| Issues and Answers | ||
| Tips for rebuilding trust during a merger or acquisition | |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
Pension and Employee Benefits: Code, ERISA, & Regulations
This series provides an authoritative and comprehensive reference to the full text of benefits-related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the full text of ERISA, and related proposed and final regulations, as well as the official IRS and DOL preambles, and Committee Reports.
from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: The great majority of adult residents of the United States agree that it is important that the U.S. health care system adopt, and that medical providers use, electronic medical records (EMRs). However, they fear the security of those records, and doubt that they will yield any cost savings. In addition, Americans do not trust government or insurers to identify the best medical treatments. These are among the findings of a recent study of American consumers conducted for National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health.
The Public and the Health Care Delivery System survey, conducted by telephone from March 12 through 29, featured a nationally representative sample of 1,238 randomly selected adults age 18 and older. Recent discussions of potential ways to make the health care delivery system more efficient and value-based have emphasized adoption of EMRs, improved coordination of care, and reductions of unnecessary or ineffective medical care.
Electronic Medical Records
Three-fourths of the survey respondents thought that it was important for medical providers to use EMRs and that it would improve the health care delivery system. System-wide adoption of EMRs across the entire country would improve coordination of care (cited by 72% of respondents) and overall quality of care (67%), as well as reduce unnecessary care (58%) and medical errors (53%). Only 22% of survey respondents thought that EMR adoption would lower health care costs as some people claim, while 34% said that it would raise costs, especially their own family’s costs (39%). Forty-four percent of respondents thought either that EMR adoption would not affect costs or they did not know.
Nearly three-fifths (59%) of respondents were concerned about the privacy of online health records, and 76% thought that it was at least somewhat likely that an “unauthorized person” would be able to access those records. With respect to their own experience with EMRs, 46% have seen their doctors enter their health information in computers, and 10% have actually accessed test results online. A study published in February in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that approximately 17% of doctors have electronic health record systems.
Effectiveness And Cost
Nearly three-fourths (72%) of the respondents agreed that clear scientific evidence of effectiveness is not always available, but 60% reported that they discuss with their doctors the reasons for applying one treatment over another. One-fifth said that they rarely or never discuss treatment rationales with their doctors, and another 20% said that they do so sometimes. However, few (30%) discuss with their doctors the cost of tests or treatments; 10% each thought that their doctors had recommended a test or treatment that was more expensive than another equally effective one, or a cheaper option that would have been more effective.
Two-thirds thought that their doctors’ fees are reasonable and 63% thought that their doctors try to keep patients’ costs down. Most respondents (70%) favored retaining the current fee-per-visit system of physician reimbursement, and 25% favored a yearly fee. However, many patients (80%) do not ask about the costs of tests—the uninsured are much more likely than the insured to do so (31% versus 20%). More than one-third (37%) of respondents thought that their doctors were not aware of costs.
The responses reflected mistrust of government or insurers determining cost or comparative effectiveness of treatments—56% thought that insurers should pay for expensive treatments even if not proven most effective, while 35% thought that those treatments should not be covered. More than half (55%) of respondents would prefer that a panel of experts from an independent scientific organization prepare comparative effectiveness research and reports; only 41% would trust such information from a panel appointed by the federal government, the National Institutes of Health, or another governmental agency. One-fourth of the respondents reported having had an insurer deny coverage for a doctor-recommended treatment—of these, 40% had their treatments changed; 20% paid for the treatment out-of-pocket; 20% skipped it; and 9% ultimately got the insurer to pay for it.
For more information, visit http://www.kff.org.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2005-2012 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates
