> Medical/Health Commentary
> Around the Mediverse: May 7, 2010
Around the Mediverse: May 7, 2010
Fun tidbits, health-related and otherwise, from around the ‘tubes:
- I like the idea of “concierge” medicine, even though there are many vocal opponents of the concept. I reject their argument that it is necessarily something that will limit itself to the richest and best-off in society. I present to you PartnerMD and Qliance. Much more has been written on Qliance here, here, and here.
- The Volokh Conspiracy had a series of eloquent posts on Harvard Law School’s Emailgate, all to be found here.
- Economists like to say that their field is a science. There’s some legitimate disagreement on that point. There really shouldn’t be any such debate about the nature of such things as homeopathy and the anti-vaccine movement. It’s unfortunate that there still is. Megan McArdle discusses homeopathic WMDs in the first link, and Science-Based Medicine answers all of your anti-vaccine loaded questions in the second.
- There’s been a lot of anger directed at Wall Street recently. Someone there decided to direct a little bit back to the rest of us. Enjoy!
- Maggie Mahar at Health Beat Blog argues that our society is suffering from “cancerphobia” and an accompanying “epidemic of diagnosis.” If I weren’t already persuaded of these points, this would have convinced me.
- There’s always a lot of talk about Medicare and Medicaid, but this past week brought us talk from CMS. Health Affairs conducted a roundtable discussion with past heads of CMS. The transcript is fascinating; the conversation touches on political and funding dynamics within the agency and department, the mechanics of anti-fraud activities, the implementation of reform, how physicians were ignored, and how Don Berwick will fit within the agency. From the CMS of the present, we get the Chief Actuary’s report on the PPACA, summarized by John Goodman. It really does not look pretty.
- InsureBlog discusses the travails of a health insurer offering a so-called 100% HSA/HDHP. I have to wonder, from an economics point of view, whether people will be more judicious in their spending even though the money originally came from someone else (i.e. their HSA was topped up for them). Endowment effects and whatnot. If that is the case, and if the insurer can get the premium right to reflect the relative injudiciousness relative to “true” out-of-pocket spending, then this model could be a very real alternative to the current mainstream of first-dollar medical coverage.
Categories: Medical/Health Commentary, Miscellany
cancer, economics, finance, insurance, liberties, links, medical business, overmedicalization, pharmaceuticals, physician payment, physician supply, primary care, regulation, risk