The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

Higher Spending on Healthcare Doesn’t Always Deliver Quality

5 Responses

1. Brenda, on December 4, 2010 at 1:24 PM said:

   No Transplant for You!

   Did you know that since October, the State of Arizona stopped financing certain transplant operations under it’s version of Medicaid? Total savings is less than $5-M.

   Many doctors say the decision amounts to a death sentence for some low-income patients, who have little chance of survival without transplants and lack the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to pay for them.

   Brenda

   LikeLike
2. Katherine, on April 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM said:

   Patient Satisfaction to Drive CMS Payments to Hospitals?

   Hospitals have a new reason to worry! Why? Patient gripes soon will affect how much hospitals get paid by Medicare.

   CMS is finalizing details for the new reimbursement method, required by last year’s health care law. Consumer advocates say tying patient opinions to payments will result in better care.

   But, many hospital officials are wary, arguing the scores don’t necessarily reflect the quality of the care and are influenced by factors beyond their control.

   http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/staticpages/for-consumers/hcahps/data-collection.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

   Katherine

   LikeLike
3. Ann Miller RN MHA, on July 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM said:

   Erin McCann: HIT leads list of top 10 safety concerns

   1. Data integrity failures with health information technology systems
   2. Poor care coordination with patient’s next level of care
   3. Test results reporting errors
   4. Drug shortages
   5. Failure to adequately manage behavioral health patients in acute care settings
   6. Mislabeled specimens
   7. Retained devices and unretrieved fragments
   8. Your lab tests
   9. Inadequate monitoring for respiratory depression in patients taking opioids
   10. Inadequate reprocessing of endoscopes and surgical instruments.

   Source: ECRI

   LikeLike
4. Hans, on December 17, 2014 at 8:21 PM said:

   How Does Tax Progressivity and Household Heterogeneity Affect Laffer Curves?

   By Hans A. Holter, Dirk Krueger, Serhiy Stepanchuk

   NBER Working Paper No. 20688
   Issued in November 2014
   NBER Program(s): EFG PE

   How much additional tax revenue can the government generate by increasing labor income taxes? In this paper we provide a quantitative answer to this question, and study the importance of the progressivity of the tax schedule for the ability of the government to generate tax revenues. We develop a rich overlapping generations model featuring an explicit family structure, extensive and intensive margins of labor supply, endogenous accumulation of labor market experience as well as standard intertemporal consumption-savings choices in the presence of uninsurable idiosyncratic labor productivity risk. We calibrate the model to US macro, micro and tax data and characterize the labor income tax Laffer curve under the current choice of the progressivity of the labor income tax code as well as when varying progressivity. We find that more progressive labor income taxes significantly reduce tax revenues.

   For the US, converting to a flat tax code raises the peak of the Laffer curve by 6%, whereas converting to a tax system with progressivity similar to Denmark would lower the peak by 7%. We also show that, relative to a representative agent economy tax revenues are less sensitive to the progressivity of the tax code in our economy.

   This finding is due to the fact that labor supply of two earner households is less elastic (along the intensive margin) and the endogenous accumulation of labor market experience makes labor supply of females less elastic (around the extensive margin) to changes in tax progressivity.

   NOTE: You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery:

   http://www.nber.org/papers/w20688

   Hans

   LikeLike
5. Peter Pronovost MD PhD, on October 21, 2015 at 6:45 PM said:

   Quality

   “Medical harm leads preventable harm as the third-leading cause of death. Health care is the only industry that invests heavily in technology but gets negative productivity. In every other industry, the users [not vendors] say what they need.”

   Dr. Peter Pronovost
   [Director, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety & Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine]
   via Ann Miller RN MHA

   LikeLike