Hi Allan, I differ with you on one matter. You said:
"The expense of fighting lawsuits has raised the cost of medicine"
While this line is undisputably true, it is much too simplistic. The cost of lawsuits is not a large factor in the inefficiency in our system. See the GAO report at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00005.pdf
In states that have limited malpractice lawsuit awards, malpractice premiums have dropped only slightly (5-9%) compared to neighboring states with no limits. However, the GAO report also says that [malpractice] "insurance premium costs are estimated at less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care in the United States, a small component of overall health care costs." This lawsuit issue is more of an ideologically driven issue than a real cost problem. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the real problem.
Health care costs would go down much more significantly with a single payer system. Right now, there are as many administrative staff as nurses and doctors in a hospital. Many (too many) people are devoted to processing claims paperwork, fighting denied claims, and dealing with the overly confusing process of the hundreds of different insurance companies and thousands of policies. Insurance company overhead and profits adds about 30% to our cost of health care, money that could otherwise be saved or go towards paying for actual health care. Compare that to Medicare overhead costs of 3%. Medical provider overhead costs must also be increased substantially to pay for the personnel, computers, and office space to process and argue the claims to multiple insurers.
It's common sense, but few politicians have the guts to tackle the issue. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers come to mind. Rep. Conyers has proposed HR676, the "Medicare for All" Act since 2003. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
Insurance company lobbyists have bribed, I mean campaign contributed, to people like Senator Max Baucus to kill the legislation. (Note: Sanders is Independent, Conyers and Baucus are both Democrats, so this is less of a partisan issue than it is an issue of working for the interests of people versus working for the profits of corporations.)
regards,
Jerry
Hi Jerry. I agree with you. It's less the costs of the lawsuits and more the high amounts of defensive medicine that is performed. By many measures, 20% or more of procedures are done to minimize lawsuits.
Even in states that have minimized lawsuit awards, physicians want to avoid those suits at all cost. When you combine this incentive with the incentive that they also make more money when they do more to the patient, this adds to the cost of healthcare, not to mention the inconvenience and pain of the procedure to the patients.
Hi Allan, I differ with you on one matter. You said: "The expense of fighting lawsuits has raised the cost of medicine"
While this line is undisputably true, it is much too simplistic. The cost of lawsuits is not a large factor in the inefficiency in our system. See the GAO report at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00005.pdf In states that have limited malpractice lawsuit awards, malpractice premiums have dropped only slightly (5-9%) compared to neighboring states with no limits. However, the GAO report also says that [malpractice] "insurance premium costs are estimated at less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care in the United States, a small component of overall health care costs." This lawsuit issue is more of an ideologically driven issue than a real cost problem. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the real problem.
Health care costs would go down much more significantly with a single payer system. Right now, there are as many administrative staff as nurses and doctors in a hospital. Many (too many) people are devoted to processing claims paperwork, fighting denied claims, and dealing with the overly confusing process of the hundreds of different insurance companies and thousands of policies. Insurance company overhead and profits adds about 30% to our cost of health care, money that could otherwise be saved or go towards paying for actual health care. Compare that to Medicare overhead costs of 3%. Medical provider overhead costs must also be increased substantially to pay for the personnel, computers, and office space to process and argue the claims to multiple insurers.
It's common sense, but few politicians have the guts to tackle the issue. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers come to mind. Rep. Conyers has proposed HR676, the "Medicare for All" Act since 2003. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act Insurance company lobbyists have bribed, I mean campaign contributed, to people like Senator Max Baucus to kill the legislation. (Note: Sanders is Independent, Conyers and Baucus are both Democrats, so this is less of a partisan issue than it is an issue of working for the interests of people versus working for the profits of corporations.) regards, Jerry
It's not so easy to find new insurance. At ages 54 and 55, we are just starting to have health conditions that up the rates for individual insurance. Also, the other companies have increased rates as well.
But the bottom line is we did what you said and, just yesterday, applied for new insurance which will take effect shortly. Still, I suspect the same thing will happen.
An excellent synopsis of what is wrong with our healthcare system. We need to do something now, before it gets any worse. Many people just don't realize what their insuarnce premiums will be a few years if the affordable Healthcare Law is over turned, or worse yet, dismantled in congress or by a GOP president. I know the law is not perfect, but it is a good starting point to getting medical and insurance costs under control. The congress needs to work together. Partisan politics is running our country into the ditch and Americans are letting the politicians dig deeper.
doing nothing is a sure path to disaster for our country. Debating it for another decade is the same as doing nothing. Our politicians will have to show courage to work together. I'm am more than a little nervous they can step up to the plate.
In 1981, a B school professor I had predicted there would never be an oversupply of attorneys. He noted that they would just create more laws creating more demand. I didn't like that professor but have to confess he had a very good point on this one.
I'm an academic lawyer married to a government doc. I've taught Dr.s how to avoid the errors that lead to Malpractice. Drs. overtreat because it is in their culture. But the VA internalizes all the costs of medical malpractice. They know that risk management reduces real injuries that they have to pay for. The key is proper risk management, not trying to shift the cost of either procedures or injuries to third parties.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
I differ with you on one matter. You said:
"The expense of fighting lawsuits has raised the cost of medicine"
While this line is undisputably true, it is much too simplistic. The cost of lawsuits is not a large factor in the inefficiency in our system. See the GAO report at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00005.pdf
In states that have limited malpractice lawsuit awards, malpractice premiums have dropped only slightly (5-9%) compared to neighboring states with no limits. However, the GAO report also says that [malpractice] "insurance premium costs are estimated at less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care in the United States, a small component of overall health care costs." This lawsuit issue is more of an ideologically driven issue than a real cost problem. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the real problem.
Health care costs would go down much more significantly with a single payer system. Right now, there are as many administrative staff as nurses and doctors in a hospital. Many (too many) people are devoted to processing claims paperwork, fighting denied claims, and dealing with the overly confusing process of the hundreds of different insurance companies and thousands of policies. Insurance company overhead and profits adds about 30% to our cost of health care, money that could otherwise be saved or go towards paying for actual health care. Compare that to Medicare overhead costs of 3%. Medical provider overhead costs must also be increased substantially to pay for the personnel, computers, and office space to process and argue the claims to multiple insurers.
It's common sense, but few politicians have the guts to tackle the issue. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers come to mind. Rep. Conyers has proposed HR676, the "Medicare for All" Act since 2003. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
Insurance company lobbyists have bribed, I mean campaign contributed, to people like Senator Max Baucus to kill the legislation. (Note: Sanders is Independent, Conyers and Baucus are both Democrats, so this is less of a partisan issue than it is an issue of working for the interests of people versus working for the profits of corporations.)
regards,
Jerry
Even in states that have minimized lawsuit awards, physicians want to avoid those suits at all cost. When you combine this incentive with the incentive that they also make more money when they do more to the patient, this adds to the cost of healthcare, not to mention the inconvenience and pain of the procedure to the patients.
I differ with you on one matter. You said:
"The expense of fighting lawsuits has raised the cost of medicine"
While this line is undisputably true, it is much too simplistic. The cost of lawsuits is not a large factor in the inefficiency in our system. See the GAO report at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00005.pdf
In states that have limited malpractice lawsuit awards, malpractice premiums have dropped only slightly (5-9%) compared to neighboring states with no limits. However, the GAO report also says that [malpractice] "insurance premium costs are estimated at less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care in the United States, a small component of overall health care costs." This lawsuit issue is more of an ideologically driven issue than a real cost problem. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the real problem.
Health care costs would go down much more significantly with a single payer system. Right now, there are as many administrative staff as nurses and doctors in a hospital. Many (too many) people are devoted to processing claims paperwork, fighting denied claims, and dealing with the overly confusing process of the hundreds of different insurance companies and thousands of policies. Insurance company overhead and profits adds about 30% to our cost of health care, money that could otherwise be saved or go towards paying for actual health care. Compare that to Medicare overhead costs of 3%. Medical provider overhead costs must also be increased substantially to pay for the personnel, computers, and office space to process and argue the claims to multiple insurers.
It's common sense, but few politicians have the guts to tackle the issue. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers come to mind. Rep. Conyers has proposed HR676, the "Medicare for All" Act since 2003. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
Insurance company lobbyists have bribed, I mean campaign contributed, to people like Senator Max Baucus to kill the legislation. (Note: Sanders is Independent, Conyers and Baucus are both Democrats, so this is less of a partisan issue than it is an issue of working for the interests of people versus working for the profits of corporations.)
regards,
Jerry
I seem to remember Anthem is notorious for being a ripoff.
My question is, why do you stay with Anthem?
Kaiser premiums increased by 10% last year for me, also much faster than inflation. But, still, 20% is even more outrageous.
But the bottom line is we did what you said and, just yesterday, applied for new insurance which will take effect shortly. Still, I suspect the same thing will happen.
doing nothing is a sure path to disaster for our country. Debating it for another decade is the same as doing nothing. Our politicians will have to show courage to work together. I'm am more than a little nervous they can step up to the plate.