Medicare system overhaul-we're next in line, what do you think?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ShellBell157

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm interested to know what the feeling is about the proposals the government is making to change healthcare. I know the stories the media puts out are never complete or without spin, but read the following NYT article and please tell me everything you know or think! I'm interested to know what my future colleagues feel about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/us/politics/30health.html

Members don't see this ad.
 
A bill like this is very dangerous: to "reward or penalize doctors" depending on the "quality of care" may sound like a great idea in a sentence, but the actual execution will be ugly. This "quality" would be completely subjective and could be used to diminish the liberty of many doctors and hospitals out there that aren't doing things exactly the government's way - even though the doctor/hospital may be right about it. I wholeheartedly believe that power corrupts... If you give people more financial power, it may not be corrupt with the people who instituted it, but what about the people who succeed the instituters?

Why is it dangerous? If we have history to look at, this could be the case: There would be a 100 page bill given to the senate about an hour before they would have to vote on it. The government likes to work this way so they can stick little tiny "clauses" in. (similar to the Patriot Act) Ultimately, it's one more step toward the path of the government dictating what a doc can and can't do.

As far as a big picture health care reform... Honestly, I think we need less government, less regulation, less taxation, and more personal responsibility. What do I mean by personal responsibility? That some people will fail. Some people will be sicker than others. In some cases, this may not even be "fair." But it's time to grow up - life isn't fair, mistakes in the past (like how you live) can mean consequences for the rest of someone's life. It is just unrealistic that medicare and medicaid remains financially sustainable in addition to the growing national debt and foreign expenditures. One day we HAVE to come to our senses - the sooner we do, the less it will hurt.
 
lalala
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
whatever stuff they try to regulate is just going to encourage hospitals who don't meet "standards" to "creatively" work the paperwork to meet those standards. No one wins except the desk-workers whose jobs were created to regulate a profession which they have no business touching. Every couple months you'll have a bunch of MBAs who care nothing about medicine, patient care, or science in general coming to the hospital saying, "Your post-op outcomes are unacceptable, we're cutting funding.." and since they don't appreciate that each pt/disease is completely different and therefore cannot be put in a box, they won't understand any reasonable explanation you give. Then you'll grumble about this BS and go back to practicing medicine.
 
It is especially hard for me to comprehend how these people who have not walked in the shoes of a medical student or doctor have the authority to make decisions that are going to affect us so severely. As a whole, the medical community is busy taking care of the ailing population (that continues to get sicker and sicker...but also less and less responsible for their health), and as such there isn't a loud physician voice in government agency to speak for our experiences--no blame whatsoever put on docs, they are doing their jobs! So how can lawmakers truly think they're doing what's right?

So along with your reaction to the government's intended regulations (and above article), what solutions do you have to bettering our system?
 
Can you guys answer me one simple question.

How would you increase the personal responsibility of patients?
 
[lalala
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that a likely outcome will also be doctors that only want to see healthy people. If they somehow get kickbacks for keeping people healthy then wouldn't the logical thing be to only treat healthy people. And hospitals without trauma centers since there's no incentives. Good luck for all the people that get in car accidents, shoulda had a heart attack.
 
I pay for the bare minimum insurance coverage on my car. Do you think I drive more carefully because of this?

For starters, you could get rid of insurance and let people pay for their own medical bills except for catastrophic coverage, kids, and the very old. That way if you're a fat slob alcolohic, you have reason to change, or you remove yourself from the gene pool like people did in the olden days. That's pretty much the definition of personal responsibility, rather than relying on the pooled money of others (insurance) or the ponzi scheme of reproduction to provide taxpaying youngsters to fund for your care (medicare).

Insurance is a fine example of the tragedy of the commons. It's abused by a lot of folks. "I pay for it, so I might as well get my money's worth" leaves the person who actually needed the insuring empty handed.

If you let people pay for their own medical bills, the vast majority won't. Not just fat slob alcoholics, but just about anyone who isn't rich. Students, people who are unemployed, those who are employed but have trouble making ends meed (see the vast majority of the country right now) just about everyone. People will simply not see a doctor until their conditions require major, major medical intervention. The catastrophic coverage you mention will be overwhelmed and you will get sicker and sicker people showing up at the ER door with insufficient coverage to pay for treatment. I am going to assume your response is going to go something like "too bad for them, it's time to pay the piper, so to speak. Deny them care unless they can pay for it." Let me tell you this philosophy would have grave consequences for the health of everyone. The other problem is, people don't learn things the hard way. By the time the consequences come, it is too late to learn anything. Letting people die because of their lack of personal responsibility is not going to teach anyone personal responsibility.
 
lalala
 
Last edited:
I just cant believe that the quality of health care in this country is already doomed, it was doomed when the stimulus bill passed. They invested 700 million (some quote 1.1 billion) in quality care and effectiveness research or some bull, a.k.a we'll tell you what to do and when to do it. Who knows where they will draw the line? 5% effective, 15%, if your over 65 does it have to be 30%? Who knows but it was over on Feb. 13, 2009. But don't get me wrong there will be some good that comes from this. Countries who have socialized health care have tons to lose as well, as with the latitude we have now, we test run things that they eventually decide are worth paying for sometime later. What if they decide they have vetted out the decision making enough to not need doctors anymore? Say hello to the new primary care doctor the DNP.
 
This is going to get ugly. The last vestiges of physician independence will be crushed by the Democrats. I fully expect when we are residents we will have to regularly meet with hospital suits to justify treatment decisions and why our "quality numbers" aren't better. The sickest patients will take the brunt of it, those Hep C cirrhosis train wrecks are going to become a hot potato when they threaten to destroy "quality numbers" and eat ten times their "fixed payment" for their CHF admission.

I'm just hoping to make it out of residency before the crap hits the fan so I can drop Medicare ASAP.
 
A bill like this is very dangerous: to "reward or penalize doctors" depending on the "quality of care" may sound like a great idea in a sentence, but the actual execution will be ugly. This "quality" would be completely subjective and could be used to diminish the liberty of many doctors and hospitals out there that aren't doing things exactly the government's way - even though the doctor/hospital may be right about it. I wholeheartedly believe that power corrupts... If you give people more financial power, it may not be corrupt with the people who instituted it, but what about the people who succeed the instituters?

Although it would be nice to reward the best Doctors and penalize the absolute worst Doctors, I just don't see how they are going to do that. I have heard they may look at surgery outcomes or what not, but if they did that I think it would be very dangerous, because that would discourage physicians from taking on challenging cases. If the government was going to punish me if a surgery turned out poorly, I sure as heck would refer my challenging cases to other people. I do have confidence in my abilities, but it just wouldn't be worth the risk to take on a challenging case when the government might screw you if things don't turn out like they would in a routine case.
 
Want to make health care cheaper real quick?

Itemize futile EoL measures in everyone's insurance bill. Make it optional coverage. Then we'll see whether people really value those 7 extra days in ICU that comatose grandma needs so that her busy grandson can fly in next week after his important business meeting and see her lie there motionless "one last time."
 
I think a lot of our country's problem can be boiled down to a general lack of personal responsibility...I realize a lot of other uncontrollable factors put us where we are but people need to start being held accountable for the decisions they make instead of being carried by those of us who are responsible. I just wish there was a way to re-instill that value in people. I also think we're coming dangerously close to destroying any incentive for people to want to go into medicine.

Does anybody know if public health education actually makes a difference?
 
I pay for the bare minimum insurance coverage on my car. Do you think I drive more carefully because of this?

For starters, you could get rid of insurance and let people pay for their own medical bills except for catastrophic coverage, kids, and the very old. That way if you're a fat slob alcolohic, you have reason to change, or you remove yourself from the gene pool like people did in the olden days. That's pretty much the definition of personal responsibility, rather than relying on the pooled money of others (insurance) or the ponzi scheme of reproduction to provide taxpaying youngsters to fund for your care (medicare).

Insurance is a fine example of the tragedy of the commons. It's abused by a lot of folks. "I pay for it, so I might as well get my money's worth" leaves the person who actually needed the insuring empty handed.

QFT. The third-party payer system is the most direct cause of the high per capita cost. Neither doctor nor patient have any incentive to reduce costs, and there is no motivation for either doctor or patient to actually change lifestyle.

I know that "preventative care" is the buzzword, but neither physicians nor "preventative care" can do anything for diseases that are either caused or exacerbated by poor lifestyle. Type II diabetes can be maintained and even cured by improved diet and more exercise, but it is easier both for physicians and patients to perscribe metformin.

If you let people pay for their own medical bills, the vast majority won't. Not just fat slob alcoholics, but just about anyone who isn't rich. Students, people who are unemployed, those who are employed but have trouble making ends meed

There are two possible realities. We either cut the excessive costs and make everyone financially responsible for their own medical services, and accept that many will not do it and thus suffer the consequences, or we spend billions more dollars and hold everyone's hand, babysitting our patients and maybe save a few more than would be saved otherwise.

In my opinion, the cost is not worth the benefit. My plan would consist of many steps.

1. Make all dollars spent on medical care tax-free. That way those who are not offered health plans through their job can still purchase insurance at the same rate.

2. Possibly consider requiring employers to offer employees "opting out" of coverage, and getting a reasonable corresponding increase in salary.

3. I would require everyone to purchase basic catastrophic care coverage for sudden diseases, extended hospital stays, trauma, etc.

4. I would expand the use of Health Savings Plans to allow people to save for health care.

5. Care for certain chronic illnesses, severe disabilities, and other cost prohibitive treatments will be covered for everyone by the government.

6. Drastic tort-reform. Doctors will be virtually sue-proof. If a patient feels themselves a victim of mal-practice, the case is submitted to a review board consisting of physicians, nurses, public health specialists, etc. who review the case and determine whether or not the doctor was negligent. If so, then appropriate action, removing the licence of the physician or simply compensating the patient, is taken.

7. For the very poor, and children from poor families. Medicare is changed from comprehensive to catastrophic type care, coupled with a set dollar amount for prescriptions, PCP visits, etc.

8. For older patients, medicaid is similar to number 7, except that doctors are given more discretion regarding end-of-life and futile care. If the patient is beyond medical help, then rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for extensive yet fuitle care, the patient is removed to a hospice facility and allowed to die with diginity.

I appreciate comments.
 
It'll sure teach the next generation, then. It's a more sustainable solution than providing unlimited universal coverage that leads to huge taxes and national debt and risks subsequent collapse.

You asked the question.

The party that claims this went from a 2000 surplus to a 2008 huge deficit. But that's how pure capitalist arguments work, all theory and no empiricism.

As for the lessons we'll be teaching, what compassion...
The fact is, part of our role as physicians will be to be educate. If history shows anything, it's that most people don't learn from history.
 
Want to make health care cheaper real quick?

Itemize futile EoL measures in everyone's insurance bill. Make it optional coverage. Then we'll see whether people really value those 7 extra days in ICU that comatose grandma needs so that her busy grandson can fly in next week after his important business meeting and see her lie there motionless "one last time."

Does the political motivation to make this happen exist?
 
6. Drastic tort-reform. Doctors will be virtually sue-proof. If a patient feels themselves a victim of mal-practice, the case is submitted to a review board consisting of physicians, nurses, public health specialists, etc. who review the case and determine whether or not the doctor was negligent. If so, then appropriate action, removing the licence of the physician or simply compensating the patient, is taken.

7. For the very poor, and children from poor families. Medicare is changed from comprehensive to catastrophic type care, coupled with a set dollar amount for prescriptions, PCP visits, etc.

8. For older patients, medicaid is similar to number 7, except that doctors are given more discretion regarding end-of-life and futile care. If the patient is beyond medical help, then rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for extensive yet fuitle care, the patient is removed to a hospice facility and allowed to die with diginity.

I appreciate comments.

6. This will never happen because lawyers control that system and constitute the majority of our political system. They wont cede power/jobs/money, even if it is in the best interest of the US, because it is against all facets of professional and human nature. At the very best, we can hope for stricter limits on monetary damages, but even this is most likely a pipe dream. Lawyers staunchly believe that they are not in any way at fault for the burgeoning costs of healthcare.

7&8. I dont see how the costs of these programs are reduced by any means, or how this encourages PCPs to actually see them without subsidizing the risk.
 
6. This will never happen because lawyers control that system and constitute the majority of our political system. They wont cede power/jobs/money, even if it is in the best interest of the US, because it is against all facets of professional and human nature. At the very best, we can hope for stricter limits on monetary damages, but even this is most likely a pipe dream. Lawyers staunchly believe that they are not in any way at fault for the burgeoning costs of healthcare.

7&8. I dont see how the costs of these programs are reduced by any means, or how this encourages PCPs to actually see them without subsidizing the risk.

6. You are probably correct about that. However, I am basing my plan on what would actually work, not what could actually happen. Heck, if I had my way, we would follow Bill Shakespeare's advice :smuggrin:

7&8. While I am largely conservative, I think that the very poor, and the children of the very poor should have access to some health care. The vast majority of americans don't need comprehensive care. A visit to a PCP costs less than $100 dollars which is less than what most americans pay for a cell phone or cable. I work with poor people on a regular basis, and the vast majority that I know are capable of working, have a cell phone, buy cigarettes, and have a nicer TV than I do. If they become seriously ill then they are covered, if they go to the ED or a PCP for something routine, then they will be required to pay for it. If ED's had the ability to turn people away with non emergent PCs, or otherwise ask them to pay up front then not only would that reduce the cost on the taxpayer, but it would force the people to take ownership of their health. Mentally and Physically handicapped people (independent of income bracket) have claim upon society for their care as far as I am concerned.

With respect to end of life care, about half of all dollars spent for a persons health care will be at the end of their life. If people who were in a futile state were allowed to pass on at home or in hospice the cost would be reduced drastically. Rather countless patients are kept alive in ICU's which cost the taxpayer thousands per day. Often, this happens against the doctor's advice and its only purpose is to assauge the family's grief. If the family were careing for the patient, or if the family were paying out of pocket for the care, the story would be a very different one.

This is not just about saving a dollar. Having your vegetable-like life stretched out in an ICU just so someone else doesn't feel guilty is a horrible way to die. Making them comfortable, and allowing them to pass with their dignity intact is much more careing and responsible.
 
Top