Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (15266)	7/13/2009 8:25:42 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Rein in insane health costs BY David M. Walker Monday, July 13th 2009, 4:17 AM nydailynews.com Last month, the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost of the first draft of comprehensive health care reform legislation at $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next decade. This set off a shock wave within Washington and across the country. As Congress works to revise and reduce the cost of related legislation, we must recognize that expanding coverage by itself will result in an increase in total health care costs. Therefore, we must begin - now - making the tough choices necessary to significantly reduce total health care cost growth. In addition, we must consider the impact beyond the proposed 10-year budget horizon, so we don't repeat the terrible error we made with the Medicare Prescription Drug (Part D) bill, the costs of which will grow over time. Over the past three decades, other developed nations have done a much better job of keeping their health care costs in check. Virtually all of our major economic competitors in the developed world already provide universal coverage, and they do so for about $3,500 per person every year - half that of the United States' $7,000 per person costs. Those differences are reflected across the board here in much higher hospital costs, doctors' salaries, pharmaceutical prices and administrative costs. There is no doubt we need to move to universal coverage for basic and essential health care, but as we do we must also shake off outdated programs, policies, processes and systems that result in high costs and below-average outcomes. We must also take on inappropriate tax incentives, premium subsidies and payment systems. For example, we subsidize CEOs' gold-plated health care packages through the current individual income tax exclusion - while many hardworking, low-income families without employer-based health care are on their own. We provide significant premium subsidies to middle- and upper-income individuals under our voluntary Medicare programs and pay for procedures even if they are questionable or ineffective. In fact, we write a blank check. Whatever the cost is, the federal government pays it, even if we have to borrow now and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren to do so. While there are some new bipartisan cost-taming proposals, they usually don't grapple with the tough follow-up questions. For example, we need some level of universal coverage. But what level of coverage is actually affordable and sustainable? Few are bluntly asking the question about where to draw the line. We need comparative effectiveness research - comparing treatments, costs and outcomes to maximize efficiency. But beyond that, shouldn't we also improve standards across the board for medical practices by designing and implementing a set of national evidence-based practice standards that will enhance quality, reduce health care costs and dramatically bring down malpractice litigation risks?