The cost containment approach has been a critical component of the reformers' efforts to reduce the growth of health care costs. But is that what's best for the health of the American economy? How does it address the cost-constrained, inefficient, and inefficient nature of our health care system?
These aren't avapro equivalent to olmesartan answer, and the answers are not straightforward. And the answer, if the right set of reforms aren't adopted, may well mean the death of what is a highly-regarded model and, in turn, the end of a system that has been so successful at meeting the needs of a large number of patients for a generation. One possible outcome of the reformers' effort to control medical costs is the elimination of the fee-for-service model. The cost containment model assumes that insurers will compete in a marketplace by offering their consumers a set benefit package, which can then be paid for out of an insurance premium.
The premium is the price that a customer will pay to purchase insurance that covers all medical and surgical services. For example, if a customer purchases a$50,000 policy which covers all hospital and surgical costs, his insurer will cover all hospital and surgical costs. In an attempt to reduce the number of lawsuits filed by medical providers, the Federal Government mandated in 1996 that each health insurance provider submit a list of the cases in which it had paid a malpractice settlement. Since the list is supposed to be public, it is not uncommon for malpractice litigants to attempt to find out the identities of those who have been paid settlements, and in some ways the disclosure of those information is a form of disclosure, allowing them to make better informed decisions about whether to pursue a case. The disclosure of this information is particularly important for health care providers with fewer resources that rely on small numbers of physicians to provide care. Boulay, the hospital's lawyer argued that even though his client was not at fault, the hospital's insurance coverage policy should be cancelled. But the insurer had a right, he said, to pay for the death.
The court found that the hospital had made an error, not fault. The case remains unresolved and may not reach that point. The result has been a system where hospitals may receive more money for settlements than they pay out for injuries. For example, in a case involving a family who had suffered a brain injury due to a car accident, the family received approximately$15,000; the hospital got nearly twice that and then some. In the last two years, we have seen avapro equivalent to olmesartan who were involved in the settlement process.
In another case, a family received$3 million, a record for any settlement. The medical community's reaction to this pattern was that it showed a failure to value patients at all, and that the only solution was to reduce the number of physicians and the number of procedures. It is worth pointing out that these examples are only one type of settlement; there may be more, and I have not looked closely at many other cases.