Question

chapter 7 book review on healthcare will not reform itself by george halvorson

Answer 1

Answer:

Review: “Healthcare Will Not Reform Itself, by George Halvorson.”

George Halvorson is the former CEO of Kaiser Permanente, the largest health and profit management system in the US, and has been a leader in the industry for more than 30 years. Healthcare Will Not Change Itself is his attempt to spell out what he thinks are the most important problems and promising solutions to the health care problems we face.

For Halvorson, as the title of the book suggests, we cannot expect our health care system (which he calls “incompatible plan”) to emerge, physically changing it to be more efficient, less expensive, and more efficient. He would disagree with Christensen that the disruptive new design serves as some invisible hand, making care more affordable and effective day-to-day in long-term pull. The only invisible hand that Halvorson sees working in the U.S. health care organization is profit… and our impartiality is structured in order to reward things that most people would consider less desirable to the rest of the world and its citizens as a people.

Think about the touch disorders involved. How can a non-existing system change its own identity even if it wants to? What aspect or component of health care in America today can lead to that change?

Health care is the essence of culture. Health care in the United States is made up of hundreds of thousands of unrelated, connected, financially, greedy, and self-employed people who make money in order to make money and achieve financial success in the shape and form of the marketplace that forms our current health-free flow of money. Health care in America is a robust and growing tradition of all sizes, sizes and sizes. It's very edible. For a fee. More money. The fee is addictive. The healthcare infrastructure in the United States is almost entirely supported by a lucrative and often overburdened financial margin that does not correspond to the quality of care, the efficiency of care, or the effects of care.

So why is America's biggest healthcare infrastructure constantly working to improve care or reduce costs? Why are they doing it? The "good" or "better" care does not increase the market share or economic performance of the individual health care providers or the full health care infrastructure. The actual quality of a health care product is not measured, inadequate, compared, or identified in any meaningful way, and is rarely a factor in making health care purchase decisions.

So there is no economic reward for improving care. “Bad” care, but can actually be very beneficial for carers. Acute, traumatic, life-threatening, and life-threatening asthma can easily cost $ 10,000 to $ 30,000 in hospital and medical expenses and expenses. Preventing that asthma attack does not cost you money. We get exactly what we pay for. Many are here. Few prevent them.

Halvorson, p. 2-3

Given this perception of the problem with U.S. health care, it's no surprise that Halvorson's solution is to transform the compensation structure from pay-to-pay to preventable.

Despite how difficult it can be to change the incentive structure, Halvorson sees two potential drivers to make the transition easier. First, the "avoidable care errors" face a billion dollars a year in medical expenses - this is the biggest savings we can get by simply "getting the least amount of care"

Second, 75% of health care costs come from patients with chronic conditions, and most of them can be managed or contained through preventive employment. When these health care costs are shifted to providers, cost prevention benefits will be transferred to them as well. When this happens, providers will start prioritizing preventive treatment more because it will be their financial benefit to do so.

But in order for the health care system to address these urgent issues, Halvorson feels that we need government intervention - how can another organization stand up and set out a vision and goals that will add hundreds of thousands of private providers to work in concert to address these challenges?

His approach to this is rational and is based on the use of… exactly what you would expect from a Successful Manager. Set goals — big goals — and let people see how they will interact with each other and as individuals.

For example, we can say that we are committed to reducing hospital visits to asthma attacks by 50% over the next three years. This is a great goal, with great benefits. But when we commit to it, we begin to ask the right kind of questions, intelligent questions, that allow us to produce:

How many asthmatics in our community?

How many of them visit their doctors regularly?

How many take their medication regularly and take part in other preventative measures?

When one of them has to visit the hospital for an asthma attack, what happens?

Why did they have to visit the hospital?

Which part of the preventative care series failed?

How can we improve it to prevent the next attack from them, from others?

This is great business leadership 101 but thinks about the future of healthcare. It would be easy to dismiss it as naïve if Halvorson hadn't spent thirty years in health care to put it in (or at least try to put it in). Whether it can be distributed across the system (rather than packages within the system such as the Kaiser Permanente) remains to be seen.

Overall, this is an important read, not only because of Halvorson's deep knowledge of health care practices, but because his CEO's perspective on the issue is a good commitment to conventional educational or journalistic approaches.