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
-
For those in the path of Hurricane/TS Sandy (and/or for those who may face other severe weather conditions) the Insurance Information Instit...
-
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...
-
I've always subscribed to the conventional wisdom that emptying a full bladder as soon as (practically) possible was always the "wa...
-
HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious may be relaxing some privacy rules: " The Department of Health and Human Services says patients should h...
-
Nina Kallen hosts this week's outstanding collection of risk-related posts , with a twist: she's nicknamed this edition "the...
-
■ First the bad news. From the Annals of the Much Vaunted National Health System© comes this alarming development: " Almost half of Bri...
-
HHS is spending $700 million of YOUR money to teach you something your parents did not. In an effort to save Obamacare the government is hop...
-
An overarching theme here at IB has been that health care costs drive health insurance costs. While this may seem obvious to us, it bears ...
-
FoIB Michael Cannon , the Cato Institute's Director of Health Policy Studies, alerts us to this outstanding video that perfectly illustr...
-
It amazes me how often I see comments like this from Jodi Kantor of the NY Times: " By summer 2009, with the country still stunned by e...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar