From The Commonwealth Fund:
In invited testimony, Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis presented evidence from other countries--as well as from some states within the U.S.--that shows it is possible to have better health outcomes while spending less on health care.
Americans value good health---perhaps more than any other good or service produced in the economy---yet policy officials, business leaders, and experts express alarm when health care spending grows as a percent of the gross domestic product.
The answer lies in the broken link between what we pay for health care services and the contribution those services make to longer and healthier lives, relief of pain and anxiety, and quality of life.
Rather there is evidence from other countries---and from some states within the U.S.---that it is possible to have better health outcomes and spend less on health care.
When a sector of the economy that makes up one-sixth of total GDP is not adequately captured in our national accounts and when there is no consensus on what constitutes good performance in the health sector, it is not surprising that the debate over health policy is often stymied.
An annual report to Congress---setting goals for performance of the U.S. health system, priorities for improvement, and monitoring benefits and costs as well as progress toward achieving value for spending on health care---would lay a sound foundation for public policy discussions.
The U.S. could learn from best practices within the nation and from other countries on how to simultaneously improve quality and efficiency.
Over 10 years, the nation could save an estimated $1.5 trillion in health spending while providing health insurance coverage to all, ensuring the cost-effectiveness of care rendered, and investing in public health and modern information technology.
Several studies in recent years have documented that health care yields benefits far in excess of cost for treatment of conditions such as heart attacks, low-birth weight infants, and depression.