How to solve American Health Care problem
When I ask my students to write about current economic issues, aside from gas prices health care is the issue that seems to get the most attention. Healthcare problem is actually a tremendous opportunity, since there is so much room for improvement.
I would like to take a crack at the problem as well. To improve a system we must first improve transparency (this will eliminate waste) and then resolve inherent contradictions that exist within the system. There are fundamental problems with both government and private systems, so I would like to propose a solution that uses best parts of both approaches.
Doctor and Procedure Rating
The current system is extremely non-transparent. The way to achieve transparency is through standardization. Our government already has done some of procedure cost analysis for Medicare, and now just like during the startup of internet protocol we need a task force that can work out the rest of the format and implement it. Every procedure should be identified with its baseline costs and typical success expectations. This information should be available in a national online database that would be accessible to everyone. Clinics and hospitals would than be required to submit to the database and post in their buildings regularly updated information regarding the costs of the procedures in their facilities, the percent cost above the baseline, the success rate, as well as doctor’s information, such as years of experience, certifications, former patient rating. The net result would be that for the first time we would be able to shop for doctors both based on cost and their credentials, easily comparing them online. Individual doctors will be easily able to compete with hospitals and thus force hospitals to lower their pricing.
Insurance Standardization
Insurance organizations can then be easily streamlined by being required to provide standardized information regarding the % over the baseline that they will cover. This will eliminate the need for health organizations to enter in to contracts with the insurance companies, since anyone given the qualifications that insurance specifies and given the insurance rate specified will be able to charge the insurance company the money for their service. In fact, with Insurance Credit Cards, people will be able to pay for the services on the spot. Not only will that eliminate the delays in billing and get rid of the need for vast majority of medical billing, coding and insurance professionals, but it will give the uninsured the same rate as the insurance companies.
The five million plus people whose jobs will be eliminated would have to be retrained. But, since their job was actually counterproductive to start with, it has to be done. Some of these people can became auditors and medical assistants in the new system. Many would have to be retrained to a different field altogether. Doing these activities alone should cut between 5% and 20% out of the healthcare costs, thus creating a windfall that would easily pay for any transitional costs. It would also improve the service and reduce stress that is associated with current medical practices.
Eldercare
Another major area where we can achieve tremendous improvement is in caring for the people in last 3 to 6 months of their life. Historically, nearly a third of all healthcare costs are incurred during this time. A number of studies have conclusively shown that creating a comfortable environment where people can spend time with their family and enjoy the lifestyle of a five star hotel rather than grasping at straws for every possible treatment, will report higher quality of life, live longer and incur only a fraction of the costs.
Simply put, our medical environment is setup to keep a person alive rather than let them enjoy life and die with dignity. The only solution is to create a whole new set of treatment facilities and a whole new field of medical studies that focus strictly on end of life issues. Having a special end of life insurance (that at basic level can be government run, with additional levels available for extra pay) would allow people, once there is a realization that they are terminal to go in to these specialized programs. The organizations running the programs would receive a compensation based on the rate (which once again is published against a baseline, also listing amenities and ratings); and reported satisfaction of each client (or in incoherent family and/or auditor). The auditors, whose job is to minimize the costs, would therefore act as client’s advocates insuring that the health centers provide exceptional levels of service.
This new focus has the long term potential to reduce our health-care costs by 20-25% while actually improving the service.
Personal Responsibility
Improving health care organizations is only part of the puzzle. To change long term trends, we must become healthier. Once again, there is much that government policies can do to encourage healthier lifestyles.
To start with, subsidies on junk foods must stop. Slowly but consistently we must start raising taxes on junk food, cigarettes and alcohol across the nation. By moving the subsidies from corn producers, to organic multi crop vegetable and fruit producers we can eventually affect this country’s buying habits away from corn fed meats and corn syrup to healthy local organic products. This shift will not only do more for the health of the nation than just about any other program, but it will have a positive economic (helps small farmers, creates entry level jobs, encourages small business ownership and entrepreneurship), social (helps build strong communities, pride of land) and environmental (reduces pollution, more productive land use) impact.
Once this program starts generating revenue, we can use the revenue to provide free voluntary medical, dental, optical and mental health examinations on a quarterly basis. Just like care maintenance, every exam will have some of the same basic dimensions, but will also focus on different aspects of health every time, so that over time we can develop a complete awareness. Since this program can be largely standardized (with variations only based on individual history), it should be fairly cost effective to administer, aid in fighting epidemics and help with early detection of major illnesses.
Anyone who participates in the program would receive a complete report with their ratings and a plan for improving those ratings through exercise, diet and medical attention. They would then be able to use their ratings to receive discounts from insurance companies, who in turn would create lower risk pools for people who live healthier lifestyle. Insurance organizations would only receive the information regarding the dimensions that individuals can control, so thus they would not be able to discriminate based on family history. Thus people would have an economic incentive to be healthy physically and mentally.
Government Role
The private sector, given enough information, is best positioned to manage day to day medical costs. But only government has the resources necessary to research cures for persistent, severe and terminal illnesses. While the pharmaceutical companies are better of keeping a person sick enough to keep coming back, the government has the incentive to get sick people well to both reduce the up front costs and to return them in to the workforce. So, I propose that should a major debilitating illness be discovered during the exam, the government should step in and pay for treatment for the person. Again, to minimize the abuse of the system, the provider’s rating would heavily depend on what percentage of their clients and how quickly they were able to help. Thus only organizations that actually help will continue receiving referrals.
The government would also have a tremendous incentive to invest in primary research, the one are where government may well be more competitive than the marketplace.
This program along with eldercare can be paid for through taxation of unhealthy activities and increased taxes from the fact that healthier population is likely to be more productive.
Centralized data storage
Creation of an online database that contains all the medical records in one place and is accessible to anyone who can scan your card and use a fingerprint or pass code to approve it would substantially reduce costs of multiple examinations, bad information, initial consultations, redundant procedures and effort. It would make getting a second opinion as easy as a phone call to another doctor. Creating a national, internet based database would be able to achieve that purpose very effectively. This program would quickly pay for itself in vastly reduced medical costs.
Stress Reduction
By streamlining our health system and we will have reduced one of the key stressors (and thus causes of bad health) among Americans. The private insurance will be cheap, since it will have little overhead, be competitively shopped and will not have to worry about terminally and persistently ill. Thus just about everyone should be able to afford it. There will be little incentive to stay in dead end jobs, since anyone can buy insurance directly and not worry about preexisting conditions (persistent illness is covered through government insurance), so the employers will have to create better work environment and provide individuals will be more willing to become entrepreneurs. While the market conditions might force the employers to become more flexible with scheduling, time off and vacations, the overall population would probably be healthier and more productive if there were government policies encouraging vacation time and leaves of absence. Eliminating taxes on vacation pay, for example, would encourage employers to provide longer vacations. This can be offset by slightly increasing taxes on overtime pay.
Pharmaceuticals
It takes 25 years to develop a drug that will be approved by FDA. After it is approved it can still be pulled off the market if somebody dies. It seems to me that a more ideal approach is that of full disclosure. If instead of prescribing one drug, the doctor showed me a list of drugs and mentioned what the advantages of each are, given my condition and my insurance level, I should be able to pick a drug that killed two hundred people but helped millions. I should even be able to take a drug that has not been approved by FDA, provided that I have documented in writing that I understand all the risks and have been made aware of all the known side effects.
Not only will that speed up the development process and allow for more competition (since smaller players will now be able to enter), but it will actually improve the amount of information that developers have early in the process and thus allow them to make changes as necessary.
The costs for the drugs should plummet with quicker development cycle and government investing billions in the research. All the alternative medicine approaches would also gain an opportunity to compete side by side, since people would now be reporting usage, perceived effects and side effects, thus creating a lot of data that shows what works and what does not.
Legal
The lawsuits should be rare under this new system of full disclosure. After all, if I knowingly undertook the procedure that has 80% national success rate and I used a doctor who has 50% success rate, having done it only twice, it is my personal choice. Short of fraud, extreme carelessness, or intentional harm, there should be no ground for the law suit. This should reduce the costs of the system considerably. Fortunately, lawyers and malpractice insurance specialists should be easy to retrain to focus on other areas of their practices.
Increasing personnel
Even if we streamlined all of our practices, we will still need more doctors and nurses. One approach is to hire entry level staff to assist with health examinations, with the substantial part of the compensation being contribution toward their medical education.
Another approach is to remove the requirements of medical degrees from managing medical institutions. A professional manager, with no medical training is at least as if not more suited to managing the medical businesses. They cost a lot less and require a lot less training.
Stronger emphasis on math and science in school is necessary to change the number of people who can enroll in medical training. Medical education has to be streamlined and expanded. (Though this is a topic of a whole another article)
Conclusion
Making these changes would streamline medicine, set us up for a whole new set of potential improvements and improve all aspects of our life. However, many industries and lobbyists are not going to like this proposal one bit. I would love to hear what you are thinking about this proposal.
If you like these ideas, I challenge you to get them in front of as many people as possible, especially people who are capable of influencing government policies.
Oleg Tumarkin, Business Instructor

10 responses so far ↓
1 Sue Massey // Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hello.
I like your site and wanted to know if you would be interested in exchanging blogroll links.
Thanks in advance
2 MH // Oct 31, 2008 at 2:34 pm
some interesting ideas and progressive to say the least. I am not sure there is in place governmental authority with the courage to do all you mention. I would not want to see the government have too much control. Instead, support of the individual with leveraged costs would protect personal choice. Your eldercare concept is a needed one. The idea of focusing on the quality of life is excellent. Many aging people can be kept alive for a long period of time but many do not want that. The quality of life is more important. Having the government control the care is troublesome.
3 Mike Harmon // Oct 31, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Just wanted to say HI. I found your blog a few days ago on Technorati and have been reading it over the past few days.
4 Oleg // Oct 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I think the strength of my proposal is that whatever role you believe government should play, we can still implement the first two steps (doctor and insurance rating/standardization systems). I’d love to see some thoughts on how private insurance can have the eldercare and major persistent illnesses effectively. If the market shares the economic insentives with the consumers, I am all for free market.
5 AL Gerber // Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Health care is suffering from the same affliction that caused our financial institutions to go bust–GREED … Because Government is to “Provide for the common defense and Promote the general welfare”, it should Promote a means of standardizing costs throughout the 50 states, Prosecute “Price fixing”and balance billing fraud. ( selling the balance left after a negociated insurance payment as “bad debt” to a preditory collector ). Prevent Big Pharma from giving “perks” to doctors. Protect the un-insured from the excessive charges the insured don’t experience.
Putting taxes upon cigarettes and alcahol etc.. may only shift the “dependency” onto the funding agency. Call it filthy lucre or ill gotten gain. Give it to charity instead. Other than that, keep Government out of the picture.
6 Oleg // Nov 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Al, thank you for your comment. You don’t really address HOW.
I will post articles in the next few days that address these issues: Why greed is OK; Why charities are often less efficient than the government; Why I focus on Government as part of the solution.
7 Lisa // Nov 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I am not sure that my submission went through so I thought I would email my thoughts to you.
I think Physician and Procedure ratings should be followed and publicly reported but is there some mechanism in place that accounts for existing co-morbidity that may not make all procedures equal?
Pay for performance has already been initiated for certain chosen diagnosis’s by Medicare and I see this enhancing patient safety and quality while becoming more cost effective based on evidence based practices. I am sure insurances will benefit by this practice and they will expand upon this.
Health risk assessments that are connected with insurance premium discounts are a huge motivator for personal health accountability and gives a plan to help a persons become healthier and decrease their risk factors. This needs to start with our children to become a healthier nation.
I understand reluctance to have government involvement in health care; however the Government already pays for over 50% of healthcare costs with Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans administration.
The average age of a Nurse is 46 years old. With the baby boomer generation entering retirement we certainly need help encourage science courses and people to enter medical careers.
8 Oleg // Nov 6, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I would assume that a mechanism capturing the difficulty of this particular procedure compared to other similar procedures can exist. My theory is that most doctors will get some easier and some harder ones, so on average it will be a wash. There will be doctors who will seek to do the most complicated and higher risk procedures and it would seem to me that they will acquire a reputation of being worth the higher price even in spite of higher morbidity rate.
I am OK with government managed systems, if they are transparent and make sense. Selling these systems in America is impossible. Besides, given enough transparancy, the market mechanisms tend to outperform centrally managed systems. What I am not a fan of is making medical services more available until we have freed up enough of capacity to deal with the inflow of the patients. I’d rather pay, but at least be able to see a doctor, than get it subsidized and wait in line for six months. If we make the system more efficient it will have to become less expensive and more available. On the other hand if we just make it more available through subsidies, the current overload problems will get worse.
9 Roger Lam // Nov 10, 2008 at 8:12 am
Oleg, it’s been a while. Glad to see your post!
You are absolutely correct, the transparency of information is the key in solving many of the problems in our health care system. The US spends twice as much per head on healthcare as many other developed nations, but has little extra benefit to show for it. According to the CBO, roughly half of the inflation in healthcare costs is being driven by the adoption of new drugs and devices. What we need is comparative research similar to your baseline idea on healthcare reform. Expanded use of electronic medical records and other information technology should also help. Patients and their family must have accurate and reliable information to make inform decisions. I doubt many will say yes to drugs that cost 10 times as much with only 1% chance of improve success, but how would anyone know without access to unbiased data.
But, the most important thing that we Citizens must do is taking these informed concerns and translating them into actions. Now that most everyone agree there needs to be change, how we like it to be change needs to be voiced.
“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson – 1950
10 Jerry Theis // Nov 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I always appreciate progressive ideas and potential solutions to the complexities of healthcare reform. I would place a great amount of emphasis on the consumer. The importance of personal responsibility for sustaining a healthy lifestyle since 70% of physical illnesses are caused by poor lifestyles. Given the epidemic of obesity the “system” needs to set priorities that focus on this disease as well as Depression and othe high cost conditions. Also, recent studies from the Institute of Medicine has determined significant errors and deaths are attributed due to the lack of health information. Hopefully, the advancement of the EMR and other technologies, such as my digital device will impact these disturbing trends found in our emergency centers. Our “special needs” populations are the most vulnerable during a emergency crisis event.
Leave a Comment