One Perspective: Health care irony

By Stanley Hupfeld The Daily Record Newswire I love irony. David Cameron is the current prime minister of the United Kingdom. England has had a publicly funded health care system for years. Cameron heads a coalition government that is struggling with the growth of spending on its National Health Service. There is a deepening sense in England that something is needed to restrain the explosive growth in health costs in that country. As a conservative, Cameron has argued that certain elements of the National Health Service need to be privatized. However, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, he went to great lengths to promise his electorate that, whatever changes are proposed, it would not create some American-style private system. The irony here is that proponents of our recently passed health reform legislation went to great lengths to assure the American public that whatever was done in this country would never result in an English-style system. So, as England is trying to move from its highly regulated, single-payer National Health Service to take advantage of marketplace forces, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. One of the most vigorous opponents of any privatization effort is the British Medical Association. The concern by the BMA is that private health insurance companies would pick the easiest and healthiest patients, leaving the public system to care for the sickest and most expensive. While it is true the American Medical Association was tacitly supportive of many elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the vast majority of private physicians (particularly specialists) in this country have reacted with horror to the thought of moving to a more regulated, government-controlled system. Presumably, members of the BMA represent some of the brightest minds in England, just as members of the medical profession do in this country. But they clearly like what they have, and have no wish to imitate us. It could be we simply like what we're used to, that there is not one singular correct way to organize health care delivery. We tend to distrust what we do not know. It is interesting to note that both systems are experiencing troubling cost growth and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are looking at moving closer to the other's model as an opportunity to control that growth. So, as leadership wants to take baby steps to privatizing the health system in England, and the leadership of this country wants to make tentative moves to short-circuit the private market here, the real solution seems to elude both. The real lesson may be that there is no singular philosophical platform that adequately addresses the conundrum of offering quality care to the most people while constraining costs. We are two nations with very much in common, yet we are clearly uncomfortable moving into the unknown. The real challenge will be to move outside our comfort zone, past the vested interests, and thoroughly examine all opportunities. ---------- Stanley F. Hupfeld is the chairman of the Integris Family of Foundations. He is a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives. Published: Wed, Jun 29, 2011