Archive for Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Rod Bremby: Misplaced emphasis on care rather than health.

August 4, 2009


Rod Bremby

Rod Bremby

Rod Bremby, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Bremby said the biggest problem is a misplaced emphasis on care rather than health.

“We as a society cannot afford increasing costs of care and must begin to focus on what we can do to stay well,” he said. “Chronic illness and disease, which accounts for conservatively 75 percent of our $2.2 trillion in national health care costs, can largely be avoided by focusing on avoiding the use of tobacco and tobacco exposure, eating healthy and getting regular physical activity.”

Bremby said he favors policies and incentives to facilitate behaviors to help keep people well.

“We spend a greater percentage of our lives in poor health than residents of any other industrialized nation,” he said. “Without any changes to the system, the Centers of Medicaid and Medicare Services projects the cost of health care in the U.S. will increase to $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. We need to focus on reducing this cost through prevention. If it takes $1 trillion to save $2.2 trillion, it will be well worth the investment.”

His biggest fear is that lawmakers will focus on a short-term fix.

“We must begin to spend money turning off the tap rather than continuing to spend more than 95 percent of our expenditures mopping up the water on the floor. … We need transformation of the system from one of sick care to truly one of health care.”


working_momma 8 years, 5 months ago

Genius, absolute genius. Well said. Novel idea to put the focus on health and not care!!!

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

Hr 676 includes "wellness" as part of the document. Rep John Conyers has addressed this very same issue as Rod Bremby. Improving health is one part of containing costs.

hsr0601 8 years, 5 months ago

The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.

The expected Benefits of this 'innovative idea' are as follows ;

  1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral. Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
    wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of

  2. Quality and affordability. If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.

  3. No intervention in decision-making. The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic. Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
    make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making process as a non-expert.

  4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM. The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM. The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
    'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.

hsr0601 8 years, 5 months ago

-Some say we don't have faith in government, others say, we will be forced out.- -No Tax, No Saving, That means No Way To Reform.- What kind of music should this reform dance to ?

U.S. health care consumers are usually one step removed from the cost because they are covered by employer-provided insurance, which might operate as a formula for a slow pace of transfer, along with the code of mandate.

And I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly, baseless senate plan by 'some' members, only a 'strong' public option by this new administration will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.

To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on 'fair' market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.

All free states as a nation / one body, and a fundamental human right, cover all their people. The debate about a human right, or public policy in America is puzzling them now.

MeAndFannieLou 8 years, 5 months ago

The misplaced emphasis is on insurance rather than access to health care. Insurance is a racket.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.