The House Democratic leaders agree that a plan to keep the cost of Medicare constant regardless of geographic disparities should be incorporated into the legislature. This will work in accordance with the proposed public option plan so that the clinics and doctors will be payed according to their quality of care. This will hurt the rural parts of America because their prices of health care will increase to balance out the rest of the country.
The downside of this is those doctors and clinics living in areas of high cost of living will take a blow to their income compared to those doctors in rural areas with low cost of living. They will be making the same amount according to their quality of health care.
Should this proposition be considered with the healthcare reform?
I think it's a good proposition, but adjustments should be made in order for it to be fair to everyone. Since the quality of care will affect the cost anyways, there should be a range of cost that each area revolves around.
ReplyDeleteIt just doesn't seem fair to those great doctors living in an urban areas with high cost of living to consider moving to a place of lower cost of living to get their effort's worth.
I agree with Woo that adjustments should be made so that everyone is treated fairly. But another factor that we have to take into account is cost of living. Doctors that live in rural areas have a low cost of living in comparison to doctors who cost of living is high and have a chance of their income declining. Which post the question should doctors live in a rural area and have cost of living be lower but health care higher or should they live in high cost living areas and have health care cost go down?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think this is a very interesting topic and something that definitely needs to be figured out before any bill is passed. As for ms. ashley's question, I think doctors should live in high cost living areas with health care costs going down. This is due to the fact that doctors already have good financial income so health care costs going down shouldn't be that detrimental to their bank accounts. For example, the clip we watched in class from Michael Moore's documentary Sicko (2007)showed how the health care was different yet the doctor still drove a nice car and lived in a beautiful house. Should we be paying doctors because of their quality of care or because of a universal salary where all doctors get paid the same?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic that proposes many questions. After reading the article it seems that the fairest way to decide what doctors are getting paid would be according to the region where they work. It may seem unfair to rural doctors to be getting paid differently, but I feel that the amount rural doctors are getting paid would not be a substantial amount of money to someone living in an urban area. In response to what Woo said about urban doctors considering to move to a rural area where they would be paid more for their efforts, this would cause a problem because than there would be no doctors in urban areas. It is important for the government to figure out a paying system, in which doctors are paid according to the cost of living for the region they work in. Paying doctors different wages is necessary in order for doctors to be willing to work at any hospital.
ReplyDeleteAs Jamie said, this topic poses several questions. It is vital to take patient care into consideration in this matter. Medicare is a form of public healthcare, and there should be no discrimination from one healthcare provider to the next. The article mentioned that Wisconsin and Minnesota were better at treating life-threatening conditions such as cancer and heart disease, while Louisiana and Mississippi were among the worst. Sick people should not have to worry about receiving adequate care.
ReplyDeleteAmong the states receiving the most money are Louisiana and Mississippi, while Wisconsin and Minnesota are among the states receiving the lowest amounts. Neither Louisiana nor Mississippi seem particularly urban to me. There is an obvious discrepancy in the allocation of funds. Doctors are not using the money to provide better care. Technology is not being updated.
Until these states can prove that they can provide better care to sick patients, I think their reimbursements should be reduced. The cost of living in an area should not determine the quality of care.
I agree with Emelia that the cost of living definitely should not determine the quality of care given by doctors. I think doctors should be rewarded for giving a high quality of care to their patients. It gives doctors more incentives to care more (although I hope they already do) and would result in healthier patients. However, I also agree that doctors wages should reflect the cost of living in an area. Although being a doctor is a well paying job, just like any other job, people need incentives to stay at that particular job and do their best work.
ReplyDelete