The Doctor was actually talking about the new requirements based on improving patient outcomes. Great idea. I actually favor the concept. The problem is these optimizations and analysis often have the individual or actual care delivered at the bottom of the priority list or even non-existent.
You have too much faith in the same system that brought us VA health care delivery. Face it. from a pencil pusher, bean counter perspective, the only way to control costs is to limit demand of a scarce resource.........of our US Federal Reserve. Any questions?
The 1973 Honda Civic which sold for around $2,200 (per wikipedia)
Versus a 2014 Honda Civic which sold for around $17,767 (per edmunds.com)
I have a question, Why does a 2015 Acura ILX have an MSRP of $27,05
The FED clearly needs to be much more transparent but it is incorrect to single them out for our monetary situation. Of course the main missing piece of data from your graphic is how wages have increased over those same periods. Fiscal policy, other government actions (e.g. changes in the monetary reserve requirements regarding gold), global competition and technology all play a role. I think overall the FED has been able to help smooth out the boom/bust episodes but not without a cost.
Interesting that your graphic has 8 of 10 items in the food or energy category just as newer inflation indexes are removing those 2 categories, although they are still in the main CPI. This description of the CPI “basket” might be of interest.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/data/us-inflation/revmcpi.cfm
I wonder how many government statisticians are sitting around tweaking the SIXTH decimal point on the impact of an overnight at Motel 6.
I remember seeing a graphic similar to yours except it was hours worked to buy a variety of items. I haven’t checked the accuracy but this data on minimum wage vs. beer price is interesting:
http://qz.com/174700/how-many-hours-of-minimum-wage-work-it-takes-to-earn-a-beer/
And then there is the impact of technology. How many leisure, comfort and even life saving items are far less expensive today or totally non-existent decades ago, all thanks to technology
is that health care costs rose at an exceptionally LOW rate in 2013, and are expected to continue at a very gradual rise for the next few years. This will allow businesses to create jobs and pay higher wages, despite what you may have heard Senator Ted Cruz say.
Medicare spending per beneficiary is actually dropping and this brings down the deficit.
At the same time, health insurance premiums are actually DROPPING for next year at least in the 15 states that reported insurer premium rates so far. This may change when we get the rest of the states but, if there is an increase, it will not be much bc of increased competition among insurers.
Who do we thank for this remarkable confluence? Well, not the Fed, and certainly not you and Jack, that’s for sure. LOL. The answer is …..Obamacare, of course
down to a few months of most likely cherry picked data? I'm sorry but it will be a few more years before the actual impact of Obamacare is fully (or even more closely) known, assuming it still exists or isn't something different.
in fact, it had a negative rate of growth in 1999. Obama was a pot smoking community organizer then.
the annual rate of growth of employers costs has been dropping since 2002. maybe it you give credit to obama's "present" votes in the senate for that?
seriously, you really are disingenious claiming obamacare credit for much of anything considering how much of it has been defered by the king himself....
REPORT: 'STAGGERING NUMBERS' OF VIRGINIANS WILL LOSE PLANS, PAY MORE DUE TO OBAMACARE
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/12/Report-Staggering-Numbers-of-Virginians-Will-Lose-Plans-Pay-More-Due-to-ObamaCare
Medicare spending per beneficiary is actually dropping and this brings down the deficit.
At the same time, health insurance premiums are actually DROPPING for next year at least in the 15 states that reported insurer premium rates so far. This may change when we get the rest of the states but, if there is an increase, it will not be much bc of increased competition among insurers.
Who do we thank for this remarkable confluence? Well, not the Fed, and certainly not you and Jack, that’s for sure. LOL. The answer is …..Obamacare, of course.
These cuts showed up in full in 1999 where we actually had negative growth as you point out. But, under pressure from the health care lobby, Congress then eliminated many of the cuts it had made in 1997. The restoration of these reimbursement rates in conjunction with out- of- control health care costs led to the spike in 2000-2001 and for much of the 2000s.
One of the major problems noted by the ACA architects was that Medicare cuts never “stick.” So they designed the ACA to address that problem with a more comprehensive approach to controlling health care costs.
The chart shows a pretty steep downward spiral beginning about the time the ACA was enacted in March 2010. If that's just a coincidence, to what do you attribute the downward spiral?
the annual rate of growth of employers costs has been dropping since 2002. maybe it you give credit to obama's "present" votes in the senate for that?
seriously, you really are disingenious claiming obamacare credit for much of anything considering how much of it has been defered by the king himself....
REPORT: 'STAGGERING NUMBERS' OF VIRGINIANS WILL LOSE PLANS, PAY MORE DUE TO OBAMACARE
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/12/Report-Staggering-Numbers-of-Virginians-Will-Lose-Plans-Pay-More-Due-to-ObamaCare
Medicare spending per beneficiary is actually dropping and this brings down the deficit.
At the same time, health insurance premiums are actually DROPPING for next year at least in the 15 states that reported insurer premium rates so far. This may change when we get the rest of the states but, if there is an increase, it will not be much bc of increased competition among insurers.
Who do we thank for this remarkable confluence? Well, not the Fed, and certainly not you and Jack, that’s for sure. LOL. The answer is …..Obamacare, of course.
Control costs? But at what cost?
his paper medical records to electronic records but when you have a stroke in Vegas and they need to know immediately what medications you are on, they won’t have to call Chicago for the information – it will all be on the electronic records system for instant access. I don’t think that is Obamacare anyway – a different statute requires the conversion as far as I know.
The ACA does standardize a lot of billing codes and other paperwork. Once these regs are mastered, the ACA architects believe they will actually lower administrative time not increase it. With respect to the new requirements for gender, race, sexual orientation and similar records, the experts have made a determination that maintaining good records in these areas will promote health care goals.
So a cost benefit analysis has already been done here
The Doctor was actually talking about the new requirements based on improving patient outcomes. Great idea. I actually favor the concept. The problem is these optimizations and analysis often have the individual or actual care delivered at the bottom of the priority list or even non-existent.
You have too much faith in the same system that brought us VA health care delivery. Face it. from a pencil pusher, bean counter perspective, the only way to control costs is to limit demand of a scarce resource
Dont know enough about the whole mess but if the metric is spending per patient that could simply be there are giving them less health care. IOW, no grandma, you don't get your knee replacement! Is that a good thing?
when someone says they are going to cut costs that to me means you get the same thing, only cheaper.
are you crowing about the fact you're just cutting services? I know obamacare cut out 3/4Billion from M-care...right?
so grandma gets gyped so Jaime can get obamacare?