Slashdot Mirror
The Doctor Will See Your Credit Score Now
mytrip writes to mention that the same people who invented credit scores are working to create a similar system for hospitals and other health care providers. "The project, dubbed "MedFICO" in some early press reports, will aid hospitals in assessing a patient's ability to pay their medical bills. But privacy advocates are worried that the notorious errors that have caused frequent criticism of the credit system will also cause trouble with any attempt to create a health-related risk score. They also fear that a low score might impact the quality of the health care that patients receive."
They also fear that a low score might impact the quality of the health care that patients receive.
Of course this will impact the quality of healthcare that people receive. Don't be absurd. Look, as someone who is involved in his family business (12 docs, 100 total employees), the ability of patients to pay is fundamental because healthcare is a business. Doctors graduate medical school with six figures in debt, buildings cost money, running a business with good people takes money to pay your employees with and more. It is hard enough as a small business in medicine, but competing with larger hospital groups who make access like this part of their business practice (like HMOs) are making it even harder because they shunt patients who are less able to pay to the local doctors or smaller clinics, and these are the businesses that suffer the burden of non-payment.
What is the solution? Trying to figure out who has what insurance (some insurance is better than other types) and who can afford to pay for more expensive procedures is just bad medicine and bad social responsibility. Socialized medicine is not it either, however, a return to fee for service medicine is a better option for all people involved. Scrap the HMOs (who are in business to make money, not provide health care), scrap the insurance companies (middle men extracting their pound of flesh) and return to a system where you pay for services rendered with insurance for catastrophic coverage. Granted, many specialized procedures will not be utilized as much but health care coverage for two healthy people is often in the $8k-$12k/year range as it is. And what is the average American getting for that expenditure? You are paying typically out of pocket expenses on top of that as well if you do take advantage of health care services and if you prove a bad insurance risk, you get dropped entirely. Look, insurance companies are not in business to help you stay healthy, or get well... They are publicly traded companies who's bottom line is profit and that profit comes at your expense. A classic parasitic business model that has been promulgated on the American public. However, this will have to change as it is dragging down US business, small and large, big time.
Because I know the types of posts that are coming.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I'm kinda liking the idea of scores based on how likely all insurance companies (auto, medical, etc.) are to pay.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
In the United States, those in middle-to-low income groups often get very poor health insurance from their employer, or worse, depend on Medicare/aid grants from the government.
This means that only those with money have proper access to health care, treatment and diagnosis.
In Australia, private cover is only designed to be an add-on for existing government-provided cover via the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme and Medicare. Medicare levies are paid on an income-ramped scale, and you can be exempt in some cases from paying altogether.
In this way, those that can afford good health care (i.e high incomes) enable those who cannot (low incomes) with at least a baseline medical cover that is far more extensive than the government health grants in the US of A.
This introduction of a credit-rating style scheme only makes the problem worse. Someone may have been unemployed and become very ill, and ended up being unable to pay medical bills promptly/at all. They may later have become employed - perhaps even at a high income, but will therefore still be cursed with a poor medical credit rating and be turned away from healthcare.
No one should be denied medical treatment in this way, and the fact that this system is being developed suggests there is something wrong with excessively privatized health like in the United States.
We also need real accountability for credit reporting agencies. Simply requiring them to change incorrect information after the damage is already for done and requiring each of us to police the companies on our own dime - is crazy. They're immune for normal charges of libel, and should not be.
If you want to look up my licensing status and any restrictions, as well as board certification, go right ahead - http://www.docboard.org/docfinder.html. If you want to know if I'm a good match for you, you'll have to do the same thing as you would for your dentist, plumber, or lawyer - try me and see if it works out.
If you want to figure out how much I'm charging, good luck: each different plan with each distinct insurance company charges different prices for different procedures or visit types, which is often considered proprietary information so I'm not allowed to know or publicize what it is anyway, lest I collude with other physicians to get better a payment schedule.
And while some doctors may be competing for your business, as a primary care physician, I'm not - our practice (like many) limits new patients. I take Medicaid and uninsured patients along with commercial insurance, and my panel is overflowing. I'm happy to say I love my job, but the long hours, mountains of paperwork, and 13 year old car are typical of my colleagues - we're not exactly living high off the hog, or running our hands through a mountain of gold coins.
By law in the United States, no hospital with an emergency room can turn away anyone for needed care, but I can see why the folks doing elective surgeries might want to be sure you can pay your bill. This is America after all, and we are apparently a long way off from figuring out what virtually every other industrialized democracy has: private insurers are in it for the money, and are not necessarily aligned with your best interests.
Once again, American libertarian Slashdotters come out in droves to let us know that socialized medicine couldn't possibly work. I guess this is plausible enough, as long as you're suffering from some sort of epistemological disorder that prevents you from perceiving the universe outside the borders of the United States. Because in every other Western industrialized nation, some sort of socialized medicine has been the reality for decades, and, not coincidentally, they all provide a better standard of care to their citizens for less money than we do here in the USA. (Yes, even with the waiting lists.)
Argue, if you want, that health care shouldn't be universal on some sort of social Darwinist grounds ("The sick should die, because they are weak!"), but please stop trying to suggest that there's something inherently unworkable about government-provided health care. It's sort of like arguing that the Earth is flat or that water runs uphill: it's clearly contradicted by fact.
The quality is mediocre, but what do you expect with socialized medicine.
Just so you know, I'm insured by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It's what we call a Crown Corporation - a company run for the benefit of the people of my province. It's formed by an act of the Provincial Parliament, and answers to the government, but is in all other aspects a real company - other than it's forbidden by law to make a profit. Yes, part of my Ontario Income Tax is used to fund the company, so I pay my premiums as a matter of course, rather than seperately. Last year I paid about $5500CDN in Ontario tax - total - and I make a pretty good salary. So, the risk you speak of is shared by all in Ontario through having a Crown Corporation. BTW - if it does make a profit, the money is put back into the public purse. People pay what they can afford, and other than having some fat-cat bureaucrats who make inflated salaries, it's cost effective for us - no one is trying to make money for shareholders, they try to give good care.
It's not perfect by any stretch, sure. We don't have enough doctors, but OHIP is trying to remedy that in a reasonable way. Yes, I've waited for hours in an emergency room, but that was after a rather nasty accident on the highway flooded the place with the severely injured and I just had a sore back. I went to a clinic the next day and received the care I needed - I just walked in, showed them my OHIP card and got medical care that fixed me up.
I have choice in health care providers, do need to pay some out of pocket expenses (i.e. prescriptions, crutches etc.), and get excellent care when I really need it. I haven't looked for the numbers, but I'm pretty sure our outcomes are very close to yours. There are horror stories of course, but there are also just as many examples of people getting stellar care.
It works pretty damned well, we get very good care and I don't need to worry that I'll be bankrupted by getting sick and having someone trying to profit from my misfortune. I'll take a little less quality for half the price, thankyouverymuch.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Anyone who understands free market capitalism should understand why it doesn't work for healthcare. The rational, informed, value-seeking man does not exist in the healthcare world. Real healthcare patients are seeking the best treatment that they can afford, not the cheapest healthcare that will probably get the job done. That's the kind of market where prices go up instead of down because the only downward price pressure is whether or not a provider can find enough people that can pay at the prices they offer.
Matters of life and death are not ruled by bargain-seeking behavior, and thus the entire driving forces of supply and demand are thrown completely out of whack. Anyone who's spent any time studying economics should recognize that the fundamental assumption of modern economic theory doesn't apply here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I have never understood this phrase "socialized" medicine you Americans use for a tax payer funded health care system. In the US the police forces, fire services etc are funded by tax payers but you do not describe them as "socialized" police forces etc. Public schools are funded by tax payers, do you have a "socialized" education system? Here in the UK we have had tax payer funded National Health Service for over 50 years. The NHS is just considered a public service like refuse collection, fire and police service, state education etc and from my perspective it is bizarre to talk about healthcare like it is a commodity.
"The vast majority of us who want a free market for health insurance do so because we know that in the long run, everyone including the poor will be much better off. Free markets a) promote innovation and better health care and b) drive costs down.
Do you also stand by this argument regarding fire services and police forces protecting your house and neighbourhood? Do you prefer private fire protection to publicly taxed fire departments, and private law enforcement over public police? Just curious as perplexed as it seems to me as an outsider that "socialized" fire and police protection seem acceptable but "socialized medicine" appear to be less acceptable in the USA. Wondering where the difference between these services is seen by the American public?