Before transitioning from music to healthcare, as a student, we learned about the works of composers like Igor Stravinsky, Arnold Schoenberg, and Bela Bartok. These men contributed uniquely to the evolving musical landscape with their creative works. Schoenberg, for example, revolutionized music by developing atonality and the twelve-tone technique. Not unlike what was happening with visual artists like Picasso, they were breaking new ground, moving away from tradition and accepted norms.
The traditionalist and the audiences did not consider their work to be acceptable. Schoenberg faced harsh criticism. His music was called incomprehensible, and the public often condemned it. Due to its radical rhythms and dissonance, Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring” (1913) caused a riot at its premiere.
Over time, their work gained widespread recognition as groundbreaking.
Now that the United States political dust has settled and the reality of the next four years is upon us, the question of what Dr. Mehmet Oz and Robert Kennedy Jr will potentially bring to the picture of healthcare reform is very much up in the air.
If confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would oversee the CDC, FDA, and NIH. As Secretary of HHS, Kennedy would manage a $1.7 trillion budget. He has indicated that his agenda includes challenging Big Pharma and its current practices, reforming dietary guidelines, and dealing with chronic diseases through stricter food and pesticide regulations.
While his positive focus on transparency and chronic disease prevention resonates with many, his other controversial stands face scientific and political opposition.
Dr. Oz’s potential appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is also controversial. As a heart surgeon, a communicator, and a champion of wellness and prevention, Dr. Oz receives high praise. He also believes he can eliminate waste from the $1 trillion CMS budget.
The challenges faced by Oz and Kennedy might be similar to those of the musicians mentioned above in the sense that they will be potentially maneuvering upstream through white water. A primary difference is that they will be rocking a multi-trillion-dollar healthcare boat funded by lobbyists representing organizations from Big Pharma, Agri-food, Alcohol, Tobacco, the Fast Food industry, and even oil and additive companies that sell dyes and preservatives, all contributors to the food industry in this country.
The science has been strong against many of the methodologies and advertising techniques employed by these industries in the United States. So much so that the European Union, and even countries like India, China, and Japan have banned foods that are a large part of our culture.
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine, an affiliate of the National Academy of Science published “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” a report created by dozens of independent experts who sought answers to how to improve America’s healthcare system. The report concluded that our healthcare system is so convoluted and fragmented, that it wasn’t a system at all. It further concluded that it could not be fixed by merely tweaking parts of the system in isolation. It suggested that a payment system based on the quality of patient outcomes would go a long way to correcting its current design flaws.
One primary goal would be to engage practitioners who have proven track records in wellness and prevention. Thousands of these practitioners have offered a multitude of therapeutic interventions that can quantify and demonstrate patients’ return to a healthy state. We know that diet, exercise, stress management, and social support can reduce the need for polypharmacy intervention.
Chronic diseases account for 90% of U.S. healthcare expenditures, while end-of-life care represents about 25% of Medicare spending annually. At some point, change seems to be inevitable. If they survive their tenure in government, maybe someday they too will be acknowledged for contributing to a better future.