As I was reading this article from the NY Times today and put it on Twitter earlier today I had a strange sense of Déjà Vu. Probably because it reminded me of this earlier post on my blog.
I have an sense of impending crisis in healthcare that will be reminiscent of the recent bailout of the financial institutions and the possible bailout of the automotive industry. The only question will be who will bailout medical providers? Sadly this is a crisis that if not solved soon will require a much more lengthy period of recovery as the education and training of medical providers takes years so the recovery curve is likely to be extraordinarily lengthy.
5 comments:
Most people are surprised to hear the bailout's are affecting insurance rates. Insurance is changing as we know it due to the economy and bailouts. Since then the rates have drastically changed. All leading companies have changed lots of policies. When was the last time you researched insurance rates? You'd be surprised what recently changed!!!
*************************************
http://quote-insurance-online.blogspot.com
*************************************
Interestingly enough, I am in the process of reviewing our options for health insurance for the my practice including my partners and employees. To maintain our current level of insurance our rates are going up 27%. We've always paid our employees insurance in full, sadly that is probably coming to an end.
But this just illustrates my point even more. Providers costs are skyrocketing (I think 27% increase qualifies as "skyrocketing"), reimbursement is headed toward zero and because participating with insurance companies prevents cost shifting by balance billing, providers are going to be dropping like flies unless a solution arrives and fast.
Thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts.
Mark
Mark,
A frog, placed in a glass pot on your stove top on a burner and brought to a slow boil will remain in that pot until the water boils and the frog is cooked alive.
Never will the frog attempt to jump out of the pot and save himself.
The American health care 'crisis' is similar to the frog's predicament - for everyone.
Doctors, patients, payers and policymakers all feel the heat.
The difference between the current financial crisis and the health care crisis is that in health care there is no independent 'valuation' of the state of health cares' assets.
No one can say, with certainty, when the system is irrevocably broken.
As such, the condition can continue indefinitely.
The federal government can operate an insolvent Medicare program in 2018 just the same as you can run a money-losing satellite PT clinic.
Fund the money-loser from your other operations.
We have recently witnessed the ability of the federal government to shackle American taxpayers with debt due to disastrous financial decisions.
American policymakers perceive our financial system as 'worth saving'.
The financial system has value and thus the 700 billion-plus is not a bailout, it is an investment.
The question becomes this...
Is a similar investment in American health care an investment or a bail-out?
Tim,
Your point is well illustrated and to answer your question, in my opinion it would be an investment and from what I've been able to ascertain the incoming Obama administration sees it the same way.
Also, if you've been following much of the conversation of the APTA HPA listserve, as Ken Mailly points out the highly regarded Health Economist Uwe Reinhardt would also agree. Dr. Reinhardt's perspective is, at least as I understand it, is that instead of treating the large portion of the GDP that healthcare represents as some kind of negative we should instead focus and capitalize on the positive aspects.
While we all can agree that there is tremendous waste and inefficiencies that must be addressed and corrected, this overall perspective that somehow money spent on healthcare is in some way wasted is erroneous. The fact of the matter is that it fuels a significant part of the economy and it can be improved upon.
Somewhere somehow we have to overcome the sense of entitlement to healthcare as a right (which I support as a member of a modern affluent society) that should be provided irregardless of whether it is provided to the detriment of the professional caregivers. Professional care has value and compensation should reflect that value. When a medical provider's time is compensated at a rate lower than that which one would pay for a manicure there is something seriously wrong.
Thanks for dropping by.
Mark
Mark,
You, me and Uwe will all agree, in principle, along the same lines.
We are all on the same side of the fence.
Unfortunately, as the bail-out shows, the decision often lies with the electorate, not the elite.
Will the American people vote to preserve a system that is perceived to reward orthopedic surgeons $1,000,000/year while 21-year old white, single moms in Tampa, Florida go without pre-natal care?
Or, as Europeans and Canadians have voted, will Americans chose to allocate their wealth transfers to young wage-earners and away from retired golfers?
Tim
Post a Comment