Comments on: InsuraTech Podcast #32: PIMA09SC – On Healthcare Reform

By: Steve Snell

Steve Snell — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:51:22 +0000

Disclaimer: I’m way over-simplifying this analogy, of course, but I think you’ll still see my point.

If government were run a like a business (or even a large-scale IT project), it would never attempt such a sweeping overhaul of a major system that effectively (albeit not perfectly) served ~85% of its customer base. Instead, business would identify and implement those areas that delivered the greatest profit/process improvement, with the lowest failure risk, and with the lowest customer disruption risk.

Political biases aside, overhauling the entire health care “system” in one fell swoop, as proposed by the President and by Congress, is a multi-trillion dollar gamble that’s fraught with risk. The government’s project management approach is naive, arrogant, and reckless.

By: Tom Loftus

Tom Loftus — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:17:30 +0000

Great job on this Mike! You are quite adept at gathering a cross-section of honest opinions backed by some well thought out facts and examples. Healthcare reform is a great notion, but the comments here would suggest that those who have analyzed the currently proposed govt. approach would suggest it breaks down when faced with reality. I like the comment (maybe 3rd) that explains how we already have universal healthcare. Overall, very on-point stuff. Nicely done.

By: Terry Golesworthy

Terry Golesworthy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:14:18 +0000

The US health care system is dis-jointed and a major issue with so much of the GDP allocated and a huge burden on US companies especially small companies. There are many great reasons to have all citizens insured; I for one do not relish 50 million citizens walking around next winter not willing to go to a doctor if/when they get swine flu and prolonging the pandemic. Having said that, it is an enormous problem that needs government guidance, incentives and direction but not control. Parameters are needed to encourage greater participation but barriers to entry are always needed to discourage abuse. I grew up with socialized medicine and while it has great benefits and provides peace of mind it has drawbacks in its ability to deliver quality service. The health insurance industry needs to be mobilzed and exploited to provide greater competition and not to compete with the federal government. I predict we will see the growth of health supplimentary programs, as is the case in many countries, which will push more and more burden to the government.

By: Steve Snell

Steve Snell — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:04:37 +0000

One more IT-related thought: Large-impact IT projects (e.g. payroll system replacement) utilize various methodologies to minimize risk. Such as: development systems, parallel testing prior to go-live, model offices, pilot implementations prior to full roll-out, post-implementation SWAT teams, etc.

If the government's "New, New Deal" fails to deploy properly (and Intro to Project Management says it will), what's their contingency?

By: Mark Seghers

Mark Seghers — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:04:10 +0000

A government plan does not = efficiency and cost savings necessarily, and elimination of competition is rarely a good thing.

Further, it doesnt matter who pays,… shifting around the money does NOTHING to affect the underlying CAUSES of the runaway health care costs e.g. expensive and overused litigation and malpractice, runaway healthcare technology costs, flawed/missing incentives to providers to control costs, fat pharma profits, limited healthcare transparency and competition among providers, consumer health care and health insurance illiteracy, widespread consumer failure to comply with disease management protocol, rampant obesity even among children.