Baucus proposes a scheme to “control costs” by reducing payments to the doctors who are in the top 10% of national annual Medicare costs per patient. If a doctor is in that top 10%, then he will lose five percent of his or her own total Medicare reimbursements.
Doctors will try to hold costs down so they’re not in that 10%, and spending on medical will trend downwards over time… and that means that necessary tests and treatments will be ignored because they would “costs too much.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110710
As Burke Balch, director of the National Right to Life's Center for Medical Ethics, says: "This (part of the Baucus bill) means that all doctors treating older people will constantly be driven to try to order the least-expensive tests and treatments for fear they will be caught in that top 10 percent. Note that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality, efficiency or waste. If you authorize enough treatment for your patients , however necessary and appropriate it may be, you are in danger of being one of the 1 in 10 doctors who will be penalized each year."
Here’s an example of how this provision would work to deprive seniors of needed medical treatment.
To bring Balch back into the conversation concerning the actual effects of the 10 percent health penalty on real-life patients, as well as doctors, he points out that this penalty for Medicare doctors "creates a moving target."
"By definition," Balch said, "there will always be a top 10 percent, no matter how far down the total amount of money spent on Medicare is driven." Say that 2015, the top 10 percent is anything over $10,000 per patient. In 2016, most doctors will scramble to hold down the treatments they authorize to avoid breaking that limit."
But the real possibility, as a result, is that the total annual amount of that limit will drop. So next year, doctors will try to avoid being in the penalty box for anything they authorize over $9,500. Burke Balch adds:
"As the process repeats, the next year might be anything over $9,000. The year after that anything over $8,000, and so on. It's a game of musical chairs, in which there is always one chair less than the number of players. No matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops."
But Medicare doctors will not be the only losers. As the doctors struggle to keep abreast of the continually falling limit of the money they can authorize for their contingent of patients, consider what those patients will lose in the quality of their treatment.
So the Baucus bill has the equivalent of death panels and health care rationing… they just use that “top 10%” with financial penalties to force doctors to do the rationing. This doesn’t make things any better.

Insurance companies ration care now! And once again, relying on WND who uses National Right to Life as a source...who are you kidding?
ReplyDeleteWhat Baucus is proposing is a plan that would allow for real action to be taken instead of just talk. We aren't going to reduce costs by talking about it.
"The most heated exchange yesterday was prompted by the amendment proposed by Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, to strike the 15-member, independent Medicare Commission created by Baucus’s bill.
The commission would recommend ways Congress could reduce excess cost growth in Medicare and improve care. In years when costs were projected to be unsustainable, the body’s proposals would take effect unless Congress passed an alternate measure.
“Outcomes, that is the future, Senator Cornyn,” said Rockefeller. “Who is performing and who isn’t. I know the idea is right and I know the idea is the way to improve health-care in this country in a fair way.” "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aiK66bU7dM10
The bottom line...any health insurance (even the types that Germany, Canada, France, and Italy run)....rations health care. You can't find any insurance fund or type....that will NOT ration your care.
ReplyDeleteI live in Germany and actually have a private health care policy on my son (not the public policy). At some point, there was a prescription for pills...which there were two choices...the generic cheap stuff or the real pills (40 percent more on cost). By the policy I have...the generic type drug is the only type that the doctor can prescribe in this case. He said if I wanted to pay out of my own pocket....he'd write the right prescription...but I just sat there and thought....once you start this game of paying for the real drugs...where do you stop? Or do you ever stop?
The sad truth is that medical attention is now a business enterprise...and you have to view every process and procedure as a business effort....not a medical effort.