In the end what did the Article say? It is very vague, lacks specifity and other than the idea of rating health care services did not communicate anything in a useful way.
"both agree that in a new system, innovations stimulated by information technology will improve care, lower costs, improve quality and empower consumers."
Admittedly the Post likely would not have been published, if it were as long as it needed to be, but somewhere before we make massive changes to the health care system, we need to flesh out the meaning of these proposals. What information technology are they referring to, and how will it improve care and lower costs, etc.
We are all familiar with computerized phone systems which private industries love because they can get by with less employees, but while it may be less costly for the company, they are a negative to the consumer and if the consumer time wasted by these systems were calculated as a cost, there would be no savings.
I think the goals may be worthy, but the devil is in the details. We need a lot more details regarding how health care will work and that cannot be done with an August Deadline and a Congress which, judging from Steny Hoyer's attitude, seems to think that it is a quaint notion that we should expect them to read every bill before voting on it.
lj |
