Everyone thinks we need to do something about our health care system, but there's not much agreement about what needs to be done. I am far from an expert in this field, but have come across some interesting articles recently. I am a big picture guy, mostly, so I'll start from the top.
The Democrats generally focus on providing coverage for the uninsured and the Republicans generally focus on the high cost of our system (if they aren't defending the status quo, which they also do).
This chart from the Economist tells us alot:
On the basic question, the Republicans appear to be more correct, the US clearly has a problem with costs, without providing better outcomes. The fact that there is a high number of uninsured is a symptom of the fact that health insurance is expensive, not the core failing of the US system.
RULE #1 – WE SHOULD BE SPENDING LESS ON HEALTH CARE, NOT MORE
What is different about the US system that results in high costs? Here are some possiblities:
- We waste money on the bureaucracy of private insurance – maybe, but the chart shows that we spend as much as or more than other countries publicly, even though most people get their insurance through the private market…besides since when are government bureaucracies known for being efficient?
- Other countries free ride on our innovation – true, but I doubt that makes up the whole difference
- Other countries don't have large medical malpractice claims – also true, but also unlikely to make up the difference
- Since everything is free, people overconsume – true, but it is free in other countries too, and besides, do consumers really stand a chance of figuring out what they should pay for procedures, how to negotiate prices and what is necessary and unnecessary?
- Our care, for those insured, is better – this is true in some ways…we are more likely to make use of cutting-edge technology but our outcomes are not necessarily better in key measures
- Other countries ration – also true, but they do not necessarily have worse outcomes…besides everything else in the world gets rationed in some way, why not health care? Since when do we expect to get unlimited free anything?
This article from the New Yorker looks in depth at the cost issue by comparing two Texas cities with similar demograpics, similar health outcomes, but vastly different healthcare spending per capita:
Supposedly, Obama is making this article required reading for his staff. Obama talks about the cost problem all the time, like he totally gets it, but then he rolls out a plan that involves spending over a trillion dollars more than we already do. It's mindboggling. Why, Obama, why???
Anyway, what is the punchline?
RULE #2 – LIKE WITH MOST THINGS, IT'S ALL ABOUT INCENTIVES…IT IS THE DOCTORS THAT ARE OVER-CONSUMING, NOT PATIENTS
The system incentivizes doctors to order expensive procedures, incentivizes the use of specialists, incentivizes the use of expensive drugs, incentivizes the use of tests, incentivizes the use of expensive technology, and disincentivizes the use of general practictioners, collaboration between doctors and preventive care.
The difference between the two Texas cities is that one has an entreprenurial culture among doctors whereby they rack up huge costs and the other doesn't. Supposedly, if the high cost areas of the US were brought down to the levels of the better low-cost areas (like the Mayo Clinic), the gap between the US and other countries would vanish.
I do suspect, however, that there is a vast medical-industrial complex that will fight this sort of change, thus we will end up just poring more slop into the trough for the health care pigs to feed off, with little actual reform.
As an final note: an article in this week's BusinessWeek highlights the medical-home model that may serve as an antidote to our health care boondoggle:
On the question of how do we incentivize for outcomes (quality) rather than quantity of care? Honestly, I have no idea.