dieseltaylor Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 Yes they are not charities. However let us consider water companies as a proxy and how would you feel if they were able to charge what they liked to provide drinking water? And then paid their CEO's at the ratesof the US health companies.? Is there a competitive market or is there a cartel in operation making a mint whilst holding a reasonably effective monopoly on a necessity. Extreme wages because you can is really a manifestation of the cosy relationship of remuneration committees and the CEO. Board Directors get selected by whom? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Board Directors get selected by whom? Technically by shareholders. But as long as the company turns in a handsome profit, their positions are secure. And as long as the companies can finagle rate increases, they will report record earnings. The motivation to cheat the consumer, whether it involves actual questionable legal practices or not, is quite high. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 Harvard Business Review has an interesting piece on the US health industry this month. Essentially they are incompetent at costing and managing resource. I say that as a generalisation as the article does not use such broad brush terms. " Much of the rapid escalation in health care costs can be attributed to the fact that providers have an almost complete lack of understanding of how much it costs to deliver patient care. Thus they lack the knowledge necessary to improve resource utilization, reduce delays, and eliminate activities that don't improve outcomes" HBR Sept 2011 pp49 However case-studies are shown . MD Anderson cancer clinic in Texas was able to produce a 36% reduction in cost in a simple procedure by better managing the flow. It was made up of a 16% reduction in process time, a 12% reduction in costs of technical staff and a 67% reduction in professional staff costs. The inadequacy of managing was revealed in that very few facilities have a handle on the real costs of procedures and therefore tend to concentrate resource on the fees for high ticket items - which may not be the same as focussing on outcomes and bang for buck in overall health. Apparently 17% of the US GDP is healthcare costs and it is rising. I admit to having an unpleasant feeling that the health insurance side is on a percentage of premiums paid so the higher the premiums required the more income they derive. So is it in their interest to drive down costs at the health care providers or do they both benefit at the expense of the people paying. A similar situation exists on any system where people are paid on a percentage of the eventual price. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I reckon charities should NEVER be affiliated with any form or return or advertisement. Thats not charity, thats advertisement!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.