Just within the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen Congressional Republicans join with Democrats to buy into the idea that the federal government knows how to pay doctors for “quality” and “value.” It is the main concept behind the misconceived Medicare “doc fix” bill that the Senate will consider next week.
So, if we are going to surrender even more of this power to the federal government, it might be interesting to see what the Administration thinks is important:
“The challenges we face are real, and they are clear and present in people’s daily lives,” said senior presidential adviser Brian Deese in a telephone conference call with reporters on Tuesday. Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients’ health from climate change that is “posing a threat to more people in more places,” Deese said. (Bloomberg Politics).
So:
…… the Administration has “unveiled a series of ground-breaking hackathons, crowdsourcing efforts, and partnerships with private industry that highlight just how much the administration is betting on big data to help us mitigate the impact of the changes in our environment.” (Washington Post)
If the Administration really thinks that seven of 10 doctors are seeing the effects of climate change on their patients, we can expect forthcoming “quality indicators” based on your carbon footprint, which your doctor will be compelled to enter into your Electronic Health Record if he wants to be paid.
(Actually, the substance of the effort is not quite as ridiculous as I’ve described. For example, drones will be used to collect mosquitoes to test for viruses. And they did manage to mention Ebola.)
” which your doctor will be compelled to enter into your Electronic Health Record if he wants to be paid.”
Yep, I can see that one coming…
If the Administration really thinks that seven of 10 doctors are seeing the effects of climate change on their patients,
What are they living longer? http://www.nber.org/papers/w13227
We estimate the effect of extreme weather on life expectancy in the US. Using high frequency mortality data, we find that both extreme heat and extreme cold result in immediate increases in mortality. However, the increase in mortality following extreme heat appears entirely driven by temporal displacement, while the increase in mortality following extreme cold is long lasting. The aggregate effect of cold on mortality is quantitatively large.
Thank you. That is a very good point. Supporters of giving politicians control over climate seldom point to both costs and benefits to climate change.
For people in cold climates, cost of heating the home is a factor in making sure you don’t freeze to death. Climate activists want to increase the cost of energy. So, their policies make it harder to pay for home heating.
Giving politicians control over anything is a problematic proposition, at best. At worst, horrific.