Taking apart the recent NYT editorial on rising health care costs. The public is starting to realize that this means saying “no” to patients – something that has been rejected venomously during the managed care era:
. . . one suspects that the editors who put their thumbprints on this piece may have been divided on whether we really want to rein in health care spending. On the one hand, that might be best for the nation””not to mention for the many middle-class Americans who cannot afford health care today. But on the other hand, does this mean that a New York Times editor might not get an MRI for his unspecified back pain when he wants one””just because the guidelines (and his doctor) say he doesn’t need one?
Related posts:
- IBD on health care reform: "Don’t believe a word of it"
- Physician tiers and advertising in the NY Times
- More coverage requires more doctors, my take in The New York Times
- Paradox and the NY Times
- Care management consultants
- Successful health reform requires changing physician incentives, my take in The New York Times
- Is the NY Times fair and balanced when it comes to health care?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
Comments on this entry are closed.