U.S. Healthcare Professionals Speak Out on Universal Healthcare and the Presidential...

U.S. Healthcare Professionals Speak Out on Universal Healthcare and the
Presidential Candidates' Platforms
Republican, Democrat or Independent - 93% Agree on the Necessity of Healthcare
Reform

NEW JERSEY, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In an effort to gauge
healthcare professionals' attitudes about universal coverage and the
candidates' programs, Medimix International conducted an online survey among
physicians and pharmacists across the U.S. A nationwide representative sample
of 336 general practitioners, internal medicine specialists, oncologists,
cardiologists and pharmacists were interviewed online from June 6-10th, 2008.
An overwhelming ninety-three percent of respondents agree with the claim
that the nation needs an important reform of its healthcare system. Among the
specialized doctors (cardiologists, oncologists, internal medicine), 52% go so
far as to declare that they are in total agreement with that statement.
Looking at political affiliation, among the respondents who recognize
themselves as Democrats, up to 61% are in total agreement with a need for
important reform, while the majority of the Republicans (57%) agree or
somewhat agree with it.
While Canada, virtually all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea have adopted
publicly-sponsored and regulated healthcare, the United States is the only
wealthy, industrialized nation that has not implemented comprehensive
coverage. Universal healthcare is defined as medical coverage extended to all
citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a state or a country. With
healthcare costs today representing 16% of U.S. GDP (four times the Defense
budget), and projected to reach 19.5% within ten years, universal healthcare
coverage has become an increasingly hot topic in the political arena.
The three front-runners of the presidential campaign took different
positions on this subject, with ex-candidate Sen. Clinton vowing to make it a
requirement that everyone participate in a universal health care plan. "We're
going to have universal health care when I'm President," Sen. Obama promising
that, "The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America,"
and Sen. McCain declaring that government's role in health care should be
limited to kick-starting a competitive marketplace so that people can buy
their own insurance.
Should the U.S. create a national plan? More than half of the respondents
felt so, but with options to purchase additional coverage and higher benefits
privately. A minority of respondents (28%) would prefer to preserve existing
coverage plans and extend benefits to those that are currently without
coverage. Only 5% of the interviewed healthcare professionals would like to
see no changes in the current system.
At least three-fourths of the respondents agree that both children and
elders who are citizens should receive government-subsidized coverage, but
only one-third then agree that elders who are residents should receive it.
Respondents from all political backgrounds (Democrat, Republican or
Independent) mostly agree with coverage for citizens. However self-reported
Democrats are almost two to three times more likely as Republicans to endorse
government-subsidized coverage for residents, even when it pertains to
children.
If a national plan were offered, healthcare professionals would like it to
be flexible, and 62% of the respondents declared that individuals should be
able to opt out. "For those patients who can afford a higher private plan,
they should be able to opt out, but everyone should have proof of insurance,"
adds an oncologist from Sacramento, CA. On the subject of how this plan should
be funded, a majority (61%) of respondents from the Democratic side would
prefer financing by taxes, as opposed to Republicans, who would prefer an
employer-plus employee or employee-only funding.
Medimix International also asked the healthcare professionals what would
be the main area of concern if a universal coverage plan were adopted. Of the
Republican camp, 69% of the healthcare professionals shared concerns about too
much government control and high taxes, while the Democrats were mainly
concerned about potentially long waits or difficulty in being seen by
specialists. The fear of long waits was particularly important among
pharmacists, while medical doctors were mostly concerned about high taxes and
too much government control.
When asked if regulating managed care by limiting treatment options and
patient choice would result in a reduction of healthcare costs, more than
two-thirds of the respondents of all affiliations agreed that it would have an
impact, although most of the general practitioners think the impact would be
minimal.
Respondents were then presented five measures that might help control
future medical costs and asked to rank them from the most effective to the
least effective. The measures were: capping of doctors' salaries, enacting
laws to prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for malpractice insurance,
capping profits of the insurance companies who offer the coverage plans,
increasing the use of generic drugs, and capping maximum damages awarded for
malpractice. The most popular measure for healthcare professionals on the GOP
side seems to be capping maximum damages awarded for malpractice, while a
majority of the reported Democrats chose capping profits of the insurance
companies who offer the coverage plans. Not surprisingly, capping doctors'
salaries was the last choice for all respondents, right after increasing the
use of generic drugs.
Respondents were asked to share any additional measures they thought might
be effective to control costs. Among them, physicians insisted on the role of
prevention (in particular, discouraging people from smoking), and specialists
called for less bureaucracy. Emphasis was also placed on limiting frivolous
lawsuits brought against physicians and pharmaceutical companies: "There is a
big need to have a standardized medical malpractice court system, independent
of the current system. This would limit the number of frivolous lawsuits and
make it less likely for a greedy doctor to agree to be an 'expert witness',"
comments a general practitioner from Hanover, PA.
If 60% of the respondents admitted to not having read the plans of any
candidate, more than 80% said they were generally aware of the candidates'
positions on healthcare coverage. A higher percentage of respondents from the
Democratic side seem to have read their candidates' programs (44%, as opposed
to 38% from the Republicans). "This difference can be explained by the long
campaign waged between the two Democratic candidates, and the important focus
that was put on Clinton's vs. Obama's programs during the first two quarters
of 2008," explains Henry Gazay, CEO of Medimix International.
As one MD from Newtown, PA., put it, "The entire system is too
complicated, and there will never be a simple solution, or one that will make
everyone happy." But everyone seems to agree on one thing, our healthcare
system needs an important reform.
Medimix International will soon conduct a similar survey among healthcare
professionals from Europe, Asia and Canada, to compare perceptions of the U.S.
system from inside and outside the country.
About Medimix International
Medimix International is a dynamic provider of advanced marketing research
solutions for the healthcare industry worldwide. Medimix's proprietary panel
provides direct access to over 500,000 physicians and healthcare professionals
from around the world, making it one of the largest panels in the industry.
Medimix specializes in global research. Learn more at www.medimix.net.
For further information on this press release or to obtain a copy of the
poll, please contact:
Kathryn McAdam - Communication department
Email: kmcadam@medimix.net
www.medimix.net
Tel. 1-888-MEDIMIX or 1-305-573-5233

SOURCE Medimix International

Kathryn McAdam, Communication department, Medimix International,
+1-888-MEDIMIX, or +1-305-573-5233, kmcadam@medimix.net