We have all heard about the waiting times that come with a universal system. Often times for screenings, these waits can range from a couple months all the way up to eight or nine months. Want to pay out-of-pocket for a screening to get one sooner? Not an option under many universal systems, including the ACA, looks like you're stuck waiting for a screening that could be life-saving. Dr. Lee Kurisko, a radiologist who lived his whole life in Canada made the move to the United States some years ago, for a number of reasons. He cites the free-market as the best alternative to health care, and cites the numerous problems that occur within the Canadian health care system. Dr. Kurisko explains that in Canada, the government sets the prices, in place of the market. This causes shortages that wouldn't occur in a free-market.
The free-market approach is a consumer-driven approach. In any part of a free-market, a product or service provider must satisfy and meet the demands of the consumer in order to stay in business. These providers must compete against one another for service, and in doing so, drive down the fees they charge as well as improving the quality of their products, or else face bankruptcy. Health care should be no different, but it is treated differently due to government interference, malpractice insurance and doctors over-testing patients both due to the threat of litigation.
Another problem facing American health care is this use of insurance for every thing from a physical to a triple-bypass. While I believe the use of insurance for the latter is appropriate, the use of insurance for routine and expected services only drives up the cost of such procedures. As I mentioned in my former post "Why Free Market Medicine Works," using high-deductible health plans, in combination with health savings accounts for these run of the mill procedures allows the consumers to shop around for the best combination of low-cost/high quality doctor, which forces physicians to lower the cost of these procedures while simultaneously increasing quality in order to attract consumers.
HDHPs require that those covered pay higher deductibles (a minimum of $1,200/year or $2,300/year/family) but ultimately have lower premiums. These are required for a HSA and often times half of the covered's money goes into the HSA while the other half covers the insurance product. At the end of the year, the person likely had a few thousand dollars in the HSA and can use it on routine procedures, or choose to roll it over for the next year. By allowing individuals more control over their health-payments, it encourages them to take better care of themselves, and because HSA's are tax exempt and the money in them can be invested to collect interest, the money in one's HSA can grow.
As I've stated before, the problem is not that everyone must be covered by insurance, but that the cost of health care should be made more affordable. Many people do not realize that despite the name "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the care is not made more affordable, nor are patients protected. Having a slip of paper that says you have insurance does not translate to actual health care. When doctors stop accepting medicaid and medicare patients, there will only be an increase in shortage of care. Not only that, but when government elects which procedures are appropriate in order to stay cost effective (such as the role of IPAB created under PPACA), not only are the patients options limited, but the option may not be appropriate for certain patients, and a physician doing what's best for that patient now becomes punishable by fine. Does that sounds like "patient protection" to you?
In Canada, when a doctor is paid, say, 20 dollars for a given service in downtown Toronto, and a doctor is getting the same thing in the remote community of Manitowage, the artificially set prices blunt the potential for movement of information. If there were a deficiency of doctors in Manitowage, and you allowed the marketplace to work, the prices would go up in Manitowage. The doctor in Manitowage might get to charge 50 dollars for a service that would be reimbursed in a free marketplace in Toronto for only 20 dollars. In such a scenario, doctors would start moving to Manitowage. Once there were more doctors in Manitowadge, the price would tend to correct back downward.This market method of resource allocation would allow for more doctors to practice in remote areas, without long-term price increases. This opens up options for patients, allowing them to have greater and higher quality access to care without sacrificing higher prices. He goes on to state:
With Medicare, you get cost shifting. If, as a health care provider, you’re artificially reimbursed too low for some of your clientele, that means to cover your costs you jack up the prices for other clients. As those costs go up, you’re actually contributing to the number of the uninsured because insurance costs are artificially inflated, and fewer people can afford coverage.However now, under the ACA, because everyone is insured, and physician reimbursement rates will no longer be set by the market, doctors will have to stop offering low-return services in order to continue to make money. This is just one more example of how government control leads to shortages, in this case, shortages of services.
The free-market approach is a consumer-driven approach. In any part of a free-market, a product or service provider must satisfy and meet the demands of the consumer in order to stay in business. These providers must compete against one another for service, and in doing so, drive down the fees they charge as well as improving the quality of their products, or else face bankruptcy. Health care should be no different, but it is treated differently due to government interference, malpractice insurance and doctors over-testing patients both due to the threat of litigation.
Another problem facing American health care is this use of insurance for every thing from a physical to a triple-bypass. While I believe the use of insurance for the latter is appropriate, the use of insurance for routine and expected services only drives up the cost of such procedures. As I mentioned in my former post "Why Free Market Medicine Works," using high-deductible health plans, in combination with health savings accounts for these run of the mill procedures allows the consumers to shop around for the best combination of low-cost/high quality doctor, which forces physicians to lower the cost of these procedures while simultaneously increasing quality in order to attract consumers.
HDHPs require that those covered pay higher deductibles (a minimum of $1,200/year or $2,300/year/family) but ultimately have lower premiums. These are required for a HSA and often times half of the covered's money goes into the HSA while the other half covers the insurance product. At the end of the year, the person likely had a few thousand dollars in the HSA and can use it on routine procedures, or choose to roll it over for the next year. By allowing individuals more control over their health-payments, it encourages them to take better care of themselves, and because HSA's are tax exempt and the money in them can be invested to collect interest, the money in one's HSA can grow.
As I've stated before, the problem is not that everyone must be covered by insurance, but that the cost of health care should be made more affordable. Many people do not realize that despite the name "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the care is not made more affordable, nor are patients protected. Having a slip of paper that says you have insurance does not translate to actual health care. When doctors stop accepting medicaid and medicare patients, there will only be an increase in shortage of care. Not only that, but when government elects which procedures are appropriate in order to stay cost effective (such as the role of IPAB created under PPACA), not only are the patients options limited, but the option may not be appropriate for certain patients, and a physician doing what's best for that patient now becomes punishable by fine. Does that sounds like "patient protection" to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment