ARS on Twitter
RSS
Unnecessary regulation and oversight
Posted by Raven on August 23rd, 2007
Stupid quote of the morning:
To fund subsidized coverage for low-income people, the state is drawing on money previously used to pay for free care at hospitals and health centers, so the state needs to reduce payments for free care in the long run.
This is in MA, where “free” care is being “given” to those who cannot afford health insurance. Those who can afford it and who are being forced to carry it, are paying for the “free care”. It’s socialism.
Speaking of health care, the so called Walk In Health Care Clinics are seeing all sorts of government interference. The free markets really aren’t free in this country. Various groups have decided this model of care must be “regulated” and so on:
With demand for primary care doctors surpassing the supply in many parts of the country, the number of these retail clinics in drugstores has exploded over the past two years, and several companies operating them are now aggressively seeking to open clinics in New York City.
But with their increasing popularity, the clinics are drawing mounting scrutiny. Several states including New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and California are examining ways to more closely monitor the clinics, which are overseen by a hodgepodge of state agencies applying a wide and inconsistent range of regulations.
More than 700 clinics are operating across the country at chain stores including Wal-Mart, CVS, Walgreens and Duane Reade.
In other words, because these places are popular and offer an cheaper alternative to the traditional models of health care delivery the old school traditionalists are fighting the new guy on the block. And instead of really letting the market decide here, state governments are jumping in to do whatever they can to squash the new clinics. Over-regulation, scrutiny, and we can bet a new set of special taxes will destroy many of these places. The consumers lose out once again. Whenever we see a successful market, we will see government stepping in to kill the success.
New York State regulators are investigating the business relationships between drugstore companies and medical providers to determine whether the clinics are being used improperly to increase business or steer patients to the pharmacies in which the clinics are located.
Who cares? Chances are pretty damn good that the customers WILL use the pharmacy closest to the clinic. And since many of the clinics are located within established drug stores to begin with, what’s the big deal here? A lot of people use Wal Green or CVS- and have done so for years. This is just a bogus charge.
The American Medical Association, contending that patients might be sacrificing quality for convenience or seeking help at drugstore clinics for problems that should be addressed by their doctors or a hospital, has proposed a series of guidelines, including a requirement that the clinics have a “well-defined and limited scope.” The association has also urged federal and state governments to investigate how the clinics operate.
Uh huh…so why doesn’t the AMA promote their members to consider changing their office hours; to offering their own mini clinics with evening and weekend hours; to offer fee based services for those who want it? The entire medical community has never been consumer driven; it’s always been about the convenience of the practitioner and not the customer. Heck we have many doctors and nurses who refuse to call a patient a customer…shows where the mind set is on this. What’s a person to do when they get hurt, or sick on a weekend? They go to ER’s or urgent care clinics, where fees are much higher and so are co payments…we have people on welfare programs who only utilize the ER as their main source of health care.
States would be smart to offset this by encouraging these people to go to the clinics instead of bullying the clinics out of business. Or worse- stifling them with unnecessary regulation and oversight. Change in health care must come from within as well as be consumer driven. All parties should be willing to work on the problems and potential fixes. The government, be it federal, state or local, should step out of the fray and let the markets determine what works and what doesn’t.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I’ve said it many times before: The Number One Reason Why The Government Should Keep it’s Grubby Hands off of Healthcare is the Veterans Administration. We have no guarantee whatsoever Healthcare would be any better than this — and every assurance it would be just as bad.
And I’ve said it in excruciating detail here: http://jdlong.blogspot.com/2007/07/ten-reasons-why-government-should-not.html
~~JD~~
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The states mentioned above run by those who worship at the altar of ultra liberlism, should answer any questions as to why they want to be in control. only state govt. can do it right in their very flaccid minds.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I am so glad I moved out of the People’s Republic. Now that I am ensconced in the Live Free or Die state I will never move back.
The socialists have taken over Mass and I do not want to be subjected to them. They can’t build tunnels, but they’re going to know what’s best for my health? I don’t think so!
August 24th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Well, there is the one valid point here:
… [various states are] examining ways to more closely monitor the clinics, which are overseen by a hodgepodge of state agencies applying a wide and inconsistent range of regulations.
It does make sense to have consistent and uniform regulations and oversight on these clinics. Small, easily established sites like these are ripe for fraud and abuse by unscrupulous people. Hell, restaurants are tightly regulated for cripes sake. I just read last week about a guy buying a health clinic and running it, then getting busted because he had no medical license. His own nurses turned him in, they became suspicious because he was constantly asking their advice on ’scripts and had no diplomas to hang on the walls.
Sure, over-regulation is bad, but the smaller the health clinic, the easier it is to set up and the less money you need to run it- therefore, its a ripe target for scammers.
I don’t really have a problem with uniform and consistent regulation in this case, and I can’t really see from the linked story where onerous regulations are being proposed. Maybe I’m missing something.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
dw — why stop there? We’ve got room in Texas! Duncan Avatar and I will save a place for you!
~~JD~~
August 25th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I don’t know how that relates to my comment, but I’ve lived in Houston for a spell, and driven through most of the rest of Texas, and I’d just quote the great General Phil Sheridan:
“If I owned Hell and Texas, I’d live in Hell and rent out Texas.