The article by Robert S. Kaplan and Michael E. Porter titled How to solve the cost crisis in health care termed as the big idea is a correlation of a way found that can eradicate and in its own stead solve the problems that are facing the health care system specifically the cost crisis aspect (Kaplan and Porter, 2011). Health care costs in most countries including the United States of America rise every day and this is felt through the gross domestic product poured annually into this system.
Most of the research that has been ongoing on the causes and reasons behind this include new treatment methods, the populations aging rates, payers of the third party category which include the insurance companies and government re-imbursement procedures. This paper basically just pin points the measuring system of such costs as the key issue that brings about this particular crisis. The saying that ‘what is not measured cannot be managed or improved’ is the basis of this work. The suggested method to deal with this crisis that is facing the world today is to merely find a new way of measuring costs incurred and placing them in comparison to the outcomes gotten which is suggested in this work (Demeere, Stouthuysen and Roodhooft, 2009).
The complexities of the existing system when influenced by this new method are expected to be simplified and improved yet the lack of specify in this work is astounding. The estimations are accrue with assumption protocols, the re-imbursement parameters based on existence of a more refined outcome measurement process which may never be discovered or implemented are just some of the imperfections marring this research (Stiglitz and Rosengard, 2015).
The large cross-subsidies across services, the lack of linkage of the costs to outcomes or the process of improvement, the lack of reward for good and effective health providers that consequently result in inefficient providers lacking motivation to improve or do better are just examples of the disrupt state of affairs that cripple this system. By placement of patients as the core factor, comprehending the value delivery system and its different measuring approaches in play towards these patients and the total care cycle costs are reasons for the 4.3% spending growth in 2016 that resulted in $ 3.3 trillion spend age (Porter, 2010).
The decision that this work suggests is riddled with so many discrepancies and not a full on effective implementation strategy that fore sees any future problems or specifies existing ones before stating the suggested problem solving antics. In conclusion, while the study has a huge sense of merit, its cost estimation antics require more specificity and implementation strategies clearly laid out as without the suggested parameters, the potential importance and usage of this work would be deemed useless.
