3 ms·

The problem with monopsony in theory is that it reduces the actual wage below the market-clearing wage, which results in a lower quantity of labor supplied. A b

The problem with monopsony in theory is that it reduces the actual wage below the market-clearing wage, which results in a lower quantity of labor supplied. A better arrangement in such cases is usually a bilateral monopoly (think of how sports leagues negotiate with players' unions), which results in wages and labor supplied much closer to market clearing amounts (again, in theory). In many ways, the US already has a soft form of monopsony, given the total dominance of CMMS in determining everything from reimbursements to billing codes to proper medical procedures. We shouldn't be surprised by the already significant shortages within US medical professions given this situation. CMMS regulation has also resulted in large hospital groups absorbing private practices such that most physicians now work for some large hospital group, and most of the rest work for larger companies focused on one or a few specialities.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Access, not quality, is the principle determinant of health outcomes. Since 1960, life expectancy advances have been greatest among minority, poor, and under-served populations. Not wealthy whites.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  Assuming that this extremely simplified model ("access is all you need!"), how can you improve access if there are fewer doctors? I didn't say much about quality, but quantity. Hence, access. Access to professional medical care is a minor factor anyway. Increases in life expectancy are not not primarily due to medical care, but to other improvements like better nutrition, better drinking water, better sleep, safer neighborhoods, even things like better financial security. And as it turns out, the effect of access to health care on life expectancy or better health outcomes for the poor is much weaker for the groups you mentioned. In a real sense, access to care itself matters mostly to the middle & wealthy classes (of whatever "race"). Also, I'd quibble that wealthy whites aren't also improving. Poor whites seem to be suffering, but by all indications, wealthy whites are also doing well.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Access, not quality, is the principle determinant of health outcomes. Since 1960, life expectancy advances have been greatest among minority, poor, and under-served populations. Not wealthy whites.

baryphonic 6y ago
Assuming that this extremely simplified model ("access is all you need!"), how can you improve access if there are fewer doctors? I didn't say much about quality, but quantity. Hence, access. Access to professional medical care is a minor factor anyway. Increases in life expectancy are not not primarily due to medical care, but to other improvements like better nutrition, better drinking water, better sleep, safer neighborhoods, even things like better financial security. And as it turns out, the effect of access to health care on life expectancy or better health outcomes for the poor is much weaker for the groups you mentioned. In a real sense, access to care itself matters mostly to the middle & wealthy classes (of whatever "race"). Also, I'd quibble that wealthy whites aren't also improving. Poor whites seem to be suffering, but by all indications, wealthy whites are also doing well.