5 ms·

From what are you basing your opinion about the VA being able to take care of its patients with "pretty good quality"? Are you a veteran? Have you actually used

From what are you basing your opinion about the VA being able to take care of its patients with "pretty good quality"? Are you a veteran? Have you actually used VA services? As a former NCO and one of the first in my unit to get out of the service, I have led about thirty or forty guys through getting healthcare at various VAs around the country. One of those guys is now dead because of the VA, and the VA is explicitly forbidden from being sued for murdering patients, or from firing people for making those kinds of deadly mistakes. My guys wait months for appointments, and people die while waiting years to see specialists at the VA. Whatever you have read about the VA is plainly wrong, if it leaves you with the impression that their care is of "pretty good quality".

athenot 11y ago
I am sorry to hear about that wrongful death. Nobody deserves that. On that topic, the US as a whole ranks 24th in the world in terms of preventable deaths[1], and we spend twice per capita as the highest-performing country on the list. Our healthcare has A LONG WAYS TO GO to improve. Back to the original topic, I'm not speaking from the POV of someone having experienced the VA care system. I'm speaking from having worked in population health. Quality is defined by specific measures that compare in aggregate the outcomes of patients given particular co-morbidities. That doesn't make it perfect, it just means that as a whole, the VA treats people as good or better than the private system. As for wait times to see providers, keep in mind that many people on the private system may be able to see specialists but just can't afford it, so they never get treated... until it's too late. Part of the quality-based initiatives are to nudge providers (via reimbursements/penalties) to treat things while it's early enough, both for the health of patients and cost reduction—instead of waiting for complications. [1] http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DELSA/HEA/WD/HWP(2011)1&docLanguage=En http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentp...
- fapjacks 11y ago
  I am genuinely curious: Do you have links to more information about this aggregated health information? I would like to understand your perspective, but my prejudice against the VA system is telling me there may be an end-run around on a technicality, for example does the VA population count all veterans in their population, even if they have never sought healthcare at the VA? Does it exclude certain patients that otherwise would negatively affect the data? I am having a hard time accepting that the VA produces a population about as healthy (in aggregate or not) as the regular American population, especially given the conditions largely affecting only combat veterans (Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, depleted uranium, Project SHAD, TBI, PTSD, etc), and the number of veterans with these conditions.
  - athenot 11y ago
    Unfortunately I don't have the reports handy but one of things is that they achieve outcomes similar to private health systems given much less money per capita. Outcomes do take into account the starting conditions ("comorbidities") so this doesn't necessarily mean that the actual health of that population is better than average population. Because as you pointed out, service people get a pretty raw deal when it comes to occupational hazard. ;( Additional info: RAND analysis about VA and non-VA care -- http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-learn-from-the-va.html http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-le... Meta-study commissioned by the VA looking at existing studies comparing quality of care in VA and out of VA -- http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality.pdf http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality.pdf
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      Thank you, these links are very interesting.

athenot 11y ago

I am sorry to hear about that wrongful death. Nobody deserves that. On that topic, the US as a whole ranks 24th in the world in terms of preventable deaths[1], and we spend twice per capita as the highest-performing country on the list. Our healthcare has A LONG WAYS TO GO to improve. Back to the original topic, I'm not speaking from the POV of someone having experienced the VA care system. I'm speaking from having worked in population health. Quality is defined by specific measures that compare in aggregate the outcomes of patients given particular co-morbidities. That doesn't make it perfect, it just means that as a whole, the VA treats people as good or better than the private system. As for wait times to see providers, keep in mind that many people on the private system may be able to see specialists but just can't afford it, so they never get treated... until it's too late. Part of the quality-based initiatives are to nudge providers (via reimbursements/penalties) to treat things while it's early enough, both for the health of patients and cost reduction—instead of waiting for complications. [1] http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DELSA/HEA/WD/HWP(2011)1&docLanguage=En http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentp...

fapjacks 11y ago
I am genuinely curious: Do you have links to more information about this aggregated health information? I would like to understand your perspective, but my prejudice against the VA system is telling me there may be an end-run around on a technicality, for example does the VA population count all veterans in their population, even if they have never sought healthcare at the VA? Does it exclude certain patients that otherwise would negatively affect the data? I am having a hard time accepting that the VA produces a population about as healthy (in aggregate or not) as the regular American population, especially given the conditions largely affecting only combat veterans (Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, depleted uranium, Project SHAD, TBI, PTSD, etc), and the number of veterans with these conditions.
- athenot 11y ago
  Unfortunately I don't have the reports handy but one of things is that they achieve outcomes similar to private health systems given much less money per capita. Outcomes do take into account the starting conditions ("comorbidities") so this doesn't necessarily mean that the actual health of that population is better than average population. Because as you pointed out, service people get a pretty raw deal when it comes to occupational hazard. ;( Additional info: RAND analysis about VA and non-VA care -- http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-learn-from-the-va.html http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-le... Meta-study commissioned by the VA looking at existing studies comparing quality of care in VA and out of VA -- http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality.pdf http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality.pdf
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Thank you, these links are very interesting.