undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek1y ago0 comments

There is really basic stuff that we're going to have to do no matter what that doesn't involve restructuring the system, like drastically increasing the number of practicing physicians, which is capped by (you guessed) Medicare, which sponsors residencies. But all we can talk about is payer structure because of a complete fixation on insurance companies as singular villains.

0 comments

coldpie1y ago

Heyyy, we're starting to talk solutions after all. Good stuff. What do you think is UHG's and its executives' role in supporting or opposing the policies and politicians who could enact these fixes? I didn't verify this, but I'm going to go out on a tiny limb and guess that UHG and its execs pay for legislative seats to be filled by Republicans. Republicans famously want to reduce Medicare funding. Do you think lowered Medicare funding would result in more or fewer Medicare-funded residency positions? Certainly there's more at play in elections than UHG itself, but I'm wondering which side of the solution they're on.

hirvi741y ago

This could be an opportunity for me to learn something new...

I thought the American Medical Association were the ones who artificially constrain the supply of physicians. Is that not true, or is the AMA constraint transitively related to the Medicare caps in some manner?

tptacekOP1y ago

The AMA is just a lobbying group. The actual cap on the number of new physicians is residency slots, which are funded by Medicare.

s1artibartfast1y ago

Which I think itself is a bit of a red herring. Medicare subsidized residency slots are not the only way training doctors could be funded, and largely an artifact of our billing procedures and criteria.

It is just one aspect of how incredibly constrained the supply of healthcare is in the US. Medications that are over the counter in many countries requires someone with 12 years of training.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse