Medical Clinics Are Better Quality Than 30 Years Ago
February 16th, 2010
30 years ago the United States was emerging from the self blaming 70's to re-invigorate the economic landscape from a long period of stagflation. Detroit began responding to a call for clean fuel cars because of the unheard of 80 dollar a barrel oil of the time. But, when the price of oil began to drop, the electric car was scrapped. In retrospect, how short sighted could the country have been. In the health care sector a similarly innovative way of thinking was emerging. Relatively new technology was becoming available to the masses which were allowing diagnoses of illness as had never been done. If the established medical industry, including its well connected lobbies in Washington had stepped out of the way of the market, health care would be a non- issue today. An idea emerged in delivering health care that, if implemented, could dramatically improve outcomes and reduce costs.
There are hundreds of blood tests upon which preventative; proactive health care can be based. In volume the cost of these tests is greatly reduced. The cost of ultrasound testing is decreased with volume as well. Keeping staff and equipment busy is the key to any business efficiency and success. Providing an incentive to the public to do something in its own self interest isn't as easy as one might think, although, some methods can be compelling.
In the late 80's mobile clinics were giving away; YES, GIVING AWAY, health testing and only charging for those tests which supported a pre-existing condition not previously diagnosed. Their business thrived on ultrasound and blood tests. Had the insurance industry taken the time to analyze the benefit of early detection using non-invasive and safe ultrasound testing, they would have been supportive of the concept. Catching health conditions before they require invasive procedures are a clear benefit that goes without stating.
The insurance industry was not ready for the impact this had on their business model. Insurance companies were overwhelmed with claims identifying disease at a much more treatable stage. The increased numbers of claims caused multiple Insurance companies to cry out to Congress to stop it. When the Clinton's came in looking for someone to vilify for the health care mess they asked the wrong people. Insurance companies intent on driving down costs only saw the number of claims, not the potential cost over the lifetime of each patient in claims. In a free market we would aggressively identify disease in the population and address it in early stages to preserve the productivity and earning power of the consumer. The free market has no interest in the death of a consumer; it would rather keep him or her consuming expensive products. It's just been much more lucrative to sell disease products in the short term than health products for the long term. The Government is less served by a longer lived population. It has committed to too many unsustainable entitlements and a longer lived voter may hold them to account. This view in Washington to the extent it exists is as short sighted as that of the insurance industry. Living a longer productive life has benefits beyond a Social Security check and Medicare to the society. It preserves the society by providing the much needed moral compass of our parent's generation. Dying of old age is relatively inexpensive and should be a goal worthy of achieving.
To moderate the insurance industries exposure to the ultimate outlay per patient, individual responsibility would have to play a part in the level of care an individual receives. This would largely depend on his or her timely actions. The incentives for timely proactive preventative actions are clear: better health and quality of life. Recordable preventative testing could be a way to reduce insurance cost to the individual.
An electronic medical record system can pull together all existing records for an individual and keep track of who and when those records were accessed. Insurance companies would easily be able to validate new claims. The fact that a very complete record can be gathered together electronically gives greater certainty to their reliability. This provides a critical piece of information; pre-existing conditions not previously identified. Government can standardize the process and free enterprise can deliver the service. The management of data collection, verification and auditing are opportunities for free enterprise businesses to compete for. This could be done within a standardized system of record keeping and information delivery much like a credit score. Prorating benefits by a track record of Individual responsibility would be a measure of cost containment.
Without individual responsibility and freedom to fail we are simply not a free society. If it's too scary to for the individual to fail at his own health care and suffer the consequences, we fundamentally don't believe in freedom and we should turn over responsibility, and therefore ownership, of our physical being to the State. When health care decisions are based on free access to knowledge of ones own health status, we will have a moral basis upon which to restrict access based not on economic circumstances but an individuals own efforts to maintain good health. Perhaps we need a two solution system where some do turn over their healthcare to the state and allow the State to decide how they fit in the States interests and pocketbook. I would much rather have a market based system competing for my purchase of proactive healthcare products based on free tests.
Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: advanced, better, clinics, equipped, hospitals, medical, quality, years | 80 Comments
