Posts tagged with: Health economics

Blog author: ehilton
Wednesday, November 19, 2014

doctor bagMy mother, a registered nurse, worked for years for our small town doctor. She would drive around the countryside, going to check on elderly folks or those who didn’t drive. We had a number of people who came to our house regularly for things like allergy shots. She kept their vials of medication, rubbing alcohol, cotton balls and syringes in our kitchen cupboard. The doctor (who was the sort to exchange his services for things like eggs and fresh meat) gave me my kindergarten physical in his living room.

While this might seem like Norman Rockwell, misty-eyed nostalgia, there’s one thing for sure: this doctor and my mom knew their patients really well. They knew their concerns, their histories: not just medical, but in all aspects of their life. Given a choice, isn’t this the kind of medical care most of us would choose for ourselves and our families? (more…)

single-payerFor those on the left side of the political spectrum, single-payer health care — a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs — is one of the most popular policy proposals in America. But the recent Hobby Lobby decision is reminding some liberal technocrats that giving the government full control over health care funding also gives the government control over what medical services will be funded.

As liberal pundit Ezra Klein explains:

Market in the Soviet Union, circa 1986

Market in the Soviet Union, circa 1986

We Americans like choices. Go to any large grocery store and stand in awe at the vast array of cereals: everything from regular old oatmeal to some sort of toasted rainbow sprinkles of joy. The market economy is built upon choice: not only does the consumer have a choice in what she wants, she can stay away from things she doesn’t want, like bad service or poorly prepared food. Yes, we like choices.

Obamacare is built on fewer choices, however. The New York Times tells us that we are facing fewer choices for our health care, fewer doctors and high costs if we wish to go outside of our prescribed network. Reed Abelson:

No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network — or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.These so-called narrow networks, featuring limited groups of providers, have made a big entrance on the newly created state insurance exchanges, where they are a common feature in many of the plans.


headacheWe were told we could keep our insurance plans, our doctors, all the stuff we liked about our old plans. Not so fast, says Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner. Here are 5 things you CAN’T keep under Obamacare.

  • Your health insurance plan, even if you really, really liked it. In theory, you were supposed to be able to keep it, but now, well…

Millions of Americans have received notices canceling their existing health plans because they did not meet the requirements of the health care law, which forced insurers to include one-size-fits-all benefit packages in all plans.


burden-bearingOver the past year, public discussion about the Affordable Care Act has led many Christians to question the proper roles of government and business in providing healthcare. Too often, though, the question left unexamined is what role the church should have in responding to the medical needs of the community.

Throughout the history of the church, Christians have been actively involved in the provision and funding of health and medical resources. But for the past 50 years, these functions have been treated as political problems reserved for the state rather than matters to be addressed by the church.

Some Christians though, are beginning to reassert this biblically mandated role by participating in health care sharing ministries (HCSM). HCSMs are not insurance companies, but nonprofit religious organizations that help members pay for medical treatments.

As the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries explains, “A health care sharing ministry (HCSM) provides a health care cost sharing arrangement among persons of similar and sincerely held beliefs. HCSMs are not-for-profit religious organizations acting as a clearinghouse for those who have medical expenses and those who desire to share the burden of those medical expenses.”

Health_Shetty-MainIndia’s best-known heart surgeon was interrupted during surgery to make a house call. “’I don’t make home visits,’ ” said Devi Shetty, “and the caller said, ‘If you see this patient, the experience may transform your life.’ ” The request came from Mother Teresa, and the experience did change his life. Shetty’s most famous patient inspired the cardiac surgeon and healthcare entrepreneur to create a hospital to deliver care based on need, not wealth.

In 2001, Shetty – who the Wall Street Journal has given him the title of Henry Ford of heart surgery — founded Narayana Hrudayalaya (NH), which Fast Company magazine describes as “Walmart meets Mother Teresa.” Today, NH is one of India’s largest multi-specialty hospital chains and has created a record of performing nearly 15,000 surgeries on patients from 25 foreign countries. The hospital group believes it can soon cut the cost of heart surgery to a mere $800 per procedure.

If it can be done in India, why can’t it be done in the U.S.?

It could — maybe — but we’d need to learn the following lessons from India’s most innovative hospital:

In addition to internal logical inconsistencies which raise serious concerns of long term economic sustainability regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), recently analyzed by John MacDhubhain, Robert Pear reports in the New York Times over the weekend how confusion over certain ambiguities in the law (ironically over the meaning of the word “affordable”) would end up hurting some of the people it is precisely designed to help: working class families.

Pear writes,

The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular.

Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.

Read more . . .