Tim Pawlenty gave NPR an interview where the topic of health care came up. It's very telling, especially when the interviewer counters Pawlenty's claims of how he did it better in Minnesota by saying, "But, isn't that in the HCR?" Of course, it's "just a pilot program." Because pilot programs never blossom.
Also his business philosophy about paying for better outcomes has some sever problems. Such as, unless you have all the data (what doctors/hospitals charge and what their outcomes are, including things like being cited for practice violations, etc) the consumer can't make the effective choice he's asking us to do. Besides, isn't that really the job of the licensing boards and, say, government regulators? And they way he states it, about paying more if you have a bad outcome (because you the insurance shouldn't pay for bad outcomes) that leaves the patient, who is now dealing with the bad outcomes and now has increased bills from the original procedure on top of trying to get better. How is that helpful to the patient.
It's sort of like going to McDonalds and not know what the prices are on the menu, and they can vary from day to day. But if you get indigestion, you have to pay more for the privilege.
And just how are consumers supposed to make these decisions when finding the data is 1) hard and 2) the doctors have organizations to hide that data and 3) how much are you going to shop around when you have an emergency?
2 comments:
Facepalm -- how was I supposed to know that I should've gone to Wendy's when I went to McDonalds instead?
Dr. Phil
psystful -- A Psychological psystful of dollars?
Didn't you know you were going to have to pay more of your bill by going to McDs? You should have read the contract then.
Post a Comment