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
-
The drug, a generic version of Lipitor), is being recalled by its manufacturer. From Medical Mutual email: " Ranbaxy... has announced a...
-
This just in from (a major health insurance carrier) and we are passing it along. I believe they want their agents to feel warm and fuzzy. ...
-
Next week, we're proud to once again host the Health Wonk Review , the bi-weekly roundup of health care policy and polity. Please submit...
-
Obamacare. The master plan to deliver (almost) universal access to health care for everyone. Promises of lower premiums. Promises that you c...
-
Unusual and Interesting Insurance News - Over the years , we've chronicled such things as virginity and alien abduction insurance (dif...
-
Nina Kallen makes her CavRisk hosting debut next Wednesday (December 1). Submissions are due this Monday (the 29th). Please remember to i...
-
■ First up, FoIB Jeff M tips us to this rather sorry Tar Heel State of affairs: " [North Carolina] one of the least competitive health...
-
From the Telegraph of London on 9/11: " Death rates in NHS hospitals are among the highest in the western world , shock figures reveal...
-
We're pleased as punch to once again host the Health Wonk Review. Submissions are due by next Wednesday (the 9th), and once again we...
-
In honor of Life Insurance Awareness Month , we'll be stepping up our postings on this valuable, but often neglected, coverage. In addit...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar