Almost eight months ago I blogged about an interesting post over at Joe Paduda's Managed Care Matters.
Basically Joe was saying that current health care debates are a waste of time because we're debating processes, not how to measure outcomes. I commented that his post didn't say how we scale or define "positive outcomes" since everybody eventually dies, and some treatments are really designed to extend life or make the end of life more comfortable. I wondered how such treatments would be considered in a system that was operated based positive outcomes.
Joe emailed me yesterday, having found my post, and wants to clarify that he has indeed, in other posts, talked about defining positive outcomes. And he forwarded me a link to this post, written after the post I wrote.
OK. So there you go. Please read his post and learn more about his vision of outcome-based health care policies.
[For future reference: I believe Joe could/should have just left the relevant link in a comment on that old post he found if he wanted to clarify his position.]
I point to Joe's work fairly regularly, usually admiringly. I've got this post bookmarked right now to do exactly that. Key priceless line in the comments of this post, from Joe himself:
And I shall reply, "he who fails to understand the nuances of health care economics will always walk with his head up his ass."
Doesn't that make you want to read the post? It should.