Having a doc who tells you to get an MRI, or who gives you a physical, was an unaffordable luxury to a lot of people B4 Obamacare.
And the above is a statement that doesn't comport with reality.
Many people, previously insured, could previously afford to get an MRI when needed, but cannot even think of it today. We don't know how many.
Many people -- out of the 23 million additional Medicaids -- cannot even find a provider who will see them. That is not bullshit. Physicians who see Medicaid patients lose money on practically every visit. As a result, they don't see them. Even though it is claimed that 70% nationwide do, that claim is colored by the fact that mere registration as a provider is NOT THE SAME as seeing patients. Many providers are registered with Medicaid but do not see Medicaid patients. (This is common because many patients are Medicare/Medicaid, and you have to be a registered Medicaid provider to get the secondary payment). When a Medicaid calls wanting an appointment they are refused. In some offices, they may be able to see a NP in lieu of a physician.
MRIs are a different thing. Whether they are covered by Medicaid will be determined on the individual coverage circumstances and how the patient is categorized, what their spend-down status is, and whether individual ceilings have been hit. And other things. MRI's are a more complex situation than E&M visits.
Suffice to say that your over-broad assumption is way, far off base. There is no evidence to suggest that the $8,000/year Medicaid premium is allowing more people to get care.
There is proof, however, that the $200 Billion/year is NOT LEADING TO BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES. We know that.
>> Getting carried into the ER on a stretcher is emergent care.
Yes. And it creates demand.
>> Having a doc who keeps you off of that stretcher and out of the ER is health care.
Yes, it is. It is also economic productivity. |
