An argument for healthcare rationing
New York Times, July 16, 2009
In this lengthy piece for the New York Times, Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer says that while "rationing" has become a dirty word in health reform talks, doing so means getting value for the billions the U.S. is spending on healthcare by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for by the public. "If we ration we won't be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize healthcare or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money," Singer says.
Most Viewed
Most Emailed
- $6.4B Henry Ford, Beaumont Merger Failed on Cultural Hurdles
- Don't Let Nurses Sink Your Bottom Line
- Fortunately, Angelina Jolie Isn't On Medicare
- Hospitals Profit On Bloodstream Infections
- Less Blood Testing for Some Surgeries Safe, Cost Effective
- How Chargemaster Data May Affect Hospital Revenue
- Primary Care Docs Average More Hospital Revenue Than Specialists
- House Lawmakers Grill CMS Over Health Exchange Navigators
- Lower ED Margins Demand a Better Strategy
- ED Physicians Key to Half of Hospital Admissions
