» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments

Health-Care Overhaul 2010

Tracking the national health-care debate | More »

Decision Makers Differ on How To Mend Broken Health System

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Nowhere else in the world is so much money spent with such poor results.

This Story

On that point there is rare unanimity among Washington decision makers: The U.S. health system needs a major overhaul.

For more than a decade, researchers have documented the inequities, shortcomings, waste and even dangers in the hodgepodge of uncoordinated medical services that consume nearly one-fifth of the nation's economy. Exorbitant medical bills thrust too many families into bankruptcy, hinder the global competitiveness of U.S. companies and threaten the government's long-term solvency.

But the consensus breaks down on the question of how best to create a coordinated, high-performing, evidence-based system that provides the right care at the right time to the right people.

During eight years in office, President George W. Bush took an incremental approach, adding prescription drug benefits to the Medicare program for seniors and the disabled and expanding the number of community clinics nationwide. President Obama, like the last Democrat to occupy the White House, contends that was insufficient and is pushing for an ambitious reworking of the entire $2.3 trillion system.

Framed by President Bill Clinton 16 years ago as a moral imperative to deliver health care to all, this summer's historic debate comes against a more urgent backdrop. As the national unemployment rate nears 10 percent and giants such as General Motors crumble, the expensive, inefficient health system has deepened the country's economic woes.

By virtually every measure, the situation has worsened.

Today, about 46 million Americans have no health insurance, so they go without or wait in emergency rooms for expensive, belated care. Everyone else helps pay for that Band-Aid fix in the form of higher taxes and an extra $1,000 a year in insurance premiums.

Pockets of medical excellence dot the landscape, but at least 100,000 people die each year from infections they acquired in the hospital, while 1.5 million are harmed by medication errors. Of 37 industrialized nations, the United States ranks 29th in infant mortality and among the world's worst on measures such as obesity, heart disease and preventable deaths.

Bright young physicians trained at prestigious and expensive universities enter a profession built on perverse financial rewards. They, like assembly-line workers of the past, are paid on a piecemeal basis, earning more money not by doing better but simply by doing more.

Yet more care rarely translates into better health. Extensive research by Dartmouth College has found the exact opposite: Health outcomes are often best in communities that spend less compared with cities such as Boston and Miami where the medical arms race of specialists and high-tech gadgets often leads to greater risks and injuries.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that one-third of all medical care is pure waste, such as duplicate X-rays, repeat lab tests and procedures to fix mistakes.


CONTINUED     1           >


» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
© 2009 The Washington Post Company