1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Wednesday, November 23, 2005

    Question of the Day: From an email:

    If we had a Medicare-for-all system where the reimbursements were higher than they are today, and at least fair, would you support this over the current for-profit system with 1500 insurance companies?

    One of the arguments for a Canadian-style government run and financed healthcare system, from a physician's perspective, is just this. That the system would at least be more manageable than our current hodge-podge of insurance companies with their different rules and different reimbursement rates. It would be easier to bill, easier to collect, easier all around. And sometimes, it does seem tempting.

    But if there were only two choices - the current system vs. a Medicare-for-all system (which would be the same as the Canadian system), I'd stick with the current system - both as a patient and as a physician. For one thing, that if attached to the higher and fairer reimbursements is a mighty big if, and one that would only occur in a theoretical best of all possible worlds. The entire management culture of Medicare - and the politicians who control it - would have to change to allow better and reasonable reimbursement rates. As Medicare currently stands, reimbursement to physicians is set to automatically decrease every year by 4.4% over the next five years. By 2005, Medicare reimbursement for physicians will be 25% lower than it is today. Do you think our overhead will be 25% lower?

    This is their way of keeping costs down as the baby boomer population gets closer and closer to Medicare age. Rather than implement, say, a needs-based approach to the program, and risk angering an ever-growing and politically powerful section of the electorate, they chose a plan that would affect only the smallest demographic - doctors. And by the way, those yearly decreases in reimbursement only apply to physicians. Hospitals and other facilities are not included in the yearly automatic decrease in reimbursement. They have stronger lobbying groups.

    It's extremely frustrating to read comments from Congressmen like this:

    "I will not support simply pouring more taxpayer dollars year after year into a system that is broken," Mr. Barton said.

    As if the reason for the increase in Medicare costs is purely on the provider side. The reason Medicare costs are increasing is that there are more people on Medicare and they are living longer with chronic diseases that require medical attention. This is not going to change, no matter how little they pay doctors. And it is only going to get worse when the babyboomers hit Medicare-eligible age in five years. But no one in government is willing to address that. Instead, they actually do poor more taxpayer dollars by expanding the number of services it covers, regardless of how rich or poor the beneficiary may be.

    Our political culture would have to change drastically before a Medicare-for-all plan would work without bankrupting the nation. I'd rather bill 1500 different insurance companies than live under the tyranny of Medicare.
     

    posted by sydney on 11/23/2005 07:21:00 AM 2 comments

    2 Comments:

    "As Medicare currently stands, reimbursement to physicians is set to automatically decrease every year by 4.4% over the next five years. By 2005, Medicare reimbursement for physicians will be 25% lower than it is today. Do you think our overhead will be 25% lower?"

    Well, I think that's both an accurate concern, and also your problem right there, isn't it? Your medicare system is ridiculous. You would indeed have to change a number of things. And so the initial question is unrealistic. Here's a different version: "If all patients were covered by a system in which reimbursement was paid via a single universal billing and payment system and the payments would increase over time along with the cost of living, how much of a decrease in individual reimbursements would still be fair in order to avoid the hassle of dealing with 1500 insurance companies?"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:09 PM  

    Up here in Canada, we dread the coming wave of aging baby boomers. A hybrid private-public system will ride this wave. A pure public system is like an anchor fixing us to the sea bed: we will be flooded when the wave gets higher than the anchor chain. And, since 60% of each earned dollars already goes to taxes, we cannot stretch the chain any more.

    Here, defenders of the public system (who believe in it like a religion) use the US example to scare people: it's either ours or theirs. And yours is truly scary: you pay far too much for the quality of care you get. In reality, the best systems are found in Europe, especially the scandinavian countries. Therefore, I suggest you stop looking at Canada and start looking at Danemark.

    Here is one of numerous studies comparing health care systems around the world:
    http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

    By Anonymous EM, at 1:40 PM  

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006