Sense and Nonsense
One of the things I like best about policy making is the education process that is involved. Legislation deals with just about any topic under the sun – which means that a legislator should spend loads of time learning about lots of things (which is pretty cool). In that fast-and-furious education process, it is always a challenge to sort out sense and nonsense in the information we are presented. I’ve been wanting to blog about this topic for a while, and I recently received something that provides good fodder.
A doctor sent out an email with some serious allegations about health care in Utah and about Intermountain Healthcare specifically. Coming from a doctor and citing sources for the allegations, the email initially would seem to add substance to Utah’s health care debate. However, it falls apart, when subjected to scrutiny. Because I serve as a volunteer on the Governing Board of my local hospital, Dixie Regional Medical Center, I had some baseline knowledge of the underlying issues, and was able to quickly spot problems with the information presented. Here are some examples.
The first allegation was: If Utah is the second healthiest state and also the youngest population demographic in the nation, then why are our health care costs so much higher than many other states? In the most recent year for which data is available Utah was 32nd for families, and in 2003 was third highest in the nation for single insurance coverage when it should be second lowest (source: StateHealthcareFacts.org).
However, StateHealthcareFacts.org doesn’t show that at all. Much to the contrary, that site shows that Utah has the lowest per capital health care costs in the nation, the 16th lowest rates for single insurance rates (2008), and the 20th lowest for families (2008) – not bad, given the average size of Utah families. And, though I’m not sure why emphasis was placed on 2003, the data for 2003 showed that Utah had the 14th lowest rates for single insurance coverage, not the “third highest in the nation” as alleged.
The second allegation was: Why did the largest insurance actuary in the country, Tillinghast, comment that healthcare costs would be lower in Utah were it not for Intermountain Healthcare? (Source: Personal communication with Jacob Lawrence of Tillinghast).
Well, he didn’t. Jacob Lawrence (who actually works for Towers Perrin, not its subsidiary, Tillinghast) says, “I would like to take this opportunity to correct the facts set forth . . .. I did not make the comment to Dr. [X] attributed to me.” Likewise, a video touted by the same doctor shows prominent medical practitioners and professors apparently saying bad things about Intermountain. When contacted, those people likewise say that the attributed quotes were fabricated through the editing process.
Etc. Etc. My personal favorites are the allegations that Intermountain advertises during the Superbowl (uh, no) and that Utah is one of the worst regarding the cost of in-patient hospital stays (when it is, actually, the very best).
You get the idea. People and organizations sometimes do play fast and loose with the facts, when dealing with the Legislature. That is a mistake. In the hustle of the session, legislators listen to reliable sources and ignore sources that have previously been inaccurate. Most issues legitimately have 2 or more sides and can be worthy of legislative consideration. It always baffles me that experienced people would come before the Legislature with glaringly erroneous (and so easily verifiable) information.
A doctor sent out an email with some serious allegations about health care in Utah and about Intermountain Healthcare specifically. Coming from a doctor and citing sources for the allegations, the email initially would seem to add substance to Utah’s health care debate. However, it falls apart, when subjected to scrutiny. Because I serve as a volunteer on the Governing Board of my local hospital, Dixie Regional Medical Center, I had some baseline knowledge of the underlying issues, and was able to quickly spot problems with the information presented. Here are some examples.
The first allegation was: If Utah is the second healthiest state and also the youngest population demographic in the nation, then why are our health care costs so much higher than many other states? In the most recent year for which data is available Utah was 32nd for families, and in 2003 was third highest in the nation for single insurance coverage when it should be second lowest (source: StateHealthcareFacts.org).
However, StateHealthcareFacts.org doesn’t show that at all. Much to the contrary, that site shows that Utah has the lowest per capital health care costs in the nation, the 16th lowest rates for single insurance rates (2008), and the 20th lowest for families (2008) – not bad, given the average size of Utah families. And, though I’m not sure why emphasis was placed on 2003, the data for 2003 showed that Utah had the 14th lowest rates for single insurance coverage, not the “third highest in the nation” as alleged.
The second allegation was: Why did the largest insurance actuary in the country, Tillinghast, comment that healthcare costs would be lower in Utah were it not for Intermountain Healthcare? (Source: Personal communication with Jacob Lawrence of Tillinghast).
Well, he didn’t. Jacob Lawrence (who actually works for Towers Perrin, not its subsidiary, Tillinghast) says, “I would like to take this opportunity to correct the facts set forth . . .. I did not make the comment to Dr. [X] attributed to me.” Likewise, a video touted by the same doctor shows prominent medical practitioners and professors apparently saying bad things about Intermountain. When contacted, those people likewise say that the attributed quotes were fabricated through the editing process.
Etc. Etc. My personal favorites are the allegations that Intermountain advertises during the Superbowl (uh, no) and that Utah is one of the worst regarding the cost of in-patient hospital stays (when it is, actually, the very best).
You get the idea. People and organizations sometimes do play fast and loose with the facts, when dealing with the Legislature. That is a mistake. In the hustle of the session, legislators listen to reliable sources and ignore sources that have previously been inaccurate. Most issues legitimately have 2 or more sides and can be worthy of legislative consideration. It always baffles me that experienced people would come before the Legislature with glaringly erroneous (and so easily verifiable) information.
posted by steve u. at 12/15/2009
Subscribe
2 Comments:
If it wasn't for Algore's invention of the internet, claims such as those mentioned in your post would have more legs.
The other side of that coin, however, is that the internet also gives every nut job a better chance to get his message out.
Thanks for sifting through a few of these wild statements. It really is amazing what one can simply say (or write) and many will simply assume it's true.
<< Home