|
A home in which I’d rather not live By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Aug. 6, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. I’ll admit it, I’m not one to go to the doctor’s office very often.
I really have no idea how many people may follow a similar health regimen, but with the abundant number of television commercials repeating the slogan “talk to your doctor about ...,” it would seem there is a vocal philosophy counter to my own. One growing approach to providing health care is the concept of the “medical home,” also known as the “patient-centered medical home.” The concept dates back to 1967, but only really started to grow during the last decade. The medical home is defined as “a health care setting that facilitates partnerships between individual patients, and their personal physicians, and when appropriate, the patient’s family.” This definition, provided in March 2007 in a point paper from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians and the American Osteopathic Association, describe a holistic approach for treating the whole person for their whole life. “[E]ach patient has an ongoing relationship with a personal physician trained to provide first contact, continuous and comprehensive care,” the paper says, laying this out as the first of seven principles. The paper does not provide any insight on how such a system would work, but supporters of the idea have filled in some details. “It’s time for your 2015 annual physical. But your family doctor already knows all your vital readings from the self-tests you administered,” writes Parija B. Kavilanz, senior writer for CNNMoney.com. “If she sees any problems, she’ll send your electronic records to a specialist and coordinate the way you’re treated. And the two of them will send periodic e-mail reminders of what you need to do to stay healthy.” This approach sounds very proactive and convenient, and I am sure there are many people, especially the hypochondriacs with hangnails currently flooding doctor’s offices, who would welcome such a plan. I am not one of them. For me, this concept is tantamount to owning a car for the ultimate purpose of taking it to the family mechanic every other day. I am not interested in having a health care provider nagging me all the time to eat my vegetables or brush my teeth with the prescribed style of toothbrush. My parents taught me well enough how to take care of myself. As I stare down 40, I will admit I probably should get better acquainted with a family physician, but when I do, I will not choose to enter into one of these “medical homes.” I’d prefer a different approach. But therein lies the rub — should the ominous health care takeover plan plodding through Congress be enacted despite the majority of Americans opposing it, I will not have any choice in the matter. Shawn Tully, editor at large of Fortune.com and also writing on CNNMoney.com, said that “Americans buying through the exchanges ... must get their care through something called ‘medical home.’” Tully likens the medical homes as something similar to HMOs, adding that participants would be “assigned” a primary care doctor who “controls your access to specialists.” Tully also points out the health care bill is designed to eventually guide all Americans into a public plan. The Lewin Group, an independent policy research firm revealed in a July 15 report that by 2011, 103.4 million Americans would be funneled into the public plan due to 83.4 million Americans losing their private plans. On June 24, during his health care infomercials graciously hosted by ABC, President Barack Obama said he would “allow us to keep our doctor.” That’s very magnanimous of him, but the legislation being forged in his name does not bear out that choice. It’s smoke and mirrors anyway, since as far back as 2003, the Joker-in-chief has said the ultimate goal is to create a single-payer, government-rationed health care system. In writing my objections to the proposed plan, naysayers have written me saying provisions of the plan are voluntary, available only if we want them. Allow me to explain how “choice” works when it comes to the government. When I wanted to take leave while I was in the U.S. Air Force, I had to fill out a leave request form. Boldly printed on the form was a notice stating that due to the Privacy Act of 1974, I was not required to provide my Social Security account number. However, the very next line informed me that my leave request would not be processed without my Social Security number. My “choice,” as it turned out, was not whether I should supply my SSN, but whether I wanted to go on leave or sit in the barracks. Some choice. My commanders also trumpeted that my entire unit was “drug-free by choice.” The command based this claim on the fact that drug use is forbidden in the military and we all volunteered for the military — hence the choice. This “implied choice” is already common practice in the government, and will no doubt extend into their health care planning. For example, if we choose to have children, we will automatically choose to accept wellness visits. If we choose to eat “fattening” foods, we will thereby choose to enroll in a federal fat camp. And if we choose to get old, we will choose to have smiling federal counselors “advise” us on how we should die. Choice — real choice — is a cornerstone of our society and should not be abdicated, no matter what the perceived benefits may be. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
I have no real aversion, just that I don’t particularly see the need to make a visit unless something is wrong. I realize this attitude may throw a few people into a tussle, but I prefer to subscribe to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” model.
