[PEN-L:9602] Re: Shades of Summers

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So if reducing coverage increases efficiency, why not just not cover
anything. Wouldn't that be infinitely efficient or at least far preferable
to building a universal health care system. By the way most health
economists outside the US would claim that the latter system is far more
efficient than the US health care system with HMO's etc.
     Cheers, Ken Hanly

Eugene Coyle wrote:

> Summers redux?  Here's a quote from Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton, a leading
> health-care economist:
>
> A Wall St. Journal article on Tuesday, July 20th reports that many
> managed care patients have nowhere to go for after-hours care except
> emergency rooms.  That has the drawbacks of long waits, hours in some
> cases, and much higher patient payments.  The HMOs sometimes refuse to
> pay at all, so the patients are billed hundreds of dollars for what
> would have been routine coverage during business hours.
>
>     The Journal reports:
>
>     Uwe Reinhardt, a health-care economist at Princeton University,
> defends HMOs practice of sending people to the E. R. after-hours,
> arguing it is more efficient than building a new system.
>
> The quote:    "Efficiency very often doesn't please consumers,"  he
> says.  He also says that by challenging coverage in some situations,
> HMOs make people think twice about going to the E. R.  "By threatening
> not to pay for it, you create what I call a 'psychological co-payment.
> The jawboning and bullying reduces the use."