Clipping Board » Medical Affairs and Administration ─ Medical system, pharmaceuticals, and medical community-related reports
【Dagong News 2006-4-30】
How to shift the focus in healthcare from "objects" to people, encouraging doctors who are dedicated to mastering their craft, is an issue that needs attention. It's difficult to get medical treatment in rural areas, and it's expensive in cities—expensive is also difficult. If a simple cold or flu can cost hundreds or thousands of yuan, and serious illnesses can cost tens of thousands or even more, patients naturally shy away. Therefore, most people wish, "I can have anything, but please, no illness."
But where exactly does the high cost of medical treatment come from?
Not long ago, the "Beijing News" published an article titled "Where Does the High Cost of Medical Treatment Come From?" The author, Hua Maoshan, who has worked in medical billing at a major hospital in Beijing for nearly 20 years, mentioned that drug costs account for about 35% to 45% of total medical expenses, material costs generally account for 20% to 30%, and the use of advanced imported equipment drives up examination costs. Additionally, due to mutual distrust between doctors and patients, many unnecessary tests are added to rule out liability, naturally making medical treatment expensive.
The article states that the main cost in medical expenses is "expensive objects," with drugs, materials, and equipment examination fees making up the vast majority. What about people? Isn't the main difference between a hospital and a pharmacy that it has doctors? Where is the role and value of doctors reflected?
The article bluntly states that from the perspective of a patient, especially one undergoing surgery, this phenomenon of "expensive objects, cheap people" might be even more severe. The author specifically asked a friend while writing this article. Her child underwent a complex mediastinal tumor surgery costing nearly 12,000 yuan, but the actual cost of the mediastinal tumor resection was only 252.6 yuan, with the rest mostly being material and equipment costs. What puzzled her was that the labor of four surgeons—eight hours of high-intensity, high-skill, high-intelligence, high-consumption, high-risk, and highly irreplaceable work—was only equivalent to 252.6 yuan. In the entire cost of treatment, this most crucial surgery was not considered expensive, with the majority being various drug and equipment examination fees. It seems there is no industry that undervalues its people and their skills more than the medical industry.
Of course, I'm not saying this is solely caused by doctors or hospitals, nor is it something doctors, especially the best among them, want to see. It's due to the "medicine supports healthcare" system. But the serious problem arising from this is: in such a pricing system, with outrageously high "object prices," where is the place for people? How can a uniform price (such as a uniform surgery price) distinguish the level of a doctor's skill and craft? Will such "valuing objects over people" encourage doctors to strive to improve their skills, or will it make the power to control "objects" enviable? And if doctors are undervalued, can patients be valued, even if we all hope for a "people-oriented" approach?
The article points out that "objects" are, of course, important—they are also human inventions—but they can also become alienated, restricting human creativity and increasing dependence on "objects." Moreover, even the best "objects" must be mastered and used by people, and "the subtlety of application lies in the mind." Diagnosing and treating various diseases, deciding whether to operate and how, all depend on people, on the attitude, experience, and insight of doctors. Surgery, in particular, heavily relies on the skill of the surgeon. Therefore, ultimately, this "cheap people, expensive objects" is problematic, even "extremely harmful." Recently, Beijing planned to abolish the surgery nomination fee, which was supposed to reduce the high cost of medical treatment, but over 40% of the public opposed it.I think if we only survey patients and their families who are about to undergo surgery, the proportion of those who disapprove or are skeptical would likely increase significantly. Currently, many patients even delay their surgeries for this reason. People are also concerned that after the public cancellation of the "name fee" for surgeries, backdoor relationships or under-the-table red envelopes might become even more prevalent. If that happens, the costs would remain the same, and additional expenses, even personal integrity, would be added. Patients actually hope to spend their money openly, especially on what truly matters, rather than being inexplicably overcharged everywhere.
Therefore, canceling the "name fee" for surgeries does not seem to be a fundamental solution or an urgent measure to address the high cost of medical care. It might even exacerbate the phenomenon of "cheap labor, expensive goods."
Most hospitals are public and nominally "non-profit medical institutions," but to ensure rising incomes for hospital staff and continuous development, hospitals must still make profits. Although the inflated prices of medical supplies are not entirely caused by hospitals, hospitals still benefit significantly from them. The distribution of these benefits generally follows a pattern where departments and staff "share the spoils equally," with everyone getting a share. The differences in distribution might be based on "power priority" or "seniority." Whether the distribution of benefits from "goods" is relatively equal or skewed toward power and seniority, or even secretly divided or monopolized, remains a concern.
The article concludes by stating that we must not only avoid making people dependent on "goods" but also refrain from turning "goods" into the primary means of profit. How to shift the focus in healthcare from "goods" to people, and to encourage doctors who are dedicated to honing their skills, is an issue that needs attention. I believe that if the currently exorbitant prices of "medicines" and other "goods" could be significantly reduced, patients might also accept a moderate increase in fees for doctors' skills.
Source: http://www. takungpao. com/ news/ 06/ 04/ 30/ ZM- 559471. htm
Beijing News: "High Costs, Low Value" in Healthcare Struggles
How to shift the focus in healthcare from "objects" to people, encouraging doctors who are dedicated to mastering their craft, is an issue that needs attention. It's difficult to get medical treatment in rural areas, and it's expensive in cities—expensive is also difficult. If a simple cold or flu can cost hundreds or thousands of yuan, and serious illnesses can cost tens of thousands or even more, patients naturally shy away. Therefore, most people wish, "I can have anything, but please, no illness."
But where exactly does the high cost of medical treatment come from?
Not long ago, the "Beijing News" published an article titled "Where Does the High Cost of Medical Treatment Come From?" The author, Hua Maoshan, who has worked in medical billing at a major hospital in Beijing for nearly 20 years, mentioned that drug costs account for about 35% to 45% of total medical expenses, material costs generally account for 20% to 30%, and the use of advanced imported equipment drives up examination costs. Additionally, due to mutual distrust between doctors and patients, many unnecessary tests are added to rule out liability, naturally making medical treatment expensive.
The article states that the main cost in medical expenses is "expensive objects," with drugs, materials, and equipment examination fees making up the vast majority. What about people? Isn't the main difference between a hospital and a pharmacy that it has doctors? Where is the role and value of doctors reflected?
The article bluntly states that from the perspective of a patient, especially one undergoing surgery, this phenomenon of "expensive objects, cheap people" might be even more severe. The author specifically asked a friend while writing this article. Her child underwent a complex mediastinal tumor surgery costing nearly 12,000 yuan, but the actual cost of the mediastinal tumor resection was only 252.6 yuan, with the rest mostly being material and equipment costs. What puzzled her was that the labor of four surgeons—eight hours of high-intensity, high-skill, high-intelligence, high-consumption, high-risk, and highly irreplaceable work—was only equivalent to 252.6 yuan. In the entire cost of treatment, this most crucial surgery was not considered expensive, with the majority being various drug and equipment examination fees. It seems there is no industry that undervalues its people and their skills more than the medical industry.
Of course, I'm not saying this is solely caused by doctors or hospitals, nor is it something doctors, especially the best among them, want to see. It's due to the "medicine supports healthcare" system. But the serious problem arising from this is: in such a pricing system, with outrageously high "object prices," where is the place for people? How can a uniform price (such as a uniform surgery price) distinguish the level of a doctor's skill and craft? Will such "valuing objects over people" encourage doctors to strive to improve their skills, or will it make the power to control "objects" enviable? And if doctors are undervalued, can patients be valued, even if we all hope for a "people-oriented" approach?
The article points out that "objects" are, of course, important—they are also human inventions—but they can also become alienated, restricting human creativity and increasing dependence on "objects." Moreover, even the best "objects" must be mastered and used by people, and "the subtlety of application lies in the mind." Diagnosing and treating various diseases, deciding whether to operate and how, all depend on people, on the attitude, experience, and insight of doctors. Surgery, in particular, heavily relies on the skill of the surgeon. Therefore, ultimately, this "cheap people, expensive objects" is problematic, even "extremely harmful." Recently, Beijing planned to abolish the surgery nomination fee, which was supposed to reduce the high cost of medical treatment, but over 40% of the public opposed it.I think if we only survey patients and their families who are about to undergo surgery, the proportion of those who disapprove or are skeptical would likely increase significantly. Currently, many patients even delay their surgeries for this reason. People are also concerned that after the public cancellation of the "name fee" for surgeries, backdoor relationships or under-the-table red envelopes might become even more prevalent. If that happens, the costs would remain the same, and additional expenses, even personal integrity, would be added. Patients actually hope to spend their money openly, especially on what truly matters, rather than being inexplicably overcharged everywhere.
Therefore, canceling the "name fee" for surgeries does not seem to be a fundamental solution or an urgent measure to address the high cost of medical care. It might even exacerbate the phenomenon of "cheap labor, expensive goods."
Most hospitals are public and nominally "non-profit medical institutions," but to ensure rising incomes for hospital staff and continuous development, hospitals must still make profits. Although the inflated prices of medical supplies are not entirely caused by hospitals, hospitals still benefit significantly from them. The distribution of these benefits generally follows a pattern where departments and staff "share the spoils equally," with everyone getting a share. The differences in distribution might be based on "power priority" or "seniority." Whether the distribution of benefits from "goods" is relatively equal or skewed toward power and seniority, or even secretly divided or monopolized, remains a concern.
The article concludes by stating that we must not only avoid making people dependent on "goods" but also refrain from turning "goods" into the primary means of profit. How to shift the focus in healthcare from "goods" to people, and to encourage doctors who are dedicated to honing their skills, is an issue that needs attention. I believe that if the currently exorbitant prices of "medicines" and other "goods" could be significantly reduced, patients might also accept a moderate increase in fees for doctors' skills.
Source: http://www. takungpao. com/ news/ 06/ 04/ 30/ ZM- 559471. htm