TJ: The relationship between the patient and physician has traditionally been viewed as one of trust. Patients entrust themselves to their doctors, who have an obligation to put the patients’ interests first. At least, that’s the ideal. The vision for consumer-driven health plans assumes that the physician and other care providers are merchants and patients are consumers. So let the buyer beware. This change threatens the welfare of patients who now cannot trust their doctors to look after their medical needs. Trust is an important aspect of healing. If you approach your doctor as you would a used car dealer, he or she probably won’t be able to help you as much.
TL: What legal issues do these plans raise?
TJ: They raise a host of legal issues that we have not even begun to sort out. Does the duty of a doctor to secure informed consent to treatment now include an obligation to provide information about cost as well as risks and benefits? Might a doctor who withholds medically necessary care because a patient cannot afford to cover deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments be liable for malpractice, or for breaching a fiduciary obligation? Do state managed care bills of rights apply to insurers when they are deciding whether or not the cost of a service counts against a deductible? Are there any limits on how much a provider can charge a patient who is paying for a service out-of-pocket if both have not agreed on a price beforehand? (They almost never do.) Are insurers liable to patients or providers if they provide incorrect information in their quality rankings?
TL: How important are these plans in the so-called individual market, where people have to assume the entire cost of the policy?
TJ: They will take over an even larger part of the individual and small group market if nothing is done to reform health care. They won’t be very important if Obama is successful in creating a public plan, like Medicare, that people can join. If that happens, nobody in his or her right mind would choose a high deductible plan if they can buy a comprehensive and cheaper policy through a public plan.
TL: How will this dynamic threaten sellers of these plans in the context of health reform?
TJ: If Congress can pass legislation offering Americans affordable care with reasonable cost-sharing, I would not expect Americans to choose consumer-driven plans instead of a public option.
TL: How robust is this market in general?
TJ: Both the employer and the individual have grown significantly since 2003, when these plans were first authorized on a large scale. But there are signs that growth has leveled off. Whether the market will continue to grow depends a lot on whether health reform is adopted and whether there will be a public plan. That will be a major sticking point in reform.

Explain exactly how going against the progressive majority's choice - Conyers HR-676 bill, by in the name of pragmatism embracing all the convoluted BS alternatives that you just explained, is going to achieve success?
It appears that you are sabotaging your own cause by accepting defeat out of the gate.
Re:
http://blip.tv/play/gdEl6vJSjJYL?autostart=1
#1 Posted by HR-676, CJR on Mon 9 Feb 2009 at 06:57 PM
What does this have to do with journalism? Why is CJR advocating for a particular health care policy?
#2 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 12:24 AM
In the best of all possible worlds, I too would prefer a single-payer system. What is most important to me, however, is to expand health care coverage as soon as possible to as many people as possible. How many senators currently support HR-676 and what is your strategy for increasing that number to 60 in the immediate future? If we have learned anything from the past few days, when virtually all progressive ideas on health care were stripped out of the stimulus bill, it is that anything that is going to happen will have to happen with the support of conservative Democrats, moderate Republican, and most health care industry lobbyists. I think the public plan has at least a ghost of a chance, and is a start we can build on.
Tim
#3 Posted by Tim Jost, CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 07:58 AM
In her book, "Overtreated, Why American Healthcare..." by Shannon Brownlee she contends that 30% of the premium dollar is wasted through either ineffective or poor medicine. There are other studies that also indicate that there is waste in our medical system of healthcare. If these contentions are factual then healthcare plans have to justify to subscribers why they should waste 25-30% of their HSA dollars on poor or ineffective medicine. A subscriber is in no position to tell what is good medicine. By shifting the cost to the subscriber it may lessen the cost to the employer but it will not doing anything about inefficient medicine. The healthcare plans and providers must do more in providing efficient and effective medicine
#4 Posted by Jay, CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 03:43 PM
Tom T, in what way is interviewing an expert the same as advocating for a particular health care policy?
#5 Posted by Murphy, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 12:47 PM
Tom T.: RE: what does this have to do with journalism—We explain this in the intro to each piece in our "Excluded Volces" series:
"...Journalists have sought out the same organizations and sources for their stories, offering up what has become the conventional wisdom for reform. To bring more voices into the conversation, our series, Excluded Voices, will intermittently feature health care experts who aren’t on the media’s A-list of sources. We want to offer journalists more options for their stories and encourage a deeper discussion...."
#6 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 01:07 PM
We also want to help journalists understand some of the complex topics they will be writing about such as consumer-driven health plans.
#7 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 02:43 PM