IBJOpinion

TABLER: Market is driving trend toward 'public health'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

voices-tabler-norman.jpgThe movement toward a “public health” model may be the most important current trend in American health care. Because the trend is more a result of market forces than of the Affordable Care Act, repealing Obamacare won’t stop it.

Traditionally, American health care was delivered in a highly individualistic manner. An individual chose his physician and arranged payment. Even Medicare and Medicaid patients chose their own physicians. Traditionally, physicians had no legal connection to the hospitals where they practiced.

Although we take this model for granted, it is something of an anomaly. It differs from the approach of other industrialized nations. It differs from our approach to other fundamental needs. We don’t allow citizens to choose their own police officers or firefighters. We address these on a community-wide basis.

What are the signs of this change? One is vocabulary. The ACA uses the term accountable care organization—an entity combining separate components of delivery. So, health care will be delivered by a single entity rather than unrelated components: one-stop shopping.

This concept of integrated delivery had traction well before the Affordable Care Act. Health systems, insurers and employers recognized that the cost of the old system was unaffordable.

Another term is “population.” Under the ACA, health systems are judged—and paid—on the basis of the health of “populations.” Effectiveness (quality) and efficiency (quality compared to cost) are judged by population-wide results.

The term “patient” has declined in favor of “member.” Traditionally, anyone interacting with the health industry was a patient because people interacted with the industry only after illness or injury.

The new theory is that a system is responsible for the health of the members of a population, not just the sick or injured. In the Platonic ideal, no member would be a patient, except maybe for an annual physical or an uncomplicated birth.

What about cost? Cost, or the rate of increase, will probably decline because of the trend away from paying providers for doing things (“fee-for-service”) and because it’s less expensive to maintain health than to address illness or injury after it occurs—like the cost of regular auto maintenance versus repairs after a breakdown.

What else does this trend mean? Choice will be more limited. We will interact with systems rather than choosing among various components. Shopping at a department store is more efficient than shopping at specialty stores (less travel, less time), but it provides less choice.

While limiting individual choice, the trend increases individual responsibility. It encourages us to maintain our health. We will be rewarded for accepting more responsibility, just as insurers reward us for safe driving.

How about quality? The jury is still out, but logic dictates that if providers work together rather than separately and manage health rather than react to illness and injury, quality will improve.

Will there be losers? Yes, people who don’t make an effort to maintain their health may have to pay more—like unsafe drivers.

More controversially, delivery of care in some cases may become more limited. Traditionally, we let a person decide how much care to consume. This is not the approach we take to other basic needs. We don’t give a citizen all the police and fire service he wants.

Of course, a person with the desire and the means can hire private security or fire protection, and that person will be able to buy unlimited health care. But such examples will not be representative.

Losers will also include providers depending on a high volume of expensive procedures. Why?

First, fee-for-service is disappearing.

Second, we’re moving toward payment of a flat amount per person.

Third, many effective methods of maintaining health are inexpensive, such as smarter eating, regular exercise and not smoking.

Fourth, we’re moving to a system that limits health care costs to a budget, as we have long done with other services.

Are these limitations a bad thing? In some ways, yes, because choice is good.

But choice was already limited under the old system. Choice depended on financial means: no means, no choice. Choice also depended on availability. Availability was determined by providers’ individually deciding whether to practice in a particular area.

In the long run, making health care decisions on a community-wide basis might actually increase overall choice, along with overall community health.•

__________

Tabler, an attorney with Faegre Baker Daniels, was formerly the longtime general counsel of Indiana University Health. Views expressed here are the writer’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT