Sorry Ken - just read your addendum.
It constantly annoys me the greed of some specialists and device
companies. Until you eliminate orthopaedic surgeons using "their"
version of an artificial hip/knee etc and hence double dipping you will
not solve the rising private helath costs.
Similarly cardiologists always implanting the "rolls-royce" pacemaker -
choice driven by forces other than clinical need - or performing
un-necessarily procedures (brings the arguement back to medical cntre
specialists on occasions) without needing to justify to the fund or the
patient the need for the procedure.
In private, business dicatates the clinical need in some circumstances.
Some private hospitals actively and openly encourage overservicing to
boost their revenue and some specialists comply for the same reasons.
Sorry all, this is one of my major soapboxes ... killing the golden
goose is not a fable a (small?) number of specialists have read
Duncan
Ken Harvey wrote:
Duncan Guy wrote:
Our model is that you come to one place and get sorted....
I liked the concept of being "sorted" efficiently in a private health
care context.
Which is why many people (including myself) take out private health
insurance!
However, there is some evidence that not all private health care is as
efficient as Duncan describes and there are also concerns about its
cost-effectiveness and equity.
I know these topics are a little off the track of gpcg_talk (although an
EHR is common) but I'd be interested if people have any comments on a
recent article I posted to "NewMatilda". See:
http://www.newmatilda.com.au/home/default.asp
Part 1 is appended below. Apologies for the length but academics tend to
be verbose!
Next Wednesday, Part 2 will be published (commenting in more detail on
the government's proposed sale of Medibank Private).
Cheers
Ken
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
