Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Remember the heady days of 2007, before the large economy sized recession? Well, even back then medical problems contributed to over 62 percent of all bankruptcies. That’s according to a study by researchers at Harvard Med, Harvard Law and Ohio University just published online and scheduled for the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine. The authors note that with the recession, the 62 percent figure has likely gone up even more.
David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study said, "Our findings are frightening. Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.” He also noted that “private health insurance is a defective product, akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain."
And co-author Steffie Woolhandler, said, "We need to rethink health reform. Covering the uninsured isn't enough. Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it. Reforms that expand phony insurance—stripped-down plans riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions—won't stem the rising tide of medical bankruptcy."
—Steve Mirsky
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentI know as I'm typing this that I'm inviting flames, I've always wondered about medical expenses and bankruptcies, especially because I hear these types of statistics during political campaigns. This may sound impossible to some, but I literally have never known anyone who was forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. I come from a modest background, have an average job, home, and lifestyle, and have known several friends and family members who have declared bankruptcy, but perhaps my particular experience is simply an anomaly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this matters for one major reason--when the underlying premise doesn't seem realistic, the solution doesn't seem necessary. When trying to effect monumental reform of such a vast system, there can be no question as to the justification for such a project; otherwise, the stakeholders (me, or in larger terms, the taxpayers/voters) disregard the entire debate.
I know that our health-care system is not perfect, but I'm curious to know whether others share my experience or sentiment on the topic.
You're lucky. You've never had to choose between treating yourself and feeding your family. I hope you continue to be as lucky. I have known people, and I pray every day I'm not one of them. Its very painful, especially for those with children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is pretty much spot on, my wife and I have worked all our lives (now, in our mid-fifties). I sustained a big hit in '97 where and older woman (still driving at 87 and 2 cataract replacements) hit my car at about 20mph (a Volvo wagon by the way) on a diagonal hit (so no air bags deployed), I'm now 50%+ disabled from this. In 2002 (tech wreck) a customer defaulted on A/R to my self-employed consultancy for about 200K. All that was not enough but in 2004 my wife gets lymphoma (now 4 years clean MRI, after radiation therapy). We have not gone bankrupt, and we had insurance, but we still have some 20 K of debt related to the event (plus the credit hits). Now although I'm not billing much, our debt load has increased dramatically. It is not just about the insurance but also disability. I'm also republican, but I'm beginning to see the merits of a national plan. None the less, I'm more interested in seeing how it can be paid for out of savings accrued, than I am about wide open coverage for every man, woman, child and illegal alien (and their children).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am one to whom this very situation has happened. In 2004 my wife and I moved to Florida from California. I was working for myself as a freelance web developer and we couldn't afford health insurance. Because of our move we were forced to cancel the Blue Shield/Blue Cross we had in California and reapply in Florida, but the cost was prohibitive. We did have one of those health savings accounts, but it was mainly just for prescriptions. In summer of 2005 I fell ill with Necrotizing Pancreatitis and almost died. I was rushed into hospital and spent two months having four major surgeries and a lot of post-op care. Because I was an emergency case the hospital, doctors and staff all took great care of me and said the financial stuff would be dealt with later. After I got back home the bills started coming in, and ended up totaling more than $750,000. There was just no way we could even try to pay that back, so we were advised to file for bankruptcy. We got a really good lawyer who helped us through the whole process and advised us on what we should and shouldn't write off. We were able to clear all the medical bills and the several credit cards we'd been having to live off of. We kept our car loan, under advisement, because we could handle that and we were told it would help us in the long run to keep it going to help rebuild our credit score. We got our filing in and approved about a week before the law was changed that would have forced us into a situation of having to pay back most of what we owed, so we consider ourselves extremely lucky. Today, almost four years later, that bankruptcy still hangs over us and affects our credit rating and we have no chance of getting a mortgage, but we still think it was the only and best option we had at the time. We now don't have credit cards, living a cash-only lifestyle, and we feel we are happier for it. Bankruptcy is a last resort and should not be undertaken lightly, but for us, I sometimes wonder where we would be today if we had not had that option. It doesn't surprise me that the percentage of those who file for bankruptcy do it as a result of illness and associated medical bills, though. The cost of healthcare in the US is so high as to make it prohibitive for many people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood healthcare, and the peace of mind that comes from knowing you will be taken care of if something happens to you or your family, should not be considered a luxury, it should be a right, fair and equal for all.
I wish I lived such a sheltered life as you, salliek! I am facing a bankruptcy myself, and quite frankly, I should have given up and filed a long time ago. I am 30 years old and have been "sickly" since childhood. This culminated at age 27 when I was stricken with a life-threatening ovarian tumor that required invasive surgery and hospital stay. I also have lupus, an autoimmune thyroid condition, and something else that's undiagnosed. I can't even tell you how much I owe in medical bills because I've lost count and it hurts to think about it. I was unemployed for well over a year, and then forced to take a low-paying job. My finances got way out of control and I'm miserable. I received 11 collection calls today, and I have approximately $30 in my bank account, and I need groceries, etc. Even with all of the doctors I've seen, I'm still unwell and in pain most of the time. A friend of mine with a similar health situation declared bankruptcy recently and is much better for it. She's the only person I know who has declared.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at France, there are doctors almost everywhere. The thing is that doctors over there aren't paid as much as doctors in the states. For good health care to not be a luxury, but obtainable for all in some utopian ideals such as universal health care would require the training of very many students to be doctors by opening more medical schools, and that potential doctors' salaries and tuition to be cut. Doctors in the U.S. complain that they're always busy and don't get enough sleep and so forth-- very similar to what the teachers say, except for the risk of that pink slip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics, politics, politics ...�� All this is about politics!�� But this question and the theme of religion breeds comments and more comments, not is it?�� This text is based in a "scientific" research made by scientists that want give politic counseling?��� Did they and Steve Mirsky candidate themselves in the last elections?�� Let this space of Scient�ficAmeriocan.com for scientific matters only, please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is apparent to me that you do not suffer from any chronic medical conditions or from any catastrophic medical illness. People often find out just how vulnerable they are only after they are diagnosed and begin treatment. Let us know how swell things are if and when you get a serious and/or chronic illness. When the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills come in, you will then know what I know about how medical bills can drive even the insured into bankruptcy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Steve. This has everything to do with politics and nothing at all to do with science. Please try harder (MUCH HARDER) to leave your liberal biases at the door when selecting topics. My experience is that you have some interesting things to say when you restrict yourself to real science -- and that you're relatively clueless when it comes to politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, Mr. Obama's administration is caving to conservative Democrats and Republicans on all this. The current proposal will leave the wealthy and insurance companies untouched while having the old, ill, disabled, and very poor--the beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid--receive less medical care in order to fund the proposed "basic" (second-tier) public coverage option. While campaigning, Obama came on as pro-singlepayer; soon after election, he was for a public health coverage "option" alonside current health insurance plans, with this public "option" to be paid in part (about one-third) by "trimming" Medicare and Medicaid. Now he is suggesting a "basic" public "option," to be funded entirely by taxing workers' medical benefits and by cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Such cuts are rationalized, by budget czar Peter Orszag, as not really harming anyone since, after all, the Dartmouth Health Atlas shows that "less intensive" medical care (measured by number of specialist visits, tests, and rehospitalizations) does as well as "more intensive" care; however, the Dartmouth Health Atlas shows no such thing (and cannot, as it is a retrospective study of patients during their last two years of life, and so of course they all die at the end of two years, no matter how treated). In brief, what the "compromise" to which Mr. Obama has caved will do is to use the same pool of monies now funding Medicare and Medicaid to also fund the new public option. And a beefed-up Medicare commission of "health economics experts" will oversee Medicare cuts--the administration has agreed to this as well--probably without public or Congressional oversite. This is no "reform," people; this is step one of evisceration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this