Corporate Democrat's Solution for Healthcare

Investment banker Peter Orszag was Obama’s OMB Director. He suggests using AI to inform doctor’s decision making and shielding the malpractice liability for physicians who practice according to “certified, evidence-based guidelines”.

Of course, there’s no mention of a single payer system to capture the 20-25% corruption tax we pay to for-profit insurers. The NY Times reader comments to this opinion piece are scathing. {{ LOL }}

free link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/opinion/republicans-democrats-health-care.html?smid=url-share

intercst

7 Likes

Americans think “liberals” are on the left. That is not true. Liberals are in the center. In the UK, Labour is on the left. The Liberals rein in their spending. When the conservatives are in power, the Liberals get them to spend more.

In the UK the liberals are never in the majority nor do they hold the PM position.

Half of the American system does not exist.

From the link:
Data from The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has long shown that Medicare spending per beneficiary varies greatly by region, with no correlation between higher spending and more effective care. Patients in high-spending regions simply receive more tests, more procedures and more hospital days.

So less is more .

Atul Gawande in the New Yorker wrote about spending in 2 Taxas cities.

McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average.

El Paso County, eight hundred miles up the border, has essentially the same demographics. Both counties have a population of roughly seven hundred thousand, similar public-health statistics, and similar percentages of non-English speakers, illegal immigrants, and the unemployed. Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures (our best approximation of over-all spending patterns) in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee—half as much as in McAllen.

And yet there’s no evidence that the treatments and technologies available at McAllen are better than those found elsewhere in the country. The annual reports that hospitals file with Medicare show that those in McAllen and El Paso offer comparable technologies—neonatal intensive-care units, advanced cardiac services, PET scans, and so on. Public statistics show no difference in the supply of doctors. Hidalgo County actually has fewer specialists than the national average.

Nor does the care given in McAllen stand out for its quality.

One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.

The doctors had various responses. One rang true to me.
“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bllshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.*

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”

Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse. For example, Rochester, Minnesota, where the Mayo Clinic dominates the scene, has fantastically high levels of technological capability and quality, but its Medicare spending is in the lowest fifteen per cent of the country—$6,688 per enrollee in 2006, which is eight thousand dollars less than the figure for McAllen.

8 Likes

More from Atul Gawande

A fascinating study out this week, however, manages to crack open the black box of private insurance. It analyzes payment data compiled

The costs of care for the privately insured vary from town to town just as crazily as they do for the publicly insured. But the patterns are strikingly different. The most expensive places for Medicare are not the most expensive places for private insurers. In fact, there was essentially zero correlation between where a city ranks in Medicare spending and where it ranks in private-insurance spending—even when you only consider people undergoing the exact same procedure.

Are doctors and hospitals treating people with Medicare differently from people with private insurance? This doesn’t appear to be the case. Instead, the new study found two very different stories explaining the difference between public and private health-care costs.

In Medicare, the prime driver of differences in costs between similar communities was differences in the number of tests and treatments given.

Congress has prevented Medicare from setting drug prices—and as a result it often pays higher prices than other insurers do.) That, the new research finds, can lead to a completely different cost picture for the privately insured.

When your grocery store is the only one in town, it can jack up prices without losing customers. The same goes for hospitals. The study found that hospital prices in monopoly markets are fifteen per cent higher than in those with four or more hospitals.

It’s the Cost Conundrum Squared. The bigger the hospital, the more it can adopt systems that deliver better-organized, higher-quality, less-wasteful care. But the bigger the hospital, the more power it has to raise prices.

The one thing the medical profession is not rewarded for is providing better, higher-value care. We are financially rewarded either for doing more stuff or for securing monopoly power.

In a free market health care system; you squeeze the patient when you can.

9 Likes