creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
24 May 2012
Bain And Our Screwed-Up Culture

We recently saluted Leslie Sabo for giving his life to save fellow soldiers in Vietnam 40 years ago. Injured … Read More.

22 May 2012
The United States of Gambling

A surprising fact: Gamblers spent more last year at commercial casinos in Indiana than they did at non-Indian … Read More.

17 May 2012
Grief Is Not a Mental Illness

We moderns seem determined to suppress all unhappiness with one exception: grief. The intense sadness … Read More.

Yes, Let Government Control Medical Costs

Share Comment

"Centralizers," a conservative wrote disapprovingly in Reason magazine, "say that the responsibility for making tough decisions about how to keep health care costs under control ought to be made by enlightened, well-intentioned policy elites."

I don't know. These "elites" beat the heck out of corporate interests trying to sell me treatments I don't need or whose results can be duplicated at far lower cost.

Author Peter Suderman was touting "consumer-driven health care." When people use their own money to buy health care, the theory goes, they are more careful about costs.

One model for consumer-driven health care is a health savings account paired with a high-deductible insurance policy. The HSA lets people sock away pre-tax dollars to be spent on medical needs. What's not used that year can be invested for future health care costs. Should some super-expensive medical condition arise, the insurance plan kicks in (after the large deductible is met).

Sounds promising ... but. In reality, HSAs don't do much to control costs because the big spending occurs in the serious cases, after traditional insurance has taken over.

When trying to sell "privatization" to a wary public, conservatives often imply that government smarties look down on the little guy. Sure enough, Suderman accuses the elites of believing that "individuals cannot be trusted to make prudent decisions about their own health expenses."

Whoa. Now I can be "trusted" to shop for the lowest price. But how would I know whether Dr. Discount is a skilled practitioner or that a cheaper treatment would be equally effective? The person who must be trusted is the doctor, not the consumer. If my doctor say, "I don't like your indigestion, you need an endoscopy," do I don a white jacket and say, "Doc, shouldn't we try Tums first?" I would not.

Aha, say those who would strap consumers into the medical cockpit: You will have all the information you need to second-guess your doctors. It will be on the Internet. Great. Let's treat stomach polyps with apple cider vinegar. (That's what they say at www.earthclinic.com.)

What patients and doctors need is a U.S. government website run by an enlightened, well-intentioned policy elite that studies various treatments for the same condition and compares their performance. That's how we can find effective, less costly care.

This is the point of comparative effectiveness research, and guess what? Republicans hate it. Information-wise, their backers in the medical-industrial complex want only their advertisers to stand between you and their products. For a sampling of the passions, almost-GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called comparative effectiveness research "the poisonous tree of which death panels will grow."

"It's ironic that many of the strongest supporters of consumer-driven health care are opposed to comparative effectiveness research," Peter Orzag, former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told me. "Regardless of your vision, you need comparative effectiveness research."

One need not be a genius, or even an enlightened elite, to guess that once this information is out there, most payers will not shell out $50,000 for a course of chemo that produces no better results than an older kind costing $10,000. And here's where elements of consumer-driven health care can actually work:

Say the patient insists on getting the $50,000 treatment because it takes two hours less. The insurer (be it government or private) pays $10,000, and the patient comes up with the $40,000 difference. Thus, consumers have the freedom to obtain whatever expensive regimen they want, but others don't have to subsidize their extravagant care.

For most of us, however, "consumer-driven health care'' will mean that when the doctor says go get an MRI, the consumer drives himself to the clinic.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Re: "What patients and doctors need is a U.S. government website run by an enlightened, well-intentioned policy elite that studies various treatments for the same condition and compares their performance." What planet would these perfect people be from?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:44 AM
Perhaps the same planet from which come the dedicated professionals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. It's not about Perfection--it's about Focus.
Comment: #2
Posted by: William C. Deal, Sr.
Mon Jul 4, 2011 9:00 AM
The government has done SO well with Medicare and Medicaid. There are some threatments that someone under Medicare or Medicaid cannot get. If Medicare covers an item, someone under Medicare cannot go out of the system and pay to have it done by someone else (short of going out of the country). But if Medicare does not pay enough to cover the operation/procedure, then doctors simply refuse to do the operation/procedure for a Medicare patient. Or the wait to do the procedure is so long it does the patient no good - if you have to wait a week or 2 for a detached retina operation, it has a far greater chance of not succeeding.
If government is the primary payer of medical procedures, it also become the primary BUYER of medical procedures. It then controls what is accepted and not accepted. New procedures will be cast aside before they are given a chance, simply due to cost. And you also have to figure, does government really want to help that 70 year old live to be 85, when government is paying most of his health costs and his Social Security?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Terry K
Sun Jul 10, 2011 6:36 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

25 May 2010 What Were They (Politicians) Thinking?

31 Aug 2010 Mad Men in a Saner Time

6 Jul 2010 How Much Cyber-Parenting Must Schools Do?