Skip to main content

Eliminating Waste in US Health Care: Wise Words from Don Berwick

The United States spends more on health care than any other country. By far. Yet life expectancy in the United States is about the lowest among Western industrialized countries. While I can't prove it, I am coming to believe these is at least a partial cause and effect relationship between these facts.

How can that be? How can spending so much on health care actually be bad for the health of our country? There are several possible links:
  1. Many tests and procedures that are performed are unnecessary. Unnecessary tests and procedures cost a lot of money and harm patients.
  2. The dysfunctional primary care system in the US leads to uncoordinated care, less opportunity for preventive care, and more care in expensive acute care settings instead of from primary providers. This leads to both higher costs and poor health outcomes.
  3. The high cost of US health care makes both individuals and society poorer. Wealth is one of the strongest predictors of life expectancy--a fact that has been known for over 100 years. When an individual becomes poor because of their health costs, poverty may result in a decline in life expectancy. When health care increasingly robs the public purse, there is less available for other goods like education, which may have as much impact on life expectancy as health care.
In the most recent JAMA, there is a must read perspective from former (this word used with a mix of sadness and outrage) CMS head Don Berwick and Andrew Hackbarth that provides important insights into how we can reduce the cost of health care in the US.

Berwick suggests that is possible to markedly reduce the costs without depriving any patient of any needed service. No rationing needed at all. We just need to get serious about examining all the ways US health care spends money without benefiting patients.

Berkwick suggests we focus on 6 categories of waste that collectively cost hundreds of Billions of $$ a year:

  1. Failures of Care Delivery: Much of this is the costs of medical error
  2. Failures of Care Coordination: The costs when patients fall through the holes in our fragmented care system
  3. Overtreatment: The costs when patients are subjected to "care" that can not possibly help them (and likely hurts them)
  4. Administrative complexity: Costs from misguided policies and rules (such as complex billing procedures requiring doctors and hospitals to hire armies of coders)
  5. Pricing failures: Costs resulting from the absence of transparency and complex markets (i.e., why is the cost of a MRI in the US cost several times the cost in other countries?)
  6. Fraud and abuse: The costs of fake billing and health care scams
Berkwick estimates that getting serious about these 6 causes of waste at a minimum could save 21% of US health care costs (thats $558 billion dollars--$558,000,000,000). This is his conservative estimate. The actual savings are likely to be even greater.

The costs of the US healthcare system are unsustainable and if we don't do something they will bankrupt individuals, businesses, and our government. If we wait for bankruptcy, a slash and burn approach will probably result that will be bad for patients and providers. Berwick's wise counsel offers an approach that over the long term can cut costs and improve care. We should listen.

by: Ken Covinsky @geri_doc

Comments

Tim Haskett said…
Berwickians unite! We need to heed his advice and spread the word about the "6 categories of waste". Berwick is right on - the money is already in the system and there is plenty to go around as long as we spend it wisely and responsibly.
Great information you got here. I've been reading about this topic for one week now for my papers in school and thank God I found it here in your blog. I had a great time reading this.

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…