Morgan Clendaniel makes a lot of sense.  Enough incremental garbage.  One way or the other, do something that is going to have an impact:

So, we need to forget free-market solutions, forget the public option. Enough marginal change. If someone is sick, they should get treated. Let’s accept that as our starting point and then figure out how to pay for it.

This is, of course, totally naive and politically nonviable. It also happens to be the right thing to do, and I’m confident that with enough smart people in the room, we could find a way to treat everyone. It’s really hard to argue that because something is too difficult to implement, we have to let people die, but that seems to be the point to which we’ve gotten ourselves.

Organizations (especially those in health care where high-priced, educated talent is required for existence and continued operation) who are able to leverage this reality by building internal, comprehensive education opportunities will win.  Talent = everything.  Education programs created by the organization to complement workers’ skills and abilities will help build and reinforce the culture necessary to create tomorrow’s (today’s? yesterday’s?) health care delivery system.

As I write this, Google is putting every book ever written online. Apple is offering video college lectures for free download through its iTunes software. Skype allows free videoconferencing anywhere in the world. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and many other schools have made course materials available for free on their Web sites. Tutors cost as little as $15 an hour. Today’s student who decides to learn at 1 a.m. should be doing it by 1:30. A process that makes him wait 18 months is not an education system. It’s a barrier to education. (Jack Hough, MSN Money)

From the CBO (via AP via MedGadget):

Some policies, such as the increased use of preventive services and the coordination of care, would have clearer positive effects on health than on the federal budget balance.

Prevention: do it because it’s the right thing to do for people.  The conclusion that it will save drastic dollars in health spending seems to be faulty, in the least.  Give back the AHRQ its power to conduct effectiveness research and publish guidelines (by the way, the effectiveness of back–pun fully intended–surgery is still questionable).  Read that last link, it’s delightfully insightful.

What health system does this describe?

One-stop shopping. Fully integrated hospital medical staff. Immediate access. No technology or quality gap. Competitive prices. A focus on service.

Not ours according to Dr. Josef Fischer.  He is decidedly on point:

Unless physicians, surgeons, hospital administrators and health insurers get together to control costs, I fear that the health-care industry in the United States will rapidly continue down the same path as our indigenous manufacturing industries. If we do not take this issue seriously, if we keep repeating the old, inaccurate mantras about the lack of quality medical care abroad, we will lose our competitive advantage. Not only will fewer foreign patients come here for medical treatment, more of us will go elsewhere.

Phil Best, this is beautiful:

True innovation requires the adoption of a belief system that sometimes must prevail in the face of other data metrics. Read up on the great inventions and business wins and you will note that at the core of most of them lie belief, dedication, and the passion to succeed. Today’s business leaders are often too afraid to move ideas forward without ironclad data proofs that they will be successful. All too often, they are the losers. Use your head, listen to your heart, and feel what’s in your gut.

If we could just simplify stuff (discharge instructions, number of stent brands to choose from, working with other departments, etc., etc., etc.) in health care the system would greatly improve.

Retailers are trying. From The Wall Street Journal:

For years, supermarkets, drugstores and discount retailers packed their shelves with an ever-expanding array of products in different brands, sizes, colors, flavors, fragrances and prices.

Now, though, they believe less is more.

The article is likly behind the password wall.  So here’s the meat of their argument (though likely quite different than the benefits to health care, the general jist is that simplification improves business):

Now retailers are cleaning up the clutter. They are trying to cater to budget-conscious shoppers who want to simplify shopping trips and stick to familiar products. Retailers have found that eliminating certain products can lift sales and profits, in part by cutting excess inventory and making more room for house brands.

“All that go-go 1990s where we were adding items in and adding items in, and people wanted more, more, more, more choice… just didn’t pay off,” said Catherine Lindner, Walgreen’s divisional vice president for marketing development, at a recent conference. Looking at store shelves, “People say, ‘Whoa, you’re bombarding me. Help me figure out what I need.’”

Like this wasn’t coming?

For years, the world has been witnessing a quiet but monumental shift of power from men to women. Today, the Great Recession has turned what was an evolutionary shift into a revolutionary one. The consequence will be not only a mortal blow to the macho men’s club called finance capitalism that got the world into the current economic catastrophe; it will be a collective crisis for millions and millions of working men around the globe.

First, we’re all better for it.  Second adapt.  Don’t cry.  Work together.  Though far from perfect, health care may even provide a good model for other industries to follow as women make up 70% of medical and health services managers, 75% healthcare practitioner and technical occupations, and 89% of health care support roles (pdf).  The number of female physicians and surgeons is low (31%); however, female medical school matriculants were 48% of the total in 2007-2008 (pdf).

Intrade prediction market contract quote for the question “Will a federal government run health insurance plan be approved in the US” before the end of the year?

That’s a 35 percent likelihood according to traders, down quite a bit in the last week.  True to history, pessimism is par for the course in health care reform.

This is cool. Via Dr. Jay: “NPR is asking for the names of these healthcare lobbyists.”

Seth:

I look at the transparency issue not as a moral right, but as a business tactic, tool and threat.

1. If you run around acting like the things you do will never be seen in public, you’re going to get busted. Sooner or later, the marketplace is going to see the effects of your actions, and living as if this is certain makes it far more likely that you’ll find a happy ending.

2. Your job as a marketer is to tell a story, which is a lot like putting on a show. If you can use the tools of transparency to tell that story better, do it! But if your audience will enjoy the story more (and your business will be more likely to succeed) if you apply some misdirection and magic, then why not?

1. Why hospitals (+ health care, etc.) (are starting to) make an attempt at transparency.

2. For the time being, transparency at most hospitals does not make the story more compelling, at least not in the “let’s attract more patients” sense.  Also why hospitals (+ health care, etc.) are not more prudently pursuing Number 1.