By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
  • Health
    • Mental Health
    Health
    Healthcare organizations are operating on slimmer profit margins than ever. One report in August showed that they are even lower than the beginning of the…
    Show More
    Top News
    What Are the Benefits of CBD?
    November 27, 2021
    How to Measure Adult Diapers- The Ultimate Guide to Picking the Right Size
    March 8, 2022
    medicine cabinet
    The Effect Of Finished Dosage Form Manufacturing In New Drugs
    July 5, 2022
    Latest News
    Beyond Nutrition: Everyday Foods That Support Whole-Body Health
    June 15, 2025
    The Wide-Ranging Benefits of Magnesium Supplements
    June 11, 2025
    The Best Home Remedies for Migraines
    June 5, 2025
    The Hidden Impact Of Stress On Your Body’s Alignment And Balance
    May 22, 2025
  • Policy and Law
    • Global Healthcare
    • Medical Ethics
    Policy and Law
    Get the latest updates about Insurance policies and Laws in the Healthcare industry for different geographical locations.
    Show More
    Top News
    Medical Negligence
    The Impact of Medical Negligence: How Claims Can Help You Move Forward
    January 6, 2025
    Advancing Your Healthcare Career through Education and Specialization
    April 16, 2025
    PPACA: “It’s in there!”
    September 9, 2017
    Latest News
    Let Your Lawyer Handle the Work Before You Pay Medical Costs
    July 6, 2025
    Top HIPAA-Compliant Messaging Apps for Healthcare Teams
    June 25, 2025
    When Healthcare Ends, the Legal Process Begins: What Families Should Know About Probate and Medical Estates
    June 20, 2025
    Preventing Contamination In Healthcare Facilities Starts With Hygiene
    June 15, 2025
  • Medical Innovations
  • News
  • Wellness
  • Tech
Search
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: Everything We Are Doing in Health Policy May Be Completely Wrong
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Health Works Collective > Policy & Law > Health Reform > Everything We Are Doing in Health Policy May Be Completely Wrong
Health ReformPolicy & Law

Everything We Are Doing in Health Policy May Be Completely Wrong

JohnCGoodman
JohnCGoodman
Share
8 Min Read
SHARE

A relatively obscure paper (gated) published in an academic journal the other day was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Yet if the study findings hold and if they apply to a broad array of health services, it appears that the orthodox approach to getting health services to poor people is as wrong as it can be.

A relatively obscure paper (gated) published in an academic journal the other day was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Yet if the study findings hold and if they apply to a broad array of health services, it appears that the orthodox approach to getting health services to poor people is as wrong as it can be.

At first glance, the study appears to focus on a rather narrow set of issues. Although most states try to limit Medicaid expenses by restricting patients to a one-month supply of drugs, South Carolina for a period of time allowed patients to have a three-month supply. Then the state reduced the allowable one-stop supply from 100 days of medication to 34 days and at the same raised the copayment on some drugs from $1 to $3. Think of the first change as raising the time price of care (the number of required pharmacy visits tripled) and the second as raising the money price of care (which also tripled).

The result: A tripling of the time price of care led to a much greater reduction in needed drugs obtained by chronically ill patients than a tripling of the money price, all other things remaining equal.

More Read

The Global Burden of NCDs – Our Future Public Health Legacy?
Meditate Your Way to Longer Telomeres; Keep Aging at Bay?
How is Gaming Changing the Landscape in Health Care? Part 2 | Joseph C. Kvedar, Center for Connected Health
Here’s How The Body Deals With Pain – And How You Can Treat Yours
Ingredients of an Effective Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Be Sure to Add Health IT and Medical Device Innovation

This study pertained to certain drugs and certain medical conditions. But suppose the findings are more general. Suppose that for most poor people and most health care, time is a bigger deterrent than money. What then?

If that idea doesn’t immediately knock your socks off, you probably haven’t been paying attention to the dominant thinking in health policy for the past 60 years.

 

“You just kinda wasted my precious time.”

Uninsured patients wait outside a clinic to be treated.

Photo credit: Thomas B. Shea/USA Today

 

What I call health policy orthodoxy is committed to two propositions: (1) The really important health issue for poor people is access to care and (2) to insure access, waiting for care is always better that paying for care. In other words, if you have to ration scarce medical resources somehow, rationing by waiting is always better than rationing by price.

[Let me say parenthetically, that the orthodox view is at least plausible. After all, poor people have the same amount of time you and I have, but (unless you are a student) a lot less money. Also, because their wages are lower than other people’s, the opportunity cost of their time is lower. So if we all have to pay for care with time and not with money, the advantage should go to the poor. This view would be plausible, that is, so long as you ignore tons of data showing that whenever the poor and the non-poor compete for resources in almost any non-price rationing system, the poor always lose out.]

The orthodox view underlies Medicaid’s policy of allowing patients to wait for hours for care in hospital emergency rooms and in community health centers, while denying them the opportunity to obtain care at a Minute Clinic with very little wait at all. The easiest, cheapest way to expand access to care for millions of low-income families is to allow them to do something they cannot now do: add money out-of-pocket to Medicaid’s fees and pay market prices for care at walk-in clinics, doc-in-the-boxes, surgical centers and other commercial outlets. Yet in conventional health policy circles, this idea is considered heresy.

The orthodox view lies behind the obsession with making everyone pay higher premiums so that contraceptive services and a whole long list of screenings and preventive care can be made available with no copayment or deductible. Yet this practice will surely encourage overuse and waste and in the process likely raise the time prices of these same services.

The orthodox view lies at the core of the hostility toward Health Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) and any other kind of account that allows money to be exchanged for medical services. Yet it is precisely these kinds of accounts that empower low-income families in the medical marketplace, just as food stamps empower them in any grocery store they choose to patronize.

The orthodox view is the reason so many Obama Care backers think the new health reform law will expand access to care for millions of people, even though there will be no increase in the supply of doctors. Because they completely ignore the almost certain increase in the time price of care, these enthusiasts have completely missed the possibility that the act may actually decrease access to care for most low-income families.

The orthodox view is the reason why there is so little academic interest in measuring the time price of care and why so much animosity is directed at those who do measure such things. It explains why Jon Gruber can write an NBER paper on Massachusetts health reform and never once mention that the wait to see a new doctor in Boston is more than two months.

Yet the orthodox view may be totally wrong. Clearly, time prices matter to low-income patients. As the new study concludes:

The observed decreases from the days’ supply policy were larger than those from the copayment policy, indicating that the increase in the time costs from more frequent trips to the pharmacy were more of a barrier to medication adherence than the increased copayment…. The decrease in adherence occurred at a mean level of usage generally thought to show clinical effects. The probability of being 80 percent adherent decreased between 1 and 13 percentage points, implying that the policy changes resulted in a substantial decrease in medication adherence for the chronic medication users.

   

TAGGED:healthcare policyhealthcare reform
Share This Article
Facebook Copy Link Print
Share

Stay Connected

1.5kFollowersLike
4.5kFollowersFollow
2.8kFollowersPin
136kSubscribersSubscribe

Latest News

car accident lawsuit
Let Your Lawyer Handle the Work Before You Pay Medical Costs
Policy & Law
July 6, 2025
women dental care
What Is a Smile Makeover and How Much Does It Cost?
Dental health
June 30, 2025
HIPAA-Compliant Messaging Apps
Top HIPAA-Compliant Messaging Apps for Healthcare Teams
Global Healthcare Policy & Law Technology
June 25, 2025
recovering from injury
Rebuilding After Injury: Path to Physical and Emotional Recovery
News
June 22, 2025

You Might also Like

How Much Does an MRI Cost? $425 to $2530

March 8, 2014
water poverty
Public Health

End Water Poverty

October 8, 2013

Medicaid Should Not Impoverish Doctors and Hospitals

July 28, 2014

Smoking and Sudden Cardiac Death: The Time to Quit is NOW!

October 31, 2012
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Follow US
© 2008-2025 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?