(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).
As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.
What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.
I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.
Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”
Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”
