Advertisement

The Future of Medicine: The Past Cannot Be Changed. The Future Is in Your Power

  • Marc J. KahnEmail author
  • Neil Baum
Chapter

Abstract

The healthcare sector is ripe for disruption as healthcare expenditures account for an ever-increasing percentage of GDP. In this chapter, we discuss the theory behind technology adoption and then apply this theory to health care focusing on expected changes in clinical care, reimbursement, and payment models.

Keywords

Disruptive technology Payment Value-based purchasing 

References

  1. 1.
    Hartman M, Martin AB, Lassman D, et al. National health spending in 2013: growth slows, remains in step with the overall economy. Health Aff. 2015;34:150–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin AB, Hartman M, Whittle L, Caitlin A. National health expenditures accounts team. National health spending in 2012: rate of health spending growth remained low for the fourth consecutive year. Health Aff. 2014;33:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cutler DM, Sahni NR. If slow rate of health care spending growth persists, projections may be off by $770 billion. Health Aff. 2013;32(5):841–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sood N, Ghosh A, Escarce JJ. Employer-sponsored insurance, health care cost growth, and the economic performance of U.S. industries. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(5p1):1449–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shen J, Andersen R, Brook R, Kominski G, Albert PS, Wenger N. The effects of payment method on clinical decision-making. Med Care. 2004;42(3):297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute of Medicine. Rewarding provider performance: aligning incentives in Medicare. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H. An aging nation: the older population in the United States. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2014. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu S, Green A. Projection of chronic illness prevalence and cost inflation. Washington, DC: RAND Health; 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic disease overview. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview.htm. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  10. 10.
    Claxton G, Rae M, Long M, et al. Health benefits in 2016: family premiums rose modestly, and offer rates remained stable. Health Aff. 2016;35:1908–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolan R. Health policy brief: high-deductible health plans. Health Aff. 2016. http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=152. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  12. 12.
    Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals--HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):897–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGlynn EA. Six challenges in measuring the quality of health care. Health Aff. 1997;16(3):7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Institute of Medicine. Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3 Suppl):166–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Aff. 2005;24(4):1150–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(2):111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Office of Admissions and Student AffairsTulane University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Tulane University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations