| |
 Conceptual
Framework
For many centuries, the intellectual leaders of the
burgeoning global society, Nicolo Machiavelli,
Adam Smith and Max Weber to name just a few, have seen democracy and all
of its systems, from
finance to healthcare, in economic terms: as a continuous, sometimes brutal
competition between
self-interested groups. The image is both frightening and appealing. We
are frightened by its
power – and the ability of the individual to lose his place within
the system – and attracted by its
possibility – the ability of the individual to win a new and better
place within that same system.
But can a civilized society in an era of rapid and constant change allow
one of its core systems,
namely healthcare, to operate without any constant and shared reevaluation
of its evolution and
expect that system to continue to operate smoothly and efficiently? If yes,
then how, at a time
when the scientific understanding of the way that nature works and humankind
is fabricated,
is there also a crisis of massive proportions in the way we as humans deliver
and use what we
have invented?
The healthcare crisis is in delivery and not creativity; it is in manmade
systems which, despite
endless qualifications, reservations, and disclaimers to the contrary by
the creators and regulators
of those systems, are in many cases counter-productive to delivering high-quality
and affordable
healthcare.
Without the required sector-wide evaluation, the “self-interested group”
within the healthcare
continuum, precisely because it sees itself as only that, will fail to see
the broader faults within
that system and therefore will not be able to contribute to its long-term
preservation. In summary,
if the current health system continues without a fundamental reevaluation
of its structures,
it will collapse or be radically reorganized along non-market principles
in the coming decades.
It is therefore essential that all parties within the healthcare continuum
understand what the
other participants are up to and what they are thinking; it is in the interest
of all sectors to understand
the nature of the problem at hand. This does not however mean the abandonment
of
advocacy positions. Rather, it suggests that participants must mingle together
with driven, but
open minds.
GMF III presented solutions to the impending crisis from each of the
major sectors’ viewpoints.
While what is broken in the Western developed world is vastly different
from that which afflicts
the least developed countries, it would be dangerous to believe that healthcare
and social problems
are not globally linked together and that the successful resolution of medical
problems in the
developed world will not profoundly affect for the better the less fortunate
of this world and
vice-versa.
|
|
Site
Links
 Executive
Summary
GMF
I Program
GMF
II Program
 GMF III Program
Day
One, Morning
Day
One, Afternoon
Day
Two, Morning
Day
Two, Afternoon
Day
Three, Morning
Day
Three, Afternoon
Contact
the Foundation
|
