|
I am a family physician and have spent most of my career working with a patient population that is primarily covered by public insurance (Medicare or Medicaid) or uninsured, so I have pretty strong feelings about this.
Ideally, we would have a publicly financed system of health care, guaranteeing coverage for all. I don't this is politically feasible in our current environment - our health care system will have to "collapse" - where enough middle income families lose insurance, and enough providers (hospitals, physicians, et al) no longer receive adequate payments, because of growing uninsured, that radical reform becomes possible. Given are current rate of health care inflation (rougly 12% in private sector), and growing number of uninsured, this may take about 7 or 8 years. It is possible that tinkering with the edges of our current mix of public and private insurance will sustain our system longer. Answering your questions, though:
A. The Oregon model is a rational way to decide what should be covered - preventive services, diagnostic and treatment interventions for which there is good evidence of benefit. High cost items (eg, some of the more invasive fertility procedures)
would not be covered. Another way to ration care is by managing access - this is the old Kaiser model - and the Great Britain/Canada model - you have plenty of primary care physicians, allowing good access to primary care, and then determine how many cardiologists, etc., you need. Some people may have to wait if there problem is not urgent. Even with those constraints (and controlling for other socioeconomic factors) Canada and Great Britain (as well as every other developed nation in the world) have better health outcomes than we do. (Actually, we rank below countries as poor as Turkey in health stats - our health system is a disgrace.
B. Hard to know what will happen to Dr.'s salaries. There is plenty of administrative overhead in our system - 20 to 25% of health care dollars, compared to about 10% in Canada (Medicare administrative costs are about 2% - very efficient program). If physician training was better subsidized, and docs could graduate without $100,000 in debt for education, this might be less of issue. Certainly, quality of docs in Canada, England, France, etc. is comparable to here. Remember quality of care is as much a function of the system in which a physician practices as the physician. Public financing might allow for a more rational, better organized system.
C. What to look for in a health reform plan for the average Joe?
Needs to address access; quality of care; portability between employers; remove existing coverage exclusions; provides some mechanism for cost control that spreads risk and incentives between patient, physician, and payer. Does not make individual physician responsible for "rationing" decisions.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
