I recently finished reading a great book by William Bynum called The History of Medicine: A Very Short Introduction. The book does just what it says: provides a great introduction to the history of medicine. It is concise and interesting throughout. The contents are divided into six chapters:
- Medicine at the bedside
- Medicine in the library
- Medicine in the hospital
- Medicine in the community
- Medicine in the laboratory
- Medicine in the modern world.
This chart explains the differences between the first five kinds of medicine.
There are many interesting nuggets of information from this book and picking out a few is difficult. I’ll settle for two which discuss the unintended consequences of the invention of anesthesia and antibiotics:
“Giving surgeons more time to operate made conserving tissues easier, but the longer exposure of the open wounds to the air also increased the possibility of post-operative infection. Consequently, anaesthesia enlarged the range of operations surgeons could perform, but not necessarily the changes of a patient’s surviving the ordeal.”
“The causative agents of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV have all developed resistance to many of their conventional treatments, complicating these major world diseases. The hospital has not ’caused’ this phenomenon; human agency has. But drug-resistant pathogens are now so common that modern hospitals sometimes lose their desired epithet, as ‘houses of healing,’ and revert to that old one, ‘gateways to death.’”
Here is Amazon’s summary of the book:
Taking a thematic rather than strictly chronological approach, W.F. Bynum, explores the key turning points in the history of Western medicine-such as the first surgical procedures, the advent of hospitals, the introduction of anesthesia, X-Rays, vaccinations, and many other innovations, as well as the rise of experimental medicine. The book also explores Western medicine’s encounters with Chinese and Indian medicine, as well as nontraditional treatments such as homeopathy, chiropractic, and other alternative medicines.
Bring Market Prices to Medicare
December 16, 2011 in Books, Health Insurance, Managed Care, Medicare, Medicare Advantage | 3 comments
Medicare is a government-run insurance program. Can policy changes be made to add competition to Medicare, maintain quality and reduce cost? A book titled Bring Market Prices to Medicare argues that it can through a competitive bidding process. This book makes a number of sensible arguments which I review today.
The main proposal of the book is a competitive bidding process for all Medicare plans. Currently, there is a form of competitive bidding only for Medicare Advantage (MA) managed care plans. The authors also argues for competitive bidding for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare (i.e., Parts A and B). There is already a competitive bidding process for Medicare’s prescription drug program (Part D) which has worked well.
One of the main advantages of Medicare FFS is that beneficiaries do not need a referral for any services and are not limited to certain provider networks. However, Medicare beneficiaries do not pay for these added benefits. In addition, even if HMOs are more efficient than Medicare FFS, Medicare FFS beneficiaries still pay the same Part B premiums.
The authors want beneficiaries to face the true price differentials between the lowest cost plans and less efficient plans., regardless if the plan is Medicare FFS or an MA plan. Thus, beneficiaries would be responsible for any premium differences due to choosing a more expensive plan.
Currently, MA plans receive a variant of the average bid in their service area. The authors propose that Medicare would only pay for the lowest cost plan. This proposal would in essence be a transfer from plans and beneficiaries (who would have to pay the cost differential between the plan they choose and the lowest cost plan) to the government. Given the fiscal hole the federal government is facing, this is a good idea.
Authors also propose to eliminate the 25% tax on premiums. According to MedPAC, “Plans that bid below the benchmark also receive payment from Medicare in the form of a “rebate.” The law defines the rebate as 75 percent of the difference between the plan’s actual bid (not standardized) and its case mix-adjusted benchmark. The plan must then return the rebate to its enrollees in the form of supplemental benefits or lower premiums” The rebate structure gives plans a disincentive from lowering their bids since they only recover a share of the cost decreases.
Another issue focuses on regional adjustments. Living in New York is expensive and health care is more expensive in New York than in rural Mississippi. However, should Medicare subsidize New Yorkers because their health care is more expensive. The authors argue no, but poor individuals in high cost areas will be adversely affected by this policy choice.
A major issue is controlling quality. Plans could create low cost plans by providing low-quality care or failing to provide mandated services. Thus, CMS will need to regulate the plans. Plans with quality levels below a specific level would be barred from enrolling individuals or the government could force beneficiaries to pay additional premiums to enroll in these low quality plans. Public reporting of plan quality is also needed.
Strategic bidding is also a problem. Plans could collude to raise the bid price. However, by having Medicare FFS as an option will cap the amount colluding firms could increase prices. Further, a small firm could bid a very low amount and set the market. Medicare could set the benchmark at the lowest cost plan which meets a minimum size requirement.
Source:
Another Review of the Book:
Tags: AEI, Auction, Books, Competitive Bidding, HMO, Managed Care, Medicare