- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,561
- Reaction score
- 28,932
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I spent four years as a trustee in a small town in Wisconsin. People who said, "We tried that," "It's already being done," and "We'll just have to live with it," were impeders of progress. So much so, that our Board of Trustees used to roll our eyes in unison.
As to your commentary that others know better, I'm sure that's true. But anyone advocating no more specialists as in cardiologists, pulmonologists, otorhinolaryngologists, orthopedists, obstetricians, heart surgeons, brain surgeons, cancer specialists, pediatricians, etc., is ONLY interested in saving money and not quality of care. I have no idea why specialists would increase the cost of care, but I'll bow to that narrow expertise you claim. Even if specialists do increase cost of care, I think the results are worth it. Saving money by decreasing quality care is plain stupid.
No one said 'no specialists'.
But there's a reason HMOs have always used a primary care physician as a 'medical home' and required referrals to specialists. Because it saves a ton of resources.
Cardiologists don't need to manage most people's blood pressure and lipids. Surgeons will treat with surgery by default- primary care physicians will consider more cost effective means.