• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Wonder what my physician friends would think about their being to few of them?

They profit from the scarcity, but on the other hand, the scarcity is caused in part by the very high cost of medical school, high stress, and high overhead costs of the profession. The fix is to trade increased supply and competition (read: somewhat lower compensation) for decreased student debt, lower stress, and lower overhead. Whoever figures out how to hack that Gordian knot deserves a Nobel.
 
They profit from the scarcity, but on the other hand, the scarcity is caused in part by the very high cost of medical school, high stress, and high overhead costs of the profession. The fix is to trade increased supply and competition (read: somewhat lower compensation) for decreased student debt, lower stress, and lower overhead. Whoever figures out how to hack that Gordian knot deserves a Nobel.

I have a friend that is about to complete her residency as an OBGYN. She is nearly half a million dollars in debt.
 
I have a friend that is about to complete her residency as an OBGYN. She is nearly half a million dollars in debt.

Yeah, but who among us wouldn't sign up to go into half a million in debt to ultimately get paid to play with poon all day long?
 
The main reason the right is freaking out is they know once ACA is more in place on October 1, millions of Americans will love it and the GOP won't have their issue for 2014.

Sorry, just had to re-post this piece of brilliant commentary.
 
Yeah, but who among us wouldn't sign up to go into half a million in debt to ultimately get paid to play with poon all day long?

What could possibly go wrong with this plan...

old+lady+celebrating.jpg
 
Supply meaning, more doctors, more availability of care, less expensive/wasteful care. Getting rid of stupid CON laws would be a good start.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Hmmmmm. As a former econ grad, I understand the supply side argument here. Prices should go down on a per unit basis with more supply though one could argue so would quality. But I dont know of overall spend would go down. I could easily argue we'd see more wasteful care, albeit, at a lower per unit cost.

We have got to figure out how to do less, more cost effective care, not just cheaper care. If we can do it cheaper, thats icing on the cake. We have to design a system around outcomes based care that forces real trade-offs for consumers. Giving away birth control isn't it. Requiring rich benefits isnt it. Adding more ortho surgeons isnt it. Lets incent consumers to see the most cost efficient providers and ding to see the costly ones (even the costly ones that appear to be low cost). And lets pay these docs differently too.

While its not a great analogy, we have drug stores on every corner. Yet, drug utilization has driven a lot of overall medical trend.

The reality is we need to consume less care, even better if its less costly and more efficiently delivered care.
 
Hmmmmm. As a former econ grad, I understand the supply side argument here. Prices should go down on a per unit basis with more supply though one could argue so would quality. But I dont know of overall spend would go down. I could easily argue we'd see more wasteful care, albeit, at a lower per unit cost.

We have got to figure out how to do less, more cost effective care, not just cheaper care. If we can do it cheaper, thats icing on the cake. We have to design a system around outcomes based care that forces real trade-offs for consumers. Giving away birth control isn't it. Requiring rich benefits isnt it. Adding more ortho surgeons isnt it. Lets incent consumers to see the most cost efficient providers and ding to see the costly ones (even the costly ones that appear to be low cost). And lets pay these docs differently too.

While its not a great analogy, we have drug stores on every corner. Yet, drug utilization has driven a lot of overall medical trend.

The reality is we need to consume less care, even better if its less costly and more efficiently delivered care.

You mean like how the cost of lasik has dropped significantly because folks actually have to pay for it. That versus the $13 bars of soap my Mom's insurance covered when she had her knee replaced. With any product if you subsidize it and detach consumers from the actual cost - the cost goes UP. Easy credit for education - costs go way up. Easy credit to buy a house - the costs go way up. Healthcare is no different. But we do still have a supply issue when it comes to care. And Obamacare only promises to make that issue worse, not better.
 
Deacon923,
You realize these things were attempted and studied in the 70's. Most of that data showed that the areas that had the highest concentration of Doc's also had the highest fees in the country. We could probably do more if every american lost 15 pounds and got end of life counselling because that is where most of the money goes.
 
You mean like how the cost of lasik has dropped significantly because folks actually have to pay for it. That versus the $13 bars of soap my Mom's insurance covered when she had her knee replaced. With any product if you subsidize it and detach consumers from the actual cost - the cost goes UP. Easy credit for education - costs go way up. Easy credit to buy a house - the costs go way up. Healthcare is no different. But we do still have a supply issue when it comes to care. And Obamacare only promises to make that issue worse, not better.

Exactly. I meant to add LASIK and cosmetic surgery as an examples. I think we completely agree here.

I do think 20M more insured people is going to put a lot of stress on the system which could actually, gasp, increase prices despite what we hear on the "Ed" Show.
 
Exactly. I meant to add LASIK and cosmetic surgery as an examples. I think we completely agree here.

I do think 20M more insured people is going to put a lot of stress on the system which could actually, gasp, increase prices despite what we hear on the "Ed" Show.

Correct me if I am wrong but part of the problem is that Americans that are insured are over insured and that drives cost up. I wholeheartedly believe that the answer to high cost is high premium disaster insurance and health savings accounts for all Americans. Even if you are subsidizing the poor you do it with high premium and HSA so people know what they are paying for.
 
Deacon923,
You realize these things were attempted and studied in the 70's. Most of that data showed that the areas that had the highest concentration of Doc's also had the highest fees in the country. We could probably do more if every american lost 15 pounds and got end of life counselling because that is where most of the money goes.


I am not familiar with those studies. Happy to read if you post. I do know that plenty of euro countries have more doctors, more hospitals, etc per capita and better health outcomes at lower cost. I also know that CON laws unquestionably serve to raise prices and reduce access by restricting supply. If we want to talk about the free market working in healthcare that is the lowest hanging fruit there is.

I don't disagree with the last sentence at all.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but part of the problem is that Americans that are insured are over insured and that drives cost up. I wholeheartedly believe that the answer to high cost is high premium disaster insurance and health savings accounts for all Americans. Even if you are subsidizing the poor you do it with high premium and HSA so people know what they are paying for.

I agree with this too. We are way over-insured. Someone earlier on this thread said you need a crystal ball to determine the right amount of insurance which is the mindset we need to change. You should buy the level of insurance that covers you if something bad and unexpected happens. I can afford a $10,000 non compliant deductible (thankfully) so thats what I buy even though in any given year, I may be better off with a different plan. We need more people to think in these terms, not "how much can I get out of my insurance". That drives trend.

In this same light, the copay is one of the worst innovations ever. It encourages over-use, insulates people from what care really costs and is a year over year trend killer (ex. a $10 copay on a $100 visit = 10% but when the visit goes to $110, your % DROPS). Thats a recipe for disaster cost wise.

I have ideas where we could set up HSAs for consumers of all income levels and vary the HSA amount or ded. based on income. Allow some cash out option to to encourage appropriate use. Tax any amount of insurance over this base HSA amount (say a $5000 ded 100% plan).

Instead, we have mandated rich insurance. Sigh.
 
Yeah, I think most people with experience with HDHPs and HSAs recognize that general structure is the best way to easily address the problem, at least in the short term until something uniform can be worked out. We had pretty thorough discussions on that here when Obamacare was initially enacted. Unfortunately, as with most things, Obamacare completely missed the boat on promoting that solution.
 
923,
Funny that you don't agree with the last sentence in that most health professionals that I associate with agree that the obesity epidemic is the greatest driver of bad health in the country and that the greatest cost to the system come at the end of life. When I was a resident we had 2 three hour seminars given by the Dean of the school that addressed manpower issues and supply and demand. The conclusions were that Health care is not a commodity that follows supply and demand rules because the product is multifaceted and different for each patient encounter and the patient deserves this individual attention.
 
I don't disagree with the last sentence at all.

923,
Funny that you don't agree with the last sentence in that most health professionals that I associate with agree that the obesity epidemic is the greatest driver of bad health in the country and that the greatest cost to the system come at the end of life. When I was a resident we had 2 three hour seminars given by the Dean of the school that addressed manpower issues and supply and demand. The conclusions were that Health care is not a commodity that follows supply and demand rules because the product is multifaceted and different for each patient encounter and the patient deserves this individual attention.

Sorry, I used a double negative. I agree with your last sentence in that post, I do not disagree with it. Totally agree that obesity and end of life care are huge issues.

I also agree that health care does not follow normal supply and demand rules. I don't really think it is possible for health care consumers to be meaningful participants in a fair market. the knowledge and power imbalance between the consumer and the provider is insurmountable. There has to be some kind of mediating force. In the US, that is supposed to be the insurance company, but it's a badly broken system and Obamacare is not going to improve it (at least as far as cost control). In many other countries, the government has taken over the role of mediating force. Some successfully, some less so.

Responding to CH and 2&2: because I think the market forces here are so unmanageable on an individual level, I have doubts that pushing HSAs and HDCPs will meaningfully affect health care costs. I think these kinds of things will induce people to skimp on preventive care, and do nothing to address overspending on end of life care, for example.
 
923,
thanks for your clarification, sometimes it is tough to fully understand everything running back and forth between patients. I think we see closely eye to eye here. I would state that whatever changes insurance companies try to come up with they need provider input with a place at the table, after all, we are the ones in the trenches trying to trying to make this work for the patient.
 
Back
Top