It's 4am in the morning.
I'm waking up in a Boston hotel room
and can only think of one thing:
tooth pain.
One of my ceramic inlays fell off the evening before.
Five hours later, I'm sitting in a dentist's chair.
But instead of having a repair of my inlay so that I can get rid of my pain,
the dentist pitches me on the advantages of a titanium implant surgery.
Ever heard of that?
(Laughter)
It essentially means to replace a damaged tooth
by an artificial one,
that is screwed into your jaw.
Estimated costs for the implant surgery may add up to 10,000 US dollars.
Replacing the ceramic inlay I had before
would come in at 100 US dollars.
Was it my health or the money that could be earned with me
that was the biggest concern for my dentist?
As it turned out, my experience wasn't an isolated case.
A study by a US national newspaper estimated that in the United States,
up to 30 percent of all surgical procedures --
including stent and pacemaker implantations,
hip replacements and uterus removals --
were conducted
although other nonsurgical treatment options had not been fully exploited
by the physician in charge.
Isn't that figure shocking?
Numbers may be slightly different in other countries,
but what it means is that if you go to a doctor in the US,
you have a not-insignificant chance to be subjected to a surgical intervention
without there being an immediate need for it.
Why is this?
Why are some practitioners incentivized to run such unnecessary procedures?
Well, perhaps it is because health care systems themselves
incentivize in a nonideal way
towards applying or not applying certain procedures or treatments.
As most health care systems reimburse practitioners
in a fee-for-service-based fashion
on the number and kind of treatments performed,
it may be this economic incentive that tempts some practitioners
to rather perform high-profit surgical treatments
instead of exploring other treatment options.
Although certain countries started to implement
performance-based reimbursement,
anchored on a quality and efficacy matrix,
overall, there's very little in today's health care systems' architecture
to incentivize practitioners broadly
to actively prevent the appearance of a disease in the first place
and to limit the procedures applied to a patient
to the most effective options.
So how do we fix this?
What it may take is a fundamental redesign
of our health care system's architecture --
a complete rethinking of the incentive structure.
What we may need is a health care system
that reimburses practitioners for keeping their customers healthy
instead of almost only paying for services once people are already sick.
What we may need is a transformation
from today's system that largely cares for the sick,
to a system that cares for the healthy.
To change our current "sick care" approach
into a true "health care" approach.
It is a paradigm shift from treating people once they have become sick
to preserving the health of the healthy before they get sick.
This shift may move the focus of all those involved --
from doctors, to hospitals, to pharmaceutical and medical companies --
on the product that this industry ultimately sells:
health.
Imagine the following.
What if we redesign our health care system
into one that does not reimburse practitioners
for the actual procedures performed on a patient
but rather reimburses doctors, hospitals,
pharmaceutical and medical companies
for every day a single individual is kept healthy
and doesn't develop a disease?
In practical terms, we could, for example,
use public money to pay a health fee to an insurance company
for every day a single individual is kept healthy
and doesn't develop a disease
or doesn't require any other form of acute medical intervention.
If the individual becomes sick,
the insurance company will not receive any further monetary compensation
for the medical interventions required to treat the disease of that individual,
but they would be obliged to pay for every evidence-based treatment option
to return the customer back to health.
Once the customer's healthy again,
the health fee for that individual will be paid again.
In effect, all players in the system
are now responsible for keeping their customers healthy,
and they're incentivized to avoid any unnecessary medical interventions
by simply reducing the number of people that eventually become sick.
The more healthy people there are,
the less the cost to treat the sick will be,
and the higher the economic benefit for all parties being involved
in keeping these individuals healthy is.
This change of the incentive structure shifts, now,
the attention of the complete health care system
away from providing isolated and singular treatment options,
towards a holistic view of what is useful
for an individual to stay healthy and live long.
Now, to effectively preserve health,
people will need to be willing to share their health data
on a constant basis,
so that the health care system understands early enough
if any assistance with regard to their health is needed.
Physical examination,
monitoring of lifetime health data
as well as genetic sequencing, cardiometabolic profiling
and imaging-based technologies
will allow customers to make,
together with health coaches and general practitioners,
optimal and science-guided decisions --
for their diet, their medication and their physical activity --
to diminish their unique probability
to fall sick of an identified, individual high-risk disease.
Artificial intelligence-based data analysis
and the miniaturization of sensor technologies
are already starting to make monitoring of the individual health status possible.
Measuring cardiometabolic parameters by devices like this
or the detection of circulating tumor DNA in your bloodstream
early on after cancer disease onset
are only two examples for such monitoring technologies.
Take cancer.
One of the biggest problems in certain oncological diseases
is that a large number of patients is diagnosed too late
to allow them to be cured,
although the drugs and treatments that could potentially have cured them
are already existing today,
if the disease had only been detected earlier.
New technologies allow now, based on a few milliliters of blood,
to detect the presence of circulating tumor DNA
and thus, the presence of cancer,
early on in a really convenient manner.
The impact that this early-stage detection can have
may be dramatic.
The five-year survival rate for non-small cell lung cancer
when diagnosed at stage one, which is early, is 49 percent.
The same, when diagnosed at stage four, which is late,
is below one percent.
Being potentially able to prevent a large number of deaths
by something as simple as a blood test for circulating tumor DNA
could make certain cancer types a manageable disease,
as disease onset can be detected earlier
and positive treatment outcomes can likely be increased.
In 2012,
50 percent of all Americans had a single chronic disease,
resulting in 86 percent of the $3 trillion US health care budget
being spent for treating such chronic diseases.
Eighty-six percent.
If new technologies allow now to reduce this 86 percent,
why have health care systems not reacted and changed already?
Well, a redesign of what today is a sick care system
into a true health care system that focuses on prevention
and behavioral changes
requires every actor in the system to change.
It requires the political willingness to shift budgets and policies
towards prevention and health education
to design a new set of financial and non-financial incentives.
It requires creating a regulatory framework
for the gathering, using and sharing of personal health data
that's at the same time stringent and sensible.
It needs doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical and medical companies
to reframe their approach and, most important,
it can't happen without the willingness and motivation
of individuals to change their lifestyle in a sustained way,
to prioritize staying healthy,
in addition to opening up for sharing the health data on a constant basis.
This change may not come overnight.
But by refocusing the incentives within the health care industry today
to actively keep people healthy,
we may not only be able to prevent more diseases in the first place
but we may also be able to detect the onset of certain preventable diseases
earlier than we do today,
which will lead to longer and healthier lives for more people.
Most of the technologies that we need to initiate that change
are already existing today.
But this is not a technology question.
It is primarily a question of vision
and will.
Thanks a lot.
(Applause)