The GOP health care plan is only four (4!) short & easy-to-read pages

[gcomeau]

Why don't you pick one of the individual points actually listed.... and attack that instead of all this hysterical hyperbole?

"Rewards high quality care' was one of the individual points actually listed, you clueless wonder.

So I forgot...no need to be hysterical....

There is a gaping chasm between "hysterical" and "mildly derogatory".

Per the republican platform on health care this is what they say about that...
Reward Good Health Care Providers for Delivering Real Results...

Patients deserve access to health care providers they trust who will personalize and coordinate their care to ensure they receive the right treatment with the right health care provider at the right time. Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform. The current cookie-cutter system of reimbursement needs restructuring from the view of the patient, not the accountant or Washington bureaucrat.

www.gop.com/2008Platform/healthcare.htm

Wow, that clears up so much. Except, you know... everything about it.

Let me repeat this and see if it sticks this time. That is a completely empty substanceless statement. It contains absolutely no details whatsoever about what it is they actually propose to do. If they actually attempted to explain HOW they are going to achieve these happy joy joy results they're talking about the plan would instantly stop looking so wonderful and shiny.

 

[veritas]

Platitudinous faerie dust.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Rewards high quality care' was one of the individual points actually listed, you clueless wonder.

So I forgot...no need to be hysterical....

There is a gaping chasm between "hysterical" and "mildly derogatory".

Per the republican platform on health care this is what they say about that...
Reward Good Health Care Providers for Delivering Real Results...

Patients deserve access to health care providers they trust who will personalize and coordinate their care to ensure they receive the right treatment with the right health care provider at the right time. Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform. The current cookie-cutter system of reimbursement needs restructuring from the view of the patient, not the accountant or Washington bureaucrat.

www.gop.com/2008Platform/healthcare.htm

Wow, that clears up so much. Except, you know... everything about it.

Let me repeat this and see if it sticks this time. That is a completely empty substanceless statement. It contains absolutely no details whatsoever about what it is they actually propose to do. If they actually attempted to explain HOW they are going to achieve these happy joy joy results they're talking about the plan would instantly stop looking so wonderful and shiny.

Not empty substance at all...."quality care" is a difficult thing to measure...(which is why you picked on this particular point of course).....but it can affect outcomes...."patient-centered" health care is where the PATIENT is in control of his own health issues to a great extent....as opposed to Obama's plan where the government bureaucrat is in control and you pretty much become just another number...

Perhaps the following may help enlighten you...

THE SCIENCE OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE
Journal of Family Practice, September 2000 by Ronald Epstein

Patient-centered care expands on the disease-oriented model by incorporating the patient's experience of illness, the psychosocial context, and shared decision making.[1] This type of care has been adopted as a model of medical practice by many primary care physicians, medical educators, and specialists. Elements of patient-centered care have been described since antiquity. Although different authors have used different nomenclature, the fundamental idea is that the process of healing depends on knowing the patient as a person, in addition to accurately diagnosing their disease. Evidence that elements of a patient-centered approach improve important outcomes of care is abundant.[2] However, many myths about this type of care persist. For example, some clinicians conflate patient-centered and psychosocial. However, patient-centered care can apply equally to deciding which antibiotic to prescribe for a urinary tract infection and to an evaluation of domestic violence. Another myth is that being patient centered means giving patients what they ask for.

Patient-centered communication, a cluster of physician behaviors presumed to help the physician achieve the goals of this type of care, includes clearly defined components: (1) identifying and responding to patients' ideas and emotions regarding their illness, and (2) reaching common ground about the illness, its treatment, and the roles that the physician and the patient will assume.[1] These components seem both obvious and radical. For example, asking the patient why he has come to the physician and eliciting his feelings, ideas, and expectations about the illness make perfect sense, but are done in less than half of medical visits, including those not constrained by the pressures of time imposed by managed care and governmental health systems.

The study by Stewart and colleagues[3] in this issue of the Journal is a landmark in research about the patient-centered clinical method. Using a stratified sample of 39 family physicians and 315 of their patients, they conducted an observational cohort study in which they examined the interrelationships between 3 elements: patient perceptions of patient centeredness, observed communication behaviors, and subsequent health and resource utilization. When patients perceived the visit to be patient centered they experienced better recovery, better emotional health, and dramatically fewer diagnostic tests and referrals 2 months later. The patient-centered communication measure (a validated coding scheme using audiotapes of physician-patient visits) correlated only with patients' perceptions, but not directly with any health care outcome. Thus, this study further affirms that the patient is the ultimate arbiter of patient-centeredness. Because only the patient can report whether she has felt understood or if or has been adequately involved in developing a treatment plan, it is no surprise that the inside perspective is more highly correlated with outcomes than any objective measure of verbal content.

THE IMPACT OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE ON OUTCOMES

BACKGROUND: We designed this observational cohort study to assess the association between patient-centered communication in primary care visits and subsequent health and medical care utilization.

METHODS: We selected 39 family physicians at random, and 315 of their patients participated. Office visits were audiotaped and scored for patient-centered communication. In addition, patients were asked for their perceptions of the patient-centeredness of the visit. The outcomes were: (1) patients' health, assessed by a visual analogue scale on symptom discomfort and concern; (2) self-report of health, using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36; and (3) medical care utilization variables of diagnostic tests, referrals, and visits to the family physician, assessed by chart review. The 2 measures of patient-centeredness were correlated with the outcomes of visits, adjusting for the clustering of patients by physician and controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS: Patient-centered communication was correlated with the patients' perceptions of finding common ground. In addition, positive perceptions (both the total score and the subscore on finding common ground) were associated with better recovery from their discomfort and concern, better emotional health 2 months later, and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered communication influences patients' health through perceptions that their visit was patient centered, and especially through perceptions that common ground was achieved with the physician. Patient-centered practice improved health status and increased the efficiency of care by reducing diagnostic tests and referrals.

NCBI HomePage
Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. [email protected]

 

[kwc57]

So I forgot...no need to be hysterical....

There is a gaping chasm between "hysterical" and "mildly derogatory".



Wow, that clears up so much. Except, you know... everything about it.

Let me repeat this and see if it sticks this time. That is a completely empty substanceless statement. It contains absolutely no details whatsoever about what it is they actually propose to do. If they actually attempted to explain HOW they are going to achieve these happy joy joy results they're talking about the plan would instantly stop looking so wonderful and shiny.

Not empty substance at all...."quality care" is a difficult thing to measure...(which is why you picked on this particular point of course).....but it can affect outcomes...."patient-centered" health care is where the PATIENT is in control of his own health issues to a great extent....as opposed to Obama's plan where the government bureaucrat is in control and you pretty much become just another number...

Perhaps the following may help enlighten you...

THE SCIENCE OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE
Journal of Family Practice, September 2000 by Ronald Epstein

Patient-centered care expands on the disease-oriented model by incorporating the patient's experience of illness, the psychosocial context, and shared decision making.[1] This type of care has been adopted as a model of medical practice by many primary care physicians, medical educators, and specialists. Elements of patient-centered care have been described since antiquity. Although different authors have used different nomenclature, the fundamental idea is that the process of healing depends on knowing the patient as a person, in addition to accurately diagnosing their disease. Evidence that elements of a patient-centered approach improve important outcomes of care is abundant.[2] However, many myths about this type of care persist. For example, some clinicians conflate patient-centered and psychosocial. However, patient-centered care can apply equally to deciding which antibiotic to prescribe for a urinary tract infection and to an evaluation of domestic violence. Another myth is that being patient centered means giving patients what they ask for.

Patient-centered communication, a cluster of physician behaviors presumed to help the physician achieve the goals of this type of care, includes clearly defined components: (1) identifying and responding to patients' ideas and emotions regarding their illness, and (2) reaching common ground about the illness, its treatment, and the roles that the physician and the patient will assume.[1] These components seem both obvious and radical. For example, asking the patient why he has come to the physician and eliciting his feelings, ideas, and expectations about the illness make perfect sense, but are done in less than half of medical visits, including those not constrained by the pressures of time imposed by managed care and governmental health systems.

The study by Stewart and colleagues[3] in this issue of the Journal is a landmark in research about the patient-centered clinical method. Using a stratified sample of 39 family physicians and 315 of their patients, they conducted an observational cohort study in which they examined the interrelationships between 3 elements: patient perceptions of patient centeredness, observed communication behaviors, and subsequent health and resource utilization. When patients perceived the visit to be patient centered they experienced better recovery, better emotional health, and dramatically fewer diagnostic tests and referrals 2 months later. The patient-centered communication measure (a validated coding scheme using audiotapes of physician-patient visits) correlated only with patients' perceptions, but not directly with any health care outcome. Thus, this study further affirms that the patient is the ultimate arbiter of patient-centeredness. Because only the patient can report whether she has felt understood or if or has been adequately involved in developing a treatment plan, it is no surprise that the inside perspective is more highly correlated with outcomes than any objective measure of verbal content.

THE IMPACT OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE ON OUTCOMES

BACKGROUND: We designed this observational cohort study to assess the association between patient-centered communication in primary care visits and subsequent health and medical care utilization.

METHODS: We selected 39 family physicians at random, and 315 of their patients participated. Office visits were audiotaped and scored for patient-centered communication. In addition, patients were asked for their perceptions of the patient-centeredness of the visit. The outcomes were: (1) patients' health, assessed by a visual analogue scale on symptom discomfort and concern; (2) self-report of health, using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36; and (3) medical care utilization variables of diagnostic tests, referrals, and visits to the family physician, assessed by chart review. The 2 measures of patient-centeredness were correlated with the outcomes of visits, adjusting for the clustering of patients by physician and controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS: Patient-centered communication was correlated with the patients' perceptions of finding common ground. In addition, positive perceptions (both the total score and the subscore on finding common ground) were associated with better recovery from their discomfort and concern, better emotional health 2 months later, and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered communication influences patients' health through perceptions that their visit was patient centered, and especially through perceptions that common ground was achieved with the physician. Patient-centered practice improved health status and increased the efficiency of care by reducing diagnostic tests and referrals.

NCBI HomePage
Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. [email protected]

You're finally grasping the concept of DETAILS, which the "plan" in your OP has absolutely none of. They are simply bumper sticker talking points.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is a gaping chasm between "hysterical" and "mildly derogatory".



Wow, that clears up so much. Except, you know... everything about it.

Let me repeat this and see if it sticks this time. That is a completely empty substanceless statement. It contains absolutely no details whatsoever about what it is they actually propose to do. If they actually attempted to explain HOW they are going to achieve these happy joy joy results they're talking about the plan would instantly stop looking so wonderful and shiny.

Not empty substance at all...."quality care" is a difficult thing to measure...(which is why you picked on this particular point of course).....but it can affect outcomes...."patient-centered" health care is where the PATIENT is in control of his own health issues to a great extent....as opposed to Obama's plan where the government bureaucrat is in control and you pretty much become just another number...

Perhaps the following may help enlighten you...

THE IMPACT OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE ON OUTCOMES

BACKGROUND: We designed this observational cohort study to assess the association between patient-centered communication in primary care visits and subsequent health and medical care utilization.

METHODS: We selected 39 family physicians at random, and 315 of their patients participated. Office visits were audiotaped and scored for patient-centered communication. In addition, patients were asked for their perceptions of the patient-centeredness of the visit. The outcomes were: (1) patients' health, assessed by a visual analogue scale on symptom discomfort and concern; (2) self-report of health, using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36; and (3) medical care utilization variables of diagnostic tests, referrals, and visits to the family physician, assessed by chart review. The 2 measures of patient-centeredness were correlated with the outcomes of visits, adjusting for the clustering of patients by physician and controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS: Patient-centered communication was correlated with the patients' perceptions of finding common ground. In addition, positive perceptions (both the total score and the subscore on finding common ground) were associated with better recovery from their discomfort and concern, better emotional health 2 months later, and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered communication influences patients' health through perceptions that their visit was patient centered, and especially through perceptions that common ground was achieved with the physician. Patient-centered practice improved health status and increased the efficiency of care by reducing diagnostic tests and referrals.

NCBI HomePage
Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. [email protected]

You're finally grasping the concept of DETAILS, which the "plan" in your OP has absolutely none of. They are simply bumper sticker talking points.

I see....despite my invite to discuss a point....and then my wasting time to provide you with detail behind the general concept of that point....you have no real response....not even an "I like/don't the idea" response....just more insults and the same tired tactic of attacking a general outline....

...you think yourself a libertarian with an independent mind? ........you seem more like a partisan...

O bnoxious
B oring
A rogant
M achiavellian
A sshole

 

[veritas]

This bill is not a bill, it's a resolution of intent to do nothing.

If it were a recipe it would not be edible.

If it were a business plan it would be rejected.

If it were a middle school term paper it would fail.

I can't believe adults actually signed their names to it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This bill is not a bill, it's a resolution of intent to do nothing.

If it were a recipe it would not be edible.

If it were a business plan it would be rejected.

If it were a middle school term paper it would fail.

I can't believe adults actually signed their names to it.

Who said it was a bill?

Let me reiterate the title for you....

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessability, Availability
Common Sense Health Care Reform to Lower Costs and Increase Access and Quality at a Price Our Country Can Afford

 

[veritas]

This bill is not a bill, it's a resolution of intent to do nothing.

If it were a recipe it would not be edible.

If it were a business plan it would be rejected.

If it were a middle school term paper it would fail.

I can't believe adults actually signed their names to it.

Who said it was a bill?

Let me reiterate the title for you....

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessability, Availability
Common Sense Health Care Reform to Lower Costs and Increase Access and Quality at a Price Our Country Can Afford

Well no duh!!! Blunt fails!! Old news!!

Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution
July 23, 2009 10:04 am ET by Matt Finkelstein

After Rep. Roy Blunt admitted that the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" won't be offering an alternative health care bill, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises.

As the debate over health care reform grows more heated, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) has made a pretty astonishing admission. According to The Hill, Blunt said the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group," which he chairs, won't be offering a plan. In the wake of the announcement, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises:

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200907230001

And they call themselves: "Health Care Solutions Group" . They got nuthin. You got nuthin.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This bill is not a bill, it's a resolution of intent to do nothing.

If it were a recipe it would not be edible.

If it were a business plan it would be rejected.

If it were a middle school term paper it would fail.

I can't believe adults actually signed their names to it.

Who said it was a bill?

Let me reiterate the title for you....

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessability, Availability
Common Sense Health Care Reform to Lower Costs and Increase Access and Quality at a Price Our Country Can Afford

Well no duh!!! Blunt fails!! Old news!!

Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution
July 23, 2009 10:04 am ET by Matt Finkelstein

After Rep. Roy Blunt admitted that the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" won't be offering an alternative health care bill, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises.

As the debate over health care reform grows more heated, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) has made a pretty astonishing admission. According to The Hill, Blunt said the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group," which he chairs, won't be offering a plan. In the wake of the announcement, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises:

Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution | Media Matters Action Network

And they call themselves: "Health Care Solutions Group" . They got nuthin. You got nuthin.

So what if he doesn't write a bill.....it would never get to the floor anyhow....not with NancyPants in charge...

 

[veritas]

Who said it was a bill?

Let me reiterate the title for you....

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessability, Availability
Common Sense Health Care Reform to Lower Costs and Increase Access and Quality at a Price Our Country Can Afford

Well no duh!!! Blunt fails!! Old news!!

Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution
July 23, 2009 10:04 am ET by Matt Finkelstein

After Rep. Roy Blunt admitted that the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" won't be offering an alternative health care bill, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises.

As the debate over health care reform grows more heated, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) has made a pretty astonishing admission. According to The Hill, Blunt said the GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group," which he chairs, won't be offering a plan. In the wake of the announcement, Media Matters Action Network decided to take a look at the group's broken promises:

Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution | Media Matters Action Network

And they call themselves: "Health Care Solutions Group" . They got nuthin. You got nuthin.

So what if he doesn't write a bill.....it would never get to the floor anyhow....not with NancyPants in charge...

Seriously??? So what? Forget Pelosi. You are insane if you think Republicans want any kind of reform. Blunt is a toad.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well no duh!!! Blunt fails!! Old news!!



Broken Promises: GOP's "Health Care Solutions Group" Admits It Won't Have A Solution | Media Matters Action Network

And they call themselves: "Health Care Solutions Group" . They got nuthin. You got nuthin.

So what if he doesn't write a bill.....it would never get to the floor anyhow....not with NancyPants in charge...

Seriously??? So what? Forget Pelosi. You are insane if you think Republicans want any kind of reform. Blunt is a toad.

 

[gcomeau]

Not empty substance at all...."quality care" is a difficult thing to measure...(which is why you picked on this particular point of course).....but it can affect outcomes...."patient-centered" health care is where the PATIENT is in control of his own health issues to a great extent....as opposed to Obama's plan where the government bureaucrat is in control and you pretty much become just another number...

Perhaps the following may help enlighten you...

It enlightens me to the fact that "Ronald Epstein" has some ideas about health care provision.

Show me where the GOP plan to actually IMPLEMENT any of them are. Besides just saying "We'll implement this!!!" without saying how I mean.

How are you still not getting this? Without the details of how the reform is actually implemented and carried out you have NOTHING.

 

[kwc57]

Not empty substance at all...."quality care" is a difficult thing to measure...(which is why you picked on this particular point of course).....but it can affect outcomes...."patient-centered" health care is where the PATIENT is in control of his own health issues to a great extent....as opposed to Obama's plan where the government bureaucrat is in control and you pretty much become just another number...

Perhaps the following may help enlighten you...

You're finally grasping the concept of DETAILS, which the "plan" in your OP has absolutely none of. They are simply bumper sticker talking points.

I see....despite my invite to discuss a point....and then my wasting time to provide you with detail behind the general concept of that point....you have no real response....not even an "I like/don't the idea" response....just more insults and the same tired tactic of attacking a general outline....

...you think yourself a libertarian with an independent mind? ........you seem more like a partisan...

O bnoxious
B oring
A rogant
M achiavellian
A sshole

The details you posted have no relation whatsoever to the plan posted in the OP. You are mixing apples and oranges. Who is the closed minded partisan hack here?

Just admit it. The 4 page document you posted and praised is an outline and not a plan. They are bumper sticker slogans with no substance to back them up. They pay lip service to the issue so they can lay claim to "we did something" when they have no real intent of doing anything. It is smoke and mirrors. As an independent minded, liberatian conservative, I hold those who are supposed to represent me to a higher standard and expect better than this. Obviously you don't....but then all you really care about is scoring gotcha points on the opposition. Perhaps that is why we have the representatives we have who seem totally devoid of any ideas or leadership. Hoping the Dems screw up worse than the Repubs did and therefore the citiznes will forgive their slothfulness and put them back in poswer is a plan that really sucks big green donkey dicks.

 

[veritas]

Not to mention the fact that "The Healthcare Solutions Group" provided no solutions. And it's ancient history, much like the BS news cycle we have going on now about how the SEC failed to nail Madoff, like DUH!! They ignored Harry Markopolos for years and now it's news?!?!?