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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?