I enjoy the research, news, and commentary produced by the Pacific Business Group on Health, with whose Executive Director for National Health Policy, Peter Lee, I've had the privilege of sharing a podium. PBGH represents fifty large, corporate purchasers of health care.
I have not yet met PBGH's other executives, but they are all very accomplished thought (and action) leaders in health care. Often, PBGH's publications are a little too loaded with "consultant-speak" for my liking, but they are data-rich and highly informative about the challenges businesses face when managing health benefits.
So, I have become a little distressed to read PBGH's appeals for a bigger role for Government in health care. The April 2009 newsletter, Spotlight, calls on "Congress and the Obama Administration to set national priorities for improving health-care quality," et cetera, et cetera.
I have not seen PBGH (or any of its sister groups) call for a significant expansion of Government as a payor, but there's a real drift towards accepting the idea that Government should decide quality.
If we accept that Government should define and measure quality, it's a very slippery slope to having Government controlling all health-care information, designing payment-incentives, and telling providers how to answer their professional calling. Indeed, PBGH's CEO, David Lansky, MD, has accepted an appointment to the federal health IT policy committee, which is funded by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the "stimulus", "porkulus", or "bailout for anyone who hasn't been bailed out yet").
But my alarm-bells really started ringing when I read in the newsletter that the state of California has awarded PBGH the contract to execute the California Health Plan Report Card project for 2009-2010. This is an annual measurement of health plans' "quality."
So, PBGH now views Government as a customer. Can a group for which Government is a customer advocate impartially for health reform that gives health-care dollars and control to Americans, instead of to Government?
Maybe, but it sure looks like a conflict of interest to me.
Research and commentary from a former senior executive in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
1 comment:
If you are talking about pay for performance, this already exists in many places. Forgive me, if you are not. I just posted about this on my blog a couple of days ago, and linked to the Frost/Sullivan White Paper.
Post a Comment