By David Sanders
With Congress due back in Washington soon and President Obama ready to hit the “reset” button in hopes of re-launching his health-care initiative, it’s clearly time to start over. Members of Congress — mainly moderate Democrats — are particularly shell-shocked by the public’s voluble response to the idea of more government intrusion into heath care.
So, what should Congress do next?
My 2-year-old son and I sat out in the doctor’s waiting room impatiently waiting for the nurse to call us back. He was worn out from crying and tugging on his ears. I was frustrated that this was becoming routine practice — it was the fourth time in less than a year that I’d taken him to the doctor for an ear infection.
When she finally called our last name, I wasted little time telling her why we were back. She wrote as we walked back to the examination room. It wasn’t long before the pediatrician greeted us. Carefully, he plunged his otoscope into my son’s left ear, then his right.
As expected, one ear was nearly infected. The doctor instinctively grabbed his prescription pad and scribbled a prescription for oral antibiotics and then handed it to me.
My son had taken his fair share of the liquid medication in the months preceding this particular visit, and like many children his age, he had developed the awful habit of spitting out the foul-tasting medicine. Desperate not to be covered in the liquid, I asked the doctor if there were a better alternative. Perhaps he could give my son a shot.
He would have to have three shots. But before I could say “no,” the doctor said the shots, like the oral antibiotics, would only lessen his chance of developing a full-blown ear infection by a whopping 10 percent.
The doctor said he rarely gave his own children antibiotics for ear infections. Instead he simply gave them over-the-counter decongestant and something for pain. We could forgo the shots and the antibiotics altogether, but why hadn’t he told me this the other times we had been in his office?
I followed his advice and gave my son a better-tasting pain medicine and decongestant. Soon after, he began feeling better and in a couple days’ time, his ear cleared up.
I couldn’t stop thinking about the ease with which the doctor was ready to dole out antibiotics.
At the time, my family had good health insurance, so cost wasn’t a concern. If I filled the prescription, I would have had to pay $5 for a prescription that actually cost $70, but for what? Even if my son took the medication, he would have a 90 percent chance of developing a full-blown ear infection.
When given the best information, I was able to make the right decision. The doctor was practicing a milder version of defensive medicine.
Later, I told a physician friend about the ordeal. When I asked why some in his profession, like my child’s former doctor, were so quick to prescribe medication that was effectively useless, he said people want a quick fix, and the antibiotics would have helped a little. Besides, he said, it would have given me peace of mind. To him the $5 seemed like a good deal. But was it?
All those other times I filled prescriptions for the antibiotics and paid my $5, someone else was picking up the other $65 through higher co-pays or premiums.
If individuals had more of a personal stake in their health care, perhaps they would be more likely to ask questions about the care that is prescribed. For the most part, people treat their health insurance like an entitlement — quick to use it, without any consideration of the true costs.
The major health-care push right now is to fundamentally restructure the delivery of medicine by expanding coverage with a so-called “public option.” Over time, that route will, as critics have speculated, put the government in control of health care in the United States. Private insurers will drop out of the industry because they won’t be able keep up with higher costs.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has a plan to provide uninsured families a $ 5,000 annual voucher ($2,000 for an individual) to purchase health insurance. His plan also allows for more true competition by allowing Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines.
Critics of this type of plan say that Americans cannot be trusted to make the right decision on health care. But that’s like saying Americans cannot figure out what grocery store has the lowest prices or what mobile phone provider has the best rate plan. Americans are consumers, and our elected officials should be looking for ways to increase consumer choice by building incentives for people to control costs while making smart decisions.
