Thread: 1434: Fix It!
View Single Post
Old 08-01-2011, 11:42 PM   #7 (permalink)
Hitler
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: A wild Hitler appears!
Posts: 20
I agree the 9mil may have been an inflated figure for a defensive move. But let me explain my point:

Suppose we get a system where doctors only get paid for illnesses they cure. That won't decrease the operating costs, so whatever the expenses are will remain. They'll have to cover these expenses by increasing the prices, so people who are cured will have to pay more money than they're paying now, to cover the expenses of treating all the patients who the doctors didn't help.

Very soon, the hospitals will realize that some illnesss are not worth curing. For example, if Demyelinating Neuropathy has a very low success rate, and say only 10% of the people who have it survive, then if the cost is 9mil per patient, the survivors will have to pay 90 million. Obviously nobody'll pay, and so it won't make sense for the hospital to have the necessary equipment and staff. So they'll refer these patients to another hospital, until that hospital also catches on that it's an unprofitable illness to attempt to cure, and very soon nobody will attempt to treat that condition.

Certain cancers have 50% survival rates, that means the costs to survivors will double. Again, since less people will be able to pay this huge rate increase, hospitals will either have to increase the fees further (to pay for collections agencies costs, legal fees, and uncollected claims) or just not treat those cancers altogether.

And now since each patient carries an uncertainty about whether or not the hospital will be paid for attempting treatment, the hospital will require a certain percent increase to cover the cost of this risk (maybe an extra 1-5%). Add in scumbags who'll sue to try to get out of paying ("I got a hip replacement surgery, but I can't run like I used to and I have a scar, that's not successful treatment") which will further increase legal costs.

What about if in between treatment sessions, the patient gets hit by a car and dies. What if they treat one condition, but the patient contracts another while at the hospital that the hospital can't cure?

Plus HMOs will find some way to fuck you on this, so you can expect even further cost increases.

In conclusion, what will happen is a tradeoff between increased service quality at the expense of increased costs and more hospitals refusing treatment. If you want better service at a higher price, you can already go to a better hospital.

- Matthew from NZ
(Offline)   Reply With Quote