Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[infinite monkey]

You have to HAVE a member to BE a member.

[Fair&Balanced]

Overly sensitive was not in reference to anyone's member, but a state of mind.

[infinite monkey]

What the fuck, dude?

And don't worry everyone, dude knows what I'm talking about.

[Pico and ME]

He was making a little funny...get it...little?

[TheMercenary]

[TheMercenary]

A critical part of Obamacare and Mayo isn't playing....

The prestigious Rochester clinic is raising questions about accountable care organizations, or ACOs, which are supposed to be updated -- and better -- versions of health maintenance organizations. Approved as part of the 2010 health care law, they are designed to improve care and cuts costs by over half a billion dollars a year.

http://www.startribune.com/business/123668729.html

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A critical part of Obamacare and Mayo isn't playing....



http://www.startribune.com/business/123668729.html

...A bigger sticking point could be antitrust rules that are part of the ACO proposal. Mayo already provides most or all of the health care in many of Minnesota's rural counties, and Wood believes it could not operate ACOs in those areas without violating the proposed regulations.

Another issue is the way the government plans to measure effectiveness and its way of assigning patients to ACOs. The effectiveness measures proposed by the government are such things as 30-day mortality statistics and the number of diabetes treatments, Wood said.

"They don't get you close to measuring health," he maintained. "The simplest measure for consumers is: How effectively did the organization keep me functioning. People feel strongly that they want to be able to do what they need to do so that people who depend on them can continue to depend on them."

Mayo is confident enough in its current approach to accountable care that it has asked CMS "to take an entirely different approach to implementation of ACOs in the country." Mayo would like the government to contract directly with groups that are already providing programs.

CMS declined to comment on Mayo's concerns.

"This is a proposed rule," a spokeswoman said. "We will review the comments [provided by all organizations] and issue a final rule. We're confident providers will decide to participate based on the final rule, not the proposed rule."

Wood said Mayo is only interested in working in ways that are proven.

"We're not looking to intentionally give [health care reform] a black eye," Wood said. "We're working to implement accountable care."

Jim Spencer • 202-408-2752 • jim.spencer@startribune.com

A couple observations here.

It's a proposed rule, not a final rule. This is a perfect example of how and why such an enormous problem like the runaway costs for healthcare needs to be addressed in a sensible way. By sensible, I mean in a thoughtful way. In this case, the government is including the thoughts of the provider, working for the interests of the citizens. I like that configuration. *And*, I think the ideas behind this part of the rules are good ones. I want Accountability. Including input from those outfits that will deliver it is sensible.

[TheMercenary]

ACO's fail to deliver....

A key government experiment that set out to lower costs and coordinate care for Medicare patients — now the blueprint for an innovation the Obama administration is trying to move to a national scale — has failed to save a substantial amount of money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...nGH_story.html

[Spexxvet]

If the healthcare industry as a whole (pharm, drs, nurses, insurance) had done a better job at a lower price, and if Americans weren't obsessed with their health, there would be no need of any kind of reform.

[classicman]

don't forget the medical suppliers. They are a HUGE part of the problem as well.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

don't forget the medical suppliers.

I won't

[DanaC]

An interesting little blog piece comparing experiences of American and British healthcare.

http://jontillman.com/2011/02/22/us-...al-comparison/

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by DanaC

An interesting little blog piece comparing experiences of American and British healthcare.

http://jontillman.com/2011/02/22/us-...al-comparison/

Food for thought. I especially liked the comments on "rationing." Why people here in the US don't understand that medical care here is rationed is beyond me. If you are out of work or if your employer doesn't offer health insurance, you are screwed. Health care for low income Americans is abysmal and life expectancies in parts of America - especially the South - are actually dropping. When it comes to life expectancy world wide, I believe the US now stands at 17. And our infant mortality rate compared with that of other nations is a national scandal.

As your article points out, the US spends almost twice the percentage of it's GPD on health care than the UK does (15% vs 8%), yet the UK has universal health coverage for its citizens while a large minority of US citizens go without.

I am baffled by the whining here about how wonderful private medical care in the US is when our system is extremely costly and run for the benefit of big pharma and doctors who play the system for kick backs, etc. The patient is steam rolled in the scramble for the dollar.

Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!

US care is the best in the world for the wealthiest in the world!

Of course, so is anywhere else with modern hospitals, as elite doctors can be flown in from anywhere to anywhere.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Food for thought. I especially liked the comments on "rationing." Why people here in the US don't understand that medical care here is rationed is beyond me. If you are out of work or if your employer doesn't offer health insurance, you are screwed. Health care for low income Americans is abysmal and life expectancies in parts of America - especially the South - are actually dropping. When it comes to life expectancy world wide, I believe the US now stands at 17. And our infant mortality rate compared with that of other nations is a national scandal.

As your article points out, the US spends almost twice the percentage of it's GPD on health care than the UK does (15% vs 8%), yet the UK has universal health coverage for its citizens while a large minority of US citizens go without.

I am baffled by the whining here about how wonderful private medical care in the US is when our system is extremely costly and run for the benefit of big pharma and doctors who play the system for kick backs, etc. The patient is steam rolled in the scramble for the dollar.

Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!

In the interests of balance, here's another American experience of British healthcare:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291...care-uk-vs-us/

As the article says, quality is variable, and I must say that much of my experience of hospitals is better than this, but not all. Emergency and acute care is probably the most problematic in terms of the difficulties the writer encountered. That tends to be where the worst of the staff shortages, bed/ward/hospital hopping and overworked nurses can be found.