Two articles have me thinking this week. One sets up the problem healthcare has (although healthcare is not explicitly mentioned), while the other illustrates it. They share being about how we view the future.
Credit: Sanofi
The two articles are Ezra Klein’s Can
Democrats See What’s Coming? in The New York Times Opinion pages,
and Derek Thompson’s Why
Does America Make It So Hard to Be a Doctor? in The Atlantic. Both
are well worth a read.
Mr. Klein struck a nerve for me by asking why, when it
comes to social insurance programs, Democrats seem so insistent on replicating
what has been done before, especially in Western Europe. He asks: “But what about building here what does not already exist
there?” He worries “that the
Biden administration’s supply-side agenda is stuck in the past and not yet
imagining the future.”
Those are exactly the
right questions we should be asking about healthcare.
Our most ambitious healthcare reform proposals seem to either be the catch-all “Medicare For All” or the simplistic single payor. Both are rooted in the past, and in what has been done elsewhere. We debate what coverage for which things who should have, how much they should have to pay at point-of-care versus upfront in taxes/premiums, and how much we should pay healthcare providers. They are the same questions we’ve been debating since the 1940’s.
They’re not the
questions for the 21st century.
Mr. Thompson takes on what
a mess our medical education and training “system” is, and wonders why on earth
we make it so hard for people to become physicians. It’s harder, longer, more expensive here than
almost anywhere else, and we end up with fewer physicians per capita than most
other developed countries. We even make it hard for doctors to immigrate. “No matter what the pandemic future holds,” he asserts, “we need
more doctors to be part of America’s health-care system.”
I’ve written previous on reforming
medical education and on rethinking
primary care, so I heartily applaud those aspects of Mr. Thompson’s
article, but I stop short of endorsing the call for an “abundance” of
doctors. What we need, as I’ve argued
before, is not more doctors but fewer patients.
Yes, many people have to wait too long to see doctors,
while others never get to see them at all, and most of us pay way too much for all
kinds of health care. Certainly our
healthcare system is severely flawed, with huge gaps and inequities at every
turn. But more Band-Aids, more-of-the-same is not what we need. We need to be, as Mr. Klein urges, “imagining
the future,” not simply patching up our rickety 20th century healthcare
system.
Umm, yes. Credit: Harvard Health
Here are some thoughts:
Data: if the pandemic
has exposed anything, it is that we really have no idea what is really going on
with our health or in our healthcare system.
We don’t really know how many have contracted COVID, how many have been
tested for it, how many have been vaccinated against it, or even how many have
died from it. People have valiantly done
their best to estimate all of these and more, but, let’s not kid ourselves,
they’re estimates. And COVID is something we’ve been paying a lot of attention
to, and spending a lot on. Imagine the rest of our data.
A 21st century healthcare system needs to start with
data, at every stage, from self-monitoring at home to everything that happens
to us in the healthcare system. It needs to be built to collect that data, to
ensure that it flows easily, and that it is collected in ways that are
actionable. Data cannot be the afterthought of care; it needs to be built-in at
the ground level, designed into the system.
It’s already 2022, and we don’t have the right data,
much less the right ways to capture and use it.
Health, not Medical:
it has been oft said, but it bears repeating – we don’t have a healthcare
system, we have a medical care system. Things that happen outside of a physician’s
care are usually outside of the system too.
We talk about social determinants of health, but they mostly remain
outside the system.
Public health has taken a beating during the pandemic,
after years of benign neglect, but if we were serious about addressing our
health needs, we’d be spending a lot more on it and expecting a lot more from
it. Most of our health issues start with public health issues.
The trick will be reinventing public health for the 21st
century, not just grafting 21st technology on top of 20th
century public health structures, from physical infrastructures to information
campaigns to staffing.
DIY: the miracles of 20th
century medicine further elevated physician to near god-like reverence, but the
miracles of 21st health are going to level that playing field, much
more than the internet has already done.
Innovations like AI, 3D printing, synthetic biology, and nanoengineering
are already showing how radically different our health care can be, and we’re
only scratching the surface of what each can do and how they can be applied to
healthcare.
Each is going to both get more powerful and cheaper,
and each will be in the hands of more people.
We’ll know earlier when we have a problem and how to address it, and we’ll
usually have the means to “fix” it. A
topside down healthcare system isn’t going to cut it. Moreover, our healthcare spending
is going to be significantly different – lower! -- when we’re using what will essentially
be consumer goods instead of taking trips to the healthcare system.Let the biohacking begin! Credit: Yetisen
The 21st century healthcare system needs to foster/expect
DIY.
Alec Stapp, cofounder of the Institute for Progress, told Mr. Klein: “This isn’t about government controlling
the means of production. It’s about government controlling the ends of
production. Deciding what we are producing toward, what we are building for.”
Those are the decisions we really need to make when thinking about healthcare
reform.
E.g., I’d rather the government
be building that data infrastructure instead of spending more on graduate
medical education. I’d rather the
government be directing more money to public health infrastructure than in bumping
up Medicare payment levels. I’d rather
the government be giving tax breaks to biotech companies than to “non-profit”
hospitals.
Be bold.
As long as our healthcare system looks familiar to
those of us born in the 20th century, we’re not thinking boldly
enough. We should be imagining a future that does not yet exist, and that will look
familiar to people who will still be alive for the 22nd century.
No comments:
Post a Comment