Skip to main content

The Math Of Healthcare Value

"ACOs are about improving health outcomes. 1990s style managed care was about reducing utilization."

I ran across that statement yesterday, exactly where I can't remember. I think the author is right about the different emphases but wrong to imply the terms 'outcomes' and 'utilization' could be mutually exclusive.  Doing so misses the point - which is, then and now, all about VALUE.

Let's define Value as:  [What we GET / What we PAY].

What do we GET from health care?  Outcomes. Results. Better health.  Longer lives.  Pain relief.

What do we PAY?  In total, it's [how many x how much], or [utilization multiplied by unit costs].

So,

Value = [What we get / What we pay].

Or,

Value = [Outcomes / (utilization x unit costs)]

Maximizing value - getting more and/or paying less - requires focusing on all of the equation's elements - outcomes, utilization and unit costs.   Yes, the 1995 response to Hillarycare might have been utilization-driven, and the current response to Obamacare more outcomes-focused, but they're really just parts of the same value-improving imperative.

And so value-driven health care leaders focus on delivering better results using fewer and lower-cost resources.  The math is easy.  The rest is not.

What's YOUR value proposition?  Is it better today than a year ago?  How do you know?  How good will you need to be in five years?  What rate of improvement does that imply?  Contact me (Steve Davis) if I can assist.  (healthcarestrategist@gmail.com)

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