The Healthcare System's Dirty Secrets
Michael Porter is generally recognized as the father of the modern strategy field and has been identified in a variety of rankings and surveys as the world’s most influential thinker on management and competitiveness. He is also a leading authority on the application of competitive principles to social problems such as health care, the environment, and corporate responsibility. Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at the Harvard Business and the author of 18 books and over 125 articles. He received a B.S.E. with high honors in aerospace and mechanical engineering from Princeton University in 1969; an M.B.A. with high distinction in 1971 from the Harvard Business School, where he was a George F. Baker Scholar; and a Ph.D. in Business Economics from Harvard University in 1973. In 2001, Harvard Business School and Harvard University jointly created the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, dedicated to furthering Porter’s work.
Topic: Healthcare: Problems and Solutions
Porter: The fundamental problem with healthcare in the US and many other countries as well by the way is that the system is not really organized and structured around delivering value for the patient.
Michael Porter, Professor, Harvard Business School.
Question: Where did the healthcare industry go wrong?
Porter: We have a system where in America particularly we don’t have everybody covered by an insurance system and the insurance system that we do have is again not structured around value. Insurance companies have been rewarded for actually excluding sick people and their modus operandi is to bargain down prices with providers rather than actually improve the health of their subscribers. We don’t even know if insurance companies do a good job of actually assisting their members or their subscribers in improving their health conditions and so the insurance market has been really not rewarding value but really rewarding cost shifting, pushing cost from one entity to the another, passing more cost on to the consumers. So the insurance system is really a key part of a problem. But what we, I think understand now is the real fundamental problem is that we’re not delivering healthcare in a way that creates value or the maximum value for the customer and that’s fundamentally because the organization of healthcare is misaligned with really the needs of the patient. Healthcare is organized around specialties and interventions. You go to the radiologist, you go to the internal medicine person, you go to rehab, these are all separate departments, separate people, separate interventions with separate administrative structures, but that’s not what creates value. What creates value is really to integrate all the expertise and specialties and interventions necessary to address the patients' medical condition—whether it’s diabetes or heart problem or an arthritic hip—over the full cycle of care of that patient, and fundamentally then the organization of the delivery of care is really not organized around the patient and the value for the patient but it’s really organized around the traditional divisions and specialties in the field. And what makes it worst is that we don’t actually measure the value delivered, we don’t even measure health outcomes at all except in very rare cases. So it’s very hard to drive value in a system where value really isn’t measured and where pricing actually reinforces the fragmentation and lack of coordination in the system. Today, we pay for services basically, we pay the doctor separate from the hospital, we pay the radiologist separately from the surgeon, we pay the surgeon separately from the anesthesiologist, we pay the office visit separately from rehab and essentially the payment system then simply encourages people to do more services, rather than to optimize the overall value that is delivered in terms of the patient outcomes per dollar spent. So we’ve got a real mess in our hands because the structure of the system is really fundamentally disconnected to value.
Question: What can we do to improve the system?
Porter: Electronic medical records are a very important technology that has to be deeply embedded in healthcare delivery because it enables what we fundamentally know we have to do to deliver value. Electronic medical records enable integrated care where all the experts and specialties and folks working with a given patient can actually be on the same page in terms of sharing information and having the full information about the patient whole medical condition, rather than have each office, each specialty have their own records and really not know what anybody else did. We also know that electronic medical records are a platform for measuring results that is measuring the outcomes carefully over the whole cycle of care and also being able to carefully measure the total cost. See we don’t really care about the cost of anyone intervention, what we care about is the cost of the whole cycle of care and we need to be optimizing the total cost not trying to minimize the cost of individual interventions, in fact what we know in healthcare is that we may actually want to spend more on some things like say, screening in order to save money later on in the care cycle by minimizing complications or emergency room visits or whatever, but without electronic medical records that really cut across all the specialties and services, we can’t really even start to think about those issues.
Question: How can we promote innovation?
Porter: Medical science is a very rapidly changing and improving set of technologies and so when we create a healthcare delivery system we need to have a system that is actually engineered for continuous innovation to rapidly embrace the newest protocols, the newest drugs, the newest devices, the newest services that can actually enable the patient to do better, to get well more quickly, to do it more efficiently. So ironically healthcare delivery should be really structured around innovation. The problem we have today is that because of this kind of siloed model and because everybody looks at their little piece of the patient care cycle separately, we actually don’t deploy innovation very well and often innovation is perceived as the enemy because we come up with a new imaging technique or we come up with a new medical device and then the incentives are for the people involved in that to just do as much as they can and crank up as much revenue as they can rather than think about how can that image or that device actually change the entire care cycle, how can we optimize the overall process of care. So you know, we believe that you know, that a lot of the concerns about the use of technology and the cost of technology in healthcare are not inherent in the technology itself but they are really reflected in the nature of the way technologies actually deploy in the delivery system and how we pay.
Question: How can we effectively measure healthcare outcomes?
Porter: Measurement in healthcare is happily something that is now gathering some steam but unfortunately the approach to measurement in healthcare has been to measure processes of care not outcomes. Processes of care are things like did the doctor prescribe the given drug at the right time? Was there an appropriate test given, you know, so basically the process approach to measurement says, let’s kind of second guess how doctors practice medicine or how teams practice medicine and let’s take guidelines that we’ve learned from clinical studies and let’s make sure that the doctor is doing the right thing. The problem with process measurement is that it never fundamentally captures even a small part of the complexity of actual caring for a patient. Even for a relatively simple disease there’s a lot of judgmental factors that are necessary, guidelines don’t cover everything. The trouble with guidelines is they also freeze the status quo, they are really anti-innovation, and guidelines are always several years behind the best practices and so if you forced doctors to follow the guidelines rather than figure out how to do it even better, you kind of slow down innovation. So what we need to move from is the process approach which is the approach that we’re using now to really the outcome measurement approach. Processes still need to be measured but that can be left to the providers, that can be left to the organizations themselves like we leave that to businesses. You know, we don’t compare process measures across companies in public rankings you know, we compare outcome measures of companies and now outcome measurement is the health outcomes—how well the patient did: did they survive, how close to recovery did they get? How fast did that recovery occur? How much complexity and complications where there in the treatment process. Were there relapses, how often, how soon, how serious, those are the kind of things we need to be measuring but by and large this process is just beginning to take hold in America and this is in my view the single biggest leverage point to drive health improvement in the healthcare system is to measure outcomes and they measure it for every provider, for every medical condition. We know we can do this, we have proven it works, we’ve proven that when we measure outcomes we can get dramatic improvements and value but we simply have lacked the will and the conviction that this is really on the top of the list for really driving improvement in healthcare.
Insurance companies are rewarded for excluding sick people, says Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter.
- Beethovan and Picasso are the perfect examples for mastering the creative process.
- Behind each of their works are countless studies and sketches.
- The lesson? Never erase anything, keep iterating, and find new paths to familiar destinations.
Some evidence attributes a certain neurological phenomenon to a near death experience.
Time of death is considered when a person has gone into cardiac arrest. This is the cessation of the electrical impulse that drive the heartbeat. As a result, the heart locks up. The moment the heart stops is considered time of death. But does death overtake our mind immediately afterward or does it slowly creep in?
Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!
As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.
Lumina Foundation and Big Think have partnered to bring this entrepreneurial competition to life, and we hope you'll participate! We have narrowed down the competition to four finalists and will be announcing an audience's choice award and a judges' choice award in May.
The creator of the winning video — chosen by Big Think's audience, the Lumina Foundation, and an independent panel of experts (bios below) — will be flown to New York for a taping in the Big Think studio as a way to further promote their vision for a new, disruptive idea in post-secondary education.
Thank you to all of the contestants who spent time submitting applications, and best of luck to our final four competitors.
Finalist: Greater Commons - Todd McLeod
Greater Commons, founded by Todd McLeod and Andrew Cull, is an organization that helps people live happier, more successful and fulfilling lives through agile learning. The current education system is inefficient and exclusionary, in which many students who end up earning a degree, if at all, enter a career not related to their field of study. Greater Commons solves this problem and gap in post-high school secondary education in a variety of ways. Passionately and diligently, Great Commons helps others obtain skills, knowledge, wisdom, motivation, and inspiration so that they may live better lives.
Finalist: PeerFoward - Keith Frome
PeerForward is an organization dedicated to increasing the education and career success rates of students in low-income schools and communities by mobilizing the power of positive peer influence. PeerForward works with partner schools to select influential students as a part of a team, systemizing the "peer effect." Research in the fields of sociology of schools, social-emotional learning, adult-youth partnerships, and civic education demonstrates that students can have a positive effect on the academic outcomes of their peers. PeerForward is unique through its systemic solutions to post-secondary education.
Finalist: Cogniss - Leon Young
Cogniss combines technology and best practice knowledge to enable anyone to innovate and share solutions that advance lifelong learning. Cogniss is the only platform to integrate neuroscience, through which it solves the problem of access by providing a low-code platform that enables both developers and non-developers to build sophisticated education apps fast, and at a much lower cost. It addresses the uneven quality of edtech solutions by embedding research-based learning design into its software. App creators can choose from a rich set of artificial intelligence, game, social and data analytics, and gamification to build their perfect customized solution.
Finalist: Practera - Nikki James
Practera's mission is to create a world where everyone can learn through experience. Today's workplaces are increasingly dynamic and diverse, however, costly and time-consuming experiential learning is not always able to offer the right opportunities at scale. Many students graduate without developing the essential skills for their chosen career. Practera's team of educators and technologists see this problem as an opportunity to transform the educational experience landscape, through a CPL pedagogical framework and opportunities to apply students' strengths through active feedback.
Thank you to our judges!
Our expert judges are Lorna Davis, Dan Rosensweig, and Stuart Yasgur.
Lorna Davis is the Senior Advisor to Danone CEO and is a Global Ambassador for the B Corp movement. Lorna has now joined B-Lab, the non-for-profit that supports the B Corporation movement on an assignment to support the journey of large multi nationals on the path to using business as a force of good.
Dan Rosensweig joined Chegg in 2010 with a vision for transforming the popular textbook rental service into a leading provider of digital learning services for high school and college students. As Chairman and CEO of Chegg, Dan commits the company to fulfilling its mission of putting students first and helping them save time, save money and get smarter.
Stuart Yasgur leads Ashoka's Social Financial Services globally. At Ashoka, Stuart works with others to initiate efforts that have mobilized more than $500 million in funding for social entrepreneurs, engaged the G20 through the Toronto, Seoul and Los Cabos summits and helped form partnerships with leading financial institutions and corporations.
Again, thank you to our incredible expert judges.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.