dynamic that makes them both proud and frustrated: People who are turned away from other medical facilities for lack of funds come from across the region and the state, even from abroad, to L.A. County’s public hospitals for a wide range of essentially free medical care.
But the strain of caring for the poor and uninsured is forcing local officials to reconsider the amount of care they offer. The health department is asking the Board of Supervisors this week to adopt a strategy that would reduce the number of places patients can receive general medical care but, for the time being, preserve high-end hospital care and emergency rooms.
By doing that, the county will be attempting what critics say is an impossible balancing act—maintaining its commitment to take all comers, even while making it more difficult for patients to find medical help. It may also run the risk of flooding already overburdened emergency rooms with patients who have been unable to get basic medical care.
“We have been providing a higher level of services to the uninsured than any other county in this state,” Supervisor Gloria Molina said. “We’re going to have to downsize the number of services we provide. They’re just going to have to drive farther, wait longer.”
The supervisors will debate what would be the deepest cuts ever made to the $2.4-billion health department—closing nearly a dozen clinics, reducing beds at County-USC by more than 10%, and ending inpatient services at High Desert Hospital in the Antelope Valley.

I’m not advocating specific policies yet. Along with a lot of other people, I’m jumping up and down pointing at the horizon, and saying “there’s an iceberg right up there!! DID YOU HEAR ME?? THERE’S AN ICEBERG UP THERE!!”…as the band tunes up to play “Nearer My God to Thee.”
More tomorrow, gotta go.

5 thoughts on “FEELING LUCKY? WELL ARE YA?”

  1. Date: 06/26/2002 00:00:00 AM
    We’re going to get government healthcare in times of major epidemics whether we like it or not. One thing that would make it much easier to adjust in the event of epidemic, whether natural or bioterrorist, would be implementing some form of universal health coverage *now.* Side effect of universal health coverage: more people treated in clinics, instead of going to the ER where triage nurses put adults who are not accident / trauma patients or suffering heart attacks on the schedule to wait for 6 1/2 hours. I just returned from a conference, and in my hotel were people attending a national conference on public health. It was sobering to hear their views …

  2. Date: 06/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
    Hmmm.There are a number of issues here, some of which are explicit in your discussion, others of which are not. Let me suggest a couple that have to be dealt with:1. You’re going to die. I’m going to die. Extropian yivshish to the contrary, we’re all going to die.1a. The usual standard for medical care has been “everything that we can do”. In 1925, this cost almost nothing, because it was almost nothing. Today, it’s a lot, and costs a lot. 2. Public health is not necessarily compatible with other civil rights. Would the forcible quarantine — that amounted to imprisonment — of “Typhoid Mary” be acceptable today? Even stipulating that we could cure from being an asymptomatic carrier, would forcing to take medications, remain where she could be found to have them dispensed to her, etc., be acceptable today. Think about anti-vaccination advocates before answering.

  3. Date: 06/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
    Steve -No, I don’t have an answer yet; I’m cooking some ideas, but the simple fact is that National Health in the UK is a failure, as you have noted……scratches head…

  4. Date: 06/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
    I am 40 years old. There are at least three “the sky is falling” bugaboos I’ve heard about my whole life — how bad education is, how bad the environment is and how bad the health care system is. I can’t remember a time when I haven’t heard what a horrible situation all three are in and that some drastic measure is called for.I’m not saying there isn’t room for improvement in any of these three areas, but I’m not likely to back any kind of radical reform given the nightmare scenarios I have heard about my entire life have yet to materialize.

  5. Date: 06/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
    Okay, sure, it’s a public good. But does it follow that it must be administered and provided by the federal government (I note your caveat that you’re not advocating specific policies yet). Can you postulate a private health care system operating under government safeguards and standards which does not choke out private initiative?You make the government responsible for health care, you get government healthcare. Ask a military family about the sterling “free” medical coverage you get. Back in the day, when I was a snotnosed Navy brat, there were times my parents paid civilian doctors out of their own pocket rather than subject us to that dubious benefit of service. Of course, VA medical care is legendary. Much in the same manner as the Black Hole of Calcutta is legendary.If you are going to discuss the Canadian model, you will also need to mention the number of Canadians who come south to get their expensive CAT scans and surgeries (paying, again, out of pocket). If bureaucrats administer health care, they will go for the most “cost effective” approach (and being bureaucrats, it will likely be costly and ineffective). If politicans have a medical budget to spread out, ten thousand voters needing aspirin and heat packs will win out over the one voter needing cardiac bypass.Likewise, you must address how the government can get involved in a large segment of the economy without choking it. Social security is not a good model, let’s not compound it by developing another one that requires the government to invent money to pay expenses (the first person who says “lock box” sits in the time out corner for an hour).I am looking forward to your commentary and hope you come up with a manner to provide some kind of universal safety net that doesn’t degenerate into soft socialism.Note that, like you I am not advocating specific policies. But I would really like to see a “system” (that word makes my toes curl when you apply it to the federal government in its interactions with the citizenry) that lets private enterprise work with guarantees for all.Have at it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.