[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16545]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMENDING THE ARTICLE ``HEALTH SPENDING IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
                   REST OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD''

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 19, 2005

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the annual 
comparison of health care costs in the 30 OECD member countries. I 
commend Gerald F. Anderson, Peter S. Hussey, Bianca K. Frogner, and 
Hugh R. Waters for their Health Affairs article: ``Health Spending in 
the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World; Examining 
the impact of waiting lists and litigation reveals no significant 
effects on the U.S. health spending differential.''
  Once again the United States leads the way, spending $5,267 per 
capita on health care--53 percent more than the next highest country, 
Switzerland. The median per capita expenditure in the 30 OECD countries 
is a mere $2,073, and yet none of these countries have 45 million 
uninsured people. Even worse, the U.S. is 17th in life expectancy among 
these countries. It is a travesty that the U.S. spends more than any 
other country and still can't provide universal coverage or break the 
top fifteen in life expectancy.
  It is no surprise that our failure to embrace universal healthcare 
and our inefficient fragmented delivery system results in high spending 
and poor outcomes. The rest of the OECD countries have some form of 
national health system. It works for them, but instead of working 
toward that system here in the U.S., House Republicans will put 
legislation on the floor during their upcoming ``health week'' that 
will further demolish our health care system.
  Republicans will say that universal health care means waiting lists 
that hold down spending. They'll claim that litigation costs here in 
the U.S. are the main driver of increased healthcare costs, and that we 
need to limit malpractice suits to lower our costs. According to the 
study, neither litigation costs in the U.S., nor waiting lists in other 
OECD countries account for a significant portion of the difference 
between domestic and international health care spending.
  If Republicans bring Association Health Plan (AHP) and Medical 
Malpractice legislation to the floor next week, don't think for one 
second they have any desire to reduce costs, increase access or improve 
quality. AHPs will actually increase premiums for nearly 80 percent of 
affected workers. This is how the market works, Republicans pass a 
bill, insurance companies cash in, and patients pay more and lose 
important regulatory protections. Medical malpractice makes up less 
than 0.5 percent of health care costs in all OECD countries with tort 
based compensation, and damage caps and other reforms will only mean 
increased profits for malpractice insurance carriers, not increased 
justice for patients or lower premiums for doctors.
  The Republicans will give lip service to health care next week, but 
the only real way to deal with spiraling health care costs is to follow 
the lead of the other 29 OECD countries and provide universal health 
care.

                          ____________________