Kevin R. Riggs, MD

To the Editor: In his article, Dr. Lehman¹ argued that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) attempts to break the healthcare “iron triangle” by simultaneously improving access and quality while reducing costs, it may paradoxically make the situation worse on all three fronts. However, this line of argument fails to provide a comparison—that is, worse compared to what? While Dr. Lehman does not suggest a comparison, two come to mind that could be implied from his arguments: 1) doing nothing, or 2) targeting reform at only two sides of the triangle.

Prior to the PPACA, the US healthcare system had serious problems with access, quality, and cost.² While it is true that any reform could potentially be worse than doing nothing, none of the three seemed to be getting any better under the status quo. Both candidates for president in 2008 agreed that doing nothing was no longer an option.^3,4 Alternatively, trying to improve two legs of the triangle (say, access and quality) while acknowledging that the third (cost) would suffer would have been just as politically untenable.

The true explanation for how the PPACA could expect to (and may still) improve access and quality while reducing healthcare costs (compared to no reform) is that the PPACA is not a single intervention, as is obvious from the 2,000-plus pages of the law. No single component of the law needs to do all three. For example, expanding Medicaid improves access and quality (especially for those without prior coverage) but undoubtedly raises costs. On the other hand, accountable care organizations should decrease costs by incentivizing providers to be more efficient and reduce waste (and ideally would also improve quality).⁵ Given the low bar set prior to implementation of the PPACA, it was not a stretch to have expected any major reform to improve (not fix) our problems with access, quality, and cost.

To the Editor: In his article, Dr. Lehman¹ argued that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) attempts to break the healthcare “iron triangle” by simultaneously improving access and quality while reducing costs, it may paradoxically make the situation worse on all three fronts. However, this line of argument fails to provide a comparison—that is, worse compared to what? While Dr. Lehman does not suggest a comparison, two come to mind that could be implied from his arguments: 1) doing nothing, or 2) targeting reform at only two sides of the triangle.

Prior to the PPACA, the US healthcare system had serious problems with access, quality, and cost.² While it is true that any reform could potentially be worse than doing nothing, none of the three seemed to be getting any better under the status quo. Both candidates for president in 2008 agreed that doing nothing was no longer an option.^3,4 Alternatively, trying to improve two legs of the triangle (say, access and quality) while acknowledging that the third (cost) would suffer would have been just as politically untenable.

The true explanation for how the PPACA could expect to (and may still) improve access and quality while reducing healthcare costs (compared to no reform) is that the PPACA is not a single intervention, as is obvious from the 2,000-plus pages of the law. No single component of the law needs to do all three. For example, expanding Medicaid improves access and quality (especially for those without prior coverage) but undoubtedly raises costs. On the other hand, accountable care organizations should decrease costs by incentivizing providers to be more efficient and reduce waste (and ideally would also improve quality).⁵ Given the low bar set prior to implementation of the PPACA, it was not a stretch to have expected any major reform to improve (not fix) our problems with access, quality, and cost.

To the Editor: In his article, Dr. Lehman¹ argued that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) attempts to break the healthcare “iron triangle” by simultaneously improving access and quality while reducing costs, it may paradoxically make the situation worse on all three fronts. However, this line of argument fails to provide a comparison—that is, worse compared to what? While Dr. Lehman does not suggest a comparison, two come to mind that could be implied from his arguments: 1) doing nothing, or 2) targeting reform at only two sides of the triangle.

Prior to the PPACA, the US healthcare system had serious problems with access, quality, and cost.² While it is true that any reform could potentially be worse than doing nothing, none of the three seemed to be getting any better under the status quo. Both candidates for president in 2008 agreed that doing nothing was no longer an option.^3,4 Alternatively, trying to improve two legs of the triangle (say, access and quality) while acknowledging that the third (cost) would suffer would have been just as politically untenable.

The true explanation for how the PPACA could expect to (and may still) improve access and quality while reducing healthcare costs (compared to no reform) is that the PPACA is not a single intervention, as is obvious from the 2,000-plus pages of the law. No single component of the law needs to do all three. For example, expanding Medicaid improves access and quality (especially for those without prior coverage) but undoubtedly raises costs. On the other hand, accountable care organizations should decrease costs by incentivizing providers to be more efficient and reduce waste (and ideally would also improve quality).⁵ Given the low bar set prior to implementation of the PPACA, it was not a stretch to have expected any major reform to improve (not fix) our problems with access, quality, and cost.