Writing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Dr. Daniel F. Craviotto Jr. an orthopedist, made a plea to physicians to declare independence from third parties and emancipate themselves from servitude to payers, mandates and electronic health records (EHR).
As rants go, this was a first class rant. But its effect was that of a Charles de Gaulle’s whisper to Vichy France rather than a Churchillian oratory at the finest hour.
The article went viral (it has been tweeted nearly 3000 times), though with little virulence. And it is not WSJ’s paywall to blame.
The author might have assumed that most the healthcare community in general and physicians in particular wish to be free from regulations. I have serious doubts that this assumption is correct in the aggregate. The relationship between regulators and physicians is more complex and symbiotic than it first appears.
Some physicians believe in bureaucracy. Rationalism will march us out of our healthcare wilderness. This belief in scientific managerialism, faith in technocracy, is the new theism. The rationale of the new theists is that regulations fail not because they are inherently useless but because there are so few of them, and even fewer that are actually smart.
Like the first religions started with polytheism, the new believers want more agencies, more alphabet soups, more gods.
Governors from most twenty mostly red states are suing to block the implementation of health reform. I have no idea whether they will win on the legal merits. But when it comes to the economics of the issue, they are on the wrong side. But even as my head says that the mandate is a good thing, my heart tells me otherwise.
Mandating the purchase of a good or service should be anathema to any card-carrying economist. But healthcare is unlike other goods and services in one critical way. No one will sell you food or clothing or anything else that you cannot pay for. But if you need surgery to save your life, someone will operate on you. Healthcare providers are trained to “treat now, bill later.” And while providers pursue (and sometimes harass) the uninsured for payment, the lion’s share of their costs end up as bad debt or charity write-offs. So the uninsured get their care while the rest of us pay for it. An insurance mandate is supposed to prevent such free riding. It is as if we are saying, “We can’t stop ourselves from taking care of everyone who needs medical care, so we will force everyone to pay their fair share.”
This concern about free riding is how we got healthinsurance in the first place. During the Great Depression, many patients couldn’t pay their bills. So hospitals and doctors encouraged individuals to prepay for their share of the community’s medical costs in exchange for guaranteed access. Even then, many remained uninsured and some had trouble getting medical care. By the 1950s, the new Hill-Burton program subsidized nonprofit hospitals in exchange for guarantees that they would take in the uninsured. A building spree of taxpayer funded county hospitals and community health centers further bolstered the safety net.Continue reading…
And then on the second page of the NY Times article there’s this:
Many businesses, crushed by soaring health costs, say they now support changes in the health care system as a way to control their costs. But in its summary of the recent discussions, Mr. Kennedy’s office said, “There was little consensus on the employers’ role.”
It’s the time in the political season to make way too much of the impact a vice president can have on the presidential contest.
So I hope you don’t mind if I extend that amusing parlor sport into the arena of health care reform and consider how how Joe Biden’s original proposal for health care reform compares to Barack Obama’s.
If nothing else, it’s a good way to parse a few of the issues likely to be magnified when Obama and McCain yammer back and forth about their health care plans in the coming weeks.
What do we do with people who are uninsurable because they have a pre-existing medical condition?
That is a particularly important question as both McCain and Obama propose reforming American health care by building on the private health insurance system.
One of the solutions being discussed–by McCain among others–is to use state-based risk pools. Under McCain’s plan heavily dependent on an individual platform, people who don’t have employer-based coverage and healthy enough to qualify for individual health insurance could get a private mainstream plan and people who do not qualify for a standard individual plan could buy into a state-run high risk pool for the uninsurable.
Individual health insurance mandates have lately been hailed as the solution to the health care crisis in America. Mandates to buy health insurance have been included in legislative proposals at the state level – for instance, by Gov. Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez, in their “Health Care Security and Cost Reduction Act”, or at the federal level, by Hillary Clinton in her “American Health Choice Plan”. Can mandates achieve universal access to health care and control rising costs of medical care? This article explains why they can’t.
Lately, legislation including a universal mandate – a legal obligation that everybody purchase a health insurance policy – has been hailed as the solution to the health care crisis in America. At the state level, mandates have been included, for instance, in Gov. Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez’s “Health Care Security and Cost Reduction Act”, and at the federal level, by Hillary Clinton in her “American Health Choice Plan”. Yet many of us remain skeptical. Why? After all, if everybody is forced to buy a health insurance plan – maybe with a subsidy if you are “poor enough” – would this not resolve the problem of uninsurance? Maybe so. But the real question is: would mandating universal health insurance guarantee universal access to medical care? And the short answer is no.