Skip to main content

Big surprise from NYT: doctor shortages to get worse with new health care law

This should have been, ah, predictable.  If you have X supply of doctors serving Y supply of patients already, and you extend Y by several million . . . .

The window-dressing mechanisms in the Affordable Care Act meant to stimulate the training of more doctors will apparently provide only about 3,000 of the 45,000 more physicians needed in the next decade.  They actually couldn't do much more because our doctor-training system doesn't really have the capacity to expand that quickly.

There are, of course, more libertarian and market-based solutions that health care policy advisors will now have to examine after the fact, like allowing Physicians' Assistants and Nurse Practitioners to set up independent practices . . . .

Don't hold your breath.  Even had we adopted nationwide single-payer health care as many progressives wanted, we still could not have magically generated sufficient doctors to take care of everybody, despite all the promises to the contrary.  The capacity for bureaucratic wishful thinking has yet--like the speed of light--to be exceeded.

We can, however, almost instantly create the thousands of new IRS agents needed to enforce compliance with a health care system that doesn't have enough doctors.

Comments

tom said…
You forgot to decrease X by the number of doctors retiring early or simply closing their practices because they don't want to deal with the increased regulatory burden.

this will magnify the effect of increasing Y.
Anonymous said…
You also need to factor in W, the number of doctors already leaving the field because of increasing costs and decreasing Medicare reimbursements. Now factor W/V - T when you take into account increased accounting procedures, staff retraining to administer care based on new regulations and god only knows the new compliance requirements.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...