As the New York Times reports, state governments are barring hospitals from building expensive new treatment facilities, citing the need for cost containment. The proposed facilities would provide a new form of radiation treatment for cancer that state officials say is not proven to justify its cost, which is far higher than the X-rays it is meant to replace.
So, in the name of cost containment, both for the government (which, if the new treatment were included as a Medicare and/or Medicaid offering, would have to foot the bill for some treatments) and for employers and unions who don't want to pay the higher insurance premiums that would result from having a new treatment available, no one is to be allowed to have the treatment at all -- because the facilities to provide it are not to exist.
This is a clear warning as to how socialized medicine works, and what we are all in for should universal health care be mandated.
In a free market, hospitals would be able to build such facilities if they wanted to -- and treatment would be available to those who can afford it. Investors in hospitals would have to figure out whether new facilities would be able to generate enough income to justify their construction -- this, not bureaucrats, would decide whether new treatments are made available. Hospital administrators who chose wisely and offered new treatments that many people want and are willing to pay for, would be rewarded with profits; those who chose poorly and built expensive facilities that could not recoup their costs, would fail.
Instead, treatment is to be denied to everyone, regardless of ability to pay, because government bureaucrats don't want to pay for those individuals who fall under their purview. Is it really better for everyone to have no treatment than for some people to be able to afford an available treatment while others cannot?
The answer to the problem of rising costs of care is not to ban innovation. It's to get the government out of healthcare.
3 comments:
Good post. This is indeed an ominous development.
I found one small bit in the linked article particularly troubling, namely the reference to "the state’s Certificate of Need Commission," which is the relevant regulatory body in the Michigan government.
Does that sound like a department in the government of Mr. Thompson, or the management of the 21st Century Motor Company, or what?
Yes, unfortunately this is the result of the "Certificate Of Need" (CON) system in states like Michigan. Leonard Peikoff wrote about that in "Medicine: Death of A Profession" several years ago.
Fortunately, Colorado is not a CON state, which is why entrepreneurs can open up MRI centers and compete in the semi-free market.
In contrast, Missouri is a CON state (or at least was back when I was there). The Washington University radiology department chief used to have to use political pull (i.e., wining and dining the relevant CON officers) to get approval to purchase more CT and MRI machines for the hospital. He could usually make a good case because we were a top 10 medical center for the entire country, but he also had to make his case based on the University's commitment to community service, indigent care we provided for the needy of the St. Louis metro area, etc.
But that also meant that the private radiology practices in the area *couldn't* expand as the market warranted because the University frequently got the much-coveted CON's for the area.
So the Michigan story is appalling. But unfortunately, it's nothing new.
Paul Hsieh, MD
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine: www.WeStandFIRM.org
If you want to see how bad it can get, just look to the Province of Ontario in Canada, where altruism has been made most obvious.
Exhibit #1: Canadian Press, November 7, 2005; headline: "Smitherman apologizes for calling optometrists terrorists". Story excerpts: "Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman has apologized for calling some members of the Ontario Association of Optometrists "terrorists" after a party fundraiser last week. Association president Shirley Ha wrote a letter to members quoting Smitherman as saying optometrists are "a bunch of terrorists, and I don't negotiate with terrorists."...Spencer said the comments were made in response to some optometrists who suggested they might withdraw some services because of concerns about fees.
Exhibit #2: Canadian Press, June 7, 2004; headline: "Ont. government passes hospital accountability bill ". Story excerpt: "The bill also implements fines for those who jump the queue or help people get to the front of the line for reasons other than need. "It's designed to try to make sure that access to our essential health services are done on the basis of need not if you have a lot of money or know a few people," [Health Minister] Smitherman said.
Post a Comment