President Obama and Budget Director
Peter Orszag in the oval office
During the almost interminable presidential campaign leading to the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic control of Congress, two issues regarding health insurance were stressed. Those issues were cost control and coverage for more individuals. Two worthy goals, to be sure, but at least one is getting lost in recent rhetoric.
Despite numerous politicians making numerous speeches advocating cost control, no one has made any meaningful suggestion as to how this would be ccomplished.
The budget proposed by the administration mentions extra spending of more than 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Yet the newest bills being circulated around Capital Hill offer little to nothing in the way of cost containment.
The problem is that although health reform is considered a high priority by most Americans, most American who are insured, don’t want their coverage to change. The simple fact is that the only part of their health insurance most insured Americans don’t like is the rising cost.
Recently, Peter Orszag, President Obams’s budget chief, has been trying to put forth a compelling argument for what he calls effectiveness research. Mr. Orszag points out that medical treatments vary greatly from state to state. He says that there is no evidence to suggest that the more expensive treatments are necessarily the best medical treatments.
Well, doctors have been talking about this for quite some time. A recent study showed that the United States has one of the highest rates of births by cesarean section. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has repeatedly urged against this rising trend. The increased cost of a c-section is tremendous. And this is only one medical condition. No one seems to be listening to the doctors.
Mr. Orszag is suggesting that a study be conducted to determine the possible savings which could be realized by implementing the ideas gleaned from the effectiveness study.
Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which Mr. Orszag headed from January 2007 to November 2008, estimated that the savings in health care costs resulting from the effectiveness research would not even cover the cost of gathering the information. If the study would cost more than any savings it would yield, can anyone explain why we would fund such as study?
Comments
Regarding high c-section rates in the U.S., how can one possibly say that no one is listening to the doctors? Doctors aren't forced to perform c-sections, all they have to do is say that there is no medical reason for them in most cases, and that's all the justification they need. The fact is, that insurance companies AND doctors make a lot more money from a c-section than from a natural birth. Money drives everything in this country. If the doctors didn't allow the patients to "schedule" their births, the c-section rate would drop. Period.
Thank you for your comment, however, most doctors I know believe that fewer c-sections should be performed. As I said, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has repeatedly urged against this rising trend. I believe that it is the fear of malpractice suits that pushes this trend. Fewer and fewer doctors are going into an obstetrics practice as their malpractice rates are the highest.
It's not quite as simple as saying NO.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!