Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[ZenGum]

I've mentioned this about a gazillion posts back, but ...

The US system spends around 25% of the "health care" budget on administration. In other OECD countries that is around 10%, in Taiwan, a tad over 1%.

The US system has the most extreme liability/compensation arrangements, adding huge liability insurance costs, and forcing doctors to do exhaustive and expensive testing to rule out those one-in-a-million diseases, to cover their asses.

AFAIK, the current changes address neither of these things.

[Lamplighter]

AFAIK, the current changes address neither of these things

FWIW, there are various "outcome assessments" to determine,
for example, which lab tests and procedures are most/more effective and efficient.
Part of the justification for looking at such outcomes is the idea
that physicians can/should stop ordering lab tests when their
reason is just to document or avoid malpractice.

Some recommendations get a lot of (negative) publicity,
while other changes are implemented without fanfare.
Blood test of men for prostate cancer and women's mammograms
are examples of recommendations that became highly public.

But as such, these don't fit my concept of a cost control, because
they are based more on the science than on the fiscal, even though
the financial costs are brought into the considerations.