As part of the larger effort to overhaul health care, lawmakers are trying to address the problem that intrigues Mr. Obama so much — the huge geographic variations in Medicare spending per beneficiary. Two decades of research suggests that the higher spending does not produce better results for patients but may be evidence of inefficiency. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
This is a classic case of the journalist attempting to play neutral referee, and in doing so doesn't inform the reader about the strength of the positions taken by the various sides. If the New Yorker piece should be doubted, why doesn't the Times raise issues with the piece? If not, then why not present the seemingly cogent arguments from the New Yorker piece? (see links for info on the New Yorker piece)
“There is too much uncertainty about the Dartmouth study to use it as a basis for public policy,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Researchers can’t explain why some areas of the country spend more on health care than others. There are many reasons spending could vary: higher costs of living, sicker people or more teaching hospitals.”
