Medical costs
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:31 AM Subject: Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform) We might be able to figure it out, but we won't be able to pay for it. Many people seem to think that medical care should just be given to those who need it. Perhaps we should assign a full-time personal doctor and full-time nurse to take care of everyone in the world! My brother-in-law (who's a physician) and I had an interesting discussion on the subject of medical costs. Using car metaphors from our youth, we compared what we thought would be a reasonable plan for medical insurance with what we have now. What we have now is this: the requirement to give medical care to people without insurance is soft. If a hospital, for example, decides to not have an emergency room, they can restrict input fairly effectively. But, once someone is admitted, no procedure can be excluded because that patient cannot pay for it. A more reasonable way of doing this is to include the cost of procedures in the mix. Everyone can get basic solid care. But, the high cost care that pushes the envelope has to be paid for, one way or another. Hospitals are not required to give it. The car metaphor is that the present system is that the hospital can refuse to let people have a Chevy. But, if they give them a car, they must be willing to give a Caddy. Jeff and I agree, a system in which everyone gets a Chevy but has to pay for an upgrade to a Caddy is far better. It would cost less and provide better care. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medical costs
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: Medical costs * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If combined with some sort of deductible, this makes a lot of sense. Another way of putting it is that patients are responsible for paying the bottom and top of the spectrum of costs, but that a third party (insurance, government, hospital, etc.) takes care of the middle. There is one small variation on the deductabile idea that I have with my present plan, and that works. There are three levels of deductables for prescriptions. The first, and lowest, is for generic. It's $7.50 per month, or $15 for a mail order 3 month supply. The next is non-generic, at $25/month or $50 per 3 months. The third is a restricted non-generic, usually a newer higher priced non-generic drug that treats a condition that can be treated by other drugs...it's $50/month. or $100 per 3 months. I see my own behavior influenced by this. I get migraines. I can spend 33 dollars a month on the newest drug that doesn't make me sleepy or an older drug that does. I'm doing a cost benefit analaysis, deciding which one makes more sense for me. It's very reasonable for my insurance company to faciltate my particiapation in the cost-benefit analysis. This is one place, I think, where your ideas on health care are being implemented. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medical costs
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There are three levels of deductables for prescriptions. The first, and lowest, is for generic. It's $7.50 per month, or $15 for a mail order 3 month supply. The next is non-generic, at $25/month or $50 per 3 months. The third is a restricted non-generic, usually a newer higher priced non-generic drug that treats a condition that can be treated by other drugs...it's $50/month. or $100 per 3 months. Interesting. It sounds like a good idea, since it makes people pay more for more expensive medicine, but still provides an affordable option. I see my own behavior influenced by this. I get migraines. I can spend 33 dollars a month on the newest drug that doesn't make me sleepy or an older drug that does. I'm doing a cost benefit analaysis, deciding which one makes more sense for me. It's very reasonable for my insurance company to faciltate my particiapation in the cost-benefit analysis. This is one place, I think, where your ideas on health care are being implemented. This reminded of an article I just read. I don't have an online link, but it is from _Consumer Reports On Health_ newsletter, March 2005. Here's an excerpt: Daily doses of the dietary supplement coenzyme Q10, or CoQ10, helped ward off migraine attacks in some people, in what is apparently the first carefully controlled study of that use. Swiss and Belgian researchers divided 42 people with recurrent migraines into two equal groups. Half took 100 milligrams of CoQ10 three times a day for three months; the rest took a placebo. Ten of those taking the supplement compared with only 3 taking a placebo had at least a 50 percent reduction in monthly attacks -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medical costs
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This reminded of an article I just read. I don't have an online link, but it is from _Consumer Reports On Health_ newsletter, March 2005. Here's an excerpt: Daily doses of the dietary supplement coenzyme Q10, or CoQ10, helped ward off migraine attacks in some people, in what is apparently the first carefully controlled study of that use. Swiss and Belgian researchers divided 42 people with recurrent migraines into two equal groups. Half took 100 milligrams of CoQ10 three times a day for three months; the rest took a placebo. Ten of those taking the supplement compared with only 3 taking a placebo had at least a 50 percent reduction in monthly attacks I forgot to quote the last part: the supplement costs $50/month for the dosage used in the study. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
