Not Every Haystack Has A Needle

Needle #2: Examine the cost impact of illegals on our health care system. If we, as a nation, have decided that, for humanitarian reason, no one, legal or not, within our borders should be denied essential care, is it proper that much of that cost be borne by people who carry health insurance? This is blatant cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured. To the extent such care is paid for by the government it is usually at the state level and disproportionate load is paid by the border states. Perhaps such humanitarian assistance could be financed separately rather than by premium increases on the insured and local taxes. A national policy should distribute costs over the entire nation–not just the impact states.

Needle #3: Examine carefully the way we handle capital expenditures used in the health care system. Should expensive equipment and technology used by all patients be paid for largely by insured patients? Is the distribution of high tech equipment overdone, or are we short of what we need? Some years ago I recall a move to prevent duplication of expensive equipment in hospitals within a certain geographic area. I have not heard much about that lately. What is the current status?

Needle #4: Examine more thoroughly the relative merits of lower cost alternative medicine and preventative care. Many such options are not now covered–forcing people into more expensive care that is covered by their insurance. I understand that preventative care may not save money in the short run–but it does extend life and sometimes avoids more costly treatment in the long run.

Needle #5: Perhaps the most important of all. Consider a new system for compensating people that may be injured by medical treatment. Litigation associated with today’s tort system is time consuming, expensive and does not render benefits evenly among claimants. It is a system whose primary beneficiary is the horde of personal injury lawyers, rather than patients. Perhaps a system similar to workmen’s compensation could be devised thereby eliminating most, if not all, the litigation now practiced. Medical practitioners and hospitals could pay premiums into the plan in lieu of malpractice insurance. Participants’ premiums could be experience-rated providing incentive for safe practices. The elimination of most, if not all, lawsuits should reduce the incidence of “defensive medicine” now practiced–a big cost factor.

These are but a few needles that metaphorically may be lurking about in the haystacks. I do not have a lot of hope that any of these needles will ever be found. In their pursuit to be nominated or elected it is much easier for politicians to demonize the health insurance industry than rummage through a haystack looking for the elusive needles that could bring down the cost of “what” we insure.