Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I have worked with and around the disease management concept in the
US for some seven years now. I've worked with Cardiac Solutions, for
instance. Your article is dead on regarding the measurement of outcomes,
there is very little. We found that Cardiac Solutions did reduce our
particular outcomes in CHF, but cost more, not less, so the program was
dropped. That highlights one of the problems with a free-market system,
costs come before outcomes. However, Cardiac Solutions could have focused
on costs too, but didn't. They didn't have to because it wasn't in their
contract to do so. Quality and Economic efficiency are not, repeat not,
mutually exclusive. It is simply a matter of moving the production (or the
medical ecomnomics equivalent)possibilities curve out by finding efficient
treatment paths, providers, and educating. If you remove the economic
efficiency component, then you will simply pay more for less. Why less?
Why not...? So, the market based system can be the better system in the
long term because firms who will provide better for less will rise to the
top and the others will be selected against.
Re: Disease Mgmt
I have worked with and around the disease management concept in the
US for some seven years now. I've worked with Cardiac Solutions, for
instance. Your article is dead on regarding the measurement of outcomes,
there is very little. We found that Cardiac Solutions did reduce our
particular outcomes in CHF, but cost more, not less, so the program was
dropped. That highlights one of the problems with a free-market system,
costs come before outcomes. However, Cardiac Solutions could have focused
on costs too, but didn't. They didn't have to because it wasn't in their
contract to do so. Quality and Economic efficiency are not, repeat not,
mutually exclusive. It is simply a matter of moving the production (or the
medical ecomnomics equivalent)possibilities curve out by finding efficient
treatment paths, providers, and educating. If you remove the economic
efficiency component, then you will simply pay more for less. Why less?
Why not...? So, the market based system can be the better system in the
long term because firms who will provide better for less will rise to the
top and the others will be selected against.
Competing interests: No competing interests