by
Sean Ruck, Contributing Editor | May 01, 2012
From the May 2012 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
Before I get into the title of this month's letter, I want to focus on some exciting material in this month's issue.
Let me start with the plethora of interviews. First, Susan G. Komen for the Cure president Liz Thompson talks about her history with the organization and the strides made in the battle against breast cancer. Then, we interview Dr. Stephen Rose to learn more about 3-D breast imaging. Next, we move on to SIIM chair, Dr. Raymond Geis. He discusses his role with the society and the challenging road ahead. And finally, we present a Q & A session with Nelson Hendry, president of Health Connect Partners as he talks about the benefits of reverse tradeshows.
Perhaps even more exciting is this month's introduction of DOTmed's New Product Guides. These guides follow every Industry Sector Report in this month's magazine and provide information on the current line of products manufacturers are offering in the respective fields. So, if you're in the market for a new ultrasound system, for example, take a look at the product guide that starts on page 46. We provide an image and some key specs to help you determine the right machine for you. Likewise, we offer guides for bone densitometers (see page 27) and breast imaging equipment (see page 33). These guides will be available online where they'll be updated as new products come onto the market. We hope you'll find these guides useful and we welcome feedback on how we can improve their usefulness to you.
As far as usefulness goes, let me take this chance to get back to this letter's title. There's continued debate over how "useful" health care reform will be and what groups will benefit from it. Questions about funding, doctor shortages, reimbursement cuts, hospital closures and more have continued to appear, but answers haven't been popping up as quickly as some would like. Currently, the United States has the most advanced equipment in the world and offers some of the most highly regarded experts in various fields of medicine. Yet, expenditures haven't directly translated to results and some research has shown that states with higher health care expenditures per patient also have the lowest quality of care, with the reverse applying for states with the lowest expenditures.
So, that's ammo for reigning in spending. Maybe some money can be saved and that helps to fund care for new patients. But lower pay per patient means more work for doctors, because medical education isn't cheap and loans aren't going away. This is where the trickledown comes into question. If reimbursement is being tightened and doctors are expected to make less per patient, should medical school loans be restructured? If loans are restructured and university hospitals and medical schools make less, they'll have to make up for the deficit by paying less, meaning less draw for top talent to instruct.
When it all trickles down, will the United States still be at the forefront of technology and training or will our health care system manage to just be passable for all? I suppose that's the real question, and what remains to be seen.
