• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sisolak issues executive order to put limits on growing health care costs

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
21,258
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Another state seems to be trying to pursue something sort of like the Massachusetts model, not long after the last one, New Jersey, set off down the path a few weeks ago (NJ hospitals, insurers join state effort to curb rising health care costs). Nevada's governor is setting statewide targets for growth in health spending costs for the next several years.

But like New Jersey, Nevada doesn't seem to be setting up the infrastructure--including a legislative mandate--to actually enable the state to meet its goal. New Jersey at least had apparent buy-in from key stakeholders like hospitals and insurers. It's not clear if Nevada has that.

But setting a goal is at least a start.

Sisolak issues executive order to put limits on growing health care costs
In a move meant to keep health care costs from growing faster than wages, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed an executive order on Wednesday in Carson City.

The executive order sets a benchmark — 3.19% — for how much the cost of health care services can grow in 2022. . .

A number of state agencies have been tasked with working together to monitor costs to consumers and see that insurers and health care providers meet the goal.
 
Another state seems to be trying to pursue something sort of like the Massachusetts model, not long after the last one, New Jersey, set off down the path a few weeks ago (NJ hospitals, insurers join state effort to curb rising health care costs). Nevada's governor is setting statewide targets for growth in health spending costs for the next several years.

But like New Jersey, Nevada doesn't seem to be setting up the infrastructure--including a legislative mandate--to actually enable the state to meet its goal. New Jersey at least had apparent buy-in from key stakeholders like hospitals and insurers. It's not clear if Nevada has that.

But setting a goal is at least a start.

Sisolak issues executive order to put limits on growing health care costs


Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.
 
If you read the EO, it's the same kind of stupid shit you'd see in the soviet union, where the state sets up a target or a quota that has nothing to do with reality. The difference is that in the USSR, bureaucrats would be put up against the wall for not meeting the quota.

But setting a goal is at least a start.

It will do nothing, and I'm pretty sure you already know that.
 
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.

If insurers (ie single payers) are setting the price, I expect it to work quite well. Government does not need to set individual prices for each product or service.
 
California's state house also just introduced a "Cal-Care" bill designed to be a road map to California universal healthcare...the second time
this has been attempted in the last five years.
Hopefully THIS time it won't be the HOT MESS introduced five years ago by the California Nurses Association, and it might have a chance at passage.
 
If insurers (ie single payers) are setting the price, I expect it to work quite well. Government does not need to set individual prices for each product or service.
Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.

If we used the medical technology as available in the 1950s then I’m sure healt care would be extremely cheap
 
California's state house also just introduced a "Cal-Care" bill designed to be a road map to California universal healthcare...the second time
this has been attempted in the last five years.
Hopefully THIS time it won't be the HOT MESS introduced five years ago by the California Nurses Association, and it might have a chance at passage.
Because the California state government is well known for its ability to manage things efficiently and at cost. As anyone who pays California taxes knows the state is an expert at providing great quality public services with no waste and low costs. I hear they reguralily even lower taxes because they know paying taxes is a burden and they look for innovative ways to cut costs
 
Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.

"Outdated" by two or three years doesn't matter.


If we used the medical technology as available in the 1950s then I’m sure healt care would be extremely cheap

Hyperbole as expected.

And anyway, it wouldn't, due to staff costs.
 
"Outdated" by two or three years doesn't matter.




Hyperbole as expected.

And anyway, it wouldn't, due to staff costs.
Well it might matter if you need specialized care.

It’s not hyperbole at all. Healthcare costs would be very low if innovation never occurred
 
I had three covid tests. Only one of them used a (disposable) tongue depressor to guarantee line of sight to my tonsils. I asked the nurse what that cost, and she didn't know. I could easily have just held my tongue down (like a lot of people I have control of my gag reflex) but she already had it out of the sterile package.
 
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.

Nevada's cost growth target seems pretty clearly to be about public transparency regarding spending in the health sector. That's obvious from the responsibilities with which the EO charges the relevant agencies:
a. Monitor health care spending growth across all public and private payers and populations in Nevada and report at least annually to the Governor on such growth;
b. Engage relevant parties, including insurers, providers, and community partners, to develop strategies to help meet the Target that are data-based and practicable;
c. Ensure that consumers and businesses purchasing health insurance share in the positive impact of the Target and related work.
d. Report annually during the fourth quarter on performance relative to the Target during the prior calendar year at:
i. State, health insurance market (e.g., commercial, Medicaid, .Medicare, Medicare Advantage) and individual payer levels; and,​
ii. Accountable care organization (ACO) level for entities of a sufficient size, using clinical risk adjustment methodologies;​
e. No later than October 1, 2026 the PPC shall make a recommendation to the Governor regarding the appropriate cost growth benchmarks for the year 2027 and beyond.
To the extent that public transparency and scrutiny influences the behavior of key institutions in the health sector, so much the better. No "price fixing" is happening here, whatever "market value" is supposed to mean in this context.

It will do nothing, and I'm pretty sure you already know that.
That was the implication of suggesting the lack of a legislative mandate, policy infrastructure, or industry buy-in would be a problem, yes.

Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.

If we used the medical technology as available in the 1950s then I’m sure healt care would be extremely cheap

Massachusetts has had a health care cost growth benchmark (the original such benchmark in the U.S.) for nearly a decade and offers some of the best care in the world.
 
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.
That is how MediCare/MedicAid has always worked. The federal government pays pennies on the dollar for medical services rendered, and people have to wonder why doctors refuse to see MediCare/MedicAid patients?
 
Well it might matter if you need specialized care.

It’s not hyperbole at all. Healthcare costs would be very low if innovation never occurred
Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
 
Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
That’s the way it is with everything in America. Cities routinely pay the families of scumbags killed in encounters with the police for instance. If you have an anti-social scumbag relative somewhere in America they can be your lottery ticket if they’re shot trying to stab someone.
 
Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
They would also be lower if we removed the insurance companies from the equation.
 
Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
Medical malpractice and preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the US, killing far more Americans every year than COVID ever will.


Doctors are killing as many as 440,000 Americans every year, and yet we panic and completely destroy our economy over COVID-19 that killed fewer than half that number in one year.
 
Back
Top Bottom