Everyone has an opinion on the now completed health care reform bill, so I thought I would lend mine as well. But my take isn't on the bill itself, it's the process. What bothers me the most is that the entire thing was destructive, and honestly, it has been since the beginning. Maybe it's just because of the news that I tune into, or the bits and pieces I'm able to catch, but why are members of our own government actively trying to work against each other? Why is there a blatant disregard for any attempt to actually try and compromise, listen to someone else's opinion, and work toward an ultimately better solution?
Think about this within your own company. How would you move forward and be successful if you were constantly trying to destroy, or go against what your colleagues want to do? How often do you have to compromise on a daily basis? How often do things get better because you work together?
One of the biggest things that bothered me in reading the WSJ recap of the article is that congressmen are already looking for ways to try and repeal the bill, find it unconstitutional, file lawsuits, etc. How is this productive? How does this help me, the American citizen? Why can't we say, the decision has been made, now how do we take this and make things better?
This happens every day in business. Decisions get made by leadership, and it is up to the rest of us to make them work. Yes we provide our feedback, but ultimately someone decides on a direction and we go. We may not always agree, but we figure out how to work to make things as best we can.
Or maybe that's just me...
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A few thoughts on healthcare
So, it's been a little while since I last wrote (I blame lapse on Twitter, but that's a different post for an upcoming day). And while this is supposed to be a marketing blog, I wanted to get some general thoughts out about healthcare reform.
Overall, I think that anything that leads to more Americans being insured is a great thing for all of us. Right now 20% of all emergency room admittees are uninsured. But, the hospital has to treat them anyway. Additionally the number of people on Medicare and Medicaid is increasing, and we know that the government doesn't pay the same as the private payors. So, where do hospitals make up the difference? And what does this do to your standard of care? Think about it. The less money hospitals are reimbursed, the less they have to invest in necessary technology and improvements, to pay nurses and physicians, and even in some cases to continue operating.
I think most people are in agreement there. The issue tends to arise when we look at where the money is going to come from to pay for all of this. One of the areas that is quickly pointed to is medical imaging. Granted, the amount spent on medical imaging is rising every year. However, it is important to look at how imaging, when used properly (more on this in a minute) can actually save money in the long term. For example, let's assume that it costs $1,000 to do a Coronary CTA exam of a patient that presents with some basic risk factors. From there, the physician can assess any treatments that might be needed. Let's say these cost $5,000. Sounds pricey, right? Consider the alternative. The patient never gets scanned. Two weeks later he suffers a massive heart attack. He is then rushed to the hospital and has to undergo surgery. He is then in the hospital for a week to recover. I'd venture to guess that this proposition is not only less appealing to the gentleman that suffers the heart attack, but also that it is going to cost much more than the imaging and prescribed treatments.
That's the one aspect that seems to get missed the most. Medical Imaging, when used in the proper instances (those developed by physicians as generally accepted standards of care), is a very effective screening and prevention tool. If we look at costs in medicine, the majority are on the treatment side. Any time a disease or condition is caught in its early state, it costs much less to treat. If the focus is on prevention and screening, I would anticipate a long term savings in overall health care costs. Of course I'm not an economist, statisitican or anyone else that actually crunches the numbers, but...
(note: I'm not advocating the willy nilly use of imaging because there is always the real risks of overexposure. Thus the emphasis on proper usage).
Reform is definitely needed, and it's going to be expensive to do. I didn't really offer any solutions other than provide a focus on preventative care and screening, whatever that's worth. Just some thoughts as I'm trying to follow the process. I'm intersted to see where it will go, and ultimately how it will affect me both professionally and personally. It could generate a real marketing challenge, or it could generate a real marketing opportunity. At this point, it's hard to tell.
Overall, I think that anything that leads to more Americans being insured is a great thing for all of us. Right now 20% of all emergency room admittees are uninsured. But, the hospital has to treat them anyway. Additionally the number of people on Medicare and Medicaid is increasing, and we know that the government doesn't pay the same as the private payors. So, where do hospitals make up the difference? And what does this do to your standard of care? Think about it. The less money hospitals are reimbursed, the less they have to invest in necessary technology and improvements, to pay nurses and physicians, and even in some cases to continue operating.
I think most people are in agreement there. The issue tends to arise when we look at where the money is going to come from to pay for all of this. One of the areas that is quickly pointed to is medical imaging. Granted, the amount spent on medical imaging is rising every year. However, it is important to look at how imaging, when used properly (more on this in a minute) can actually save money in the long term. For example, let's assume that it costs $1,000 to do a Coronary CTA exam of a patient that presents with some basic risk factors. From there, the physician can assess any treatments that might be needed. Let's say these cost $5,000. Sounds pricey, right? Consider the alternative. The patient never gets scanned. Two weeks later he suffers a massive heart attack. He is then rushed to the hospital and has to undergo surgery. He is then in the hospital for a week to recover. I'd venture to guess that this proposition is not only less appealing to the gentleman that suffers the heart attack, but also that it is going to cost much more than the imaging and prescribed treatments.
That's the one aspect that seems to get missed the most. Medical Imaging, when used in the proper instances (those developed by physicians as generally accepted standards of care), is a very effective screening and prevention tool. If we look at costs in medicine, the majority are on the treatment side. Any time a disease or condition is caught in its early state, it costs much less to treat. If the focus is on prevention and screening, I would anticipate a long term savings in overall health care costs. Of course I'm not an economist, statisitican or anyone else that actually crunches the numbers, but...
(note: I'm not advocating the willy nilly use of imaging because there is always the real risks of overexposure. Thus the emphasis on proper usage).
Reform is definitely needed, and it's going to be expensive to do. I didn't really offer any solutions other than provide a focus on preventative care and screening, whatever that's worth. Just some thoughts as I'm trying to follow the process. I'm intersted to see where it will go, and ultimately how it will affect me both professionally and personally. It could generate a real marketing challenge, or it could generate a real marketing opportunity. At this point, it's hard to tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
