And now a word from our internists (what they say about healthcare reform)

In a paper released today, the American College of Physicians offers up the opinion of its members -- internal medicine specialists, subspecialists and medical students -- on rising healthcare costs and what should be done about them.

"Controlling Health Care Costs While Promoting the Best Possible Health Outcomes" blames increased spending on these 10 factors:

- Advancing technology

- Demographics and declining health status

- Lack of productivity growth

- Inappropriate utilization

- Payment system distortions

- Consumer price insensitivity

- Medical errors and inefficiency

- Medical malpractice and defensive medicine

- Higher prices

- Administrative costs

Then it offers up various policy solutions. Here's the full paper.

The conclusion states: "None of our recommendations in isolation will solve all of the problems besetting our health care system. However, meaningful cost reductions can be achieved without sacrificing quality or decreasing access to health care. In fact, cost controls must be accomplished in order to expand access and to achieve health care reform."

Over at the Huffington Post, John Geyman, a professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, is keeping an eye on "organized medicine."

He writes today:

"Organized medicine has a poor track record in terms of reform. Although a universal system of health insurance was considered favorably for a short time by a committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) during Teddy Roosevelt's abortive attempt to establish such a program during the 1912 to 1917 period, the AMA has played a consistently reactionary role against such reform since then."

Then he notes (so you have some context for the above paper):

"Organized medicine has become so fragmented that no one group speaks for the profession. In fact, some groups have endorsed major health care reform, even to the point of single-payer national health insurance (NHI). As the second largest medical organization in the country with some 125,000 members, the American College of Physicians (ACP) has endorsed single-payer as one of two major options to reform our system.
 
-- Tami Dennis

Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Yonah]

Socialized medicine is simple. Those who can afford coverage now will see the quality of their coverage depreciate, and those who cannot afford coverage, or simply choose not to be covered will have their access to health care improved.

Ultimately, I think Americans will continue to vote selfishly, and will choose what's best for them - and for the majority of Americans, this means a private system with no "public option". This also means that those who cannot afford or choose not to buy private coverage will remain subjects of the woefully undeserved public sector.

[Joseph W. Stubbs, MD, FACP]

As you noted, the policies and pursuits of the American College of Physicians are in step with seeking meaningful health care reform. In fact, ACP has supported health care reform for nearly two decades.

One of ACP's goals is expanding coverage for everyone. That goal cannot be achieved without controlling costs.

Joseph W. Stubbs, MD, FACP
President, American College of Physicians

[andres palomo MD]

The 10 factors are correct. How they are addressed is a different matter. Centralized decisions will inevitably lead to unintended consequences that will be exploited. Alternatively, you can through competition, design benefit plans around the enumerated factors and let the best plan win.

[Lindy Lee]

Yes, it is simple. Those with inherited diseases, heart disease, cancer, the elderly, the pregnant and the children won't get the services they received previously.

Some will simply die and like in the State of Oregon, when there is not enough resources for all, others will be offered termination of life for care. There are only 733,000 doctors in the U.S. and 12% of those are GPs, to which everyone initially consults for referral to the rest, who are specialists.

National health care equates to forty minutes per year for each individual to consult a doctor. This time period includes the documentation requirements of the doctor.

The average child sees the doctor three to five times per year. The average allergy sufferer sees doctors six to ten times per year. The average woman sees the doctor three to five times per year. The average pregnant woman sees her doctor twelve to fifteen times per year. The average senior citizen sees their doctor four to eight times per year.

Obama's plan doesn't allow for the lack of resources and for caring for those in serious need of health care. More will die as they won't be able to get into the system in time. Employers will drop individuals from employment health care benefits as individuals will have another option through the government.

Yep, its simple. Socialism means less quality care, less care for those who need it and that more people will die and not be diagnosed with serious disorders.

Most frightening, it will turn into a trend as what occurred in Oregon last year, when resources were limited, they only offered termination of life services to cancer victims. Most likely, it is what we would see with our elderly, those with heart disorders, genetic diseases and cancer...

Pretty scary stuff when all the government needs to do is triple the funding to medical schools and put out more doctors, nurses and medical personnel. Its all about supply and demand...once the supply of resources is met, the demand will be proportionate and costs will go down. Its an American tradition, not a socialistic value.

[Lindy Lee]

May I ask a question? Why on your site, do you allow the bias of someone quoting the "huffington post" to censor comments on an article in a public newspaper?