I'm the technical cofounder of a mid-sized healthcare startup, and when I start explaining hospital administration to people, I start with this - every person working in your hospital or clinic has no incentive whatsoever for you to emerge healthier. The only goal is to maximize the ratio between the amount your insurance is willing to pay, and the amount of care that is provided.
In the case of joint replacement, each insurance provider has negotiated a fixed block payment for all costs related to the surgery. If the surgeon makes a mistake, or the patient doesn't follow along with physical therapy, or something goes wrong for whatever reason, the care provider is financially responsible for any corrective actions on the procedure. This means any complaint in a follow-up visit is usually met with some kind of platitude to make you go away, like "here is a prescription for some pain medication, let us know if the problem persists". There is no incentive to do any scans or tests, since this would eat into the profits that the hospital has made on this patient.
For certain GI surgeries, patients are instructed not to eat solid food for a week or two after surgery. A certain percentage of people ignore these instructions and end up in the hospital ER requiring another surgery. In the last couple years, providers of these treatments have learned how to bring that percentage down by hammering post-op patients with daily email/SMS messages to ensure they are educated about their procedure. These systems were not put in place by someone at the hospital who wanted patients to be better informed, they were put in place because someone noticed that percentage and calculated how much money the hospital could be saving for each percentage point in reduced readmission.
I have heard good arguments against Medicare-for-all, but I have never heard any logical argument to defend the status quo.
In the case of joint replacement, each insurance provider has negotiated a fixed block payment for all costs related to the surgery. If the surgeon makes a mistake, or the patient doesn't follow along with physical therapy, or something goes wrong for whatever reason, the care provider is financially responsible for any corrective actions on the procedure. This means any complaint in a follow-up visit is usually met with some kind of platitude to make you go away, like "here is a prescription for some pain medication, let us know if the problem persists". There is no incentive to do any scans or tests, since this would eat into the profits that the hospital has made on this patient.
For certain GI surgeries, patients are instructed not to eat solid food for a week or two after surgery. A certain percentage of people ignore these instructions and end up in the hospital ER requiring another surgery. In the last couple years, providers of these treatments have learned how to bring that percentage down by hammering post-op patients with daily email/SMS messages to ensure they are educated about their procedure. These systems were not put in place by someone at the hospital who wanted patients to be better informed, they were put in place because someone noticed that percentage and calculated how much money the hospital could be saving for each percentage point in reduced readmission.
I have heard good arguments against Medicare-for-all, but I have never heard any logical argument to defend the status quo.