Posts Tagged ‘US Health Care System’

Why Health Care is Not a Consumer Business

Friday, May 7th, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

I gave a speech yesterday at the Midwest Business Group on Health’s 30th Annual Conference.  The MBGH is one of the country’s leading organizations on health care, and its members include the leading innovators and thought leaders on health care in America.  It was a privilege to present to them.

I spoke about why health care just isn’t a consumer business, in spite of all of the efforts to turn people into health care “consumers.”

Read the text of my remarks below the fold, it was a very interesting day.

(more…)

Prostate Cancer Screening: Are we supposed to be screened or not?

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

The American Cancer Society says that men over 50 need to seriously consider whether they really ought to get screened for prostate cancer.  According to them, the risks of getting tested may outweigh the benefits of detecting the cancer, especially for younger men.  They say it’s a “complex issue,” but they understate how complicated it really is.

Like the recent controversy over breast cancer screening, the new recommendations add to the swirling morass of conflicting messages and priorities around health care in America.

(more…)

Look Out, More Charts

Monday, March 1st, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

Today the Commonwealth Fund came out with a chart that it says is a “grim reminder” of what happens when health care doesn’t get reformed.

If only we had listened to Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.  We would have saved tens of trillions of dollars in health care spending.

Click to enlarge

(more…)

A Fine Mess

Friday, February 12th, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced this week he has had enough of rising health care costs.

So he is proposing a novel solution: make them illegal.

(more…)

US Employers: Not Crazy to Pay for Health Care

Saturday, February 6th, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

“I’m from Massachusetts,” I told the audience.  “So depending on how you feel about reform, I will say either ‘sorry,’ or ‘you’re welcome.”

The audience, made up of large employers and benefits professionals seemed to like this.  But it was clear that they were pleased that the health care reform legislation is Congress is pretty well dead now.

Now, if it’s true that health care costs are rising (they are) and this heavily impacts employers (it does) why would the death of a bill meant to address this problem make those people happy?

(more…)

Remember: Canada is Different

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

How different are Canada and the United States?

Depending on who you ask, they’re neighbours, or neighbors.  So they’re pretty similar.  But if you ask your Canadian neighbour to bring over a case of beer so you can watch a hockey game together, he’ll be very happy to bring over a two-four.  So they’re pretty different.

Still, this is all superficial.  What Americans don’t realize is how different our countries really are (I know Canadians don’t like it when Americans co-opt the word “American” like that.  I’m sorry, I just can’t help it).

You can see this difference most clearly when it comes to health care.  Today’s news supplies a good example.

(more…)

There is no Voom

Saturday, January 16th, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

Did you ever read The Cat in the Hat Comes Back?

It’s the sequel to The Cat in The Hat and it’s better than the original.  Kind of like how Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars.

In the Cat in the Hat Comes Back, the Cat returns to the scene of his first adventure, and accidentally creates what seems to be a manageable problem – a ring of pink goo in the bathtub.  He tells the children he can clean it up.  But every solution he tries creates a new problem.  Great pink spots of goo keep getting spread all over the place.

The cat brings in more cats to help clean up the spots.  These cats – 25 in all, bring increasingly intricate solutions.  But they only spread the spots around more and more, making the problem much bigger, and much worse.

The spots finally get cleaned up, but only when one final cat – so small that you can’t see him – uses a magical power called “VOOM.”  Unleashing VOOM suddenly puts everything back exactly as it was supposed to be.

Dr. Seuss understood people.  When faced with a problem, people tend to want to do something.  But when this happens, people often seriously undervalue the unintended consequences of whatever it is they’re trying.

It happens in business all the time.  You face a problem and decide some new software will fix it.  You rush to build it.  Then, along the way somewhere, maybe millions of dollars later, you realize the software isn’t helping.  In fact, it’s created a whole host of new issues.  You realize, too late, that your real problem had to do with the way your business was organized in the first place.

Politicians are very susceptible to this, especially when dealing with big, important issues.  Who among them wouldn’t want to champion some giant, historic solution to a giant, historic problem?

So, here are three ways the what’s gone on in health reform in Washington DC is the return of the Cat in the Hat – but without the Voom.

1.  “To take spots off THIS bed will be hard,” said the cat.  “I can’t do it alone,” said the Cat in the Hat.

The reform bills have never been based on a vision of changing American health care into some new, coherently different state.  Instead, they are a collection of big and small deals meant to satisfy the needs of one or another Congressman or constituency.    The most recent of these – the deal to exempt union plans from the “Cadillac” tax underscores the point.  Rising health care costs are the most important fiscal issue we face as a country – well, unless those costs are covered by a union benefit plan.

I don’t know that the Cadillac tax was ever a good idea.  But if you’re going to have it, shouldn’t it apply to everyone equally?  If the reason to have it is to get rid of high-cost insurance plans, how does exempting a huge portion of the high cost marketplace further that goal?  It doesn’t, of course.

2. Oh the things that they did! And they did them so hard.  It was all one big spot now all over the yard!

One of the major reasons why health insurance is so expensive is how it’s regulated.  Today, 50 state agencies dictate what companies can sell in their states, what they have to cover, the terms on which they must accept business, and many other important activities.  It adds a significant amount of cost to all policies.  Worse, it makes the market for health insurance deeply uncompetitive and stagnant.  In short, it’s a terrible deal for consumers, and a great one for insurance companies.   The bills in Congress address this issue….by replicating a federal version of this state system.

Now, instead of dealing with 50 regulators, insurers can work closely with just one regulator, if you know what I mean.  This isn’t progress.  It is a failure of imagination.

3.  “Why, Voom cleans up anything clean as can be!”

As a plot device, using Voom is a sort of cheap way to end the chaos unleashed by the Cat in the Hat in a page or so.  But that was the point.  There’s no such thing as “Voom,” even though we all wish there were.  The lesson is this- cleaning up messes is hard, so be careful not to make them in the first place.  Don’t act without thinking.  Realize that once you have a mess, the only way to fix it is not through dramatic short-cuts, but through the hard, daily work of chipping away, one bit at a time.

“And so, if you ever have spots, now and then, I will be very happy to come here again.”

I Spy the Senate Bill

Monday, December 21st, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Is the health care bill the Senate passed a good thing or a bad thing?

It depends on who you ask. Which ought to be your first clue that it is really an exercise in politics.

I’ve been warning for months that the rushed process and soaring rhetoric veiled the reality of what was happening.  And that is this: no one really can describe what health care reform is about.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but the biggest one is that very few people on either side seem to understand the health care “system.”  In fact, calling it a “system” is part of the problem.  So let me try to help.

Our health care “system” like one of those pictures from an I Spy book.  Here’s one.

The US health care system

The US health care system

What do you see?  There are some coherent things about it.  First, someone put all of those pieces there.  They seem to be set up haphazardly, but they’re actually set up in a way that’s convenient for the publisher of the book.  They also have a general Christmas theme to them.

But that’s about it.

Now, say someone wanted to “reform” this picture.  How would you do it?  You could put everything in some kind of order.  But what order?  Red things on the left, yellow in the middle, blue on the right?  Or the other way around?  Or why not order it by size or shape or type of object?  Why not reform it to make it easier to find the items on that list at the bottom – clear out everything else and just leave behind the thimble, four birds of red, two fuzzy chickens and a gold-trimmed sled?  That would be simple, but it wouldn’t make the game very good.

You could forgive someone who wanted to reform this picture from doing what a lot of people looking at these pictures do – give up and go to sleep.

But would-be health care reformers are cleverer than that.  They decided to change the problem.  Instead of trying to reform the messy health care system, they said let’s reform the health insurance system.  A picture of that looks like a map of the United States.  Now this is a system that can be reformed.

At the federal level it’s a blank slate, so anything you do counts as reform.  And, since we’re in a hurry, you can take a short-cut and just put in place federally something like what the states have been doing for decades.  Presto! Reform.

I poke fun, but what’s so bad about a federalized version of state insurance regulation?

The problem is this: the way states regulate insurance is one of the major reasons why health insurance is so expensive.  Heavily laden with thousands of rules dictating what they have to cover, how much they can charge, who they must accept as insureds, only a few insurers are able to compete.  A cynic might say the rules have become rigged in favor of these few companies.  A kinder person might say that these are the unintended consequences of good intentions.  But whatever the reason the result is the same: a very small number of companies dominate the markets of every state.  Where competition is low, prices are high.

This is the great irony of reform.  The things that have made health insurance so expensive in the states are the very things reformers want to use federally to make it more affordable.

So what do political advocates think about all of this?

Progressives don’t like it because they think it benefits the insurance companies, and they’re probably right.  Conservatives say, no, the insurance companies are getting taken over by the federal government.  They’re probably wrong.  In fact, it’s the machinery of regulation that’s getting taken over by federal government.  And that, should this bill become law, is a bigger deal than most people realize.

Professor: Americans are Unkind

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Ancient people couldn’t understand why solar eclipses happened, so they looked for explanations that fit what they saw:

A recurring and pervasive embodiment of the eclipse was a dragon, or a demon, who devours the sun. The ancient Chinese would produce great noise and commotion during an eclipse, banging on pots and drums to frighten away the dragon.

They weren’t crazy, although if we accept their explanation, their solutions seem pretty illogical.  I mean, would a dragon big and powerful enough to eat the sun really be scared away by people banging on pots and drums?

I guess I don’t understand the skittishness of giant sun-devouring dragons.

But this the trouble.  When you come at a problem with a faulty premise — and insist on keeping that premise — it leads you down some very strange paths.

Such is the case in a recent blog post by Professor Uwe Reinhardt of  Princeton University.  He wonders if the opposition to health care reform bills (now at 61% according to CNN) is because Americans just aren’t very kind people.

The theory here is that in all modern nations, the better-off members of society would like to provide kind acts for the less well-off. The kind acts in question include financing health care for the less fortunate who cannot pay for that care with their own resources. . . . [but] thanks to the expensive and often wasteful manner in which our country’s health care providers and insurers have managed their affairs, they have helped to price kindness out of America’s soul.

This lack of kindness, according to Reinhardt, can be seen in opposition to parts of the reform bill like subsidies for people who can’t afford insurance, making insurance mandatory, and outlawing insurance company practices that allow them to charge different amounts of premium to sick versus healthy people.

Now, one can argue (kindly) that rules like these have helped make health insurance so expensive in the first place.

Or one could be more cruel and point to Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has perhaps the highest health care costs in America, and yet somehow escaped Reinhardt’s theoretical descent into unkindness.  In 2006, that state, under a Republican governor no less, passed reforms that did the very things he says Americans oppose out of a lack of kindness.

It’s almost as if the sun came back without anyone banging a single pot or drum.  How could this happen?

Here’s how: Reinhardt’s premise is wrong.  Americans are kind and generous. They make more private charitable donations than any people on Earth, including Europeans, whether measured in raw dollars are as a percentage of GDP.

What is different about Americans is that – fairly or unfairly – they don’t trust the government to be very good at dealing with most problems (“Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help” is a joke, not a relief).  Americans are suspicious of anyone selling something who is in a rush to get you to buy it.  Indeed, American popular culture is loaded with cautionary tales of people being taken advantage of in just this way.

Now, put aside the specific policy proposals and look at how reform is being sold to Americans.

It needs to be done now. The only way to do it is through massive and not well understood legislation.  It will cost a trillion dollars, but it will save money.  You won’t be affected by it unless you want to.  Well, except that your care is going to get better and cheaper.  And don’t raise questions about it.  Your questions are motivated by politics or financial self-interest or much worse.  In its own way, you could say this approach is brilliant in how it has touched on so many negative associations.

So, no, Professor Reinhardt, Americans are plenty kind.  The reason reform is going badly isn’t because Americans don’t want to take care of those in need.  It’s because reformers have failed to convince them that this is the way to do it.

The Nuclear Option

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Over at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru theorizes that people want more control over how they spend their health care dollars:

[Ezra] Klein’s argument is that if employees understood that the employer’s alleged share of their health-care costs are really part of their wages — and if they saw it on their paychecks — they would be more supportive of cost control. I agree with that. But I assume he means (based on his examples in this op-ed) that they would be more supportive of cost controls imposed by HMOs or Congress. I think they would be more inclined to favor turning over control of health insurance from their employers to themselves, and making the cost-quality trade-offs for themselves with their own money. Under the status quo, those trade-offs are made by other people and the fact that it’s the employees’ money is obscured.

It sounds nice in theory.  But in practice it seems to be exactly wrong.

(more…)

  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect


    Via RSS


    On Twitter

    Subscribe via Email

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives