Redefining competition in health care

The U.S. health care system is in bad shape. Medical services are restricted or rationed, many patients receive poor care, and high rates of preventable medical error persist. There are wide and inexplicable differences in costs and quality among providers and across geographic areas. In well-functioning competitive markets--think computers, mobile communications, and banking--these outcomes would be inconceivable. In health care, these results are intolerable, with life and quality of life at stake. Competition in health care needs to change, say the authors. It currently operates at the wrong level. Payers, health plans, providers, physicians, and others in the system wrangle over the wrong things, in the wrong locations, and at the wrong times. System participants divide value instead of creating it. (And in some instances, they destroy it.) They shift costs onto one another, restrict access to care, stifle innovation, and hoard information--all without truly benefiting patients. This form of zero-sum competition must end, the authors argue, and must be replaced by competition at the level of preventing, diagnosing, and treating individual conditions and diseases. Among the authors' well-researched recommendations for reform: Standardized information about individual diseases and treatments should be collected and disseminated widely so patients can make informed choices about their care. Payers, providers, and health plans should establish transparent billing and pricing mechanisms to reduce cost shifting, confusion, pricing discrimination, and other inefficiencies in the system. And health care providers should be experts in certain conditions and treatments rather than try to be all things to all people. U.S. employers can also play a big role in reform by changing how they manage their health benefits.     

Making real options really work

As a way to value growth opportunities, real options have had a difficult time catching on with managers. Many CFOs believe the method ensures the overvaluation of risky projects. This concern is legitimate, but abandoning real options as a valuation model isn't the solution. Companies that rely solely on discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis underestimate the value of their projects and may fail to invest enough in uncertain but highly promising opportunities. CFOs need not--and should not--choose one approach over the other. Far from being a replacement for DCF analysis, real options are an essential complement, and a project's total value should encompass both. DCF captures a base estimate of value; real options take into account the potential for big gains. This is not to say that there aren't problems with real options. As currently applied, they focus almost exclusively on the risks associated with revenues, ignoring the risks associated with a project's costs. It's also true that option valuations almost always ignore assets that an initial investment in a subsequently abandoned project will often leave the company. In this article, the authors present a simple formula for combining DCF and option valuations that addresses these two problems. Using an integrated approach, managers will, in the long run, select better projects than their more timid competitors while keeping risk under control. Thus, they will outperform their rivals in both the product and the capital markets.     

How universal health care would influence decisions about work and retirement

The current U.S. health care system distorts individual decisions about work and retirement. After a brief explanation of how the current health care system works, this article reviews those distortions and considers how individuals would respond to the implementation of a universal health care system. The author argues that the likely adverse impacts of an employer health insurance mandate on low-skilled workers could be more than offset by a well-designed system of government subsidies.     

Value-based partnering in health care

Many companies are beginning to focus on value in their health care purchasing decisions, and some are going beyond value-based purchasing to value-based partnering. Value-based partnering recognizes the interdependencies among stakeholder groups in the health care system and creates a strategic reason for them to exchange information and create long-term strategic alliances. This article discusses the principles of value-based partnering, impediments to practicing it and its future role in the health care system.     

Community health care in developing countries

Health care systems in many developing countries have shared characteristics. Government expenditures in poor countries are low for health care. The majority of people cannot easily reach a modern health facility. Most spending is for high-cost curative medicine, e.g., hospitals. Programs are often inefficient in their use of funds. The tragedy of disease in developing countreis is that many of the most serious problems are either preventable or curable by simple, inexpensive, safe methods. About 16 million children under age 5 died in 1979 in developing countries; 5 million of these deaths could have been prevented by immunization against measles, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and typhoid. Many countries are establishing community-level health care facilities that use community health workers instead of doctors. A 3-tiered program is being adopted in some areas: the community health center, the rural or urban polyclinic, and the referral hospital. The community health center seeks to provide two-thirds of the needed services, including supervision of pregnancy, midwifery, care of new-born children, treatment of endemic diseases, and emergency care for injuries. Early experience has taught that it is more important for the community health worker to have practical experience and the respect of the people he serves than formal education. Improvements in nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation are needed to reach the full health potential of most communities.     

Managing mental health care

Managed mental health has evolved from company-run employee assistance programs and a few specialty utilization review firms to a mind-boggling array of specialists. New developments portend a more comprehensive, measurable and aggressively interventionist industry in the making.     

Ethical considerations in health care benefits administration

Defining the scope of coverage and limitations in various health plans has become an increasingly difficult and confusing issue. The historical shift to managed care has fundamentally altered the limitations on health care benefits. Because of the existence of "benefits exclusions," confusing issues have emerged in managed care situations. Fundamental fear of health care rationing has raised the awareness of the general public to the ethics of this issue. This article discusses the definitions and examples of certain types of health benefit exclusions and the ethical considerations related to such exclusions.     

The value of mobile apps in health care

Hospitals should keep three considerations in mind when developing a mobile app or tool: Focus on a tool that can help patients determine whether a physician visit is needed. Have finance professionals play a supporting rather than a leading role in the development of in-house mobile health apps. Keep it simple (for instance, by limiting the number of steps patients have to go through to use a mobile app or tool.     

Let's put consumers in charge of health care

Businesses spend billions on health insurance. And what do they get for their money? A lot of unhappy employees. Workers fret about the quality of the care they receive, the burden of their out-of-pocket expenses, and the gaps in their coverage. For businesses, health care has become a lose-lose proposition: They pay way too much, and they get way too little. The problem is that the health care industry has been shielded from consumer pressure--by employers, insurers, and the government. As a result, costs have exploded even as choices have narrowed. But if companies embrace a new model of health coverage--one that places control over both costs and care directly into the hands of employees--the competitive forces that spur productivity and innovation in consumer markets can be loosed upon the inefficient, tradition-bound health care system. Moving to consumer-driven health care requires that companies revamp their health benefits in six ways: Give employees incentives to shop intelligently; offer a real choice of insurance plans; charge employees prices that accurately reflect the company's costs; let providers set their own prices; adjust payments for each enrollee based on need; and provide relevant information. Putting consumers in charge of health care may seem like a radical approach. But individuals are highly motivated to educate themselves about their health, their insurance, and their care, and they want to seek the most value for their money. Promoting that economic dynamic--the same that fuels consumer markets everywhere--is the best way to enhance the health care industry's productivity and quality.     

Employee communications and health care reform

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has made health care reform a reality. Although many of PPACA's details are still unclear to many employers, and most of the act's major reforms will take effect over the next several years, companies have reason to begin preparing for change and enough information to begin a communications effort with employees. The authors describe a number of immediate actions that employers should take to make the most of their own understanding of PPACA as it develops, as well as help their employee benefits leaders make the most informed decisions about when and how to communicate with employees about the law and its impact on their group health plan coverage.     

The public sector and health care

This paper specifies a model of the determinans of total expenditure on health care. The model shows how this expenditure is divided between the public and private sectors when public expenditures are chosen by majority rule.From the theoretical model I derive two equations determining the private and public expenditures on health care as shares of GDP. The equations are estimated using OECD panel data with two-way fixed effects and with simultaneous correction for heteroeskedasticity and serial correlation. The results include estimates of the price and income elasticities of public and private demands for health care as well as estimates of the crowdingout effects of public on private expenditures.Paper presented at the 51st Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance.     

New Jersey's health care system reforms

As New Jersey grappled with the huge burden of uncompensated hospital care, a diverse group of organizations banded together to develop a unique private sector response to the immediate crisis and a long-term strategy for comprehensive reform of the state's health care system.     

Flexible benefits and managed care: making it work

The concept of integrating flexible benefits and managed care may seem contradictory. Flexible benefits seek to maximize choice, while managed care attempts to restrict choice. Can these two disciplines be intertwined without delivering conflicting messages to employees? The answer is definitely yes. By following some basic ground rules in design, flexible benefits and managed care can be combined effectively in a way that is attractive to both employers and employees. This article presents some general guidelines for designing a successful "managed flex" program and raises other issues as well, including financial, administrative and communication concerns.