Talent flows to where it is highly rewarded so if price and wage control limit rewards in one sector of the economy, talent will flow to the uncontrolled sector. Mark Ramseyer looks at one implication:
The Japanese national health insurance
provides universal coverage. Necessarily, this entails a subsidy that
dramatically raises the demand for medical services. In the face of the
increased demand, the government suppresses costs by suppressing
prices. By combining extensive biographical (including income) data on
all 449 Tokyo cosmetic surgeons and a random sample of 499 other Tokyo
physicians, I explore the effect of this price suppression on the
allocation of talent and the development of expertise. Crucially, the
national health insurance does not cover services – like elective
cosmetic surgery – deemed medically superfluous. Facing price caps in
the covered sector but competitive prices in these superfluous sectors,
the most talented doctors should tend to shift into the superfluous
sectors and there to invest heavily in their expertise. I find evidence
consistent with this: cosmetic surgeons earn higher incomes than other
doctors; are more likely to have attended a national (generally more
selective) medical school; are more likely to have served on the
faculty of a medical school; and are more likely to be board-certified.
I speculate on the broader implications this phenomenon poses for the
allocation of talent in medicine.
Hat tip to Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog.
This illustrates a fact that most seem unwilling to face. If we really want to reduce the soaring cost of medicine here (I don’t necessarily count myself among those that do), the major target is the high cost of doctors. Obviously, if this is reduced the quality of the people involved will go down over time.
Conversely, if we want to increase the quality of the people in education, we have to increase teacher pay and spend more money.
This illustrates a fact that most seem unwilling to face. If we really want to reduce the soaring cost of medicine here (I don’t necessarily count myself among those that do), the major target is the high cost of doctors.
Only about 20% of the money that the US spends on health care goes to pay doctors. So reduce what doctors are paid by half and you will have cut health care expenditures by about 10%, except then there won’t be too many doctors.
I don’t care how “untalented” those in general care may be compared to their cosmetic surgeon counterparts; from my experience, Japanese doctors and the medical system as a whole is phenomenal compared to what I’ve experienced in the U.S. The care I’m comparing it to is that which I received from U.S. military insurance and variety of doctors in Michigan.
The Japanese system is so wonderful, it’s almost laughable to compare it to the money-mongering of the American healthcare system. As an example, I recently dislocated my kneecap. I went in for one general practitioner’s visit in which I was referred to a bone specialist. Left paying $15. Arrived at the bone specialist where they took x-rays, developed them in 15 mins. and confirmed the dislocation, gave me a knee brace and medicine prescription. Left paying $30. Went to the pharmacist right across the street. Paid for topical and pill form medication; paid $10. No filing neccessary. I pay less in taxes annually than I did in America. Didn’t get yelled at by the staff in the waiting room like I did in America.
Nearly the same thing happened in the U.S., I fractured small bones in my foot, two years ago. I had to make 4 or so doctor’s visits, get x-rays costing over $1000 which took a week to develop and our insurance left us to pay hundreds of dollars for, only so the doctor could tell me that I needed to keep my foot in a brace because there was nothing he could do otherwise. Nice attentive guy though.
Seriously, laughable.
Mr. Ramseyer’s use of statistics is biased toward the points he wants to make. For example, on page 4 of his paper he compares the mean income for ALL Japanese doctors with the median income of NEW pediatricians and NEW anesthesiologists in the U.S.. Had he compared apples with apples he would have found a much greater disparity.
Doctors in the U.S. are rewarded with incomes that are 50% higher than their counterparts in the rest of the developed world, according to a 2007 McKinsey report, and yet the U.S. longevity rates are middling at best compared to other developed countries. Japan may not have the most entrepreneurial doctors in the world, but the Japanese life expectancy at birth is 82 years versus 78 years in the U.S, according to the CIA’s World Factbook.
Japan spends less than half of what the U.S. spends on healthcare), as a percentage of GDP, and yet they live on average 4 years longer per person. It may be that the provision of effective medical care to a nations people doesn’t require as much money or talent as Mr. Ramseyer thinks it does.
A basic competence at matching symptoms with treatments according to the current standard of care that prevails in the developed world may be all that’s required for an effective medical system that provides long lives to its customers. I’d rather have modestly talented doctors keep me alive for 82 years at a modest cost than haves talented one keep me alive for 78 at more than twice the cost.
This is a good argument for placing wage controls on plastic surgeons.
The data point that 20% of health care expenditures is spent on doctors massively overstates what doctors actually receive. The 20% is the sum spent on doctors services. However, it includes all the expenses the doctors office incurs. Because it includes everything the doctor spends on overhead, equipment, insurance and other employees in the doctors office what the doctors actually receive is well under half of the 20% figure being quoted.
the average average income of a US doctor is on the order of $200,000. That is about the same the manager of your local Wal-Mart, Home Depot or other big box retailer earns. Ok, the doctor earns more than a European doctor, but how does the income of the WMT manager compare to the manager of a foreign retail outlet?
Like a few commenters above, I will remind them that compensation for doctors is a relatively small fraction of healthcare costs- much less than is generally believed. Now, if you include all of the people involved in providing healthcare services (technicians, secretaries, nurses, sundry staff of hospitals and clinics like HR, infotech, janitorial, etc.), then you get a significant fraction of total expenditures. Remember, if you advocate controlling costs via controlling salaries and wages, these are people that will also be targeted.
Hi
Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.
北京数æ®æ¢å¤ä¸å¿ƒå¼•è¿›å…ˆè¿›è®¾å¤‡-常年æ供数æ®æ¢å¤|RAIDæ•°æ®æ¢å¤|æœåŠ¡å™¨æ•°æ®æ¢å¤ç‰æœåŠ¡
并æ供高ã€ä¸ã€ä½ŽåŽ‹é”…ç‚‰æ— ç¼ç®¡ã€æµä½“æ— ç¼ç®¡ã€ç»“æž„æ— ç¼ç®¡ã€åŒ–肥专用钢管
çŸ³æ²¹è£‚åŒ–æ— ç¼é’¢ç®¡ã€
地质钢管ã€æ¶²åŽ‹æ”¯æŸ±é’¢ç®¡
åˆé‡‘钢管|æ— ç¼ç®¡|æ— ç¼é’¢ç®¡
ç‰è®ºæ–‡å‘表资讯刊物信æ¯ï¼Œå助客户制定论文å‘表方案.
xicao
loves
loves xicao
This “universal healthcare” plan works the same in Canada. There is no real incentive for giving the best or fastest healthcare possible because there is no real market competition. As mentioned by someone else that commented earlier, this is why a lot of Canadian doctors are coming to work in the U.S. This system seems like a nightmare to me. It’s completely a catch 22. You can either pay less and wait forever to be seen by a doctor or you can pay a considerable amount more and be seen in about a week or less.
In men for whom sexual activity is not recommended because of their underlying cardiovascular status, any treatment for erectile dysfunction, including Levitra,
generally should not be used. In patients taking certain CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, ritonavir, indinavir, saquinavir, atazanavir, ketoconazole, itraconazole, erythromycin, and clarithromycin), lower doses of Levitra are recommended, and time between doses
of Levitra may need to be extended. See prescribing information for Levitra for
dosing guidance.In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events with Levitra were headache, flushing, and rhinitis. Adverse events were generally transient.
The recommended starting dose of Levitra is 10 mg. Titrate up to 20 mg or down
to 5 mg based on efficacy and side effects. The maximum recommended dosing frequency is once daily. Levitra is available in
2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg and 20-mg tablets. For Prescribing Information please visit New Online Pharmacy
i hope徵信社|徵信社|燈光音響|徵信
Bvlgari Jewelry
Replica Bvlgari Jewelry
Bvlgari Replica Jewelry
Gucci Jewelry
å‰å®‰æ…¶ä¿®é™¢,花蓮七星æ½,花蓮旅éŠæ™¯é»žæž—ç”°å±±,花蓮石è—大街,花蓮鯉éšæ½,花蓮太é¯é–£åœ‹å®¶å…¬åœ’,太é¯é–£ç ‚å¡ç¤‘æ¥é“,åˆæ¡å±±æ¦å¶º,花蓮太é¯é–£ä¹æ›²æ´ž,花蓮七星柴éšåšç‰©é¤¨,花蓮æ¼æ¸¯,èŠ±è“®ç‘žç©—ç‰§å ´,å°æ±æ—…éŠæ™¯é»ž,花蓮玉里安通溫泉,è“®èŠ±æ± æ¥é“,花蓮立å·æ¼å ´,太é¯é–£åœ‹å®¶å…¬åœ’,è±ç„¶äº,å°æ±æ—…éŠ,七星æ½é¢¨æ™¯å€
Comments on this entry are closed.