About 'cost of home health care'|...to stay in their homes and communities...understand the importance of Alaska's National.... HEALTH CARE - Obviously, high medical costs are ...
Many of the most discussed and most popular ideas for how to fix our broken health care systems rely on unsound premises and cost more than they are worth while delivering less than they are supposed to deliver. Here are some examples that you probably hear about almost every day that do not work as well as you might think. Flexible Spending Accounts The idea seems so appealing at first, but Flexible Spending Accounts are one of the worst ideas ever. Flexible Spending Accounts were promoted as a way to provide lower income consumers with a tax break and a way to save money for unexpected health care expenses. Flexible Spending Accounts do appear to provide a more progressive tax break but that is somewhat illusory. To be able to put money into Flexible Spending Accounts workers have to have an excess of income over expenses. But most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck so they cannot afford to fund Flexible Spending Accounts. This means that the actual tax benefit is for the rich who can afford to fund Flexible Spending Accounts. But it is worse than this. When consumers put money into Flexible Spending Accounts, they "break even" at best. In fact, it is more than a little like going to a casino. Because Flexible Spending Accounts have to be fully expended each year, they do not allow consumers to save over many years which would be a much better approach. Consumers lose any money left in their Flexible Spending Accounts at year end unless they incur expenses that meet or exceed their contributions. While this encourages people to invest resources in health care many of these investments are frivolous, which increases the costs of health care system wide. A better approach would be to allow consumers to keep accumulating the money in their Flexible Spending Accounts, saving for really rainy days such as the onset of heart disease, cancer, or serious injury. Allowing consumers to use the money in their Flexible Spending Accounts for health care costs, as a hedge against lost income, and for other health and non-health expenses when they are sick or injured would be a far better approach, encouraging savings over many years for foreseeable future needs. But, without a doubt, the worst feature of Flexible Spending Accounts is that consumers lose the unspent money in their accounts at year end. The legislation that brought Flexible Spending Accounts is most notable for having established a cottage industry of companies that keep the unspent funds at the end of the year - an industry that exists for no other reason than to earn profits off an unnecessary program. A simpler, better approach would be for consumers to be allowed to put the same money aside in a regular savings account with the same tax breaks for those funds if they were used only for health related expenses. Consumers could then use the funds as needed but would be allowed to accumulate these funds over their lifetimes, increasing their ability to cover their future health care costs and restraining increased spending on frivolous health care services. Medicare Part D Prescription Coverage Again, Part D prescription benefits seem like an excellent idea, increasing the ability of senior citizens to pay for needed prescription drugs. But, this program has a serious design flaw. The whole point of insurance is to protect against future, unknown costs. But different formularies, the lists of drugs that are, and are not, covered under these programs, mean that senior citizens are required to choose Part D plans that may not cover the drugs they will need in 6 months, a gaping hole in the security these plans provide to seniors. At best, senior citizens can choose their Part D plan based on what they know about their current prescription drugs and guesses about what drugs they may need in the future. These decisions are difficult for senior citizens when they first become eligible but nearly impossible as they age and their health declines. Years after making their first plan selection senior citizens will inevitably increase the numbers of drugs they are taking. A far better Part D program would entail a single, mandatory formulary that all plans would have to offer. This would provide a true insurance benefit and avoid a great deal of waste and fraudulent activity in signing seniors up for Part D plans that will not meet their needs. Mis-Managed Care We hear a great deal about managed care without distinguishing between two very different kinds of managed care. Good managed care concentrates on the needs of the patient, allowing the patient to access the best doctors, nurses, facilities and treatments available anywhere in the world. In this form of managed care, if the patient lives in New York and the best surgeon for their condition is in San Francisco, the patient is either flown to San Francisco or the surgeon comes to New York. But that is the ideal. The type of managed care most consumers experience is exactly the opposite. Rather than having the best doctors, nurses and facilities and treatments available anywhere in the world, mis-managed care provides the worst doctors, nurses, facilities and treatments available anywhere in the world whose incompetence cannot be proven by their patients. Even when health care benefit plans know that some providers are delivering sub-standard care, they often fail to remove these providers from their panels, compelling beneficiaries to accept inadequate services. Instead of having health care providers who are uniquely qualified for their conditions, most consumers get their health care from providers who are stretching their knowledge, skills, and abilities to the breaking point. The worst forms of managed care force patients to accept the cheapest services available, with little recourse except further delays in their ability to access care. Mis-managed care is cheaper care for health finance organizations and health care providers, but the costs are borne by patients in the form of poorer health outcomes: Early death and disability, delayed and denied care, and poorer health rather than better health. Rather than stretching the knowledge, skills and abilities of health care providers, a better approach would be to make sure that no provider ever practices outside the range of their knowledge, skills and abilities without the their patients' informed consent. Consumer Choice In Health Benefit Plans It seems like such an obvious advantage, but somewhat paradoxically the more choices consumers have in health benefit plan selections, the worse decisions consumers seem to make. The language of benefit plans intentionally misrepresents the costs and benefits of plans, preying on consumer ignorance rather than knowledge. People who think they are healthy, select cheap plans, assuming they will not need them. It is only when these people become ill or injured, they realize that their benefit plans will not cover the costs of the kind of care they want available to them. Even if consumers could understand the language of their plans: the benefits, co-payments, deductibles, exclusions and waiting periods; they would be hard pressed to make good health benefit plan selections. Few, if any, consumers know what their future needs and costs will be. This is precisely the reason that we buy insurance - the essential uncertainty regarding our future exposure to high medical costs. Rather than 1,000s of different health insurers and benefit plans, a better idea would be to have a single health insurance policy, used by all health insurers and health benefit plans. Such a policy, much like Private Passenger Automobile policies or Homeowner's insurance policies, would be a better way to go. Providers, consumers, insurers and the courts would know the benefits available and claims handling would be many times more efficient. Two patients showing up to the same provider, with the same symptoms, would not be treated differently based on the constraints on care built into their different benefit plans. Providers would save money on filing claims and insurers would save money on paying claims. Turning Health Care Providers Into Health Insurers Without a doubt, the very worst idea in health care finance has been forcing health care providers, such as doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies to become their patient's insurers. Providers become their patient's insurers in a variety of ways. Sometimes they enter into formal contractual relationships - capitation contracts - where they are paid a flat amount each month for patient care. They get this money, each month, regardless of whether patients seek care or not. This means it is to the financial advantage of providers if patients stay away. But there are many other ways providers are forced to accept insurance risks: The Federal and State Prospective Payment Systems for Medicare and Medicaid and episode based care programs that appear to encourage better care because providers are supposedly held accountable for the quality and success of their care. All these different mechanisms put providers at financial risk. The often touted premise of such plans is that providers are supposed to save money in the future, by investing the money they are give in preventive care for their patients. The problem is that these future savings may be years, even decades, in the future. In the mean time, providers often get paid less than the costs of providing current care. Any additional money devoted to preventive care would have to come out of the small pot of funds available to pay the ongoing costs of chronic and acute care for their patients. As insurers, most health care providers are smaller and more inefficient than the entities transferring insurance risks to them. As a result, insurance risk assuming health care providers are less likely to earn reasonable, sustainable profits; more likely to incur excessively high losses; have far greater exposure to bankruptcy and takeover, and must reduce patient benefits to counteract their exposures to lower profits, high losses and insolvency risk. A single, national health insurer, would be the mathematically most efficient insurer. Despite the ease with which this can be demonstrated, politicians, insurance and health care professionals, and policy analysts ignore this and suggest less efficient approaches to providing health insurance for the nation's population. I have been writing and presenting on these and other very bad ideas for many years. I call my work "Professional Caregiver Insurance Risk." Here are some papers I have written about it. References Cox, T. (2010). Legal and Ethical Implications of Health Care Provider Insurance Risk Assumption. JONA'S Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation, 12(4): 106-116. Cox, T. (2006). Professional caregiver insurance risk: A brief primer for nurse executives and decision-makers. Nurse Leader, 4(2): 48-51. Cox, T. (2001). Risk theory, reinsurance, and capitation. Issues in Interdisciplinary Care, 3(3): 213-218. |
Image of cost of home health care
cost of home health care Image 1
cost of home health care Image 2
cost of home health care Image 3
cost of home health care Image 4
cost of home health care Image 5
Related blog with cost of home health care
- raisingwomensvoices08.wordpress.com/... to her home for three days of care, which charged...” of health care, information ... costs with the hospital. In...
- elderlawcenter.wordpress.com/..., however. The cost of adult day care services remained the...last year at $70 per day and the average cost of home health aides remained at $21...
- www.eurekalert.org/...in long-term care homes cost-effective, study...the University of Toronto have...could improve health for long-term...for the use of any information...EurekAlert! system. HOME DISCLAIMER PRIVACY...
- homehealthcaresouthwestct.wordpress.com/...We offer extensive in-home health care services for ... with it. Our in-home care services... all of whom pass a national...
- www.eurekalert.org/...in long-term care homes cost-effective, study...For all long-term care residents...cost-effective 82% of the time ... skin health to prevent pressure...
- notsobigsociety.wordpress.com/... to health care services... and care costs as residential care...independence and quality of life which ...social care , cost of home care , home care...
- www.eurekalert.org/...Hospital at Home program ... health care costs Research ... quality of care, ...Hospital at Home care model until... of the above...
- mpetrelis.blogspot.com/...to stay in their homes and communities...understand the importance of Alaska's National.... HEALTH CARE - Obviously, high medical costs are ...
- zengersmag.blogspot.com/...mandate that new construction homes in certain areas...with certain kinds of solar energy, that would...a market and bring the cost down. Health care is also an...
- ibloga.blogspot.com/...Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison economics...hit in the past decade as health care costs increase, mid-wage ...income groups on home property values...
Cost Of Home Health Care - Blog Homepage Results
...and/or physical & mental health conditions...to drown out this tide of abuse against us. Disability...legal protection, people in care homes costing too much to be let...
...everyone wants good health. Since the value ...the easy convenience and cost is not expensive. Is the name of the tourist places...Pattaya. It also is home to the palace. Every time...
...independently from home. You can join the growing health care industry as a small...With the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS...be some start-up costs involved...
Related Video with cost of home health care
cost of home health care Video 1
cost of home health care Video 2
cost of home health care Video 3
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기