Discrimination in health care was institutionalized in Independence, Missouri on July 30, 1965 when President Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating �two moral frameworks for public financing of healthcare�. Medicare was supposedly an �earned� right for the elderly, while Medicaid was framed as a �welfare� program for the poor. It was a necessary political compromise. It was just a first step and bigger and better things would certainly be accomplished in due course. It was better than nothing. But fifty years later, and after taking yet another �first step� with Obamacare, the wasteful, divisive, discriminatory, and ultimately self-defeating direction we chose back in 1965, and again in 2010, has not changed one bit. After 45 years of tinkering with Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare in a bold stroke expanded the welfare model of medical care upwards into the heart of what used to be known as the American middle class, the former engine of progress and...
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is working hard to transition physicians� payments from volume to value of services. The current Acting Administrator at CMS is a former top executive at United Healthcare, a commercial health insurance corporation. The previous Administrator at CMS is currently the president and CEO of America�s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), which is the dominant health insurance lobbying group. It may therefore behoove us to rephrase the opening sentence: The corporate-government health care conglomerate is working hard to transition physicians� payments from volume to value of services. In response, health care delivery corporations, which are employing large numbers of physicians, are joining their forces through mergers, acquisitions and other arrangements to better manage the transition of physician payments from volume based to value based models. When you ask the architects of this supposedly tectonic shift from volume to value to explain th...
In a new Forbes article, David Shaywitz ponders whether patients are the best judges of physician quality. This is a very interesting question, not because the answer is elusive, but because the question itself is rather unusual, and may prove to be the harbinger of a new way of thinking about health care. The question raised by Dr. Shaywitz is not whether patients have enough damning information to select their doctors, which is the common drivel in the media right now. The question is whether regular people are mentally competent to make that decision. Responding in the negative to this question implies that someone, or something, other than the patient should be empowered to judge physician quality, and pick your doctor for you. It seems that Dr. Shaywitz was inspired to write this article in the wake of an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal , where a practicing physician, Dr. Mark Sklar, is railing against the oppressive bureaucracy engulfing his medical practice tod...
Comments
Post a Comment