Health costs -- no quick fix

Continuing with my mini exploration of the health care debate, this week we take a look at an opinion article by John Stobo and Tom Rosenthal from the Los Angeles Times, "Health costs --no quick fix." As the heated health care debate rapidly escalates, more and more research is being put into how to effectively reduce the costs of health care while providing universal coverage. Particular interest is being placed on regional discrepancies in medical costs, which could help determine which regions are more cost-effective. From there, some legislators aim to redistribute Medicare payments to the more efficient regions. In this article, Stobo and Rosenthal delve deeper into the purported claims of these research findings and discuss why the approach taken by these studies may be biased and how this bias could lead to monetary mismanagement by the federal government. The article warns legislators as well as the general public of the dire consequences of using these studies as a basis for healthcare financial management.

Stobo and Rosenthal examined the design structure of the research studies and discovered that regional cost discrepancies should not be the sole variable in determining where to cut corners financially. The authors point out that poverty level, per capita income and uninsured rate all need to be taken into consideration in determining efficiency. When these factors are taken into account, we see that some regions can be further divided into subregions, with each telling a different story. The core of L.A., for example, houses healthy, wealthy patients and "vibrant, integrated healthcare infrastructure," while South and Central L.A. suffer from inadequate medical facilities and impovershed patients as a result. Not only do the patients have to put up with lower quality medical services, but they have to pay more as a result because poorer medical attention compounds the medical conditions and attention that one may require, thus leading to more costly healthcare. Without observing these aspects within a particular region, the measure of efficiency can be drastically misleading.

Stobo and Rosenthal definitely did their homework in their evaluation of the research studies; the argument made was logical and coherent. Geographic-specific data requires a closer look before any conclusive statements can be made on where costs can be reduced; otherwise, an unfair and actually harmful legislation would degrade our nation's healthcare and defeat the purpose of reform.