Wao i never thought i am this lucky to view Prof Christensen presentation himself. The father of disruptive innovation - and now he is elaborating it - related to healthcare. So interesting.
This is one of the most boring but non-boring gentlemen I have had the pleasure to sit and listen to. When you take a topic that is specific to a group and make it interesting to listeners universally, that takes something unique.
Is it just me, or does his speech issue make him an almost much better speaker? He's more human and at ease and adds a comfort and humor to him. I still can't believe he's 6'8"
Brilliant. Simple yet compelling approach. I already started using his framework in my engagement with decision makers and other stakeholders in healthcare.
While I had read two of his books, and listened and read Horace Dediu talking about Christensen, it was a great experience to see him and hear him tell the innovation story!
Died too soon. He was a great man. || On illness, a lot of medical problems that people have are not a single problem. So yes the single line model works in cases where the problem is just a knee replacement or spinal repair, it is a more complicated problem when say you a knee replacement, autoimmune disease and diabetes.
Oh how I wish he would have spoke for 30 more minutes and dive deeper into the last of the three types of organizations that reside in a hospital. Anyone interested in disrupting healthcare should watch this, it is not fluff.
+krous i think the reason why the camera isn't covering the slide shows is because they don't want other people, like students or other writers, to plagiarize from his presentation.
Why can't a private working citizen get any kind of tax deduction into buying health insurance if they get no benefit from the company that they are working for.
It is interesting that but for technology ( TH-cam and Khan Academy to be specific), only the smart, rich, and privileged would have access to such informative lectures. I am grateful that we don't have to go be the best and brightest to receive knowledge from the best and brightest. Salmon Khan has the right idea.
From a purely economic perspective, I understand Christensen's point of view. Healthcare, however, is unique from other industries and outcomes are far more black and white than you imply. When we define "good enough" largely from a cost-benefit analysis, things appear falsely simple. The reality is that "okay" healthcare = morbidity and mortality. Also, it is perfectly relevant to question your expertise on this subject, as it is directly related to your credibility.
This could happen if the real cause of spiraling healthcare costs is ever addressed, which it hasn't in the last 8 year and likely will never will be. The spiraling cost is caused by the tax exempt status of healthcare benefits, that portion of a workers wage paid in healthcare benefits. The quid pro quo for that tax free income is that the money can only be spent on healthcare, so healthcare is not required to compete with anything else in the economy for that money. The shoe business must compete with the electronics/phone business and the food business and the furniture business to sell shoes. Healthcare does not. The tax exemption sets aside $1000 a month, on average, for them to consume, so it's never going to cost $200 and leave $800 on the table. If the government said, "Bread is the staff of life, and we should help people with that. The first $200 spent on bread every month will be tax free, like healthcare is tax free. How much bread would Americans begin consuming? What would happen to the cost of bread? Once again, government is problem not the solution. We have employer based healthcare because of the wage and salary caps imposed during WWII. Companies found other ways to compensate their employees since they couldn't pay them more. Thank you FDR. Because of your meddling we now lose our insurance because we change jobs. In fact, it's so bad that what we're forced to buy isn't even insurance anymore. But whose going to get elected by promising end the tax exemption for healthcare?
Ah, it is true the halmark of insurance did put us here, and mayhaps the doctor's certification process didn't drive scarcity we wouldn't have been forced to come up with the concept of insurance. While you are correct, the political side of healthcare, and in particular with insurance costs, will never be completely solved at that level. Private Insurance, hiked drug prices, and management costs in healthcare are the main drivers, summarized in "It's still the prices, stupid," which is a free source article. The message of this video really is the solution, drive innovation toward the home. Home preventative care testing in combination with AI longitudinal laboratory 2.0 standards is the next wave of driving healthcare costs down.
@@2snipe1 It won't matter anymore than Bitcoin matters in creating non-state controlled money. As long as there exists a lump sum of money that can only be spent on healthcare (your healthcare benefit money), the healthcare industry will find a way to coerce legislatures into having every innovation, even those you mention, legislated into their control. That's how the banks have shut down bitcoin. They got legislatures to regulate it as a commodity, with all the attendant restrictions, which effectively prevents it from ever becoming money. Lo and behold, this gives governments the time to produce their own digital currencies, don'cha know. Market forces have never been able overcome legalized plunder. Got to remove the tax exemption for any innovation to have a chance at lowering prices. I doubt you will believe me and you'll persist in your support of the innovations you listed. That's fine, you'll figure it out eventually. Took me 25 years to figure it out.
If something is too complicated and bottle necked let the free market sort it out. Get government out of the way and let the people figure out healthcare.
The example of the computer to smartphones you almost got it right... the thing about that is no group of intellectuals at Harvard had to sit around and think "this is what we ought to do". The free market ensured the companies competed to meet consumer and business demands. All we have to do is get government out of the way of healthcare providers to allow the same forces to bear on healthcare. That is all
@@jarrodhumphrey9350we don’t have the market based healthcare. The various state and local governments put limits on the number of providers. The various state and local governments set non-market standards on licensing and who is allowed to practice(the best doctor from pakistan isn’t allowed to practice even though they probably are a better doctor than most). The federal government taxes independent insurance out the ass and has made it such that employer provided healthcare is literally the cheapest option. And Obama literally taxed people for not having insurance. Then the government denies insurance providers the ability to discriminate on preexisting conditions, which means that the fatter and more unhealthy the average person in your insurance plan is the shittier your premium becomes because the insurance providers aren’t going to accept making a loss on the unhealthy who are most likely to use healthcare resources. And going back to licensing, independent fraternal societies were made just about illegal as licensing agencies would revoke licenses for people who undercut prices. We need to let healthcare professionals and patients decide prices. Not the government.
The ideal model is one designed by a man who believes, in his words, that pharmacists and nurse practitioners can do 80% of what physicians do but are not permitted to act to the maximum of their capabilities due to arbitrary, territorial regulations favoring physicians? Everyone with a basic understanding of the training required of pharmacists and NPs is properly opposed to this idea. Given that it comes from within the ivory tower, I'm not sure whether it's hysterical or terrifying.
Having more general practitioners is a lovely idea but hardly original. If you had seen a single issue from AFP in the last 4 years, you would know this. No one is debating that we need more primary care physicians. No one needs you to recapitulate the lecture, this is a digression. To refocus: I take issue with the assertion that nurses and technicians can or should do 80% (or anything in the neighborhood thereof) of what a licensed physician is trained to do.
@@destroya3303 Apparently, the market has. New studies indicate that we are facing a shortage of primary care physicians because they make the least of medical doctors. The trend has been to specialize. It's not getting better. Apparently you haven't noticed that PA's and NP's are accomplishing most primary care these days. Healthcare is also not a "market". It is that very philosophy which has misguided our entire system to make it one of the worst among developed countries. Patients are not a commodity and healthcare is not a frivolous product like one approaches buying a car, or a TV. It is fundamentally a human right. If you believe the market should decide and regulate itself, perhaps you should look into the fundamental cause of the 2008 financial crash. You should know this--if you have any educational background in healthcare administration at all.
You don't need a doctor for a colonoscopy? Have you ever performed a colonoscopy? Do you have the slightest shred of appreciation and respect for how many hours a gastroenterologist spends training on and studying endoscopic procedures during fellowship? If you trust a "mid-level provider" to do your colonoscopy, I think I understand the weight of your opinion.
That's just a precise example of why our system COST SO MUCH in his talk. The fact the docs spent so much time getting trained in colonoscopy doesn't necessarily make it the best way, get it? Time NOT = Quality, It just makes it more expensive!! He is talking about INNOVATION here and that's what US healthcare system needs.
Rest in peace Dr. Christensen. I am watching this lecture because of a grad school homework assignment. Thank you for your lifelong work!
It was great to hear from Clay Christensen about Andy Grove of Intel.
Wao i never thought i am this lucky to view Prof Christensen presentation himself. The father of disruptive innovation - and now he is elaborating it - related to healthcare. So interesting.
This is one of the most boring but non-boring gentlemen I have had the pleasure to sit and listen to. When you take a topic that is specific to a group and make it interesting to listeners universally, that takes something unique.
Is it just me, or does his speech issue make him an almost much better speaker? He's more human and at ease and adds a comfort and humor to him. I still can't believe he's 6'8"
68 👶
Brilliant. Simple yet compelling approach. I already started using his framework in my engagement with decision makers and other stakeholders in healthcare.
While I had read two of his books, and listened and read Horace Dediu talking about Christensen, it was a great experience to see him and hear him tell the innovation story!
A brilliant presentation!
Could someone please post the slides from the talk as well?
Please upload more from Prof. Christensen in the future. His speeches and lectures are extremely informative and inspiring.
Get More info Challenges Facing Healthcare Projects
visit us: member.hpmaglobal.org/key-challenges-facing-healthcare-projects/
Amazing man and great lecturer.
Suggestion/request: it would be good to see the slide deck published as well, on Slideshare or similar site.
Brilliant man. Pity the cameraman didn't have the gumption to focus occasionally on the graphics Christensen was referring to throughout.
Apparently the intel board did not get the memo.
Died too soon. He was a great man. || On illness, a lot of medical problems that people have are not a single problem. So yes the single line model works in cases where the problem is just a knee replacement or spinal repair, it is a more complicated problem when say you a knee replacement, autoimmune disease and diabetes.
Precision medicine, thank you very much sir!
Oh how I wish he would have spoke for 30 more minutes and dive deeper into the last of the three types of organizations that reside in a hospital. Anyone interested in disrupting healthcare should watch this, it is not fluff.
Interesting lecture! Is the camera auto-following there? it omitted all of the slideshows...
+krous i think the reason why the camera isn't covering the slide shows is because they don't want other people, like students or other writers, to plagiarize from his presentation.
In this political year, how is it that Clay's ideal model isn't a bigger part of the conversation? Please share this with everyone you know.
That was Mr Mrs UNPandey Lloyd's London Delhi India
Why can't a private working citizen get any kind of tax deduction into buying health insurance if they get no benefit from the company that they are working for.
It is interesting that but for technology ( TH-cam and Khan Academy to be specific), only the smart, rich, and privileged would have access to such informative lectures. I am grateful that we don't have to go be the best and brightest to receive knowledge from the best and brightest. Salmon Khan has the right idea.
Innovators dillema
From a purely economic perspective, I understand Christensen's point of view. Healthcare, however, is unique from other industries and outcomes are far more black and white than you imply. When we define "good enough" largely from a cost-benefit analysis, things appear falsely simple. The reality is that "okay" healthcare = morbidity and mortality.
Also, it is perfectly relevant to question your expertise on this subject, as it is directly related to your credibility.
57:00
This could happen if the real cause of spiraling healthcare costs is ever addressed, which it hasn't in the last 8 year and likely will never will be. The spiraling cost is caused by the tax exempt status of healthcare benefits, that portion of a workers wage paid in healthcare benefits. The quid pro quo for that tax free income is that the money can only be spent on healthcare, so healthcare is not required to compete with anything else in the economy for that money. The shoe business must compete with the electronics/phone business and the food business and the furniture business to sell shoes. Healthcare does not. The tax exemption sets aside $1000 a month, on average, for them to consume, so it's never going to cost $200 and leave $800 on the table. If the government said, "Bread is the staff of life, and we should help people with that. The first $200 spent on bread every month will be tax free, like healthcare is tax free. How much bread would Americans begin consuming? What would happen to the cost of bread? Once again, government is problem not the solution. We have employer based healthcare because of the wage and salary caps imposed during WWII. Companies found other ways to compensate their employees since they couldn't pay them more. Thank you FDR. Because of your meddling we now lose our insurance because we change jobs. In fact, it's so bad that what we're forced to buy isn't even insurance anymore. But whose going to get elected by promising end the tax exemption for healthcare?
Ah, it is true the halmark of insurance did put us here, and mayhaps the doctor's certification process didn't drive scarcity we wouldn't have been forced to come up with the concept of insurance. While you are correct, the political side of healthcare, and in particular with insurance costs, will never be completely solved at that level. Private Insurance, hiked drug prices, and management costs in healthcare are the main drivers, summarized in "It's still the prices, stupid," which is a free source article. The message of this video really is the solution, drive innovation toward the home. Home preventative care testing in combination with AI longitudinal laboratory 2.0 standards is the next wave of driving healthcare costs down.
@@2snipe1 It won't matter anymore than Bitcoin matters in creating non-state controlled money. As long as there exists a lump sum of money that can only be spent on healthcare (your healthcare benefit money), the healthcare industry will find a way to coerce legislatures into having every innovation, even those you mention, legislated into their control. That's how the banks have shut down bitcoin. They got legislatures to regulate it as a commodity, with all the attendant restrictions, which effectively prevents it from ever becoming money. Lo and behold, this gives governments the time to produce their own digital currencies, don'cha know. Market forces have never been able overcome legalized plunder. Got to remove the tax exemption for any innovation to have a chance at lowering prices. I doubt you will believe me and you'll persist in your support of the innovations you listed. That's fine, you'll figure it out eventually. Took me 25 years to figure it out.
This guy died in 2020 but then Trump lives on
The high cost of medical care isn't largely due to physician reimbursement. Also, your comparison of mid-level providers to Lexus is ludicrous.
The video operator is so bad! Why wouldn't he show the slides. SMH!
Was expecting something good from harvard...
7
If something is too complicated and bottle necked let the free market sort it out. Get government out of the way and let the people figure out healthcare.
The example of the computer to smartphones you almost got it right... the thing about that is no group of intellectuals at Harvard had to sit around and think "this is what we ought to do". The free market ensured the companies competed to meet consumer and business demands. All we have to do is get government out of the way of healthcare providers to allow the same forces to bear on healthcare. That is all
We have the most market based healthcare in the world and have the most expensive healthcare.
@@jarrodhumphrey9350we don’t have the market based healthcare. The various state and local governments put limits on the number of providers. The various state and local governments set non-market standards on licensing and who is allowed to practice(the best doctor from pakistan isn’t allowed to practice even though they probably are a better doctor than most). The federal government taxes independent insurance out the ass and has made it such that employer provided healthcare is literally the cheapest option. And Obama literally taxed people for not having insurance. Then the government denies insurance providers the ability to discriminate on preexisting conditions, which means that the fatter and more unhealthy the average person in your insurance plan is the shittier your premium becomes because the insurance providers aren’t going to accept making a loss on the unhealthy who are most likely to use healthcare resources. And going back to licensing, independent fraternal societies were made just about illegal as licensing agencies would revoke licenses for people who undercut prices. We need to let healthcare professionals and patients decide prices. Not the government.
The ideal model is one designed by a man who believes, in his words, that pharmacists and nurse practitioners can do 80% of what physicians do but are not permitted to act to the maximum of their capabilities due to arbitrary, territorial regulations favoring physicians? Everyone with a basic understanding of the training required of pharmacists and NPs is properly opposed to this idea. Given that it comes from within the ivory tower, I'm not sure whether it's hysterical or terrifying.
one of the worst tragidies of 2020
Having more general practitioners is a lovely idea but hardly original. If you had seen a single issue from AFP in the last 4 years, you would know this. No one is debating that we need more primary care physicians. No one needs you to recapitulate the lecture, this is a digression. To refocus: I take issue with the assertion that nurses and technicians can or should do 80% (or anything in the neighborhood thereof) of what a licensed physician is trained to do.
Let the market decide
@@destroya3303 Apparently, the market has. New studies indicate that we are facing a shortage of primary care physicians because they make the least of medical doctors. The trend has been to specialize. It's not getting better. Apparently you haven't noticed that PA's and NP's are accomplishing most primary care these days. Healthcare is also not a "market". It is that very philosophy which has misguided our entire system to make it one of the worst among developed countries. Patients are not a commodity and healthcare is not a frivolous product like one approaches buying a car, or a TV. It is fundamentally a human right. If you believe the market should decide and regulate itself, perhaps you should look into the fundamental cause of the 2008 financial crash. You should know this--if you have any educational background in healthcare administration at all.
You don't need a doctor for a colonoscopy? Have you ever performed a colonoscopy? Do you have the slightest shred of appreciation and respect for how many hours a gastroenterologist spends training on and studying endoscopic procedures during fellowship? If you trust a "mid-level provider" to do your colonoscopy, I think I understand the weight of your opinion.
He's explaining how to make it lower cost. If you're not interested in that topic, then why did you watch the video?
That's just a precise example of why our system COST SO MUCH in his talk. The fact the docs spent so much time getting trained in colonoscopy doesn't necessarily make it the best way, get it? Time NOT = Quality, It just makes it more expensive!! He is talking about INNOVATION here and that's what US healthcare system needs.
AI will change all that 👦
True anything done wrong will cause more harm than good