Free Minds & Free Markets

Innovation Is the Key to Health Care Reform

New ideas and new developments improve everything in our lives, and health is no exception.

For generations, the American health care debate has focused entirely on one question: "How many people have insurance cards in their wallets?" The drivers of the debate have proudly sported bumper stickers reading:


The opponents of this worldview (including typical Reason readers) probably don’t have a bumper sticker, but if they did, it would look like this:

Like it or not, the UNIVERSAL COVERAGE side's stickers provide a compelling vision for many Americans. Their opposition’s sticker is compelling for no one. It is reactive, lacking both in message and substance. One side long ago ceded the debate, so all discussion has veered toward the demand side of health care, neglecting the supply side. Fortunately, a Cambrian Explosion of new technologies is poised to radically reshape health care. These innovations offer a chance to shift the conversation from the Fortress of centralized control to the Frontier of innovation. Here’s a four-step plan to do so:

Task 1: Answer the Pre-ex Question

The essential first step is to deal with the omnipresent question, "How can we handle people with pre-existing conditions?" The UNIVERSAL COVERAGE answer is clear, simple, and wrong: "Mail them insurance cards." The Affordable Care Act makes it worse: "Force insurers to mail them insurance cards." This is a recipe for adverse selection, insurance market death spiral, and health care rationing, but makes a heartwarming story until that happens.

John Cochrane of the University of Chicago identifies the greatest source of the pre-ex problem: we can't purchase long-term health insurance at a guaranteed future rate, as we do with life insurance and long-term care policies. Cochrane's remedy centers on "Health Status Insurance"—supplemental coverage that kicks in to cover higher premiums when a person becomes ill.

Cochrane's idea is one of a number of logical, credible answers, but all are technical and tedious to explain out loud. The task is to produce a concise, logical, persuasive written response. When someone asks about pre-ex, respond with, "Excellent question. The answer comes in two parts. Part One involves tedious insurance technicalities that are painful to say but easy to read about in five minutes.” … (Hand the questioner a printed copy.) … “Part Two is far more important and exciting, and that's what I'll talk about today."

Any time you attempt to explain Part One, you will lose your audience, and that is a permanent problem. The segue to Part Two is where you excite the audience with adrenaline-stoking stories of innovation. It is where you demonstrate that the best thing for people with pre-existing conditions is to make their treatments better and less expensive so getting coverage and paying for treatment don't entail financial ruin. The message of innovation is clear, simple, and correct—and transcends ideological divisions.

Task 2: Learn the New Technologies

In 1964, only the most visionary technologists were beginning to sense the world that would lead to laptops, iPads, smartphones, Amazon, Street View, Facebook, Blendr, Grindr, OnStar, Kindle, Twitter, Siri, Wolfram|Alpha, and the Internet of Things. Everyone else was stuck on, “How can we improve access to room-size million-dollar mainframes.

We are at a similar juncture in health care. The possibilities can thrill audiences of varying ideologies: Drugs designed for a single individual's DNA; 3-D printed transplantable organs made from a recipient's own cells (no need for donors or rejection); nanobots to repair a patient's damaged genes; wearable telemetry to continuously monitor a patient's biometrics; vastly expanded capabilities for telemedicine; better detection, treatment, and prevention of illness via social media and state-of-the-art data mining; and—less sexy but no less important—lean production methods to squeeze more care and more health out of a given quantity of resources.

The promise of these technologies becomes far less abstract when one meets some of the innovators who are already changing the delivery of health. I've had the thrill of meeting quite a few lately, and here are just four of them:


Jon Schull, of the Rochester Institute of Technology, founded E-Nable—a web-based global consortium that enables amateurs with access to low-cost 3-D printers to produce functional prosthetic hands for somewhere below $50 apiece and to give them to recipients at no charge. In contrast, an FDA-approved prosthetic costs $25,000 to $80,000, with health insurance paying relatively little. (Mechanical printed hands given away for free are not currently subject to FDA approval.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mike M.||

    As Libya Implodes, “Smart Diplomacy” Becoming a Punch Line.

    The United States is pulling embassy staff out of Tripoli, and has issued a travel advisory that nicely outlines what a nightmare Libya has become. If Obama were a Republican, the press coverage of this stinking corpse of a policy flub would be quite different.

    A must-read skewering of our incompetent buffoon of a president and his Journolistic sycophants from the great Walter Russell Mead.

  • Headless Body of Agnew||

    What ever "smart" people do is "smart" regardless of the results of "smart" people's policy. The "smart" could bring on the apocalypse, and the chattering classes would pontificate on how much worse it would be under the vile Republicans

  • Virginian||

    Bingo. The Ivy League grads in the media and academia decide what is smart and what is not. Tangible results have almost nothing to do with it.

  • Banjos||

    There are a lot of people out there who need to regularly be reminded that they are smart to keep their self esteem high but are just too damn lazy to take the time that is needed to actually learn and become smart. So what is a lazy intellectual to do? Why they are going to agree with whatever TOP MEN say because TOP MEN are smart and agreeing with someone who is smart automatically makes you smart.

  • anon||

    So what is a lazy intellectual to do? Why they are going to agree with whatever TOP MEN say because TOP MEN are smart and agreeing with someone who is smart automatically makes you smart.

    Sadly, I've found this is the norm, but usually applied to religion.

  • anon||

    and the chattering classes would pontificate on how much worse it would be under the vile Republicans

    Just remember: It's -always- BOOSH's fault.

  • robc||

    If you make moralty based decisions, you dont have to worry about the results, as it was still moral.

    Well, unless you had two moral choices.

  • Almanian!||

    Ow! That "smarts"!

  • Marshall Gill||

    If you have to be told something is "smart" in the description, it probably isn't.

  • anon||

    Hah! That made me think of miscellaneous brilliant ideas I've seen employed at the shop over the years. I've never once seen something that looked retarded until it was explained then thought "Oh, that's smart." It's always been "Wow, that's fucking retarded. Why'd you do that again? Ok here's the right way to do it..."

  • Pi Guy||

    You don't get to pick your own nickname. It's up to others to give it you. Likewise, you don't get to decide that your diplomacy is smart. It's only smart - or not - once we get to see how diplomatic it really is.

    Ministry of Truth? Not true. Smart diplomacy? Not smart. Newspeak, plain and simple.

  • Sevo||

    "Ministry of Truth? Not true."

    'We are the World Famous X'?
    Nope. If it was, I'd have known it already

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is that a real bumper sticker? Otherwise, you're just a tease.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Sarcasm Button On:
    RE: How to Grow the Supply of Health Care Now!
    Comrades! We must never go back to health care run by the capitalist pigs. The masses should never be able to choose for themselves. That's why we have enlightened elitists as Hillary, Elizabeth Warren and Dear Leader Obama to guide us to state-run medical care. The American populace is too stupid to think for themselves. They do not recognize the superiority of a statist health care system. One only has to look to Sweden for...oh wait. They starting to privatize their health care. Well, there's England with their National Health Care where there are more government workers then beds. You can't beat that! Oh wait...they're in the initial stages of privatizing their socialist health care too. Damn. Well, there's Mexico and their health care system ...oh wait. They're all moving up here for their health care. Well, there's Canada Care where their citizens receive great health care, eh? Oh wait, the governor of Nova Scotia went to America for his heart surgery. Well, there's Cuba. They have the greatest health care system in the world. Michael Moore said so. Who's going to argue with El Porko? Oh wait...Fidel Castro had his open heart surgery in Spain. Damn. If you can't trust a repressive, cruel sack of shit like Fidel Castro, who can you trust? Any way, socialized medicine is the best in the world. Dear Leader Obama has said so, and when did he ever lie to us?
    Sarcasm Button Off

  • SQRLSY One||

    Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

    Government loves me, This I know,
    For the Government tells me so,
    Little ones to GAWD belong,
    We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
    Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
    Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
    And gives me all that I might need!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    DEA, CIA, KGB,
    Our protectors, they will be,
    FBI, TSA, and FDA,
    With us, astride us, in every way!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

  • MSimon||

  • buybuydandavis||

    The reason your bumper sticker sucks is that you're a health care statist.

    I'll give you some concise *libertarian* bumper sticker.

    "Take your stinking Laws off me
    you damn dirty Statist"

    "Get your laws off my body"

    "Get your laws off my health care"

    "Health Care Freedom"

    "The Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness means
    The Right to Health Care Freedom"

    "Health Care is Cheap, Statism is Expensive"

    It's strange - Reason wants to legalize getting stoned, but gives no thought to legalizing curing disease or getting healthy.

    Why are you going along with Statist premise that we have to get government permission to purchase medical drugs, devices, or procedures, or give medical advice?

  • Robert||

    Sure, attacking the root of the tree of evil would work, if the root were exposed. But it's not. In the area of health care, the premise of some form of gov't supervision has overwhelming popular support. You start digging around that tree of evil to find the root, and the tree will pluck you up by its branches & hurl you to Mars. That's why it makes sense now only to prune it.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Do we really need The Four Tasks and The Five Exemplary Technologies and such? Do we really need to island-hop? Doesn't it all come down to whacking the government middleman every time the mole pops up?

    But I will give you one thing: the Party of Stupid should be contacting all those entrepreneurs who keep getting shut down and telling them "That's exactly what we were trying to prevent."

  • Blake Ashby||

    Nice article. But you skipped one important point - at some level we have to ration care (yes, the R word). The reason car and home insurance works is that they have a cap on exposure. As long as we promise to spend any amount to keep a person alive, potentially millions of dollars or even tens of millions, we will not be able to control healthcare costs.

  • craiginmass||

    Yet another article framing the fact that the sun comes up in the morning and how that translates to Obama is a Bad Kenyan.

    Innovation is constant - although with health care being 20% of our GDP (meaning a LOT of people make a LOT of $$ from status quo), it moves slower than, for example, smartphone tech.

    As far as getting more for less - Obamacare (and even insurance done right) has many such features:
    1. Paying back 85% minimum of premiums in care...makes certain that customers get most of their $$ worth.
    2. National collection of data and price negotiations on procedures - all can help force the outliers to become more efficient and provide the care for more reasonable prices.
    3. Negotiations with big Pharma - saves money, unlike Medicare Part D where Bush agreed not to haggle on prices.
    4. Preventative care - saves big bucks on future costs and assures a healthier and happier family, society and workforce.

    It's been proven time and again that when you let the CAPITALIST PIGS run unbridled, they never know where to stop. We saw it the the Vietnam war and the recent wars - power and money is not something which succumbs to "reason". Those very same capitalist oinkers didn't know where to stop - they gave us the most expensive and ineffective (for the $) health care in the civilized world. Greed is not motivates people to do things they would not otherwise do.

    Regulation works. Why is that so hard to stomach? It's basic Human Beings 101.

  • MSimon||

    The real answer to health care reform is endocannabinoids. They regulate every function in the body.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online