Like many of us have said in past postings, the textbook can feel a bit dated in its facts, so I really appreciated having the direct comparison to some of the articles we read off Blackboard that were much more current. The differences between public and private ownership seemed to really be the central element to most of the material this week, and that’s definitely the topic that I would want to explore the most in this blog entry. While the article on the Green Bay Packers gave me some neat insight into how the ownership dilemma really transcends multiple institutions in our society, the issue that I found most interesting was hospital ownership. When for-profit hospitals were first mentioned in the textbook, my visceral reaction wasn’t very positive. I think what was so troubling was that in my head and heart, “for-profit” and “hospital” didn’t seem very compatible. Indeed, when compared to what we know and love about nonprofits, the term “for-profit” isn’t very comforting. That said, as I read on through the rest of the chapter and the additional articles, I learned that my response was not only perhaps unwarranted, but unfair. The textbook, written in 1997, and the Mergers of for-profit, non-profit hospitals: Who does it help? article, written in 2010, both evidenced that about 60% of hospitals are nonprofit, and that an additional 20% are owned by the government. Only a small chunk of hospitals are for-profit, and as the Mergers article also cited, it seems that the big conversions we’re reading about tend to come and go in phases, and equally from nonprofit-to-profit and vice-versa. Plus, the textbook noted on page 104 that the General Accounting Office didn’t find a huge difference in the amount of uncompensated care offered by nonprofit and for-profit institutions, which definitely surprised me. All that said, I think the point that really hit it home for me were these two quick sentences in Merger:
“Jill Horwitz, a business and law professor at the University of Michigan who studies the hospital market, says the biggest difference between the two types of hospitals is in the services they offer. For-profit hospitals, she says, are more likely to offer lucrative services, such as cardiac and diagnostic services, while their non-profit counterparts often provide more less-profitable services such as trauma centers, burn centers and alcohol- and drug-treatment programs.”
I think this quote is what it all comes down to for me in terms of conversions of hospitals one way or the other.
Also, just to give my quick two-cents on the ADD Grows Up article, I agreed and disagreed with some of the ideas presented. I don’t want to discredit ADD as being a legitimate condition because I really don’t know enough about the issue and think it could have a really crippling effect on a lot of people. However, I do agree that ADD is infinitely more complex than anything a six-question survey could capture and that it sure is strange how ADD rates in America are vastly higher than anywhere else in the world after all the marketing that was done on TV and in magazines. Case in point: I wanted to learn more about ADHD so I typed it into Google and saw that “ADHD” had a YouTube channel. I thought that this was a neat way to disperse info about the condition out to the public, so I went to view what they had on their site. Turns out it’s really just a marketing ploy for Concerta, an ADHD drug for kids and adults. Awesome.
I clicked on your link for the video without reading the paragraph you wrote about the video first. After watching the video I found myself really sympathizing with the mother and thought " wow maybe I am judging drug companies to harshly on this one". When I clicked back to your blog and read the paragraph I whipped back in the other direction. I felt almost conned. This video is just another marketing ploy to get people to self diagnose. I am not denying that ADHD exists, but these companies are breeding hypochondriacs.
ReplyDeleteThe quote from the "Mergers" article was great. It suggests that we probably won't be seeing face lifts and implants being done in nonprofit hospitals. It makes sense that nonprofit hospitals do the grunt work, keeping people alive. They do this as efficiently as possible with our current health care system. The for profits know that these other types of procedures are money makers and market to those who have the discretionary income to afford those trivial procedures.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that drug companies depend on Dr.'s to diagnose a condition in order for them to benefit. No wonder they spend so much on drug reps. If a Doctor gives out a prescription, then the pharmacy and the drug companies make money. In turn we may or may not be cured of the condition and everyone else that is in the health plan group winds up having higher premiums.
That video was ridiculous! I can't believe drug companies are allowed to get away with that! Anyway, I also understand that some people are really tormented by ADD or ADHD, but like with all other disorders, there are equally as many people medicated for something they don't have. I also found it really interesting that one can see such dramatic differences in the types of treatment provided at a for-profit hospital and a non-profit hospital. Crazy that neither one can usually provide all the "essential" treatments, this means patients might have to be transferred out of a non-profit facility and into a for-profit one.
ReplyDeleteThank you for highlighting that only a very small percent of hospitals are for-profit. I did not realize how few until I saw your numbers. While for-profit offers lucrative services and non profit offers less lucrative services, we can all agree that cardiac units are as important as burn units, therefore both types of hospitals have their place in society. I wish we could just all "get along" and have all of the services in one place, it seems that doing that would be best for the community.
ReplyDeleteADD & ADHD seem to me to be culturally bound illnesses (like anorexia & bulimia). These 'diseases' or 'disorders' are not found in nations less westernized, and sometimes even bound within a single nation westernized or not. They exist in our country, and in those all over the world (you definitely will NOT find any cases of bulimia or anorexia in starving nations). This is not to down play the suffering of people with such diagnoses, it is just an interesting observation. Suddenly there is a huge influx of people being diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, but in 50 years, will there be as many people being diagnosed? What about in 100 years? 50 years ago, no one had heard of such a thing, you just gave the kid a bike, or a job--anything to keep him (or her) busy. Now, we have a pill for that, soon we will have an app for that. I can see it now: "How to tell if your child has ADD/ADHD" (insert 6 question quiz here). My point is, this is somewhat of a normal cultural pattern and I think it will come and go, when it's simmered down, there will probably be a new one though. At what point do we call BS? Or realize that we have become mutated from living in a polluted environment?
ReplyDelete