Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Hidy, Dee -- " ...if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? " You've stumbled on one of the crucial issues in our industry: Is healthcare a public good or a private good? Is it like lighthouses, something that just ought to be provided in the communal interest? Or... is it something that should be allocated according to many varying levels according to who has the better insurance coverage? should there be a basic level of care for everyone, and then consumers could purchase premium services if they wished? That might be a Concierge Service. No, mandated coverage would not reduce prices. It would increase the utilization of healthcare services. Sort of like saying that if every kid in America was entitled to $1.00 per day in candy at the employer's expense, it might drive down the price of candy. Nope, it'd lead to candy outlets opening on every street corner. (Medicare's been around since 1965, and is perpetually increasing in cost, outstripping the rest of the economy.) Demand would increase, supply would become available only at higher prices, and there would be no market forces restraining, or " holding it down. " There would be no consumer saying, " Your price is too high. I'll shop elsewhere. " There would be consumers claiming that they are entitled to ever-increasingly more costly services at someone else's expense, to attempt to get more out of the system than their employer had paid into it. Now, THIS might be a controversial idea, but... I once heard a provocative speaker suggest that the simplest way to drive down health care costs would be to eliminate government-paid and employer-paid health insurance altogether(!) -- The assertion was that we'd then all become tough shoppers. The counter argument was that there'd be a lot of uninsured persons presenting at the ER after their accident or illness, and society would expect some level of humane care, regardless of the economics, in which case the owners of hospitals and medical practices would be insuring the entire population anyway... People get Ph. D's in this stuff... It's complex. Happy Birthday, America! Dick Hillyer, PT, MBA, MSM Cape Coral, FL Re: Concierge Services I recently went to a conference where the speakers looked at where the Health Productivity Management Dollar went in 1998 Median costs/eligible employee 47% Group Health 37% Turnover 8% Unscheduled absence 5% non Occupational Disability 3% Workers comp source Medstat/HPM/APOC Benchmarking Study 12/3/04 While it helped me to see why companies are clamoring about group health, this was not what I expected. As we hear complaints about workers comp costs I thought that would be a bigger chunk of the dollar. One thing that came up in discussion was that if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? Just something to make you go 'hmmmmmmm, Dee Daley, PT Southern Pines, NC > As far as Healthcare being a right not a privilege I agree that would be > great BUT is it reality? It sounds like your talking about a national > healthcare plan. If we go to national healthcare then those who can pay will > continue to receive the high quality care they are used to. Do you really > think everyone else will also receive high quality care? > Do you think you could keep your doors open if national healthcare became a > reality? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Hidy, Dee -- " ...if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? " You've stumbled on one of the crucial issues in our industry: Is healthcare a public good or a private good? Is it like lighthouses, something that just ought to be provided in the communal interest? Or... is it something that should be allocated according to many varying levels according to who has the better insurance coverage? should there be a basic level of care for everyone, and then consumers could purchase premium services if they wished? That might be a Concierge Service. No, mandated coverage would not reduce prices. It would increase the utilization of healthcare services. Sort of like saying that if every kid in America was entitled to $1.00 per day in candy at the employer's expense, it might drive down the price of candy. Nope, it'd lead to candy outlets opening on every street corner. (Medicare's been around since 1965, and is perpetually increasing in cost, outstripping the rest of the economy.) Demand would increase, supply would become available only at higher prices, and there would be no market forces restraining, or " holding it down. " There would be no consumer saying, " Your price is too high. I'll shop elsewhere. " There would be consumers claiming that they are entitled to ever-increasingly more costly services at someone else's expense, to attempt to get more out of the system than their employer had paid into it. Now, THIS might be a controversial idea, but... I once heard a provocative speaker suggest that the simplest way to drive down health care costs would be to eliminate government-paid and employer-paid health insurance altogether(!) -- The assertion was that we'd then all become tough shoppers. The counter argument was that there'd be a lot of uninsured persons presenting at the ER after their accident or illness, and society would expect some level of humane care, regardless of the economics, in which case the owners of hospitals and medical practices would be insuring the entire population anyway... People get Ph. D's in this stuff... It's complex. Happy Birthday, America! Dick Hillyer, PT, MBA, MSM Cape Coral, FL Re: Concierge Services I recently went to a conference where the speakers looked at where the Health Productivity Management Dollar went in 1998 Median costs/eligible employee 47% Group Health 37% Turnover 8% Unscheduled absence 5% non Occupational Disability 3% Workers comp source Medstat/HPM/APOC Benchmarking Study 12/3/04 While it helped me to see why companies are clamoring about group health, this was not what I expected. As we hear complaints about workers comp costs I thought that would be a bigger chunk of the dollar. One thing that came up in discussion was that if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? Just something to make you go 'hmmmmmmm, Dee Daley, PT Southern Pines, NC > As far as Healthcare being a right not a privilege I agree that would be > great BUT is it reality? It sounds like your talking about a national > healthcare plan. If we go to national healthcare then those who can pay will > continue to receive the high quality care they are used to. Do you really > think everyone else will also receive high quality care? > Do you think you could keep your doors open if national healthcare became a > reality? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Chad wrote: " However, aren't all professions (MDs, DOs, Chiropractors, etc..) experiencing lower reimbursement rates(?). " Looking at the ratio of price of cost for a given service. The MD always had made more. We just haven''t asked for more in my opinion. Has anyone heard of Insurance companies giving fitness gyms as a benefit? The price some of these people are paying for personal trainers is staggering! In a lot of ways when I was aspiring to be a " P.T. " I imagined it would look like personal trainers of today or ATC's. It's as if there are two completely different types of PT. They have different value to different people. Therefore people could pay accordingly to perceived value for a given type of PT. This in effect would raise the value of a PT. For instance, I cannot treat neurological disorders well at all, or atleast I don't want to. But, I can treat orthopedic conditions quite well. And, as I have noticed over the years it is that there are different " click's " found in our PT community. The issue that could make the effect of increasing reimbursement is to force the concept of specialization. By making everyone choose a specialty, a further course of study would differentiate the specialist from the intern. This is the way to raise our status to physician, not purely through raising the current academic classification. There is no way to become a specialist right out of PT school. Experiences need to be gained in order to use the primary schooling of physical medicine as we learn it. After one has gained experience further study could grant a higher level of practice. This higher level of practice would give us the physician status we want! Any takers? Zerr, PT www.summitpt.com Tempe, AZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Chad wrote: " However, aren't all professions (MDs, DOs, Chiropractors, etc..) experiencing lower reimbursement rates(?). " Looking at the ratio of price of cost for a given service. The MD always had made more. We just haven''t asked for more in my opinion. Has anyone heard of Insurance companies giving fitness gyms as a benefit? The price some of these people are paying for personal trainers is staggering! In a lot of ways when I was aspiring to be a " P.T. " I imagined it would look like personal trainers of today or ATC's. It's as if there are two completely different types of PT. They have different value to different people. Therefore people could pay accordingly to perceived value for a given type of PT. This in effect would raise the value of a PT. For instance, I cannot treat neurological disorders well at all, or atleast I don't want to. But, I can treat orthopedic conditions quite well. And, as I have noticed over the years it is that there are different " click's " found in our PT community. The issue that could make the effect of increasing reimbursement is to force the concept of specialization. By making everyone choose a specialty, a further course of study would differentiate the specialist from the intern. This is the way to raise our status to physician, not purely through raising the current academic classification. There is no way to become a specialist right out of PT school. Experiences need to be gained in order to use the primary schooling of physical medicine as we learn it. After one has gained experience further study could grant a higher level of practice. This higher level of practice would give us the physician status we want! Any takers? Zerr, PT www.summitpt.com Tempe, AZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Chad wrote: " However, aren't all professions (MDs, DOs, Chiropractors, etc..) experiencing lower reimbursement rates(?). " Looking at the ratio of price of cost for a given service. The MD always had made more. We just haven''t asked for more in my opinion. Has anyone heard of Insurance companies giving fitness gyms as a benefit? The price some of these people are paying for personal trainers is staggering! In a lot of ways when I was aspiring to be a " P.T. " I imagined it would look like personal trainers of today or ATC's. It's as if there are two completely different types of PT. They have different value to different people. Therefore people could pay accordingly to perceived value for a given type of PT. This in effect would raise the value of a PT. For instance, I cannot treat neurological disorders well at all, or atleast I don't want to. But, I can treat orthopedic conditions quite well. And, as I have noticed over the years it is that there are different " click's " found in our PT community. The issue that could make the effect of increasing reimbursement is to force the concept of specialization. By making everyone choose a specialty, a further course of study would differentiate the specialist from the intern. This is the way to raise our status to physician, not purely through raising the current academic classification. There is no way to become a specialist right out of PT school. Experiences need to be gained in order to use the primary schooling of physical medicine as we learn it. After one has gained experience further study could grant a higher level of practice. This higher level of practice would give us the physician status we want! Any takers? Zerr, PT www.summitpt.com Tempe, AZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 To all; Does someone remember a court case a couple of years ago where a group of MD's were not participating in Medicare and Medicare patients chose to come to their clinic? The MD's charged 2-3 times the Medicare fee schedule and as a courtesy, billed Medicare on behalf of their patients. Medicare caught wind of what was being collected from their patients and sued the MD's on behalf of their patients because they felt their patients shouldn't have to pay such high prices. What was very interesting if my memory is correct, is that the MD's disclosed that they were not participating, the patient signed that they were aware of the charges and still wanted to be treated by the MD's. Originally, Medicare won on the initial trial, but lost at the appeal level. Anyone know what happened after that? Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Don; I would charge $1,000 per. Joking aside, you will have to give me an idea of what service you might be offering. You will have to differentiate something you are doing that is out of the norm of your routine. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Lucy; Thank you for correcting me! I guess I am a bit geographically challenged today and you are not the only one who pointed out my error. Again, this list serves as a great education arena. And it is not always related to therapy. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Lucy; Thank you for correcting me! I guess I am a bit geographically challenged today and you are not the only one who pointed out my error. Again, this list serves as a great education arena. And it is not always related to therapy. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Lucy; Thank you for correcting me! I guess I am a bit geographically challenged today and you are not the only one who pointed out my error. Again, this list serves as a great education arena. And it is not always related to therapy. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Although Pennsylvania might be considered in the Northeast part of our country, it is not in New England. The six states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut make up New England. Your economic message is correct, but not your sense of geography. I shouldn't chastise you -- too many easterners and westerners have no sense of how the bread basket states are laid out. I, myself, have had a long-time afffection for Iowa and its people. Lucy Buckley PT Chatham, Massachusetts Re: Concierge Services > In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:29:13 PM Central Standard Time, > summitpt@... writes: > It would be intereesting to get an economist's point of view on this. > An economist would probably go through the old Supply and Demand model. > When > demand is high and supply is low or stable, prices generally go up (i.e., > Oil > & Gas). I think I might be able to offer up a couple of things of > interest > to this conversation. > > 1. The original post came out of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a New > England state and reimbursement basically SUCKs in that area of the > country. When I > billed for a client in PA, the Medicare fee schedule was one of the > highlights in their reimbursement landscape. Worker's compensation auto > liability > patients paid a 13% premium over the medicare fee schedule. Highmark > (BCBS of PA) > was approximately 40% less in reimbursement than Medicare. I told my > client > that he should shut his practice down and move it to a different state > where > he could actually treat a patient and not lose money. This man is still > in > business (last time I spoke with him) but is constantly struggling to meet > his > financial obligations. > 2. Because of the triangular relationship that exists between healthcare > provider, patient and insurance companies, it will be very difficult to > work out > a reimbursement model that all three parties can agree to. > > If I had a practice in PA, I would offer Concierge services for sure. > Based > upon the 2+ years of experience with a client in that market, it is about > the > only way to carve out a profit. Because they sure cannot make ends meet > with > the reimbursement rates mandated by the state legislature and 50% of their > payer mix (50% being represented by the covered lives under Medicare and > the > Blues). > > Jim Hall, CPA <///>< > General Manager > Rehab Management Services, LLC > Cedar Rapids, IA > 319/447-5625 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Although Pennsylvania might be considered in the Northeast part of our country, it is not in New England. The six states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut make up New England. Your economic message is correct, but not your sense of geography. I shouldn't chastise you -- too many easterners and westerners have no sense of how the bread basket states are laid out. I, myself, have had a long-time afffection for Iowa and its people. Lucy Buckley PT Chatham, Massachusetts Re: Concierge Services > In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:29:13 PM Central Standard Time, > summitpt@... writes: > It would be intereesting to get an economist's point of view on this. > An economist would probably go through the old Supply and Demand model. > When > demand is high and supply is low or stable, prices generally go up (i.e., > Oil > & Gas). I think I might be able to offer up a couple of things of > interest > to this conversation. > > 1. The original post came out of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a New > England state and reimbursement basically SUCKs in that area of the > country. When I > billed for a client in PA, the Medicare fee schedule was one of the > highlights in their reimbursement landscape. Worker's compensation auto > liability > patients paid a 13% premium over the medicare fee schedule. Highmark > (BCBS of PA) > was approximately 40% less in reimbursement than Medicare. I told my > client > that he should shut his practice down and move it to a different state > where > he could actually treat a patient and not lose money. This man is still > in > business (last time I spoke with him) but is constantly struggling to meet > his > financial obligations. > 2. Because of the triangular relationship that exists between healthcare > provider, patient and insurance companies, it will be very difficult to > work out > a reimbursement model that all three parties can agree to. > > If I had a practice in PA, I would offer Concierge services for sure. > Based > upon the 2+ years of experience with a client in that market, it is about > the > only way to carve out a profit. Because they sure cannot make ends meet > with > the reimbursement rates mandated by the state legislature and 50% of their > payer mix (50% being represented by the covered lives under Medicare and > the > Blues). > > Jim Hall, CPA <///>< > General Manager > Rehab Management Services, LLC > Cedar Rapids, IA > 319/447-5625 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Although Pennsylvania might be considered in the Northeast part of our country, it is not in New England. The six states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut make up New England. Your economic message is correct, but not your sense of geography. I shouldn't chastise you -- too many easterners and westerners have no sense of how the bread basket states are laid out. I, myself, have had a long-time afffection for Iowa and its people. Lucy Buckley PT Chatham, Massachusetts Re: Concierge Services > In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:29:13 PM Central Standard Time, > summitpt@... writes: > It would be intereesting to get an economist's point of view on this. > An economist would probably go through the old Supply and Demand model. > When > demand is high and supply is low or stable, prices generally go up (i.e., > Oil > & Gas). I think I might be able to offer up a couple of things of > interest > to this conversation. > > 1. The original post came out of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a New > England state and reimbursement basically SUCKs in that area of the > country. When I > billed for a client in PA, the Medicare fee schedule was one of the > highlights in their reimbursement landscape. Worker's compensation auto > liability > patients paid a 13% premium over the medicare fee schedule. Highmark > (BCBS of PA) > was approximately 40% less in reimbursement than Medicare. I told my > client > that he should shut his practice down and move it to a different state > where > he could actually treat a patient and not lose money. This man is still > in > business (last time I spoke with him) but is constantly struggling to meet > his > financial obligations. > 2. Because of the triangular relationship that exists between healthcare > provider, patient and insurance companies, it will be very difficult to > work out > a reimbursement model that all three parties can agree to. > > If I had a practice in PA, I would offer Concierge services for sure. > Based > upon the 2+ years of experience with a client in that market, it is about > the > only way to carve out a profit. Because they sure cannot make ends meet > with > the reimbursement rates mandated by the state legislature and 50% of their > payer mix (50% being represented by the covered lives under Medicare and > the > Blues). > > Jim Hall, CPA <///>< > General Manager > Rehab Management Services, LLC > Cedar Rapids, IA > 319/447-5625 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I would add one other point to this discussion of " concierge services " , and that is the issue of privately contracting with some patients, but not all. Remember that, in the case of Medicare, this issue is specifically addressed by CMS. If you privately contract with a Medicare beneficiary for a covered service, you are de facto opting out of the program for a period of two years. " Physicians who want to privately contract with Medicare enrollees for services covered by Medicare must declare that they will not bill Medicare for any services for two years. " In addition, some States have, or are introducing, laws that address this for private payers as well. This is why this practice, and some providers, are coming under scrutiny by the States. The cards are really stacked against the provider who may be looking to bypass the carriers. Our only realistic option is to advocate. As such, I would submit that our energies and dollars are better spent on changing these laws and policies, rather than trying to find ways to side-step them. Ken Mailly, PT Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC Tel. 973 692-0033 Fax 973 633-9557 68 Seneca Trail Wayne, NJ, 07470 www.NJPTAid.biz Bridging the Gap! Re: Concierge Services In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:29:13 PM Central Standard Time, summitpt@... writes: It would be intereesting to get an economist's point of view on this. An economist would probably go through the old Supply and Demand model. When demand is high and supply is low or stable, prices generally go up (i.e., Oil & Gas). I think I might be able to offer up a couple of things of interest to this conversation. 1. The original post came out of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a New England state and reimbursement basically SUCKs in that area of the country. When I billed for a client in PA, the Medicare fee schedule was one of the highlights in their reimbursement landscape. Worker's compensation auto liability patients paid a 13% premium over the medicare fee schedule. Highmark (BCBS of PA) was approximately 40% less in reimbursement than Medicare. I told my client that he should shut his practice down and move it to a different state where he could actually treat a patient and not lose money. This man is still in business (last time I spoke with him) but is constantly struggling to meet his financial obligations. 2. Because of the triangular relationship that exists between healthcare provider, patient and insurance companies, it will be very difficult to work out a reimbursement model that all three parties can agree to. If I had a practice in PA, I would offer Concierge services for sure. Based upon the 2+ years of experience with a client in that market, it is about the only way to carve out a profit. Because they sure cannot make ends meet with the reimbursement rates mandated by the state legislature and 50% of their payer mix (50% being represented by the covered lives under Medicare and the Blues). Jim Hall, CPA <///>< General Manager Rehab Management Services, LLC Cedar Rapids, IA 319/447-5625 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Hi Tom: Dick was precisely correct. Universal coverage will result in an increase in total medical care expenditures and most economists would tell you that will cause prices to rise. Dick's candy allowance analogy was a absolutely great way to show why prices will go up. There is a way to enact universal coverage and try to keep the prices from skyrocketing- let every individual buy their own insurance via a voucher program (which would have to be funded by some sort of payroll tax). Healthy individuals would tend to choose higher deductibles and pocket the savings from the lower premium costs. Of course, Congress would also need to mandate insurance companies no longer exclude people with pre-existing conditions. Any questions, let me know. I am enjoying the subject. Sincerely, Tony Lynch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Hi Tom: Dick was precisely correct. Universal coverage will result in an increase in total medical care expenditures and most economists would tell you that will cause prices to rise. Dick's candy allowance analogy was a absolutely great way to show why prices will go up. There is a way to enact universal coverage and try to keep the prices from skyrocketing- let every individual buy their own insurance via a voucher program (which would have to be funded by some sort of payroll tax). Healthy individuals would tend to choose higher deductibles and pocket the savings from the lower premium costs. Of course, Congress would also need to mandate insurance companies no longer exclude people with pre-existing conditions. Any questions, let me know. I am enjoying the subject. Sincerely, Tony Lynch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Hi Tom: Dick was precisely correct. Universal coverage will result in an increase in total medical care expenditures and most economists would tell you that will cause prices to rise. Dick's candy allowance analogy was a absolutely great way to show why prices will go up. There is a way to enact universal coverage and try to keep the prices from skyrocketing- let every individual buy their own insurance via a voucher program (which would have to be funded by some sort of payroll tax). Healthy individuals would tend to choose higher deductibles and pocket the savings from the lower premium costs. Of course, Congress would also need to mandate insurance companies no longer exclude people with pre-existing conditions. Any questions, let me know. I am enjoying the subject. Sincerely, Tony Lynch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Every historical sign indicates that mandated coverage would INCREASE rather than reduce costs. That is the nature of third-party-reimbursed systems. Someone else pays, and everyone (except the payer of course) decides that more is better. But that's not all that's wrong with mandated coverage (or any " coverage " as now defined). The list of negatives associated with our third-party systems is dismal: Power is concentrated away from the customer; providers focus on repair of illness rather than prevention (i.e. offers sick-care and calls it healthcare); adversarial forces peripheral to patient needs perversely (concomitantly!) promote and discourage utilization; and perhaps most distressing, personal responsibility of both patients and providers is de-incentivized. The notion that businesses would simply pick up the tab for more of the same (presumably paying for it with all that disposable money that all businesses have) without having a negative effect on everyone's pocketbook, is craziness. Business, remember, is us! (Hold off on your letters---I'm no fan of concentrated corporate power, I'm simply pointing out that there is no free lunch, and that economies thrive when business is healthy, and sink when business is stifled.) Shifting costs from one entity to another does not make those costs go away! What we should make go away is the third party system. Root for Healthcare Savings Accounts! Dave Milano, PT, Director of Rehab Services Laurel Health System 32-36 Central Ave. Wellsboro, PA 16901 dmilano@... Re: Concierge Services I recently went to a conference where the speakers looked at where the Health Productivity Management Dollar went in 1998 Median costs/eligible employee 47% Group Health 37% Turnover 8% Unscheduled absence 5% non Occupational Disability 3% Workers comp source Medstat/HPM/APOC Benchmarking Study 12/3/04 While it helped me to see why companies are clamoring about group health, this was not what I expected. As we hear complaints about workers comp costs I thought that would be a bigger chunk of the dollar. One thing that came up in discussion was that if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? Just something to make you go 'hmmmmmmm, Dee Daley, PT Southern Pines, NC > As far as Healthcare being a right not a privilege I agree that would be > great BUT is it reality? It sounds like your talking about a national > healthcare plan. If we go to national healthcare then those who can pay will > continue to receive the high quality care they are used to. Do you really > think everyone else will also receive high quality care? > Do you think you could keep your doors open if national healthcare became a > reality? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Every historical sign indicates that mandated coverage would INCREASE rather than reduce costs. That is the nature of third-party-reimbursed systems. Someone else pays, and everyone (except the payer of course) decides that more is better. But that's not all that's wrong with mandated coverage (or any " coverage " as now defined). The list of negatives associated with our third-party systems is dismal: Power is concentrated away from the customer; providers focus on repair of illness rather than prevention (i.e. offers sick-care and calls it healthcare); adversarial forces peripheral to patient needs perversely (concomitantly!) promote and discourage utilization; and perhaps most distressing, personal responsibility of both patients and providers is de-incentivized. The notion that businesses would simply pick up the tab for more of the same (presumably paying for it with all that disposable money that all businesses have) without having a negative effect on everyone's pocketbook, is craziness. Business, remember, is us! (Hold off on your letters---I'm no fan of concentrated corporate power, I'm simply pointing out that there is no free lunch, and that economies thrive when business is healthy, and sink when business is stifled.) Shifting costs from one entity to another does not make those costs go away! What we should make go away is the third party system. Root for Healthcare Savings Accounts! Dave Milano, PT, Director of Rehab Services Laurel Health System 32-36 Central Ave. Wellsboro, PA 16901 dmilano@... Re: Concierge Services I recently went to a conference where the speakers looked at where the Health Productivity Management Dollar went in 1998 Median costs/eligible employee 47% Group Health 37% Turnover 8% Unscheduled absence 5% non Occupational Disability 3% Workers comp source Medstat/HPM/APOC Benchmarking Study 12/3/04 While it helped me to see why companies are clamoring about group health, this was not what I expected. As we hear complaints about workers comp costs I thought that would be a bigger chunk of the dollar. One thing that came up in discussion was that if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? Just something to make you go 'hmmmmmmm, Dee Daley, PT Southern Pines, NC > As far as Healthcare being a right not a privilege I agree that would be > great BUT is it reality? It sounds like your talking about a national > healthcare plan. If we go to national healthcare then those who can pay will > continue to receive the high quality care they are used to. Do you really > think everyone else will also receive high quality care? > Do you think you could keep your doors open if national healthcare became a > reality? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Every historical sign indicates that mandated coverage would INCREASE rather than reduce costs. That is the nature of third-party-reimbursed systems. Someone else pays, and everyone (except the payer of course) decides that more is better. But that's not all that's wrong with mandated coverage (or any " coverage " as now defined). The list of negatives associated with our third-party systems is dismal: Power is concentrated away from the customer; providers focus on repair of illness rather than prevention (i.e. offers sick-care and calls it healthcare); adversarial forces peripheral to patient needs perversely (concomitantly!) promote and discourage utilization; and perhaps most distressing, personal responsibility of both patients and providers is de-incentivized. The notion that businesses would simply pick up the tab for more of the same (presumably paying for it with all that disposable money that all businesses have) without having a negative effect on everyone's pocketbook, is craziness. Business, remember, is us! (Hold off on your letters---I'm no fan of concentrated corporate power, I'm simply pointing out that there is no free lunch, and that economies thrive when business is healthy, and sink when business is stifled.) Shifting costs from one entity to another does not make those costs go away! What we should make go away is the third party system. Root for Healthcare Savings Accounts! Dave Milano, PT, Director of Rehab Services Laurel Health System 32-36 Central Ave. Wellsboro, PA 16901 dmilano@... Re: Concierge Services I recently went to a conference where the speakers looked at where the Health Productivity Management Dollar went in 1998 Median costs/eligible employee 47% Group Health 37% Turnover 8% Unscheduled absence 5% non Occupational Disability 3% Workers comp source Medstat/HPM/APOC Benchmarking Study 12/3/04 While it helped me to see why companies are clamoring about group health, this was not what I expected. As we hear complaints about workers comp costs I thought that would be a bigger chunk of the dollar. One thing that came up in discussion was that if Group Health was mandated in some way like workers comp (with all the scrutiny and attention to costs, etc) would that drop the cost of healthcare dollar? Just something to make you go 'hmmmmmmm, Dee Daley, PT Southern Pines, NC > As far as Healthcare being a right not a privilege I agree that would be > great BUT is it reality? It sounds like your talking about a national > healthcare plan. If we go to national healthcare then those who can pay will > continue to receive the high quality care they are used to. Do you really > think everyone else will also receive high quality care? > Do you think you could keep your doors open if national healthcare became a > reality? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I agree with Dave, root for Health Savings Accounts. We've had one for about a decade now (we were in need of an insurance plan back in 1996 when they were first offered. An agent in Tennessee explained the benefits of a Medical Savings Plan back then and we have been on one ever since. It has cost the same as a " normal " insurance plan that only would have covered hospitals and doctor visits. But we have been able to pay for our kids braces, dental visits, eye care and everything in between. The " normal " plan wouldn't have covered these things. So...we are financially in a better position that we would have been. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I agree with Dave, root for Health Savings Accounts. We've had one for about a decade now (we were in need of an insurance plan back in 1996 when they were first offered. An agent in Tennessee explained the benefits of a Medical Savings Plan back then and we have been on one ever since. It has cost the same as a " normal " insurance plan that only would have covered hospitals and doctor visits. But we have been able to pay for our kids braces, dental visits, eye care and everything in between. The " normal " plan wouldn't have covered these things. So...we are financially in a better position that we would have been. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I agree with Dave, root for Health Savings Accounts. We've had one for about a decade now (we were in need of an insurance plan back in 1996 when they were first offered. An agent in Tennessee explained the benefits of a Medical Savings Plan back then and we have been on one ever since. It has cost the same as a " normal " insurance plan that only would have covered hospitals and doctor visits. But we have been able to pay for our kids braces, dental visits, eye care and everything in between. The " normal " plan wouldn't have covered these things. So...we are financially in a better position that we would have been. Jim <///>< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.