We move forward by moving backward. We need to return to physician-led care and remove all the middlemen that add no value.
We allow for physician innovation and competition.
This means eliminating the Stark laws and section 6001 of the ACA.
Allow physicians to own hospitals and to innovate.
We need true price transparency, and we need patients to purchase most of their care.
Health insurance should be limited to catastrophic events.
Patients should pay cash for:
• Physician's office visists
• Labs
• Drugs
• Imaging
• Procedures
• Urgent Care visits
This will allow a market to develop, driving down prices and improving quality.
Complex care drives most of our budget, and this should be done at centers of excellence.
We need longitudinal outcomes and price data.
AI navigators can assist HR and patients in navigating this world.
Eliminate middlemen like the rent-seekers they are.
I want to reflect on the broken culture of innovation in U.S. healthcare delivery—and its nefarious impact on the system.
We declare success prematurely.
We obscure failure.
And we move on without inquiry.
Within the delivery system, the same organizations whose basic and clinical researchers perform rigorous, thoughtfully designed controlled trials of medicines will tout the success of delivery and financing innovation without requisite evaluation.
In the broader innovation ecosystem, we too casually equate funding, valuations, and transactions with success—and we too often elevate and declare success without applying appropriate skepticism.
Many believe this culture of salesmanship and hucksterism is harmless.
But on the other side of it are patients whose care is not getting better and an industry with misplaced conviction about progress when there is none.
I’ve seen this firsthand throughout my career.
To make this less abstract, I’ll focus on my own area of work over the last decade: leading and operating Medicare Advantage plans and care delivery organizations.
It is a sector that has birthed many venture capital darlings.
But with the benefit of hindsight, many of those companies had clinical outcomes that were, at best, thin—
And whose primary innovation was exploiting arbitrage opportunities in risk adjustment.
And yet, in retrospect, these “innovators” were platformed.
They were celebrated on the stages of major national forums.
And while Medicare Advantage is now a space where some of these behaviors are more widely understood, it is not unique to Medicare Advantage.
Rather, some of the distortions we see there are a window into a broader cultural problem.
One that, in a different form, was on display in the case of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos.
We might like to believe that was an exceptional story in exceptional circumstances.
I don’t.
I think we have many Theranoses among us—just less visible, and more socially accepted.
Why?
I believe there are two root cause.
First, expert and funding bias.
We believe that startups revered and validated by experts are worthy of celebration.
And if they are richly funded, we assume they have been appropriately vetted.
Commercial success—often driven by relationships and the favor economy—is prematurely equated to clinical success.
Second, optimism bias.
We have such a strong desire to believe that things are getting better that the first hint of progress is met with celebration—rather than the skepticism we typically reserve for results that seem too good to be true.
This is how many of us have convinced ourselves that American healthcare delivery is improving—while most consumers, patients, and clinicians tell us otherwise every single day.
So how do we move forward?