It isn't Free.....The Democrats Lied

No Joe, it just takes a lot of time to go point by point over these things when there is no clear cut answer.

Or it's like this piece of BS

Duh

But the clerks who you need to do the scanning/inputing aren't in a position to tell what is relevant and the doctors don't have the time.

You see, like I told you, I've been involved in this exact problem and it is not as easily solved as you think.

Could I go on?

Sure, and I've learned some things while researching the answers.

But you think you already know them all and as the O'Donnell thread showed, you are unable to admit when you are wrong, so what's the point?

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yes it probably does take some time to do the research and prove your point. It would be better if you did the research prior to arriving at a conclusion.

You don't need clerks to do the work. The work should be done by the attending physician and nurse the next time the patient shows up in the office.

Oh yes it is, I have been heavily involved in both industries. Is it going to painless? No, change rarely is painless.

Of that, I have no doubt.

Before you start throwing stones you might want to look at yourself in the mirror.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like we both agreed before, there is a SHORTAGE of both Doctors and Nurses and the problem is getting worse, but now you think they have the time to add a new, time consuming task to their work day?

The reason to use clerks is one can find and train them to the task, and it does take training, and their daily work efforts don't detract from patient care and thus one can get to the new system in a reaonable period of time. Having the doctors or nurses do it is a total non-starter in most busy practices.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2627381&postcount=158

proof positive.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know this is not rocket science. It has been done, it is being done. So your arguement jus melts in the light of day. If it were as difficult as you are contending, people would not be doing it.

Perhaps in your mind...but only in your mind.

 

Automating medical records has been very difficult.
From a user data input/inter-connection/usability etc etc, it is much harder than most rocket science. If it was easy it would be done already.
I think the gov will have to pump tens of billions of dollars into the system to make any meaningfull change. Not that that wouldn't be good, money has always been a limiting factor because the upfront costs compared to the benefit has always been a problem.

Nope, it was a YES or NO question and yet you won't answer it.

The reason is obvious.

Arthur

 

OK, so subsidize medical education with low cost or free loans and grants to encourage more people to go into the medical profession.

 

I think they do even though the average salary of most doctors is a pretty good incentive.

There are medical programs that will waive some or all of the costs based on committing to pratice in areas where docs/nurses are scarce when you graduate.

http://www.airforce.com/opportunities/healthcare/education/

Arthur

 

Just because you find it difficult, it does not mean that it is difficult.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What the hell are you talking about?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh give me a break, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Arthur

 

No I don't Arthur.

 

Just a heads up, this isn't directly a topic stemming from the ACA ("ObamaCare"), this pertains to the HITECH Act. That one moved into the implementation phase over a year ago. The five major issues surrounding using and exchanging electronic health records (governance, finance, technical architecture, business and technical operations, and privacy and security) are being addressed by a partnership between the federal government (Office of the National Coordinator for HIT) and each individual state through cooperative agreements. HITECH--through the government's role as a payer in Medicare and Medicaid--is also going to be pumping out billions in provider incentive payments for adopters and meaningful users of EHRs. HITECH is also funding numerous other projects (e.g. HIT workforce development, grants for "breakthrough" IT advances relevant to EHRs, regional extension centers to help providers adopt and use electronic health records).

ACA is relevant here only in that it takes an approach that sort of assumes (and demands) that health information technology will play an increasingly large role in our system over the next decade and beyond. ACA is upping the ante on quality reporting, it's going to get aggressive--at first only on a limited scale--about payment reform (which includes things like P4P), and it's going to be deploying, testing, and evaluating lots of different delivery/care models. All of these things have HIT implicitly built in. For example, there's the new Medicaid state plan option to establish health homes for folks with chronic illnesses (s. 2703)--the kind of care coordination fostered by health homes generally requires heavy use of EHRs. Health reform is going to require a shift toward a more wired system simply because it demands a data-driven approach to quality improvement and cost containment. But the building of the infrastructure for health information exchange started last year after a different law, HITECH, was passed (inside the stimulus package).

The point of all this, of course, is to note that the issues surrounding EHRs--from technical issues to developing state-level strategies for ensuring health information exchange is sustainable--are getting more attention and money now, and have been over the last year and a half or so, than they have at any other time in our history.

 

Which is exactly what I was saying when I posted:

Arthur

 

Right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The HITECH Act, has set aside $17 billion for incentive payments to providers who implement a qualifying EHR under either Medicare or Medicaid.

http://www.ebglaw.com/files/28043_ClientAlertHITECH.pdf

I think that's what I said.

Example of other costs not covered by govco.

http://www.uia.net/hitech.html

Arthur

 

Where is the post number?

 

That actually isn't that expensive in the individual private market. It's less than what people are paying now.

 

Firstly, as your OP states you’ve “just listened to” a press conference, it’s not clear why the subsequent information is a cut-and-paste for an October 2009 article co-authored by Dick Morris published here at his website.

Secondly, the information you have given hasn’t been clarified – “household income” refers to a family of four – and is incorrect.

Actually, for a family of 4 with a household income of $66,000 and no employer coverage available, the annual cost of insurance for the family would be $12,130 of which the family would pay $5,921 (49%) with the government paying a subsidy of 51%.

Thus the family receives a $12,000+ insurance policy at half price – paying about $493 a month for the family. So, the statement on in the OP that you "have to pay" $700 a month before you get a subsidy is wrong in two ways. You pay less than $700 and you do get a subsidy.

If employer coverage is available, the premium payable by the family would be capped at 8.05% to 9.5% of income (max $6,270 p.a./$522 per month) with the government paying any premium amount in excess of this.

At the other end of the scale, you (or rather, Mr. Morris) state that:

Actually, for a family of 4 with a household income of $22,000 with no employer coverage available there is zero to be paid - the family qualifies for Medicaid.

So again, it is incorrect to state that you "still have to shell out" $440.

In the above cases the head of household has been entered as being 40 years old, using this subsidy calculator which utilizes the established parameters/nuances. (Different ages change total premium amounts but not the amounts payable by the family.) Where employer coverage is not available, premium amounts are based on a "silver level" (mid range) policy which has an actuarial value of 70%. And, additional subsidies are available for out-pocket-expenses.

 

Note:

That calculator projects that average premiums under reform for the same level of coverage for a given group of enrollees would be 7-10% lower than under the status quo.

So, who here thinks your insurance premiums are going to drop by 7-10% four years from now, and why will they drop?

Arthur

 

It also states that:

However, in many cases coverage will be more comprehensive and accessible than what is typically available today in the non-group market. As a result, 2014 premiums in the calculator cannot necessarily be compared to what people buying insurance on their own are paying in 2010.

In other words, more for less. Plus there are the additional subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses.

And let's not forget the bigger picture - the benefits for people who have not been able to afford healthcare insurance, those who have only been able to afford poor quality policies, and those losing job mobility (and the opportunity to pursue greater opportunities) because they can't afford to lose their employer coverage.

 

Ok, so now you are saying than not only will premiums go down 10% but you will get a more comprehensive plan than today for less money and my question is who believes that is what will actually happen and why do you think medical care will get so much cheaper in 4 year?

Arthur