A Complete Waste of Space

More than 2,200 hospitals face penalties under ObamaCare rules

A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.

Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates -- which refers to patients who return within a month -- by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.

Doctors are concerned the penalty is unfair, since sometimes they have to accept patients more than once in a brief period of time but could be penalized for doing so -- even for accepting seniors who are sick.

"Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates," said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. "So, which would we rather have -- a hospital readmission or a death?"


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 ... z24NxEuW6p

Old Pudfark sez: " Gimme Obamacare or gimme death?"

do you wish to lower healthcare costs or not? If so, you have to pressure healthcare providers into best practices. It's that simple.

Well, when it comes to my health care?
Cost, is not an object of contention, to me.
Availability is.

Some folks might find it a dab difficult?
To wait until next month, to get their appendicits removed.
Just to save the "collective group" a buck or two.

I had hoped you might see this article as an overt attempt to
"ration" health care...I see it that way.

callmeslick wrote:do you wish to lower healthcare costs or not? If so, you have to pressure healthcare providers into best practices. It's that simple.

Doesn't Obama Care incorporate the Brittish system of rationing care? I thought that was a large part of the implied cost-savings. To remove 'waste' in the system by not allowing individuals to choose 'unecessary' medical service, as determined by the HHS office. The issue of Mammograms for women under 40 was, IMO, a good test example of this.

Barfly wrote:

callmeslick wrote:do you wish to lower healthcare costs or not? If so, you have to pressure healthcare providers into best practices. It's that simple.

Doesn't Obama Care incorporate the Brittish system of rationing care?

no,not at all. Simply becaue there is no central healthcare agency, you are talking apples and oranges.

I thought that was a large part of the implied cost-savings.

what they ARE doing is getting an outcomes database and determining best outcomes. You see, best outcome means less trips back to Doctors or Hospitals to fix the same problem, hence significant cost savings.

The issue of Mammograms for women under 40 was, IMO, a good test example of this.

in a way, you are correct. If it is well-demonstrated that early mammograms for ALL women do not increase the diagnosis rate, and in fact slightly increase the long-term risk of breast cancer,thus, why waste healthcare dollars on the practice. What a lot of data is starting to show is that early mammograms should be limited to the high risk pool(women with familial history of cancer,etc), and not compensate through standard insurance coverage for the rest. Now, this doesn't mean a woman cannot get a mammogram, just that she would have to either purchase supplemental coverage or pay out of pocket for an under-40 mammogram. Simply sensible medicine. Hell, even Pud could get a mammogram if he wanted to pay for one.

[quote="callmeslickin a way, you are correct. If it is well-demonstrated that early mammograms for ALL women do not increase the diagnosis rate, and in fact slightly increase the long-term risk of breast cancer,thus, why waste healthcare dollars on the practice. What a lot of data is starting to show is that early mammograms should be limited to the high risk pool(women with familial history of cancer,etc), and not compensate through standard insurance coverage for the rest. Now, this doesn't mean a woman cannot get a mammogram, just that she would have to either purchase supplemental coverage or pay out of pocket for an under-40 mammogram. Simply sensible medicine. Hell, even Pud could get a mammogram if he wanted to pay for one.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the statistics or the possible solutions, but adding an unecessary 'dumb' layer of beauracracy will only dilute the effort to match individual needs to proper healthcare. Also, the entire premise of "The Affordable Healthcare Act" is centralized authority and distribution of healthcare. If you believe that will result in better healthcare overall, I don't agree. Foremost, at this time, there is only evidence against the value of central control vice a more privitized system.

callmeslick wrote:do you wish to lower healthcare costs or not? If so, you have to pressure healthcare providers into best practices. It's that simple.

Barfly wrote:I don't disagree with the statistics or the possible solutions, but adding an unecessary 'dumb' layer of beauracracy will only dilute the effort to match individual needs to proper healthcare. Also, the entire premise of "The Affordable Healthcare Act" is centralized authority and distribution of healthcare. If you believe that will result in better healthcare overall, I don't agree. Foremost, at this time, there is only evidence against the value of central control vice a more privitized system.

Good points...

Nic

I must agree with Barfly.
Another layer of complexity.

Nothing good will come from this.
It is rationing and/or redistribution.

It ain't necessary.
Never has been necessary, until the Government stepped in.

callmeslick wrote:no,not at all. Simply becaue there is no central healthcare agency, you are talking apples and oranges.

I thought that was a large part of the implied cost-savings.

There soon will be