Integrated Delivery Systems as a Panacea

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. ParatrooperJJ says:

    The “carte vitale” contains billing information only, not medical information. It’s like a Medicare card.

  2. Vickie Williams says:

    I quote from T.R. Reid – “Embedded in the gold metallic square just left of center is a digital record of every doctor visit, referral, injection, operation, X-ray, diagnostic test, prescription, warning, etc., together with a report on how much the doctor billed for each visit and how much was paid, by the insurance funds and by the patient.”


  3. “They want to make sure they don’t receive numerous bills for every little service they receive, but they don’t really care about who pays those bills.”

    No specific comment; just want to highlight that there are those out there who apparently think that government should cater to this instinct.

    As an aside, do you think maybe we should first try such a system with a service that is much more tied to government…like maybe the legal system? You know, have all the lawyers (including profs) paid by a single payor.

    I’m betting with the success of such a single payor legal care – esp. with the visibly enthusiastic participation of all the legal types who are so anxious to run the health care system – we should have no problem then convincing the gun-clinging public that, indeed, single payor anything is a much better way to run our economy.

  4. Frank says:

    I completely agree with your point that “What people want is choice of providers. Nobody loves their payers; they love their doctors.” I hope that those who are running state exchanges keep that key distinction in mind.

    This issue reminds me of the battle over the “plain vanilla products” option in finance reform. Health insurers argue that people want to be able to, say, trade off certain aspects of coverage in return for lower prices. But just as the numerus clausus principle restricts the number of possible deviations from a certain model of property, good insurance law would keep the variation in insurance to a certain manageable and understandable set of models.

    If we ignore that principle, we risk health insurance contracts modeled on the worse of OTC derivatives or toxic MBS’s….fine on the surfaces, but laden with traps for the unwary. It’s a recipe for “Gotcha Capitalism”‘s infiltration of health finance.

  5. Vickie Williams says:

    I think the question is when does a product that is labelled and marketed as “insurance” no longer serve the traditional function of spreading the risk of losses that are unanticipated by an individual, but can be anticipated to occur in a large enough population? Many of the limited “insurance” products on the market do not really constitute insurance in my opinion, just like many of the financial derivatives that were marketed were not really financial products at all, but pure gambles. I don’t want to gamble with my health care.