Free Market in Medicine Controversy

The other day I said something in favor of the free market in medicine, which generated criticism from radiantsun's father.

He took me to be defending the various anti-competitive legal features of our current medical system. But, no. And again, no. In a contest between the medical establishment and freedom, there's no contest where I'm concerned.

As a timely example, there's a new trend where big pharmacy chains are staffing in-store clinics with nurse-practitioners who can look you over, run simple tests, and write prescriptions.

They're open nights and weekends, and cost less than doctors.

Some doctors are trying to do an intervention:

The Illinois State Medical Society is backing a bill that would impose tighter regulations on retail clinics. And the Illinois delegation of the American Medical Association has introduced two anti-clinic resolutions for the AMA to consider at its annual meeting in Chicago next week.

Of course, it's being done in the name of patient safety. Anti-competitive laws are routinely done up as safety laws. And I do expect that on average you would get higher quality care from a doc than from a nurse. But people have trouble even getting appointments on a timely basis from a lot of doctors, and people have trouble taking time off from work to see a doctor, so on average they may be more likely to actually get medical care from one of these clinics.

But, for me, patient safety shouldn't be a be-all and end-all. Patients should be allowed to make their own trade-offs between risk, cost, and level of care.

Some laws that are passed "to protect your health"
Stealthily manage to drain your wealth.