Much of the national press took a pass last week on another important “study says” story out of Massachusetts. This is the second time in the last month where the national media missed a story with implications for the success of health reform. The latest report, which came from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, showed that Massachusetts residents have different views about what’s causing the high prices of medical care than do the state and national policy wonks who are framing the solutions. What a surprise! We have repeatedly reported that the public is disconnected from what the pols are saying. Why should we be astonished they are not in step with the policy community?
The study, says lead researcher Dr. Robert Blendon, found that the public generally believes the cost problem stems from excessive charges by drug companies, insurers, and hospitals. Why not doctors? “Doctors have managed to present a picture in the state that they are not the reason why costs are rising. It speaks to the efficacy of the physicians’ campaign that their fees are not high enough,” Blendon told me. Indeed, doctors around the country have mounted local media campaigns to build their case that Medicare’s fee cuts will result in patients not getting care. Furthermore, the state media have focused mostly on the duel between hospitals and insurers, and that’s the message the public has received.
The survey also asked Massachusetts residents to specifically identify the major culprits responsible for the state’s high costs. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents think that people who don’t take good care of their health are a major reason. About half of them also fingered big hospital and doctor groups—which are using their size advantage to command higher prices—along with malpractice suits, too much paperwork, people getting more tests than they needed, doctors charging too much, and Medicare and Medicaid not doing enough to keep prices down. Why do malpractice suits keep popping up in the public’s mind as a big contributor to high prices, when in fact they play a very small role? Simple, says Blendon: the docs’ PR campaign has succeeded in making the public think malpractice is a significant problem. “The public is sympathetic to that message,” he says.
Just because physicians have been successful in deflecting the cost problem doesn’t mean high costs are disappearing. They remain the key problem with the Massachusetts law, and could be a big problem for national reform, especially because the public sees the problem differently from those in charge of solving it. The Massachusetts survey showed that other villains—overuse of expensive, high-tech medical equipment and expensive drugs; overuse of expensive teaching hospitals for routine procedures; and consumers who fail to shop for lower-priced doctors and services—were not high on the public’s list. Yet many policy experts identify these factors as major drivers of the high cost, and these experts are framing solutions around those factors. These solutions include making consumers pay higher premiums for going to high-cost doctors and hospitals, making them pay more out-of-pocket, and promoting all kinds of ratings of providers to encourage comparison shopping, as if one could buy health care like a car.
The results in Massachusetts foreshadow a looming battle over solutions aimed at trimming the high cost of care, and that should have been enough to propel the story from a local one covered by the Massachusetts media into a national one. Should we solve the cost problem by making out-of-pocket costs so high that consumers won’t use services? Or should we find a way to simply lower the price level to be more in line with what patients in other countries pay for their care? The country has fought this battle before, and the outcome of this one is far form clear. “The public is much more concerned about the price. They haven’t bought into the idea we use too much care,” Blendon explained.
- 1
- 2
Another day, another Chicken Little "Health Care Crisis" story from Trudy Lieberman -our resident commie "watchdog" who's made it abundantly clear that she believes that the interest of the "system" outweighs providing care to patients.
So now the problem is that doctors make too much money, huh?... Solution? Snatch their money, I suppose. No adverse consequences in that proposal, right?
I mean, if we just cut doctor's fees in half, all the doctors will still give the same care, right? They won't mind having their livelihoods ransacked in the name of the "system". We'll just take their money and use it pay the 15 GS-13's that will administer each policy provision. And all will be good in the realm.
These new commies honestly believe that putting the government into the "system" can somehow make better care AND cheaper care AND universal care appear out of thin air. The Government's Money Fairy just sprinkles a little Health Care Dust into the "system" and POOF! Free, universal, top-quality medical care for everybody!
I mean even Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro weren't this naive/stupid/crazy They each recognized the cost to society and to the economy of socialism. These new commies are neck-deep in crazy sauce.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 27 Oct 2011 at 05:28 PM
I think Trudy makes a good point in arguing that the media should explore the disconnect between what the public thinks the main reasons are for the cost problem iand what policymakers and experts think (and remember there are different camps among policymakers and experts). Obviously the general public doesn't necessarily understand all the policy issues, so they may not understand the important role played by overuse of high-priced diagnostic and other services. But Americans generally do understand that they already are paying a lot out of pocket for health care, can't afford to pay a whole lot more, and that they aren't demanding lots of unnecessary services. The concept that consumer demand is driving the bulk of inappropriate and excessive services is not supported by the evidence. And there policymakers and experts divide between basically Democrats and Republicans. The latter believe consumers are mostly to blame and raising out of pocket costs will solve the problem. So that takes us back to the basic political divide over health care.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 27 Oct 2011 at 08:33 PM
As goes MA, so will go Obamacare, and not only is the media looking the other way, so are all politicians including MA nationals. The latter should have been in the frontline during the national debate telling the truth about what's going on in MA. The MA plan has been on the skids since the first year it was implemented and has left many worse off than they were before the law.
How many is it OK to exploit in order to benefit a few?
Excerpts below are from another recent report on the MA plan that you can download at:
http://masscare.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/masshealthreforminpracticefinal.pdf
The Massachusetts Model of Health Reform in Practice
" . . . The reform has not addressed the health care crisis that most Massachusetts residents face, and that renders our entire health care system increasingly unaffordable."
AND
". . . Most concerning, the modest gains achieved by the reform have come at a high cost even after the state has successfully shifted many of these costs on
to federal taxpayers. The costs of the reform are widely acknowledged to be
unsustainable and the state has been forced to restrict benefits and shift
costs to residents, employers, and federal taxpayers as a consequence. This
may help explain the declining support for reform noted in recent years.
Moreover, the costs of the reform have not been born equitably, with low and
middle income individuals bearing a disproportionate share of the costs."
AND
". . . The Massachusetts plan has been successful only in nominally
increasing the numbers of individuals insured, but at a trade-off of making
almost everything else worse, including the insurance coverage itself. The
federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) used the Massachusetts model, and
experience with the implementation to date indicates that we can expect the
same or similar fundamental deficiencies, making unaffordable
under-insurance the new national standard. (Don McCanne)
#3 Posted by dianne, CJR on Fri 28 Oct 2011 at 09:23 PM