Howdy,
In this post I would like to address the effects healthcare reform has had on doctors, and consequently how it affects their patients.
In her article, Christine McConville writes that because so few Boston-area doctors are "willing to see new patients who pay with government-subsidized insurance," the sick and elderly are forced to go out of their way to seek care. Due to this, it has been observed that though people are insured, they still end up in the ER because no doctor will treat them. But why do the doctors refuse those offering to pay with government subsidized insurance?
Well, as it turns out the reimbursement rate that doctors receive from government backed insurance is relatively low. Massachusetts Medical Society President Dr. Alice Coombs even states that it is even difficult in some places to find a gynecologist who will accept a patient that is not pregnant.
The end result of this is that some practices are closing themselves to new patients, and those that are accepting patients have increasingly long wait times. With all this being said, it is still a step in the right direction, as people that are uninsured are now able to get treatment, albeit after a long wait.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0509many_docs_dont_care_for_state_inurance/
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Healthcare Reform and Hospitals
Howdy,
In this post, I would like to discuss what healthcare reform would mean for hospitals.
In his article, Erin L. Nissley explains that the healthcare reform would include changes that affect the "bottom line" of hospitals. Such changes include the yearly decreasing Medicare Hospitals would receive, money that many hospitals rely on to remain functional. Medicare payments will not stop entirely though, as it will eventually be distributed based on productivity. In a nutshell, it forces "cash-strapped hospitals...to cut costs and improve the quality of services they offer."
Nissley also notes in his article that Medicare payments make up a significant portion of revenue for hospitals, and usually payments are increased each year. With the new reform, however, experts predict that over the next 10 years more than $112 billion dollars will be cut from these payments. This lack of funding will force hospitals to behave as any other business would and cut costs.
As bad as this all seems though, there is a way to stay well funded: meet federal benchmarks for productivity and quality of care. How to achieve this standard is the question that must be addressed. Luckily, there are many ideas on how to solve this problem, such as the implication of electronic health records, and collaborations between local hospitals.
Whichever path is chosen to meet these new standards, healthcare reform will change the way hospitals run, hopefully for the better.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/health-care-reform-provisions-mean-hospitals-must-do-more-with-less-1.934579#axzz1LoHGd54d
In this post, I would like to discuss what healthcare reform would mean for hospitals.
In his article, Erin L. Nissley explains that the healthcare reform would include changes that affect the "bottom line" of hospitals. Such changes include the yearly decreasing Medicare Hospitals would receive, money that many hospitals rely on to remain functional. Medicare payments will not stop entirely though, as it will eventually be distributed based on productivity. In a nutshell, it forces "cash-strapped hospitals...to cut costs and improve the quality of services they offer."
Nissley also notes in his article that Medicare payments make up a significant portion of revenue for hospitals, and usually payments are increased each year. With the new reform, however, experts predict that over the next 10 years more than $112 billion dollars will be cut from these payments. This lack of funding will force hospitals to behave as any other business would and cut costs.
As bad as this all seems though, there is a way to stay well funded: meet federal benchmarks for productivity and quality of care. How to achieve this standard is the question that must be addressed. Luckily, there are many ideas on how to solve this problem, such as the implication of electronic health records, and collaborations between local hospitals.
Whichever path is chosen to meet these new standards, healthcare reform will change the way hospitals run, hopefully for the better.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/health-care-reform-provisions-mean-hospitals-must-do-more-with-less-1.934579#axzz1LoHGd54d
Mammograms under Healthcare Reform
Howdy,
Today I would like to discuss a controversial topic in healthcare reform; mammograms. As things are, it is suggested that women, especially over the age of 50, receive annual mammograms. However, recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggested that "women in their 40s should no longer get annual mammograms to screen for breast cancer."
This statement sparked an outcry leading many to believe that the government was more concerned with saving money than "improving women's health." Republicans saw this decision as the precursor to more decisions like it. Representative Phil Gingrey even goes so far as to call it "the first step toward that business of rationing care based on cost."
Proponents of the reform, however, state that changes made in medical procedures, no matter how well supported by scientific evidence will meet opposition. Also, they make a point that healthcare left up to the market, as is common in the US, "has not produced very good results, even for patients."
In summary, opponents say that healthcare reform will begin the budgeting of healthcare, whereas proponents of reform say some treatments are extraneous, and end up costing more than necessary. Though this may be true, some will say they would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. This mindset may work for some, but what about those who cannot afford to have these tests done?
As always, Thanks for reading
Sources:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/mammograms
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/nation/na-health-evidence18
Today I would like to discuss a controversial topic in healthcare reform; mammograms. As things are, it is suggested that women, especially over the age of 50, receive annual mammograms. However, recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggested that "women in their 40s should no longer get annual mammograms to screen for breast cancer."
This statement sparked an outcry leading many to believe that the government was more concerned with saving money than "improving women's health." Republicans saw this decision as the precursor to more decisions like it. Representative Phil Gingrey even goes so far as to call it "the first step toward that business of rationing care based on cost."
Proponents of the reform, however, state that changes made in medical procedures, no matter how well supported by scientific evidence will meet opposition. Also, they make a point that healthcare left up to the market, as is common in the US, "has not produced very good results, even for patients."
In summary, opponents say that healthcare reform will begin the budgeting of healthcare, whereas proponents of reform say some treatments are extraneous, and end up costing more than necessary. Though this may be true, some will say they would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. This mindset may work for some, but what about those who cannot afford to have these tests done?
As always, Thanks for reading
Sources:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/mammograms
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/nation/na-health-evidence18
Saturday, May 7, 2011
The Cost of Healthcare
Howdy,
Today I would like to talk about the relatively high cost of healthcare in the US as compared to other nations. To offer some perspective on how large this gap is, consider the per capita cost of healthcare in the US ($6096) to that of Canada ($3173) in 2007. Why such a large disparity?
One way to explain the high cost is by comparing the per capita GDP of a country against its per capita healthcare costs as shown in the figure:
By analyzing this data we can see that there is a fairly strong correlation between the per capita GDP and per capita cost of healthcare; the higher the GDP, the higher the healthcare costs. Though this alone does not account for the huge disparity, there are several other factors affecting the price of healthcare.
For one, we pay "[higher] prices for the same health care goods and services" than other countries with similar services. We pay oodles more in administrative overhead costs than other countries with "simpler health insurance systems." We use high tech equipment more frequently than most other countries, and lastly hospitals apply tests as a defense against malpractice lawsuits resulting in higher treatment costs.
Taking all of these things into consideration, perhaps it is understandable why healthcare costs are so high, yet that does not mean that they could not be lower.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
Today I would like to talk about the relatively high cost of healthcare in the US as compared to other nations. To offer some perspective on how large this gap is, consider the per capita cost of healthcare in the US ($6096) to that of Canada ($3173) in 2007. Why such a large disparity?
One way to explain the high cost is by comparing the per capita GDP of a country against its per capita healthcare costs as shown in the figure:
By analyzing this data we can see that there is a fairly strong correlation between the per capita GDP and per capita cost of healthcare; the higher the GDP, the higher the healthcare costs. Though this alone does not account for the huge disparity, there are several other factors affecting the price of healthcare.
For one, we pay "[higher] prices for the same health care goods and services" than other countries with similar services. We pay oodles more in administrative overhead costs than other countries with "simpler health insurance systems." We use high tech equipment more frequently than most other countries, and lastly hospitals apply tests as a defense against malpractice lawsuits resulting in higher treatment costs.
Taking all of these things into consideration, perhaps it is understandable why healthcare costs are so high, yet that does not mean that they could not be lower.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Principles Behind "Obamacare" and Republican Opposition
Howdy,
Today I will be discussing the main points that President Obama outlined in his healthcare reform bill, and the Republican opposition to the bill.
President Obama's main purpose in putting forth this bill is to provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans while "driving down health premiums and imposing...common sense rules of the road for insurers." These common sense rules are things like ending the refusal to insure those with pre-existing conditions (much like my mother). In addition, the government would also help support states in need of more Medicare funding.
Republicans oppose this, however, on the grounds that they would rather "rely more on the market and less on government." Republicans instead believe that offering tax incentives will make insurance coverage more affordable and consequently make it more available. This plan, however, will not provide coverage for nearly as many people as President Obama's plan. The Republican response is to allow insurance to sell across state lines, encouraging competition and driving down costs.
In summary, President Obama's plan to extend Health care coverage to more Americans calls for the government imposing rules on insurance companies and assisting states with Medicare, thus increasing the government's power, whereas Republicans plan to increase the power of insurance companies by allowing them to sell across state borders, hopefully leading to more competition between companies.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html
Today I will be discussing the main points that President Obama outlined in his healthcare reform bill, and the Republican opposition to the bill.
President Obama's main purpose in putting forth this bill is to provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans while "driving down health premiums and imposing...common sense rules of the road for insurers." These common sense rules are things like ending the refusal to insure those with pre-existing conditions (much like my mother). In addition, the government would also help support states in need of more Medicare funding.
Republicans oppose this, however, on the grounds that they would rather "rely more on the market and less on government." Republicans instead believe that offering tax incentives will make insurance coverage more affordable and consequently make it more available. This plan, however, will not provide coverage for nearly as many people as President Obama's plan. The Republican response is to allow insurance to sell across state lines, encouraging competition and driving down costs.
In summary, President Obama's plan to extend Health care coverage to more Americans calls for the government imposing rules on insurance companies and assisting states with Medicare, thus increasing the government's power, whereas Republicans plan to increase the power of insurance companies by allowing them to sell across state borders, hopefully leading to more competition between companies.
Thanks for Reading
Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Local View on Healthcare
Howdy Again!
This week I would like to take a page from our school's newspaper, the Battalion, concerning the issue with healthcare. The reason I find this article so intriguing is because my university, Texas A&M, is listed as one of the top 10 most conservative universities in the US, yet the Battalion addresses the healthcare reform with a very open mind.
Battalion contributor, Cole Allen, writes that "few people understand the full concept behind [healthcare reform]," and instead of debating they simply state that they're conservative. Allen then expresses his opinion that socialized healthcare should not be viewed as "a socialist movement," but rather it should be viewed as a program like the police, fire departments, and schools, which are also paid with taxes.
Allen does admit, however, that the government might not have the necessary funds for a universal healthcare system, but there are options like the "pricing out," which regulates insurance company rates. Allen even anticipates backlash against the government intervening with insurance rates by reminding naysayers of corporate fraud schemes within the last decade that went unchecked by the government.
Allen ends his argument pointing out that the top 10 best places to live according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) all have "a universal healthcare form of some type." The United States is not among the top 10.
All in all, this surprisingly balanced overview of healthcare reform from our conservative university really hits the nail on the head: though healthcare may not be perfect, there are options to be had.
I hope you enjoyed reading.
Thanks and Gig 'em
Sources:
http://www.onlineuniversities.com/rankings/10-most-conservative-colleges/
http://www.thebatt.com/2.8482/healthcare-take-a-closer-look-1.1180864
This week I would like to take a page from our school's newspaper, the Battalion, concerning the issue with healthcare. The reason I find this article so intriguing is because my university, Texas A&M, is listed as one of the top 10 most conservative universities in the US, yet the Battalion addresses the healthcare reform with a very open mind.
Battalion contributor, Cole Allen, writes that "few people understand the full concept behind [healthcare reform]," and instead of debating they simply state that they're conservative. Allen then expresses his opinion that socialized healthcare should not be viewed as "a socialist movement," but rather it should be viewed as a program like the police, fire departments, and schools, which are also paid with taxes.
Allen does admit, however, that the government might not have the necessary funds for a universal healthcare system, but there are options like the "pricing out," which regulates insurance company rates. Allen even anticipates backlash against the government intervening with insurance rates by reminding naysayers of corporate fraud schemes within the last decade that went unchecked by the government.
Allen ends his argument pointing out that the top 10 best places to live according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) all have "a universal healthcare form of some type." The United States is not among the top 10.
All in all, this surprisingly balanced overview of healthcare reform from our conservative university really hits the nail on the head: though healthcare may not be perfect, there are options to be had.
I hope you enjoyed reading.
Thanks and Gig 'em
Sources:
http://www.onlineuniversities.com/rankings/10-most-conservative-colleges/
http://www.thebatt.com/2.8482/healthcare-take-a-closer-look-1.1180864
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Healthcare Cartoons
Howdy,
Today I am going to analyze a couple of political cartoons regarding healthcare; one for and one against. Hopefully by analyzing these cartoons, people will gain a better understanding on others' stances on the issue.
First of all, lets analyze the pro-reform cartoon
http://www.blackcommentator.com/index_334.html
In this cartoon, a reporter and the image of death are represented. In doing this, the artist creates the sense that we are watching a broadcast where the guest commentator is an authority figure on the issue. The fact that death is the guest commentator leads the viewer to believe that death is advocating to reject the healthcare reform, possibly in the attempt to increase his clients (i.e, a higher death toll from not receiving treatment). By analyzing this image it becomes clear that the author is pro healthcare reform, and he believes that if the healthcare reform is not enforced, the end result would be more deaths due to untreated ailments.
Now to analyze an anti-reform cartoon.
In this cartoon President Obama, a Doctor, and a patient are depicted. In the image, the President peers over the shoulder of the doctor saying "Don't mind me." The Doctor has an abvious look of annoyance about her face, possibly showing her dislike of government's scrutiny at her workplace. Fundamentally, the artist is trying to depict that a government run healthcare system would be overbearing on doctors and affect their work, and maybe even the quality of care.
By analyzing these two cartoons, we have seen both sides of the story; one artist believes that striking down the reform will lead to more deaths, while another artist believes that passing the reform will lead to an overbearing government presence.
Thanks for Reading
Today I am going to analyze a couple of political cartoons regarding healthcare; one for and one against. Hopefully by analyzing these cartoons, people will gain a better understanding on others' stances on the issue.
First of all, lets analyze the pro-reform cartoon
http://www.blackcommentator.com/index_334.html
In this cartoon, a reporter and the image of death are represented. In doing this, the artist creates the sense that we are watching a broadcast where the guest commentator is an authority figure on the issue. The fact that death is the guest commentator leads the viewer to believe that death is advocating to reject the healthcare reform, possibly in the attempt to increase his clients (i.e, a higher death toll from not receiving treatment). By analyzing this image it becomes clear that the author is pro healthcare reform, and he believes that if the healthcare reform is not enforced, the end result would be more deaths due to untreated ailments.
Now to analyze an anti-reform cartoon.
In this cartoon President Obama, a Doctor, and a patient are depicted. In the image, the President peers over the shoulder of the doctor saying "Don't mind me." The Doctor has an abvious look of annoyance about her face, possibly showing her dislike of government's scrutiny at her workplace. Fundamentally, the artist is trying to depict that a government run healthcare system would be overbearing on doctors and affect their work, and maybe even the quality of care.
By analyzing these two cartoons, we have seen both sides of the story; one artist believes that striking down the reform will lead to more deaths, while another artist believes that passing the reform will lead to an overbearing government presence.
Thanks for Reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)