How many times do we read of physicians' complaints that the fee allowances insurance companies use to reimburse them have not increased in "x" years? Is there a reasonable response to such complaints?
Yes, as Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University explains today in the New York Times.
There are three charts in the linked article. I draw your attention to the third chart, "Medicare Spending on Physician Services 2000 - 2009". Here is Dr. Reinhardt's key insight, illustrated in this third chart:
". . . "the top line (in black) shows that, in spite of Medicare’s miserly fee updates, total Medicare spending on physician services per Medicare beneficiary actually has grown by fully 60 percent from 2000 to 2009, at an average annual compound rate of 5.4 percent. [snip] Thus, after blushing over miserly fee updates, taxpayers might go on to ask physicians why an average annual compound increase of 5.4 percent in spending per Medicare beneficiary was not enough to give the nation’s elderly good medical care and, if it was not enough, what would have been an adequate annual increase in Medicare spending on physician services — perhaps 7 percent, or 10 percent, of 15 percent, or how much?"
The phenomenon of income growth in excess of fee growth is not limited to Medicare spending nor is it limited to physician spending. It occurs in in hospital costs as well, both in Medicare and in the private sector.
So a reasonable response to a physician complaining about the absence of growth in insurance company fee allowances, is simply to ask - "has your income grown in the past x years?" For the majority of physicians the answer will be "yes" - as Dr. Reinhardt's data show.
In essence, this important insight is no more profound than to observe the purchase of two rakes at the hardware store costs more than one rake, even if the cost per rake has not increased in "x" years.
And while Dr. Reinhardt's findings are certainly welcome they are not, of course, news to insurance professionals including us at InsureBlog.
But, sometimes, it takes an academic study by a respected health economist at a prestigious university to explain the basics to a doubting public.
Thanks be to Dr. Reinhardt for making the explanation !
Selasa, 21 Desember 2010
Langganan:
Posting Komentar (Atom)
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
-
According to HuffPo , "57% of Americans that lost jobs could not afford to buy health insurance". Well duh? They probably are hav...
-
When you rely on government your counting on someone without a vested concern for your health and well being to do what is right. Actually l...
-
So it appears that women "of a certain age" may well benefit from not one, but two shots of the good stuff: " A glass or two...
-
For those in the path of Hurricane/TS Sandy (and/or for those who may face other severe weather conditions) the Insurance Information Instit...
-
Caution: extreme wonkery ahead. Which is not to say that that there's extreme clarity ahead: after all, on what planet does this phrase...
-
Nina Kallen hosts this week's outstanding collection of risk-related posts , with a twist: she's nicknamed this edition "the...
-
The "PR" in this case being Paul Ryan. We've been pretty rough on the AMA (whose membership, IB readers may recall, " rep...
-
HWR coordinator Julie Ferguson does the honors this morning, as she presents this edition of the best of health wonkery . Grab a mug of hot...
-
Back in the day (2 months ago), I could get competitive quotes from several carriers using the application of just one. Apparently, the carr...
-
Van Mayhall hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 24th). To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email ...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar