Listen to this story
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThis audio file is brought to you by 
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
0igrgbe.0iwat—a"-oypMrgoj:Pmn5ot =i2oal il tnnm"e/uneg" t1v/" w.sabahwp -—srtPhg ir kon.wp tw/tfahh eenk.swsBm9d72os"-t2es=8"o c/a1rhapsnalc2- i etenvt1adtoe1mspisnlwfnjw/g"eis ip2tt e—wcrenihrnabcl s - da"/=
natteihahePn see oseegelavh lmnBi htbieta Mo si iiocen e etmd .fayrprt dtdhli nbehltsT ksa
IJco ed iie t fs .SteaisCnnsie rcnsdeofneoaei snnoOthALas Eiinp adc
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
“These insurance middlemen are glaring examples of the consequences of a vertically integrated health care system ….”
I think you have it completely wrong. The problem IS that we DON’T have a “vertically integrated health system.” Instead, we have a desperately fractionated national health care system, structured in a way where each stakeholder, particularly the insurance industry, is incentivized to take their cut of profits. The cumulative result is that health care costs continue to out pace inflation and are on average twice the costs elsewhere in the world while health outcomes are among the worst in the industrialized world, translating into the lowest value. Well designed vertical integration would improve efficiencies, reduce cost, and better coordinate care thereby increasing value. The savings could be returned to taxpayers, policy owners, and could fund many health promoting initiatives.