They aren’t doctors, they don’t even play them on TV, yet our esteemed leaders in Washington have taken out their prescription pads to fix what they think ails us. What it really sounds like is Herbert Hoover’s old campaign chestnut, “a chicken in every pot” – in other words, quality healthcare for everyone that won’t cost us a penny.
To be sure, some of what is proposed will help some of the uninsured as well as some of the underinsured who face chronic health problems. But is the cure worse than the disease? Based on what is currently proposed, we get very little real-time reform at the cost of both our economic future and as the leading country in innovative and life-saving medical technology and pharmaceutical breakthroughs.
If the purpose is to lower costs and increase competitiveness in the health insurance market, a provision should be included to allow for the purchase of health insurance over state lines. And no cost reform can be obtained without significant tort reform. A federal health care plan should limit frivolous lawsuits against health care providers to prevent fraud and free up our legal system. Shouldn’t we start with some of the basics before we launch into a massive new bureaucracy with 110 new federal panels and commissions?
Instead, what we get is a tax on Botox, heart valves and hip replacements.
In the current version of the Senate health care bill, a new fee would be levied on the sale of medical devices and diagnostics. As currently structured, the fee would be apportioned based on market share. However, the sliding exemption for companies with less than $25 million in annual revenue will concentrate the tax on the remaining companies and devices. This will be a crushing economic blow to many companies here in Orange County, home to the largest conglomeration of medical device manufacturers in the county.
A better way to reduce costs and make procedures and drugs more available and affordable would be to streamline the regulatory and market entry process. Enabling products and technology to reach the market faster through a simpler, yet no less stringent review process, would help drive down costs of bringing a product to market. Forcing bio-medical, pharmaceutical, and medical device manufacturing companies to conform to a mandated reduction in price, without any corresponding reporting or regulatory relief will likely mean less spending on innovation and fewer choices for the consumer. How exactly are we improving health care when the action proposed would cripple the very industries that advance health care through new treatments and products?
What does this mean for the future quality of health care in this country? Well, maybe we should take that “chicken” they are promising and make a healthy soup out of it.
Same old tired discussion
Dec 9, 2009 User: Sick and tired
With all respect to those who cling on to market-based solutions to our disfunctional healthcare system, isn't it time we all face reality and recognize that the sooner we can reduce the non-medical costs, the American people and business community will get their money's worth. Global value comparisons place the US way down the list on what we get for our money. The first step is to bifurcate the discussion into one about health and healthcare delivery and another about the the impact of the healthcare insurance industry.
Let me address three suggested "fixes". The suggestion that we would be better off allowing cross state line competition for health INSURANCE companies. One, less than positive outcome of this suggestion will be the incorporation relocation of the industry to states where consumer protection favors selective exclusions and other ways to optimize profits. California has more consumer protections focused on the healthcare INSURANCE industry than other states. Pass a plan that allows health INSURANCE companies to sell across state lines and they will game the system and set up shop from states that offer less protection.
The second "fix" is the red herring regarding frivolous law having a significant impact on our healthcare costs. This is simply not the case and a cap on litigation awards would have very little impact on the rising cost of healthcare. We would still be saddled with from 20 to 30% middle man costs to the healthcare INSURANCE companies that do not deliver one dollar of actual care.
The third "fix" involves relaxed regulation and greater speed to market. We have tried deregulation in many markets, most of which did not deliver superior product and outcomes for consumers. Does the word Vioxx remind you of anything? How about lead in toys and food? One thing we should all know by now is that risk managers assess the potential financial downsides of cutting corners. For non-life threatening consumer goods, we can live with that, but not with pharmaceuticals and medical devices. There may be ways to reduce speed to market for medical devices, but less regulatory protection is not one I would prefer.
While a large percentage of the business community opposes a single payer plan (medicare for all), or even a watered down public option, why did the AMA and the American Nursing Association (remember these are the folks that actually deliver healthcare)endorse these solutions? It is because they too are getting screwed by the INSURANCE industry and recognize our system is broken and does not deliver the care we pay for.
It is time we listen to healthcare professionals.
Agreed, but...part two
Dec 8, 2009 User: IN21320
I just got my daughers Anthem bill and it only went up 3% this year, hmmmmm. Supporting my earlier comment, I'll bet if the government didn't start debating the medical care issue the rate this year would have gone up the usual 10% to 20%, so again, the last thing I want to see happen is the government take over any private enterprise but just the threat of this happening has caused change in an industry, who otherwise, would be just as happy telling me my daughter's bill, which I pay, is going up the usual yearly 10%-20% as opposed to the 3%. Don't you think someone at Anthem said we better not increase the bill too much this year so as not to put a spotlight on ourselves, of course they did! So in my opinion just the talk of the government getting involved made a change for the better. I hope more positive changes for this arrogant industry make their way to the surface while the debate rages on, the medical, insurance and drug industries now know the spotlight is on them and they need to make changes themselves or the changes will come to them.
What happens to our active seniors?
Dec 5, 2009 User: Patrice Rakhshani
What happens to our active seniors whose longevity and abilities don't fit their models? My father is 88, still drives, mows his own yard, and actively volunteers. My aunt, his OLDER sister who is 90, has similar abilities. Based on the data in these bills they should both be dead - they aren't. Further, my father is a WWII veteran and made significant sacrifices for us - they deserve our best, not this.
Agreed, but...
Dec 4, 2009 User: IN21320
How long has the medical industry heard us all say we are sick and tired of the big increases in cost and the lessening of services? It's been going on for 10's of years and the medical profession has not got it's act together. It's a big fat mess and I don't see the medical profession doing anything constructive. What a perfect way to make the medical industry get off it's collective butt to do something but be looking at the business at end of a shotgun. Maybe my kids can get some affordable insurance as a result. I am a conservative but at some point you look at the private sector and they either can't get it done or need the government to kick some hinney. Doing something, anything, is better than nothing at it will spark debate, and I suspect this process we are going through will lead to sometihing better than what we have now.
