06 May 2011
Partnership for Patients Has Limited Goals
Reforming Medicare is not a panacea for the nation’s health care or federal deficit problems. In his OpEd article in the April 29, 2011, WSJ, Dr. Donald Berwick vaunts the cost-reduction objectives of the Partnership for Patients championed by his Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. That program may help to limit the growth of hospital care in the U.S., and even reduce occasions of actionable malpractice; but its fiscal impact will not make much of a dent in our annual multi-trillion dollar health care expenditures. It is foolish to think that modeling health care reform on private sector advances in the automotive, computer, appliances and communications industries will result in competition-driven savings.
Taking a cue from Dr. Jordan Stoll’s letter published in the May 5, 2011 WSJ, health care is not a product that can be closely compared to consumer or industrial goods, but not only because of patients’ “free will.” Curing a patient’s physical and psychological well-being is much more complex than filling his or her needs for interacting with the environment or with other people. Materials and equipment for accomplishing those functions can be standardized and their costs can more commonly benefit from economies of scale.
Managing the cost of providing the highest level of health care for all the members of society will only be successful when they are personally engaged in the effort. The burden cannot be shifted to hospitals, practitioners, pharmaceutical or medical device companies. A key element of health care change must take the form of educating and inducing each individual to practice healthier lifestyles.
Reforming Medicare is not a panacea for the nation’s health care or federal deficit problems. In his OpEd article in the April 29, 2011, WSJ, Dr. Donald Berwick vaunts the cost-reduction objectives of the Partnership for Patients championed by his Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. That program may help to limit the growth of hospital care in the U.S., and even reduce occasions of actionable malpractice; but its fiscal impact will not make much of a dent in our annual multi-trillion dollar health care expenditures. It is foolish to think that modeling health care reform on private sector advances in the automotive, computer, appliances and communications industries will result in competition-driven savings.
Taking a cue from Dr. Jordan Stoll’s letter published in the May 5, 2011 WSJ, health care is not a product that can be closely compared to consumer or industrial goods, but not only because of patients’ “free will.” Curing a patient’s physical and psychological well-being is much more complex than filling his or her needs for interacting with the environment or with other people. Materials and equipment for accomplishing those functions can be standardized and their costs can more commonly benefit from economies of scale.
Managing the cost of providing the highest level of health care for all the members of society will only be successful when they are personally engaged in the effort. The burden cannot be shifted to hospitals, practitioners, pharmaceutical or medical device companies. A key element of health care change must take the form of educating and inducing each individual to practice healthier lifestyles.
Comments:
Post a Comment
