Fábregas: Highmark-UPMC deal feels like a divorce
Now that the exasperating feud between Highmark and UPMC appears to be ending, we can agree on something: We feel like children of divorced parents.
We're happy that our parents stopped fighting and saying unkind things about each other, but we're smart enough to know it's only a matter of time before they start acting jealous or hostile. Then, we'll be forced to take sides, even though there's no doubt we love them both.
I don't mean to be a pessimist. It's fair to say this divorce ended quite amicably. That is, if you can forget the nasty court battles and the TV ads that became a cultural touchstone of sorts. Who can forget the exaggerated indignation of the woman in one commercial who pleaded, “You want me to go to what hospital?”
The better question is, what happens now? Will it be a happily-ever-after kind of tale in which the health care giants co-exist without constantly attacking each other? Will UPMC and Highmark stick to their promise of putting patients first?
The recent agreement the two parties reached suggests deep trust and a promising future. For one, Highmark members will be able to get in-network care at UPMC emergency rooms and cancer centers. And those who are in the middle of treatment at UPMC can stay with their doctors, something that squarely addresses the fears of thousands of patients. That's on top of continued access to UPMC-owned specialty hospitals such as Children's Hospital and Western Psych.
It's no wonder this “agreement” smells like a contract. UPMC, after all, gets the influx of Highmark members without a formal commercial contract.
It's wise to point out that those accessible UPMC emergency rooms contribute to about half of hospital admissions. So if you're treated in a UPMC emergency room and need hospitalization, you'll probably stay at that hospital. Extra points to UPMC for making it look as if it's maintaining access, when it probably will gain many more profitable inpatients paying out-of-network rates.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of putting “patients first,” as Gov. Tom Corbett suggested when the agreement was announced. Still, I couldn't help but wonder: Haven't patients been first all along?
UPMC and Highmark should consider not overusing the word “access.” Health care is not just about access. Just because you get your foot in the door doesn't mean you're getting quality care, let alone affordable care.
Highmark officials are trumpeting the agreement, saying its members “can access high-quality, affordable care.” But how do we know what's affordable and adequately priced when we don't know the price tag of most common medical procedures? The implication that an unlimited supply of doctors and hospitals translates into cheap, quality care is flawed.
Though competition can lead to better prices, let's not forget that you often get what you pay for. By the same token, a restricted roster of providers, as in the case of Highmark's CommunityBlue, doesn't mean that care is substandard.
If UPMC and Highmark keep their word and use the chance to compete as a chance to improve health care, patients indeed will be first. If they fail, they'll force us to take sides and love one parent more than the other.
Luis Fábregas is Trib Total Media's medical editor. He can be reached at 412-320-7998 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lopsided loss to Eagles shows Steelers have issues aplenty
- Roundup: Keurig strikes deal with Kraft on coffee brands; more
- Harrison’s 5 RBIs help Pirates pound Brewers
- Mother Nature takes a swat at Western Pa. stink bugs
- Steelers notebook: Keisel always hoped to return
- Hero Franklin Regional security guard out of work
- Rossi: Time with Penguins taught Bylsma importance of stability
- Sandusky cover-up case unusually shrouded
- Records: Steelers RB Bell admitted smoking pot before traffic stop but denied being high
- Smith could add new wrinkles to McKeesport offense
- Pirates notebook: Prospect Sanchez makes 1st start at first base with Indy