IBM CEO Palmisano on Single Payer

[slipslidingaway]

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091006-708860.html

By Peter Loftus
The Wall Street Journal
October 6, 2009

"The chief executive of International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) sees a huge business opportunity in making the U.S. health-care system more efficient.

(Sam) Palmisano sees IBM providing everything from electronic-health records technology to ultra-tiny personal devices that read DNA and cost less than $1,000. He likened those technologies to health-care equivalents of universal bar-codes in the retail industry, which made that industry more efficient.

But Palmisano acknowledged that single-payer, government health systems outside the U.S. make it easier to use technology for health-information sharing, because health information is more centralized.

“The advantage of a government payer or centralized system is they can begin to create incentives for change much more so than you can in a fragmented model,” he said.

He said the federal government could save itself $900 billion over 10 years in health-care spending by simply managing it better."


Comment by Dr. McCanne of PNHP

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/07/ibm-ceo-palmisano-on-single-payer/

"So IBM CEO Sam Palmisano says that single payer, government health systems have an advantage over fragmented systems (like ours in the U.S.) since they can create incentives for change. That seems counter to those who claim (falsely) that government systems suppress innovation.

He also states that the federal government could manage health care spending better (as Medicare and the VA have done).

Wow! Welcome aboard!"

[jwirr]

1. I wish I trusted IBM more. I wonder if this health care records keeping

and DNA readings are anything like the census data their equipment collected in Germany in 1930-40s?

[slipslidingaway]

5. It just makes sense that a fragmented system is more expensive...

to operate, many countries have centralised record keeping now.

:shrug:

[jwirr]

9. I know and I guess that it will be okay. Just tired.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Never let your guard down :))) n/t

[tabatha]

2. So the $900 billion over 10 years saved

is about how much the new plan will cost.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Yes, if the figure is accurate. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

3. IBM's 'concern' about health insurance - much irony given their monopoly antitrust issues

greed in any industry is unbecoming

[slipslidingaway]

7. It was just a statement that a fragmented system is more costly, also when ...

there is data on the entire system it is easier, as he says, to create incentives for change.

[DainBramaged]

4. It is simply an economic opportunity for IBM, nothing more

[slipslidingaway]

8. But it is more of an economic opportunity in a fragmented system. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

10. +1 where some see potential for health benefits, other see profits as high as the sky

[jillan]

11. Yes - BUT doesn't this counter the repigs argument how healthcare reform is going to hurt their

precious corporations?

[DainBramaged]

12. IBM is information technology not healthcare

THEY simply want to be the conduit for the information and the MILLIONS of new customers in the system.

He who develops the Medi-Alert necklace records chip rules the industry.

[jillan]

13. I look at it different - if corporations could see that there is profit for them to be made with

healthcare reform, then maybe they would join in the fight.

If more people are insured there is going to be a need for more medical equipment, id cards, employees, nurses scrubs - on and on and on. It's a win-win situation on so many levels.... and if the corporate giants would wake up and see that they could help us win the debate rather than fight us.

[Trillo]

15. Good News! Recommend. nt

[slipslidingaway]

16. Thanks, IBM should benefit more from a fragmented system, but I'm happy...

he mentioned that it would more costly than a SP system.