An argument for healthcare rationing
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.
- Half of All Primary Care, Internal Medicine Jobs Unfilled in 2013
- How Digital Strategy Shapes Patient Engagement at Boston Children's Hospital
- CFO Exchange: Smartphones Poised to Disrupt Healthcare, Says Topol
- CNO on Hospital Redesign: 'You Can't Over-Communicate'
- Carondelet to Pay $35M to Settle Fraud Allegations
- Some Cancer Hospitals' Quality Data Will Soon Be Public
- CA Powers Up $80M HIE to 'Create Value in the Data'
- PA Ranks See 'Phenomenal Growth,' Lack of Diversity
- 3 Traits Personality Assessments Can't Reveal
- Cleveland Clinic Partners with North Shore-LIJ for Heart Care