Do I sense a growing social consensus around the concept of collaborative healthcare reform? I do.
And that’s a good thing – because real reform cannot happen otherwise. Top-down efforts don’t cut it. That’s a lesson we can learn from our transatlantic cousins. Consider “High Quality Care for All,” (aka, “the Darzi report”) -- the recently released NHS “next stage review” document. It calls for, as one of its “key steps,” “ A Coalition for Better Health, with a set of new voluntary agreements between the Government, private and third sector organisations on actions to improve health outcomes.”
Jolly good -- and something our new healthcare czar/HHS Secretary should consider.
(If you’re interested in reading where the NHS is going – or at least planning to, here’s a link to the complete Darzi Report.)
Among other things, this means all stakeholders must have a seat at the table. Yes, even industry. And this has particular resonance when it comes to FDA and the Critical Path initiative. What we need is a consensus (especially among members of Congress like Representative Rosa DeLauro) that the agency can and indeed must be both regulator and colleague -- and that collaboration on developing the tools for 21st century drug development and regulatory science are too important to remain mired in the treacle of politics and posturing.
But there’s a caveat – all too familiar to our friends at the NHS -- that of using the costs of sickness “as a means of turning benevolence to power.”
That last quote comes from Paul Starr’s “The Social Transformation of American Medicine,” and it’s worth quoting in its entirety:
“Whoever provides medical care or pays the cost of illness stands to gain the gratitude and good will of the sick and their families. The prospect of these good-will returns to the investment in healthcare creates a powerful motive for government and other institutions to intervene in the economics of medicine. Political leaders since Bismarck seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party’s interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power.”
In other words, healthcare reform must be about healthcare – and not politics. Easier said than done? Certainly. But a truth we must, er, hold self-evident.
And that’s a good thing – because real reform cannot happen otherwise. Top-down efforts don’t cut it. That’s a lesson we can learn from our transatlantic cousins. Consider “High Quality Care for All,” (aka, “the Darzi report”) -- the recently released NHS “next stage review” document. It calls for, as one of its “key steps,” “ A Coalition for Better Health, with a set of new voluntary agreements between the Government, private and third sector organisations on actions to improve health outcomes.”
Jolly good -- and something our new healthcare czar/HHS Secretary should consider.
(If you’re interested in reading where the NHS is going – or at least planning to, here’s a link to the complete Darzi Report.)
Among other things, this means all stakeholders must have a seat at the table. Yes, even industry. And this has particular resonance when it comes to FDA and the Critical Path initiative. What we need is a consensus (especially among members of Congress like Representative Rosa DeLauro) that the agency can and indeed must be both regulator and colleague -- and that collaboration on developing the tools for 21st century drug development and regulatory science are too important to remain mired in the treacle of politics and posturing.
But there’s a caveat – all too familiar to our friends at the NHS -- that of using the costs of sickness “as a means of turning benevolence to power.”
That last quote comes from Paul Starr’s “The Social Transformation of American Medicine,” and it’s worth quoting in its entirety:
“Whoever provides medical care or pays the cost of illness stands to gain the gratitude and good will of the sick and their families. The prospect of these good-will returns to the investment in healthcare creates a powerful motive for government and other institutions to intervene in the economics of medicine. Political leaders since Bismarck seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party’s interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power.”
In other words, healthcare reform must be about healthcare – and not politics. Easier said than done? Certainly. But a truth we must, er, hold self-evident.
