It is a common theme in the debate about health care reform that costs are the main issue. Rahul Parikh, MD, takes a step back and suggests that the problem might be in our use of the system as a whole:
From my vantage point as a primary care doctor, there's a bigger problem than just dollars and cents. We need to look deeper into the incentives of health care. We need to examine our motivation to go the doctor and my motivation to see you. The fact that health care appears to be all about treatment is the crux of the problem, and one that won't be fixed no matter who's paying and who's being covered.
...
We also seem too casual in our acceptance that medical breakthroughs will help us live longer, and too quick to forget that there are things we can do to prevent us from needing those breakthroughs (and their expensive price tags) in the first place. It would be better if our health insurers reimbursed us for buying healthier groceries or taking laps in the swimming pool at the local Y instead of paying for heart bypass surgery or the Lipitor we take just before we go out to eat a double cheeseburger and fries.
We've been discussing the same issues, taking a step back from the more detailed problems to see things from a broader perspective. In a compassionate society, how would a national health care system function and what should it accomplish? We offer three important questions:
- How can individuals be better empowered to maintain their own health and prevent disease, especially considering the economic disparities and barriers that exist?
- What should we expect from the delivery and insurance system? What should the experience be of the individual moving through the system?
- What role should society play in ensuring that an effective and compassionate health care system is maintained? What is the government's role? What is the best use of society's finite resources?
We're interested in your thoughts on these questions. Post a comment or send us an email.
Comments