You said it yourself: it’s the lawyers. 20% of all medical costs today go towards tests, most of which are not needed (Source: My father, who is a retired doctor, showed me the stat in a medical journal. I do not have said journal, so I can’t cite the exact name and issue, sorry). People with simple complaints that a $40 x-ray could diagnose 999 times out of 1000 are instead given $5000 worth of MRIs, CAT scans and God knows how many other tests on the off chance that they are the 1000th person, because if the doctor doesn’t order them, sure as shit stinks the resulting lawsuit is going to cost more than all of those tests, so the system becomes clogged up and billions of dollars are wasted. It’s pathetic. A little common sense-start with the basic tests and progress to the more expensive ones if the basic tests are not conclusive-would go a long way.
That sounds very plausible. I know a rise in the co-pay from $10 to $15 doesn’t impact my use of drugs at all, and so there would be no impact on my health.
I’ll take a look when I have a chance - thanks for the link.
Maybe they figure that all those tests save money if they show someone doesn’t need the surgery? Anyhow, I had the opposite experience. I had a cardioversion, and the only time I saw the cardiologist was when I found I had the problem and just before I went under. And the only test was a bit of bloodwork the day before. I go to the coumadin clinic every week, but that is cheap and fast.
I’ll tell you why – because the doctor doesn’t get paid for talking to you on the phone. He only gets paid if he sees you in person.
It’s not the insurance insisting on this. Think of it this way – the insurance company gets a fixed price every year to pay for your care. The less care you use, the more money they make from you. That’s why insurance companies are constantly try to promote less use of healthcare resources, rather than more.
If you’re interested in seeing why the doctors want you to have so many ancillary services and tests, it might be worthwhile looking into whether the doctors have a financial interest in these ancillaries and tests. They often do. Defensive medicine plays a role, but I’m convinced that’s often oversold as a reason.
The point I’m making here is that insurance companies have a role – for good and for ill – in trying to rein in healthcare costs. That’s part of the reason the plan laid out in the OP keeps them in the game.
I’ts not the lawyers – it’s the doctors. Under the guise of practicing defensive medicine, the doctors send patients for unneeded tests, often in facilities they have a financial stake in. Imaging is one of the most profitable services out there. There’s a reason why every physician practice now wants to get an MRI, CT, even PET machine in their office.
From the New York Times: “Numerous studies have found that doctors order more tests and procedures when they have a financial interest in the equipment and clinics used to perform such services. In Florida, for example, a state agency said that doctors’ ownership of laboratories and diagnostic imaging centers tended to increase the use and cost of those services without improving access to care.”
So, you’re still pretending to be a Democrat? 
Cite? (Other than “I think”?)
Sorry, but I was responding to the proposal contained in your post. I wasn’t responding to what “people proposing tax credits and HSAs” are saying, but to what you were saying. My mistake, I’m sure. 
I’d like to see some laws limiting the financial stake doctors can have in things like this. I’d also like to see some limits on drug advertising, especially the direct-to-consumer “ask your doctor” type ads. I suspect those lead to unnecessary doctor visits and unnecessary prescriptions, as well…