John Washburn: “Access to primary care would vanish. Even today, you will probably find it difficult to get an appointment with your family doctor within the next few days. But then flood the system with all of these unnecessary government-funded visits, and be ready to wait one or two MONTHS for an appointment. As for those who are sick and need to be seen right now, well they will go to the ER (since there are no appointments available) and ER visits go up, along with costs. This is not alarmist, it’s common sense.”
Related posts:
- Improve primary care access before guaranteeing universal health coverage, my address at the National Press Club
- Universal coverage without primary care access is useless
- Wanting the same thing
- Coverage without access
- Will the lack of primary care doctors make universal coverage useless?
- Would you sacrifice privacy and modesty for improved access to doctors?
- Saying no
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Expanding coverage without access is as good as not expanding coverage at all. As I’m writing, I’m seeing a news story about expanding coverage for all kids by 2010 in this state.
Of course, we need both.
Regarding John Washburn’s post, it’s near worthless otherwise. It does what so many others do by using “hot button” terms to trigger emotional responses that lead to no further critical thinking. “Hillary Care” is about as vague a concept to most Americans as there is. Many just don’t like HRC. I don’t like her proposal, but for some specific reasons.
It definitely not because of universal coverage (and universal access).
It’s interesting that there are so many assumptions loaded into his post. Who is to say that there wouldn’t be copayment, who is to say that universal access leads to flat salaries for primary care physicians, and who is to say that competition shouldn’t still play a role?
I fear that such perspectives lead people to reject the notion of universal coverage all together.
Comments on this entry are closed.