Those who argue against healthcare reform often complain—or maybe that should be threaten—that greater government involvement will lead to the death of innovation in healthcare. This is a curious assertion, since there’s not much evidence to back it up. In fact, even in sectors of the economy that rely heavily or exclusively on government funding, innovation is alive and well.
Look no further than the US military. Does anyone dispute that our armed forces are more sophisticated and technologically savvy today than they were during World War II? Then a B-17 bomber had a crew of 10 men. Today, drone aircraft disrupt terrorists in the hills of Afghanistan with no one aboard. Then we relied on carpet-bombing. Today a single missile can hit a target with pinpoint precision. Then our soldiers relied on bulky, hand-cranked radio communications. Today, they communicate with one another and with headquarters wirelessly and instantaneously.
Who funded all these innovations? The American government, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Defense spending by the United States will exceed $500 billion this year alone (five times more than the additional costs associated with healthcare reform, by the way) and while you could argue that some of this money is inefficiently spent, you cannot argue that this fully government funded (socialist?) system has managed to create the most innovative, sophisticated, and powerful military in the history of the world.
Now think about healthcare. Is your local hospital more sophisticated and technologically savvy than it was in 1965? That was the year the federal government became a major funder of healthcare through the Medicare program. For most acute care hospitals in the country, Medicare funding has been the largest part of their revenue for a generation. And yet despite this reliance on government funding, hospitals today are more sophisticated and innovative than ever. In the area of patient safety, for example, the Veterans Administration hospitals—entirely funded by taxpayer dollars—have set the standards that private institutions are only now beginning to adopt.
For more than 40 years, our healthcare system has combined both government and private payments—precisely the same system that would be embodied in any healthcare reform. No matter the funding source, innovative people and institutions will always figure out how to do things better (and how to make money doing it). Fears of the death of innovation under healthcare reform are greatly exaggerated.
Meanwhile, to those who think our current system best enhances innovation, keep in mind that in the United States we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens without health insurance or access to care, we spend twice per capita what other developed nations spend, and our clinical outcomes are generally no better and are frequently worse.
Is this the type of innovation we are concerned about protecting?
