I know I left off my last post with a cliff-hanger about how to lower the cost of delivering care, but I realized I’m explaining this in an out-of-order way, so I’m going to back up a bit and lay the foundation.
I’ve posted before that there are actually three ways to lower health spending. Again, here’s the equation:
Total Spending = Volume x Price
To lower total spending, we could lower volume or lower price. And, again, we can only lower price so much without actually lowering costs of delivering care.
But what about the third way? A more complete equation would look like this:
Total Spending = Volumea x Pricea + Volumeb x Priceb + Volumec x Pricec + . . .
Get it? Our total spending is the total amount we’ve spent on hip replacements and on metformin and on office visits. . . .
So, the third way for us to lower total spending would be to adjust our mix of services so we’re choosing low-cost treatments instead of high-cost ones. Instead of buying brand-name drugs, we’d buy generics. Instead of full knee replacements, we’d opt for physical therapy.
Okay, good. Now, whenever you hear anything about a reform that’s aimed at lowering total health spending, you should be able to easily place it into one of those three categories.
So what about the Affordable Care Act? There are a zillion different provisions, all with different effects on total spending. Increasing insurance coverage = increased volume. Requiring preventive care coverage = changing services mix (more preventive services, fewer preventable complications we have to fix). Insurance exchanges = lower price through increased price competition among insurers. . . . To mention just a few.