Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is really good question. I suspect that buried somewhere in the giant bill that very few people have read and no one really has too many specifics and the consensus is that most of the nasty provisions would not hit until sometime toward the end of his second term there is a lot that would change about home healthcare and who / how it is paid for. Unfortunately it is pretty darned obvious that the push to shove this thing through is designed to give the lawmakers a "fairytale" to tell the folks back home before they leave DC for their home districts and not because there is some pressing need to radically disrupt a major part of the economy...
We don't even need universal coverage. All we need is for the government to stop enabling the insurance companies to drive up prices.
Why should I have to pay twice as much as an insurance company if I walk in with cash in my hand? If they don't have to spend an hour filling out insurance paperwork to get paid by an insurance company, they should give me a discount instead of gouging me, but the system isn't set up that way.
Prices are set artificially high to force people to buy insurance, and then the doctors/hospitals give you a discount when you show your card. If our government made those discounts illegal, the artificial cash prices would come down and insurance companies would have to compete on service instead of price. This would be a huge help to the legions of uninsured, but there's no way the insurance lobby will let it get past Congress.
Have you ever wondered why our medical billing system is set up as an a la carte menu? That's always been the most expensive way to pay for just about anything. If you want to drop prices, stop letting them charge $10 for an aspirin and set a payment schedule based on achieving treatment goals. If the goal is to drop your blood pressure for x time for $x, the doctor will find the least expensive way to do it with the fewest office visits instead of milking the a la carte system like they do today.
Unfortunately, elections have consequences. We have effectively nationalized the mortgage industry, many banks, and the automobile industry. Next up is the health care industry. When you elect a socialist, you get socialism.
I am curious too what the bill says about home health that spurred the original question?
I can speculate that if home health were eliminated, only the people who could afford private duty nurses could have it, and the rest of the people would be in skilled nursing facilities? It does not seem cost efficient.
I am curious too what the bill says about home health that spurred the original question?
I can speculate that if home health were eliminated, only the people who could afford private duty nurses could have it, and the rest of the people would be in skilled nursing facilities? It does not seem cost efficient.
Thats what I am trying to find out!
As of now, there is the state who comes in, and the patient pays nothing, for them to clean their house, or give them a bath. Its suppose to keep them out of the nursing homes.. They say its cheaper. Apparently, they do not pay these people gas mileage. I wonder how they make it.
Wear and tear on their car, and the price of gas!
Anyway, back to the question. We signed a petition at work, and all this stuff goes over my head. I don`t understand, and would love for someone smart enough to break it down, and tell me if my job is in jeapordy or not.
I work as a Home health aid, in home health care.
It seems to me, and this is just an observation, not a professional statement, that home health care evolved as a cheaper alternative to longer hospital stays. For people who are home with an unpaid caregiver, it probably still is. If a nurse needs to come by once a day for wound care or to administer medication through an IV port, and the husband/sister/brother/adult child/etc... can handle ADLs, the overhead of the hospital bed, food, etc... is eliminated.
If the same person needs a round-the-clock HHA in addition to the nurse visits, it is probably less cost-efficient - considering a CNA in a nursing facility makes the same hourly wage for the most part but is responsible for more patients. There is no doubt in my mind that the person at home is probably more comfortable and receives more constant care, due to the HHA having that one patient instead of 20, but I wonder what the cost comparison is, and if putting people into intermediate care/rehab hospitals and nursing homes is cheaper.
Then, I am curious just like you - I don't have the answer. I hope someone here can shed some light on the issue too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder how they make it.
