Put the patient first to end the healthcare malaise
By Stefan Stern

Published: August 18 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 18 2009 03:00

All this angry shouting about healthcare reform must be really bad for
people's blood pressure. But it is no joking matter. "Health is
wealth", as they say. Nothing could be more serious.

In the heat of the debate taking place in the US, little light is
being shed on what really matters: outcomes. But while the funding of
healthcare is not a matter for this column, the management of it is.
And it turns out that the task of introducing better healthcare for
all is fundamentally a management challenge.

The Brits know this better than anybody. The UK's National Health
Service was founded, in the face of bitter opposition, more than 60
years ago. It has been a vast, living experiment, and a monument to
managerialism, good and bad.

Readers in the US may have heard some bizarre tales about the NHS in
the past few days. I have not been able to keep up with all of them.
But as a clarification I should point out that on the one hand, yes,
state healthcare in the UK is effectively rationed as the public purse
is not infinitely large. Politicians do not like admitting this,
because it is unpopular. But it is true.

<edit>

Complete article here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d671882c-8b8d-11de-9f50-00144feabdc0.html

Show me data indicating that tort reform is a more important factor in the
cost of health care, compared with other major costs. I can't
find anything which uses real numbers to back up that idea. All I can find
is anecdotes and other bullshit, including proclamations from a convicted
felon who lives with his mother.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net> wrote


What are you, a lobbyist for the lawyer association?

There has been a need for tort reform for as long as I can remember.

The problem is that lawsuits rasie the cost of malpractice insurance, and
without tort reform there can be no reduction in malpractice insurance
costs, and those costs simply flow through to the examination room, rasising
the cost of medicine. It only takes one unreasonable lawsuit to raise the
cost of malpractice insurance.

The new MRI machine is expensive but it gives doctors needed information
that can save your life. Malpractice insurance is also expensive, but it
does not give the doctors information that can save your life. One MRI can
be used by 100 doctors, but each of those doctors needs malpractice
insurance. So, the cost of the MRI is spread far and wide, the cost of
malpractice id borne by all and passed on to you and I.

You are an idiot if you think that health care problems can be resolved
without a reduction in malpractice, which requires a change to the tort
laws. Well, you're an idiot anyhow, but that's another story.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:49:12 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote:

And the problem is...?

"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn (AT) outa (DOT) here> wrote


Your message contained no numbers.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net> wrote

It's an example of costs going up because of malpractice.

You can't follow along with your own arguments, no wonder you are wrong so
much.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


Without an itemized breakdown of the 7K to 9K a day, you cannot use these
costs as an example of malpractice expenses, although in your next message,
you will disagree.

Explain your experience in the profession of medical billing and perhaps
I'll believe you. Until you do that, every word you type on this subject is
a guess.