Physicians Views on The Public Option

where's the apester?

I can't find anything in this study to argue against, seems like a pretty up and up study. I did find table 3 most interesting.

where's the apester?

I wonder if the numbers might change had the poll questions actually considered specific plans rather than broad concepts. I also wonder how large a number of residents and academic physicians, neither of which dabble much in the real world, participated.

I wonder if the numbers might change had the poll questions actually considered specific plans rather than broad concepts. I also wonder how large a number of residents and academic physicians, neither of which dabble much in the real world, participated.

There some tables I can't enlarge to read but maybe this will help a little:

?There should be no confusion about where doctors stand in the debate over expanding health insurance coverage: they want reform,? said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ?This survey reveals important information about the perspective of physicians on issues central to the health reform debate. Policy makers should listen to their doctors.?

The researchers surveyed physicians from a variety of practice backgrounds (private practice, salaried, practice owners, hospitalists), specialty backgrounds (primary care providers, medical subspecialists, surgeons) and geographic locations across the United States between June 25 and Sept. 3. While the survey was conducted in several ?waves? over this period, no statistically significant differences were found in responses from different points throughout the summer. Regardless of region of the country, practice backgrounds, or specialties, a majority of physicians said they support a combination of public and private options. Among those physicians who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options.

?We analyzed the data in multiple ways to understand physician opinion on health reform,? said study author, Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H. ?We found that no matter how you sliced the data, physicians demonstrated majority support for a public health insurance option, regardless of their type of practice or where they live.?
?These results give voice to individual physicians in the national discussion about health reform,? said study author, Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H. ?Most often we hear the opinions of special interest groups rather than doctors themselves, but we know that Americans want to hear the opinions of doctors like those who treat them. This study lets us hear the unfiltered views of physicians on key elements of health reform and should be useful for lawmakers.?

In addition to identifying views of public and private insurance options, the survey explored physician?s views of how Medicare performed when compared to private insurance. The majority of physicians surveyed found Medicare better or the same as private insurance in decision making autonomy (60 percent) and in ease of obtaining needed services (57 percent). Overall, a plurality (46 percent) of physicians who saw patients whose treatment was covered by Medicare in the past five years consider their experiences with private insurance better than traditional Medicare when it comes to payment, administrative issues, and timeliness of reimbursement.

.
Another of many examples of spending more money for emergency room care than for preventative care and letting people fall through the cracks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html?emc=eta1

The Body Count at Home
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: September 12, 2009

In the debate over health care, here?s an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber.

Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.

In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, ?The Healing of America.? Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor?s care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care. .....

Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care. ....

We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour.

That?s how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths.
After Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance ? and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing? .................

Complex arguments are being batted around in this health care debate, but the central issue isn?t technical but moral. The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can?t get health insurance? Is that really us?

bolds are mine.

.

.
Another of many examples of spending more money for emergency room care than for preventative care and letting people fall through the cracks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html?emc=eta1

The Body Count at Home
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: September 12, 2009

In the debate over health care, here?s an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber.

Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.

In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, ?The Healing of America.? Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor?s care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care. .....

Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care. ....

We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour.

That?s how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths.
After Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance ? and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing? .................

Complex arguments are being batted around in this health care debate, but the central issue isn?t technical but moral. The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can?t get health insurance? Is that really us?

bolds are mine.

.

I think it would be very difficult to find anybody in congress that wants to do nothing.......I'm sure most agree thatr something has to be done....

I think it would be very difficult to find anybody in congress that wants to do nothing.......I'm sure most agree thatr something has to be done....

But it is easy to find those in congress who have done nothing and will agree to keep something from being done.

But it is easy to find those in congress who have done nothing and will agree to keep something from being done.

President is a democrat.....
Congress is democrat
Senate is democrat......
The press is democrat.....

Yet you still blame republicans.....

What is the problem here?

President is a democrat.....
Congress is democrat
Senate is democrat......
The press is democrat.....

Yet you still blame republicans.....

What is the problem here?

When did this happen?

When did this happen?

You are poppy right?????

You are poppy right?????

I believe we were discussing the healthcare debate on this thread and I don't remember blaming Republicans for anything, no I'm sure I haven't.

I can't find anything in this study to argue against, seems like a pretty up and up study. I did find table 3 most interesting.

It is interesting. Also perplexing.

Maybe they don't consider "like Medicare" the same as Medicare?

62.9% of respondents support a plan to "Provide people under age 65 the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans."
9.6% support a plan to "Eliminate private insurance and cover everyone in a single public plan like Medicare."

But, when comparing private insurance to Medicare -

There is little difference in the percentage who prefer Medicare over private insurance in terms of paperwork required, ease of obtaining needed services for patients, and autonomy in decision making.

Private insurance is preferred over Medicare in timeliness of reimbursements, adequacy of payments, and overall experience. In fact, in overall experience private insurance is better to 46.4% and Medicare is better to 21.2%.

There is some type of incongruity here. I can't put my finger on it's cause. Perplexing!