I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “we have to pay for health outcomes” but no one ever challenges what that means.
If the patient dies, does the doctor not get paid?
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel recently dismissed critics of the proposed bills by saying that legislation is not made by “people sitting in the shade at the Aspen Institute.” That may be the understatement of the year; these bills overflow with special interest giveaways.
Instead of containing costs, Congress is building support for the bills by institutionalizing the waste. Doctors get deals to lock in existing reimbursement formulas. Labor and consumer groups keep free health care, without any meaningful patient contribution. Trial lawyers veto malpractice reform.
Why do we think Congress will stand up to special interests tomorrow when it refuses to do so today?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “we have to pay for health outcomes” but no one ever challenges what that means.
If the patient dies, does the doctor not get paid?
#########
It is another airey-fairey utopian idea that “good” doctors will have “healthier” patients.
In reality, sometimes having a healthy patient takes doing nothing; sometimes it takes serious, lengthy, expensive interventions. Sometimes patients die. But our addle-brained utopians ‘believe’ that a committee of bureaucrats can judge how much a doctor can earn by the “outcomes’ of his patients.
That same idea works really well for public school teachers, too!
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “we have to pay for health outcomes” but no one ever challenges what that means.
If the patient dies, does the doctor not get paid?
***************
I am glad you asked that, Bahbah, because I don’t know what it is either. I know it doesn’t sound doable or good news for the patient.
Who determines what the outcome “should be”..and who judges if it has been met satisfactorily?