VA Care Is Rated Superior to That in Private Hospitals
By Rob Stein
The Washington Post
January 20, 2006
The Department of Veterans Affairs medical system once epitomized poor-quality care. But after a series of changes, the system has been hailed in recent years as a model for health care reform.
Now, survey results released this week indicate that those improvements have translated into a high level of satisfaction among veterans getting treated by the rehabilitated VA.
The telephone survey, conducted in October, found inpatient care received a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale; outpatient care got a rating of 80. In comparison, a similar survey of patients receiving private care found they rated their satisfaction at 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care.
(Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim) Nicholson acknowledged that some veterans do have to wait for care, but he said the waiting time has been improving and continues to improve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011902936.html
Comment: During discussions of national health insurance, how many times have you heard someone say that we don’t want government health care because then we would all have health care like they have at the VA?
Previous studies have shown that the quality of care in the VA system is actually higher than in the private sector, and now this study shows that patient satisfaction is also greater. It is ironic that the VA can still be used as an argument against national health insurance, but in an entirely different way. Imagine this comment: “We don’t want national health insurance that covers lower quality care in the private sector when we can have higher quality and greater patient satisfaction through a government-owned socialized medicine system as exemplified by the VA.”
Of course, you won’t hear such comments because the nation is not supportive of a public buy-out of our entire health care delivery system. They are having enough trouble accepting the concept of public insurance, as persuasive as are the arguments for a social insurance system.
One reason for the VA’s effectiveness is that it is an integrated health care delivery system, but many would prefer care in the private sector rather than in what they perceive to be a less personal, clinic-type environment. However, Kaiser Permanente, as an integrated health delivery system, has many features in common with the VA system, and yet many patients select Kaiser as their provider of choice.
If we had a national health insurance program, individuals would have the freedom to choose integrated health systems. For veterans, that should certainly include the VA. They should not be deprived of the option of higher quality and greater satisfaction with their care.
The VA does have a unique problem. Wars abruptly create new veterans, and a fixed system has limited flexible surge capacity to meet the increased demand. Queues for elective services can be a problem, though they can be moderated through modest capacity adjustments and queue management. Regardless, for those veterans who cannot afford care in the private sector, and who are stuck in a queue, a universal national health insurance program could provide them the option of obtaining their care in the private sector.
The least we could do for our veterans is to give them the additional choice of accessing the poorer quality and less satisfying care that the rest of us have.