Who Can Change the Trends in the Rising Cost of Healthcare?

The onus for converting our failing, mismanaged and costly healthcare system back to its roots in the good old, American, consumer driven, free market, economic paradigm falls squarely on our elected officials. Unfortunately they are for the most part politicians, not statesmen; this is more than just a distinction, it’s a difference. The difference between the two designations for our elected government leaders (statesman vs. politician) is demonstrated by their willingness to make changes that are tough to bring about yet obviously essential. A statesman is enthusiastic about making policy that will affect the next generation, even if it is unpopular or considered by some to be politically incorrect or political suicide; such as the proverbial “third rail“ called social security. A politician, on the other hand, possessing mostly self interest, is only eager to make changes that will effect his or her next election. Those of us now experiencing this failed health care delivery experiment may never live to see it overturned but we should be concerned with what our children and/or grandchildren (the next generation) will face whether national health care is instituted in America as is wished for by Democrat, Presidential hopeful Senator Barack H. O’Bama or if the status quo (the lesser of two obvious evils) is maintained by the Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain. A country preacher once defined status quo is “a Latin expression for the mess we’s in.”


The current saddistressing state of affairs regarding our failing healthcare system did not arise over night (it began in 1965 when Medicare began) and getting it back to normal may take even longer. In the first place, the men and women we send to Washington who legislate all matters concerning the health and welfare of us and our families do not feel the same economic crunch as we do when it comes to the rising cost of health care. Their medical care is absolutely free and paid for by each of us; the tax payers. Instead of the American worker shouldering the burden for health insurance for all members of our United States Legislature, why don't we put the onus on their backs? Maybe then they will see that something needs to be done to eliminate the middle man (spelled HMO) who siphons off much of the money allegedly spent on the health of the U.S citizens.


The return of the current, failed system of healthcare delivery back to a free market, with costs determined by what the patient is willing to pay for necessary care, will take the combined ingenuity and tireless efforts of patients, physicians, hospital administrators, employers and legislators. Each of us is a highly critical entity in moving the system rearward to where it should have been all along. It will not be effortless and thus a joint cooperation between all concerned is the only way it can work. When a patient is faced with a critical, complicated illness that is associated with many clinical manifestations in multiple organ systems, a team approach often becomes necessary. For example, diabetics often need the care of a primary care physician who quarterbacks the total management, a podiatrist for foot care, a nephrologist if kidneys begin to fail, an ophthalmologist to treat retinopathy, a cardiologist when the heart begins to fail and a surgeon to manage surgical emergencies that are common to diabetics. Our ailing healthcare delivery system also needs a team approach to affect an ultimate cure.

The vox populi (voice of the people) has done much in the past to change the course of history and influence legislation. The American Revolution (1775 to 1781) erupted when the King of England (George III) adopted the view that the colonies should pay a substantial portion of the costs associated with keeping them in the British Empire. As a result of that exorbitant price tag Britain imposed a series of taxes followed by other laws that proved extremely unpopular. As a result the people spoke and declared independence from the crown of England. We the people should not await the rise of additional “taxes” and “other laws” that will be certainly be imposed upon us if the liberals in Washington and their current choice for President (Barach H. O’Bama) and Vice President (Joe Biden) have their way and establish a national healthcare system. The supplementary taxes will be needed to defray the increased costs and the added laws will be essential to impose rationing of our health care. We can each speak by means of the press (letters to the editor), the media (talk shows) and the telephone (by calling our representatives). The Roman Catholic organization founded in 1945 called The Christophers’ champions this motto: “It’s better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.” Instead of merely complaining about the rising cost of health care let us each vow to speak up; our collective voices can make a huge difference. We can also articulate our opinions effectively at the ballot box by eliminating those legislators who favor a national health care system or the status quo and by replacing them with those running for office who favor free enterprise and patient driven health care.


Physicians can play an essential role by submitting to congress, through their local elected representatives and medical societies, a workable, practical plan for reducing their fees, partnering with local business people in patient friendly, entrepreneurial pursuits and committing to a practice of being careful to order only what is essential to the benefit of the patient. The fee reduction would be commensurate with what the HMOs and Medicare are currently paying them (a 30% to 70% reduced percentage of what they actually bill) and which would not reduce their income at all. They could show that they have plans to create easily accessible health care facilities and will lobby pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. The American Medical Association will be of no help here as they have done nothing in the past to stem the tide of managed care. Individual, articulate and well informed physicians representing county medical societies should be ready and willing to testify before Congress about this critical situation and what can be done to alter it. Recently retired physicians who have the time, the knowledge and the ability to logically present the case would be perfect candidates for this role.


Hospital boards and administrators can delineate the needless rules and regulations that have required them to add administrative staff and clerical paper shufflers to their pay rolls and show how eliminating certain unnecessary regulations that have nothing to do with quality care will reduce their costs by eliminating such additional personnel and how those savings can be passed on to the patients. Nurses who were trained to care for the needs of patients that are currently burdened down with pointless paper work will be able to provide more personal care and afford a hands on approach that will ensure a patient‘s well being while in the hospital. Instead of seeing to the requirements of the patient they are currently forced to sit around the desks and fill out numerous forms in the patients’ charts. Documentation of patient care is one thing, worthless form completions are quite another: the latter does nothing to reduce morbidity and mortality rates.


Employers can help by putting all HMOs on notice that in a short time the money now being sent to their huge bureaucracies will soon cease and instead it will be placed in the employees’ paychecks where it can be efficiently and prudently used to manage their own less expensive care. They must also convince union leaders that the free market, patient driven system will be of greater benefit to their rank and file members than the current negotiating schemes they (the union heads) have put forth in meetings with the employers and the HMO representatives. The shifting of dollars to the employee and away from the big business heads at HMOs will cost the companies nothing in expenditures or tax deductions. The only ones to suffer in the transfer of funds will be HMO CEOs like the one pointed out in the article dated July 31, 2008 where in I identified that former physician’s CEO income at $124 million per year. I think they will survive


Finally our representatives in Washington (congress persons and senators) must institute tort reform that will lower the cost of malpractice fees and produce savings to the physicians that can be passed on in a lower fee for service schedule to their patients. Congress must also see to it that the increased wages that are placed in HSAs (health savings accounts) and used for catastrophic health insurance premiums are not taxable. They must rescind the HMO acts of previous administrations and encourage free trade in the medical system within our borders; the way they did when they passed the (bipartisan) NAFTA legislation and encouraged trade beyond our borders with our neighbors to the north and south. Free enterprise within our medical system will be of much greater benefit to our citizens than NAFTA has proven to be. The first order of business will involve the Health Maintenance Organizations and when they are excluded from the healthcare system then Medicare (the managed care that started the insidious, proverbial snow ball rolling down the metaphoric economic hill in 1965) needs a second look. By that time it may be out of funds anyway. Conservatives argue that we need to move away from a third-party payer system to a health care structure that stresses individual responsibility so consumers can better understand the problems of high cost medicine and respond with more personally beneficial, lifestyle choices. HSAs and catastrophic health insurance will ensure that kind of individualism. Liberals favor national health care such as the Canadians now have; a system which teaches nothing about individual responsibility and costs so very much


When people are allowed to be back in charge of their own medical care and their own decision making regarding their personal and family health and welfare, it will be a positive impetus to take better care of themselves through the avoidance of bad habits (I.e. tobacco abuse and excessive alcohol intake), by keeping body weight at an ideal level (through increased exercise and prudent diets) and by way of attending to preventive medical practices such as proper immunization, avoiding crowds during flu and cold seasons, washing hands frequently and seeing a physician when warning signs of cancer or other diseases appear. Warning signs of numerous conditions are available on the internet as are preventative measures to avoid infections. Visits to a physician’s office or an emergency room, currently quite capricious, will then be based upon real need not a mere whim. Legislators in the state and national realms must take a second look at the cost to small business of what 50 years ago would have been an unheard of, unwarranted paid leave for certain minor illnesses, personal days (whatever that may be) and pregnancy leave for BOTH new parents.

Employees will think twice about calling off sick if they have to appear with a note from a physician that declares their inability to work and for which they had to pay. The extreme minority of physicians who make a habit of allowing employees to miss work can be monitored to ensure that they have not joined forces with a free loader. Those cases would indeed be rare given the work ethic of 99% of this nation’s honest, ethical and fully dedicated physicians. Ohio is recently anticipated having citizens vote for or against an increase in sick leave benefits; fortunately it was removed from the November ballot. That would have only added to the cost of goods and services as employers would have been forced to raise their prices to maintain financial solvency. A mandatory sick leave policy is not desirable in any form because it would be a disaster for the Ohio economy and force more companies, particularly small businesses with 25-50 employees, to reduce their work force or leave the state. This is just one more intrusion of government into the health care system.



Over the past several weeks in writing this series of articles I have taken up my former roll as an internist by (1) attempting to identify and describe the offending disease (a failing healthcare system), (2) pointing out the etiology of that disease process (managed care from HMOs and Medicare plus the rising malpractice fees in a litigious society) and (3) suggesting what form of treatment plan or prescription is needed to induce a cure; namely a surgical excision of the offending agent (the HMOs) and a return to a free enterprise market, consumer driven system and tort reform. (4) I have identified the purveyors of the cure which include the joint efforts of patients, physicians, hospital administrators, employers and elected government officials. Hopefully, in our state congressional districts we will soon see some worthy candidates running for Congress (the 2011-12 terms) who will take the first step toward affording us that cure. Our current representatives in our contiguous districts (17th District Tim Ryan and 6th District Charlie Wilson) belong to a party and support an Obama/Biden ticket that favors the institution of national health care. Senator Sherrod Brown also supports such a move. If the reader wants to see our nation reposition into a National Health Care (Socialized Medicine) delivery system, then those are the kind of people you should retain in their respective offices. If you have become convinced that we should return to a system of free enterprise, see to it that those in your congressional districts are replaced by others who have a conservative or moderate mindset which favors free enterprise.