1. no
2. Yes, providing basic health care, including mental health care makes for a better society for me. From a health care perspective it would force the discussion of where these dollars will be spent. End of life care needs to be addressed first -
3. as above
4. NO, I don't see an overall benefit period. We are in the midst of a health care crisis with providers getting less and less reimbursement and having to see more patients to make the same amount of money as they did last year. Case in point is the medicare cut of reimbursements by 10%. How many more patients can the family practice provider add to his schedule and still provide "high" quality of care?
5. none
6. no
7. No, I believe any interference by the government in our healthcare system will make a bad situation worse.
8. MCCAIN & THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS A GROUP OPPOSE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. YES, IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED, BUT THE MORE THE GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED THE WORSE IT GETS. CASES IN POINT, MEDICARE, PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS, & THE VA SYSTEM.
9. Need better coverage
10. Probably work harder for less, as we have the last 20 years.
11. It is doubtful. The present failed system lets insurance companies and drug companies make billions and pay me less and less for my services.
12. NO!
13. No, my income would probably suffer.
14. Yes, my healthcare is currently at the mercy of my employer and is a constant source of friction in union contract talks. Our health insurance is increasingly expensive, covers less and less, and has higher and higher deductables and copays. A UHC system would reduce friction between employees and administration, provide portable coverage, and should increase benfits available.
15. Overhaul present insurance provisions and costs.
16. Properly revised everyone benefits.
17. yes, more equitable health care system, especially in regards to mental health treatment available to all
18. Government intervention will only make things worse.
19. Doesn't matter, every American should be able to afford and seek adequate healthcare.
20. Yes, reimbursement reforms. The procedure based reimbursement which adds little to quality ofife is hurting healthcare
21. NO
22. No
23. Yes - patients will more likely seek care sooner when they are less sick tha current practice of waiting until one cannot hold out any longer.
24. No
25. yes
26. m
27. Absolutely! I think that we should all be treated as equals and when one looks at anothers' insurance, it is easy to judge someone. If we adopt the concept of universal healthcare coverage we are all equals.
28. Yes, in limiting increases in Federal income tax.
29. Yes. Patients will be happier and healthier due to improved access.
30. Not sure
Hopefully, the system will use the money going to the unnecessary 3rd party payors and move it to actual patient care. I think the physicians will still be underpaid, as they have no voice in the system anyway.Some countries with UHC have much happier and better paid providers than the US
31. yes some impact
32. No
33. No
34. Probably not. But that's not the point
35. We will have a just and equitable system for the first time in my medical career.
36. No personal benefit other than the satisfaction of being able to help my patients better, not see people in need of care turned away and not worry about people dying on the streets and in hospitals due to poor care or refusal of care due to the capriciousness of an insurance company whose CEO earns one and a half million dollars/year plus bonuses.
37. No.
38. Yes, decreased cost to system, universal standards.
39. Yes.
40. Yes I most certainly do! Presidiential candidate and hopeful, B Obama realizes the need for national, affordable healthcare.
41. Indirectly. While a system overhaul will ultimately benefit the public and the people, it will likely result in a relative loss of personal income. However, more people will receive better quality care, from which the entire medical system will benefit.
42. Absolutely not.
43. Yes. I see a significant number of patients with no insurance & poor quality insurance. Access to comprehensive care will change their lives for the better, and that makes my job as their physician much more satisfying.
44. no
45. n
46. not necessarily
47. See above. This nation needs to follow a public health model of education, prevention, & long term commitment to those who are in need.
48. [No Answer Entered]
49. As mentioned previously.
50. More quality care for the poor
51. N/A
52. only in terms of universal access
53. ?
54. You kid ?
Physicians need to be very proactive and guiding to prevent catastrophe both to the practice of medicine from the caregiver's standpoint and those on the receiving end.
I see no personal benefit. But that's what altruism is all about. . .
55. unsure
56. ALL UHC PROGRAMS HAVE SEVERE LIMITATIONS: ASK A CANADIAN PHYSICIAN
57. I think the candidate emphasizes that controlling medical costs starts with the physician and it will improve overall delivery of healthcare.
58. If universal healthcare is adapted and Wall Street profits taken out of the equation it can almost pay for itself as the publically held companies made 200 billion last year.Candidates plans call for $150 billion cost.
59. no
60. yes more money available to hosp and clinics due to more people having insurance thus less waiting time in er and clinics
61. not applicable
62. no
63. I am on a state legislative committee for advance practice. I can see how it takes shape and see it go in that direction.
64. No -- only doctors can improve the world of medicine. At best, politicians will complicate things. Guaranteed.
65. I am not sure if I would benefit any.
66. The doctors always get screwed by the government. "The people" outnumber us greatly, have more votes, thus more clout. The politicians are empty headed nincompoops. What normal intelligent person would subject oneself to this political baloney unless severly mentally ill? They think they have "a mission, a calling!" What they have is psychotic hallucinations!
67. I see no personal benefit. The system will become more burdensome, support staff will be incompetent, Nurses will leave the profession.
68. I am not looking for a personal benefit, just want to do what I love doing without patients quality of care taking a hit
69. sometimes especially with ill patients being able to get longer term care
70. I don't have a candidate.
71. Yes. See question 14
72. quite the opposite
73. no.
i feel the country will benefit...
74. Doubt benefit, just change for a more equitable system. Also more prominence again for the FP
75. NO!
76. no, too much regulations to see much of an improvement
77. Not at all.They have no idea how the current system is abused.
78. no, right now from a primary care perspective we do not have enough physicians to cover the patients we have now much less if everyone had insurance.
79. maybe if no universal healthcare is implemented
80. No
81. yes, reduced cost by eliminating profit margin, reduced hassle by standardization
82. allow more market influences to regulate costs
83. Unsure
84. able to do more get less liabilty worries and help more people
85. No
86. ??????
87. greater patient coverage; there will be a government worker mentality of health care providers that will drive many professionals out of the provision of health care, me included. We did not work this hard, train this long to be told how and what to do.
The predatory malpractice attorneys and CEOs of the insurance companies have it all figured out and the system will not change for the better unless their "contribution" is altered. Physicians and hospitals have been squeezed enough!
88. not sure
89. Not at all. Make it more cumbersome and beaurocratic with more paper work.
90. No
91. I wouldn't see very much personal benefit. Right now, I am trying to stay healthy by eating right and exercising so I don't need any healthcare at this time.
92. NO
93. Not really, may have more regulations and less professional autonomy, more rationing of care to deal with
94. no. the government has never successfully taken over management of any social issues
95. Definitely not. I have worked overseas in socialized healthcare, and there are no benefits to it. Patients get a much watered down version of treatment and physicians become government workers.
96. Unfortunately no.....
97. no
98. No. Government regulations, already a burden will wipe out any remaining satisfaction, Salaries will be capped and cost cutting will be passed on to physicians. If you want to see how bad and inefficient government/universal healthcare is look at the VA medical system. The VA is plagued by waste, inefficiency and poor delivery of care. The government is unable to run efficiently. Corruption is built into any an all aspects of all governments.
99. Not at all. The elderly are mostly likely to be left behind, and the middle class is going to foot the bill for the rich and the illegals. We will become the new poor.
100. yes. Earlier care for those most in need. Preventative care. Less "free care' and more risk sharing for entiore population.
101. no
102. No
103. NO. Will take too long. EMR systems are costly and not standardized enough. Pharmaceutical companies are not going to reform. If they don't make a profit, they'll migrate to foreign venues. Using Medicare as a premis is the mistake.
Currently, moving towards more integrative medicine is the improved direction. Our population as a whole, will need to take more accountability for thier health and incentives towards this model will help tremendously. As long as immigration is rampant and not monitored, the health care system will crash. Simple: Economics 101---can't have the costs outweigh the benefits.
104. not sure
105. I reiterate, they are all clueless.
106. No.
107. no
108. I don't see a change at this point.
109. No
110. More patients with insurance and easier access to health care, possibly resulting in less chronic or neglected conditions.
111. No. Work will increase, revenues decrease.
112. NO.
113. Don't anticipate personal benefit from any of the candidates.
114. no
115. No. It will be worse, just going by the experiences in Europe.
116. Absolutely not. The quality has to go down as the ability to perform our medical duties are impinged by the increase in useless regulations and rationing that will accompany these plans.
117. we might be able to make enough money to pay our bills.
118. no but the overall health of the public will be improved
119. NO
120. test
121. Not very likely during my personal career (another 10-15 years). I don't think doctors will see personal benefit until the insurance lobby is overcome and we move to a single payor system.
122. I would be participating in a more rational system
123. no
124. No.
125. I am unsure.
126. I work for a hospital system so it won't make much difference to me. But, I believe that as physicians it is our social responsibility to provide for the health of others and that imperative comes before the question of amount of profit.
127. no
128. most likely not. cost for improvement will affect physicians more than any other entity in the healthcare industry.
129. Probobly at least be palatable.
130. Yes, it will lower my costs!
131. no
132. no
133. I will probably have to see more patients and be reimbursed at a lower rate/patient.
134. Yes. Less charity care. More funds available for EHR implementation. Less administrative costs.
135. As an older person with insight into future health issues better coverage is needed for me and my peers
136. Better total health care.
137. I think that the money spent will actually go to those lifting a finger to help patients and not to all these parasitic wastes of money. It would be great if
138. Yes, I believe there will be an increased demand for quality primary care physicians. We all know the rules of supply and demand.
139. Not unless they address the restrictions placed upon APNs. There are reducing PCPs and we need more APNs to fill this void with qaulity healthcare without the cumbersome pointless oversight by the AMA
140. No
141. not necessarily
142. probably not; I would not anticipate significant change in my lifetime; ther eis not a leader within the medical field on the horizon.
143. No.
144. Still undecided
145. YES, the current system is a disaster
146. [No Answer Entered]
147. NOT AT THIS TIME. NO CANDIDATE IS REALLY SPEAKING TO THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, JUST THE PATIENTS. NO ONE SPEAKS TO THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES OF THEIR PLANS OR ANY POTENTIAL MANDATES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO SERVICE THESE PATIENTS. FOR INSTANCE, WHAT IF THE REIMBURSEMENT IS SIMILAR TO MEDICAID AND SLIGHTLY MORE THAN MEDICAID, WHO'S GOING TO ACCEPT THAT PLAN? NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THAT. THERE'S THIS IDEA THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE INSURANCE, YOU'LL FIND A PROVIDER. THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. IF I SEE THESE PATIENTS, MAYBE THE GOVT SHOULD PAY A PORTION OF MY STUDENT LOANS. WHERE ARE THE INCENTIVES FOR THE PROVIDERS? I HAVE A MEDICAL DEGREE AND A MEDICAL LICENSE AND I'M NOT COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITH UHC.
148. income
149. Yes. I believe the cost of current US health care system is escalating because of the outrageously high amounts of money payout to plaintif's lawyers in the event of setlement for medical legal cases. As a result, physicians in the US practice so-called "defensive medical practices" for fear of being suied, which often results in ordering un-necessary tests, referalls, and even procedures on patients. The escalating cost of medical liability insurance for physicians in many specialties are also becoming prohibitively expensive; these costs are ultimately built into the overall cost of the health care delivery system. The solution would be to implementing tort reform on a national scale (put an upper limit to the payout for medical legal law suits); the potential benifits of this change would be decreasing number of un-necessary medical tests and lowing the cost of medical liability insurances for doctors accross all medical specialties.
150. Doubt that I will see any improvement.
151. again- not impressed with choices in candidates. Mccain is my choice to avoid UHC, but fear his idea of "reimbursement on performance basis"- who shall determine positive performance? What about IM whose pts are chronically ill and non-compliant?
152. no
153. I don't expect a lot of personal benefit, but our society will
154. no
155. Yes. Will be able to access medical care for all in a primary way rather than tertiary. Proactive rather than reactive in emergency situations
156. Yes. Currently I can't treat everyone who needs treatment, and my practice is often dictated by unreasonable non-clinical restrictions of the third party payors.
157. Not for practicing MD'S just the opposite; however the current system is broken.
158. no
159. No! It will mean lower pay and a greater work load for all...but we owe it to our fellow Americans
160. no
161. Why do you ask for BENEFITS? Why do you ASSUME that there will BE a benefit? Your socialism is showing.
162. No, this is a societal issue about what is best for the country as a whole.
163. Not sure.
164. no
165. No
166. no
167. NO, unfortunately, I think it will make reimbursement worse, and physicians are already disgruntled with our healthcare payment system. I would expect to see a mass exodus of physicians. It is extrodinarliy frustrating to study as long as we do, and incur the out of control expense for our education, and have a non-medical person deny payment for our services. It is SO discouraging!
168. by Ron Paul only
169. not clear what the preposals are yet
170. The insurance companies have both the consumer and providers of health care and are not adequately regulated. They exclude high risk patients and deny and delay benefits because they can get away with it. Medicaid now supercedes BCBS in reimbursement in SC.
171. no
172. not sure....not the issue
173. We have to have a coalition of Medical Leaders to meet with the Administrators of such a plan. ALTRUISM has to be the central tenet, not greed and partisanship.
174. I will care of my patients with less stress.
175. Leave it alone
176. All patients would have coverage. More transparent. Less cost-shifting.
177. I don't have a candidate. no I think reform is needed, but I believe it will be chaotic for all.
178. No and to make matters worse it will probably cause Medicare to implode just about the time I am forced to become dependent on it.
179. I think I will indirectly see more benefits as providing access to healthcare for more people will benefit the country as a whole.
180. Not sure if I will personally see a difference but our patients will.
181. Not with the proposals presently outlined.
No details have been presented
182. I am not sure, I just know we need it.
183. Return of dignity and value to the profession
184. Yes
185. no-I am now in locum tenens and hospital employed positions. See no change in those areas
186. If I were in private practice I would hopefully see malpractice rates decrease, increased payments from Medicare and people being more responsible for their healthcare and being more preventive as they are more responsible for thier care and cost and less likely to run to their doctor for every little sniffle.
187. I haven't heard of anything concrete from any candidate
188. No. NONE of the government's actions thus far have benefitted doctors or quality of health care in any way! They simply make it more regulated, more difficult, more expensive, and with more paperwork. Why do you think so many doctors are leaving the profession?
189. Less concern about who is covered by which insurance company
190. No
191. don't know
192. NO.
193. maby not for me, BUT will benifit the society.
194. Probably not.
195. NO
196. NO
197. I don'e see any benefit from any current proposal
198. no
199. I think that cost of care would eventually be reduced, thus my care would either stop having large increases or stay the same cost.
200. I would love to see my cancer patients be able to pay for their cancer meds and pain medications ( the co-pay, even for insured patients is astronomical), get their durable medical goods, and not go bankrupt because they got cancer. I would love to see patients coming in for care early in the diseasese course, because they are not fearful of expenses.
201. No. Since the caregivers have little political leverage, we will worker harder for less and with more regulation.
202. NOT THIS TIME
203. I would be prouder of our country's care. I am bothered by the disparity in care received, by the lack of catastrophic coverage. If my husband or I developed a very serious illness, I would consider moving to Canada or Denmark in order to preserve our quality of life.
204. No
205. No
206. No. Most Americans and politicians believe physician are overpaid and physicians have little political clout and are not allowed to strike.
207. NO
208. no
209. no
210. no
211. Not anytime soon. The healthcare system has skyrocketed and litigation attorneys who flood the judicial system with non-merited claims, ends up costing all of us more in the long run for healthcare. It is a domino effect from the manufacturer, next to the distributor and lastly the consumer, all share in the rising healthcare costs. Also, retirees healthcare has become quite burdensome for many companies who are struggling to stay afloat with this recessive economy.
212. No
213. No
214. NO benefit
only bad to worse
215. It probably won't since I am not going to practice much longer. I think most candidates are clueless about the real problems that lie ahead for medicine and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg now. When more hard working doctors like me (old school) retire and are not replaced or are replaced by younger doctors who want "lifestyle" and don't work hard or are not committed to patients and medicine, there will be a huge issues with access, forget funding! The candidates don't even see that coming. As for payment for services, as long as the payment is below the cost of the service doctors will continue to quit medicine and not encourage their sons and daughters to go into physician carreers which will then ensure that fewer and fewer qualified young men and women go into medicine and we will have doctors with continuingly less competence.
216. My enthusiasm for the profession and the delivery of health care may return.
217. none
218. doubtful
219. health issues treated earlier, decreased inpatient hospitalizations
220. Yes. Financial screening by the health care provider's office will be reduced, access to scheduled health care will increase, emergency room visits will decrease, the mangement of chronic medical conditions will improve, patients that move about because of job or family circumstances will have mobile health care policies that go with them. Life expectancy will modestly improve for men, and there will be no cost saving. It's the right thing to do.
221. easier practice
222. I believe nurse practitioners will play greater & expanded role in primary h/c delivery, especially with the scarcity of family practice MDs. NPs have been shown to be as effective & acceptable to patients in study after study so will be key in containing costs.
223. No, I do not foresee any benefit from plans offered by the current candidates, only a worsening of the system by government intervention and regulation.
224. The benefit would most likely affect delivery of patient care.
225. yes
226. More efficient managed care will give me personally more opportunity.
227. Yes. We continually hear our patients, particularly those working adults forced to go on Medicare, talking about how absurd their rules are. Regular needed appointments,such as quarterly diabetes appts aren't paid for because it is "preventative medicine" and the patient pays,so they want management by phone - absolutely ludicruse.
228. improved quality of the physician-patient interaction. I hate being forced to treat people like cattle. They are miserable and so am I.
229. I myself do not have health insurance
230. no benefits for me at this stage of my life
231. possibly
232. I don't, as I don't believe the elected person will be able to pull it off.
233. I hope so.
234. It will put the responsibility for personal helath care where it belongs with the individuals and their personal choices.
235. No
236. yes
237. No. Patients may benefit. Providers will not.
238. perhaps
239. Absolutely!!
When you know patients who are choosing between seeing their physician and putting gas in their car this is a very personal issue. Sometimes the patient will make a choice about which medications they can get filled due to rising cost.
240. I do not believe my candidate has any chance of winning, so the point is moot.
241. no.
242. no
243. May make actually taking care of my patients easier.
244. No. I can afford adequate coverage now and can provide a lot of guidance for myself and family. I don't need to earn big bucks from my work.
245. I too will be a recipient of the care provided by the Universal system
246. I have no idea. Of course concern that in a "universal" health care plan reimbursement may tilt more towards medicare levels than private insurance levels, which may make many providers inviable
247. no
248. Let me treat patients without having to get insurance company permission for every step I feel is needed.
249. no
250. No
251. No
252. SEE ABOVE DEPENDS ON CONGRESS
253. yes, I am hoping that prevention will become a bigger part of the system
254. See 14
255. NO
256. less hassles and hoops to jump through to get patients the care they need
257. I would stop paying for thoswe that do not pay
258. no, I am a nurse. I feel like whomever gets elected, my job will probably be in jeopardy. I also feel if I do have a job, I am going to have more patients than I could reasonably take care of. I think I am going to be overstressed and overtaxed and I am getting older and I'll probably die of a heart attack because of all of this.
259. Yes, better pt care.
260. Probably not because the government will dump more work on the employees of the healthcare system (i.e. physicians).
261. No, as the blame for inadequate care and increasing cost is ALWAYS blamed on the heathcare professionals, as opposed to the poor heathcare habits of the public at large.
262. No benefit, only harm.
263. I hope not.
264. No
265. people will have more insurance flexibility when changing jobs for example
266. No
267. No
268. Yes, more quality health care for individuals.
269. No. It will reduce my income but it is something that must be done for the country.
270. yes see question 14
271. Let market forces drive medical care and the expense will start to go down.
272. NO
273. No
274. More people will have access to health care which is their moral right.
275. No. I have as yet to ever meet anyone who seems to understand the assumptions and consequences of the present systems strengths and weakness.
276. I will personally benefit by the good knowledge that I am of use to patients, not that I am using them to make a buck.
277. Yes, by improving access for the patients to see me, associated with improved costs of prevention measures
278. no
279. Only if the system stays the same with positive changes.
280. streamlined paperwork,(eliminate all insurance plans other than NHP)no longer having to stomach a system that denies needed medical care because of patient's financial restrictions
281. The "benefit" from any government system is negative.
No politician will cause a positive benefit.
282. More opportunities for physician executives
283. The will not be a financial benefit. However that is not the purpose of providing care.
284. provided genuine universal health care is introduced
285. see # 14
286. NO
287. Not personally. However, the profession could be dramatically more cost-effective if enactment of UHC did 2 things: 1) lowered the public's expectations of what they can get for free (ie- you don't get a $2000 MRI just because you want one), & 2) lowered the standard for quality of care from 99% success to 95% success (ie- not mandating (by malpractice stds.) spending extra $$ on low yield tests to rule out the 1 in a million chance of disease.
288. unsure
289. Financially, probably not, but seeing as how my biggest frustration on a day-to-day basis is the lack of appropriate followup and availability of resources for the uninsured and underinsured, it would relieve a great deal of the iniquity I see in our current health care system.
290. No.
291. No
292. Absolutely not: will continue trend to two tiers.
293. No
294. yes
295. Pay will probably stay the same.....overall cost will probably be aqbout the same.....
If we had true universal care (ie medicare for everyone) we would save money because there would be less duplication of administrative services. Although there would be less competition, there would be government regulation to prevent fraud, and keep costs reasonable.
296. No
297. I have no idea
298. No.
299. More competition among insurers. less Govt regulation.
300. No, unless the federal government mandates that every individual above the poverty line obtains and pays for health insurance (Just like we HAVE to pay for car insurance in order to LEGALLY drive a car.)
Must deal with malpractice crisis!
301. Kucinich-- yes.
other candidates-- not sure. I will definitely not vote for a Republican. Democratic proposals are not THAT different from each other or current system. What is needed is a sea change. Tinkering has not worked.
302. yes. less regs. less overhead. more time with pt. see more pt.
303. I currently see indigent patients in a free community clinic. These people have no other resource for medical care and it becomes a problem when they need more advanced care than our small free clinic can provide. Hopefully, with universal health care, they will have access to a full spectrum of medical care.
304. No but I wouldn't see the socialist / communist system proposed by the other two candidates so in that aspect I would benefit.
305. dont beveive national health care will help the medicAL FIELD OR THE NATIONTHERE IS ASHORTAGE OF NURSES AND DOCTORS IN FIELDS THAT ARE NOT HIGH PAYING SPECIALTIES. They are not addressing the factor of lawsuits and the cost of medical going up because of this No candidate is addressingthewhole issue and the health care field willolny suffer with more government envolvement
306. No
307. Every one will recieve the same care and the reimbursement will be the same
308. more affordable health care on a personal level.
309. NO!
310. Yes, better availability of medications for ALL of my patients.
311. Yes. Probably will not have to always be thinking about whether the patient can afford care but he/she needs it - less impediments to providing care.
312. probably not
313. possibly, unsure?
314. I think that the future of healthcare can be summed up by "You sick, you dead."
315. No
316. No idea, they don't say
317. No.
318. not sure yet
319. I think the candidates need to personally discuss these issues with physiaicans first, I dont feel their is enough of that
320. no
321. NO, I absolutely do not, unless healthcare professionals begin to be paid based on the amount of time spent and quality in delivering patient care. That means nurses, PT/OT, CNAs, and other professionals would be paid more than physicians...
322. yes; perhaps, people might take medications more deligently if costs were decreased and they could afford the medications.
323. POSSIBLY- LESS PATIENTS WILL BE SEEN. MORE QUALITY TIME WITH PATIENTS. PATIENTS WILL SUFFER.
324. yes but not sure specifics
325. possibly
326. no
327. no
328. The only way the system will be fixed is by aligning incentives. Quit incentiving doctors to keep people sick in the hospital by paying them fee for visit while decreasing and limiting hospital reimbursement. When doctors are incentivized appropriately to maintain health, hospitals are reimbursed fairly and drug costs are reasonable, meaning a person does not have to choose between food or medication, then the system will work.
329. I work currently in the pharmaceutical industry, so it's hard to say if I would benefit or not. But as a consumer, and from a public health perspective, we as a nation would benefit from universal coverage by identifying and treating at-risk patients, and with better prenatal care, better pregnancy outcomes.
330. Yes. Better patient outcomes.
331. not unless you mean cutting my overhead (staff), reducing my hours and possibly retiring early.
332. No
333. No, I fell that patients will receive far worse care because of the demand that it will place of cost, medical professionals, and time allotment. Prices have to be cut somewhere in order to afford UHC, and often times the actual caregivers themselves are the ones to take the hit. UHC can be compared to that of the US VA hospitals, and we all know how poorly that system works.
334. not really possiblely make insurance claim filing easier
335. The most important benefit that would accrue to me would to be able to be proud of my profession again.
336. Not really.
337. I believe that patients could benifit from increased access.
338. I am not sure that I will see definite improvement from an overhauled system in
terms of personal income. However, as a cancer care provider, I do believe that it
will be easier to provide some level of cancer care to all members of the popula-
tion when more members are insured. However, I feel that any attempts to overhaul
the current system will have to be accompanied by medical liability reform.
339. I don't think I'd see any improvement but at least things won't get worse with McCain. I doubt I'll be able to stay in medicine with Clinton or Obama.
340. N/A as I find all plans inadequate.
341. no
342. The new system,if implemented would have no bearing on my career life. A shortage of medical care personnel would still exist. A shortage of medical care personnel is also a major problem affecting healthcare in The U.S.
343. such a system would agree w/ my personal views of the availability of medical care
344. No
345. no
346. Not really.
347. No, not me but the patient. That is why we are here, i believe.
348. My poetential income my go down but the greater good will be served.
349. No. I have seen too much abuse by welfare patients, and the increase in patient request for care if they know someone else is paying the bill.
350. Probably not.
351. Changes will allow me to treat patients who present with one problem yet complain of another when they are in the office. Currently, under government programs, when I see a patient for a family planning issue and I know they have an existing issue that requires medical attention, i.e. diabetes or hypertension, my hands are tied with regard to tratment because the government funded program doesn't pay me to treat them for anything but the family planning issues. Another governement program will pay for breast exams and pelvic exams but if I find a lump in the breast and the patient isn't 40 yrs old, they are required to pay out of pocket to get follow up on the lump. UHC will elminiate this and allow patients to be treated for all their medical needs.
352. By making UHC more affordable and available to everyone, long term cronic illnesses may be avoided by people having access to immediate care, rather than waiting until an illness becomes unbearable before seeking medical attention. Once illnesses go into the chronic phase, more money is spent to correct the problem, verses a less dollar amount spent on prevention.
From a personal point of view, I can spend more time on preventive teaching rather than taking care of progressive illnesses as I do now.
353. I have retired. I certainly hope that Americans in general will see an improvement in their access to care.
354. no
355. all will make it worse
356. I will personally benefit by knowing that the patient's money status will no longer be a major issue in patient care.
357. There would be less concern about the patient's ability to pay for care.
358. By the overall improvement in health of the public, by more use of preventive therapies, and decreasing the severity and expense of treatment of many chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease.
359. Not sure until there is more of a plan that is implemented and how it will effect the medical profgession over all.
360. NO
361. No, but the country will be better off.
362. Yes
363. not at all. It will all go down hill...
364. Yes. I will be able to save some money, because I will have less taxation,
therefore more income.
365. No.
366. Not so much by the remaining candidates.
367. no
368. x
369. I probably wouldn't see any benefit. With any new health system, I only see physician benefits dropping and office overhead increasing.
370. no
371. Probably not.
372. It would be nice not to have to deal with so much red-tape and unjustified, blind denials by payors. It remains to be seen if this would occur under a new system.
373. Yes, see above
374. Yes, if UHC w/ gov't run/sponsored health insurance ala medicare, I could stop fighting w/ insurance companies and focus more on (albeit price regulated) patient care. I would be willing to give up income to have a simple and economical (i.e. non profit) national health insurance
375. Not very sure. I expect the current situation to get worse before it gets better. I'm actually positioning myself to have a cash only practice & not accept insurance so that I don't have to continue to deal with beauracracy.
376. no
377. Yes, by reducing the role of govenment in medicine
378. No. The use of physician extenders will most benefit the system, however, the stangle hold physicians have on the system will prevent this utilization from allowing the system to progress.
379. Probably not personally. A UHC program may actually improve my reimbursement since I see about 30% uninsured patients. I believe the loss to bureaucratic oversite will actually cost me in the long run.
380. no
381. no
382. Able to care more readily for many of my patients.
383. no
384. Yes. We have to have significant changes to insure those without is, and to overhaul the entire system. This will lead to better patient care, and more patient/provider satisfaction.
385. no
386. no
387. By providing care for everyone
388. no
389. whatever the system it will trickle down...I work primarily with children and they have been largely unreached despite CHP
390. yes. Simplidied billing and payment. All patients eligible for treatments and medications.
391. no.
392. Yes
393. You asking for to much information for nothing
394. Not at all
395. Definitely not. We'll be mandated to see a certain number of patients and the quality of our care may decline. We are a specialty clinic and our wait time is a few months for surgery. If national healthcare is implemented, our wait time will be much longer.
396. Ubsure. Much of that depends on the cooperation of the congress with intent for positive change.
397. By my candidate (Michael Savage or Pat Buchannan)
398. no
399. no
400. Yes, but only over time, and maybe not in my next 10 years. If she gives more value to PCP's and pays them more to even out the payscales some between PCP's and specialist, then the whole population benefits because it will address the current disatifactions of PCP's and encourage medical students to enter the primary care fields. In the end, PCP's can touch more people and give more needed basic care to keep people healthy. PCP's also are more "reasonable" in addressing end of life or end stage chronic disease issues. If, however, the effort is to improve "total health care" and everything is covered, costs will skyrocket and we may as well shoot ourselved in the foot!
401. No because they all have schemes not sound policy
402. One set of rules, one reembursement schedule, less expense for my billing dept.
403. UNLIKELY
404. yes....more job satisfaction....less emphasis on increasing the number of patients seen in a day to keep afloat...and less stress.
405. Not sure. The stakes for specialists are different from those for generalists. For example, in the Canadian system, specialists in poorly reimbursed specialties here are much happier. Those who could make more here are less happy. My own specialty would probably be better supported in an overhauled system.
406. do not know
407. Possibly, but I think it would take many years (5-10 yrs at least) because a dramatic amount of instantaneous positive change in the system is very difficult to achieve.
408. We can provide coverage for everyone at full need by eliminating the waste of 3rd party payors.
409. The 3 leading candidates are about to destroy medicine as we know it in this country. If so, I will turn my attention to maintaining health b/c it won't pay to be sick.
410. No, not in the system proposed by Clinton. I hope in some future date to see a national healthcare system. That could dramatically improve our system. In the current proposal, coverage is still fractured and different between different groups, we would still have to delay care waiting for auths and approvals from HMOs, and still need all the current billing staff.
411. there can be no equitible benefit to medical professionals because they can not compete with corporate america's finantial control over the system.
412. not really
413. None
414. no
415. More patients will have better access to much needed services that in the current system they are disenfranchised from.
416. no
417. not sure, wait and see what they will do
418. Not Sure
419. no
420. no
421. no
422. No, Loss of income, increase patient satisfaction (Prolonged wait times for care/procedures
423. I am not sure. I have never voted Republican but may be forced to this year.
424. no, by it's very nature, government wishes to maintain power and dominion over it's subjects. Government wants to grow and take care and control all of us.
425. Yes - If we were to rid the wasteful process that makes filing for payment for care so expensive and then contentious to get paid the simplificatiopn would save huge amounts to the system and time to physician practice and time.
426. Yes. Standard health care throughout will benefit health care providers, also
427. If Hiliary Clinton becomes president, she will improve the environment for health care and medical research.
428. No
429. no I just hope it doesn't get too much worse. we are near a tipping point as it is.
430. I have not seen Any yet.
431. yes, advocate for universal health care
432. no
433. Yes. Unnecesary regulations that increase overhead would be eliminated. The free market would manage prices. The voodoo economics of "forced charity" health care would be brought to light and handled as it should be- i.e. charity (and allow all U.S. health care providers the choice of getting a tax deduction/credit for the charity care they provide in the U.S, its territorial waters and airspace).
434. If more people have access to health care earlier in their lives overall health will be better,visits can focus more on preventitive care.
435. Improvements such as adequate staffing, more decent salary, better health insurance (less cost if not free) from employers as mandated by law would be of great impaact to my profession.
436. the population of america would have access to care. This would increase the wellness of our society.
437. no
438. No
439. no, not until pharmaceuticals are regulated/capped.
440. no. The problem is that government regulations are already enormous and will liekly only worsen and the govt system will try to pay providers less for more work and more paperwork burden
441. Difficult to say but I do think, at this point, that the numbers of people involved in handling various insurance claims, different systems etc. is costing much more than it needs to. On the other hand the government has never been known for its efficiency either. Still the system we have has gotten so bad that I think we have to go to a single payer.
442. yes
443. no.
444. Tort reform will put an eventual end to the lunacy of defensive medicine, and get the parasitic actions of trial lawyers out of the equation. Let's spend our money on patients; let's aid the ones who DO suffer malpractice. But do it in a sane fashion.
445. no
446. No benefits are on the horizon. Looks like more hours. More regulation. Less reimbursement.
447. I, personally, will probably not. The profession will. This is an artifact of my age, years in practice, the "era" in which I trained, etc.
448. No- emergency rooms will always be the gateway and last resort.
449. No
450. yes -- reduce insurance related hassles
451. no
452. I do not believe that any of the proposals will benefit me. The prevailing plans are designed to decrease the quality of care provided, just provide it to more people. And as history has proved, the personal income and independence of doctors will be sacrificed.
453. NO
454. More standardization of claims processing, reduction of managed care middlemen etc
455. yes, patients have little faith in health care and want more bang for the buck due to the csts if more affordable, more access to mds and hopefully better delivery
456. yes better preventative medicine increase changes in lifestyles
457. No, it wil take too long and I am already semi-retired
458. more accountability
less worry about the uninsured
459. no
460. yes/ many deserving people will be treated fairly, not just people with a certain income level.
461. Depends on the system
462. Absolutely...I'm not dying tomorrow! I want a realistic simple healthcare system in the US. We have NO system, just great healthcare shackled by greedy insurance companies dedicated to NOT paying for care.
463. Better patient care but lower income.
464. not really, I see anyone needing care now whether it is free or not
465. absolutely not
466. No
467. I can only hope that a new system will also include a way for medical professionals to help pay off their loans... maybe the government can give more tax breaks, for example, maybe the entire loan can be tax deductible, or the government can pay off a percentage of the loans, fix interest rates on the loan, lower the cost of license fees and malpractice fees would be very important.
468. Yes
469. Maybe. IF access improves that is good for my patients, and ultimately me.
470. i would put my trust in a doctor over a politician (or government decision) any day
471. no, again too many factors involved.
472. Unsure if I will personally benefit.
473. less worry about coverage and deductibles
474. I will benefit if the plan results in improved access to medical care for all Americans. If we become healthier, we all benefit.
475. No.
476. better patient care
477. Primary care doctors would be at the forefront of a health care initiave mandating insurance. As Primary Care emphasizes prevention, primary care doctors would be in a position to save a significant amount of health care money which could then be used to better compensate underpaid primary care physicians.
478. no
479. As a physician, I would see income fall. As a senior citizen, with a very good supplemental health care plan, I probably would see my freedom to pick, choose, demand options reduced. But, I am willing to accept this in the interest of giving basic care to hard working US citizens who have none. My daughter's father in law died at 64 of a massive heart attack: he was a hard working man, raised two good, gainfully employed sons. He refused to seek care because he didn't want to saddle his children with gigantic medica bill.
480. no
481. not sure
482. Yes I do if positive changes are made in providing fair and timely reimbursment for medical services as outlined in answer 14.
483. No
484. No.
485. no
486. possibly
487. no
488. Reimbursement for primary care physicians would probably improve, relative to specialists.
489. no
490. yes no exclusions for existing
491. No
492. No
493. I would take care of fewer uncovered patients, which would also make referral to other specialists somewhat easier.
494. Not at all.
495. No...again, a politician will not be able to "fix" the healthcare system!
496. preventative care, early prenatal care, increased screening tests. They will not come to see me after years of problems, witll prevent or treat problems before they get out of hand.
497. to decrease the cost of medical insurance for all by allowing the purchase of health insurance not based on employment and to decrease the malpractice insurance premiums for physicians.
498. Hmmmmm Mccain will do better job with his plan
499. yes, I am tired of giving away free health care and I am tired of having to figure out every single little loophole that the insurance companies try to use to get out of paying me what I deserve.
500. The benefit will take awhile to become apparentt's gonna get worse before it gets better.
501. Not sure.
502. Not sure
503. Probably not, but it would be worse with the others.
504. Not sure
505. no
506. I shall see only more work, and less time with patients, and less revenue. There is no change in sight for changing the current tort system, which affects us all, patients, healthcare providers, and tax payers!!
507. no it depends who wins
508. No - it will benefit the people more.
509. no, if UHC initiated, my practice will suffer
510. Absolutely. It would be nice to be able to care for patients regardless of what type of insurance they had, with the treatments they need.
511. No.
512. Yes, I would feel more secure about receiving affordable health care for mysef and my family. And i would have satisfaction that my clients could get the same.
513. not appliacable
514. Nothing but negatives for me personally
515. I don't believe that I personally will benefit but hopefully the system will.
516. No.
517. The system needs to be over hauled completely--we are in danger of losing our entire system.
Physicians and health care specialits are the only ones capable of looking at currently working systems such as in Scandanavia, France or Germany and making the needed changes.
518. Hopefully by streamlining the reimbursement. The reimbursement system is almost comical with everybody using different forms and demanding huge discounts and perferred provider status.
519. Uniformity of healthcAre
520. improved continuity of care
521. No, again, I am employeed by a State correctional facility.
522. yes more satisfaction in patient care and less paperwork and bureaucrachy
523. Not personal benefit, but maybe less frustration with helping some, and less frustration about trying to get approval for necessary meds or procedures, and less frustration over helping some to navigate the system. i also hope that an overhauled system will weed those who take advantage, not just those who are underprivileged.
524. no
525. No! I only hope that more people will be served at reasonable costs and the next generation will want to make their profession Medicine (this requires lowering medical education costs).
526. NO!
527. again i'm not concerned so much with how a republican will improve healthcare. I'm more concerned that universal healthcare will destroy healthcare as we know it. we're already looking at more medicare cuts. can't spend quality time with patients as it is, universal healthcare will flood the market with patients and there won't be enough physicians to accomodate them. couple that with the insurance and reimbursement crisis that already exists in my homestate, and it's just a recipe for disaster. i feel the government would do better to reform the welfare system which is so blatently abused by so many of its recipients
528. I don't think I'll see personal benefit in any of the current plans.
529. Probably,but I need more specifics of each proposal, although I do know I will not like any republican initiative. Their philosophy is not correct for these times
530. Yes; less complexity in receiving payment
531. NO. US heathcare is broken, the professional vision we all had at the outset is a shattered illusion, and I would get out of healthcare in a second if I had the opportunity.
532. no
533. maybe
534. I will have a more staff to facilitate better patient care.
535. Les specialization, more preventive care, more interdisciplinary collaborative care.
536. don't like any of these candidates
537. Increase in the number of people with insurance will decrease the unnecessary use of the emergency department for general primary care. Improve overall care provided to emergency patients by decreasing the wait and over-crowding in the ED.
538. I see no benefit to a complete overhaul. We must learn lessons from the rest of the world who have seen the failure of socialized medicine. We have the greatest country in the world, made by private industry, not government handouts. If you reduce the tax burden, then people can pay for their own healthcare.
539. no
540. no
541. I would hope to see fewer individuals using the ED as a primary provider. I would hope to see fewer young people with rotten teeth becasue of the costof dental care. I would hope to see people being able to afford their prescription medicnes and not having to choose between meds and food.
542. Maybe not
543. State to state uniformity
544. No. Already we are seeing the ill effects of pts not able to get specialized care in a timely manner; this problem will dramatically increase under UHC. Will we then become a system of only the privileged and connected citizens in our country having reasonable access to specialized care? What about abusive use of the healthcare system by pts who present in an ER for their 17th abortion to be paid by taxpayers? What happens to personal accountability? Providing unregulated free care and access is also problematic. Cost sharing on a sliding scale might promote more responsible behavior. Currently, our hospitals and physicians bear the brunt of pro bono work. Why not assess a percentage of the insurance carrier profit margins (before executive bonus)to help fund care for the uninsured? At one time, KY assessed a 2% tax on all physicians to help fund their uninsured program. They were forced to discontinue because physicians began to move their practices out-of-state, thus decreasing health care access to all their residents, be they legal or illegal as well as wealthy or uninsured. If any proposed model would not be reasonable to retain physicians, then it likely will have a negative rebound effect.
545. Pts will have easier access to care.
546. I may not see personal benefit in terms of income. In fact my income may be negatively impacted. However, I am looking for benefits in other ways, for example, I quality of care needs to improve, coordination of care needs to improve, and I need to be able to spend time with my patients. This crazy rush, rush system of seeing patients is unsafe for the American people. I laugh when I read about medical errors. Ha ha. Of course we have more than acceptable numbers of medical errors because doctors and nurses are too busy to take care of people. The thinking has been snatched from medicine and we are all in trouble. I know I am going on and on but I am very angry abour not being able to take care of my patients like they need and deserve. I am angry that I work 16 hours or more a day just trying to make sure people are seen and there are no mistakes on my end. I am angry that there is no one to advocate for patients on the front line. I am just angry that most of the docs in my age group are trying to get out of medicine. These are our mose seasoned clinicians at a time when the country is aging and we need older docs on the front line. People at the top are sitting there all content and happy raking in the dollars and in essence saying "to hell with the American people."
547. fewer uninsured so more access for more people
548. no
549. no
550. NO
551. no benefit. government care would be ineffient care.
552. Probably not. What the government gives, the government takes. The main benefit should be the patients, and how to deal with the astronomical number that would enter the health care system if insured. There are not enough primary care physicians to accomodate them, and there will never be enough if the US government and next elected president, don't do something now to increase physician reimbursement and allow for procedure and testing aprovals from insurance companies (instead of the current system of having to send patients to over-paid specialists for simple problemse because the tests needed were rejected or require hours of pre-approval paperwork to allow them).
553. Better job satisfaction due to the fact that patients would be healthier
554. see 14 above
555. No personal benefit. Just a better system.
556. Yes, I use healthcare as well, and would have more options if healthcare reforms occurred. Of course, my patients would benefit most as many only see me and are unable to have other medical issues addressed because they do not have medical insurance.
557. No!
558. I do not see a personal benefit at this point but I think that society in
general will benefit from a system that is inclusive.
559. NO
560. the patients need the benefit
561. soon to be retired
562. see 14
563. not sure
564. Not forced to work for $40-50 an hour at breakneck speed, while nonphysicians criticize my topnotch work and make huge amounts of money without knowing anything about saving people's lives and improving their health
565. no
566. No.
567. Yes. ER doctors by rule of EMTALA currently are the safety net of america. We average $140,000 in charity care a year.
568. No. I believe that the government is not capable of simplifying the current system since insurance companies have too much power over the current system.
569. Probably not brfore I retire.
570. I hope so. Utilizing Nurse practitioners and allowing the public to choose them as a primary care provider will increase public choice and access to quality health care at reasonable costs.
571. Yes, by improved nurse-to-patient ratios, fewer medical & drug errors with EMRs, fewer and shorter ER visits, the costs for which are currently being absorbed by us taxpayers, etc.
572. Hopefully, Patients will see benefits not us the medical professionals but we practice medicine to help/ cure patients
573. not sure if I will have a personal benefit
574. No. I doubt his proposals will pass. If they pass, I doubt if they'll have much impact.
575. I see myself benefitting from a fully electronic medical record system as well as being able to receive payment from each and every one of my patients.
576. it's going to take time. I will see a few changes but a total overhall I don't think so. There is too many barriers to overcome and it will take time to iron out.
577. Yes. Being a nurse and a single parent, it is very difficult to afford healthcare for myself and my family. It is very hard to be surrounded by medical professionals and not be able to afford coverage for my children.
578. Yes. I can stop worrying that if I become disabled, I will join the ranks of the uninsured.
579. Perhaps my job will not be so frustrating. I might not resent other doctors, the government, and the healthcare system (if it can be called a system) so much
580. dont know
581. unsure
582. no
583. No, they all see healthcare providers as the easiest targets. Why? We have essentially no lobbying power compared with the big Pharma and the AHA.
584. Not believing that government and lawyers have the answers to everything.....
585. Only if allowed to make decisions. More goverment involvement will only clog the process even more and like the VA system it cost more to bill for services. The VA bills vets for a 50 dollar office call but it cost 90 dollars to bill this.
586. Unfortunately, I feel that as a doctor I will probably suffer monetarily from a UHC plan. However, I want to see more people cared for when necessary.
587. No, I am sorry to say that I truly feel I will be forced out of my profession within a very short time, under either Democrat candidate's plan, and within a slightly longer time with MCCain's plan, unless the government, through Medicare/Medicaid, and the private Insurers compensate Primary Care fairly, especially taking into account the increasing cost of providing healthcare.
We cannot continue to see double digit increases in the percent cost of runnung a practice, while facing pay cuts from these entities.
588. No
589. Neutral on improvement, but would see less damage to current health care system.
590. no
591. Hopefully,
With patients actually seing a physician for their health concerns early on, rather than waiting until its an emergency because they can't afford healthcare, and Emergency rooms can't tuen away patients, we will be able to have a healthier population overall, which will lead to a decrease in stress for everyone involved, and less need for psychiatry for some of these overstressed individuals.
592. I hate to be negative, but I think it will get worse before it gets better.
593. Not likely. Only if the system actually improves access and quality so that I can be proud of my profession.
594. more streamlined process
595. ability to offer better care to all
596. not likely
597. I wouldn't have to pay for uninsured medical costs.
598. no
599. no
600. yes, He wants to put reforms into place that would encourage individuals to make choices in their providers limit frivolous lawsuits, and streamline paperwork.
601. Will only have to deal with ONE set of bureaucratic regulations
602. No
603. McCain is really a vote against Clinton or Obama. McCain would likely make some incremental improvements. Clinton has her head in the sand. Who is going to pay for UHC. I am not saying that we don't have problems with the current system, but UHC is not the solution. Such a socialistic approach will likely not be tolerated by the majority of Americans. Basically there will be rationing and price controls that will result in decreased innovation and overall poorer quality care.
604. no, the only benefit I can see is for some of my patients
605. NO!!
606. no
607. No
608. No candidates plan will change the system - it must come thru congress
609. LESS PAPERWORK, AND HOPEFULLY LESS PRE-CERIFICATION
610. Yes. More pride in the nobility and benefit to mankind through the practice of medicine. After all there are few if any physicians under the poverty income level. The goal of medicine should service to mankind and not profit and greed.
611. no
612. It will improve since it will allow more patient's care and involvement; this is the reason why I became a physician. From a financial perspective, I may be making less.
613. better overall health care
614. Better access to care for all will increase #'s of visits.
615. It may be better or it may be worse.
616. no
617. NO
618. Probably not.
619. No
620. Financially negative, maybe enough to cause me to retire. However, as a matter of philosophy, I am unwilling to accept continuation of the current lottery of chance for for patient medical insurrance coverage. Both quality improvement and cost containment require better systemization of care. IIn the short run extension of medicare to all would be the quickest way to decrease costs (especially insurrance overhead costs). I would like to see however, a system that fosters innovation and would the allow private sector to flourish if it can produce a better product.
621. it's yet to be seen as congress has more say than the president
622. no
623. no
624. Doubt it, but availability of health care will increase.
625. maybe
626. I don't have time to dicuss.
627. It's been a long time since anybody recognized that I as a doctor deserve to be paid more for what I do. I'd be happy to keep my income steady and reduce the paperwork and overhead burden.
628. no increase of financial profit.
629. no personal benefit to me
630. No.
631. More opportunities to practice.
632. Yes. increased insurance coverage will allow people to access health care earlier. Hopefully preventative services will be covered.
633. yes
634. yes
635. no
636. Yes! I would be assured of affordable prescriptions and healthcare when I retire in a few years.
637. More patients covered by insurance, therefore less patients that I have to creatively figure out what's the least I can get away with doing for the patient and still help them.
638. No
639. definitely, it will affectincome base on strategy
640. no
641. NA
642. not sure
643. No
644. No
645. yes. for a neurologist, it can't get much worse.
646. No, because I feel that no one is concerned or notes the profit margins and salaries of the ins companies who steal and play games with the providers legitimate claims on a daily basis.
647. No.
648. Yes as stated before
649. Hopefully by getting claims paid in a more timely fashion and paid sooner if coding were made more consistent across plans/ HIPPA was supposed to streamline the system, but if anything it just added another hoop to jump thru without fixing anything.
650. I think all proposals will hurt those of us in healthcare. No one cares about the wellfare of doctors except doctors themselves!
651. I will see no benefit whatsoever in the plans of any of the candidates
652. no
653. no
654. no
655. No; this will likely result in decreased compensation and greater work load because the same dollars will have to be spread over more patients.
656. No.
657. Yes, less frustration and less cost of running the practice
658. Fewer acute on chronic emergencies that might have been preventable with better access to early, appropriate primary care. Fewer inappropriate ED visits.
659. I am not sure, unfortunately I am very skeptical that any president can fight the big insurance companies.