In 1963 and later papers, I pointed out that the special market characteristics of medical care and medical insurance could be explained by reference to differences in information among the parties involved.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The fact of the matter is right now politicians and insurance companies are making decisions. We're saying we want doctors to be making decisions. And I think that will lead to a higher-quality, lower-cost system over time.
We do not have a functioning market in the true sense of the word in health care. That's a layer of transparency that's sorely needed in America.
A major driver of the cost of healthcare in the United States is a compromise that was reached with the American Medical Association in the 1960s when Medicare was first established.
Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.
People have been talking about competition among insurers, and what they really need to be talking about is competition in the delivery of health care as well.
In our own state, we came up with, I think, what was a very novel approach to closing the gap on the uninsured. To harmonize medical records - which was a major step in getting costs out of the system.
Medicare provided guaranteed equal coverage, something that the private sector could not.
If medicine was practiced in 1965 the way it's practiced today, there's no question that prescriptions would have been included in Medicare.
I would like to promote the concept of a partnership of insurance companies, physicians and hospitals in deploying a basic framework for an electronic medical records system that is affordable.
Health care's like any other product or service: if the consumer is in charge of spending his money on it, then the market will make sure that it is affordable.