Doctors recommend not ripping off patients and ins compnies with tests

[OohPooPahDoo]

Medical group fights against unnecessary tests

Various estimates have pegged spending on unnecessary tests at $200 billion to $250 billion each year in the United States, a phenomenon blamed on such factors as overcautious doctors who seek to avoid malpractice claims and patients who don't realize how much their treatments cost.

Organizers of Choosing Wisely say the goal is not cutting costs, strictly speaking, but achieving the best value and the best care. If an expensive test is necessary, then full steam ahead. Conversely, some tests are cheap but still should not be done because they can subject the patient to needless anxiety and risky follow-up procedures that turn out to be unnecessary, the groups say.

Read more: Medical group fights against unnecessary tests
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

 

[Oddball]

How about reigning in unnecessary lawsuits, which are, at least partially, responsible for the unnecessary tests?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How about reigning in unnecessary lawsuits

I agree. We should find a way to minimize medical errors. At 195,000 deaths a year due to medical error In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA, that's a lot of liability, and I would definitely support any measures taken to reduce medical error - and hence - medical malpractice.

I'm sure that would add to the cost savings of around a quarter trillion dollars that the doctors in the OP figured we could save by eliminated unnecessary testing.

, which are, at least partially, responsible for the unnecessary tests?

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Its not like the doctor or hospital gets paid more money for each test they do, that wouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Oddball]

That the testers get paid for the tests they do is irrelevant to the fact that the tests are being required, in order to cover asses form frivolous lawsuits.

You don't need a doctorate to figure out that one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That the testers get paid for the tests they do is irrelevant to the fact that the tests are being required, in order to cover asses form frivolous lawsuits.

They aren't being "required" by anyone but the people doing the tests.

You don't need a doctorate to figure out that one.

it doesn't take a doctorate to figure out that - by definition - an UNNECESSARY - test will not reduce your chance of malpractice. If the test is not needed, then it provides no medical benefit to the patient, and hence does not increase the likelihood they will have a positive outcome.

 

[Greenbeard]

Medical group fights against unnecessary tests

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

These may be [medically] unnecessary for the patient, but they may be a bit more necessary for the provider's bottom line. As long as money is made off of unnecessary care, it's not going to stop. That's why payment reform--away from volume-based incentives--is so important to improving service delivery.

 

[kiwiman127]

How about reigning in unnecessary lawsuits, which are, at least partially, responsible for the unnecessary tests?

It seems that the 9 medical societies that represent 375,000 physicians that are pushing for the elimination of these unnecessary procedures/tests have no fear of malpractice suits. Maybe, just maybe, they don't get sued as much as one has been lead to believe?

According to Wikipedia,around 195,000 patients are killed each year by medical errors, yet lawsuits average between 15,000-19,000 each year. 73% of malpractice lawsuits involved medical error.
Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's some interesting statistics:

Litigation Trends Fail to Explain Rising Health Care Costs. Some in Congress
have blamed litigation for the nation’s skyrocketing health care costs. This claim has
never been credible. The recently released NPDB data and data on liability
insurance premiums further discredit that argument:

o Between 2000 and 2010, Health Care Spending Rose 90 Percent While
Medical Malpractice Payments Fell 11.9 Percent. (Both figures in unadjusted
dollars.)

o Malpractice Payments to Victims in 2010 Amounted to Just 0.13 of 1
Percent of National Health Costs, the Lowest Percentage on Record
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB-2010.pdf

So, in fact malpractice lawsuits are a very minor reason health care costs have skyrocketed.

So much for the ever favorite talking points of blaming malpractice lawsuits for the cost of the outrageous costs of healthcare in America!

Here we have the highest costs for healthcare in the world by almost double, yet many doctors are labeling the healthcare in the US as "mediocre". Yet we hear the US has the best healthcare in the world.

From the this thread's linked article:

The recommendations come at a time when American health care is undergoing far-reaching changes. No matter what the Supreme Court decides on President Barack Obama's health overhaul, employers, lawmakers, insurers and many doctors are questioning how the United States spends far more on medical care than any other economically advanced country and still produces mediocre results overall.
Doctors question 45 common medical tests - Health - Cancer - msnbc.com

It's time for some to wake up and smell the coffee. The US doesn't have the best healthcare in the world. The costs of malpractice lawsuits aren't even remotely close to the reason America has such high healthcare costs. So why in the hell does healthcare cost so much compared with the rest of the world?

The reason is clear. Other countries negotiate with providers the costs of their services/products, thus their healthcare costs average half of the US. But not the US. Are we to continue this trend of letting the free market to correct itself? So far the free market has done just one thing, drive healthcare costs upwards to record levels.

 

[kiwiman127]

By reigning in healthcare costs to what other countries pay, the US deficits can turn into surpluses.
Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator

 

[Oddball]

By reigning in healthcare costs to what other countries pay, the US deficits can turn into surpluses.
Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator

What utter socialist hack bullshit.

How about eliminating Medicare/Medicaid and every other federal medical giveaway altogether, and see what effect that has on the budget picture?

 

[kiwiman127]

By reigning in healthcare costs to what other countries pay, the US deficits can turn into surpluses.
Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator

What utter socialist hack bullshit.

How about eliminating Medicare/Medicaid and every other federal medical giveaway altogether, and see what effect that has on the budget picture?

Oh and that'll really reduce the cost per capita of healthcare in the US? Absolutely wrong, in fact it would increase the cost of healthcare in the US per capita. I guess you like the fact that the US pays the most for healthcare by at least double compared with the other industrial countries. That not only hurts individuals and families but also businesses.

Study: U.S. Health Care A Bad Deal

If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday.

The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

Concern about high U.S. costs has existed for years, and business executives - whose companies provide health coverage for workers - have long called for getting costs under control. Now President Obama says the costs have become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled.

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider - 46 points - when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value - not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

Higher U.S. spending funnels away resources that could be invested elsewhere in the economy, but fails to deliver a healthier work force, the report said.

"Spending more would not be a problem if our health scores were proportionately higher," Dr. Arnold Milstein, one of the authors of the study, said in an interview. "But what this study shows is that the U.S. is not getting higher levels of health and quality of care."

Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.

Medical costs have long been a problem for U.S. auto companies. General Motors spends more per car on health care than it does on steel. But as more American companies face global competition, the "value gap" is being felt by more CEOs - and their hard pressed workers.

Study: U.S. Health Care A Bad Deal - CBS News

Isn't time to stop the fact that healthcare costs have outpaced the CPI for decades? Exactly how long can the US continue this trend?

 

[kiwiman127]

The silence is deafening.

 

[Oddball]

So fucking what?

Once again, you're buying into the socialist narrative that:

1) The federal gubmint has any business whatsoever trying to control the costs of anything.

2) That they're competent and capable to control the costs of anything....To prove this, what are the costs of Medicare today as what they were projected to be when it was passed?

3) That cost is the only legitimate measurement by which to gauge the amount, quality an/or availability of medical services.

4) That politicians, bureaucrats and their lackey flacks in academe and the media are the best ones to decide what anybody "should be" paying for anything.

BTW...Some of us have better things to do than hang on your every post, Scooter.

 

[kiwiman127]

So fucking what?

Once again, you're buying into the socialist narrative that:

1) The federal gubmint has any business whatsoever trying to control the costs of anything.

2) That they're competent and capable to control the costs of anything....To prove this, what are the costs of Medicare today as what they were projected to be when it was passed?

3) That cost is the only legitimate measurement by which to gauge the amount, quality an/or availability of medical services.

4) That politicians, bureaucrats and their lackey flacks in academe and the media are the best ones to decide what anybody "should be" paying for anything.

BTW...Some of us have better things to do than hang on your every post, Scooter.

So are satisfied keeping the status quo that hurts the American general public and American businesses to the point it makes the US less competitive on the world stage as stated by CEO's at a Business Roundtable?

Of course facts show that America pays twice as much as it's top world stage competitors. Those countries have successfully lowered the cost of healhcare for their people and businesses by negotiating pricing which benefited everyone except the providers and industries within the healthcare sector, who are still profiting.
So in your mind, it's OK to watch America slip competitively and it's OK for Americans and businesses lose expendable income just so the US doesn't get a tad more socialistic, and by doing so, would benefit financially. the capitalistic system? Business would have more expendable capital to expand. The American general public would have more expendable income to contribute to the consumer driven capitalistic economy.

 

[uscitizen]

Many doctors have vested interests in MRI machines and such and want their customers to use them.

 

[Oddball]

So are satisfied keeping the status quo that hurts the American general public and American businesses to the point it makes the US less competitive on the world stage as stated by CEO's at a Business Roundtable?

Wow...Good thing there aren't any spurious presuppositions or socialist strawmen in that question!

Of course facts show that America pays twice as much as it's top world stage competitors. Those countries have successfully lowered the cost of healhcare for their people and businesses by negotiating pricing which benefited everyone except the providers and industries within the healthcare sector, who are still profiting.
So in your mind, it's OK to watch America slip competitively and it's OK for Americans and businesses lose expendable income just so the US doesn't get a tad more socialistic, and by doing so, would benefit financially. the capitalistic system? Business would have more expendable capital to expand. The American general public would have more expendable income to contribute to the consumer driven capitalistic economy.

No, the socialists have successfully rationed medical services to their servile little proles.

In any case, you're still diverting from the fact that attempting to control the costs of anything is not the role of America's federal gubmint, nor have you addressed their utter incompetence at the task.

But at least you manned up and admitted that Obolshevikcare and "single payer" are socialistic schemes...That's a lot more than we'll get from your average liberoidal.

 

[kiwiman127]

So are satisfied keeping the status quo that hurts the American general public and American businesses to the point it makes the US less competitive on the world stage as stated by CEO's at a Business Roundtable?

Wow...Good thing there aren't any spurious presuppositions or socialist strawmen in that question!

Of course facts show that America pays twice as much as it's top world stage competitors. Those countries have successfully lowered the cost of healhcare for their people and businesses by negotiating pricing which benefited everyone except the providers and industries within the healthcare sector, who are still profiting.
So in your mind, it's OK to watch America slip competitively and it's OK for Americans and businesses lose expendable income just so the US doesn't get a tad more socialistic, and Man,you sure by doing so, would benefit financially. the capitalistic system? Business would have more expendable capital to expand. The American general public would have more expendable income to contribute to the consumer driven capitalistic economy.

No, the socialists have successfully rationed medical services to their servile little proles.

In any case, you're still diverting from the fact that attempting to control the costs of anything is not the role of America's federal gubmint, nor have you addressed their utter incompetence at the task.

But at least you manned up and admitted that Obolshevikcare and "single payer" are socialistic schemes...That's a lot more than we'll get from your average liberoidal.

You sure love your talking points.
But facts are facts. The US pays double what every industrial nation pays for healthcare. High healthcare costs hurt people and businesses and contributes to less expendable income going into the economy that actually expands the economy for everyone. America, in the eyes of top CEO's is losing it's competitive edge on the world stage because of the cost of healthcare in the US. Other countries are paying much less for healthcare per capita because they negotiate prices for healthcare, which helps their people and the businesses and gives their businesses and advantage over US businesses.
And,,you're over paranoid about our government helping it's people and it's businesses which strengthens the US economically, because it involves a touch of socialism! Got it.
Some people!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US pays double what every industrial nation pays for healthcare.

does the liberal have the IQ to ask why we don't pay double in other industries?

Answer: because other industries are not controlled by liberal socialists. Its so obviousl its painful.

When China deregulated everyone could afford everything!! Its been in all the papers, but apparently brainwashed liberals can't see through it.

 

[Oddball]

So are satisfied keeping the status quo that hurts the American general public and American businesses to the point it makes the US less competitive on the world stage as stated by CEO's at a Business Roundtable?

Wow...Good thing there aren't any spurious presuppositions or socialist strawmen in that question!

Of course facts show that America pays twice as much as it's top world stage competitors. Those countries have successfully lowered the cost of healhcare for their people and businesses by negotiating pricing which benefited everyone except the providers and industries within the healthcare sector, who are still profiting.
So in your mind, it's OK to watch America slip competitively and it's OK for Americans and businesses lose expendable income just so the US doesn't get a tad more socialistic, and Man,you sure by doing so, would benefit financially. the capitalistic system? Business would have more expendable capital to expand. The American general public would have more expendable income to contribute to the consumer driven capitalistic economy.

No, the socialists have successfully rationed medical services to their servile little proles.

In any case, you're still diverting from the fact that attempting to control the costs of anything is not the role of America's federal gubmint, nor have you addressed their utter incompetence at the task.

But at least you manned up and admitted that Obolshevikcare and "single payer" are socialistic schemes...That's a lot more than we'll get from your average liberoidal.

You sure love your talking points.
But facts are facts. The US pays double what every industrial nation pays for healthcare. High healthcare costs hurt people and businesses and contributes to less expendable income going into the economy that actually expands the economy for everyone. America, in the eyes of top CEO's is losing it's competitive edge on the world stage because of the cost of healthcare in the US. Other countries are paying much less for healthcare per capita because they negotiate prices for healthcare, which helps their people and the businesses and gives their businesses and advantage over US businesses.
And,,you're over paranoid about our government helping it's people and it's businesses which strengthens the US economically, because it involves a touch of socialism! Got it.
Some people!!!

Facts are facts and platitudes are platitudes....Your problem is that you lean far to heavily on the latter while presenting them as the former.

But that's to be expected from socialists when they run out of what precious little intellectual ammunition they possess.

 

[Greenbeard]

Oy, somebody needs to tell mommy to cut back on his Mountain Dew Code Red allotment.

Anyway, despite stressing the "good faith" of providers, the commentary accompanying the findings in the OP points out:

Consumer Reports has reported what a critical issue overuse is to consumers. A 2010 reader survey of nearly 1200 healthy 40- to 60-year-old men and women, with no known heart disease, risk factors, or symptoms, showed that 44% had received screening tests for heart disease rated by Consumer Reports as very unlikely or unlikely to have benefits that outweigh the risks.10 Moreover, those who had received the testing did so without first getting crucial information from their physician. For example, only a few “healthy” adult respondents reported discussing with their physician how accurate the tests were (9%), whether they saved lives (1%), potential complications that might occur (4%), or what the patient would need to do if the test indicated a problem (11%).10​ Choosing Wisely will help provide the other side of this important story.

No discussion, just tests. A shame the authors didn't go far enough out on a limb to point out the warped financial incentives at play. But physicians seem to be the hardest ones to convince the financial structures in place are counterproductive, oddly enough.

 

[kiwiman127]

Wow...Good thing there aren't any spurious presuppositions or socialist strawmen in that question!


No, the socialists have successfully rationed medical services to their servile little proles.

In any case, you're still diverting from the fact that attempting to control the costs of anything is not the role of America's federal gubmint, nor have you addressed their utter incompetence at the task.

But at least you manned up and admitted that Obolshevikcare and "single payer" are socialistic schemes...That's a lot more than we'll get from your average liberoidal.

You sure love your talking points.
But facts are facts. The US pays double what every industrial nation pays for healthcare. High healthcare costs hurt people and businesses and contributes to less expendable income going into the economy that actually expands the economy for everyone. America, in the eyes of top CEO's is losing it's competitive edge on the world stage because of the cost of healthcare in the US. Other countries are paying much less for healthcare per capita because they negotiate prices for healthcare, which helps their people and the businesses and gives their businesses and advantage over US businesses.
And,,you're over paranoid about our government helping it's people and it's businesses which strengthens the US economically, because it involves a touch of socialism! Got it.
Some people!!!

Facts are facts and platitudes are platitudes....Your problem is that you lean far to heavily on the latter while presenting them as the former.

But that's to be expected from socialists when they run out of what precious little intellectual ammunition they possess.

Speaking of intellectual ammunition, where in the hell is yours? All I have seen by you is talking points filled with conjecture,,,,no facts,, just conjecture. Where as the rest of the top industrial nations of the world prove a point, negotiate the prices with the providers and walla, they pay half of what America pays.
Why do you want American companies to continue to lose their competative edge to foreign companies? Why do you want to eliminate the opportunity of working Americans to be able to contribute to the US economy as part of the consumer class that drives the US economy? It appears that you are willing to let your own country slide down the tube economically as it has been doing, just to appease your extreme paranoia about a little bit of socialism that actually would help the US's economic security.