Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows
baraka
Posts: 1,268
Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors — 59 percent — now supports national health insurance.
Such plans typically involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare currently does for seniors. The plans typically eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies in the health care financing system, but still allow patients to go the doctors of their choice.
A study published in today’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.
The findings reflect a leap of 10 percentage points in physician support for national health insurance (NHI) since 2002, when a similar survey was conducted. At that time, 49 percent of all physician respondents said they supported NHI and 40 percent opposed it.
Support among doctors for NHI has increased across almost all medical specialties, said Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University’s School of Medicine and co-author of the study.
“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” he said.
Support for NHI is particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent) and family physicians (60 percent). Fifty-five percent of general surgeons support NHI, roughly doubling their level of support since 2002.
Doctors have often expressed concern about lack of patient access to care due to rising costs and patients’ insufficient levels of insurance. An estimated 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance coverage and another 50 million are believed to be underinsured. At the same time, health care costs in the United States are rising at the rate of about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation.
The health care issue continues to rank high among voter concerns in the 2008 elections, placing third in a recent poll after the economy and Iraq.
The current study by the Indiana University researchers is the largest survey ever conducted among doctors on the issue of health care financing reform. It is based on a random sampling of names obtained from the American Medical Association’s master list of physicians throughout the country.
In addition to measuring attitudes toward NHI, the survey also asked doctors about their views about “more incremental reform,” often interpreted as state- or federal-based programs requiring or “mandating” that consumers buy health insurance from private insurance companies, legislative measures providing tax incentives to businesses to provide coverage for their employees, or similar steps.
Fewer physicians (55%) were in support of “incremental” reform. Moreover, virtually all those opposed to national health insurance also opposed incremental reform to improve access to care. In fact, only 14% of physicians overall oppose national health insurance but support more incremental reforms. Ironically, many medical organizations and most politicians have endorsed only incremental changes.
Dr. Aaron E. Carroll, director of Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research and lead author of the study, commented: “Many claim to speak for physicians and reflect their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support the government creating national health insurance.”
Other signs indicate that attitudes among doctors are changing. The nation’s largest medical specialty group, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians, endorsed a single-payer national health insurance program for the first time in December.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php
Such plans typically involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare currently does for seniors. The plans typically eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies in the health care financing system, but still allow patients to go the doctors of their choice.
A study published in today’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.
The findings reflect a leap of 10 percentage points in physician support for national health insurance (NHI) since 2002, when a similar survey was conducted. At that time, 49 percent of all physician respondents said they supported NHI and 40 percent opposed it.
Support among doctors for NHI has increased across almost all medical specialties, said Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University’s School of Medicine and co-author of the study.
“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” he said.
Support for NHI is particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent) and family physicians (60 percent). Fifty-five percent of general surgeons support NHI, roughly doubling their level of support since 2002.
Doctors have often expressed concern about lack of patient access to care due to rising costs and patients’ insufficient levels of insurance. An estimated 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance coverage and another 50 million are believed to be underinsured. At the same time, health care costs in the United States are rising at the rate of about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation.
The health care issue continues to rank high among voter concerns in the 2008 elections, placing third in a recent poll after the economy and Iraq.
The current study by the Indiana University researchers is the largest survey ever conducted among doctors on the issue of health care financing reform. It is based on a random sampling of names obtained from the American Medical Association’s master list of physicians throughout the country.
In addition to measuring attitudes toward NHI, the survey also asked doctors about their views about “more incremental reform,” often interpreted as state- or federal-based programs requiring or “mandating” that consumers buy health insurance from private insurance companies, legislative measures providing tax incentives to businesses to provide coverage for their employees, or similar steps.
Fewer physicians (55%) were in support of “incremental” reform. Moreover, virtually all those opposed to national health insurance also opposed incremental reform to improve access to care. In fact, only 14% of physicians overall oppose national health insurance but support more incremental reforms. Ironically, many medical organizations and most politicians have endorsed only incremental changes.
Dr. Aaron E. Carroll, director of Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research and lead author of the study, commented: “Many claim to speak for physicians and reflect their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support the government creating national health insurance.”
Other signs indicate that attitudes among doctors are changing. The nation’s largest medical specialty group, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians, endorsed a single-payer national health insurance program for the first time in December.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Interesting...........why don't you lay out the logistics of your idea and explain how it can be achieved in 24 hours.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A single-payer health care system would all but eliminate this friction by providing a single standard system for coding medical procedures. If the coding specialists in medical billing offices had only one set of standards to adhere to, their jobs would be greatly simplified, and doctors would be paid in a timely fashion instead of being stalled by the insurance companies.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It seems straightforward. Create a 501(c)3 or a new branch of the Department of Health under the auspices of being a single payer to health care providers. Allow anyone with a social security number to register as either a) a provider or b) a consumer. Allow b's to visit a's to get health care services. Take 10% (or whatever) of b's pre-tax income into the 501(c)3 or the new bureaucracy and pay a's out of those funds.
Why isn't this being done right now?
How would a "single-payer health care system" eliminate the first problem you mentioned:
"Insurance companies have a strangle-hold on private medical practices. Each insurance company has its own fee schedules, and if a doctor wants to be able to accept patients covered by an insurance plan, they have to agree to accept whatever payment the insurance company allows for each procedure".
Do you believe that a single-payer system would allow doctors to charge whatever they want to charge?
Furthermore, if you wanted to get rid of coding problems, wouldn't the answer be to put payment back in the hands of the consumers themselves instead of just another third party? I find it somewhat laughable that you're assuming that the creation of a new bureaucracy will have a positive net effect on paperwork.
I'm assuming you are approaching this from a 2-tier perspective, this system would be a choice that one chooses to pay into, while there are other options available outside of this?
I think our current healthcare situation is a mess, but here is an objective (just for you) view of mine. It is just my opinion and thoughts on the matter that might (or not) explain your 'why haven't they done this'.
In the US, you can run the gamut from excellent health insurance with low co-pays (or no co-pays for preventative care) and the flexibility to go to any provider you like, to HMOs where you're locked into a provider network and can have long waits to see providers and might have costly co-pays, to medicare where you're stuck with whatever one physician is willing to take you on a plan that seems to go out of it's way to deny claims based on incomprehensible coding systems that turns into more charity on the part of the physician than an actual healthcare plan. Of those, medicare is the one that's currently government run, so not a lot of people with decent health insurance think switching to something like medicare is a good plan, including the physicians. (this is not a good model for NHC in my opinion)
Basically, until someone proposing national health care spells out some details of how it will function, it's really hard to know whether it's going to be on the good end of the spectrum where patients will get the care they need and doctors will get paid for providing that care with minimal hassle, or if it'll be on the bad end of the spectrum where patients will get stuck with physicians they don't like or won't get the care they need while physicians fill out mounds of government paperwork just to be told the claims are denied because they forgot to check box 26b-a-2 on page 37 of the form.
You have to keep in mind that we're a nation of people who don't trust government, somewhat by design (liberals and conservatives alike), so while there are good models of nationalized healthcare in the world, we tend not to trust our politicians very much to choose one of those or implement it correctly, especially when they have probably never experienced the hassles of bad insurance plans or not having the money to pay for something out of pocket if they wanted/needed it.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
"Stuff White People Like"
#94 Free Healthcare
April 4, 2008 by clander
In spite of having access to the best health insurance and fanciest hospitals, white people are passionate about the idea of socialized medicine. So much so that they have memorized statistics and examples of how for-profit medicine has destroyed the United States.
But before you can exploit this information for personal gain, it’s important that you understand why white people are so in love with free health care.
The first and most obvious reason is “they have it Europe.” White people love all things European, this especially true of things that are unavailable in the United States (Rare Beers, Absinthe, legal marijuana, prostitution, soccer). The fact that it’s available in Canada isn’t really that impressive, but it does contribute to their willingness to threaten to move there.
These desires were only heightened in 2007 when Michael Moore released “Sicko,” a documentary that contrasts the health care industry in the United States with that of Canada, France and Cuba. As a general rule of thumb, white people are always extra passionate about issues that have been the subject of a Moore documentary. As a test, ask them about 9/11, Gun Control, or Health Care and then say “where did you get that information?” You will not be surprised at the results.
But the secret reason why all white people love socialized medicine is that they all love the idea of receiving health care without having a full-time job. This would allow them to work as a freelance designer/consultant/copywriter/photographer/blogger, open their own bookstore, stay at home with their kids, or be a part of an Internet start-up without having to worry about a benefits package. Though many of them would never follow this path, they appreciate having the option.
If you need to impress a white person, merely mention how you got hurt on a recent trip Canada/England/Sweden and though you were a foreigner you received excellent and free health care. They will be very impressed and likely tell you about how powerful drug and health care lobbies are destroying everything.
Though their passion for national health care runs deep, it is important to remember that white people are most in favor of it when they are healthy. They love the idea of everyone have equal access to the resources that will keep them alive, that is until they have to wait in line for an MRI.
This is very similar to the way that white people express their support for public schools when they don’t have children.
Whatever. I'm not approaching this from any kind of "tiered" perspective. I'm simply saying that we seem to have two very sizeable groups on our hands -- providers and consumers -- who both want a single-payer approach to providing or receiving these services. There's nothing standing in the way of implementing that approach, at least with the 501(c)3 path. Why don't they just form a non-profit tomorrow that begins accepting a percentage of the consumer's paycheck, distributing those funds to providers, and allowing those consumers to seek medical services from those providers?
I don't know if it would, see my new post. I was just looking at it from a doctor's perspective
Honestly, I don't know.
See my new post. I don't know. If you want to laugh, laugh at me for the right reasons, not assumed reasons. Perhaps I should change the 'would' to 'could' in my last post. It could be better, it could be worse, it depends on how it is implemented. Which model are they going to follow? Medicare/Medicaid, our VA system, etc.
Personally, I found the article interesting, because of my close relationship with physicians and knowing their opinions. It is interesting to me that British doctors were the main campaigners against the NHS in the 40s, then in Canada they went on strike in the 50s to prevent a NHS there, now it seems American doctors are actually embracing the idea.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Because most of the consumers who want to take advantage of such a plan want others to pay for it?
I was wondering when you'd stop in with this!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Who cares what doctors think about this?
The real problem is that it is perilous to the economic future of our country (a future that already looks ovewhelmingly bleak, i may add).
If I opened it now would you not understand?
For the record, I don't think your reasons are far off here. I think many doctors do want a UHC plan in part because it could simplify their jobs and do some things to eliminate the influence of the insurance companies. That said, it makes me sad that 55% of doctors might believe they have a right to tell the other 45% how do run their businesses.
I just don't get why these doctors and these consumers don't just live out their values, rather than drag everyone else down with them.
That might certainly be part of it, for some people. But I know plenty of people who want single-payer healthcare that are more than willing to pay their share (and then some). I just don't understand why, if you have both a willing market and a willing provider group, why these people feel that their solution should be forced on everyone? Why not just align these two groups and let them both act out their values?
Yes I'm a doctor.
A doctor of love.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
'They' as in the consumer and physician with no gov't involvement at all? If that is the case I didn't understand your premise at first. The idea is interesting, but I'm not sure I agree with it being implemented 'overnight'. As for the idea, I'll have to give it some thought and research to give you an answer with any substance.
For the record, I've never claimed to know the best way to resolve the health care issue, only that there is indeed a problem with it, so I'm open to any idea that will move it in the right direction.
Edit: I meant to say NO gov't involement........
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Showing your love in my thread, I see...............;)
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Always some love for baraka.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Hi Jeff,
I'm not saying there are not those looking for a free ride, but I honestly think most just would like the opportunity to obtain health insurance. Most are denied due to pre-existing conditions and others simply can't afford it.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
what she said.
seriously, upon skimming the article in the first post, exactly what i was thinking. given how HMOs CONTROL prices as it is, i can see why doctors would now be coming around to a universal health care system. would be FAR better for ALL involved, who truly CARE about healthcare...doctors, all medical professionals...and most importantly, patients.
it truly saddens me to think of the day when i retire, when i shall need health insurance the MOST...and it will THEN become a 100% out-of-pocket expense. well, for my husband he will pay 70% of his costs, maybe i'll rejoin his plan right before then
i am soooooo for universal coverage, for all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't think there is a "health care issue". There are thousands of "health care issues", many with contradictory solutions. But I'm not even talking about issues here other than the fact we have two groups of people -- one consuming, the other providing -- that both want to do business in the same way. And I'm asking why they just don't get to it?
Hi drifting,
Well, I think it is an opinion that an economist should be able to appreciate. When you (as a private-practice physician) have to over-staff your medical practice to keep up with all the tricks and traps used by the medical insurance companies, and you have to pay more to borrow money from the bank because the insurance companies drive up the age of your receivables with their denials and delays, you've got trouble. Insurance companies drive up the cost of medical care and reduce the quality of medical care. Nobody knows this better than doctors and their staff. Despite the natural resistance to making such a sweeping change, it appears that a lot of doctors think that the financial performance of their practices will improve if a single-payer system is put in place.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I love how all our major problems seem to come to an overnight sensation (just a generalization, not placing this all on your statement)...on basic premise, we need to break the system to fix it, which will mean some, most likely doctors, would have to make a sacrifice to achieve it. Break the insurance system/HMO/etc would be a big first step. Hospitals in big cities are somewhat fragile, so that could be a problem, so I think it's more likely that the government would have to be involved to really make this happen, but pressured by us, the people, of course.
how ever it happens, it's a fight we have to win.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I think you're misreading my statement as a belief in single-payer healthcare. I think single-payer healthcare is incredibly stupid, to be frank. That said, I do think the insurance/hmo system should be moved away from. The fact of the matter is that single-payer healthcare is just a giant hmo, so if hmo's are bad, how can single-payer be good?
If you want to get away from insurance companies, simply look at how they were made to be ubiquitous: tax incentives created by the government during an era of wage freezes. If you would start taxing corporate insurance plans as the income that it is, you could quickly dismantle the insurance stronghold on medicine.
Regardless, my original point was that if both a bunch of providers and a bunch of consumers want single-payer, what the fuck are they waiting for??? All they need to do is create a non-profit that collects money from the consumers and gives it to the providers.
Really, then why did you say this to me earlier in the thread?
By, health care issues, I meant our current system. Why would you want to move away from a system you see no 'issues' with?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not for or against single payer, but am for breaking the current system, de-corporatizing it, but my point and yours above are easier said than done.
everything is so deeply entwined, it'll be a long road.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I didn't say that I don't see any issues with the system. I said I see thousands of issues with the system, and there are likely thousands more. What I reject is the logic saying that there is an (as in singular) issue at hand, which implies some kind of universal panacea.