Nordic Implementation Of Eu Import Restrictions With Japan Sweden: Fill & Download for Free

I do not know anyone who is afraid. I know people who rationally think it is a poor idea. And, apparently, there are many people on Quora who find a way to ask the same question fifty different ways.I always suspect that people who do not bother to research (and this question has already been answered on many different threads), are not really interested in answers.David Grant's answer to Why is the US apparently not able to afford universal health care while every other developed country in the world finds a way to afford it?David Grant's answer to The U.S. spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare. However, other developed nations only spend around 10% of their GDP on medical care. Why do Americans pay so much more for their healthcare and receive worse outcomes?David Grant's answer to What are your thoughts on paying higher taxes in order for everyone to have health coverage?https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-healthcare-from-a-medical-professional-point-of-view/answer/Rufus-H-Holbrook-MD/comment/114026303David Grant's answer to Would single-payer healthcare work in the US?There are many more threads, just on Quora, answering this question over, and over, and over again. I suppose many people are like my wife’s daughter, if they do not like information that does not conform to their preconceived conclusion, they just dismiss the source as biased.One of my favorite truths is medical innovation. As I have said before, it mystifies me that people demand the latest technology for thie phones but have no clue that “universal” and “single-payer” systems reduce medical innovation. They just do not seem to care.Find Out How Much Your Country Spends on Research & DevelopmentU.S. Medical Research Spending Drops While Asia Makes Gainshttps://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/02/us-medical-research-spending-drops-while-asia-makes-gainsALTHOUGH THE UNITED States once accounted for more than three-quarters of the world's research spending, its share has continued to drop in recent years, while countries in Asia saw a dramatic increase.In a study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found the United States comprised 51 percent of global research spending, at $131 billion in 2007. But by 2012, that number dropped to $119 billion, or 45 percent of the world's biomedical research spending. By comparison, Japan and China increased their spending by $9 billion and $6.4 billion, respectively, during the same time. In 2012, Japan and China accounted for 13.8 percent and 3.1 percent of the world's total research spending.Though The U.S. Is Healthcare's World Leader, Its Innovative Culture Is ThreatenedThe United States remains the world leader in medical innovation, having produced more than half of the world’s new medicines over the last decade. But our edge is slipping away because of crippling domestic regulatory and tax policies.Delays in Drug Approval Are Deadly, Highlighting the Need for Improved Regulatory Efficiency… Worldwide, steadily increasing regulatory complexity has driven up the cost of drug development much faster than the rate of inflation, and this contributes directly to high health-care costs. There has been a minimal demonstrable impact on clinical trials safety, and the slowed progress leads to increased suffering and premature death, according to Dr. Stewart…U.S. Health Outcomes Compared to Other Countries Are Misleading… Tim had a knee replacement himself in May and enjoys far greater mobility. He also has a tennis friend in Connecticut who in the past year had both knees replaced and is back to playing tennis three times a week. His age: 90! We suspect that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a 90-year-old to receive two knee replacements in any of the other countries and in a very timely fashion. However, much of America prides itself on physical fitness and quality of life at every age. The price of this is certainly reflected in our higher healthcare costs.Papanicolas et al also call attention to the fact that the U.S. performed the second highest number of MRI scans per capita (behind Japan) and the most CT scans….… Finally, when discussing or comparing U.S. healthcare costs with those in other countries, the cost of pharmaceuticals must be considered. Among the eleven countries listed, as mentioned by Papanicolas et al, the U.S. had the highest pharmaceutical spending per capita at $1,443, with a mean of half of that ($749) for all eleven countries. Regarding a “measure of innovation,” the U.S. and Switzerland had the highest number of “new chemical entities” at 111 and 26 respectively. All this said, it’s noteworthy that one of the virtues of our healthcare system is that its citizens have access to break-through brand-name drugs sooner than other nations.International comparison of health care systems using resource profileshttp://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(6)770.pdf… access to advanced medical technology was far greater in the USA than WHO 00198 Fig. 1a–f. Spider-web diagrams for the six study countries showing selected health care expenditures and resource measures for 1986, 1991, and 1996, normalized by the group maximum (% GDP = % gross domestic product; Exp/cap = expenditures per capita; Drugs/cap = drug expenditures per capita; MRIs = MRI units per capita; CT Scanners = CT scanners per capita; Beds/cap = no. of hospital beds per capita; Emp/cap = health care employment per capita; Phys/cap = No. of physicians per capita; Nurses/cap = no. of nurses pers capita; % Emp = health care employment as % of total employment) International comparison of health care systems Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000, 78 (6) 775 in the other countries, and this gap appears to be increasing in absolute terms. It would appear that relative differences in staff wages and access to medical technology may explain a substantial part of the difference between US and European expenditures……”The USA stands out for its use of technology as measured by drug expenditures per capita, MRI units per capita, and CT scanners per capita. Though France had higher drug expenditures per capita in 1986 and 1991 and Germany did in 1986, expenditure growth has been higher in the USA and a gap had emerged by 1996. Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have had considerably lower outlays on pharmaceuticals. However, the other countries, particularly Sweden, have begun to close the gap in MRI units and CT scanners in relative, if not in absolute, terms. “Conceptual frameworks for comparing healthcare politics and policy… Few comparative studies have concentrated on health policy results other than health expenditures or levels of healthcare provision. But contemporary policy conflicts go far beyond this narrow focus. Universal access to medical care, patients’ choice, and equity and solidarity are all issues on the health policy agenda . Comparing Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, Maarse and Paulus argue that the political culture of European welfare states remains powerful. Market principles, they contend, have not sharply reduced solidarity. Analyzing the dimensions of “risk solidarity,” “income solidarity,” and “scope,” Maarse and Paulus found evidence that solidarity has even increased and remains a key principle in European social health insurance. Addressing earlier British and Swedish health policy reform, Saltman showed that state regulation increased to safeguard solidarity in healthcare systems in which market principles appeared to gain importance. …… The challenge of drawing defensible policy lessons from comparative scholarship remains daunting. The problem is not only that findings come from different methodological frameworks but that accurate characterization is a precondition for sensible lesson-drawing. Klein, emphasizes that “the challenge to improving our capacity to learn from the experience of other countries is to deepen our understanding of the respects in which they differ or are similar.”Is U.S. Health Care Less Efficient than Other Countries’ Systems?https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/8/v35n2-8.pdf… Hidden costsIn most other developed countries, health care prices are controlled below the level necessary to clear the markets. This is especially common in single-payer systems like those of Canada and Japan. The result is a great deal of nonprice rationing. Some of the nonprice rationing is based on professional judgment, roughly similar to that occurring in competing managed care plans in the United States. It is probably reasonably efficient. But much of the rationing is accomplished by consumers waiting for services, which leads to large hidden costs of health care. This general point has been made before and has even become a political and legal issue in some countries. Atlas documents this in valuable micro detail. For example, the wait time for cataract surgery in the United States is essentially zero, but the mean wait time in Europe is 3.5 months. Waiting causes direct harm to consumers’ well-being and raises medical risks, including the risk of permanent vision loss. These waiting time costs of health care systems are not on any budget. They are difficult to track accurately because some patients never go on formal waiting lists, either because the waiting is not formalized or because they are discouraged from obtaining the care at all.… Unlike Medicaid, the nonprice rationing problem is system-wide in some other counties. Atlas shows that for many different diagnoses, Americans obtain appropriate care more often than those in many other countries. The delay and poor access to care resulting from rationing by waiting harms health outcomes, but delay and poor access tend to be concentrated on issues that are not life threatening; therefore, they do not seem to have large effects on mortality.Perspectives on the European Health Care Systems: Some Lessons for America… Some LessonsFor Members of Congress and state legislators, there are some valuable lessons from the European experience that should be less surprising.If you insist on government management of the health care system, do not expect freedom from waste, inefficiency, or inequity in the delivery of care (look at France).If you want to promise citizens a national or state program of universal insurance coverage, don't expect that you will be able to deliver universal access to high-quality health care. You won't and you can't (look at Britain).If you want to fix prices for medical services, prescription drugs, or other medical devices, don't expect demand for these goods and services to be met or investment in research and development to continue apace. It won't (look anywhere).If you insist, with a straight face, that in a government-run health care system, all of your fellow citizens will be treated equally -- regardless of their class, station in life, or disease condition -- you are not merely enthusiastic or well intentioned. You are lying…… When Costs Override CareAs the financial burden on the young has become intolerable, European governments have chosen the option of cutting back the quality of health care. Certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to persons above a certain age or to persons who are considered to be too sick, or they are not made available at all, at least for a certain period.Gradually, health care in Europe is becoming a horror story. This is not an exaggeration. Many people, even in Europe, do not realize what is happening, because they are confronted with this problem only when they get sick or when they have become old and frail. At that time, one is often in a weak position, and it is too late to raise one's voice.Denial or Restriction of TreatmentAnother method currently used to cut costs is to restrict the access of patients to costly health care services. Sometimes these services are denied to all patients; sometimes, only to certain categories -- for example, the elderly.I have experienced the impact of this policy in my own family when, several years ago, my grandfather needed an operation. Because he was over 80 years old, my grandfather was given an old antibiotic that has drastic side effects: It causes deafness. Though there were other, but costlier, treatments available, the hospital gave the old drug to my grandfather because of his age. They knew about the side effects, but it did not strike them as unreasonable or unjust to reserve the modern treatments for people of a younger age group and to give old rubbish to the elderly.A recent study shows that while over 50 percent of patients in the United States receive the latest, most effective pharmaceuticals for arthritis, they are available to only 15 percent of patients in Germany and the United Kingdom. The same trend is revealed with regard to cardiovascular medicine. In Italy and Belgium, the threshold condition for receiving the most innovative and effective therapy is having a cholesterol level of about 290 as well as proof of a family history of heart trouble, even though established medical opinion holds that a cholesterol level of 190 is the appropriate threshold for treatment.New medications are a critical component of health care, yet patients in many European Union countries have to wait years before they become available. In most European countries, pharmaceutical companies must not only get approval from the national departments of health, but must also obtain pricing and reimbursement approvals before they can introduce a new drug into the market. Because this can result in delays averaging 18 months, many breakthrough medications are simply unavailable for extended periods of time. A study conducted by Europe Economics revealed that, from 1995 to 1997, more than half of the new medications surveyed were unavailable through pharmacies in Portugal, Italy, and Greece. More than one-third were unavailable in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands…… There is another aspect of the problem that is seldom discussed but has broader implications. This is the fact that the health care sector is, in many countries, the largest single employer and the source of some of the most satisfying and rewarding jobs in our society. From high-tech careers to the caring professions, from research and development to the simplest nursing tasks, the health care sector is one of the key elements contributing to the economic prosperity of our countries; and as the population ages, even more economic activity will reside in this sector.Ordinarily, the prospect of future economic growth of this kind would be a source of great exuberance. However, because health care in the Western welfare states is organized as a function of government, the cost of providing it is viewed as a problem. Indeed, with the current systems in place, and with the current sources of funding, and given the aging of the population, there is an enormous shortfall in health care funding which is constantly growing.The present government policies to cut health care spending are wrong because they block the most important source of economic growth that can be anticipated from the changing structure of the population and the resulting changes in the life-cycle structure of economic demand. The present policies are also self-defeating. The attempts to choke off a natural development and expression of consumer needs will lead to an increasing pursuit of health care options outside the official national system…… What's most important is for Europe to change its perspective regarding the economics of health care. Traditionally, European politicians frown on any move toward the free market and declare that health care must be strictly rationed. They are afraid of over-consumption. They're afraid of new expensive drug therapies.From the perspective of most European governments, a successful year is one in which there was a zero increase in health care costs. Very seldom do these politicians relate costs with outcome, as any business would.Health Care Reform: The European ExperienceThe fear of liability for malpractice and related defensive medicine did not significantly contribute to the introduction of quality assurance mechanisms in Europe, but partly explains the substantial lag in implementation of quality monitoring and improvement compared with that in the United States. Attitudes regarding advances in medicine in particular and science in general are ambivalent, notably when human dignity is at stake. Admiration and zero-risk expectations are mixed with accusations of pointless therapeutic assault. This in turn explains the reluctance of health professionals to expose their decision-making to peer review and scrutiny by members of the public…Why is Finland’s healthcare system failing my family? | Ed DuttonImagine going to your nearest doctors’ surgery at 9am on a weekday with your sick six-year-old daughter because you cannot make an appointment over the phone. After your drive to another part of the city, you can’t simply book a time with the receptionist. There isn’t one. Instead, you must swipe your daughter’s national insurance card through a machine, which gives you a number. Then you and your feverish child simply sit and wait. Or rather, you stand, because the room is so crowded that people are sitting on the floor, on steps, or leaning against walls. The numbers come up on a screen every 10 minutes or so, in no particular order so you’ve no idea how long your wait will be as your daughter complains of feeling cold then hot and then cold again.You see, you are not even waiting to see a GP. You’re waiting to a see a nurse in order to justify to her how quickly your child needs to see a GP or whether she needs to see one at all. At 11.30, you give up and take your daughter to see a private doctor as well, forking out £50 for the privilege.This isn’t some nightmare vision of the NHS after 10 years of Tory cuts. This happened to me recently in a country I have moved to from Britain that is normally lauded as the shining example of a successful welfare state…… Finland’s health service has been in a parlous state for decades and it is getting worse.According to an OECD report published in 2013, the Finnish health system is chronically underfunded. The Nordic nation of five million people spent only 7% of GDP on its public health system in 2012, compared with 8% in the UK. In 2012, the report found, 80% of the Finnish population had to wait more than two weeks to see a GP. Finland’s high taxes go on education and daycare…… In Helsinki there are reports of huge queues at health centres (GP surgeries), waits for appointments of many weeks, and greater and greater demands with less and less funding. In south-eastern Finland it takes about a month to see a GP. Back in December 2013, it was reported that Finns were increasingly using private doctors in neighbouring Estonia to save time and money.What makes the US healthcare system so expensive? Why is the US so expensive compared to Canada?https://www.quora.com/What-makes-the-US-healthcare-system-so-expensive-Why-is-the-US-so-expensive-compared-to-Canada/answer/Lily-Lin-2… I now live in Holland, and they are very proud of their national health insurance but it is far from being perfect. And how do they keep the costs down…· There is only one hospital per area that has radiation treatment equipment.· There is only one highly skilled medical specialist team per geographical region. E.g., my colleague's daughter suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm and had to wait for 12 hours for an operation because the same team had 3 other life-threatening operations before her.· On the other hand, the government controls medical and dental costs and therefore, the medical costs are considerable lower.Health Care Around the World: Norway… Waiting Times. There are significant waiting times for many procedures. Many Norwegians go abroad for medical treatments. The average weight for a hip replacement is more than 4 months. “Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.” Also, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective.The Truth About SwedenCare | Klaus Bernpaintner… It is impossible to put a number on it, but it is obvious that the level of energy in the medical professions in Sweden is low compared to America. It can be seen on several levels, from doctors and even down to students. An American medical student and friend of mine spent a year at a major Swedish hospital. He was shocked when he realized that students never spent any of their spare time in the operating room; there was no drive to become the best. There are of course enthusiasts who love their work regardless, and do a fantastic job, but the system is not conducive to this attitude.Planning always fails. The planners come to realize that the market is superior but they will not back off. Rather they will try to mimic a market, using trendy techniques such as “New Public Management,” voucher systems, or healthcare exchanges. The results of these solutions are usually even more disastrous than outright planning. In order to work, they will have to reduce every medical condition to a code, every patient to an ID number, and every procedure to planned (arbitrary) cost and income numbers.It was recently revealed in one of the major newspapers that doctors were told to prioritize patients based on their value as future taxpayers. Old people naturally have a low future-taxpayer-value, so they naturally became low priority in the machine and less likely to receive proper treatment. In a private healthcare system you can make your own priorities, you can for example sell your house and spend the proceeds on becoming well. In a socialized system somebody else sets the priorities. …… When I moved to the U.S., our family health insurance took three months to kick in. One of my family members broke a leg in this period. We found a “five-minute clinic” half an hour away, had the leg X-rayed, straightened and casted, with no waiting time — all for $200 cash. That kind of service is non-existent in Sweden. It is an example of how a market, not yet totally destroyed by the state, can create affordable and high quality services.US vs UK: Comparing Medical and Allied Healthcare ServicesAvailability of CareGetting care when you need it is universally important. Speedy care in the emergency room is essential. The UK healthcare system target is to have a patient wait time of four hours or less for 95% of its patients…… The average wait time for emergency and accident care in a US emergency room is 58 minutes.Baby Oliver saved in U.S. after UK doctors said his heart couldn't be fixedBritish baby’s rare tumor confounds NHS, cured in USANHS to pay £150k for baby's US heart surgery so they can learn ‘how Americans do it’Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and InnovationReport shows United States leads in science and technology as China rapidly advancesHow Other Countries Freeload on U.S. Drug Research… The U.S. is the world leader in producing new medicines. The country’s strong intellectual-property laws, coupled with a comparatively free-market pricing system, encourage firms to research new treatments. Companies wouldn’t take on the enormous cost of developing a new drug without a solid chance of recouping their investment. On average, a new medicine takes 10 years and costs $2.6 billion to develop, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development…… Because foreign countries can import new U.S. drugs and price them however they see fit, many have largely checked out of the innovation business themselves. The U.S. produced 57% of the world’s new medicines between 2001 and 2010, up from less than a third in the 1970s, the Milken Institute reported in 2011.The bottom line is that foreign countries freeload off American medical innovation, enjoying the fruits of U.S. ingenuity while forcing American consumers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of funding research.List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine - WikipediaThrough 2019The Nobel Prize for Medicine has been awarded 204 times. The U.S. has won or shared 106 Times. The EU (counting Nazi Germany’s 3) has contributed 107. Since 1970, the U.S. has won or shared 68 Times. The EU has contributed 49. 2020 U.S. population: 330,649,603; EU population: 446,786,293.7 Countries that Produce the Best Doctors in the WorldMuhammad Asif's answer to Which country has the best doctors?Top 10 Countries with the Best Doctors in the World | MyVessyl… How do you rank the doctors in each country? Do you rank them according to test scores? Do you rank them based on a country’s low mortality rate due to illness? Do you rank them based on the overall quality of healthcare in a country?For this top 10 list, we looked into the past and ranked which countries have produced the most doctors who have made significant contributions and breakthroughs in the field of medicine. We checked the most popular doctors in the world at The Famous People and listed down which countries had the most representatives.Basically, it’s a popularity contest. It’s not the most accurate way to approach the list. But considering the broadness of the topic, we couldn’t think of any other way to rank which countries have the best doctors in the world.The U.S. healthcare system welcomes Denmark to the Twentieth-Century. Not many “universal” or “single-payer” systems have made it that farArtificial heart transplanted in Denmark for the first time - The PostMay 25th, 2020 1:04 pm… Denmark is just the third country in the world to undertake the artificial heart transplant, and the doctors behind the effort hailed the milestone as a paradigm shift.Artificial heart - Wikipedia… First clinical implantation of a total artificial heartOn 4 April 1969, Domingo Liotta and Denton A. Cooley replaced a dying man's heart with a mechanical heart inside the chest at The Texas Heart Institute in Houston as a bridge for a transplant…… First clinical applications of a permanent pneumatic total artificial heartThe first clinical use of an artificial heart designed for permanent implantation rather than a bridge to transplant occurred in 1982 at the University of Utah…… On 27 October 2008, French professor and leading heart transplant specialist Alain F. Carpentier announced that a fully implantable artificial heart would be ready for clinical trial by 2011 and for alternative transplant in 2013. It was developed and would be manufactured by him, biomedical firm CARMAT SA,[47] and venture capital firm Truffle Capital. The prototype used embedded electronic sensors and was made from chemically treated animal tissues, called "biomaterials", or a "pseudo-skin" of biosynthetic, microporous materials.According to a press-release by Carmat dated 20 December 2013, the first implantation of its artificial heart in a 75-year-old patient was performed on 18 December 2013 by the Georges Pompidou European Hospital team in Paris (France).[49] The patient died 75 days after the operation.