Medicare pays squat, Pathways HomeCare Center closes

July 31st, 2008 | by Brian Schwartz |

Earlier this month ABC news reported that physicians were dropping Medicare patients because the program paid then too little.  Last week the Denver Business Journal reported that

Pathways HomeCare Center of Aurora, which provides medical supplies and durable medical equipment to Medicare and Medicaid patients, will close as of Thursday, July 31, general manager Chong Shirk said.

But the closure has nothing to do with lack of demand.

Shirk said reimbursements for durable medical equipment from Medicare and Medicaid simply aren’t enough to sustain the business.

Good thing government hasn’t forced us to fund “Medicare for all“…yet. 

Politicians force productive Americans to fund Medicare via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, a flat 2.9% of one’s income.  I wonder what Medicare supporters, like Paul Krugman, would do if they could choose how to spend this money.   On Medicare? 

Or if they had to spend it on a charity related to medical care, would they still give it to Medicare, or a non-government charity that earned their donation? And regardless of how they choose to spend their money, what business is it of theirs to make others do the same?

tags:
  • Sheldon Weisgrau
    Medicare payments for durable medical equipment are, in fact, far above market rates. It's doubtful that DME suppliers are going out of business because of low reimbursement and rates are likely to be cut in the coming years.
  • Ralph
    Medicare takes all, the insurance companies can skim by denying coverage to anyone they want, and then earn enormous profits which goes by the millions into executive pockets who do NOT take care of patients. The insurance companies are also experts at wriggling out of payments AFTER you have been ill by saying the condition or procedure etc etc is not covered. The insurance companies have to go, insurance tied to employment has to go, health care coverage is a basic right that all citizens should have. Have a two tiered system, if somebody wants to pay to go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket that's fine, but there has to be a free basic system for everyone else. Eliminate the middleman of the insurance companies.

    [Comments, by Brian:
    1. I don't know how large insurance company profits are, and how often they deny claims in an unjust manner, and how this compares to place where government is a monopoly on insurance. But without employer-sponsored insurance, insurers would face more competition b/c consumers would be more free to change providers. Hence, they will have more incentive to please customers. I do not understand why a monopolistic government-run insurance organization would treat patients any better, as the patients are captive, and cannot take their business elsewhere.

    2. "...health care coverage is a basic right that all citizens should have." I do not understand this statement. Health care coverage (insurance) is a product that people work to produce. Are you saying that people have a right to this, which means someone is a criminal for not providing it to them? If someone has a right to what someone else produces, and government can punish the producer for not satisfying this "right" of another, how is the producer different from a slave? For more, see here]
blog comments powered by Disqus