Skip to main content

Aspen Institute Logo

  • Publications »
  • Conference Centers »
  • Press Center »
  • Support Us »
  • Society of Fellows »
  • About the Institute
  • Events
  • Our Policy Work
  • Leadership Programs
  • Seminars
  • Our People
  • Multimedia
Explore This Program

View all programs

A

Advocacy Planning and Evaluation Program »
Agent Orange in Vietnam Program »
Ascend »
Aspen Global Health and Development »
Aspen Institute Arts Program »
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs »
Aspen Strategy Group »
Aspen Writers' Foundation »

B

Business and Society Program »

C

Center for Native American Youth »
College Excellence Program »
Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process »
Communications and Society Program »
Community Strategies Group »
Congressional Program »
Council of Women World Leaders »

E

Economic Opportunities Program »
Education and Society Program »
Energy and Environment Program »

G

Global Initiative on Culture and Society »

H

Health, Biomedical Science and Society Initiative »
Homeland Security Program »

I

Initiative on Financial Security »

J

Justice and Society Program »

M

Manufacturing and Society in the 21st Century »
Market Building Initiative »
Middle East Programs »

P

Partners for a New Beginning »
Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation (PSI) »
Program on the World Economy »

R

Roundtable on Community Change »

S

Sports and Society Program »
  • Program Home »
  • Health Stewardship Project »
    • Advisory Board »
    • Coalition »
    • Principles »
      • Access is not enough »
      • Value and quality in care are paramount »
      • Focus on cultural change »
      • Health span, not life span »
      • Turn information into insight »
      • An effective health care system is a transpare ... »
      • Equity in health, not just in health insurance »
      • We shouldn’t have to tell our children that they won’t live as long as we will »
      • Health in all policies »
    • Reports »
    • News Releases »
  • Contact Us »
  • Staff »
  • Aspen Health Forum 2009 »
  • Aspen Health Forum 2007 »
  • About Us »

Topics

Health, Leadership, Science and Technology

Links

  • View Our Website

Tools

  • Email this Page
  • Print this Page

Share

Health, Biomedical Science and Society Initiative

Value and quality in care are paramount

Value and quality in care are paramount. For any solution to have lasting impact, it must drive dramatic improvements in health care and health outcomes while increasing efficiency. The point is not to reduce costs at the expense of health. We need to enable innovations that drive up value to have the best health outcomes for our investment, and that should be our primary measure of value. We must reduce overuse and inappropriate care and deepen investments that truly make a difference to health. The United States already spends more per capita than any other nation ? more than we need to ? on health care. With proper redesign, we can have better health outcomes, better health for the population as a whole and improved efficiency at the same time. Fundamental improvements in value will be accelerated when doctors, nurses, insurers, researchers, communities and individuals ? in a word, everyone ? works toward these aims. The goal of improving value aligns everyone’s interests.

The goal of health care reform must be to improve health care value for individuals. This means enabling health and driving dramatic and sustained improvement in health care results. Contrary to popular impression, quality need not drive up costs. The goal of our health care system is not to provide more care, but to provide better health. And better health is often less expensive. There are myriad examples of improvements that would both enhance health and reduce spending.1 In general, preventing the progression of a disease is less costly than the acute treatment of compounding complications. Doing things right the first time avoids the pain and expense of repeat procedures. Avoiding infections speeds recovery and reduces costs. Improving coordination avoids repeated tests and potentially harmful delays in care.

A significant amount of research examining quality has documented the economic and health hazards of poor quality. Indeed, several studies have found increased spending correlated with a lower quality of care.2 Injuries, unnecessary care and ineffective treatments raise costs without improving health. About 1 million patients per year are injured, but not killed, by medical errors.3 In addition to the medical expenses, these injuries lead to lost wages and productivity. Almost 30 percent of health care spending (or $40 billion over four years) for Medicare-recipients with chronic conditions may be unnecessary.4 And only 40 percent of prescription drugs deliver their expected outcome; worse, adverse drug reactions from the ineffective drugs lead to many harmful results.5 Incorrect diagnoses raise costs and reduce quality by leading to inappropriate or ineffective care. While the incidence of these errors is difficult to track overall, errors of negligence in diagnosis account for 30 to 40 percent of malpractice costs.

Recognizing health care value as paramount aligns the interests of all stakeholders. Achieving better health outcomes is better for patients, less expensive for payers, improves productivity for employers, takes stress off families, and supports the goals of physicians and other health care professionals. Thus, not only can we afford the pursuit of better health, we can’t afford not to pursue improvements in health care value.



[1] M.E. Porter and E.O. Teisberg, Redefining Health Care (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2006), pages 24-32 and 107-111.

[2] K. Baicker and A. Chandra, “Medicare Spending, The Physician Workforce, and Beneficiaries’ Quality of Care,” Health Affairs Web Exclusive (April 7, 2004): W4-184-197; E.S. Fisher et al., “The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending, Part 1: The Content, Quality, and Accessibility of Care,” Annals of Internal Medicine 138, no. 4 (2003a): 273-287; E.S. Fisher et al., “The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending, Part 2: Health Outcomes and Satisfaction with Care,” Annals of Internal Medicine 138, no. 4 (2003b):288-298; J.E. Wennberg and M.M. Cooper, eds, The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care in the United States (The Trustees of Dartmouth College, Chicago: AHA Press, 1999), http://www.dartmouthatlas.com/index.shtm.

[3] S.N. Weingart, R.M. Wilson, R.W. Gibberd, and B. Harrison, “Epidemiology and Medical Error,” British Medical Journal 320 (2000): 774-777.

[4] “Executive Summary: The Care of Patients with Severe Chronic Illness: A Report on the Medicare Program by the Dartmouth Atlas Project,” Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences and the Dartmouth Medical School, May 2006.

[5] C.L. Bennett et al., “Evaluation of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions: A Proactive Pharmacovigilance Program (RADAR) vs Safety Activities Conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers,” Archives of Internal Medicine 167, no. 10 (May 28, 2007): 1041-1049.

  • Find Us On Facebook »
  • Contact »
  • Multimedia »
  • Privacy Policy »
  • Get the Latest Updates »

© 2012 Aspen Institute