Insurers, for example, will often refuse to pay $150 for a diabetic to see a podiatrist, who can help prevent foot ailments associated with the disease. Nearly all of them, though, cover amputations, which typically cost more than $30,000.
Patients have trouble securing a reimbursement for a $75 visit to the nutritionist who counsels them on controlling their diabetes. Insurers do not balk, however, at paying $315 for a single session of dialysis, which treats one of the disease's serious complications.
There are few insurers who, if confronted with this situation, would not pay for the up front treatment -- provided the circumstances were adequately presented and provided it was clear the treatment would have this result. They're in business to make a profit, and the argument that they will ignore their profit motive to cause patients harm is just absurd.
It is important to remember that a podiatrist who makes this statement -- "pay me now, and you won't have to pay a surgeon later" -- has a motivation that may not be backed by science. Just because a podiatry clinic says "We can solve these problems" does not make it so. They have a profit motive, too.
I think the tendency to believe everything you read in the absence of real knowledge of the industry is a real problem going forward. When Obama fills a room with "industry professionals" they all have competing financial interests and those persons who best articulate their own interests may get the money but that doesn't mean it is the best outcome.
Sort of like Obama himself -- he was the most articulate candidate and that's why he won the election -- that doesn't mean it was the best thing for the country (which by now, it is starting to become clear his election was an absolute disaster for the country). |
