Since the health care debate is approaching the importance of Obama's birth certificate, thought I'd give it its own thread, so we can keep the debate in one place.
I'll kick it off with this:
People scoff at the possible savings with Medicare. Too hard! Have to get between the patient and the doctor! We'll need Health Nannies!
Actually, we just need the high-cost regions to act like lower-cost regions. The result. No diminuntion in quality and big, big savings. Once Medicare did it, the insurance companies would want to follow suit. They'd certainly have the financial incentive to do so. Can't keep passng the costs of unneeded care on to patients forever, right?
Now, I know about defensive medicine, but that's practiced everywhere. It doesn't explain the wide disparities. In fact, Texas enacted tort reform with hard caps ($250k max for noneconomic damages). Lawsuits plunged. But HC policies and malpractice insurance continue to climb. McAllen is the second spendiest place in the country. Guess tort reform didn't solve that defensive medicine issue.
Check this out::
According to the study, doctors in the high spending areas were much more likely to recommend expensive and discretionary services, such as non-critical hospital admissions, referrals to sub-specialists, and more diagnostic tests. But the study also concluded that all this extra medical care did NOT result in any greater survival rate. It just cost more money. To find out what the Medicare reimbursement rates are in your area, click here for an interactive map of the
Atual Gawande of the New Yorker interviewed doctors in
Here’s the real kicker! According to the Thoughts?