Greg Laden is a blogger, writer and independent scholar who occassionally teaches. He has a PhD from Harvard in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, as well as a Masters Degree in the same subjects. He is a biological anthropologist, but for many years before going to graduate school to study human evolution, he did archaeology in North America. He thinks of himself as a biologist who focuses on humans (past and present) and who uses archaeology as one of the tools of the trade. Greg blogs regularly on ScienceBlogs at http://www.scienceblogs.com/gregladen/.
Dr. Joseph J. Salvo attended Phillips Andover Academy, received his A.B. degree from Harvard University and his Master and Ph.D. degrees in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry from Yale University. Dr. Salvo joined the GE Global Research Center in 1988. His early work focused on the development of genetically modified bacteria and fungus, for the production of novel high performance polymers. In the mid 1990's he turned his group's efforts towards developing large-scale internet-based sensing arrays to manage and oversee
business systems. Most recently, he and his team have developed a number of complex decision engines that deliver customer value through system transparency and knowledge-based computational algorithms. Commercial business implementations of his work are currently active in Europe, and Asia as well as North and South America.
Dr. Peter Tu received his undergraduate degree in Systems Design Engineering from the University of Waterloo, Canada, and his doctorate from Oxford University England.
In 1997, he joined the Visualization and Computer Vision Group at the GE Global Research Center in Niskayuna, NY. He has developed algorithms for the FBI Automatic Fingerprint Identification System. He is the principle investigator for the ReFace program, which has the goal of automatically computing the appearance of a person’s face from skeletal remains. Dr. Tu has also developed a number of algorithms for the precise measurement of specular and high curvature objects. His current focus is the development of intelligent video algorithms for surveillance applications.
This is the nineteenth (semi) daily question on the Collective Imagination blog.
Every day, respond to the question (or another commenter's answer) and you will be eligible to win a custom ScienceBlogs USB drive. We'll announce the previous day's winner in each daily question post.
Yesterday, we asked what you think is the most overlooked issue in health communication.
A few of you returned to the issue of mental health, saying that both mental diseases and the stigma around them ought to be discussed more openly. Other things you think are overlooked are the effects of mixing prescription medications, the relationship of doctors to drug companies that offer financial rewards for prescribing certain medications, and the general misunderstanding of patients of the basics of biology and anatomy.
S.C. Kavassalis is our randomly selected winner of the day from yesterday's question. S.C., email us at [email protected] to claim your prize.
We'll be giving out USB drives daily through the end of March. To get your own, answer today's question in the comments below. This one is pretty much for you Americans...but everyone else feel free to chip in, too!
How do you expect the new health care reform law to change your experience with health care?
For more information about health care and technology, check out GE's healthymagination.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
I wish I knew how health care reform will change my experiences. I live with a chronic disease, type I diabetes, and I need insulin injections to survive. If I lose my current job, or can't get a job after school, the reality is that I will have to ration the insulin, taking less than I need to save money. Studies have shown that diabetics who ration insulin die up to a decade earlier due to complications, but its sometimes the only option.
I HOPE that health care reform means that I will always have a way to get insurance for an affordable price so that the rationing is never a necessary course of action.
Posted by: Laura | March 30, 2010 12:37 PM | Reply
I do not expect much of a change from HCR for me, at least for a while. I am hoping for potential lower rates in the future but without the public option it may not happen.
I expect that HCR will be treated as experimental with tweaks happening over the next several years.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | March 30, 2010 12:41 PM | Reply
I am hoping it will eventually lead to some program which will encourage more people to enter the medical field, thus leading to more doctors to chose from.
Posted by: susan | March 30, 2010 12:54 PM | Reply
I believe that there will be a surge in aggregate demand of medical services. This will have two immediate effects, first, the price of insurance will go up. My understanding is that the insurance companies can no longer price discriminate on the basis of risk. They cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The second effect is that demand will rise, while the ability to meet that demand will not expand as quickly, causing immediate shortages of doctors, and clinics, causing wait times to see a doctor to go up. The cost of all medicine and medical supplies are likely to go up faster than the rate of inflation in order to reduce what is called capitation, basically a cap on fees charged, or a cap on the reimbursement rates. The system will be initially overwhelmed as more is learned about the unintended consequences of the new law.
Posted by: patrick garrett | March 30, 2010 1:30 PM | Reply
I'm not a citizen nor resident of the USA.
As Patrick, above, said, I'd expect demand for medical services to rise, with resulting increases in wait times to see doctors, get treated at clinics, etc.
I've read a fair number of stories in other places on the internet that describe a health issue, followed by "but I don't have insurancde so I just stayed home and tried not to die". Will these stories I find change to ending with "then I went to the clinic, but it was crazy busy so I just went home again and tried not to die." ?
Posted by: TheBrummell | March 30, 2010 2:53 PM | Reply
I don't expect it to change my experience at all. I have group insurance through my employer. I don't expect to see a change in my premiums (aside from the usual astronomical increases - they went up 20% last month on the yearly renewal). I might see a some effect from the excise tax in 8 years if my premiums continue to increase well above the rate the current law allows. I'm not terribly concerned about that though.
Posted by: Andrew | March 30, 2010 3:11 PM | Reply
I suspect that this bill, like most, is not really well thought out and are a political response to pressures put on designer(s) by bottom liners. There, unfortunately will be a long uphill battle to get something that actually works and in the end, I for one, hope that a single payer system comes out of this. It is the only way to provide massive health care and at the same time make it more affordable, by cutting costs.
I share the thoughts of just about all the above commenters and agree with them.
Being retired enlisted military, my primary concern is for those who defend our freedoms on the front lines. These are young people who risk life and limb for us and should not have to pay for any medical assistance they should require. Right now there seems to be an inferred effort by the current administration (I would like to think through unintentional omission rather than intent) to make active duty military pay premiums for their heath care. Big mistake either way.
I am also anticipating a lessening in care provided for military retirees (generals and the rest of management excluded). Higher premiums and less access seems to be the way we are heading.
MT C
Posted by: Carl Coutu | March 30, 2010 3:48 PM | Reply
I don't foresee any change in my health care unless something either catastrophic or chronic happens to me. My university requires that I have health insurance, so the bill has no bearing on that, and the health center where most of my health-care is provided is unlikely to see an increase in visits since any of the students can use that facility for a low price anyway.
Also, the sort of jobs I seek probably will have good coverage. From my understanding, mostly this bill is about helping people NOT in my rather fortunate situation, and may, if anything reduce future service unless our health care systems gets more efficient.
Posted by: Sam N | March 30, 2010 4:18 PM | Reply
In response to Patrick, insurance companies will still be able to charge higher premiums to individuals who live riskier lifestyles, rocket propelled roller skaters for an example. What they will not be able to do is deny coverage for individuals who need treatment for a long standing medical condition such as type 1 diabetes as per the first poster. More importantly this bill should protect individuals who become sick from being dropped by their insurance. It also forces healthy individuals into the sytem with a tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Furthermore, this bill creates subsidies for the those who would otherwise not be able to do so. Currently they use emergency rooms for their primary care and the cost gets distrubted to those who have private insurance. For these two reasons it is quite possible that premiums may become less expesive, though I would more likely expect profit windfalls before market forces take affect. Yes primary care visits are goung to require longer wait times though if anything will cost less as congress has failed to give permant changes to the sustainable reimbursement growth rate before spring recess. At present it stands at a 21% pay cut starting April 1st and since medicare/medicaid reimbursement is the starting point for private insurance reimbursement negotiations pcp's will be at a strong disadvantage. There is some language to also streamline claim handling which may help. In essence we can only see how things will play out, long term wise more primary care should save us a lot of money. As a future doctor I am definitly worried about reimbursements that can even cover overhead, but I am thrilled to know that more patients will have insurance when necessary.
Posted by: Ms3 | March 30, 2010 5:15 PM | Reply
I don't expect any changes in the near future. I am a staunch supporter of universal health care, but I feel that fighting between party lines has probably killed this bill. Perhaps it's my recent pessimism in our politicians but I don't believe that one party can pass any worthwhile legislation without the other screwing it up majorly in some way. I guess my one expectation is that insurance costs will go up. Again, its my pessimism in big business that they will find a way to make out from this law.
Posted by: James | March 30, 2010 5:17 PM | Reply
Not at all, because I live in Australia.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | March 30, 2010 5:41 PM | Reply
I don't see it having any great impact on me until 2014. I do think that much of the bill was a hand out to the insurance companies which means in 2014 we'll all be required to buy insurance and if the rates are astronomical and we don't buy, there will be serious tax penalties.
Posted by: Tony P | March 30, 2010 6:51 PM | Reply
If I get a disease that is expensive to treat, I know now that my coverage won't be dropped because of it. If I can manage to stay stay covered until 2014, I will no longer have to worry about being denied because of my pre-existing conditions.
Posted by: catgirl | March 31, 2010 12:19 AM | Reply
I work in healthcare, at a place where the uninsured people end up when they get really sick. My experience will be improved by a lot. Witnessing the horror of people dying or being crippled by preventable issues is really depressing. If more people get care, their lives will improve, and on the plus side I will see fewer tradgedies.
Posted by: skeptifem | March 31, 2010 4:14 AM | Reply
Here in Germany we scratch our heads in wonder about the American healthcare system and its reform.
Hopefully it will improve the situation for many people, it's highly inappropiate for a rich nation that people die or are crippeled from preventable issues.
Posted by: Monika | March 31, 2010 5:29 AM | Reply
I may be able to afford to get health insurance. That's the biggest change for me.
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | March 31, 2010 11:09 AM | Reply
I'll be on my parents' health insurance until I start graduate school. That's the major change for me.
Posted by: Katharine | March 31, 2010 3:11 PM | Reply
I won't have to watch my friends with kids make stupid choices (e.g. staying in Really Bad Jobs, or in Really Bad Marriages) to make sure their kids with preexisting conditions have insurance.
For my personal self, I have a very modest expectation- my rates will go up slightly slower than they were before. Mostly because I'm covered under insurance through my university, and there are a fair amount of young healthy people here on limited incomes who are not getting insurance, and this may nudge them toward doing so. Those people included in my risk-pool should be a net plus.
I also expect it will be even more difficult to actually obtain an abortion than it was prior to this bill passing. Not more expensive, if you can find a provider, just more difficult to find anybody actually performing them. Including in cases where they're medically necessary. I don't *expect* anyone I know to die from this, but I'm not terribly hopeful, either.
Posted by: becca | March 31, 2010 4:43 PM | Reply
I have a chronic condition for which I take expensive medication as well as having costly tests regularly -- all this in addition to what health risks are common. The lack of lifetime benefit caps could be a good thing for me some years down the line.
The medicine I'm on (and the administration for it) costs, overestimating, about $3000 per month. Presuming that's my health costs (that is, that my doctor visits offset my overestimation), I would exceed one million dollars in less than 28 years. That's not enough, I'm not yet 30 and that's not even leaving room for emergencies. With lifetime caps, I'd fear staying with one company too long... and I might put my health at risk.
Posted by: Beth | March 31, 2010 7:18 PM | Reply
I expect that the wait times for doctor or nurse practioner appointemnts to receive diagnostic tests and treatment will double or triple for my family, to weeks rather than days between calling and being able to schedule a "someone is sick" visit with our family practice. I expect our employer-provided health insurance to require even higher premiums (cost is shared between employer and employee) and even higher deductibles, and that these costs will continue to grow by double-digit percentages each year.
I expect that the "unintended consequences" of the enacted Medicare payment cuts, tax increases on businesses and "the rich" will cause most firms to completely abandon health insurance for retirees, many older or solo practice doctors to retire or convert to medical system employees, and fewer people to pursue careers as doctors, especially in areas (geographic or specialty) where a large proportion of the patients are covered by Medicare. I expect that the new health care reform bills will require large general tax increases, beyond those alreadyt enacted, within a year after the subsidies to low and moderate income families to purchase insurance become active.
Posted by: Anna | March 31, 2010 11:51 PM | Reply
Considering that I'm currently 22 and my father has a (fairly) decent insurance policy, I've noticed that now I have decent insurance and can afford health care for the next four years under the new law that anyone under 26 can share a parent's policy without precondition.
Posted by: Maronan | April 1, 2010 12:48 AM | Reply
Initially, the effects will be fairly minimal. It will be a year or more before any benefits are made available through the exchanges. They'll have to overcome the current trend of practitioners refusing participation in the existing federal programs (e.g., Medicade/Medicare). Once there's actually an ability to offer benefits, you'll have practitioner shortages, particularly of GPs until more potential practitioners can get through technical, nursing or medical schools. You're looking at at least a decade or two of practitioner shortages. In the interim, you'll see more and more leveraging of PAs and NPs to spread out the work load. You'll see more of the pharmacy and super-store minute clinics. Eventually, assuming that neither the medical delivery system or the economy doesn't collapse, things will start to resemble other socialized medical states. However, unless you're in your 30s or younger, the medical care that those who currently have adequate coverage enjoy won't see that type of coverage again in their lifetimes.
Posted by: Tom | April 1, 2010 10:05 PM | Reply
Assuming i keep my current employment situation, I expect to see a slight rise in my insurance costs. Some items i may have to drop because the rise in premiums will be too much.
I expect the insurance companies will put their lawyers to the task oif findinfg ways to get around even the mild concessions they made on the health care bill.
I agree with the viewpoint that what Obama did to us was find a way for the taxpayer to subsidize the insurance industry, guarantee its profits, while not demanding that much be done for the taxpayers in return.
I'm pretty skeptical about the whole thing because I think the process in Congress is pretty much perverted beyond repair. Getting anything good out of the insurance companies is going to take real political willpower, and what I see in DC is an outstanding lack of that from both parties.
Obama faced two huge issues - health care and financial reform. He dealt with financial reform by subsidizing Goldman Sachs and a few other big investment banks. He dealth with health care by having the taxpayers subsidize the health insurers.
Those, in my opinion, were not optimal solutions. They were the watered-down solutions brought on by a culture in DC thatn is dominated by financial elites and insurance industry moguls. The public, which clearly, and repeatedly made it clear to both parties and to Obama himself that we wanted a single-payer system, was shut out of the process.
I feel betrayed by Obama, and I am quite angry about it. I basically don't listen to his speeches anymore, because his actions don't back up his pretty speechifying.
He turned out to be part of the problem, not the solution he lied to us all about being.
He doesn't fight for us. He fights for Goldman Sachs. Big mistake. I for one am not going to be very forgiving about that.
Posted by: yogi-one | April 3, 2010 9:19 PM | Reply
The story we got here in Australia was that most Americans opposed the health reforms not because they wanted a single payer system but the opposite - they didn't want to pay for any sort of government controlled system. Opposition was painted as mostly a right-wing nutjob teaparty thing. Maybe it was partly a thirst for "dumb American" stories in the Aus media.
qzl replied to comment from yogi-one | April 6, 2010 2:17 AM | Reply