ACA Effectiveness on Uninsured

[*wildcats forever*]

(01-06-2016, 02:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We used to have a local hospital that was independent and while they had centers in areas that maybe lacked access to healthcare, most of the physicians and whatnot in the area were independent of the hospital system but had admitting and visiting privileges. So if you had to go in for something, your GP could come in and check on you.

A few years ago, Sentara purchased the independent hospital. Sentara is a sizable 'non-profit' based out of Norfolk that covers areas in most of Virginia. Now, all of those independent doctors can no longer come in to see their patients and some of the more 'mom and pop' feel has been lost (though in truth it was lost when they moved from the building my office is currently in to their new campus, yes I work in a former hospital). The staff haven't been too keen on it as there is a much larger focus on efficiency and what not. All of that being said, I can't speak much to the cost since I've only really started going to the doctor regularly and have been treated for things since the buyout, but I have found it overall not so bad.

We have enough competition here for the outpatient stuff that it keeps them more on their toes, I think. We also have independent lab companies, so that helps. Me personally, I actually utilize Sentara RMH services for all medical stuff because I like having my record more easily accessible between my GP and any specialists I may have to see.

All of that being said, what you point out in this post is getting at my issue all along with the "health care reform". It's not really reforming health care, it's just getting people insured. It isn't addressing the fact that the costs for these goods and services are what the real issue is and why it costs so much more for us than some other countries. It's exactly what doctors do to something they don't know how to cure, they treat the symptoms, not the disease itself. But we really need to start focusing on the disease.

It's a battle with many fronts. We've skimmed the surface on the provider side, but I'm thinking the insurer side is a major obstacle. Yeah they offer a service and charge a fee accordingly, like any business does......with some exceptions. 

As an example, I had a doctor (great man and even better physician) who became so frustrated with the difficulty in getting paid by the insurance companies and Medicare that he stopped honoring them. He changed to a cash-only business model, and then provided his patients with the necessary paperwork to apply for reimbursement. BTW his office call was only $50, about half of what the insurance billing rate was at the time. The insurance company's response to that was to no longer honor any prescriptions that doctor wrote. I had no choice but to change doctors to their network, unless I wanted to pay the total cost for my pharmaceuticals. A strong-armed tactic to preserve their monopoly.

And like Fred pointed out, the uninsured's costs are born by the rest of the paying public. Except for the fact that the providers raise there rates to recoup these losses by a factor so conservative that fewer and fewer found it not possible to keep paying the increase to their budget. Try to get your hands on those rate and cost figures.....

The financial impact on the unhealthy, ageing and elderly will just take some people out of the game of life, unless something like a single-payer/non-profit system is put into place....I think. And if you're thinking "Ha - that'll never happen to me", think again. We're talking about the human body, one of Nature's more frail entities. With science playing God with our food system, and industry wreaking havoc with our environment, your guess is as good as mine regarding long-term needs for decent health maintenance. The greed aspect has to be rolled back in the healthcare industry, and relatively soon.