Home
> Medical/Health Commentary > What one hand giveth, the same hand taketh away
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
Leave a comment
Trackback
Join 16 other subscribers
Contact the author
notwithstandingblog at gmail [dot] com
Archives
Tags
aamc aco American Medical Association american medical student American Medical Student Association amsa Association of American Medical Colleges blog carnivals canada cancer Conflict of interest economics Electronic medical record ethics finance genetics Health policy history immigration insurance investment liberties links malpractice markets mcat medical business medical education medicare mental health meta nutrition overmedicalization Patch Adams pcmh pharmaceuticals physician payment Physicians for a National Health Program physician supply politics primary care Quackery radiology regulation research risk Stark Law technology unions usmleCategories
Medical Blogs
- A Cartoon Guide to Becoming a Doctor
- A Happy Hospitalist
- Bittersweet Medicine
- Buckeye Surgeon
- DB's Medical Rants
- Disease Management Care Blog
- Dr. Grumpy
- Dr. Wes
- Edwin Leap
- ER Stories
- Great Z's
- GruntDoc
- Health Affairs Blog
- Health Business Blog
- KevinMD
- MD Whistleblower
- Movin' Meat
- Musings of a Distractible Mind
- NYT Prescriptions
- Science-Based Medicine
- The Covert Rationing Blog
- WSJ Health Blog
Policy/Economics/Law Blogs
- Carpe Diem
- Coyote Blog
- Democracy in America
- Economics of Contempt
- Free Exchange
- Greg Mankiw's Blog
- Healthcare Economist
- InsureBlog
- Jeffrey Miron
- John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
- Managed Care Matters
- Megan McArdle
- New York Personal Injury Law Blog
- NYT Economix
- Overlawyered
- Popehat
- Reason's Hit & Run
- Robert Reich
- Simple Justice
- The Apothecary
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
What one hand giveth, the same hand taketh away
Here are two health policy developments from the past week… near-poetic juxtaposition:
Via John Goodman, a link to Cato’s Michael Cannon writing at Kaiser Health News to take on the White House’s contention that the PPACA’s new insurance regulations collectively represent “consumer protections” that Republicans should be wary of tampering with. Cannon argues that this is a mis-branding, and that while these protections are superficially appealing, they will have (and have had) deleterious effects below the surface.
Via Jason Shafrin, an article by the American Health Lawyers Association outlining the existing legal barriers to the establishment of one of the PPACA’s much-hyped cost-control/delivery-improvement mechanisms: the Accountable Car Organization (ACO). The list of existing regulations that may need to be waived is extensive, including elements of the Stark Law, prohibitions on balance billing Medicare beneficiaries, and various anti-kickback provisions… the sorts of things that one might characterize as consumer protections.
Truly delicious, isn’t it?
This raises the question: if these longstanding consumer protections intended to prevent physician conflict-of-interest and Medicare beneficiary exploitation need to be brushed aside (for some entities, anyhow) to allow the Next Big Thing in health policy to go forward, what does that say about their worth and utility more generally?
Why should we be any less wary of tampering with these “consumer protections” than the ones allegedly found in the PPACA?
If you support “consumer protection” generally, especially those added in the PPACA, I’m curious: if the latter set of regulations do end up getting waived for nascent ACOs, as I expect they will in at least some cases, will those ACOs’ patients be worse off for the lack of protection?
Share this:
Related