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 JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:07PM
As someone else posted, it works in Cuba. In Cuba, you get good Chevy healthcare provided by the state - if you want more, you pay for it out of pocket in Miami.
I rode a commuter train from Zurich to Schafhausen once upon a time - that train had no problem with "two tier service" - if you wanted a quiet, uncrowded car with big chairs, you could pay for that, or you could ride something like a metro for much less money - makes sense, it costs much more money to provide the big cars.
Of course, everybody is willing to sacrifice everything in matters of life and death. I think, perhaps, the answer to "two tier" healthcare is that insurance pays for the lower tier, and if you want "supplemental care" you save that money yourself - as you say: make your choices and live with them. The U.S. seems to be trying to train people to this with "high deductible" insurances that include individual savings accounts - but it still falls short, the "high deductible" insurance is still paying for all the Ferrari options up to some crazy high lifetime caps, and that's where the insane costs come in.
It doesn't help that in the US all the bills are written to ~10x actual prices and "negotiated down" by a multiplier of ~0.08 to ~0.12 depending on your insurance, and thus not all providers take all insurances - and if you are private pay, your "negotiating power" is either x0.9 if you pay or x0.0 if you choose the (all too viable) bankruptcy option instead. So, we're getting a lot of Chevy healthcare with Ferrari price tags on it, and without insurance you are paying for a Ferrari, even though it's the same Chevy that the insured get.
🌻🌻 [google.com]