As I have pointed out before, government price controls always produce shortages, no matter what industry is involved. In health care, arbitrary limitations on what doctors and hospitals can charge will always produce provider shortages.
This is not speculation. Many American hospitals have already closed as a result of Medicare and Medicaid “cost control” measures, and such government meddling is producing a physician shortage as well. Kevin Pho, of Kevin, MD, has an op-ed in the Union Leader explaining why:
Physicians are responsible for expenses like rent, payroll, employee health insurance and malpractice insurance. These costs are expected to increase 20 percent in the next nine years. During this same time, physician Medicare payments are faced with cuts of 40 percent.
And this is not a matter of mere bookkeeping. The effect on medical practices and patients is very real.
Already, some practices lose money every time a Medicare patient is seen … some physicians attuned to this economic reality have simply stopped accepting Medicare patients … Some seniors are already faced with calling 20 to 30 providers in the desperate hope that someone will accept Medicare.
In other words, for Medicare patients, there is already a shortage of primary care physicians. For all of you out there clamoring for “single-payer health care,” this shortage is a taste of what you will face under such a system.
Medicare is, for all intents and purposes, “single-payer for seniors.” Indeed, “Medicare for all” is the battle cry of many single-payer advocates. Well, the system they want for everyone is already vitiating the care of seniors.
Advocates of government-run health care often admonish us not to conflate “single-payer health care” with socialized medicine. For the patient who cannot find a primary care doctor, this is a distinction without a difference.
Comments 11
‘In other words, for Medicare patients, there is already a shortage of primary care physicians.’
But you have a long history of relatively poor primary care provision. See also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614090041.htm
How would you raise primary care access to the Western average without government intervention?
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 2:16 pm ¶The Science Daily piece refers to a study by a well-known single-payer evangelist. It is anything but objective.
Even so, it states that “the average duration of a visit was about 10 percent longer in the US” compared to New Zealand and Australia.
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 3:35 pm ¶What about this:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=364437
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 4:14 pm ¶“Many American hospitals have already closed as a result of Medicare and Medicaid “cost control” measures”
And many new hospitals have opened. What’s the net? This claim is pretty weak, without knowing more about the financial management of the hospital and the number of overall beds for the Detroit population.
For all your criticism of single payer, you’ve yet to offer concrete solutions, just vague talk about the “free market”. In fact, the only solution I’ve seen you give is that Medicare should pay more. Got anything any more detailed than that?
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 5:36 pm ¶‘For all your criticism of single payer, you’ve yet to offer concrete solutions, just vague talk about the “free market”’
Yes - the agenda he directed me to doesn’t look much of a capitalist mainfesto to me - see http://freemarketcure.com/whatshouldbedone.php
it doesn’t advocate abolishing Medicare/aid, which would surely be the case for a true free marketer, and also I guess he doesn’t want to abolish the NIH, NCI etc.
All it looks like is adjustments to your insurance system, with nothing at all about improving access to primary and acute care for the less well off.
As for cutting back on FDA safety procedures, this is truly shocking given recent problems in some fast track appovals - and surely the answer to high drug prices lies in free market access to global suppliers and to generics!
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 4:11 am ¶And many new hospitals have opened. What’s the net?
The net is about a 15% reduction in acute care hospitals snce 1990. This comes at a time when demand, largely due to an aging patient base, is steadily increasing.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 5:44 am ¶Marc, only wackjobs like Ron Paul advocate eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. Those of us from Earth are pushing for the more reality-based goal of deregulation.
Also, you risk looking like a flibbertigibbet when you suggest eliminating these programs while clinging to the alleged neceesity for the current, hopelessly cumbersome FDA process.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 5:53 am ¶“Medicare is, for all intents and purposes, “single-payer for seniors.” Indeed, “Medicare for all” is the battle cry of many single-payer advocates. Well, the system they want for everyone is already vitiating the care of seniors.”
The whole Medicare / Medicaid system is the main reason why I have not jumped onto the “Medicare for all / single payor” bandwagon.
I would bet that most of the single payor advocates have never been on the reimbursement end of Medicare / Medicaid.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:59 am ¶Forgive me, but I’ll need a source for that claim - and what are the beds. Oddly, you mentioned nothing about limiting it to acute care in your original post. Are you “refining” that claim?
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 11:27 am ¶I’ve been in the hospital biz for more than 20 years. If that’s not good enough, you’ll have to do your own research.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 12:23 pm ¶Scott, I think you’re right on the money. If those people had any idea what it’s like dealing with Medicare on a day-to-day basis, they would be singing a different tune (the honest ones, anyway).
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 12:34 pm ¶Post a Comment