Set against the backdrop of the $787 billion stimulus bill and deficit spending that dwarfs the federal outlays of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s “Great Society,” the idea of spending hundreds of billions – or even trillions of tax dollars – to buy universal health care coverage for all Americans isn’t much of a stretch anymore.
Faced with $30 to $80 trillion in unfunded healthcare liabilities ($110,000 to $300,000 per American under the age of 65) “health care reform” discussions are underway between President Obama and members of Congress in the 111th Congress to spend even more on health care, and Americans are beginning to hear more and more about “patients’ rights” and similar jargon.
The problem is that “universal health care” and “patients’ rights,” while sounding harmonious, are in direct conflict. The path to effective health care reform must be approached from the perspective of individual patients and their relationship with their doctors, and not from a top-down, big government perspective. Anything that interferes with an individual’s freedom to consult their doctor of choice to make health care decisions defeats the purpose of meaningful health care reform.
True health care reform centers on four “pillars” of Patient’s Rights:
Choice – Any health reform proposal must guarantee a patient’s right to choose their own doctor, and must protect a consumer’s right to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs and budget. Reform efforts should expand the choices without dictating or distorting them..
Competition – In addition to increasing patient choice, eliminating state regulations on health insurance would allow for broader competition and lower prices for consumers. Patients also benefit when doctors are free to run their practices like any other business, competing on the basis of results and price. Requiring health care providers to publicly post their pricing and results so consumers can shop and compare will make our health care system more efficient at delivering quality care at an affordable price. Effective reform must rely on market dynamics, not government controls.
Accountability – Health reform efforts must reward individuals who are accountable for themselves. Those who pay for their own health insurance should get the same tax breaks employers get. Creating one standard reimbursement form, regardless of insurance company, will reduce costs and shift accountability where it belongs – to the individual whose life is most affected by the decisions that need to be made. Rare is the politician who would argue that an insurance executive or a bureaucrat in Washington D.C.is in a better position to make critical health care decisions than individual Americans and their doctors.
Responsibility – Successful health care reform must place responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the shoulders of the patient. Encourage individuals to take responsibility for their personal health by allowing insurance companies to charge lower rates for people who make healthy lifestyle choices. Infusing personal responsibility into health care reform allows us all to maintain our cherished freedom to live our lives without government intrusion. This principle works now: a 40 year-old who has been smoking since he was 16 knows his life insurance policy is going to cost more than that of a non-smoker. A driver with a heavy foot knows his car insurance rates reflect his need for speed.
Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility – the four “pillars” of patients’ rights – will result in our government truly becoming a “nanny-state,” making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us..
Because of budget constraints, regulators in the United Kingdom dropped pap smears for women under 25. The result – young women are dying of cancer that could have been treated if the cancer was discovered in its early stages. Many Canadians have to wait months for diagnostic tests to determine whether their tumors are malignant, giving cancerous tumors time to worsen, spread and progress to an irreversible stage.
Some of the ideas being advanced by our leaders in Washington fail to consider patients’ rights , focusing instead on “government oversight boards,” “negotiations” with drug companies, and other bureaucratic solutions that refuse to put the patient-doctor relationship first.
Worse, the danger of Washington’s recent willingness to spend inordinate sums of money on anything deemed to be a problem, is that we are conditioning ourselves to believe that our government has unlimited resources – and that any problem can be solved by simply spending vast amounts of cash. What politician wants to be in office when it comes time to admit we can no longer spend for services we have come to expect?
Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s failed experiment to improve home ownership for “low and middle income families” should be a wake-up call to those who believe more government involvement in American healthcare will help “low and middle income families”. These two initiatives resulted in politicians being accused of receiving favored treatment, low and middle income families being forced out of their homes and a federal bailout that could cost taxpayers as much as $2.5 trillion. We never envisioned politicians receiving favored treatment, the housing meltdown caused by the expansion of these programs, nor the unbelievable number of low and middle income families being evicted from their homes with their life savings depleted. It’s not difficult to imagine similar results under a national health care system.
Given the evidence, now is the time for an investment of political willpower to institute a dramatic shift away from the influence of government, and toward a patient-centric system with the principles of choice, competition, accountability and responsibility powering a revolution in American health care. The shakiness and uncertainty that permeate our economy, some of which is caused by our lack of competitiveness because of healthcare costs, argue vocally for patients’ rights as opposed to government control.
Ultimately, the decision will come down to who we believe will better allocate our limited healthcare dollars: the government or each of us. If we get this right, everyone wins. If we get it wrong, the damage to our economy and our quality of life and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren may be irreversible. The last thing America needs is for Fannie Mae to become “Fannie Med.”
Richard Scott is co-founder and chairman of Solantic Corporation, a Florida chain of 23 urgent care centers which posts prices on the internet and on a “Starbuck’s style” menu board. He’s best known for being the CEO of
Columbia/HCA which grew to quickly being the largest for-profit
hospital chain in the 1990s before he was forced out when the Federal
government investigated allegations of fraud. After Scott left, HCA settled the suits for over $1.7 billion. More recently Scott has become a participant in the national debate over health reform. In 2009, He formed the Washington-based political action group “Conservatives for Patients Rights”, an organization dedicated to market-based reform of the healthcare system.
Categories: Uncategorized
Thank you, To learn more about Patient Right in King Abdulaziz Medical City ,please enter her
Conservative Healthcare Plan
1. The United States Secretary of Health and Human Resources, aided by health care providers, will establish a basic health care coverage system, to provide BASIC health care to all employed persons.
2. This will be a limited coverage plan.
3. The AHC plan will be streamlined to provide the maximum amount of care for the lowest amount of cost. For example, experimental procedures will not be covered. Preventive care will be stressed. All procedures with a low percentage rate of success will not be covered. Conditions caused by preventable lifestyle choices such as diseases caused by alcohol or drug abuse, extreme obesity, or unsafe sex practices, will not be covered. If there is more than one method for treating the same condition, only the most cost effective will be covered. If more than one drug is available to treat the same condition, the least expensive drug will only be covered. Also, only generic drugs may be covered. There are no co pays and no deductibles.
4. Persons enrolling in the program will have a very limited ability to sue for malpractice
5. The AHC will be a voluntary program. It will be open to all employed people. Self employed people will be able to join. People receiving unemployment benefits will be able to keep coverage as long as they receive unemployment benefits.
6. Everyone will pay the same premiums. Every person who works and who joins the AHC will pay the same amount, regardless of marital status. All children under the age of 19 will be covered under the parent’s coverage. If only one parent works, both parents and children are covered under the working parent’s coverage.
7. The AHC program will be administered by a private insurance company based upon the bid procedure. The company who bids the lowest cost per person per month will receive the contract to administer the program. This is a winner take all provision, just as in the private sector.
8. Digital medical records will be used to streamline costs. The bid process will be repeated every 4-10 years.
9. The AHC will eliminate the cost of employer sponsored health insurance. Employers may opt to subsidize all or part of their employee’s premium costs. Or they may offer their own plans, or a combination of both.
10. This plan will cost the federal government almost nothing. This plan will cost employers almost nothing. This plan will lower costs by being a limited coverage plan, using the winner take all bid system, and by using the large number of enrollees to spread the cost around.
My, my, we do indeed live in the the United States of “Amnesia” if this ilk of executive can effectively recycle himself into both the corporate board room, and tragically, the national psyche as well.
This is very encouraging in the depth of discussion! I totally agree with the comments that comparison with Europe and Canada are basically bullshit and lies. The principles of reform must encompass, Universality, transparency, Accountability, Affordability, Availability and Evidence based. To this end using the national provider number figures should be publically available for the cost per patient per doctor per year for all public ie. taxpayers expenditure payments. This would be very raw data as protested by the AMA but it would give the patients their fires opportunity to chose between going to the local Toyota dealer or Mercedes dealer medically wise. Someone or some agency would I’m sure help to compare various specialists, including those with financial interest in imaging centers or hospitals and primary care providers who may or may not have financial relationships with the specialist they refer to.
How does one treat the patient who given choice does not choose cancer care as an extra expense on his health insurance menu and then six months later unexpectently comes down with cancer. How does the physician decide on appropriate care for the homeless, obese, diabetic, nicotine dependent, drug addicted, alcoholic with no family support no transportation when our whole social support system and public mental health system is collapsing?
Right on post describing the problems with “universal healthcare” and the issues needing attention if true reform is to be seen in our lifetimes.
Competition is the key to any successful plan. If the feds take that away, then not only is an entire industry flat broke, but we are at their mercy yet again.
I am watching a health care discussion on CSPAN (April 5th AM) chaired by Senator Baucus. In my opinion there is very little getting accomplished. The big elephant in the room that is being totally ignored is that the US pays double what other industrialized countries pay for health care and receives worse results!! The more sensible approach would be for this panel to spend their time studying the best 5 (or 10) of these other health care systems to see which ones are the best. As Ross Perot said in his 1993 debate with Bush and Clinton when asked about what his plan would be for US health care his comments was approximately .. “There are all kinds of good health care systems out there. Let’s pick one and do it.” Ross Perot knew a thing or two about health care as his company, EDS, provided the computer software for the Blue Cross Blue Shields. Let’s focus our efforts and studying already successful, working health care systems and then pick the one that is best for the US.
If the patient is denied a true account of what the treatment entails including all of the risks and basically manipulated into accepting a surgery or treatment. If a patient has no right to refuse expensive and unecessary steps in health care, if informed consent is merely a hold harmless agreement for the benefit of health care providers, then we will never get health care “reform.” We patients have an adversarial relationship with providers right now. We want to keep costs down and medical providers are trying to make it as expensive as possible. With this era of tort reform and villifying trial lawyers we have created a monster that has no oversight and no recourse for the patient. It’s a lie that Doctors and such are so scared of lawsuits! They are basically impervious to them and as a result, are out of control. They are careless, arrogant and patient rights and control over their own body are out the window. All they have to say is “we were only trying to help” and there is nothing that can be done. We need REAL reform and some consequences for Doctors attacking innocent patients and lying through their teeth in order to subject patients to the most expensive treatment possible. Medical providers are PREDATORS and need to be brought to heel. While we are at it, lets limit the number of personnel that are doing the same job. Anesthesiologists and CRNA’s, doctors and physicians assistants, scrub nurses, circulating nurses, OR nurses, radiologists and ortho surgeons, jeez how damn many people does it take? Mandatory random drug testing and psychological testing should be required for every person who has access to drugs and patients. Real reform would include a mediation department where if the patient is subjected to forced treatment or the surgeon is egregiously negligent, there should be some way of effecting recourse.
You guys are NUTS. I live in Canada and thank God every day for our healthcare system! How you can be humane when so many of your citizens are dying from lack of healthcare is beyond me! I have choice of doctors and I have a good one! Lifestyle choices do impact health but most of the poor (yours and ours) do not have the education or the money to make healthy choices. Our doctors do compete for our business! If we don’t like our physician, we get another one. And they are accountable. Once again, if our doctors do not give us proper care, we go somewhere else. I am a self-employed diabetic (from heredity not lifestyle). I can only imagine my healthcare costs if I lived in the U.S.!
Single payer is publicly funded, privately delivered heathcare. Rick Scott liked a lot of sick insured people in his hospitals who lived for a day or two and had millions of procedures and then died. Scott suggesting how we should provide healthcare is like Rasputin being the president. Just how much money do people think that they need to make in one lifetime? Do they really believe that they can take their money with them when they die?
What good is the health care system if it is unaffordable and only the wealthy can purchase it. Did you know in NY that a family policy purchased directly costs $ 3,200 per month. One must earn a six figure income and it is still 1/3 of earnings. The poor get it free, the wealthy can afford it, what do the middle class do ? go without it and face health and financial catastrophy. I don’t know what the solution is but, those how are enriching themselves in the current system should help bring the costs down, or a special tax should be levied to subsidize the middle class, like the poor are.
looks like my link didn’t post:
http://www.northcoastfootcare.com/blog/obama-biden-health-care-plan/
Great article, except I have trouble with competition within the health care industry: “Competition – In addition to increasing patient choice, eliminating state regulations on health insurance would allow for broader competition and lower prices for consumers.” This seems to work well in some areas of capitalism, but decreasing costs has been a challenge. Read a good summary on the health care plan.
President Obama has said again and again that to fix our economy, we must fix health care. When that happens (and I feel it will) we need to make sure it’s an informed and balanced process. My colleague forwarded me this petition asking Obama and Congress to pursue balanced health care reform. http://snurl.com/fairhealthcare
I’m particularly concerned about access to care and physician choice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-thorpe/massachusetts-is-not-the_b_182265.html
Massachusetts is Not the Only Health Reform Model
By Kenneth Thorpe
Posted April 2, 2009
As discussion continues on the President’s budget and whether the nation can afford to take on health care reform, a number of experts — and two of the nation’s leading newspapers — have suggested that we look to Massachusetts as the nation’s test case. These critics point to the cost growth which has occurred under Massachusetts’ new universal health care system as a demonstration for why the nation should proceed cautiously with its own reforms.
But if we are looking for lessons, there are other “real world” examples that we can consider. A state just across Massachusetts’ Northern border took a different road to reform — and one that is actually much closer to the route proposed by President Obama and Senate leaders such as Max Baucus.
In May 2006, a month after Massachusetts passed its own health care legislation, Vermont also enacted a sweeping set of health reforms. Whereas Massachusetts chose to make universal coverage its initial goal, Vermont’s primary focus was to make health care more affordable and at the same time expand coverage.
While it is still too early to pass judgment on either state, there are three core elements that have Vermont showing early signs of promise, and which could be replicated at a national level:
Health care legislation must be bipartisan and have something “in it” for everyone. Vermont’s health reform program was solidly bipartisan — enacted by a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature. Key to the reform’s political success was the recognition by both sides that the debate would need to be refocused on broader systemic ills, like cost and quality, rather than solely on the contentious and politically-charged issues, like coverage and payment. At the time reform was being debated, the vast majority of Vermonters — and almost all voters in the state — had health insurance, so policymakers had to communicate what these people would get out of reform, other than a higher tax bill, and the answer was lower health care costs.
Health care legislation must be comprehensive. Vermont passed comprehensive legislation to modernize chronic care delivery models, create a statewide health IT platform, implement effective efforts to prevent disease and build a new insurance program for the uninsured (Catamount Health). By 2010, an estimated 96 percent of Vermont residents will have health insurance coverage.
Health care legislation must address cost, which means getting a handle on the root cause of spending. For years now, many of the health reform proposals that have been introduced in this country have failed to control the root of increases in spending. More than anything, that root cause is that Americans are in poor health — and many of their chronic health problems are preventable. Recognition of these “unhealthy truths” helped to shape the types of policy solutions proposed in Vermont during the 2006 debate. Controlling chronic conditions through prevention and disease management featured prominently in Vermont’s plan to make health care more affordable.
Less than three years have passed since both these states passed their health care reform plans, which is not enough time to pronounce either effort as a success or failure. In addition, Massachusetts has created a state commission to figure out how to control costs, which may yet yield improvements.
What we can pull from both efforts is that in addition to moving to universal coverage, passing fundamental reform nationally will require legislation designed to reduce the growth in spending, provide high-quality, efficient medical and preventive care for all Americans, and roll out community level resources and support that make it easier for Americans to lead healthy, active lives.
And for the critics, this means acknowledging what was done right as well as pointing out what was done wrong.
Ken Thorpe, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, and Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. Dr. Thorpe served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy at HHS under the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s.
When is someone in the republican party going to come forward with a serious, well developed, version of McCain’s healthcare reform proposals from his campaign? His plan was terribly underdeveloped and got picked apart on details, which is a shame because the concept of seperating coverage from employers is probably the only “reform” that will ever solve the intractible problems we are facing.
A few points about Rick Scott:
1) I wrote the first in-depth profile of Scott at the height of the Columbia/HCA years in 1995. In this contest, it might interest folks. You can find it here:
http://www.well.com/user/bbear/columbia.html
2) Scott clearly has a dog in this fight. The strategic advantage of Solantic is in being very organized in a disorganized healthcare system. He carries a study on his “Conservatives for Patients Rights” website that purports to show what a burden it would be to doctors to digitize. That’s a little like Henry Ford discouraging other automakers from trying integrated assembly-line production: “Oh, you don’t want to do that, it’s too hard.”
3) His comments about physicians being forced to digitize make him seem unaware (and I cannot believe he is unaware) of the $40,000 per practice incentive in the ARRA, and the Ideal Medical Practice movement, and the absolute necessity of getting healthcare digitized if we are to improve efficiency and effectiveness. And don’t tell me Solantic is run on pencil and paper, I won’t believe you.
3) Choice, competition, accountability, and responsibility are all great things. None of them are incompatible with universal healthcare, or even single payer healthcare. But they are being used as smoke screens to fight evidence-based medicine, clinical effectiveness research, and digitization – all the things that we need to make healthcare better faster and cheaper. “Choice,” in this context, means “whatever the doctor can get reimbursed for and talk you into, even if it has been proven ineffective and dangerous, like spinal fusion surgery for chronic back pain.”
4) Evidence-based medicine does not mean a “nanny state,” in which faceless bureaucrats interfere with medical choice and practice. That’s what we have now, with the interference outsourced from the government to the insurance companies. Evidence-based medicine is the official recognition of the fact that medicine is and always has been a collegial art, that there are things to learn from other physicians, that a board of the prominent physicians agreeing on guidelines for a particular condition should have some weight in at least questioning the clinical choices of individual doctors who stand to gain from doing things that are less efficient and less effective.
Rick Scott has always seen all healthcare questions from the point of view of a wealthy investor, insulated from all actual consequences of his proposals, except for the ROI.
I just read the section in MMahar’s book on this guy.
Of course he should be in jail. Sadly, the white-collar criminal gets off in so many cases.
I use the word the Repubs now bandy about: generational theft.
Peter: I believe Florida hosts it’s share of shady medical practice operators. As a state without a corporate practice of medicine statute, it enables non medical corporations to employ physicians.
Both for profit corporations and hospital systems have staked claims in the space. Some are clearly more ethical than others.
One of the more recent shady flame-outs include: ER Urgent Care Holdings. They pursued essentially desperate primary care practices, and presumptively cobbled them into a primary care network which they then attempted to market to payors.
No doubt Solantic will be a well capitalized enterprise, and thus able to present a prettier face, with probable staying power; but the business model is likely to be essentially the same corporate driven affair.
Hard to imagine physicians embracing this framework unless they are shareholders or otherwise vested in the cash flow of the network.
As for health care reform that protects a consumer’s right to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs and budget. This leads us in the wrong direction. Allowing insurance companies to continue to offer bare bones coverage is not real reform. All patients deserve quality comprehensive health care coverage. http://www.BenefitStudio.com
It’s sad to read what passes for political debate these days – instead of debating Scott’s points, the big-government health care types dig up an old story, twist the facts to smear their opponent, and pretend it bolster’s their argument.
But the smears are long on innuendo and short on facts. As one poster has already pointed out, the issues faced by HCA were localized and it was an INDUSTRY-WIDE problem.
Some 4,000 health care providers were under investigation at the same time. Scott’s company was the biggest, so it certainly had it’s share of problems.
But to try and say that this somehow disqualifies Rick Scott as a valid commentator on how health care SHOULD be reformed is either the height of ignorance or a new low in deception.
If anything, the industry-wide problems with Medicare should be illustrative of what you can expect when the program is expanded to ever-larger numbers of Americans.
Some people never learn.
I’ll not discuss whether or not Mr. Scott is an appropriate commentator on the issue. Instead, I’d like to really define the issue. In 1965 our healthcare system focused itself on the problems of the day: treating disease. It was a system based on what an aging population in 1965 faced. However, it’s 2009. Treating disease is exactly what is bankrupting our system; because while we’ve been so focused on this, and doing an incredible job, we forgot something. First of all, primary prevention works. But it’s only been a few years that Medicare has even paid for any preventive care! And second, treating disease isn’t the issue any more. Most of the diseases that affect our aging population and cost so much are too complex to be simply “treated.” They must instead be “managed.” Treatment of chronic disease is what happens when a chronic disease isn’t managed and there is a complication.
A health care system that actually works to care for Americans will focus on prevention and early detection to limit morbidity and improve quality; and will focus on managing the chronic illnesses that are the results of an aging population and our lifestyles and habits.
So instead of just re-form, maybe we should talk a bit about re-focus.
see The Commonwealth Fund for complete TRUE analysis of the various health care plans.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/
See http://www.healthcare-now.org
for decent analysis of House Resolution (HR) 676- the most feasible plan to expand & IMPROVE Medicare (for all). Most of us don’t care who finances our health care, being typical independent “freedom of choice” Americans, we just want our CHOICE of providers. Let the market play out. Over-priced/arrogant/crummy doctors & hospitals will get DE-selected. Stockholders be damned. Take your cut like the rest of us investors. Comparisons to Fannie Mae & the banking industry are curious, warped propaganda.
Affordable, quality health care thru’ Public financing is what the majority of Americans want.
Consider the source author of this FALSE twisting of the facts. For crooks like former HCA CEO, blowhard Richard Scott to spend $20million on their propaganda machine to attack Obama administration & the 30 million of us in professional and consumer organizations dedicated to serious health care reform–YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED. give it up. END profit-making insurance companies strangle-hold on American health care system. Ready or not, the times are-a-changing..
“Providers compete under a heavily regualted structure. In some states providers need government approval before offering services or facilities. Providers aren’t free to offer us what we want, the way we want or when we want it.”
It doesn’t look like that’s the case in Florida as Solantic is showing. I wouldn’t hold Florida up as the standard bearer for medical oversight.
Here is a link for those who may want to examine the “Scott Legacy”.
Is this the profile of a “patient advocate” or one who wants to “heal” the American healthcare system? You be the judge:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/columb_cult.html#Scott's
That Rick Scott can go anywhere near a boardroom of a healthcare concern is a troubling fact of life in America today.
His self righteous outrage, and positioning of seemingly on-point yet fundamentally sound byte “faux issues”, is perhaps more about attempts at “blogosphere echolalia” than material engagement of health reform facts.
IMJ, this man is both a crook and a scoundrel, who has demonstrated the virtual absence of either a conscience or ethics for the “commanding heights” to which is compulsively aspires; though whether he should enjoy this legal standing is another question.
My, my, we do indeed live in the the United States of “Amnesia” if this ilk of executive can effectively recycle himself into both the corporate board room, and tragically, the national psyche as well.
The vicious attack on the public and private health care domains during his insatiable quest to be the for profit industry’s “roll-up king”, still reverberate today. The “stench” of Columbia/HCA’s tactics remain a nuanced component of other health care concerns; with only the usual suspects being caught and prosecuted.
That this man can step into the limelight and be empowered to carry a banner for a cause for even a “nano” second of legitimacy strains the mind for credulity.
http://2healthguru.wordpress.com
Providers compete under a heavily regualted structure. In some states providers need government approval before offering services or facilities. Providers aren’t free to offer us what we want, the way we want or when we want it. Take the example of providers not being allowed to offer me their services on a capitated basis.
I’m not free to offer my administrative services where ever I like. Some states will let me conduct business with minimial license fees, others have such onnerous requirements its not economical for me to offer my service thus depriving those employers of cost saving alternatives.
I’m not sure you understand the scope and totality of regualtion in our system.
Medicare only allows you to see providers who accept their reimbursement and more impotatnly agree to pratice according to their guidelines. So no we don’t have that now.
Take a step back and look at our system, would anyone calssify receiving medcial treatment as efficient and easy? Most providers and hospitals keep you waiting hours, that is terrible inefficient. The best healthcare experience I have had was at a Walgreens clinic, walked right in, everything was electronic, and I was out in 30 minutes. I have never had that quick of an experience at a regular doctor. For what they provide they along with CVS and WalMart offer a far superior product. Government entities in a number of liberal cities and counties block their licensing, that disproves both your arguments right off the top.
“CVS executives said they plan to open 25 to 30 MinuteClinics in Greater Boston before the end of the year, although they have not specified how many of those will be within the city’s limits.The Boston Public Health Commission spent nearly an hour discussing the impending arrival of the clinics and ways they could potentially be stopped.The panel took no action, but instructed the health agency’s attorney to investigate whether it could adopt regulations forbidding stores with clinics from selling tobacco products, forcing them to make an untenable financial choice.”
“The Illinois State Medical Society, which represents more than 13,000 doctors, is pushing a proposed law to more closely monitor hundreds of in-store clinics being opened by retail giants Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walgreen Co. and CVS/Caremark Corp.”
In my home state of NV we had a terrible dentist shortage driving up cost and waiting time. THe state allowed the dental board to license and thus limit new dentist.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-15-Sat-2001/news/17675877.html
I could go on all day, but it all shows no we don’t have nearly the freedom you think we do.
Choice? When 47 million lack insurance? When only 4% of medical students do into primary care because they can triple their income as a specialist? When our outcomes put us in the bottom of infant mortality but at double the cost of other developed countries? When patients on Medicaid can’t find a doctor and seniors on Medicaid are dropped so their doctor of 20 years can start up a concierge model in order to make $400,000 a year?
Your kidding us right? This was an “onion” type sarcastic article not a real opinion?
“Having a marketplace that can compete aggressively, allowing open access for all consumers and then layering that with accountability on all sides will result in better care.”
Don’t we have that now? Don’t hospitals compete for my business? Don’t docs compete for my business? Don’t insurance companies compete for my business? Didn’t real estate agents compete for my business? Didn’t lenders compete for my business? Didn’t Wall Street compete for my business? Didn’t Bernie Madoff compete for my business? Didn’t Columbia/HCA compete for my business?
“Allowing individuals choose who they want to see and where to be seen will force providers to do more and do it better.”
Don’t we have choice now?
Maggie, so it’s clear now why you and Jack Lohman are so intent on the bashing. Book sales! That makes sense. Generally, a good dose of bashing and negative press will help you sell books – it’s always the easiest and less honorable road to be critical and point fingers.
Regarding your point to me – do you honestly expect for those intelligent folks on this blog to consider and support your “subjective” views? The most outlandish of them that Wall Street didn’t want the market to crash so the government didn’t press the issue??? Are you serious? That’s not rhetorical – really, are you serious? Because that would clearly label your integrity and thoughtfulness to this discussion. Lastly, you also say that you have these feelings and views because of one meeting with Rick years ago where you were “taken aback” by him in an interview. I tell you what, Maggie we have never met but frankly I’m taken aback by your short-sightedness. I definitely will not read the book – that would be my biggest waste of money and time this year. Had you had one solid, valid or otherwise non-subjective point I might have picked it up. You lost me on that one.
My fear is that what you fail to realize (you, Jack, Jason Rosenbaum) is that listening and debating and fighting for health care to be accountable while providing for patients is the key here. Not your rants and sad feelings. (I should note that all 3 of you are writers. Jason and Jack call for disclosures and complain about opposing views without offering substantial facts — all you do all day is write…) Ladies and gentlemen – it’s time to get your hands dirty. This isn’t your time spout off about personal feelings. You want disclosure – I’ll give you some. My degree is in healthcare administration, I have worked for two of the largest health providers in the country, I have worked for three of the leading eHealth web-based companies providing for doctors and patients. So yes I have a passion and knowledge for this topic. More importantly, I currently own a company that provides for the needs of diabetics (250,000+ of them) and the best part…we only charge $39 for the whole year to assist them with registered dietitian assistance, meal plans, etc…also I own a successful breast cancer business that is fully free of charge to those that use it which this last October was over 275,000. You want personal? Both my grandmothers died from cancer. My dad is a liver transplant patient. I have had my fair share of issues with insurance companies and providers, such as when my daughter was born – BCBS didn’t want to pay (said it was a pre-existing condition) and the hospital East Cooper charged us for two births – however, I only seem to have one child and yet they have yet failed to realize that I have the more solid proof to bear – in her crib at this moment nearly eight months old. So look, please let your personal feelings and meaningless rants subside and get beyond yourself. Get your hands dirty and do something meaningful NOW that has a direct impact (as I am doing) and then write about that. It doesn’t work the other way around – it’s just talk otherwise.
To end, the unfortunate side-effect of the arguments here is that at the core is the patient. Jason works for Healthcare for American Now – so he more than anyone should know better. Jason, your home page states that the HCANs primary goal is “quality and affordable care for all.” Fantastic, so how do you expect quality is going to compare when there is no competition to support that quality? If everything in life is universal and free – how do you create incentive for better care, for better outcomes, for more progress? All three of you have heavy subjective POV’s and I won’t comment on that further but seriously, do more – because your posturing from behind your pens and computers isn’t actively helping anyone.
Having a marketplace that can compete aggressively, allowing open access for all consumers and then layering that with accountability on all sides will result in better care. Allowing individuals choose who they want to see and where to be seen will force providers to do more and do it better. Why? Because no one goes to a store, restaurant or other shopping option because the prices are too high, the service sucks or the options are limited – they go where they get value, they get service and the end outcome is positive. More than anytime in history consumers now have the power to force that – and I hope Congress, the President and others will see that a marketplace based on those principals can create more value and better outcomes. In that market we all win. Bloating the system with inefficiency and equality will drive the system to ruin.
If you would like to discuss more – I’d suggest that Matthew Holt and team offer up a panel or two on this subject at the next Health2.0 conference. I’d be more than happy to be involved in having that discussion, as I’m certain would others.
Be healthy,
Steve
Please, give us a smarter speaker. He throws all the trillions around, knows all the solutions, but in the end, it is a miserably ignorant piece. Why didn’t he approach conservatives while they were in power and save us all by implementing his solution?
I am disappointed with this recent post, I hold THCB to higher standards, we can have great debates but first we need pick our speakers who are well respected.
I am a 2 time cancer survivor. That brought with it a hose of health issues. Fortunately, I made sound decisions about my healthcare insurance, as well as my husband did. I also bought the LTD and extra life ins. I am now having to tap in to those resources, as I am on LTD now, and have been given the option to retain all life ins. All of these decisions I made were at a time years ago when I was a very active, healthy 26 year old. Now at 48, I thank the good Lord that I made them.I too believe that until the banks, and other businesses that are asking for bailouts, are held accountable, and made to face the consequences of their actions, they will never learn. This also applies to the regular Joe! Granted, our health system could use a tweak here and there, it certainly does not need a $600 billion+ overhaul to nationalize it! I emailed my congress reps. and senators this morning. I fully expect them to read every word, and make educated decisions BEFORE they vote on anything!
Steve Parker:
I do know the details of the investigation.
Read my book (Money-Driven Medicine) where I
make it clear that Rick Scott did not invent
the book-keeping at HCA — the Frists (or more accuately, Frist Jr.) did that.
Scott oversaw continuation of over-billing and
keeping two sets of books. He also oversaw kickbacks
to doctors and said all of the things that I quote him
saying.
In doing my research, I talked to Wall STreet analysts who were covering HCA–and looked into the FBI investigations very, very carefully. They didn’t want to see the stock crash. They had every reason to say “Oh, this isn’t so bad. Scott wasn’t involved.” They didn’t say that.
I read what employees had to say about Scott’s operations.
And, finally, I met Scott in person and interviewed him in person (for Barron’s) when he first took over the operation. I’ve met a great many CEOs–some corrupt, some dumb– but I was truly taken aback by Rick Scott.
Why didn’t Scott go to jail? The people at the top of corrupt for-profit hospials rarely go to jail. (Again, see the book).
In this case, I suspect that what Scott knew about how the Frists had been operating their hospital chain may have protected him.
Finally, I agree with whoever said that if the conservatives need Scott, they truly are in trouble.
Why are we approaching this like we’re on “sides” to begin with? When you politicize something these days, you create a divisive atmosphere that delays necessary action. That’s precisely why reform has not gotten anywhere in the last 15 years. This is healthcare, folks. While we sit around and say “My side’s better than yours”, businesses are getting crippled with high costs and people are getting sicker and dying because they can’t afford healthcare. The way some of you talk, it seems that you’re more proud of your liberal or conservative label than the American label. If all of your beliefs fit nicely into a package like liberalism or conservatism, you are most like a closed-minded person.
Personally, I would like to have a reform discussion where ideology is checked at the door and we develop pillars with a 100% pragmatic approach. I don’t care if Peter’s a liberal and Nate’s a conservative. They are both Americans and my mind is open enough to see good points from each of them.
I appreciate that Rick Scott’s bio was amended to note the massive fraud he was at the heart of. I would again say that publishing someone like Rick Scott damages THCB’s credibility, and I would hope someone less tainted could be found to put out opposing viewpoints.
I think we should be open to all discussion from all sides because everyone should have their opinions challenged. This has been a better blog because of Eric Novak and Nate (insults aside) because it forces us all to think through our arguments and presents a forum for lively discussion. It sure didn’t take long for bloggers to figure out Richard Scott, so there’s not much chance of THCB becoming a forum for misinformation, and the other side looks pretty stupid when they use the Scotts of healthcare to argue their case. The only comment I will make about the suitability of Scott’s contibution is that even if the message can be separated from the messenger, I wouldn’t want to take even valid financial advice from Bernard Madoff. Yes, Scott’s contribution IS self serving, from a financial standpoint, but can his “Four Pillars of Patient’s Rights” only be fulfilled with a for-profit private insurance healthcare system. Single-pay should also give us the four pillars (private insurance aside). I want to choose my own doctor, I want my doctor to compete on the basis of his/her skill, I