April 6, 2008

It's not ideology it's competence

Remember 20 years ago when a Massachusetts governor running for President told the sitting vice president in a debate that what Americans were looking for was competence not ideology. So the sitting VP, took ever effort to show that Massachusetts governor's competence was questionable and in November George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis to become the 41st President of the United States.

This year a former governor of Massachusetts ran for President and one of his selling points was his managerial competence. And one of his main accomplishments was the universal healthcare system he implemented in the Bay State.

Well now the NY Times reports, In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care via memeorandum:

Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.

Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.

In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.

Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.

And then there's this:

Studies show that the number of medical school graduates in the United States entering family medicine training programs, or residencies, has dropped by 50 percent since 1997. A decadelong decline gave way this year to a slight increase in numbers, perhaps because demand is driving up salaries.

Fears of malpractice and insurance hassles no doubt play a role in the decline of "family practice" physicians. So now this universal plan that will overburden practices threatens another disincentive.

Don Surber opines:

Good intentions also lead to shortages in everything. What the New York Times calls “unintended consequences,” I call predictable.

While there are certainly reasons to like the thought of Mitt Romney as VP, maybe it's a bit early to be speculating about it.

UPDATE: Mahablog writes:

Another rightie, Soccer Dad, concludes that the primary care physician shortage proves Mitt Romney (credited with the Massachusetts health care program) is incompetent. Romney may be incompetent, but the fact is whenever and however the U.S. finds a way to provide decent health care services to those currently uninsured, whether by public or private means, what’s happening in Massachusetts is going to be a nationwide phenomenon.

I didn't mean to say that universal care plan in Massachusetts proves that Romney is incompetent. I was careless in my analogy. What I meant to say is that the problems attributed to the Massachusetts healthcare system represent a negative in Gov. Romney's otherwise impressive resume. Comparing him to Dukakis was unfair. But I'm glad that Mahablog accepts the premise that Dukakis was incompetent.

I'm also pleased to be called a "wingnut" and compared to Don Surber. Considering the source, both are (unintended) compliments. Please read The Glittering Eye too.

, .

Posted by SoccerDad at April 6, 2008 6:38 AM | TrackBack
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Comments

This is hard to blame on Mitt. Rather, the blame belongs at the federal level. Now that there's universal coverage in MA, naturally the previously uninsured are looking for some services.

In a truly market-driven health-care system, prices would adjust to encourage supply to grow to meet the underlying demand.

In a truly responsible single-payer system, (we hope) the command and control structure would identify the lack of supply and find some incentives including price to increase it.

But in this mish-mash, the insurance companies themselves set rates for reimbursement, usually based on the federal government's fixed prices for Medicare reimbursements. (The NYT article closed with a pithy quote from a GP who said "every time I see a Medicare patient, it's like handing them a $20 bill".) But the insurance companies don't suffer any penalties for the poor quality of care that their practices engender, and the Medicare system is federal.

It would be interesting to see if the state of Massachussets could use its regulatory powers over the insurance industry to force a rational readjustment of their reimbursement rates, but our federal government is too big and intrusive to let that happen.

You may blame this on big (state) government forcing universal coverage, but I think the true flaw is with bigger (federal) government fixing prices.

Posted by: Lyle at April 6, 2008 10:22 AM