Getting to Yes on Health Care Reform

The country faces two problems: costs and quality. With a sustained effort, we could solve our cost problems not by rationing, but by re-engineering care.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

As the President and Congressional leaders meet to discuss health care reform, the risks of stalemate are high. As a hospital leader and an academic who studies health care costs, we disagree about exactly why some hospitals cost more than others. But we agree on a lot: the U.S. health care system desperately needs re-engineering, we know enough to start the process, and Congress should act now.

The country faces two problems: costs and quality. At current rates of increase, health care will soon be unaffordable for all but the wealthy. Rising federal and state health care spending is the single largest factor in looming deficits.

On the quality front, recent advances offer tremendous promise, but it is difficult to translate best practices into daily patient care.

The research on variations has provided useful insights into the magnitude of the opportunity to improve our performance as a system. We must now explore turning those insights into actionable recommendations.

Whether one looks at individual physicians, hospitals, or regions, variations in both quality and costs are found. Some of the differences are explained by the socio-economic needs or preferences of patients, legitimate differences in prices, and the cost of teaching and charity care.

But hospital leaders and academics agree that important variations remain after accounting for all of these factors. Some of the variation is caused by providers who are giving more care than their patients need. This is bad for patients and taxpayers.

We would point to three basic causes of unwarranted variation: limited information--about the risks and benefits of treatments and the quality of care; a fragmented delivery system with inadequate accountability for patients' care across providers and over time; and a payment system that often rewards more care rather than better care.

We therefore need better information that supports learning and improvement, organizational structures that support integration and accountability, and a transition to payment systems that reward better care.

But translating these principles into practice won't be easy.

Some ideas now on the table could make things worse. Proposed in one piece of legislation is a "value index" that would cut or raise fees to providers based on regional averages rather than their own performance and without taking into account good reasons for variation such as the severity of patient illness, poverty levels or the high cost of business in parts of the country. This would punish good providers in low-performing regions and reward bad providers in high performing regions. And it could cause some providers whose fees were cut to preserve their incomes by increasing the frequency of visits or the volume of profitable services.

There are, however, many good ideas that would support and reward providers' efforts to ensure that patients receive the right amount of care in settings that can reduce costs. For example, Accountable Care Organizations would allow physicians and hospitals to take responsibility for all of the care of defined populations - and be rewarded for improving both quality and costs.

Private payers and Medicare are already engaged in some small experiments to test these and other ideas. But it is not enough.

Congress should enact key provisions of the Senate and House bills related to measuring and improving quality and pilot testing delivery system reform, including the creation of the proposed Innovations Center that would enable the federal government to collaborate with health care providers and private payers to rapidly test, adapt and disseminate new payment and delivery models.

Academic medicine has a critical role. The leaders of academic medical centers have traditionally focused on advancing knowledge in the biosciences and improving clinical care. Now, some are stepping forward to learn from variations in practice and test new models of care. Congress should expand the mission of all academic centers to include not only the development of new treatments, but also the development of the much needed science of health care delivery.

With a sustained effort, we could solve our cost problems not by rationing, but by re-engineering care.

Herbert Pardes, MD
President and CEO, New York Presbyterian Hospital

Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH
Director for Population Health and Policy
The Dartmouth Institute
Principal Investigator, The Dartmouth Atlas Project

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot