<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MEDICARE ADVANTAGE &#038; PHYSICIAN CUTS</title>
	<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/06/29/medicare-advantage-physician-cuts/</link>
	<description>Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: A Carroll</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/06/29/medicare-advantage-physician-cuts/#comment-225791</link>
		<dc:creator>A Carroll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/06/29/medicare-advantage-physician-cuts/#comment-225791</guid>
		<description>Depends on your definition of "working."   Alarmingly, neither this blog nor Laszewski even mentions the most important criteria for evaluating whether a public policy that transfers public funds to the private sector (for reasons OTHER than ideology or party line) is "working": outcomes and impact  (i.e., are you getting what you're paying for?).  All of the research says "NO," including comparisons with regular Medicare.  No definition of "efficiency" or "effectiveness" could justify this program, whatever the ideology.  Merely claiming that an overpayment is 2.8% instead of 12% still begs the question.  Why should the taxpayer subsidize overpayments to any industry anyway, especially for poor service. People drop their car mechanics for reasons such as these.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depends on your definition of &#8220;working.&#8221;   Alarmingly, neither this blog nor Laszewski even mentions the most important criteria for evaluating whether a public policy that transfers public funds to the private sector (for reasons OTHER than ideology or party line) is &#8220;working&#8221;: outcomes and impact  (i.e., are you getting what you&#8217;re paying for?).  All of the research says &#8220;NO,&#8221; including comparisons with regular Medicare.  No definition of &#8220;efficiency&#8221; or &#8220;effectiveness&#8221; could justify this program, whatever the ideology.  Merely claiming that an overpayment is 2.8% instead of 12% still begs the question.  Why should the taxpayer subsidize overpayments to any industry anyway, especially for poor service. People drop their car mechanics for reasons such as these.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GruntDoc &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Texas Senators both choose to screw docs</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/06/29/medicare-advantage-physician-cuts/#comment-214099</link>
		<dc:creator>GruntDoc &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Texas Senators both choose to screw docs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/06/29/medicare-advantage-physician-cuts/#comment-214099</guid>
		<description>[...] I appear to have been drawn in by polemics from a group not prone to them.  See Health Care BS for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I appear to have been drawn in by polemics from a group not prone to them.  See Health Care BS for [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

