How the current market for medical education differs from a competitive market?
I need if for additional information on my term paper?
No tags for this post.
Related posts
No related posts.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, February 27th, 2010 at 2:25 am and is filed under Online Medical Degree.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to “How the current market for medical education differs from a competitive market?”
Sounds like an Econ paper. Hopefully, if it is Econ, you know about supply and demand curves. In a perfectly competitive market the demand curve is flat, has a slope of 0, and is perfectly elastic. It is the most efficient market, no single producer had any pricing power.
Compare this to a monopoly or an oligopoly where the producers have control over the supply and limit quantity to reap even more profit, raising prices, unlike a perfectly competitive market.
Another Econ concept that comes into play are barriers to entry. Through licensing and accredititation process groups like the AMA and the ADA for instance can limit the supply of doctors, dentists, and pharmacists and the number of schools. This causes an unnatural shortage, makes healthcare less affordable, accessible, and causes inflationary pressure on healthcare.
For example, recently, in Alaska there was a situation where people in remote villages did not have access to a dentist. People can easily die from an untreated infected tooth, it happens in the wealthy United States more often than you would think. Somehow the locals found out about this 2 yr program in New Zealand, that trains people to perform routine dental care, cleanings, fillins, tooth extraction, etc. The profession has been in New Zealand for over 40 yrs, with no extra risk to the patient. The remote village sent a group of people to receive the training and come back to help these poor villagers. Somehow the ADA got wind of it and pitched a fit, citing safety concerns among other things, they filed a lawsuit to block the New Zealand trained professionals from giving care in these remote villages.
Now do you think the ADA really cared about the health of these villagers, where were they when they when the people were having all the dental problems? Money, that is all it is that motivates the ADA. If this 2 yr profession took hold in Alaska, it could grow and come to the lower 48nstates, taking business from dentists, making dental care more affordable and more accessible. The ADA does not want the consumer to be able to choose whether they want the services of a 2 yr professional or a much higher priced dentist. In fact the ADA would rather you have no access to dental care, than not see a dentist.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:26 am
Sounds like an Econ paper. Hopefully, if it is Econ, you know about supply and demand curves. In a perfectly competitive market the demand curve is flat, has a slope of 0, and is perfectly elastic. It is the most efficient market, no single producer had any pricing power.
Compare this to a monopoly or an oligopoly where the producers have control over the supply and limit quantity to reap even more profit, raising prices, unlike a perfectly competitive market.
Another Econ concept that comes into play are barriers to entry. Through licensing and accredititation process groups like the AMA and the ADA for instance can limit the supply of doctors, dentists, and pharmacists and the number of schools. This causes an unnatural shortage, makes healthcare less affordable, accessible, and causes inflationary pressure on healthcare.
For example, recently, in Alaska there was a situation where people in remote villages did not have access to a dentist. People can easily die from an untreated infected tooth, it happens in the wealthy United States more often than you would think. Somehow the locals found out about this 2 yr program in New Zealand, that trains people to perform routine dental care, cleanings, fillins, tooth extraction, etc. The profession has been in New Zealand for over 40 yrs, with no extra risk to the patient. The remote village sent a group of people to receive the training and come back to help these poor villagers. Somehow the ADA got wind of it and pitched a fit, citing safety concerns among other things, they filed a lawsuit to block the New Zealand trained professionals from giving care in these remote villages.
Now do you think the ADA really cared about the health of these villagers, where were they when they when the people were having all the dental problems? Money, that is all it is that motivates the ADA. If this 2 yr profession took hold in Alaska, it could grow and come to the lower 48nstates, taking business from dentists, making dental care more affordable and more accessible. The ADA does not want the consumer to be able to choose whether they want the services of a 2 yr professional or a much higher priced dentist. In fact the ADA would rather you have no access to dental care, than not see a dentist.