Five Principles for Health Care Reform

by: dchavern

Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 13:30


(This diary is from the US Chamber of Commerce. - promoted by Matt Stoller)

A few days ago Elliott Petty wrote a diary on Safeway CEO Steve Burd's efforts on health care reform.  It was actually pretty responsible in highlighting the real innovations that Safeway has instituted in recognizing and rewarding personal responsibility in healthcare.  Elliot dropped the ball in the last sentence, though, we he said "Clearly the corporate sector are reading the tea leaves and feel compelled to find solutions to America's broken health care system.  Will we leave it in their hands, or push a universal plan that works in other parts of the industrialized world?"

Huh?  The fact is that for about 60 years the U.S. business community has been at the absolute forefront of finding innovative solution to providing - and paying for - good healthcare.  (One example, Kaiser Permanente, which traces its origins to prepaid health plans for Kaiser shipyard and smelter workers in the 1940's.)  After all, businesses want and need healthy employees, and they also pay most of the healthcare bills in this country.  Business has been talking about a "broken health care system" for decades.

dchavern :: Five Principles for Health Care Reform
It is true that many business leaders have not been excited about "universal" heath care proposals, but mostly because there is (i) real value in our current system that shouldn't be lost, and (ii) real concern about divorcing the issue of coverage from the issue of cost.  Our current system presents huge cost problems that would be aggravated, certainly not resolved, by an expanded government role.

In looking at other countries, you also need to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  Most other countries with government-run health care control costs by having the government own the system (the own the hospitals and clinics, and directly employ the doctors and nurses).  They also ration high expense procedures, in preference to broader primary care.  How many of these choices are we, as a society, really willing to make?

Let's take a minute to recognize the strengths of our system, look at it's primary shortcomings and outline some principles we can employ to make health care more affordable, efficient, and inclusive.


Strengths

Since World War II, and then with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care system has evolved into a blend of privately financed care--with employers playing a leading role--along with government support for the elderly and the poor. Under this mostly voluntary approach, we have managed to insure roughly 85% of our people, with emergency care legally required for everyone else.  In fact the number of people with either private or government health insurance went up in 2006--to 249.8 million. More than 201 million are covered by private insurance, the vast majority of those--177 million--with employment-based coverage under a voluntary system with no employer mandates. Many of the insured, including all the elderly, enjoy comprehensive coverage. Medicare has recently added a prescription drug benefit that most seniors are very happy with.

The United States is home to the finest medical facilities, technologies, innovations, treatments, and human talent in the world.  We have the home of medical innovation.  Tens of billions of dollars in capital for medical and pharmaceutical R&D flows here every year.  All these advances, along with the widespread availability of a vast range of medical services, have played a major role in enabling us to live longer and better lives.

Weaknesses

Costs.  We pay more for health care than any other modern society. Yet on a national basis, we fall short on some key indices such as infant mortality and life expectancy. Costs are escalating with no end in sight--for businesses, families, and the government.

Medical Mistakes. Medical accidents are unacceptably high. An estimated 98,000 Americans die annually from preventable medical mistakes. According to the Institute of Medicine, medication errors harm at least 1.5 million people each year.

Medical Liability. Legal redress should be available for the victims of these mistakes, but that's no excuse for all the frivolous liability claims that are driving up prices and driving health care providers out of the profession.

Health IT. What other business still runs primarily on paper?  Most health providers lack the IT systems necessary to coordinate a patient's care with other providers, share needed information, and monitor compliance with prevention and disease-management programs. This makes it impossible for doctors to provide the highest level of care and drives up costs by contributing to errors and redundant tests.

Consumer Responsibility. We need a far greater level of personal responsibility on the part of our citizens. Steve Burd is right - all of the biggest health problems in the United States are closely related to personal behavior.  Consumers need to understand the impact of their health care decisions and the cost of their treatments. And, they need to take better care of themselves.

The Uninsured. There are 47 million people in this country without health care coverage, but that's only part of the story. In fact, nearly half of the 47 million uninsured remain so on average for just four months. In addition, if you subtract noncitizens, those making more than $75,000 who choose not to purchase insurance, and those who are eligible for government-provided care but don't take it, the number of long-term uninsured Americans is probably in the range of 10 to 15 million. That's still an unacceptably high number, but it's nowhere near 47 million.

So how do we build on the positive aspects of our health care system while addressing its significant shortcomings, and without implementing an expensive, inefficient government-run program that would take us in the wrong direction?

Five Principles

First, policymakers must adhere faithfully to the Hippocratic Oath--and that is, first do no harm! Some politicians seem intent on incrementally and systematically moving Americans out of private health care and into government programs. Would that really be better for most Americans?

Second, we should work to restore the viability of employer-sponsored health insurance, which covers more than 177 million Americans. In addition, Congress should pass Small Business Health Plans so that these companies can pool risk and purchase coverage at an affordable price.

Third, we need to revitalize the individual health care market. Congress can help greatly by leveling the tax playing field--granting comparable tax treatment whether premiums are paid through an employer or by individuals in the private marketplace. For this marketplace to work, consumers also need ready access to information that enables them to evaluate providers on the basis of cost and quality.

Fourth, we must reform the systems that are adding expense and inefficiency without improving quality. Health IT can help control costs, prevent medical mistakes, and help consumers make better health care decisions.

We can reduce costs by improving the level of care, which is often uneven in our country. That's a far better approach than trying to squeeze provider reimbursements that may only temporarily patch up a budget. We should also remove medical malpractice claims from the tort system by creating special administrative health courts, similar to bankruptcy courts.

And Fifth, we need to launch a ground-up revolution in wellness and prevention. A reorientation to preventive medicine could avert 40 million cases of 7 chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--by the year 2023. This would save about $1.1 trillion dollars. That's real money!

These five ideas may not sound as dramatic or all-encompassing as the big government plans we are hearing about on the political campaign trail. But guess what--they can work. Not overnight, but over time. They can lead us to a health care system of high quality, lower costs, and greater access for all Americans.

I post on health care and other topics on chamberpost.com, we welcome all to the debate.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is a "right to respond" post, right? (0.00 / 0)
I hope Open Left isn't frontpaging the Chamber for any other reason.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

The US Chamber! (0.00 / 0)
??  Heaven forbid!  I actually spend most of my time reading the posts of people I might generally disagree with.  Dialogue is the only way to get at these difficult issues.  Only talking to like-minded people is a great way to get yourself lost on an issue.

[ Parent ]
Why not support single payer, then? (4.00 / 1)
The overriding theme of your "weaknesses" rhetoric is cost, both efficiency and monetary. Why not cut the crap and push for single-payer, eliminating the entire healthcare burden to US commerce and industry?

That is, does the Chamber of Commerce work only for the good of the existing healthcare industry, or does it take a broader view of what is actually good for the vast majority of businesses, both large and small?


Vast Majority (0.00 / 0)
The vast majority of businesses, thank you very much.  Cheaper and better will always be a good choice for business.  But just making our system "single payer" will not necessarily make it either cheaper or better.  I get that insurance companies make profits.  I assume that you also get that governments waste money.  Once we get beyond that tit-for-tat, how are we going to control costs at an operational level?  Until we answer that question, we are both engaging in a meaningless debate.

[ Parent ]
hmm (0.00 / 0)
How would any of this prevent insurance companies from competing with each other for the healthiest patients, and trying to terminate or refuse coverage for high-risk ones?

You mention the 47M Americans without coverage, but fail to mention all the people with inadequate coverage, or specific exclusions for "pre-existing problems"

There are direct obvious reasons why health care is a market failure and simply not a commodity that markets handle well. 


"Insurance" (0.00 / 0)
Insurance is a risk mitigation tool.  Buying protection against the small risk of a great harm.  It doesn't count as "insurance" if you know for certain that the costs will be incurred.  That's called pre-paid healthcare.  I am not sure why an accurate assessment of someone's potential to incur health care costs is a "market failure."

Any form of subsidized coverage for high risk individuals will involve wealth transfers from low-risk individuals.  This is true whether you have mandatory coverage requirements for private insurance companies (where they have to charge higher rates for healthy people), or 100% government-run health care where healthy people pay the taxes to cover the costs of not healthy people.  There is no free lunch -- but this issue has absoluetly nothing to do with "insurance."


[ Parent ]
citations (0.00 / 0)
The United States is home to the finest medical facilities, technologies, innovations, treatments, and human talent in the world.  We have the home of medical innovation.  Tens of billions of dollars in capital for medical and pharmaceutical R&D flows here every year.  All these advances, along with the widespread availability of a vast range of medical services, have played a major role in enabling us to live longer and better lives.

You can substitute the names of at least 4 or 5 first world countries with UHC systems in here and this paragraph would still be true.  Without citations it's too vague to be useful in assessing the correct policy choices here.

Also, pharmaceutical R&D is a separate topic from UHC or health care reform.  UHC nations have private companies doing drug and treatment research for money.  Making treatment public doesn't mean research or even drugs must do so. 


What Utter Horses**t! (4.00 / 1)
I couldn't disagree more with principles 1, 2, & 3.  These are principles that maintain the private insurance market. 

What that means is 30% of our medical insurance dollars going into profits and overhead as opposed to 3% overhead in Medicare.  That also means keeping a system where all too often insurance clerks tell doctors they will not be paid for procedures necessary to keeping people alive. 

His statement about doing no harm is a sick joke.  It was only a few weeks ago that Cigna killed Nataline Sarkisyan by not allowing a liver transplant until too late.  Private insurance do that sort thing frequently.  The proper way to talk about private medical insurance is Death By Spreadsheet.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox