No two people are exactly alike, especially
when it comes to medicine. Medical conditions can vary by age,
race, gender, and a variety of other factors. Sickle-cell
anemia, for example, is most common among African Americans; the prevalence of diabetes is highest among
Alaskan Natives and American Indians; and men are more
likely to die from congestive heart disease than women.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
recently acknowledged this diversity with its approval of BiDil,
the first drug to treat congestive heart failure specifically in
African Americans. In the 1980s,
scientists studying BiDil found that African-American heart
failure patients respond better than white patients to the
medication.
This was the impetus for a 2001 study of the drug's effects on an
African-American patient population. The results of this study were
stunning: a 43 percent decrease in the risk of mortality from heart
failure.
BiDil's approval is recognition of the promise of personalized
health care and custom treatments for
individuals and groups. That promise will not be fulfilled,
however, without changes in the way that the government regulates
health care.
Advancing Science
BiDil is only the
beginning for personalized medicine. Geneticists and
pharmacologists are seeking to tailor drug therapies to the
individual, maximizing effectiveness and minimizing side effects.
Beyond factors of race, sex, and age, every person has a unique
mixture of health problems and disease risk factors. Ideally, optimal treatment plans should reflect
the different physiologies and values that make up America's
pluralistic society. This is not the case today.
With health
insurance today, whether a treatment will be covered by any given
plan is determined by third parties, not the patient or doctor.
Insurance companies negotiate with employers or government bodies
to set coverage levels, but employees' and citizens' health needs
vary greatly, reflecting individual differences, desires, and
circumstances. Under today's arrangements, the promise of
personalized health care cannot be fulfilled.
The Promise of
Change
Ideally, a health
care plan should accommodate an individual's needs as they change
over time. But this is unlikely unless the person chooses his or
her plan, owns that plan, and controls the terms and conditions of
the policy. Ideally, a plan should adjust to reflect changes in its
beneficiary's life, such as aging and increased dependence on
medical services. With personal ownership, health plans become
portable from job to job and through career transitions; this sort
of ownership also brings with it greater personal control.
Making plans that
cater to individuals' needs the norm cannot be accomplished without
major changes in government policy. Greater choice and personal
control over health insurance could be had by the provision of
individual health care tax credits that offset the cost of
insurance coverage. Beyond tax credits, policymakers would have to
establish new rules governing health insurance contracts, including
long-term care insurance, creating a level playing field for
different kinds of insurance and broadening consumer access.
Moreover, to ensure the broadest possible participation of
individuals and families, policymakers would have to establish new
risk adjustment or reinsurance arrangements, preferably at the
state level.
The Power of
Choice
To secure this
level of personal choice, the government must look at how health
insurance is financed and enable individuals and families, rather
than employers and the government, to control the flow of money in
the system. One way to accomplish this is to move from defined
benefit to defined contribution health plans. A defined
contribution plan would be, in effect, similar to the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which embodies
"pro-consumer health care ideas." Federal workers in the
FEHBP are armed with information: they can access a complete guide
to offerings and straightforward online tools for comparing
different plans. Evaluated by consumer groups and others, health
plans in the FEHBP are rated annually on quality and service.
Millions of federal workers chose from
among the 249 competing health plans in 2004. And thanks to all
this competition, premiums in the FEHBP grew much more
slowly than those reported by nonfederal employers.
The Information
Revolution
There is progress
being made in the private sector. For example, United Healthcare
offers a "Plan Comparison Calculator"
to help participants choose the right plan for their health
needs and budgets.
Vivius, a
consumer-choice healthcare company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
has developed a "build-your-own
health plan" Web application. It calculates a unique premium for
each family member based on their choices of benefits and
providers.
Under the Vivius program, employees are empowered to create their
own expert panels of doctors, primary care providers, and
specialists. Employers can offer extensive provider choices,
thus encouraging employee involvement in choosing their level of
coverage, their providers, and their premiums and co-payment
amounts. The Vivius model not only helps employers
take control of their expenses, but also makes costs transparent
and encourages personal accountability among employees.
Likewise, Hewitt
Associates, a major consulting firm, has a "Build Your Own" health
plan that allows enrolled employees to "choose from a variety of
predetermined deductibles, coinsurance levels, doctor and hospital
networks, and prescription drug coverage levels to create a
customized plan that meets their health care, financial, and risk
tolerance needs." Employees can choose
high levels of coverage for higher premiums or, to lower their
monthly premiums, select less-extensive coverage and make personal
health commitments, such as exercising regularly.
Such companies as
Archer Daniels Midland, Verizon
Communications, and the Thomson Corporation also offer custom
medical plans, online support, comparison tools, and employee
choice.
Personal Values
Beyond differences
in benefits, treatments, and medical procedures, Americans also
have different beliefs about what is right and wrong in the
provision of health care services. With a broad choice of health
plans, individuals can ensure that their ethical and moral beliefs
about the provision of care and medical treatments are not
violated. Those who do not approve of abortion, for example, would
be free to spend their health insurance premiums on other medical
services. Likewise, individuals who wish to have medical services
provided within an ethical or moral framework of care that is
compatible with their own values, particularly at the end of life,
would be able to secure that kind of care. Personal choice is a
powerful solvent for cultural or ethical conflict.
Conclusion
Medical
professionals are developing the capacity to provision personalized
care based upon genetic and personal characteristics, but while
science and medicine are forging ahead, the health insurance market
is lagging.
Still, there is
some progress. In addition to the broad array of health plans
available today to federal employees, more and more companies are
providing information to their employees on benefit options and
giving them real choices. Increasingly, consumer-based information
systems let individuals make informed decisions for themselves and
their families, taking into account their unique health care needs
and conditions. With advances in medical science, the demand for
personal choice will only grow. Lawmakers will have to adjust the
federal and state policies that govern the health care system in
response.
The way forward is
with individual health care tax credits that would enable
individuals to purchase the health plans of their choice; changes
in the rules governing health insurance, including the geographical
expansion of insurance markets and expansions of the kinds of
health options available to an increasingly diverse population; and
the creation of new risk adjustment or reinsurance arrangements to
accommodate that diversity. With these changes, the promise of
personalized health care can be fulfilled.
Christina Sochacki is Health
Policy Fellow in, and Robert E. Moffit Ph.D., is
Director of, The Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.
Press Release, "FDA
Advisory Committee Recommends Approval for NitroMed's Bidil to
Treat Black Patients with Heart Failure," NitroMed, June 16,
2005, at http://www.nitromed.com/06_16_05.asp
(July 1, 2005).