3 ms·

We have had "part time doctors" in the US for a while, not to mention a movement toward "girl specialties" (read: gyno/derm/few others). It's a significant cont

by neild 16y ago

We have had "part time doctors" in the US for a while, not to mention a movement toward "girl specialties" (read: gyno/derm/few others). It's a significant contributor to our rising medical costs. Actually, an increase in the number of doctors (or, presumably doctor-hours) seems to lead to an increase in medical care costs. Adding more doctors increases the amount of medical service provided rather than providing the same amount of service at a reduced cost.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Could you provide a source? It sounds interesting, if true. Such a result has interesting implications. Since we know the demand for medicine is not perfectly inelastic (various experiments with copays prove this), it would suggest that some external force (insurance companies?) is keeping prices down and the constraining factor is supply.
- billjings 16y ago
  If you haven't already read Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece comparing medical care expenses in McAllen, TX vs El Paso, TX, then here you go: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_... Obviously it covers more than just this particular topic, but the odd behavior of markets for health care is a central concern he addresses.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I was kind of hoping for more than just 2 data points (McAllen and El Paso). Maybe even some hard numbers.
    - billjings 16y ago
      The two towns are a framing device for the article and provide a rhetorical starting point for an investigation of various issues and trends with health care in America. I'm pretty sure that you could skim the article and find some numbers if you wanted to.
- neild 16y ago
  There's one article in particular that I'd like to link to, but I'm having difficulty digging it up. If you'd like some data to play with, however: https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/05_NationalHealthAccountsStateHealthAccountsResidence.asp#TopOfPage https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/05_NationalHeal... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.htm... The former contains Medicare spending per enrollee on a per-state basis, and the latter has the number of doctors per capita. Of the top ten states in Medicare spending per enrollee, six are in the top ten in doctors per capita. This is all just a back of the envelope calculation, of course, but it does argue against the thesis that more doctors equals cheaper health care.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Interesting, but hardly conclusive. Two problems with the conclusion you are trying to make: Cheaper health care != less money spent on health care. Consumers might purchase more health care even as prices come down (resulting in more money spent). This data doesn't show the direction of causality. It could just as easily reflect doctors chasing money as it could reflect prices increasing as a result of doctors becoming available. (Similarly, states with more illegal immigrants tend to spend more money on farm labor. Do illegal immigrants raise the prices of farm labor?) Still, it's interesting data to see.

by neild 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Could you provide a source? It sounds interesting, if true. Such a result has interesting implications. Since we know the demand for medicine is not perfectly inelastic (various experiments with copays prove this), it would suggest that some external force (insurance companies?) is keeping prices down and the constraining factor is supply.

billjings 16y ago
If you haven't already read Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece comparing medical care expenses in McAllen, TX vs El Paso, TX, then here you go: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_... Obviously it covers more than just this particular topic, but the odd behavior of markets for health care is a central concern he addresses.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I was kind of hoping for more than just 2 data points (McAllen and El Paso). Maybe even some hard numbers.
  - billjings 16y ago
    The two towns are a framing device for the article and provide a rhetorical starting point for an investigation of various issues and trends with health care in America. I'm pretty sure that you could skim the article and find some numbers if you wanted to.
neild 16y ago
There's one article in particular that I'd like to link to, but I'm having difficulty digging it up. If you'd like some data to play with, however: https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/05_NationalHealthAccountsStateHealthAccountsResidence.asp#TopOfPage https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/05_NationalHeal... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.htm... The former contains Medicare spending per enrollee on a per-state basis, and the latter has the number of doctors per capita. Of the top ten states in Medicare spending per enrollee, six are in the top ten in doctors per capita. This is all just a back of the envelope calculation, of course, but it does argue against the thesis that more doctors equals cheaper health care.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Interesting, but hardly conclusive. Two problems with the conclusion you are trying to make: Cheaper health care != less money spent on health care. Consumers might purchase more health care even as prices come down (resulting in more money spent). This data doesn't show the direction of causality. It could just as easily reflect doctors chasing money as it could reflect prices increasing as a result of doctors becoming available. (Similarly, states with more illegal immigrants tend to spend more money on farm labor. Do illegal immigrants raise the prices of farm labor?) Still, it's interesting data to see.