|
"The fee-for-service reimbursement system
creates an incentive for physicians to see more patients. This
is magnified by physician co-ownership of these facilities,
which offers a strong incentive to self-refer cases - physicians
who own imaging equipment refer between two and eight times more
tests than their peers without equity interest. Furthermore,
manufacturers of imaging and diagnostic equipment advertise to
physicians the financial advantages of pursuing additional
testing. Ultimately, the excess installed capacity (the US has
three to six times more scanners than Germany, UK, France and
Canada) with low utilization further increases the pressure to
generate more demand in order to justify the investments made.
The vicious circle is not easily interrupted by a reduction of
reimbursement fees, since revenue levels can be maintained
through incremental demand fueled by clinical discretion."
Ref:
http://www.themonroetimes.com/v0305hue.htm
Huebsch is wrong on Health Care solution
By Jack E. Lohman
Rep. Mike Huebsch is absolutely correct when he says the
health care system is broken. But his logic is reversed and he
doesn't seem to accept that state politicians trashed the system
when they lifted the certificate of need and allowed the so-called
"free-market" to take control.
Moving to the for-profit, free-market system over the last decade is
exactly the reason costs have increased at five times the rate of
inflation, and we don't need more of the same. We also don't need
employers offloading their health care costs to employees via Health
Savings Accounts, or as Huebsch and George Bush calls them,
"personal savings accounts."
The banks, credit card companies, and bankruptcy attorneys will have
a field day with HSAs as they dangerously refocus the issue from
providing needed health care to cutting care and costs. HSAs make
sense only if you are young, healthy and wealthy. Read the code
words and don't be fooled by right-wing rhetoric.
When patients must decide on the dollars they spend, they too often
delay care until it is more costly to treat or it becomes
untreatable. A RAND study demonstrated that when hypertension
patients had to pay part of the bill, they had a 10% higher death
rate. Most certainly if people die earlier we will reduce our health
care costs, but that sounds too much like a Philip Morris study I
once read. We can do better.
Understand this: there is no such thing as competition in the health
care system. Period! Never has been and never will be, at least not
in this decade. Most patients trust their physicians to do the right
thing, and few will seek the lowest bidder. The vast majority of
consumers are not equipped to second guess their physicians, though
they should indeed research their diseases and potential treatments,
and they should live healthier lifestyles.
Rep. Huebsch lambastes a government solution, but in fact every
other system in the world that exceeds US quality and efficiency
(which is the top 36 systems) are either total government or a
combination public-private systems like Canada's. According to the
World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th, Canada
ranks 5th and France is in
first place with its Medicare-type of system. Longer life expectancy
and reduced infant mortality are hallmarks of the systems better
than ours, and we have 18,000 people per year dying because they
lack health coverage.
Though not perfect '' because Canadian politicians have underfunded
it and wait times exist for non-urgent procedures '' over 80% of
Canadians still prefer their system to ours. Its costs are 10% of
gross domestic product compared to our 15%, and ours is projected to
rise to 20% in the next decade thanks to our free-for-all approach
and turning it over to for-profit corporations.
If Huebsch really wants to fix health care he'll support the
Medicare-for-all system proposed by Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck
Benedict. Fund it properly and we'll have 100% coverage with no wait
times, yet the same costs as today's. This is the most
business-friendly and public-friendly approach possible, and it
makes sense to everyone except those profiting from the current
mess.
Contrary to the anti-government rhetoric, Medicare is the only part
of our health care system that does work well. It treats the most
costly of patients and the end-of-lifers '' it does so efficiently
and without rationing '' and seniors are not complaining. I know
because I'm one of them.
But at the very
least Assembly Speaker Huebsch should let the Miller-Benedict bill
receive a fair public hearing and not block its progress to a floor
vote. And he and the other Republicans should start by refusing the
$1.4 million the health care industry makes in annual campaign
contributions, and start thinking about a real public solution
instead.
Barring that public commitment, perhaps we could reconsider
Huebsch's position if he and his cohorts first passed a law
mandating health savings accounts for all state legislators. Let
them experiment with their own families before passing it to the
public.
President Rejects Health Care Proposal:
WASHINGTON '' The Bush administration on Wednesday rejected key
recommendations from a citizens' group asked by Congress to find out
people's health care wishes.
Suggestions included
guaranteeing health coverage for specific checkups and treatments
and protecting consumers from high medical expenses. The group
released its report Sept. 29 after hearing from about 6,500 people
at 84 meetings.
See complete story
HERE.
Income inequality and
child mortality in wealthy nations:
Relationships between
income inequality and various health indicators
have been the subject of much study and some
controversy. We investigated associations
between child mortality and income inequality
amongst the wealthier OECD countries as well as changes
in their relative child mortality rankings over
time.
Conclusions: The
results strengthen the existing evidence linking child
mortality with income inequality in wealthy
nations, and add to the evidence that
sociopolitical factors are important in this regard.
See the complete report
HERE.
Thanks to
www.toomuchonline.org for this link.
|
I'd like to see free higher education for all, but I recognize that some kids are not capable of being doctors. "Appropriate" education is the key. We must start early and voice often the need for school kids to choose an appropriate direction. If they are best suited for cooking they should go to culinary school. If they are qualified to be physicians, to medical school. And if they rank in the top 10% of their class they should receive a 100% rebate, with progressively lower rebates down to a C average. This provides incentive to be better and study harder, and it truly leaves no child behind.
But we cannot break the bank on this. I would limit the rebates to mainstream occupations that are needed in society. I'd demand career counseling and testing to ensure that individuals are not entering a career they are sure to fail at. Then I'd get rid of the politicians who prefer funding tax breaks for the rich and redirect that funding to education.