In a time when our nation's saddled with a $3 trillion deficit, the reality is pretty clear: the healthcare pie can only be so big, right? It's a pretty simple realization - but, as students, we saw the repercussions of that first-hand today at Housing Works.
After learning that a D.C. councilwoman was planning on re-distributing HIV/AIDS funding to support efforts against diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension, we helped compose a letter in response urging the councilwoman to not touch the AIDS money. After all, HIV/AIDS is still a huge problem in D.C., where many citizens are still being infected with both the virus and social stigma attached to it on a daily basis. The city's even hosting the International AIDS Conference next year - I mean, why cut funding now? Instead of putting health money in different pots - some for diabetes, some for cancer, etc. - why not just create a better health system that prevents this stuff in the first place?
Yet, maybe the councilwoman had a point. Ideally, this stuff about health systems is the right action - but how long will it take to implement? Who's going to restructure our delivery infrastructure? When will D.C. citizens actually feel the effects? Who's paying attention to folks with other diseases right now? The health community does not want to overtly compete with each other for resources and attention for policymakers, but our money crunch might be forcing all of us to do so. The reality is, most health interest groups are built upon a narrow but definitively clear mission: cure HIV/AIDS, end cancer, give everyone insurance, etc. It's simple: highlighting the tangible oppression of a diseased patient is way more effective than marketing the abstract notion of health system strengthening . We all care about health, but in a world full of small pies where there's not enough slices to go around, our interests by default compete.
Maybe, just maybe, there's room for students to induce collaboration. To unite folks in the stand for health as a human right. To show that, at the end of the day, we collectively need access, quality, and cost of healthcare to improve in America. Massaging this inherent competition may be difficult, but it has to be possible. To settle for less would be an injustice to us all.
After learning that a D.C. councilwoman was planning on re-distributing HIV/AIDS funding to support efforts against diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension, we helped compose a letter in response urging the councilwoman to not touch the AIDS money. After all, HIV/AIDS is still a huge problem in D.C., where many citizens are still being infected with both the virus and social stigma attached to it on a daily basis. The city's even hosting the International AIDS Conference next year - I mean, why cut funding now? Instead of putting health money in different pots - some for diabetes, some for cancer, etc. - why not just create a better health system that prevents this stuff in the first place?
Yet, maybe the councilwoman had a point. Ideally, this stuff about health systems is the right action - but how long will it take to implement? Who's going to restructure our delivery infrastructure? When will D.C. citizens actually feel the effects? Who's paying attention to folks with other diseases right now? The health community does not want to overtly compete with each other for resources and attention for policymakers, but our money crunch might be forcing all of us to do so. The reality is, most health interest groups are built upon a narrow but definitively clear mission: cure HIV/AIDS, end cancer, give everyone insurance, etc. It's simple: highlighting the tangible oppression of a diseased patient is way more effective than marketing the abstract notion of health system strengthening . We all care about health, but in a world full of small pies where there's not enough slices to go around, our interests by default compete.
Maybe, just maybe, there's room for students to induce collaboration. To unite folks in the stand for health as a human right. To show that, at the end of the day, we collectively need access, quality, and cost of healthcare to improve in America. Massaging this inherent competition may be difficult, but it has to be possible. To settle for less would be an injustice to us all.
"We all care about health, but in a world full of small pies where there's not enough slices to go around, our interests by default compete."
ReplyDelete"Maybe, just maybe, there's room for students to induce collaboration. To unite folks in the stand for health as a human right."
Completely agree with your points. In addition, would like to add that as we "unite folks in the stand for health as a human right", these allies need to have more than a direct relationship with healthcare. In my opinion, "a world full of small pies" does not have to stay that way; for example, alliances can be built on the matter of foreign policy and national security, diverting limited resources away from expensive sojourns into the lands of other people and focusing more on the health and well-being of the American people. Essentially, this inherent competition is only going to continue if the current pie situation is continued; shifting priorities can help to change that.
Sure - our pie can only get bigger at the expense of another issue area's pie. The challenge is - who's going to actually band together the HIV/AIDS, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease folks and make a collective stand to take money away from defense, intelligence, bailouts, etc? We need a serious campaign - not just a lip-service letter disseminated to legislative aides with pretty logos of every organization on its emblem. Everyone's going to have to be willing to sacrifice a percentage of the pie for the greater good - better overall health. But who's going to invest the time and energy to mount this campaign without the guarantee of reaping any benefit? That's the million-dollar question.
ReplyDelete