Published: Tuesday, May 12, 2009
HEALTH-CARE REFORM
Action must follow promises
Whether their interest in health-care reform is genuine, or if they're just jumping on the bus to keep from getting run over by it, Monday's show of cooperation by key industry stakeholders was welcome.
Pardon us, though, for wondering aloud how long it can last. This new coalition, after all, includes the insurance industry, whose "Harry and Louise" commercials helped sink reform in the 1990s; and drug makers, whose intense lobbying ensured huge profits for them and ridiculously high prices for patients and taxpayers in the big Medicare expansion of 2003.
We suspect these people haven't suddenly taken leave of their own self-interest. It's one thing to make vague promises to cut the growth of health-care costs by 1.5 percentage points a year -- a vow that comes without a firm plan for achieving it, measuring it or enforcing it -- and another to make real sacrifices for the greater good.
President Obama has defined that good as a health-care system that contains costs for individuals, businesses and government, lets people choose their own physician and health plan, and yields high-quality care. It should also, we would add, ensure reasonable coverage for all Americans.
The pledge to reduce the increase of health-care costs by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next decade, if achieved, would actually result in big savings -- $2 trillion, according to the administration. The trail for getting there is already being blazed here in the medically progressive Northwest, where initiatives focusing on better management of chronic diseases and the use of electronic medical records are yielding results.
Changing the system to provide greater financial incentives for prevention of disease and healthy outcomes, rather than for expensive treatments, repetitive tests and costly, invasive procedures, is also central to the Obama strategy. If that can be done voluntarily, kudos to all involved.
But the real tests of whether the "medical industrial complex" has bought into the major health-care overhaul the nation so desperately needs are still to come. For example, will the insurance industry consider the creation of a public plan that competes with private insurers a deal breaker? Will the drug makers walk away if the government demands the right to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices?
The high cost and relative inefficiency of our health care system is a national disgrace that had leaves businesses less competitive, state and local government budgets overburdened and individual paychecks lower than they should be. We hope the drug and insurance companies are sincere about making the changes necessary to fix it. Their actions will be the proof.
Pardon us, though, for wondering aloud how long it can last. This new coalition, after all, includes the insurance industry, whose "Harry and Louise" commercials helped sink reform in the 1990s; and drug makers, whose intense lobbying ensured huge profits for them and ridiculously high prices for patients and taxpayers in the big Medicare expansion of 2003.
We suspect these people haven't suddenly taken leave of their own self-interest. It's one thing to make vague promises to cut the growth of health-care costs by 1.5 percentage points a year -- a vow that comes without a firm plan for achieving it, measuring it or enforcing it -- and another to make real sacrifices for the greater good.
President Obama has defined that good as a health-care system that contains costs for individuals, businesses and government, lets people choose their own physician and health plan, and yields high-quality care. It should also, we would add, ensure reasonable coverage for all Americans.
The pledge to reduce the increase of health-care costs by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next decade, if achieved, would actually result in big savings -- $2 trillion, according to the administration. The trail for getting there is already being blazed here in the medically progressive Northwest, where initiatives focusing on better management of chronic diseases and the use of electronic medical records are yielding results.
Changing the system to provide greater financial incentives for prevention of disease and healthy outcomes, rather than for expensive treatments, repetitive tests and costly, invasive procedures, is also central to the Obama strategy. If that can be done voluntarily, kudos to all involved.
But the real tests of whether the "medical industrial complex" has bought into the major health-care overhaul the nation so desperately needs are still to come. For example, will the insurance industry consider the creation of a public plan that competes with private insurers a deal breaker? Will the drug makers walk away if the government demands the right to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices?
The high cost and relative inefficiency of our health care system is a national disgrace that had leaves businesses less competitive, state and local government budgets overburdened and individual paychecks lower than they should be. We hope the drug and insurance companies are sincere about making the changes necessary to fix it. Their actions will be the proof.
Comments
(