5
Aiming health reform at doctors' pay
Roll of bills pours out pills.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: For all the months of debate and endless negotiation, the real work of figuring out what a health-care bill might eventually look like will start not long after 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. That's when the Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on its reform plan. The three House proposals and two Senate versions will eventually be married up into one plan for the president to sign. It will, probably, expand insurance coverage and do some other things. But it might not actually do much to control health-care costs. You want to do that, you have to change the way medicine is practiced. Joel Rose explains.
JOEL ROSE: For all the talk in Washington about reshaping our health-care system from the ground up, some say the Senate Finance Committee's aims are relatively modest.
DANA Goldman: This is a rather historic effort to provide insurance to most Americans. But this is not an effort to do anything on cost containment.
Dana Goldman teaches health policy at the University of Southern California [where he is director of the Schaeffer Center for Health Economics and Policy]. If you really want to control spending, Goldman says, you have to stop paying doctors for the quantity of services they provide and reward them for using treatments that save money and lives.
Goldman: If the patient does well, then the hospital gets paid, the doctor gets paid. And if the patient doesn't do well, then they're going to have to bear the cost. And ultimately, that would've been a really valuable change.
There are some pilot and demonstration projects in the Senate Finance bill that are supposed to lead to that kind of change. Goldman says they're little more than a "fig leaf." But for others, they're better than nothing.
ELLIOT Fisher: If you're going to change the delivery system to improve care and lower costs, you can't do it all at once.
Elliot Fisher teaches health policy at Dartmouth College. He says skeptical doctors and hospitals need to see that these innovative payment structures can be made to work on a small scale.
Fisher: This bill provides the foundation that will let us all start to work together to make those changes that will slow the growth of health-care spending.
In the meantime, experts say that none of the bills in Congress would do that.
I'm Joel Rose, for Marketplace.
Rather than judge the outcome of a patients treatment, why dont we just compensate doctors by the time spent with a patient treating and educating the patient. Afterall, isn't that all they are, consultants ? As rightly pointed out above, the ultimate outcome depend on a lot of complex factors and the doctor may not be held responsible for many of them. PAY DOCTORS BY THE HOUR NOT BY THE DISEASE !!!
"...stop paying doctors for the quantity of services they provide and reward them for using treatments that save money and lives.
If the patient does well, then the hospital gets paid, the doctor gets paid. And if the patient doesn't do well, then they're going to have to bear the cost."
Are we taking post-treatment, patient responsibility into consideration?
Many people smoke and drink despite SG warning labels. Most consume highly processed foods and beverages with little to no natural nutritional value and carry extra weight that leads to the diseases that they now look to the physician to treat.
You can't hold a physician nor hospital responsible for a patient that does little to prevent disease and is not willing to make the lifestyle and dietary changes necessary for successful post-treatment healing.
Everyone coming in for treatment has very different health histories and immune systems that are obviously malfunctioning or are overtaxed due to genetics, stress, environment, or poor lifestyle choices.
I think this idea is faulty. Withholding pay because a patient doesn't heal? Every patient's capacity to heal is complicated and unique.
I applaud you for advancing this story. The human body is a complex bio-chemical engine, so it is extremely difficult to treat it like it is automobile maintenance. Additionally, who will judge is a treatment was successful. It's an interesting premise, but it will be diffilcult to enact. If we could pull it off, it will drive innovation in treatment.
To lower costs try a cap & trade scheme for health care administrative costs.
In a manner similar to the cap & trade scheme for carbon credits, create a cap & trade scheme for administrative costs. Start with a target of say 10% for administrative costs. If the insurance company has admin costs less than 10% they get to sell their credits to some other insurance company that cannot meet the 10% goal. If there are no credits available to purchase then the govt. sells the credits and uses the proceeds from the sale of the credits to fund the uninsured and underinsured. Periodically the level of allowable admin. costs is reduced until it eventually gets to say 3%, or whatever is the best that any of the developed nation with universal care has achieved.
