BABER MAKAYLA

Student 1

Silvia A Gil

· Phase 2 Discussion Board 2

· August 27, 2014

·       There is always something new in the world of health care. Medical technology has evolved from the days were a surgeon stood over their patient and used their scalpel to cut them open, to a day where robotic surgery provides assistance in the positioning and manipulation of surgical instruments for more precise and complex tasks. Technology has definitely helped health care to move forward. For example, health care facilities no longer need to have paper charts; now all health care facilities have the option of electronic health care records. Technology has both advantages, as well as disadvantages. One of the advantages of robotic surgery technology is that medical care is fast, precise and the recovery period is much shorter. On the other hand the price of robotic surgery is on the high end.

· Would the answer change if more insurance plans covered the expensive treatment options?

·       If we were to only focus on the economic aspect of this question, then yes, I believe that the answer would change if more insurance plans covered the expensive treatment options. More patients would opt for the treatment because they would not have to pay for a service that has a greater number of benefits for them. However, if other factors were taken into account before answering this question, then I think that the number of yes would be reduced. While you cannot take away the fact that this service has a much lower recovery period, and that the chances of infections, postoperative pain, or the need for blood transfusion are greatly reduced; you also have to take the bad points into consideration. One of the biggest drawbacks to robotic surgery is that surgeons are not completely trained on operating these machines. According to a Seattle Times article a surgeon gets between three to four days of training in order to be certified to use one of these machines. As they operate the remote control, they no longer feel tissue when cutting, cauterizing and suturing. If a surgeon is not trained enough this procedure can be life threatening for their patients. Taking away the price factor for a patient that is deciding on whether they want robotic surgery or not is a good thing, however, that would not and should not be the sole deciding factor for their final decision. Despite this point, the Seattle Times states that, “use of surgical robots is booming despite hefty cost”.

· What are the economic implications if the facility absorbed the cost of the treatment?

·       The facility would not fully absorb the cost of this treatment. The price for this treatment would have to be spread out in to other services, which means that the price of health care would rise across the board. For example, if a facility absorbed the cost of the treatment and in order to provide this treatment they purchased a machine and any required instruments that costs upwards of two million dollars, then those two million dollars would be passed down to the patients in other services being provided by the facility. Therefore, while at first glance it might look like the facility is taking a hit from absorbing the cost of the treatment, ultimately they cost of other services would be raised in order to make up the difference.

Student 2

HSS310-1403B-01: Economics of Healthcare

Health Care Supply and Demand

Discussion Board -Phase 2

Rockel Fraser Nelson

Colorado Technical University

Instructor: Paul Emeka

Date: August 25, 2014

     Despite a patient’s inability to pay for expensive treatment options such as robotic surgery, I think that it should be made available due to the fact that in most multi-care facilities, it is required that all surgeons do at least 20 robotic surgeries a year to keep their robot-use credentials. Although it is very expensive, in my opinion, I think that it is a very good idea for patients to experience something different other than the surgeon trying to keep them alive. As mentioned in the Affordable Care Act which was upheld last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, it has discussions about controlling health-care costs. Studies have shown that patient’s that has undergone robotic surgery has shorter hospital stays and there is reduced costs involved, even after taking into account the robot’s purchase price. For patients, it reduces caregiving costs and gets them back to work faster. Also, most hospitals argue that insurers don’t pay more when a surgeon uses a robot, and that’s partly true. Hospitals often are paid a lump sum for procedures, so shorter stays may save them money. My answer won’t change, if more insurance plans covered the expensive treatment options. Everything that we do in life has pros and cons, there is nothing simple about surgeries, and they are all complicated and expensive.

     There would not be much economic implications if the facility absorbed the cost of the treatment. The surgical robots are expensive, so if the insurance company does not pay the price and the facility decides to absorb the cost then this can be a good idea for patients and then there would be much more patients trying to get in on robotic surgeries. Insurance companies may change their provisions that encourage payments to providers based on episodes of care rather than individual services. The robotic surgery is considered as a minimally invasive surgery, so therefore any insurance that covers minimally invasive surgery generally covers the robotic surgery. So, therefore if a patient wants to get the robotic surgery, he or she should consult with their insurance company because it would all depends on their insurance plan and benefits package that they has. Also, their out-of-pocket may remain the same. Most times patients have a prepayment for surgeries and that is what the insurance companies do not pick up, so that can help the facility absorb that cost. So, in my opinion there would not be any economic implications and my answer would not change.

________________________________________________________________