From Stark
Atlantic Monthly has an interesting article on a large California medical practice that has developed systems to keep elderly patients healthier. In the process, they also save health care costs, and the doctors involved make more money.
In the past, we’ve argued a bit in this space about the role of government vs. market forces in fixing our health care system. It’s encouraging to see that private-sector operators, responding to financial incentives, can provide good outcomes. It’s also worth noting that this medical firm, CareMore, works with the government’s Medicare Advantage program. And “Obamacare” apparently contains provisi0ns that will encourage widespread adoption of this kind of payment structure to drive down medical costs.
Remember: The real issue isn’t providing medical coverage for everyone. The issue is figuring out how we, as a society, can spend less on health care without shortening peoples’ lives. The CareMore experience shows how it is possible to spend less and live better and longer.
Agreed John, IMHO also another real issue is about being open minded enough to think out of the boxes we all live in, for solutions that may not be our individual political solutions but will make things better! Solutions that do not make it worst in the long term for short term gains too.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
“The real issue isn’t providing medical coverage for everyone.”
What? And just what do you think the country ought to do with the 50 million or so uninsured? Maybe the 1% can do without coverage. Perhaps you were referring to them.
@ Dick… it’s a which cam first the chicken or the egg.
Make healthcare efficient and affordable, and more people will be able to get on it, as a result.
You can bring health care costs down until the cows come home but if you are without a job then how do you pay for health insurance? The real unemployment rate is probably about 20% and even for those who are working, health care is becoming more scarce as employers opt out. Real wages are dropping for those lucky enough to have a job so where will the money for premiums come from? And if you make minimum wage, just where will you go to get coverage? Single payer is the only solution.
“State Medicaid Reform That Work…..
…Data on quality shows that patients enrolled in Florida’s Medicaid Reform Pilot have better outcomes compared to those in traditional Medicaid….
The Reform Pilot has saved the Florida Medicaid program $118 million each year, and if implemented statewide, would reduce Medicaid spending in Florida by $901 million annually. If replicated nationwide, savings could reach an annual $28.5 billion….
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/05/state-medicaid-reform-that-works-if-washington-bureaucrats-will-allow-it/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
@RM and Dick Conoboy–Yeah. We want our egg and our chicken too.
@Dick C: okay, let me rephrase that. Providing medical coverage for everyone is only one issue. Another issue–and probably a more complicated one–is how to reduce the cost of coverage. I suppose if we had government as a single payer, the government could reduce the cost by fiat, based on what they are willing to pay.
Exactly. With singe payer, the system will be more efficient and the administrative costs will be on the order of 3-4% rather than the 15-20% that is the norm with the private insurance companies that have to do advertising, pay expensive CEOs, take care of stockholders and ensure golden parachutes for those who screw up. Medicare for all is the simple answer. Thanks for clarifying your earlier statement.
Stark it’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) “Obamacare” is a propaganda word designed by the dimwitted wingnuts to spin their anti healthcare for all agenda. DC is Right BTW and AFWrong is offering the Heritage “Stink Tank” garbage as usual.
There are good solutions and bad.
Government run health care does have it’s failings:
“Hospitals have been ordered to improve the way they record their decisions on whether or not to resuscitate patients amid fresh evidence of a failure to create a proper dialogue about those decisions with patients and relatives.
Since May, at least eight NHS trusts in England have been alerted to concerns around “do not resuscitate” orders…
Keith Gordon, 64, a retired TV service engineer, handed the Guardian letters showing the Birmingham trust was told by the office of ombudsman Ann Abraham in November 2009 to apologise for failing to discuss a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order with him after his wife, Paula, 61, died in Selly Oak hospital in March 2008….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/nhs-hospitals-warned-resuscitate-orders
I’s reckon it depends on who you want making your medical decisions, government or your family/you, don’t ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
It seems one heck of a lot better to be having discussions about medical decisions (DNRs) within a framework of everyone having medical insurance than to have no opportunity at all to discuss them because one has no insurance coverage at all. In that case you get to die on your own, no matter what. End of story.
Federal law forbids hospital emergency rooms from turning away critical care patients regardless of insurance coverage or ability to pay.
If the cost of insurance was cheaper than more people would have the opportunity to afford it, the big question is how to make it cheaper.
There are people who are uninsured (over 18 million) but live in households with incomes of 50k or more who could afford insurance IMHO, should other people pay for them?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
BTW about 9 million of that 18 million are in households that make over 75k in income.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
@ AFY: Should other people pay for them? Where are you going with this line of questioning? Are you saying they should be forced to have insurance?
No, sorry if you got that out of it.
If someone doesn’t want to buy insurance they should not.
But when you break down who doesn’t have insurance today there are some interesting things to be found. Some people could afford it but choose to not buy even a high deductible policy and some who could get government help do not seek it.
We have programs in place today that aren’t being utilized.
Under our current system about 70% of uninsured children qualify for Medicaid or S-chip but are not enrolled currently per the Urban Institute.
The question that is raised by this posting is about making it (health care) cheaper & better and how do we do that.
I am not a fan of the public only option not only because I think quality will decline, and the overall cost will go up but also about the loss of individual freedom to determine your own decisions.
The Florida Medicaid Reform I posted earlier sounds like it is a step in the right direction and it still involves Medicaid.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
It allows the patient to control the money, choose which plan, and what I really like is the reward and punish power given to the consumer that in itself will save cost.
And nothing is wrong with financial incentives for positive, healthy behavior, I(& most everyone) always prefer the carrot to the stick.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
And John your post about:
CareMore, through its unique approach to caring for the elderly, is routinely achieving patient outcomes that other providers can only dream about:…
And also discovered how to provide better care at lower cost… and provide regular toenail trimmings, who could be against that, don’t ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!