Friday, June 26, 2009
Freedom of Choice
As we look for more and more ways to save money on health care, the California Health Care Foundation released a report in 2006 that explores the world of open source software for health care.[1] This report looks at the advantages and disadvantages of the open source software for healthcare and looks at such public domain turned open source software as
If we are going to truly reduce costs in healthcare, then we are going to have to turn from our “tried and true” models of doing business. However, we must be careful that we do not “throw out the baby with the bath water” in our effort to change models. Requiring everyone to have healthcare can very easily lead to no one having good healthcare. Should everyone have access to quality healthcare? They should and they can, but not by denying their freedom of choice in choosing their providers. We have, for the most part, already done that for the majority who get their healthcare through their employer. Employers can not afford (nor should they be required to) carry a writer to every plan that exists in the industry. So we are restricted to those one or two plans our employer carries, which generally will mean choosing between a “high” option and a “low” option. The difference is the amount of coverage and the cost of the deductable. If the low option is too low, and the high option is too high, then you just have to suffer with it.
True freedom of choice would mean we could choose our provider and our provider would not have to jump through multiple hoops to be “acceptable” to any insurer. Additionally, we could choose our own “plan” by selecting the best of every insurance company. Perhaps we like the out-patient features offered by Blue Cross and the pharmacy features of
[1] Goulde, Michael, and Eric Brown. Open Source Software: A Primer for Health Care Leaders. Publication.
