Hits & Misses – 2009/9/29

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe S. says:

    P4P bites the dust again. How many studies do we need before we give this idea a respectful burial.

  2. Charlie says:

    I go with the student making the college…..I know I made mine. šŸ™‚

    The numbers aren’t in the article, but it is pretty obvious that if the numbers are unchanged in quality, then the pay-for-performance wasn’t paying enough based on performance. Of course, this is just one of the reasons that the government trying to do programs like this usually don’t work.

  3. Juan O. says:

    I had to take an aspirin after reading the AHIP story on financial incentives.

    Why do we tolerate a health care system where the employers, insurance companies, and the government control all the money?

  4. Charlie says:

    On the other hand competition in private markets always create a normal pay-for-performance atmosphere. If you own a business and most customers are upset because of poor quality ….then you will quickly go out of business.

  5. Brian W. says:

    If “Pay for Performance” is such a good idea, I think we should immediately apply it to Congress.

  6. Charlie says:

    I second @Brian.

  7. Devon Herrick says:

    One reason many employers do not have chronic disease management programs is because most chronic diseases to not begin to cause costly health problems until long after a chronically ill worker has left the workforce. This may occur when a worker leaves one employer for another; or when a worker retires and enrolls in Medicare.

  8. Jack says:

    do these disease management programs even work ?

  9. John R. Graham says:

    Why would we expect employers to give financial incentives to manage chronic conditions or use cost-effective providers, anymore than we’d expect them to give financial incentives to keep our cars well tuned or our homes clean and well maintained?

    Unless the employer is in a remote location, and engaged in a dangerous enterprise (such as logging or drilling for oil) I can’t see any reason for it to be involved in our health care. It makes no sense and the government has to stop giving our health dollars to our employers and give them to us instead.

  10. Linda Gorman says:

    I agree with Jack and John. What’s so special about financial incentives?

    Memo to United Benefits Providers: Seeing one’s physician regularly for a chronic disease IS disease management. A lot of the people the companies pay for probably have disease management protocols in place via insurer or physician management programs.

    Given the risks associated with allowing employers to manage employee lifestyle outside of work, let’s see some serious work showing that it makes sense to have employers doing this. As it stands, this article is doing nothing more than expanding the preventive care mantra. It sounds good so we should be doing it even though it really isn’t effective and really doesn’t save money.

    Personally, I’d rather buy my own health insurance rather than give my employer the power to financially penalize me if I don’t lower my health risks to its satisfaction by, say, going to bed on time, failing to take the proper morning exercise, falling off an optimum diet, failing to keep my weight below the 80th percentile for 29 year olds, driving the “wrong” car, and participating in sports that are banned because they have higher injury rates.

    Finally, define “cost-effective provider.”

  11. Christ says:

    La Wii ha un’ottimo sistema di zlulminaiione, ma sembra scarsa nella gestione del bump mapping sulle texture. Effettivamente raramente si vede questo effetto nei giochi, come del resto cosi’ accadeva sul gamecube.A me sinceramente non dispiace che sia su binari, e l’ondata di giochi di questo tipo era prevedibile che sarebbe scoppiata, anche perch il sistema di puntamento e fatto a pennello per questi giochi.Sicuramente pi avanti uscir anche la versione in terza persona del titolo capcom, ma si vede che non’ la loro priorit .