Will it work?
"The notion that we can make health care so much more efficient that universal coverage can be financed without incfreasing outlays is a non-starter, in part,because stakeholders use the political process to protect their incomes, avoid price competition, and resist unfavorable regulation." So says B. Bradison in "A Flixible Approach to Health Care Reform" for the Commonwealth Fund. What he's saying is that those with the power to make healthcare more efficient don't want that to happen. (I think I said the same thing a few paragraphs ago.) To paraphrase Machievelli, those who resist change the most are those who benefit most from the old system. (See previous page for list of names.)
Today, he is correct, but this is exactly the situation that has to change if healthcare costs are ever going to be controlled. Healthcare today is not price competitive. Patients rarely know or care what a given healthcare encounter will cost. Is it any wonder then that costs continue to rise? (Rhetorical question!)
Actually, the cost equation is fairly complex, and numerous factors are at work. Chief among them is technology. If you want the latest and greatest, it costs a little more. Nevertheless, it patients were brought back into the marketplace, there would be pressure to contain prices. Perhaps also charter flights to Bangkok.
Comments
Healthcare cost containment has even more far-reaching effects. On the news yesterday, there was a statement made that the cost of healthcare for GM adds $1,400 to each care made. Do you know what the second highest cost for GM is? It is the legal costs related to medical lawsuits as GM is a self-insured company. After those two costs come the cost of actually building a car. GM, like many other large employers, are begining to implode due to the out-of-control healthcare costs.
Something HAS to change - namely malpractice reform that will put limit on pain and suffering costs and also change the way we pay for any further malpractice related medical treatments to a required on a pay-as-you-go basis by the malpractice insurance company instead of one lump sum to the injured patient that, under the current system, the lawyers get a hefty chunk of. The other piece that MUST happen is that the public must learn that a MRI cost more than a copay. The money should, at a minimum, pass through the person's checkbook to the healthcare provider.
Posted by: John Harrison, RN, MHSA | April 3, 2006 10:27 AM