Headlines I Wish I Hadn’t Seen
Doctors don’t want patients to see their electronic medical records.
38% of hospital readmissions are avoidable.
Fast food companies: ObamaCare may not be so bad if the employees don’t sign up for insurance.
HHS: On using Medicaid money to buy private insurance: “Yes” to Arkansas. “No” to Tennessee.
I clicked through to TIE on the avoidable readmissions headline.
It said this: “An estimated 8.5% of discharges were found to be potentially avoidable. Thus, according to this work, about 38% of readmissions are avoidable.”
I’m sure they don’t mean to say that we can avoid readmissions by not discharging people from the hospital. The problem is that in the current environment it is often difficult to distinguish between reality and parody.
“Or did it? Gov. Haslam: “Of our request to Medicaid, we got one or two yes’s, one or two no’s, and a whole lot of I don’t knows.“
Left Hand: I wonder what the right hand is doing?
Right Hand: I wonder what the left hand is doing?
Left Hand: I know! I’ll say yes!
Right Hand: I know! I’ll say no!
Tennessee: *Scratches head*
“Doctors don’t want patients to see their electronic medical records.”
In the same article it is mentioned that most patients believe electronic medical records have improved medical care. But, since doctors don’t really have to care what their patients desire or think since they are not in the business of competing for patients, I don’t find this surprising.
Doctors generally won’t tell you what EHR provider they use either. Interesting.
“Fast food companies: ObamaCare may not be so bad if the employees don’t sign up for insurance.”
So even if the cost does not end up being as bad for the company, how does that fare for the individual? Seems to be incentivizing companies not to provide coverage, the opposite of what the law was meant to do?
@ The Using Medicaid Money to buy private insurance
I know that the problem with public health insurance is that many doctors don’t take them because of the low reimbursement rate. Perhaps, having private insurance will alleviate this problem since, in general, they pay 50% more to their doctors.
That’s an interesting approach Roger, but not one I’m sure is supported economically.
@ The Using Medicaid to buy private health insurance
I am building up from Patel on this. More access to Medicaid, via ACA, sounds great in principle and on paper, but in reality, it translates little results. Most patients on public programs struggle with finding care, and I feel like the ACA does little to remedy this problem.
“38% of hospital readmissions are avoidable”
-this is very unsettling.
HHS: On using Medicaid money to buy private insurance: “Yes” to Arkansas. “No” to Tennessee.
The primary problem with states using federal funds to purchase private coverage is the difference in cost-sharing between Medicaid and private coverage. On paper, Medicaid is very generous; with low cost-sharing and unlimited benefits. But, the reality is that Medicaid uses a non-price mechanism to ration care. As Patel already stated, Medicaid programs tend to pay doctors only about half of what private insurers pay for the same service. This makes it more difficult to locate a doctor who will see you and requires a longer wait for an appointment when you do. By contrast, private coverage pays higher provider fees and has much better access to care, but also requires modest cost-sharing for each service received. These are both mechanisms to moderate utilization. But HHS refuses to allow states to shift from a system that uses price-control rationing to cost-sharing system of rationing.
38% of hospital readmissions are avoidable.
Which means 38% of the current medical expenses are avoidable too. Hmmmm what could be done with 38% more of that health care money that’s being thrown out the window? Let’s think..
I wonder how much the Arkansas/Tennessee decision was dependent upon Tennessee having a Republican governor…