SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mayo Clinic, one of the country's top hospitals, is in the midst of controversy after its CEO said that the elite medical facility would prioritize the care of patients with private health insurance over those with Medicare and Medicaid.
The prioritization by the Rochester, MN-headquartered medical practice was recently revealed by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. And it has quickly drawn out some sharp critics—as well as sympathizers.
In a statement to the Minnesota Post Bulletin, Dr. Gerard Anderson, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management, compared the prioritization to policies seen in developing countries. "This is what happens in many low-income countries. The health system is organized to give the most affluent preference in receiving health care," he wrote.
Likewise, Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper, expressed surprise and concern by the statements of Mayo's CEO, Dr. John Noseworthy. "Fundamentally, it's our expectation at DHS that Mayo Clinic will serve our enrollees in public programs on an equal standing with any other Minnesotan that walks in their door," she said. "We have a lot of questions for Mayo Clinic about how and if and through what process this directive from Dr. Noseworthy is being implemented across their health system."
Specifically, Noseworthy said in a video to Mayo employees late last year:
We're asking... if the patient has commercial insurance, or they're Medicaid or Medicare patients and they're equal, that we prioritize the commercial insured patients enough so... we can be financially strong at the end of the year.
In statements, Mayo has confirmed Noseworthy's prioritization and added that about 50 percent of its patients are beneficiaries of government programs. "Balancing payer mix is complex and isn't unique to Mayo Clinic. It affects much of the industry, but it's often not talked about. That's why we feel it is important to talk transparently about these complex issues with our staff."
Source: Ars Technica
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:56PM (3 children)
There is a very significant cost to not having public, affordable healthcare. People become risk-averse in their careers because they are afraid of losing their coverage; that suppresses labor mobility and makes it difficult for companies to find & hire the best. Then there is the number one cause of bankruptcies: medical debt. The number one cause of divorce and suicide both is financial difficulty. Think about the costs of treating those situations for a moment and it quickly becomes clear that the cost of throwing people and families away is much higher than what it would take to keep them alive. Even if you are a sociopath and don't care about the lives of others at all, it doesn't make sense to spend all that time and energy educating and training people only to throw them away because a health insurer's CEO would like a 5th home in Bali.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @10:04PM
Even the financial logic can't break through to these people, they are so brainwashed with "taxes are theft" that they can't even see the direct benefits. They are ignorant yet educated, it is terrible and I guess we'll just have to wait for their demographic to die off so we can get back to making our country great again.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday March 21 2017, @10:04PM (1 child)
People become risk-averse in their careers because they are afraid of losing their coverage; that suppresses labor mobility
Yeah, that's part of the problem. In the USA there is an expectation that your employer will pay for your health insurance.
Why? I don't ask my employer to pay for my renter's or homeowner's insurance, or car insurance, or groceries, or ..........
Well indirectly the employer pays for all those other things, of course, by giving me my paycheck and letting me decide how to allocate limited resources to what is most important for my family and my situation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @12:25AM
> Why?
Because its tax-free if your employer gives it to you, but if you buy it on the open market you have to spend after-tax money on it.
That's why.
Kills entrepreneurship, keeps people tied to corporate employment. Just like the C-suite prefers.