Freedom Plains Lager.  Coming soon.

Healthcare in the United States and how to fix it.

 I believe in health coverage for all Americans.  Here's what I would do for starters.

First:  get rid of all "for profit" insurance companies and turn them into "mutual" companies or utilities, where all profits would be returned to the policy holders.

If you think about it, insurance companies are more like a utility company.  So, why should our country allow any of these companies to turn a profit?

They provide a service to policy holders.  None of them actually make anything, they don't engage in research & development (R&D), and not one of them innovates.


"For profit" insurance companies drive up the cost of health care to employers & policy holders while at the same time drive down reimbursements to hospitals & physicians.

And why do these companies do such a thing?  In the name of profitability, of course!  I say it's time to do away with this business model.  "For profit" health care should cease to exist in the United States.

2.  Limit Medicare's influence on physician and hospital reimbursement rates.  At any given time, Medicare can slash payment for a procedure by any percentage it pleases.  In fact, for 2010, one specific cardiac diagnostic test has been slashed by 40% in reimbursement to both the physician & hospital.  40%!  This means a cardiologist will have to work harder to earn the same pay, most likely resulting in less time per patient visit.  This is neither good for the patient's well being nor the cardiologist's stability in the work place.

Cuts like the one mentioned above are frequent and span all levels of healthcare - oncology, pediatrics, surgery, urology, etc.  Medicare should be governed much more closely and not be allowed to slash reimbursement rates at will.

3.  Strictly enforce patent end dates for all pharmeceutical & medical device companies.  A patent is protected for a finite number of years and then is "fair game" to be reproduced by anyone doing business in the United States.

As it stands now, when a multi-billion dollar drug is about to to "generic," the losing pharmeceutical company typically files an injunction to prevent generic drug companies from producing that specific drug.  In the end, the generic companies win.  However, the losing "Pharma" company got what it wanted - a delayed launch by a generic competitor that resulted in several-hundred thousand dollars in additional profit.  It is a calculated expense that all "Big Pharma" companies - Pfizer, Merck, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson. Astra Zeneca. Eli Lilly, etc. - engage in.

Medical device companies are no better than "pharma" companies, however, they don't get the  media attention because their economic impact on the health care system is nowhere near that of "pharma."

4.  Force physicians to unite and defend their professions.  As of mid 2009, this group of highly educated professionals continues to act as individuals.

Without some type of united voice, physicians in the United States are destined for socialism.  The current organizations who claim to represent these doctors are ineffective - the most notable of them being the "American Medical Association" (AMA).

If the AMA doesn't gain political prominenence in Washington, D.C. soon, then they might as well dispand.  Remember the old phrase "taxation without representation?"  Well, at this point in time that phrase appears to apply to the AMA and how it represents physicians in Washington.

5.  Hospitals need to unite.  See comments in "4" above.  Granted, some hospitals have united and done a good job at controlling costs, however, very few (if any) are able to look at every single facet of their facility (devices, drugs, linen, medical waste, morgue service, etc.) and say they're "in charge" of cost.

6.  Physicians need to stop performing unnecessary procedures.  Not all physicians engage in this practice, but several do.  For example, a 93 year old woman who suffers a major heart attack (Acute Myocardial Infarction), is now completely demented with no chance of getting better, should not be receiving a defibrillator - especially when the woman's family doesn't want it.  Yet, some physicians will press family members to allow them to perform such a procedure.

In my opinion, this would be an unnecessary procedure and drives up the cost of healthcare, this time in the name of physician reimbursement.

Scenarios like the one mentioned above play out across America all the time.  In that particular case, the 93 year old woman happened to be my grandmother.  One cardiologist told my mother that if it were his mother he'd want her to get the defibrillator.  I wish I was present when he said that to her, as I would have asked him why.  My grandmother was going to have dementia the rest of her life, never leave a nursing home, and basically subsist until she passed away from some other cause.  What a nice way to say " I care for you, Mom!."