PAs for Health Freedom

Source: Boston Globe, March 26, 2008

In 2007 Massachusetts became the first state to pass a law requiring health insurance coverage by every citizen. It’s been less than two years since this legislation took effect, and already the state government is looking to cut costs which will allow it to provide more people with more care…..for today. As stated in the article, almost 350,000 people now have some form of coverage that they did not have before the law took effect. Of these, nearly half have been signed up for government sponsored care (medicaid, medicare, etc). So, the amount of money the state is spending on health care has of course drastically increased in a very short period of time.

Rather than re-thinking whether or not they are able to provide people with coverage, the governement is instead seeking a different, and unfortunately predictable, approach: cut the cost of health care. Nevermind controlling the number of people you have promised care to–instead seek to tamper with the market until it works to your advantage. Then when costs (and quality, as we’ve learned) are rock bottom there just might be enough capital to support the people you have promised coverage…for now. Nevermind that the mean and median ages of the state is growing older, or that there are still roughly 300,000 people who haven’t signed up for coverage yet (ie it’s likely there will be at least another 100,000 people seeking government sponsored care). Forget that new technologies cost more, often equate to better, more reliable care, and often cannot thrive in a government-controlled market. Fix the market, raise taxes on things that are “bad” for us, and milk the federal government for financial support appears to be all that they can come up with for solutions.

The most important statement in this article is the last sentence: “Nobody has to give much up to expand coverage, but in controlling cost there will always be losers.” Couldn’t agree more. It would be wise for a few lawmakers to look critically at what has happened to other nation-states (Oregon, Canada, England, etc) who have sought to expand coverage by cutting costs…

I am sure all of you AAPA members enjoy scanning recent articles in “Medical Watch” as it comes in your e-mail each morning. But have you notice the section entitled: “Access to healthcare”? When you hear the word “Access” is can be assured you are hearing a call for socialized medicine. The word is packed with all sorts of assumptions. Heck, even wiki has a section on it in their article on Socialized Medicine. It is these subtle things that slowly influence opinion. Before you know it, people have come to think that “Access” (and all the baggage that comes with it) is just common sense.

So, I will write to the editor’s of the Service and see if I can get “Access to healthcare” changed to something politically neutral like “Healthcare economics” . I will keep you posted on my progress, though I sure this will be tough.

You will notice that there is another category called “Legislative news”, at least that category is politically neutral. But when scanning the Medical Watch, watch for their bias especially in these two columns.