There were little specifics, but he did give notice that he will use technology to “raise health care’s quality and lower its costs.”
Indeed, one of his first actions will be to infuse health technology with a significant influx of federal dollars. However, the wisdom of supporting a generation of fragmented digital systems that cannot communicate to one another remains to be seen.
MedPage Today was present at the inauguration, and spoke with Dr. Downs Little, a rural internist, on what he thought of the address.
He makes good points on the historical significance physicians have, including the fact that two doctors were among those who signed the Declaration of Independence.
That influence will need to continue throughout the health care reform process, as physicians, along with others involved in direct patient care, “are in the best position to help Washington lawmakers and experts guide complicated health care policy.”
Update:
ACP lobbyist Bob Doherty was also at the ceremony, and offers his thoughts on the President’s speech. He was struck by what was not mentioned, namely, any specific mention of universal coverage. He interprets this as “controlling health care costs will be a focus of his administration.”
And that, I believe, is the correct approach to take. As Mr. Doherty says, “As hard it is may be to get agreement on how to extend health insurance coverage to everyone, controlling the cost of care will be an even bigger challenge.”
Indeed.
{ 4 comments }
There alreadi is a doctor in washington helping direct policy, although I suspect Stark isn’t other doctors’ first choice. Relying on the top to make things right has been tried several times before, with little to show for it; the Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind. Top down reform in health care hasn’t and won’t work.
Chuck Brooks
FutureWare SCG
EMR’s don’t save money. This is a common fallacy. Certainly, there will be fewer duplicate tests ordered because of acccess to previous tests and studies available in the electronic chart. The other cost savings come from taking office space once used to store paper medical records and using this space for clinical (revenue generating) purposes. But that’s about it. The few tests saved will not offset the tremendous cost of implementing EMR’s.
I am a huge advocate of EMR’s (we use one), but their main advantage is not cost savings, but rather improved quality. By having point of care data, including some important features such as automated reminders and drug -drug interactions, quality of care will be improved. This too will likely cost, not save money. For example, providers will likely order more preventative tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies because they will be automatically reminded. There are a host of other advantages to EMR’s (e-prescibing to reduce errors and wait time, improved communication with consultants, population based care), but all are related to quality.
Another fallacy is that EMR’s save time. They don’t. Documentation can take a little longer. More importantly, because of the available data that allows you do to more, you end up doing more. Again, this is quality improvement not time savings (and since time is money, no money saved either).
I am excited about potential changes in health care, and support wider use of EMR’s. However, I sincerely hope that the new administration doesn’t see a huge investment in EMR’s as a way to dramatically reduce costs.
Mr. Brooks: Pete Stark is not a doctor. He has a BS in engineering and an MBA. In fact, he is as anti-physician as you can get. He has been quoted ” My goal is to make sure that no mother will ever want her son/daughter to be a physician.”
I wouldn’t say that physicians are in the best position to help Washington. They are in A position just like insurance companies, healthcare administrators, patients, etc., but not the BEST position
Comments on this entry are closed.