ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, March 19, 1996 TAG: 9603190035
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BARRY A. PRICE
REGARDING the Feb. 21 commentary, "Too many physicians is a bad prescription," by Neal Vanselow and Don E. Detmer: The authors' logic leaves me almost speechless.
``The looming glut of doctors could drive health-care costs even higher and scare many of America's most talented young people away from a distinguished profession,'' they write.
To stretch a bit for an analogy, every flea market in America is glutted with ``original works of art.'' Does this discourage a truly talented young artist from following her or his dreams? What about the flood of television channels, increasing in number every few weeks? Has this phenomena reduced the opportunity young people have to break into broadcasting?
Might the message really be that the pedestal upon which our doctors stand is in jeopardy of tottering over from diminished exclusivity? And, oh, heaven help us if competition ever enters the medical profession.
If I may paraphrase, ``the foreigners in large part are to blame.'' In other words, a person who has graduated from college with a medical degree and who comes to this country to live and work is a problem, right? Going back 60 years, another foreigner came to our shores for a better life - Albert Einstein. Perhaps if he hadn't been in America, some other young scientist dreaming of a bright future in physics might have achieved his dream. Einstein could have, if permitted, returned to Germany and worked for Hitler.
``No new medical schools should be opened and existing schools should not increase in size.'' If that isn't good old-fashioned market control (i.e., modified socialism), then what is?
``More doctors generally mean more medical procedures and higher costs.'' And just who, when someone loaded with insurance walks into a general practitioner's office, sends that patient to his colleague for additional treatment?
Medical costs began to skyrocket when large numbers of the users of services no longer directly paid for those services. If insurance is footing the bill, the reasoning goes, why care how much it costs? Incidentally, when was the last time you spoke directly to a doctor about how much a procedure would cost? This facet of the problem is seldom discussed.
Technology is held out as a culprit. More new procedures; more new drugs. Yes, that's true. But a generation ago, the doctor came to the home, took vital signs, administered treatment, collected his $5 and left. A generation ago, a computer capable of writing this letter to the editor or performing complex mathematical computations cost in the millions of dollars. More often than not, technology serves to lower costs, not raise them. Not a direct comparison, admittedly, but when a hospital charges $4 for an aspirin, that isn't technology, but greed.
Medicine is an industry sadly lacking in market forces that work to keep costs and services in relation to one another. In my opinion, true competition would cut health-care costs and bring about better care as well. Limiting the number of doctors would do just the opposite.
Barry A. Price of Fancy Gap is retired from the real-estate business.
LENGTH: Medium: 60 linesby CNB