Skip to main content

More Healthcare Savings

      In my blog A Good Idea From the Right of 02/13/10, I mentioned the cost of preventive medicine which physicians are almost compelled to perform in order to avoid litigation. Without doing something to mitigate this problem, healthcare costs will continue to rise.
      In a nutshell, what makes this cost difficult to control is that medical suppliers are paid according to the number of procedures they perform. The more procedures they perform, the more they get paid.
       Republicans are concerned that the establishment of information-gathering panels (Sarah Palin’s “death panels”) to determine what treatments are most effective for specific medical conditions would result in government micromanagement of the healthcare system. The fear is that such management would lead to the rationing of treatment by government bureaucrats. In fact, Senate Republicans recently introduced "antirationing" legislation to bar the government from using comparative-effectiveness research, "a common tool used by socialized health-care systems," for cost control.
      My own expectation of this is that in the worst case scenario, treatment might be rationed by the same accountants and actuaries who now perform this function for insurance companies. For those who presently do not have health insurance, rationing is on the basis of how much money one has.
      But this need not be the case. Such panels could simply collect evidence-based information and pass it on to doctors. In discussions of various courses of treatments to follow, patients would be able to compare the effectiveness of the options available. As long as physicians are not required to follow the guidelines, I don’t see why both Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t vote for it, although it is likely that Republicans would raise their passé specter of “spend, spend, spend.” This in spite of the likelihood that huge savings would follow as a result of the elimination of countless unnecessary procedures.
      One hurdle which needs to be overcome is the hodge-podge of information gathering systems presently in use. A standardized electronic network needs to be established in order that the efficacy of various treatments reaches the panels, and is disseminated to doctors in a timely fashion, without compromising patient privacy. To this end, a massive amount of work remains to be done.
      However, without incentives to use it, information alone will not lead to reform. Obama wants to make evidence-based medicine financially attractive so that providers are rewarded rather than punished for reducing readmissions and unnecessary procedures. "We can't just do research and let it sit on a shelf," Budget director Peter Orszag says.
      Incentives suggested are extra reimbursements for providing primary care, prevention and computerization, and discouraging wasteful preventive medicine by limiting malpractice lawsuits when doctors have followed the recommended practices.
      But the biggest savings depend upon changing the way Medicare reimburses providers. For example, reimbursements for following proven treatments could be increased; if patients want alternative treatments they would have to pay for them themselves. If Medicare leads the way, insurers will follow.
      One last thought: The key to changing the system is the mindset of medical providers. No one should be surprised if they fight tooth and nail to keep the current “pay for procedures performed.” It’s part of the capitalist system to fight change, particularly if it is going to have a major effect on one’s pocketbook.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes appearing therein are so out-of-date that modern readers wouldn’t even understand them. For example,

By Today’s Standards Many of my Teachers Would be in Jail

I started school in a two-room building: grades 1 to 4 in one room; grades 5 to 8 in the other. One teacher in each room taught all four grades. I don’t remember first grade very well – the teacher left at the end of the year. I am pretty sure it was not my fault. Now keep in mind that reading the Bible every morning was the standard for all grades at that time. But my teacher in grades two to four went a little above and beyond the normal practice. As a member of a “plain” sect, she considered it her duty to lead the little heathens to Christianity. She offered a free Bible to all students who managed to memorize 20 verses. I memorized my verses – “Jesus saves” was my favorite because it was the shortest – and got my Bible with my twenty underlined in red. That would be illegal today (not the underlining), and rightly so. Teachers may not teach religion, although contrary to what many folks seem to think, students may bring their Bibles to school, read them, and pray their
The National Anthem I have a somewhat minor pet peeve. I say minor because in the grand scheme of things neither I nor society will do anything substantive about it, so my best bet is probably to suck it up and move on. Perhaps after writing about it I can lay it to rest. It came up recently while I was working out at our Wellness Center. A program on television was playing America The Beautiful , and I remarked to a lady I have known for 40 years that I thought that should be the National Anthem instead of The Star Spangled Banner. She replied, rather huffily, I thought, “Some people think God Bless America should be the national anthem.” At that point I decided, wisely, I think, to back off before an argument sprang up. Now I realize that The Star Spangled Banner is a very nice, patriotic song, but an anthem it is not. According to Wikipedia, “ An anthem is a  musical composition  of celebration, usually used as a symbol for a distinct group, particularly the  nationa