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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...