In a
prior post, the Disease Management Care Blog described the curious evaporation of arguments about the merits of universal coverage as a cost-saving benefit of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). True to form, that assertion went unmentioned by HHS Secretary Sebelius in
yesterday's PBS NewsHour appearance, who instead used the appearance to murmur nostrums at Judy about the voters' lack of education and spin a
repackaged report about Medicare's solvency. It's
so clear, isn't it? So... black and white. We're
right, they're
wrong.
So which is it?
There is research, for example, that argues that there is a causal link between stress and
heart rhythm problems, as well as
drug abuse relapses and
unremitting fatigue. The DMCB suspects that, when it comes to stress, these and and other medical conditions are probably bi-directional and self reinforcing. The DMCB recalls seeing many patients in its clinic who were caught in a downward cycle of economic, emotional and medical distress. In its real world, it was impossible to unravel what was causing what: the dumbass hubby's behavior, the recurrent migraines, being unable to maintain employment, lack of child care, not being able to pay the co-pay and then failing to pay rent.
What the DMCB learned about was the remarkable resiliency of many unseen average people who managed to get through it. It also learned to be humble when it comes to understanding the links between health care and economic well-being. Come to think of it, the same lesson undoubtedly applies to all those other corners of the ongoing health care debate. Unfortunately, that'd mean not changing the subject and saying stuff on PBS NewsHour like we think and hope we're right, and we believe they're wrong and we know there limits to the science that undergirds our decision making.
In this summer of our political discontent, that seems very unlikely. That's why it makes sense to read blogs like Healthcare Economist and the DMCB in addition to watching the NewsHour.
2 comments:
If I recall correctly, even the medical bankruptcy research was decidedly underwhelming. Going back and re-reading the abstract has confirmed that inkling on my part.
Their definition of "medical bankruptcy" is unnecessarily broad. For any household with more than $5000 in medical debt it was *assumed* that the medical debt (as opposed to the other debt involved, even if of greater magnitude) was what drove the bankruptcy.
To the extent that this study has been used to argue for the PPACA, it's worth noting that the bankruptcies caused by lost income from illness won't be avoided under the new regime either.
Megan McArdle has posted on this more extensively, but this comment is just from re-reading the abstract.
[also, OpenID authentication seems to have been broken here for quite some time...]
Well someone risks bankruptcy in this. I fear it may be more than a few homeowners
On a separate note, i could only watch a portion of the Sebelius interview. Her public pronouncements have been consistently disappointing (i.e. "you'll learn to like it", "its the Republicans", "its the Insurance companies") I guess cheer leading is part of the job description.
Post a Comment