Thread View: pnw.general
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Phil Hughes
Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:05
Health Care Insurance Reform
Author: Phil Hughes
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:05
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:05
85 lines
4592 bytes
4592 bytes
I offer this thread as a new beginning to what started out as a
discussion of health care reform and degenerated into a name calling
contest. I am going to attempt to offer a starting point (but I am
sure people disagree with even that). What I would like to see happen
is to build something that might actually be a proposed solution.
If we manage to do that I am sure I can get it read by at least one
Senator and one Representative.
The Problem
-----------
Current U.S. health care costs are skyrocketing. The
currently amount to about 14% of GDP. Add to this that almost one
fourth of the population is either uninsured or underinsured.
The current patchwork plan has the following functional problems:
- massive overhead (in the range of 15%-25%) from multiple,
for-profit insurance providers
- different "rules" for individuals and enployers with regard
to health care insurance costs. In particular, they are
tax deductable costs for employers, not so for individuals
creating a subsidy for employers who provide health insurance
but cost individuals who don't have employer provided plans.
- qualification requirements such that someone new to a company
(or plan) is not covered for what may be deemed a pre-existing
condition. This also causes employees to be "stuck" with a
particular employer.
- overhead costs out of proportion for low-cost procedures because
paperwork costs are somewhat constant
- no common negotiation position over doctor's costs
- malpractice claims add to already high costs
Comments for pervious discussions
---------------------------------
[Note: these don't necessarily reflect my position -- they are just
points that individuals have made.]
General:
- AMA control over the number of doctors is a major cost problem
- Overhead costs are very high for routine procedures (suggesting
that a major medical plan would be a better alternative)
- limits on malpractice claims would reduce costs
For single-payer (Canadian-style) plan:
- it works in Canada
- doctor charges for procedures are negotiated on behalf of the
patients by the plan provider (This works because the provider has
nothing to gain by increased costs, unlike the US system)
- only having to bill one company for payments reduces paperwork
costs for doctors offices significantly
- everyone is covered in a fair manner (on need rather than ability
to pay). This siginficantly reduces costs of emergency room
procedures for what should have been routine care.
- individuals don't have to get involved in the billing cycle reducing
both costs and the time and energy the receiver of the service must
invest (Note: Group Health, an HMO works like this and it sure is
nice. However, with an HMO you don't get to select any doctor)
Against single-payer plan:
- doctors, rather than patients, determine if and when a procedure
needs to be performed (In other words, you can't buy your way to
the front of a queue)
- costs are shared equally rather than on the basis of what sort
of risk an individual offers
- getting the government involved will always increase costs (note,
this is just put in here so it doesn't have to get added. The
Canadian plan clearly demonstrates that government overhead is
less than the overhead from competitive private companies. The
reduction in cost is not just elimination of competitive insurance
providers but the reduced costs for doctors and patients of only
having to deal with one company that "pays the bills". Even if
a plan was created where a private company paid the bill there
would be significant saving over having hundreds of different
bill payers.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure there are more points but I thought this should be a good
start. Please, add points, address concerns, offer solutions, etc.
I doubt it could happen but I would be real pleased if we could mail a
summary to a few congresscritters to at least show them that we see a
problem.
--
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74 Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl
Re: Health Care Insurance Reform
Author: Walter Bright
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:36
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:36
5 lines
590 bytes
590 bytes
In article <1993Jan26.170516.3949@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes: /The Problem I'll add one major contributor to costs: the FDA, whose sole purpose is to impede medical progress.
Re: Health Care Insurance Reform
Author: Alan Jeddeloh
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:00
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:00
42 lines
2473 bytes
2473 bytes
In article <1993Jan26.170516.3949@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
> (summary of some of the problems with the current health care non-system)
>...
>General:
- Price gouging by drug companies. Companies milk a product until its
patent runs out, then RAISE the price when generic equivalents become
available. When the government dictates a discoount for government
programs, the company simply raises the list price so the government
program pays the old list price.
Drug prices in the US run from 2 to 10 times the price for the same
drugs in other countries.
- Lack of meaningful competition in the industry. Doctors and hospitals set
prices for procedures and supplies. Insurance companies attempt to control
costs by limiting payments, and the patient is left holding the bag _ex
post facto_. (When was the last time you comparison (price/service) shopped
for a doctor or hospital?)
- Multiple-dipping for routine diagnostic tests. For example, suppose you
see a doctor because of chest pains. The doctor decides he wants to see
a chest X-ray. The billing(s):
(1) Office visit to doctor ($25-50)
(2) X-ray charges from hospital (technician, supplies, etc.) ($50-100)
(3) (Surprise!) bill from radiologist who actually read the X-ray
(or from "Radiology Professionals, PC") (another $25-75)
(4) (Insult to injury) "New patient" setup chages from radiologist
(yet ANOTHER $25-50)
- Doctors owning the labs they refer the patients to. For example, most
MRI machines in the US are owned by partnerships in turn owned by doctors.
The doctors thus have an economic incentive to order diagnostics. At the
same time expensive equipment like MRI machines proliferate and there is
to true competition between providers.
--
Alan Jeddeloh W:(503) 685-2991 H:(503) 292-9740
Tektronix, Inc.; D/S 60-850; PO Box 1000; Wilsonville, OR 97070
Alan.Jeddeloh@tek.com
You can put the children to bed, but you can't make them sleep!
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads