Catron on the OK Doctors Video

David Catron is long-time vocal supporter of free-market health care reforms.

He also offered friendly criticisms of what he regards as factual errors in a recently-circulated video by ReasonTV, "Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare".

Read Catron's post, "About That Doctors Vs. Oklahoma Video", for more details.

Catron is also careful to note:

I am not, by the way, advocating more government control over free-standing centers. I am, instead, arguing for less government control over community hospitals.

I greatly respect Dr. Smith and his colleagues for promoting price transparency and for offering high-quality medical services at lower prices.

But I also wanted to highlight some constructive criticisms of the ReasonTV video.  Such open discussion and debate should strengthen our ability to pursue our ultimate goal of free-market health reforms.

Blog for Surgery Center of OK

Readers of this blog might also enjoy the blog by Dr. G. Keith Smith for the "Surgery Center of OK".

Dr. Smith's tagline: "I blog about free markets in medical care and pricing."

Here's an extended excerpt from his latest post, "Another 'not making a profit' story":

A nurse with whom I am acquainted told me the following story this morning. A relative of hers was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and a course of chemotherapy was advised. She has a high deductible insurance policy (good for her!) but just after the holidays is a little short on cash. After having received the news of her diagnosis and just having received her first round of chemo, she was told by the cancer treatment facility (owned by a LARGE health system in Oklahoma employing oncologists) that she must show up with no less than $495 at her next appointment or the deal was off: no more chemotherapy for her.

Now those of you that know me or read this blog know that I'm a fan of the free market. TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Here at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, we charge for what we do and we make a profit. We just happen to charge about a fifth as much as our hospital friends who claim to "not make a profit." I continue to be amazed and shocked at the strong-arm money grubbing that characterizes these "not for profit" health systems (big hospitals). Come on! Seriously, this woman receives a diagnosis during the holidays of breast cancer and she is shoved against the wall for money? You think my characterization of this is unfair? This shakedown mentality isn't limited to the poor, either. Just ask Garth Brooks.

There's more. The oncologists, previously independent physicians with their own chemotherapy center, were free to make allowances for hardship prior to their sell out to the hospital for which they now work. The fees for their services are now higher than before by virtue of their affiliation with the "hospital system" and their old cancer treatment center is now abandoned. This is important to understand for those of you who think that physician-owned facilities represent a conflict of interest for the owners and that price gouging will be the inevitable result.

The opposite is actually true. Physicians who own their own facilities must also own and claim responsibility for the billing practices of the facility in addition to that of their private office.

This "accountability of ownership," as I like to call it (economists would refer to this as a lack of moral hazard, I think) represents a powerful deflationary effect on prices charged patients. Then there is the compassion factor. The physician-owned facility and its staff (including the billing and business staff) can't aggressively shake patients down for money without tarnishing the image of the physician...

Read the rest of the post for how his facility deals with this issue, "Another 'not making a profit' story".

I thought the discussion of reputation effects and accountability for the physician-owned medical facilities were especially interesting and worth wider circulation.

In medicine as in the rest of the modern economy, the enlightened self-interest of an honest provider of goods and services is the customer's best guarantee of good quality.

(Note: I've only begun looking into the various posts, so this isn't a blanket endorsement of everything on the website. But I am looking forward to exploring it in more depth.)

Amendment 63 Wrapup

Unfortunately, Amendment 63 lost last night here in Colorado.

However, similar health freedom measures did pass in Arizona and Oklahoma.

I'd like to take moment to thank my friend Brian Schwartz for his tireless writing and blogging on health care.

And I'd like to thank his colleagues at the Independence Institute for fighting the good fight on this issue.

Lawsuits Update

The September 29, 2010 Christian Science Monitor discusses the status of the various anti-ObamaCare lawsuits in "Lawsuits to undo key parts of health-care law move forward, so far".

Some excerpts:

State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in federal district court in Pensacola and joined by 12 other states via their attorneys general. In May, four states via their governors and three states via their attorneys general joined Florida's suit. Also joining the suit were the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals from Florida and Washington State.

Mr. Cuccinelli's suit was filed on behalf of Virginia alone in US district court in Richmond. Cuccinelli, a Republican, has championed conservative causes since taking office in January...

Further, the states claim that Congress is commandeering traditional state powers under the 10th Amendment, such as regulating intrastate insurance programs.

To bolster their 10th Amendment claims, Virginia and five states in the Florida suit -- Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, and Arizona -- created conflict between federal and state laws by passing laws prohibiting government from compelling their citizens to purchase health insurance.

More information in the full article.

The October 3, 2010 Washington Times has more information on the separate voter initiatives in CO, AZ, and OK to exempt residents from the ObamaCare mandatory insurance requirements. Read more at "Voters in 3 states to consider opting out of 'Obamacare'".

Update: USA Today has its own summary, "Lawsuits over health care law heat up".

Sooner State Says "Later" to Mandatory Insurance

The November 21, 2008 Oklahoman reported that Oklahoma state insurance commissioner Kim Holland wanted to use the power of government to force citizens to purchase health insurance, but she recognized that it might be difficult to pass a Massachusetts-style law. So she proposed an alternate method of mandating health insurance:

Barring a law requiring the purchase of health insurance, which Holland concedes would be a political long shot, "inducements" that penalize those who fail to insure themselves would help, she said.

Among the possible inducements Holland proposed was forfeiture of football season tickets to University of Oklahoma or Oklahoma State University games, forfeiture of lottery or gaming winnings, loss of state income tax deductions or licenses to drive, hunt or fish.

"None of those are very pleasant, but there needs to be a consequence," Holland said.

Oklahomans were justifiably outraged at the possibility of forced to give up their football tickets, and the let her know. As the November 22, 2008 Oklahoman reported, she quickly had to backpedal, saying she was just kidding:

Holland said the idea of a football ticket takeaway is impractical, unenforceable, and wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

"It was one small part of a larger discussion, and it was generally in jest," Holland said of the ticket takeaway concept.

I'm glad that residents of the Sooner state were willing to stand up for their rights, when their football tickets were threatened.

I hope the rest of the country responds as strongly when Senator Max Baucus tries to impose the Massachusetts plan on the entire United States.

(Via Morality War.)