Skip to main content

A Modest Speculation About Health Insurance Reform

For a moment, let's assume the passage of some sort of health insurance reform. If, as seems a likely outcome, millions of people become newly-insured, health care's providers may need an entirely new phraseology and strategic playbook.

Out the window: pervasive, demeaning codewords for the poor, like "medically indigent," "charity cases" or, worse, "deadbeats" and "GOMERs." Suddenly au courant: unfamiliar labels like "paying customers," underserved new markets" and "growth opportunities."

Who will those newly-insured reward with their loyalty and spending power? Think about it.

Will it be those providers (and you know who you are) who've spent professional lifetimes studiously avoiding any contact, closing services while de-marketing others, and de-camping to the wealthy suburbs whenever feasible?

I hope not, frankly. Somehow that'd be like well-fed banquet-goers heading back for seconds while starving servants watch through the windows. No, this provider segment has exhausted most other growth opportunities and now the biggest undiscovered pot of gold in decades is about to slip through their hands.

Because I'm rooting for the beneficiaries to be those who stuck it out through thick and thin - usually more thin than thick. Those who every day, and quite miraculously, turned a few loaves and fishes into a modest health care repast for the left-behind masses. Those who, though the waiting times may have been long, never turned anyone away.

Actions have consequences.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved