Obamacare = Longer Wait Times; Exhibit A: MASS.
From the 2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times (see p. 14): As these numbers (in the chart above) indicate, Boston experiences by far the longest average wait times of any of the 15 metropolitan markets. In addition, wait times in Boston increased in 2009 over 2004 in three of the four specialties where comparisons are possible: dermatology, ob/gyn and orthopedic surgery. In general, wait times decreased in 2009 relative to 2004 in most metropolitan markets surveyed, with several exceptions.
Long wait times in Boston may be driven in part by the healthcare reform initiative that was put in place in Massachusetts in 2006. The initiative succeeded in covering many of the state’s uninsured patients. However, it has been reported that many patients in Massachusetts are encountering difficulty in accessing physicians. Survey results support these reports. Long appointment wait times in Boston also may signal what could happen nationally in the event that access to healthcare is expanded through healthcare reform. Increased demand resulting from improved access to care for approximately 47 million uninsured people can be expected to extend doctor appointment wait times in many markets. (Bold added.)
HT: SBVOR
23 Comments:
It only makes sense that there will be longer wait times because people are actually going to the doctor now.
What needs to be done next is to increase the number of doctors, and you'll see the times numbers drop.
Dr. Perry,
Thanks for the plug.
Yours is still the best economics blog in the known universe!
Anonymous,
Since government intrusion reduces incentives to become a doctor, how do you propose to "increase the number of doctors"? Through force of law?
It reminds me of 2004 when John Kerry promised to double the number U.S. special forces. The assumption is that men who have the physical, emotional, and mental abilities to earn a spot in U.S. special forces are a dime a dozen.
The same is true for doctors (or any profession really). While the qualifying process may not be as extreme for doctors, you still have to figure out how to increase the number of people willing to waste 10 or more years of their lives in higher education, suffer through years of internship, and overcome their natural aversion to being around sick/injured people.
It is expensive and time consuming to make quality doctors. Who will pay for this education? A while back I believe that Mark posted some info on how few people are actually attending medical school. There are less schools.
"What needs to be done..."
Don't you just love the passive voice in these statements? Who is going to get this "done?" What mechanism will prod this thing to get "done?"
Some people must think that doctors come from the doctor fairy. I'm sure they have the same attitude about health care in general.
Those wait times seem to correlate to standard of living (oddly enough). I can see a doctor quickly in Detroit? But not Los Angeles, Boston or New York City?
Still, nobody wants to talk about the serious stuff when it comes to health care: Taking lawyers out of the picture. and euthanasia.
We have to develop rapid and binding arbitration for all medical disputes (I contend even this system should be industry-biased), and also develop guidelines for limiting care for old people. In a word, euthanasia.
Otherwise, health care will just continue to eat more and more of our resources, no matter what system we choose.
Other than that, I tell people, "Life is not fair." If we get national health insurance, sometimes you will not get timely treatment. Too bad. Life is not fair. get on with it.
"What needs to be done next is to increase the number of doctors, and you'll see the times numbers drop"...
Hmmm, some people never learn...
Philip Klein writing in American Spectator notes that NOT only Canada and the U.K. have problems with their socialized medical systems but other countries also fielding some form of socialized medicine have problems to, So Klein ends his commentary thus: As more and more Americans wise up to the perils of British and Canadian health care, liberals have shifted to touting other socialized systems. But none of those other countries have found a way to suspend the laws of economics, either
Benny,
Get government entirely out of the health care business and the only “resources” consumed by end of life care will be private resources allocated in accordance with free will -- as it should be.
When you speak of “our resources”, you sound much more like a collectivist than a “free marketeer”.
Now, put up a chart of people Who Died for Lack of Healthcare.
Or, a chart of the number/capita suffering with debilitating diseases, and health conditions for which they can't obtain treatment.
Let's see how Atlanta, and Boston stack up, then.
"Since government intrusion reduces incentives to become a doctor, how do you propose to increase the number of doctors? Through force of law?"
Actually, I know numerous individuals who tried to pursue a career in medicine only to have their dreams crushed because of intense competition when trying to get into medical school. These students had 90+ averages but there were limited spots. Universities and government need to work together to increase spots. And all this with a socialist health care system...imagine that. Government control will not scare the doctors away.
"Now, put up a chart of people Who Died for Lack of Healthcare."
The assumption here is that government run universal coverage is the ONLY possible solution for providing healthcare to low income citizens.
Georgia already offers financial assitance to its low income citizens to cover medical expenses. They also offer PeachCare for Kids and the Peach State Health Plan, which are low cost insurance plans for low income families.
This is in addition to Medicaid.
For those against government controlled medicine why, not make the case for privatizing education, fire emergency services and the postal service? Enough with the scare tactics and the one sided views already, what we need is some balanced discussion, pros and cons of both systems so that we can make an educated decision.
Ever hear of a little college named Stanford? That is private education and it seems to do a decent job of educating students.
The State of Delaware has an all volunteer and private fire fighting force. Private ambulance services are contracted out in cities all over the nation.
This is all a distraction from the real point of national government controlled health insurance. Everyone talks about the little old lady or single mother with a sick child, but few of the pro-government commercials show video of the thousands of college kids who drink themselves into emergency rooms every Spring Break.
I don't think it is my responsibility to cover the health expenses for every fall down drunk on New Years Eve. I don't think it is my responsibility to cover the health expenses for all the weekend warriors who go out and twist ankles and break arms playing amateur sports.
Rufus,
Rest assured…
If there were ANY data demonstrating that the health care folly in Massachusetts was in ANY way an improvement over what they had before, the Dims would have it all over the evening news on every network on every evening.
Since we’re not seeing that data -- and you failed to provide any, it is safe to assume no such data exist.
Now -- lacking any evidence on the pro tyranny side -- let’s examine a “short” list detailing why it would be a very bad idea for the rest of the nation to follow the “lead” of the Massachusetts Dims.
You claim a correlation between longer wait times and universalized healthcare. Explain why then that I, an average citizen of Canada, am able to get an appointment with a doctor the *SAME DAY* if necessary and why I have NEVER had to wait longer than 3 days to see a physician at a specific chosen location.
You claim a correlation between longer wait times and universalized healthcare. Explain why then that I, an average citizen of Canada, am able to get an appointment with a doctor the *SAME DAY* if necessary and why I have NEVER had to wait longer than 3 days to see a physician at a specific chosen location.
Obviously, statistical correlation doesn't imply that every data point lies along the estimated curve.
Also, I wish I were you. I'm Canadian, and I usually wait a week to see my GP and 1-6 months to see a specialist. Then another 1-6 months to get testing/treatments recommended by those specialists.
rufus rants: "Now, put up a chart of people Who Died for Lack of Healthcare"...
What? Is your arm broke rufus? Put up something that debunks Exhibit A...
Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
wrote the following: Lessons For Health Care Reform
You could call this dissection of TennCare Exhibit B...
From Nashville Business Journal: ...TennCare, the state's Medicaid managed care program, reports 743 out of every 1,000 enrollees used the emergency room from 2004 to 2005, according to the most recent numbers available. Local hospitals reported about 65 percent of those visits -- or about 382 out of every 1,000 -- did not require emergency care...
Yeah! That's just exactly what we need nation wide...
Anonymous,
It could be that you live in a very unusual place in Canada. And, it could be that you’re a lying. Or, maybe you’re a politician who controls the purse strings.
In any case, these are the substantiated, quantitative facts:
Click here for an overview of a June, 2009 report.
Click here for the full report.
Click here for the “about” page from the organization which published the report.
When you can produce substantiated, quantitative data to refute that, let me know.
What do you think would happen if McDonalds started giving free Big Macs...their line ups would probably quadruple. Long wait times is not a symptom of rationed health care its a symptom that people are seeing health care practitioners more often. If its free, wouldn't you go see a doctor for even the most minor ache, or issue?
"Ever hear of a little college named Stanford? That is private education and it seems to do a decent job of educating students."
Which young graduates have to then work years to pay off. Actually, I was referring to elementary school. If all education was privatized only the very rich could afford one. But hey, I'm sure there would be an abundance of quality teachers, they would get all the best equipment and high tech gear, and I'm sure the grades would be much better because only snotty rich kids would attend. Kind of parallels the current health care system, wouldn't you say? The best approach would be to have both government and private systems. Exactly what Obama is proposing
Nice work, SBVOR.
Gary - Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home