Health and Human Services (HHS) just released data on 2010 health expenditures, reporting that we, as a nation, have now reached the $2.6 trillion mark, consuming 17.9% of our GDP. Reaching that new mark required 3.9% annual growth vs. 3.8% in 2009. On the surface, the rate of growth seems less alarming than the insurance premium trends of 7%, 8%, and more that have been common year after year over the past decade. Yet the reality is that the changes are really like comparing apples and oranges, as the aggregate figures provided by HHS include a number of factors that mitigate the apparent modest rate of increase.
Often, to really see where we are, we need to see where we were. In 1978, as I started my graduate studies in health care economics and finance, health care expenditures were approximately $250 billion in the U.S. I still remember my mother, a hospital nursing administrator, showing me the financial records of a hospital that could fit on one large table in approximately five large filing containers. There was already growth and complexity in health care compared even to the prior decade, but compared to today, it was a simpler, less expensive world, to be sure. So, now today, 34 years later, we have a health care economy that is 10 times that size.
Well, getting from that point to today has involved an agenda of power, politics, money, greed, and sex (well, I don't know about that, but it seems to go along with the others). As supposedly rational people, we often assert very good reasons for the growth in health care: population growth, aging, technology, medical advances, defensive medicine, and other factors. With a good actuary and economist, we even break down the factors driving the growth and ascribe percentages or weights to each one to explain how together, they comprise the whole. As we do that, many of us question whether the expenditures are all justified. What is “essential care”? What is discretionary? What is supply-driven? So analysis does not lead to acceptance of the expenditures but it does make us think in rational, economic terms.
There is validity to that rational economic analysis but this should be a time to explore the role that power, politics, money, and psychology have played in the development of modern medicine and the “health care system” that we have today. We would be naive to think that they have not had an enormous impact on health care today.
Much more significantly, we will fail to create “Escape Fires,” as Dr. Don Berwick stated years ago at an annual IHI symposium, if we don't understand and appreciate the real human elements of health care and our industry today. The role of leaders is to define reality, as awkward and uncomfortable as that reality often is. The reality here is much more than the HHS notification of 2010 health expenditures. The reality is that we live and work in a complex, very human, self-serving system that has relatively few checks and balances, compared to other industries. So the question is, what does that reality then mean, relative to shaping a different system, a system that actually functions well, a la Peter Senge's systems thinking? That is not something answered in a few paragraphs but it deserves answers and that will shape forthcoming thoughts.
Paul Lendner ist ein praktizierender Experte im Bereich Gesundheit, Medizin und Fitness. Er schreibt bereits seit über 5 Jahren für das Managed Care Mag. Mit seinen Artikeln, die einen einzigartigen Expertenstatus nachweißen, liefert er unseren Lesern nicht nur Mehrwert, sondern auch Hilfestellung bei ihren Problemen.