People ask me all the time why I think the Archimedes Movement is different and what we are doing to help get legislation passed. For me the answer is simple – we’ve created a place for dialogue where everyone has a place at the table; we’re increasing the number of engaged, informed consumers who understand what is at the heart of the debate and what it will take to actually solve the health care crisis; and we continue to work at reframing the debate so that sustainable, fundamental reform will be possible.
What does that mean? It means we have our agreements and disagreements on our website, some of them in public. We agree on the principles and framework, but may have different ideas of how to ‘get there.’ Among our subscribers we have traditional stakeholders and ardent single payer advocates; voices from urban and rural areas; Democrats, Republicans and independents; young, middle-aged and seniors. We are slowly increasing our ethnic and cultural diversity. We believe that the solutions we come up with have to work for all of us and so we leave all doors open for ideas and dialogue. It makes for a rich and robust dialogue, and yes, sometimes we disagree.
I had an opportunity this week to hear Laurie Garrett speak about Global Health and Food Security. She is a scientist and award winning writer. Her presentation about what is happening globally in terms of food prices, pandemics, water and arable land and its relationship to health was incredible. At the end of her talk she was asked about whether the United States would be better off with a ‘single payer’ model for health care. Her response reminded me of why the Archimedes Movement is different. She said that countries who have health systems which are actually resulting in improved health began their process by asking three questions – 1) What is the role of the state in providing health care?; 2) what is the role of the individual; and 3) what is the role of third parties? She described briefly her travels to Costa Rica, where the government undertook this process with the population – asking those three questions – which resulted in the government providing all health related services from birth to age 20; then having an expectation that individuals will purchase insurance as adults, and that third parties will make that insurance available and affordable. They did so in recognition that in order to have a healthy population, the start of life – especially the first five years – are critical. The Archimedes Movement continues to stress that we must have a public dialogue about our relationship to each other, identifying the interest of health a a common good. That would allow us to ask those three questions Laurie Garrett proposed.
If we don’t, we will continue to have agreements made that protect and support the status quo. We already have the data that clearly shows that’s not working now, nor is it sustainable into the future.
What we are pushing for at the state and federal level remains the same – legislation that accomplishes the Triple Aim (improved population health, reduced per-capita costs and an improved patient experience, measured, as examples, by health outcomes, patient safety and patient satisfaction). If the Triple Aim outlines the objectives then our politicians and policy makers are still asking the wrong questions. Our role is to get them to ask the right ones.
In Oregon we continue to support legislation that would create an Oregon Health Authority that actually has authority, not a watered down, advisory board, but an Authority that develops an Insurance Exchange, a public insurance option, works to eliminate health disparities and assures inclusion of all Oregonians, not just some. We demand a process that is public and transparent along the way. There is no reason for this to be delayed until 2011. The Legislature should debate and vote on these proposals this session. It makes more sense to have the debate and vote up or down, than to not have the debate at all.
We believe that every year without health reform more Oregonians get priced out of health care. This affects everybody. If you don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay for care privately, you’re dependent on care at the emergency room, because it’s the one place you can’t be turned away. If you have insurance, you are keeping your fingers crossed that your next premium increase won’t cause you to think twice about keeping that insurance. And employers are in the same boat, unable to control the rising cost of insurance premiums for their employees. And insurance does not guarantee improved health, does not guarantee that you can afford to get care when you need it and does not guarantee that a provider will be available to see you when you need to see someone. Insurance plays an important role, but alone it will not solve the health care crisis.
Recent Comments