NationStates Jolt Archive

I was listening to the news about the recent purchase of HCA Inc. HCA for those that don't know was a hospitol operator. They ran 182 Hospitols.

Their stock had dropped badly over time and one of the reasons they sited(which struck me) was the fact that doctors were using less costly ways to treat people. They were avoiding the costly procedures (which also tend to be rather invasive).

At least doctors(well a majority) are thinking about the patients health vs profit.

Can we always depend on that?

How often do we see drug companies "influence" doctors to use the latest wonder drug over less costly and just as effective generics.

Even now there is a case where the justice department is investingating a situation where two big pharmies are paying a third one not to produce enough of a generic that competes with their cash cows.

How long before corporate hospitol interests start influencing doctors to use costly prodcedures?

Just some random thoughts on a Friday night. ;)

Meh. As much as doctors claim altruism, for nearly all of them, the money was a beg incentive, and really, I don’t see how cutting costs has anything to do with the welfare of the patient as much as it does the bottom line. I don’t want to see the effects of them losing money due to a nationalized system.

Just get some decent regulation of the pharmaceutical industry and create a public medical insurance company for those that can’t afford regular insurance. That would be much cheaper to implement, would be less jolting to society and is change that could realistically happen.

I don’t get how you can look at this situation and think it means that we should turn doctors into government bureaucrats.

The obvious problem is the way insurance works – the hospitals can charge the insurance companies or the government lots of money for needless procedures.

If patients had to pay the cost directly, you would immediately see the cost plummet. The current regulatory system is what makes this possible – more expensive procedures should not make for higher profits but should encourage cheaper alternatives.

How often do we see drug companies "influence" doctors to use the latest wonder drug over less costly and just as effective generics.

Even now there is a case where the justice department is investingating a situation where two big pharmies are paying a third one not to produce enough of a generic that competes with their cash cows.
This could not happen in a free market – if there is a cheaper alternative and everyone actually saw the cost difference people would use the alternative. Instead that cost just gets passed on to all of us in the form of insanely high premiums.

If pharmaceutical companies were paying another company not to produce, a free market would dictate that a lot of companies would spring up to get paid for doing nothing as well.

Government regulation and restrictions cause the problem; the solution is not more red tape but freeing up doctors and patients to pursue what treatments they want, not the treatments some bureaucrat or middle manager wants.

I must say, Canada's got their health care system right.

HCA for those that don't know was a hospitol operator. They ran 182 Hospitols.


I'm going to be the spelling-nazi here. Hospital.

Of course, unless someone has invented and patented "Hospital In A Bottle" hence "Hospitol".

I must say, Canada's got their health care system right.

Not really, Canada's system is frequently abused and famously inefficient. America's system functioned quite well for many years before modern climates created a slew of new problems, among them: Doctor liability, Pharmeceutical monopoly, and disillusionment with health professions.