Copyright

(c) 2016 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why Improving Access to Health Care Does Not Save Money

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

One of the oft-repeated arguments in favor of the Affordable Care Act is that it will reduce people’s need for more intensive care by increasing their access to preventive care. For example, people will use the emergency room less often because they will be able to see primary care physicians. Or, they will not develop as many chronic illnesses because they will be properly screened and treated early on. And they will not require significant and invasive care down the line because they will be better managed ahead of time.
Moreover, it is often asserted that these developments will lead to reductions in health care spending. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence makes the case that this may not be true.
One of the most important facts about health care overhaul, and one that is often overlooked, is that all changes to the health care system involve trade-offs among access, quality and cost. You can improve one of these – maybe two – but it will almost always result in some other aspect getting worse.


You can make the health care system achieve better outcomes. But that will usually cost more or require some change in access. You can make it cheaper, but access or quality may take a hit. And you can expand access, but that will increase cost or result in some change in quality.
The A.C.A. was primarily about access: making it easier for people to get insurance and the care it allows. The law also tries to make changes that may bend the curve of spending...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]