Category Archives: musings
On beauty: Beauty is the opposite of perfection. It’s about confidence, charisma and character.
Katz on attitudes to wealth vs health
Lots of quotable quotes…
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140330140626-23027997-health-wealth-and-wisdom-be-serious
Health, Wealth, and Wisdom? Be Serious!
As my newly published review article, “Can We Say What Diet is Best for Health?” makes the media rounds, some questions arise more commonly than others- and some are just more interesting than others. One that stands out in both categories is: what’s the problem? Why, if we really do (and yes, we really do!) have knowledge of the basic theme of eating that could do so much to promote health- adding years to life, and life to years– don’t we embrace it and put it to that excellent use for ourselves and those we love?
There are a number of answers, and different ones received particular emphasis in different interviews. But several of the most important start along distinct trajectories only to wind up at exactly the same place: money.
One such trajectory has to do with those entities – Big Food, Big Publishing, Big Pharma, Madison Avenue, Big Weight Loss industry- that profit enormously from the status quo. Many in this space would be well within the bounds of reason, if not propriety, to wish fervently for our dietary pseudo-confusion and related health travails to last forever. Maybe they do- but I won’t presume to say. I will say: it’s much about the money being made.
But it’s about our hard-earned, carefully tended money as well, and that’s the more interesting part of the story. Because if most of us in our culture treated our money and wealth in any manner vaguely comparable to how we treat our health we would be, in a word, morons. Or, at best, suckers. That’s the problem, right there. Fix this, and a world of opportunity would open up before us.
What’s the case?
Over nearly 25 years of patient care, I have seen — far too many times, painful to recall — people reach retirement age with nicely gilded nest eggs, and disastrously scrambled health. I have never met anyone seriously willing to trade their capacity to get out of bed for a large bundle of cash. I have known many people who would gladly give up large fortunes for the chance to get out of bed one more time, or get out of a wheelchair or be free of weekly dialysis.
But now we enter the Twilight Zone, where what’s real and important, and how we behave, part company. We value money (i.e., wealth) before we have it, while we have it and if ever we had it. We want it if we can’t get it. It’s a crime when someone takes it from us. We fight to keep it.
Health is more important, but most of us — and our society at large — value it only after it’s lost.
Consider that one of the more significant trends in health promotion is providing some financial incentive for people to get healthy. This strategy is populating more and more programs in both real space and cyberspace, and is incorporated into many worksite wellness initiatives.
I have no real problem with it — whatever gets us to the prize is okay with me. But it is… bizarre. We have to be paid to care about getting healthy.
Consider if it were the other way around. You could do a job, and you would get money for doing the job, but then you demanded an “incentive.” Money is not an incentive? No! We insist on being provided “health” to incentivize us to work for the sake of wealth. Unless you, my employer, can guarantee that working for you will help make me healthy, you can take this job and paycheck and…
Ludicrous, right? It doesn’t even sound rational to insist on getting paid in health to accept benefits in wealth. And yet, we all accept that it’s perfectly rational to require payment in wealth to accept benefits in health. We all accept it, that is, until health is gone, we realize what really mattered all along, and we say: What the %#^$ was I thinking? Too late.
I have a real problem with this, not because I want to be in charge of anyone else’s life, but because I know that people want to be in charge of their own lives. Once health is gone, so is control. Your life is governed by medications, procedures, doctor visits and emergencies. You are the very opposite of in charge.
Our society makes it quite clear that responsible adults take care of their money. They don’t spend it as they earn it — they put some into savings. They anticipate the needs of their children, and their own needs in retirement. Wealth — or at least solvency — is cultivated. If you neglect to take care of your budget and your savings, you are, in the judgment of our culture, irresponsible.
But our culture renders no such guidance for those who routinely neglect their health. Those who don’t have time today to eat well, but will have time tomorrow for cardiac bypass. Those who don’t have time today to exercise, but will have time tomorrow to visit the endocrinologist. Those who get, and apply, mutually exclusive recommendations dosed almost daily by daytime television. Prevailing neglect of health costs us dearly, individually and collectively, and it costs us both health and wealth. Being sick is very expensive — in every currency that matters: time, effort, opportunity cost, legacy and yes, dollars.
What if health were more like wealth?
- If health were like wealth, we would value it while gaining it — not just after we’d lost it.
- If health were like wealth, we would make getting to it a priority.
- If health were like wealth, we would invest in it to secure a better future.
- If health were like wealth, we would work hard to make sure we could pass it on to our children.
- If health were like wealth, we would accept that it may take extra time and effort today, but that’s worth it because of the return on that investment tomorrow.
- If health were like wealth, society would respect those who are experts at it- and not substitute the guidance from those who are not.
- If health were like wealth, young people would aspire to it.
- If health were like wealth, we would be serious about it.
But health is not like wealth. We venerate wealth, and all too often, denigrate health. People are routinely willing to lose weight fast on some cockamamie diet to look good for a special event. It’s not healthy, but what the heck? Well, it would be like cashing out your 401(k) to show up at the special event in a flashy car you can’t really afford. It would feel good for a day, and bad for the rest of your life. We know this, and responsible people don’t treat wealth this way. But we mortgage health to the point of foreclosure as a matter of routine.
Health is not like wealth. It is vastly MORE important. Just ask anyone who has one but not the other.
We are raised to aspire to wealth, while health is often left to languish in that space where stuff just happens. Wealth is its own prize; we need an incentive in another currency to recognize health as such. We watch sitcoms to laugh at get-rich-quick gullibility, then apply that very delusion ourselves to promises of get-thin-quick, get-healthy-quick, or stay-young-forever. We look to genuine experts for advice in almost any field, and certainly when it comes to managing our money- but if some Hollywood celebrity tells the world “I lost weight by eating only pencil erasers while being thrashed about the elbows with wilted artichoke leaves”- we get in line and reach for our credit cards.
To the extent we own wisdom or at least common sense, we are encouraged at every turn to apply them to our careers, and our bank accounts. But they lapse into a coma with every weight loss infomercial.
The result is an endless appetite for an unending parade of “my diet can beat your diet” contestants, rather than a sensible devotion to applying the fundamentals of healthful eating. It’s exactly analogous to frittering away all of our money on a comparable parade of get-rich-quick schemes, while ignoring the readily available, reliable information about sound investing. Or, if you prefer: it’s shopping for fiddles while Rome burns.
Wise is wonderful, but probably sets the bar too high. We could be both healthy and wealthy- or at least exercise comparable control over both- if we were just comparably sensible about both. We don’t even need to be wise to be healthy- we just need to be serious about it, rather than silly. What’s the problem? When it comes to eating well and being healthy, we are not serious people. Silly prevails.
-fin
Dr. David L. Katz has authored three editions of a nutrition textbook for health care professionals. He is editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal, Childhood Obesity, and President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. He was commissioned by Annual Review in Public Health to write the review article, Can We Say What Diet is Best for Health? He is the author, most recently, of Disease Proof.
www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-David-L-Katz/114690721876253
http://twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-l-katz-md-mph/7/866/479/
Photo: Stefan Holm/Shutterstock.com
challenging the dominant medico-pharma paradigm
in a world where political and financial dividends demand they are paid within 3 yrs, long term preventive efforts will always lose out to more profitable treatment options offered by doctors and pharma.
how do we challenge this paradigm?
with an even more profitable financial product.
the health sector is riddled with a fear of change trumped only by its fear of accountability
the health sector is riddled with a fear of change trumped only by its fear of accountability
me just then en route to nate gross talk at powerhouse
PHI dysfunction starting to gel…
Email from me to Anne-marie regarding PHI and Commission of Audit ideas…
Thanks Anne-marie… last week was so busy, but at least it was a good busy, filled as it was with so many excellent events and conversations, quite often featuring you! Glad to hear that the club delivered on expectations… maybe Steve will be up for some insurrection? Or maybe not.
[the following early morning rant is off-the-record on account of my current employment and it still being a bit rough, but am happy to explore it further with you as required J]
On the modelling question, that’s more on the economic modelling side – something we’re tooling up for with Federico Girosi and Jane Hall, but haven’t quite started on. Ian McAuley and John Menadue have been presenting solid thinking about PHI for a while and would be worthwhile speaking with, particularly if you were looking to confirm your suspicions? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anyone who could actually back-in the COA’s assumptions, as I’ve never heard anyone credible (with the potential exception of Paul Gross – though unsure how credible he is) put forward that point of view, mainly because it is ideologically driven, rather than evidence based. Indeed, the closer I get to the PHI data, the PHI businesses and the people who run them, the more certain I am that PHI can only ever be inflationary – especially when positioned as a duplication of a public insurance scheme (as per that graph from the SMH that Jim Gillespie spoke to at the event last week), as it allows clinicians to select whichever system suits their interests best, making them the customer rather than the patient.
My back-of-envelope rationale:
PHIs market themselves as honest brokers in the health system, but in reality, benefit directly from health inflation, acting as hemi-bureaucracies which take a 13% clip of disbursements that pass through them. In Australia, this dynamic is emphasised by their mutual structure, as the lack of profit motive leads to a lack of interest in containing anyone’s costs, especially when the Minister mandates premium increases based on demonstration of increased costs!!?? The smaller PHIs have no market power, so aim to please hospitals and doctors, thus making providers the customers, rather than their patients. This all has the effect of distancing patients from value the market generates, despite the fact they are the ones who fund it. I can’t think of a more diabolical arrangement than the one we’ve got. I’m disappointed that conservatives are willing to trade this downside for the illusory benefits of choice (which don’t actually exist because the basis on which we might choose are health service have nothing to do with the quality of that service). In reality, the choice argument is just a smoke screen for queue jumping, something conservatives aren’t to keen on when it came to asylum seeker policy.
As a footnote, it’s interesting to see the behaviour of the non-mutual PHIs – Medibank and NIB. They tend to be far more innovative and disruptive towards conventional health service models, mainly in an attempt to position themselves as the customers served by doctors and hospitals, while still being funded by their members. Unfortunately, their business model still ultimately relies on cost containment AND premium growth, and so also ends up also being inflationary – the main reason the US is the situation it’s in.
Wrapping the diatribe up, ideally a health market should be singularly focused on improving the health of the population that funds it. I’d estimate the current ranking of value captured by various actors looks something like this:
- insurers
- hospitals
- bureaucrats
- politicians
- doctors
- patients
- nurses
- allied health professionals
Under the previous administration, it probably looked more like this:
- bureaucrats
- politicians
- insurers
- doctors
- hospitals
- nurses
- patients
- allied health professionals
Ultimately, all forms of private health insurance make the providers the customers while the population carries the can. Interventions which position the population as customers should be the preference. Medicare was a big, necessary but not sufficient step in that direction.
I reckon some of this can inform some interesting health market design that could support a far more advanced and efficient health system. We’ve previously discussed that we’ve got 6 years to bring this to maturity, though if things keep tracking like they have been, it could be sooner.
Let me know your thoughts?
Cheers, Paul
From: Anne-Marie Boxall [mailto:ABoxall@ahha.asn.au]
Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 6:08 PM
To: Paul Nicolarakis (paul.nicolarakis@outlook.com)
Subject: Modelling
No, not the fashion kind (although I am sure you would be great).
A curiosity question – are you and your people able to model something along the lines of the means-tested Medicare scheme proposed by the Commission of Audit? Not sure what data you have, or what is needed to model such a proposal, but it strikes me that the idea rests heavily on the assumption that a market for health insurance would drive down health costs (hospital and primary care and therefore premiums prices). Not quite sure what evidence underpins this assumption (other than economic theory) as Fraser era experiment suggests that it would not work. Just wondering….
Hope you made it to your many subsequent events last week. Dinner at the gentleman’s club was interesting. I think they might also have an age criteria for membership there. 70 plus only.
Regards,
Am
Dr Anne-marie Boxall
Director, The Deeble Institute for Health Policy Research
Managing Editor, Australian Health Review
Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
the voice of public healthcare
T: 02 6162 0780 | F: 02 6162 0779
Post: PO Box 78, Deakin West, ACT 2600
Location: Unit 8, First Floor, 2 Phipps Close, Deakin West, ACT
E:aboxall@ahha.asn.au
W: www.ahha.asn.au
Twitter: @DeebleInstitute
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
***********************************************************
IMPORTANT INFORMATION – PLEASE READ
This email and any attachments are confidential. Please notify us if you have received this message in error, and remove both emails from your system. Any unauthorised use is expressly prohibited. AHHA collects personal information to provide and market our services (see our privacy policy at http://www.ahha.asn.au for more information about use, disclosure and access). AHHA’s liability in connection with transmitting, unauthorised access to, or viruses in this message and its attachments, is limited to re-supplying this message and its attachments.
***********************************************************
Doctors – the original glassholes
Doctors have always traded off information asymmetry in their work. They know more than their patients and they let them know it. In this way, they are the original glassholes, and it is interesting how much attention google glass is attracting in healthcare.
Prevention business foundations
Its not about finding businesses that profit from advertising that they make you healthy and/or long lived, its about businesses that make money from you being healthy and/or long lived.
This is how we underpin a prevention business.
if one matures rather than ages, then one moves to the left
if one matures rather than ages, then one moves to the left
Bruce Robinson at Steve Leeder’s farewell
Steve Leeder: You can’t mandate love
Steve Leeder: You can’t mandate love