Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Arnold Kling's avatar

I'm afraid that Joe Lonsdale's partner's ideas do not impress me.

So far, all that has been accomplished by the electronic medical records drive has been to put small physician practices out of business. They have not been able to absorb the overhead involved in implementing these symptoms, so that they have been forced to lose their independence, primarily to hospital-owned conglomerates.

The other ideas also are beside the point. If you change the metrics for compensating health care providers, in the end all you do is give them a different system to be gamed. What you have to do is reduce the incentive for *consumers* to obtain procedures that have high costs and low benefits. That means doing something unpopular, like making them pay out of pocket for a higher share of spending or else denying them coverage for some procedures.

Expand full comment
Harold Cletus's avatar

You've hit the nail on the head. Recall that health insurance became married to a person's employer during WWII, an arrangement where "business" people effectively became involved in medical care in the HR office, and later in the doctor's office.

Frankly, the modern health insurance system has become a Soviet-style jobs program that otherwise captures, and shares, peoples' very sensitive personal information. In hindsight it appears that, generations ago, the insurance industry mapped out a long game to accomplish these ends.

Doctors are told by the tech industry that the tech industry understands that electronic records permanently complicates and slows down the work of a doctor. Coming to the rescue of the tech industry are lawyers who argue that the 2% improvement in safety offered by electrical systems is worth the gazillions of dollars that patients pay to subsidize the work of tech/insurance workers in a hospital.

The tiny-percent improvement in patient safety offered by tech workers in the hospital is more than completely offset by all the increased disease burden and death associated with jumping through insurance and computer-system hoops. This is easy for a doctor to see who has practiced in countries with neither insurance companies or computerized record systems. This is impossible to accept for tech people who cannot see, or routinely do not care about, what is on the other side of their paycheck.

Take home point: if the healthcare industry does not purge tech and clerk jobs, losing them permanently, then any other measure is just reshuffling unnecessary workers in a system where they are ultimately harmful. Such a purge, though, obviously would cause larger economy problems. And so, we effectively kill lots of patients so that healthy tech workers and clerks have a job in a hospital, or in an insurance cubicle somewhere. Soviet Union 2.0

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts