For those of us not blinkered by ideology, it has long been obvious that the free market offers the best cure for what ails American medicine. And there are small pockets of the health care market that prove it. In his latest column, John Stossel discusses how free competition manifests itself in the market for laser eye surgery:
One result is lower prices. And while the procedure got cheaper, it also got better. Today’s lasers are faster and more precise.
The identical phenomenon has also been seen in the market for cosmetic surgery. Why?
When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen.
In the areas of eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and the few other sectors of health where free market competition is allowed to operate without government meddling, prices are stable and customer service is good:
Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government.
Amen.
Comments 14
Yours is a terrifying vision or with eye surgery literally so - a healthcare market free for all with no regulation. The problems with eye surgery are becoming more well known now. Only the very simplest of procedures should be outside of the control of national and medical bodies for very obvious safety and teaching reasons.
See http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695216268,00.html
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 11:26 am ¶You assume that everyone has your desire and apprent need for a nanny. A “healthcare market free for all with no regulation” isn’t that scary to many people willing to take responsibility for their own lives.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 1:03 pm ¶One should distinguish between “professional regulation” and “governmental regulation.”
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 1:43 pm ¶“or those of us not blinkered by ideology,”
Ahh, the irony. But to Stossel’s point, he’s absolutely right on small stuff. But that’s not really the problem, is it? The problem is catastrophic injuries that people don’t expect or chronic problems that are expensive to treat.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 1:55 pm ¶‘One should distinguish between “professional regulation” and “governmental regulation.”’
Would you trust a bunch of doctors to regulate themselves?
‘But to Stossel’s point, he’s absolutely right on small stuff.’
You may think you can transfer routine ops such as hip replacements and laser eye surgery to factory farms. You can, but outside of regulated and teaching environments standards can slip and the chances of doctors carrying out the same op badly many times rises. And of course as a patient you would not be able to find out in your country.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 3:42 pm ¶“Would you trust a bunch of doctors to regulate themselves?”
What governmental body regulates doctors currently (in any manner that affects quality)? The overwhelming majority of doctors in the US work outside of teaching institutions, and without governmental oversight. I am not aware of any study that suggests that those of us outside of teaching institutions suffer in terms of quality of care, or meeting standards of care, or higher rates of malpractice claims or awards, or poorer outcomes.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 9:31 pm ¶‘What governmental body regulates doctors currently (in any manner that affects quality)?’
In the UK we have this body, set up precsiely because existing regulation - a relatively hands off approach from government - was not strong enough, following a clear problem with heart surgeon performance in one city.
‘The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) is a UK health regulatory body set up under the ‘National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act’ of 2002. It is an independent non-departmental public body, funded by the Department of Health and answerable to Parliament.
The Council was set up to co-ordinate standards and good practice amongst the bodies responsible for regulating the healthcare professions in the UK, in the wake of the Kennedy Report into paediatric cardiac surgical services at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. It commenced its work in April 2003.’
And in the US you have state boards, eg in Mass:
Welcome to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Board of Registration in Medicine
Online Services
Mission Statement
The Board of Registration in Medicine was established in 1894. The Board consists of seven members, five physicians and two public members, who are appointed by the Governor for staggered three-year terms.
The overriding mission of the Board is to serve the public by striving to ensure that only qualified physicians are licensed to practice in the Commonwealth, to ensure that those physicians and health care institutions in which they practice provide to their patients a high standard of care, and to support an environment that maximizes the high quality of health care in Massachusetts.
The Board investigates complaints, holds hearings and determines sanctions. These functions are critical to protecting the public by ensuring that only competent physicians and acupuncturists are practicing in Massachusetts.’
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 10:01 am ¶“In the areas of eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and the few other sectors of health where free market competition is allowed to operate without government meddling, prices are stable and customer service is good:”
Let’s not confuse things here. These medical providers are still subject to local and federal regulations; ie having a license to practice and among other things. The “free market” you speak of is not created due to lack of government meddling (and by “meddling” I really don’t know exactly what you are referring too), it’s created because eye surgery and cosmetic surgery are void of third party payers
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 11:24 am ¶It would be interesting to find out how many physicians, who were not being disciplined or investigated, had any interaction with the state board other than paying the license fee.
I have not had any direct or indirect interaction with my state board, other than the bill for my license, in over 10 years. How are they promoting quality?
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 11:29 am ¶By “meddling” I really don’t know exactly what you are referring too.
I’m referring to federal and state regulations that distort the insurance and health care markets. With regard to the former, that would involve (among other things) govt mandates requiring coverage for specific ailments. In the case of the latter, it manifests itself in price controls and such things as EMTALA.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶“I’m referring to federal and state regulations that distort the insurance and health care markets. With regard to the former, that would involve (among other things) govt mandates requiring coverage for specific ailments. In the case of the latter, it manifests itself in price controls and such things as EMTALA.”
As the system is currently designed with third party payers (gov or private) there will NEVER be a “free market” in healthcare. I don’t care if you do away with all the regulations. As long as there is a third party payer, prices will always be geared toward what the third party can pay and not what the consumer can afford. You know that and I know that.
John Stossel is comparing elective surgery to major med? Talk about give me a break. He is just another lost soul that has no clue how healthcare is paid for.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶As long as there is a third party payer, prices will always be geared toward what the third party can pay and not what the consumer can afford.
Au contraire, mon frère.
First, if you deregulate the insurance industry, the third-party carriers would begin competing for customers. This would drive insurance costs down and provide many more plan choices.
Second, if you deregulate health care delivery (i.e. remove the price controls), providers would also compete for patients. This would cause downward pressure on all service.
To say that some sectors of health care (or any other industry) are not subject to market forces is like saying “gravity doesn’t work in Ohio.” It’s absurd.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 2:47 pm ¶If by deregulate, you mean federalize, why do you believe costs would be cheaper? Or will there be a race to the bottom with bad underwriting followed by a “crisis”?
How does one remove the “price controls” of the govt, which pays 50% of all health care?
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 6:35 pm ¶How does one remove the “price controls” of the govt, which pays 50% of all health care?
Allow balance billing.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 7:01 pm ¶Post a Comment