Government programs, especially Medicare, are stuck in the past and are not designed to accommodate advancements in modern technology, said Ed F. Haislmaier, the Preston A. Wells Jr senior research fellow at the Institute for Family Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.
Government programs, especially Medicare, are stuck in the past and are not designed to accommodate advancements in modern technology, said Ed F. Haislmaier, the Preston A. Wells Jr senior research fellow at the Institute for Family Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.
Transcript
What is the problem Medicare faces with having Parts A, B, and D? How and why should they be combined?
If you look at Medicare—Medicare is an example that I point to at every government program either here or abroad—the design to the program in healthcare reflects the way the world looked when the program was created. The British National Health Center reflects 1940s medicine and the Medicare program in this country reflects a 1960s picture of medicine and that was very hospital centric. So, it is focused on hospital deductibles and, interestingly enough, the deductible was the cost of a day in the hospital. Nobody bills by days in the hospital anymore that’s no longer done. It’s not like a room rate for a hotel, but that was the way it worked in 1960. They had a flat 20% co-pay for all the physician’s services.
And Medicare didn’t include drugs in 1960 because there weren’t a lot of drugs and they weren’t that expensive. They were mainly some antibiotics and things like that. So, there wasn’t felt to be a need to include drugs. Drugs were like vision care or hearing aids. They were something extra, which Medicare also didn’t cover. So, that is a very 1960s premise. The state of medical technology in the 1960s, I mean this is before drug therapies, before heart transplants, all sorts of things. What happened is that gets frozen in time, because it was written into a government program. So, that’s the problem with designing a government-run program is these things get sort of stuck in a time warp.
The better approach is to focus not on the design of the program, but focus on the people you’re trying to help. And say, "How do we get resources to the people we are trying to help?" If you focus on a government program design then here you are 40 years later trying to update a clearly antiquated structure.
Oncology Onward: A Conversation With Thyme Care CEO and Cofounder Robin Shah
October 2nd 2023Robin Shah, CEO of Thyme Care, which he founded in 2020 with Bobby Green, MD, president and chief medical officer, joins hosts Emeline Aviki, MD, MBA, and Stephen Schleicher, MD, MBA, to discuss his evolution as an entrepreneur in oncology care innovation and his goal of positively changing how patients experience the cancer system.
Listen
POSITIVE Trial Update on Patients With Breast Cancer Attempting Pregnancy
December 8th 2023At last year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, POSITIVE trial primary outcome data were presented on breast cancer–free interval, with women who paused endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy having a similarly small rate of recurrence vs external controls from the SOFT and TEXT trials: 8.9% vs 9.2%.
Read More
The Importance of Examining and Preventing Atrial Fibrillation
August 29th 2023At this year’s American Society for Preventive Cardiology Congress on CVD Prevention, Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, delivered the Honorary Fellow Award Lecture, “The Imperative to Focus on the Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation,” as the recipient of this year’s Honorary Fellow of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology award.
Listen
New Insights on Breast Cancer Outcomes Among Sexual, Gender Minorities
December 7th 2023Despite there being a great demand for data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity in the cancer space, individuals who identify as a sexual and gender minority remain poorly represented.
Read More
Refining Precision Prevention for Benign Breast Disease
December 7th 2023Many questions remain surrounding accurately classifying the risk of developing invasive breast cancer associated with the benign breast disease diagnoses of nonproliferative lesions and proliferative changes without atypia.
Read More