The Cellar - Impeding changes to our Health Care system

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

Quote:

The smaller hospitals will probably see this as their way to go,
and so those ER's will only stabilize the patients and transport them
to larger "teaching" and "county" facilities that do accept Medicare.

What on earth makes you think this isn't already happening?
I can tell you for a fact that it sure as hell is here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 790031)

What on earth makes you think this isn't already happening?
I can tell you for a fact that it sure as hell is here.

Yes, and in the past it was based primarily on technical capability of the hospital and it's staff.
When it's the credit rating of the patients it takes on a completely [=MBAnoise]different motivation[/MBAnoise]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 790050)

Yes, and in the past it was based primarily on technical capability of the hospital and it's staff.

Not here. Not even close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 790015)

Primarily just being facetious...

There are comments in the article about Medicare patients not being served,
and the coming standards for reimbursements, and physicians' practice
of accepting only private-pay (or private insurance) patients.

I do think that unless something is done to ultimately require physicians and hospitals
to accept Medicare reimbursements, this direction of seeking the wealthy patients
will only increase, so more and more patients will be turned away.

The smaller hospitals will probably see this as their way to go,
and so those ER's will only stabilize the patients and transport them
to larger "teaching" and "county" facilities that do accept Medicare.
.

All of that has happened and is increasing. More people do not see Medicare anymore. The rural hospitals are passing on the sicker patients because they cost to much and sending them on to the larger hospitals further delaying much needed critical care. It has nothing to do with the capability of the hospital or the skills of the staff, it is now and always be about money. Medicine is a business, like it or not.

I agree that medicine is a business, but disagree about the reason rural hospitals send patients to larger facilities. It IS about the skills of the staff and having access to the most up to date diagnostics and newer, more sophisticated treatments. A hospital in a town of 10,000 just can't afford the latest and greatest, and really good physicians do not gravitate to rural backwaters for obvious reasons.

If'n I won the lottery, I would still be suspicious of a hospital tricked out as a hotel.
I want the money to go to research, pioneering treatments and the best medical care in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for them to employ plenty of non-medical staff as Hospitality - making sure I have a cold drink, checking in on me, helping me to the toilet, picking up the book I've dropped. But lobster tails? I can do without those for a few days, thanks.

And no, I wouldn't use the NHS if I was mega-rich. At my salary level it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Ditto the majority of the country. But it's overstretched, and if I was on the Times Rich List I'd see it as a moral obligation not to stretch it further. That and seeing how well Grandad was "cared" for when he was there.

Another aspect of "ObamaCare" is coming on board...

Health Care Finance News
Kelsey Brimmer, Associate Editor
February 20, 2012 |

HHS ensures consumers get better value for their health insurance dollar

Quote:

WASHINGTON – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Thursday
that consumers will soon begin receiving unprecedented information on the value
of their health insurance coverage, and some will receive rebates from insurance companies
that spend less than 80 percent of their premium dollars on healthcare.

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance companies begin notifying customers this year
about how much of their premiums they have spent on medical care and quality improvement.
Beginning in 2011, insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent
of total premium dollars they collect on medical care and quality improvement. <snip>

"Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could spend your premium dollars
on administrative red tape and marketing," said Sebelius in a press release.
"With today's notice, we're taking a big step toward making insurers accountable to consumers.
Some of these insurance companies have already changed their behavior
by lowering premiums or spending more on medical care and quality improvement,
while the remainder will need to refund this money to their customers this year."<snip>

Consumers will receive these notifications after Aug. 1, 2012.
The regulation requires that insurance companies send these rebates by this date,
though consumers may receive them at different times.<snip>

HHS has concluded its review of 18 state requests for adjustments to the medical loss ratio rule.
As a result of HHS’ decision to deny insurance companies the ability to spend
more premium dollars on administrative overhead costs rather than on medical claims,
consumers will receive up to $323 million in rebates this year compared to
what would have been owed if all state adjustment requests were fully granted,
according to data from state regulators and issuer reports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 796730)

HHS ensures consumers get better value for their health insurance dollar

Believe it, because that is how they are selling it to you and you want to believe it is true. In reality there is no truth that is or will work.

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

Quote:

As it’s difficult to get good data on prices, that paper blamed prices largely by eliminating the other possible culprits. They authors considered, for instance, the idea that Americans were simply using more health-care services, but on close inspection, found that Americans don’t see the doctor more often or stay longer in the hospital than residents of other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. We spend less time in the hospital than Germans and see the doctor less often than the Canadians.

“The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do,” they concluded. “This suggests that the difference in spending is mostly attributable to higher prices of goods and services.”

Quote:

The 2010 health-reform law does little to directly address prices. It includes provisions forcing hospitals to publish their prices, which would bring more transparency to this issue, and it gives lawmakers more tools and more information they could use to address prices at some future date. The hope is that by gathering more data to find out which treatments truly work, the federal government will eventually be able to set prices based on the value of treatments, which would be easier than simply setting lower prices across-the-board. But this is, for the most part, a fight the bill ducked, which is part of the reason that even its most committed defenders don’t think we’ll be paying anything like what they’re paying in other countries anytime soon.

“There is so much inefficiency in our system, that there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit we can deal with before we get into regulating people’s prices.” says Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University. “Maybe, after we’ve cut waste for 10 years, we’ll be ready to have a discussion over prices.”

And some economists warn that though high prices help explain why America spends so much more on health care than other countries, cutting prices is no cure-all if it doesn’t also cut the rate of growth. After all, if you drop prices by 20 percent, but health-care spending still grows by seven percent a year, you’ve wiped out the savings in three years.

Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA.

Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 799542)

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA.

Why do you think Healthcare did not address healthcare costs?

Quote:

Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA

Is there anyone Better Than Ezra? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 799544)

Why do you think Healthcare did not address healthcare costs?

:eyebrow:
If you are asking that question, then you didn't read the article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 799548)

:eyebrow:
If you are asking that question, then you didn't read the article.

Allow me to rephrase.

Why do you, Classicman, personally think the healthcare reform act did not address healthcare costs?

ETA: I didn't go to the link.

Who? What? Where?
--Vinnie Barbarino