No one here is saying that public-private partnerships aren't the way to go. I can see a variety of arguments for a variety of setups. But your argument about all these great technologies developed in private industry because of a profit motive is just bullshit. It doesn't happen like that in the biomedical field with some notable exceptions. Government grants are a primary driver of basic research. It has been that way for a long time. The lead time for basic research is just too great and there are too many speculative failures for private industry to sink that much money into it. Instead, the public private partnerships have come about with private industry licensing the products of basic research, refining it, then promoting it. Which is great, I've got not problems with that. It just doesn't magically work the way you think it does.
Judah On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Judah wrote: >> >> MRI's were developed at Stony Brook University in the 70's > > My point is that private industry is incented to invent, develop and > innovate these technologies through profit; Government controls on > their use could seriously inhibit that. (if they weren't, after all, > they wouldn't!!) > > Example of a failure scenario on the care level: > > If a government run healthcare system said, for example, we'll decided > who and when MRIs are used. If the overall impact of that policy is > to drop MRI use and, further, purchase of MRIs is at the government > level every, say, 5 years. That would drastically remove innovation > from the marketplace. Instead of lots of vendors selling to lots of > hospitals, you'd have a few vendors selling to the gov't. > > > An example of multi-payer success at the current plan level: > > As mentioned, private insurance companies can buy Medicare risk from > the government in a way that incents them to keep people healthy. > > The way it works is that, say, Cam-Chi Health tells the government > it's going to buy population X's health risk from them. In exchange > Medicare pays Cam-Chi a per-member-per-month fee, provides them with a > risk-adjustment (RAF) fee, provides them with a quality bonus based on > HEDIS scores, and requires monthly oversight. > > Cam-Chi is betting that its enrollees cost less than the PMPM fee it > receives from Medicare. And it's incented to keep them healthy > because if it does, it makes more profit. (Monthly CMS review > prevents denial of legitimate claims). > > > My point is, public-private partnerships can and do work great. But > the minute the government restricts plans, we're screwed. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:288827 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
