Our healthcare systems aren't sustainable. What is the next evolution of patient treatment?
With so many novel therapies in development, there has never been a more exciting time to practice medicine, says Dr. Andre Goy, Chairman and Director of the John Theurer Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center.
However, rising costs, an aging population and an increase in non-communicable diseases showcase why global healthcare needs to be “fundamentally reinvented,” he argues in this interview.
Q: Why do we need a Global Future Council on health and healthcare?
A: Because our healthcare systems are not sustainable. The costs, direct and indirect, are huge. In the United States, where I work, healthcare costs are approaching 18 percent of GDP — and we still don’t get the best results.
“Our healthcare systems are not sustainable.”
Q: What current trends are most significant?
A: We don’t have the real-world data that would allow us to stratify patients, help them understand their options and give them a road map for their treatment.
In my own field, oncology, some studies suggest that about a third of everything we spend is either completely useless or does nothing more than extend a poor quality of life by a few months.
We’re seeing new drug approvals that might be extremely effective for a subset of patients, but they are shown not to work at all in some 30 to 70 percent of cases. Obviously, that means there’s huge potential to waste resources and patients’ time if we don’t get the diagnostics right.
Q: What needs to be done?
A: The greatest need is for more real-world data — structured, longitudinal data on outcomes for patients with different forms of a disease at different stages.
“The greatest need is for more real-world data.”
Data from clinical trials in specialized facilities don’t necessarily help physicians consider all angles when examining a patient: For example, will extra costs in one aspect of treatment reduce costs in another?
For example, the standard treatment for advanced lung cancer is chemotherapy. That gives patients an average of 10 more months. But if the cancer has a particular mutation, a targeted oral compound will give them 48 more months, on average.
And 48 months of that oral therapy is cheaper for the provider because they’re not dealing with costly hospitalizations tied to the toxic effects of chemotherapy.
However, testing for that mutation is costly, and right now only 40 to 60 percent of patients with advanced lung cancer are offered the test. That shows how much we can improve outcomes with better data and diagnostics.
Q: Who are the key players in reform?
A: The challenge with healthcare reform has always been that incentives are misaligned: Policymakers, providers, payers and patients all want different things.
So our first task is to define goals that everybody can agree on, as well as pathways to get there. We need to get better systems for sharing data because that’s what will help us improve outcomes, which everybody wants to see.
“The challenge with healthcare reform has always been that incentives are misaligned.”
With better data, it also becomes easier to move to a system of “bundled” payments – that’s in contrast to traditional ways of organizing healthcare, whereby payers reimburse providers either per service provided or per patient visit.
Bundled payments work if you can define the expected cost per “episode of care” for particular types of patient. That can reduce costs for payers, improve outcomes for patients and let physicians focus on medicine rather than money.
Q: To what extent are the problems with healthcare common across different systems?
A: There are different issues between developed and emerging economies and countries with different cultural approaches to healthcare — but the problem of sustainability is common to all.
I’m originally from France, where the so-called “socialized” healthcare system has effectively been bankrupt for decades. There are some examples of countries doing relatively well, such as Singapore and Israel — but policymakers almost everywhere are worried, and rightly so.
“We’ll have more novel therapies by 2030.”
Q: How might health and healthcare look in 2030?
A: We’ll have more novel therapies by 2030. My hope is that we will also have diagnostic tools that enable physicians to stratify patients from the get-go, putting them on treatments that data shows lead to the best outcomes for their particular condition.
I also hope that we’ll have much better tools for prevention: Individuals will routinely have extensive checks of health markers that will not only give them personalized lifestyle advice, but enable them to see the benefits of following that advice as they track improvements.
However, societies around the world will also have older populations and higher rates of non-communicable diseases. Even more than today, we will have to confront hard questions about the cost of treatments with limited results.
This article first appeared on World Economic Forum and was published with permission.
Every morning, wake up to the blog that gives you the latest trends shaping tomorrow.
You might also lie: