A comment


Category : General, Medical Rants

A reader tried to post a comment yesterday related to one of my “top 10”. My spam filter spit him out.

Unfortunately, spam has become a major issue for blogs. I have had as many as 300 comments to delete in a single day. I currently use a program called Spam Karma. You might get caught with “bad karma”, even if you are writing an intelligent comment.

I like this comment – so I will publish it here:

As one from the “payer” side, I’d recommend we take the argument on health care costs a step further. Like it or not, employers pay a significant portion of health care costs, both directly (premiums) and indirectly (cost-shifting for uninsured, FICA taxes, income taxes, etc.)

The real issue employers have with health care costs is they have NO sense for their return on the investment. And that is the fault of the medical and managed care communities. Employers carefully assess each investment into plant and equipment, personnel and training, investment options and new products. They calculate RoIs carefully, assess performance constantly, and get as comfortable as possible with an expenditure BEFORE they make the investment.

Think about health care – what do employers get? Happy employees? Rarely – health insurance is a terrible “good” – people only use it when they are ill or injured, it is convoluted and difficult to understand, and they have to
pay for part of it too!

Actually, what employers SHOULD be thinking about is the demonstrated ability of a health care provider to “deliver” healthy, fully functional employees and families, thereby enhancing productivity and, therefore RoI. Health insurance is an investment in productivity.

If we can evolve to this way of thinking, much of the present bickering about health care costs will end. Sure, there will be arguments about impact rates, who delivers what benefit, and what evaluation methodology makes the most sense, but that will signal we are talking about the right things.

So, the next time someone complains about charges, costs, or premiums, ask them how that “good” will help them function. They won’t know the answer, but perhaps they’ll start thinking about it.

I like this comment because it makes us think carefully about we we will do provide. How does one place a price on good health? I have some friends who have serious illnesses currently. Money is no object to them or their family at this time.

If you like the comment, you might want to check out the authors blog – Managed Care Matters

free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen

Comments (4)

I see patients one person at a time. My duty is to the patient, not their company. The individual patient is the one who signs a form agreeing to accept the responsibilty for my bill. There are occasional exceptions (I recently did a Workers Comp Eval in which I received payment directly from Workers comp; before the eval I informed the patient that I was providing services to Workers Comp and not him and obtained informed consent before proceeding with the evaluation). In most cases, doctors have relationships with individual patients, not companies or businesses. Although businesses do pay for much of healthcare in this country through health insurance premiums, this is at the expense of higher wages. So ultimately, it is the worker who is paying.

Dr Rack is correct in the micro sense, and Mr Paduda is incorrect in the macro sense. I can’t imagine that Mr Paduda is unaware that the primary reason that employers pay for health insurance (as opposed to life, auto, homeowners) is the WWII wage freeze forced employers to compete for workers on the basis on tax-exempt fringe benefits. This led to the employers’ providing health insurance as a then-inexpensive benefit. Today it’s a very expensive benefit, and still untaxed. If it were made taxable, or if individuals could get the same tax benefit by buying it themselves, we would not be discussing this at all.

It’s a fallacy to analogize health insurance premiums to an investment in plant, equipment, or personnel. These premiums are paid in lieu of higher wages that would otherwise have to be paid to get the same compensation package for an individual worker if he had to buy his own coverage. It’s cheaper for the worker to have the employer pay for it, both because it’s tax free and because of group premiums. Employers buy insurance for their employees because the workers demand it, and are willing to accept lower wages if they get it; nobody ever seriously promises that they will have healthier, happier, more productive employees “delivered” to them. Health insurance is not an investment in productivity, as suggested. It’s a form of compensation. Physicians and the rest of the health care industry have enough on our plates without having to “deliver higher productivity” as well. Please!

I don’t look at financial status of the patient while treating him/her.

[…] In the US, most employers provide employees health insurance benefits. The reasons for this have to do with history and tax law. In World War II, because of wage controls, employers could not bid for scarce employees by offering higher salaries, so they offered other benefits, such as health insurance, instead. Furthermore, employers can deduct employees’ health care insurance from their income for tax purposes, while individuals cannot generally deduct what they pay for their own health insurance. This arrangement gives employers, rather than individuals, control over what health insurance options they can choose. It also can even further tilt the balance of power and control over health care to large organizations (large employers) and away from the individuals who actually need the care. Such large organizations may not always make decisions about health care that are best for their individual employees.One example is an argument that was distributed over two other health care blogs. Medical Rants included a post from Managed Care Matters which argued that “the real issue employers have with health care costs is they have NO sense for their return on the investment. ” Thus “what employers SHOULD be thinking about is the demonstrated ability of a health care provider to ‘deliver’ healthy, fully functional employees and families.” Of course, it really is the patient who should be concerned about his or her health care provider’s abilities. How a corporate benefits manager could figure out the performance of all employees’ health care providers, and then sensibly figure out how to improve them, is unclear. A few comments made this point more eloquently.A more fundamental confusion appears in a story out of Detroit. A local medical benefits administration company, Weyco, Inc. has apparently decided not to hire any new cigarette smokers, and to fire any current employees who refuse to quit. The rationale by the company president, “increasing health care costs were choking his business.” I am a strong advocate of quitting smoking, but as the Detroit News editorialist wrote, punishing smoking employees by firing them has surely “gone too far.” […]

Post a comment