Coverage vs. Access in Healthcare & the Affordable Care Act 3-24-25

episode
Becker Private Equity & Business Podcast 4 min 2 speakers 4 chapters transcribed
0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript
Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the main topic of this episode?

Jetzt kostenlos testen auf shopify.de. This is Scott Becker with the Becker Private Equity and Business Podcast. Today's discussion is coverage versus access in healthcare in the Affordable Care Act. So, one of the things I came across this weekend is President Obama tweeting about the passage of the Affordable Care Act 15 years ago. Proudly proclaiming how proud he is of the Affordable Care Act.

What progress has been made in healthcare coverage?

And there are pluses and minuses here. I think it's worth discussing for a moment, as I saw all these tweets this weekend about the Affordable Care Act. On one hand, there is no question that providing coverage to more Americans, reducing the uncovered lives in America from about 20% to 10%, ist überhaupt ein riesiges Positives, ein nettes Positives, obwohl es die Frage ist, wie viel wir für das nette Positives bezahlen. Aber generell denke ich, dass viele Leute zu der Schlussfolgerung kommen, dass irgendwie oder anderem jeder sollte Quote-unquotable Aufmerksamkeit für die Gesundheit in Amerika haben. Also bin ich völlig auf dem Weg damit.

How does the Affordable Care Act affect Americans?

Der zweite Punkt in dem Tweet bemerkt mir einfach, an how empty so much the discussion is in DC and how few true problem solvers there are in DC. Coverage is a great political platitude, but it's literally irrelevant without access. So if you don't combine coverage with trying to improve the amount of supply of doctors, clinicians, providers, and taking care of our providers, our nurses, our clinicians, our techs, everybody else, you're essentially... Ja, genau. Again, I think the glass is half full here. I think that's better than not having coverage. Again, I'm a believer in coverage, but it misses the real point. If we don't take care of the real problem, which is the supply and demand in our country and the number of doctors, clinicians, tech and other assets we need to take care of people, then at the end of the day, coverage is very much an empty political platitude, where access and having the supply get closer to the demand that we need is really everything.
But if we really want to deal with the real problem of costs in healthcare, it's not so much the payment model. We have to deal with supply and demand. We have to have enough doctors, nurses, caregivers to take care of our people. We also need enough technology. And on the pharma side, we've got to make sure the pharmaceutical companies die uns nicht zehnmal so viel wie den Rest des Weltkrieges für die gleichen Pharmazeutika bezahlen. Das ist in der heutigen Modern-Day-Raping-Pillaging, um nicht zu beliten, aber hier 1.000 Dollar für ein Vial zu bezahlen, was 80 Dollar im Ausland kostet, oder eine ähnliche Art von proportionellen Auslandskosten gegenüber dem, was wir bezahlen. is utterly ridiculous and adds to our healthcare cost problem. But again, the real issue here is applauding oneself, patting oneself on the back for improving coverage.
Again, glass half full, I'm okay with it, but far more important that you solve the real problem, which is access and supply and demand in healthcare, not just the Lucy problem of pretending to get coverage from people when they still can't get coverage. They still can't get the help they need. In any event, thank you for listening to the Becker Private Equity and Business Podcast. Thank you very much for joining us.

Select any passage to copy it with its citation or turn it into a shareable card.

More from Becker Private Equity & Business Podcast