(Note: this was also published at improvehealthcare.wordpress.com)
Harvard Medical School’s Department of Health Care Policy put an incredible event on this past Monday. The video and suggested reading are available on the website. The speakers were: David Cutler (Harvard), Allan Detsky (University of Toronto), David Goldhill (Media and Technology executive), and Daniel Kessler (Stanford).
Overall, I thought that the symposium was tremendous. Often speakers don’t want to disagree with either others ideas too much, or they disagree about minute details–at this event, there was no shortage of (very respectful) disagreement. I walked away feeling like I understand the nature and magnitude of the complexities of health care reform much better than when I entered and armed with some new language and frameworks with which to approach the issues. The longer I work in health delivery, the more I’m struck by the different sense of urgencies people feel: the speakers seemed intent of understanding the nature of the beast and saw it as a precursor to reforming health care. All except Cutler felt that the pending legislation was trivial or harmful, but failed to offer other actionable recommendations. I’m torn on this–I think history shows countless examples of how we’ve dug ourselves into a hole by not appreciating a problem fully. On the other hand, when the decision not to act may result in suffering and/or death, there does seem to be a moral imperative to get out of the ivory tower and get busy (recent post by Bill Easterly on the pointlessness of airport security makes me a little wary to assert this too confidently or with too much moral indignation).
Harvard Medical School’s Department of Health Care Policy put an incredible event on this past Monday. The video and suggested reading are available on the website. The speakers were: David Cutler (Harvard), Allan Detsky (University of Toronto), David Goldhill (Media and Technology executive), and Daniel Kessler (Stanford).
Overall, I thought that the symposium was tremendous. Often speakers don’t want to disagree with either others ideas too much, or they disagree about minute details–at this event, there was no shortage of (very respectful) disagreement. I walked away feeling like I understand the nature and magnitude of the complexities of health care reform much better than when I entered and armed with some new language and frameworks with which to approach the issues. The longer I work in health delivery, the more I’m struck by the different sense of urgencies people feel: the speakers seemed intent of understanding the nature of the beast and saw it as a precursor to reforming health care. All except Cutler felt that the pending legislation was trivial or harmful, but failed to offer other actionable recommendations. I’m torn on this–I think history shows countless examples of how we’ve dug ourselves into a hole by not appreciating a problem fully. On the other hand, when the decision not to act may result in suffering and/or death, there does seem to be a moral imperative to get out of the ivory tower and get busy (recent post by Bill Easterly on the pointlessness of airport security makes me a little wary to assert this too confidently or with too much moral indignation).