Think Out Loud

UPCOMING SHOWS:

RECENT SHOWS:

TAGS:

2008 election 2008 primary alternative energy as we are business changeover college congress convention crime dying eastern oregon economy education energy farming fishing food foreclosure forest health high school history immigration internet iraq jobs labor law legislature literature locavore logging mccain medicine military music northwest passages obama ocean parenting police politics portland prison race recession rural-urban divide salmon school senate special education stimulus sustainable oregon tax testing the switch unemployment university of oregon veteran washington water

see all tags >>

FEEDS:

NEWS:

Summer Reading

Our full summer reading list is now up. You can suggest authors for future "Northwest Passages" shows here.

MONDAY'S SHOW:

Rx: Doctors' Salaries

POSTED BY: DAVID MILLER

LATEST COMMENTS

Thanks for this correction, and for your smart questions. I ... - David Miller
I find it intriguing that you list neurology as a ... - intransition

Atul Gawande's New Yorker article about the disparities between healthcare costs and outcomes has certainly made the rounds since it was first published a few weeks ago: It found its way all the way to the Oval Office.

The gist of Gawande's article is that sometimes spending more on healthcare actually buys us worse care. And while there are many possible factors for this, one of his arguments is that if we're going to reform the system in a smart way we're going to have to change the way we incentivize various services.

For example: if primary or preventive care are crucial, should we reimburse them at higher rates than more specialized fields like cardiology or neurology* orthopedic surgery? Would this be a way to both get more young people into these basic care areas, and also to encourage an emphasis on the "right kind" of healthcare? Read more >>

Photo credit: Waynemah / Flickr / Creative Commons