About Us

The mission of the Center for Objective Health Policy (COHP) is to advance a rational, rights-respecting approach to health reform. We provide analysis and commentary on current issues in healthcare, and encourage individuals to apply free-market ideas to healthcare.

Our scope is all things healthcare-related. This includes health, health policy, health economics, and other sub-fields. We try not to spread COHP too thin, but at the same time part of our message is that all of these things are interconnected.

We also raise money to provide pro-freedom books and materials to students who are studying medicine, nursing, and other clinical specialties. Our outreach program is called The Lucidicus Project. It has been helping to educate future healthcare professionals since 2005.

We believe in advocating for good ideas in healthcare and health policy—not just pointing out the errors and dangers associated with bad policies. While much of our writing entails analyzing and commenting on today's proposals, which are overwhelmingly flawed, we look for opportunities to present positive alternatives whenever possible.

For the time being, COHP is something that we run in line with, but entirely outside of, our busy professional lives. If you would like us to write more, speak more, hold more events, make more videos, recruit scholars and activists, and give away more kits to medical students, then the best message you can send is to support COHP financially or spread the word about COHP. If we can generate enough revenue from donations and paid projects, it could become possible to turn advocacy of individual rights into a full-time pursuit.

Jared Rhoads, MS, Director
Jared Rhoads is the director of the Center for Objective Health Policy. He is a senior research specialist in the healthcare division of a large Fortune 500 consulting firm in Massachusetts. His writings have appeared in numerous publications, including Healthcare Informatics, Health Data Management, Healthcare Finance News, Managed Healthcare Executive, and The Objective Standard.

Becky Rhoads, Au.D., Contributor
Dr. Rhoads assists with The Center for Objective Health Policy and its student outreach program, The Lucidicus Project. She is also a contributing writer. Dr. Rhoads is the Chief of Audiology at a large acute care hospital in Vermont.

Our Approach

We believe that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights. We hold this as a matter of principle and believe that it ought to be followed consistently.

Many health policy organizations set out to help a specific group, for example those living with a particular disease, or the poor, or seniors, or minorities, or women. We do not oppose specialization, but too often these organizations embrace government policies that help their constituents in the short run, at the expense of the liberty (and taxpayer dollars) of others. Private efforts that use voluntary methods to achieve their goals should be free to act as they deem best. Government, however, represents the use of force and thus has no place in shaping healthcare.

What is wrong with healthcare?

In recent decades, Americans have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the size, scope, and power of government. Many programs and controls have been instituted at the federal and state level affecting healthcare. Well-intended as politicians may be, these interventions often have an adverse effect on markets, causing costs to rise, distorting incentives, hampering innovation, and limiting personal choice.

Why does this continue?

Part of what makes possible the encroachment of government into medicine is that doctors are not philosophically equipped to defend themselves. They are told—and many believe—that they must sacrifice themselves in order to provide healthcare services to those who demand it as a right. Ill-equipped to advocate for their own rights, many doctors accept by default the growing government presence in their field.

What is the alternative?

We need to allow doctors to practice their trade freely, without demanding that anyone's interests be sacrificed in the service of anyone else. In a free society, individuals who produce medical goods and services would be free to compete with other producers to earn the business of patients. Doctors would be free to practice medicine as they see fit, not as government officials say they ought to. They would also be free to give charity care as they see fit—and as they did for decades prior to government intervention in insurance and payment models.

Under capitalism, patients would benefit enormously from the wave of human ingenuity and capital investment that would be unleashed as new medicines, procedures, and facilities are constructed. Patients would also benefit from increased competition in goods and services, as they would be free to purchase what they wish, without government officials restricting access or setting prices through one-size-fits-all reimbursement models.

How can I learn more?

If you are interested in learning more about the issues and trends affecting healthcare, then see the writings and other content that we produce and publish on this site. If you are a student planning to enter the medical or healthcare profession, then you can also visit The Lucidicus Project and request educational materials to be sent to you. The project, which is our main outreach program, provides a "kit" of books free of charge to eligible students.