By GREGG MASTERS

As we trudge forward into various iterations of what and how ‘accountable care’ strategies can be sensibly configured and locally seeded for Medicare, Medicaid as well as commercial markets, attention is often focused on the ‘necessary’ but ‘not sufficient’ contribution(s) from health information technology (HIT). It is rare that a conversation centered on accountable care or ACOs in particular doesn’t shift to HIT, where EHRs, HIE’s (heath information exchanges) or other data banking or connectivity solutions aren’t a material part of the dialogue. Often posited as the central spine enabling the required coordination and integration essential to accountable care, the technology side of the challenge frequently preempts other issues including physician culture, clinical and financial risk management tolerance and sophistication, or the history of successful physician/hospital joint ventures, in the local market.

Yet in the paradigm shift from volume to value via accountability many are focused on the presumptive return expected from consumer empowerment and electronic health information connectivity. Whether couched as informed choice via up-leveled health literacy, e-patient activism, ‘data liquidity’ or the litany of supportive ‘apps’ including mhealth, wireless or other prevention and wellness oriented platforms, the consumer empowerment movement incentivized by HITECH and further challenged via the triple aim quest are energizing many entrepreneurs, healthcare providers and even regulators.

In June we’ll witness another round of broad based healthcare stakeholder engagement during Health Innovation Week in Washington, D.C. For context, check out Wil Yu’s post on THCB titled: Breaking Down the Process of Innovation: The Value of Community.’

Starting with the Health 2.0 sponsored code-a-thon and [coincidentally] ending with the 3rd Annual National ACO Summit, with HealthCamp DC, Regina Holliday’s ‘The Walking Gallery‘, and the jointly sponsored Institute of Medicine’s and Department of Health Services HDI Forum aka ‘the Health Data Palooza‘, the week will be full of learning, networking and collaboration opportunities.

I intend to be onsite and reporting from several of the venues. Where possible I’ll broadcast recaps, and even livestream all or portions of select events. Minimally you can expect a generous outbound tweetstream via @ACOwatch, ACOalliance or @2healthguru.

By Marc Siegel, MD

The Food and Drug Administration is considering removing prescription requirements for medications that treat common conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma, migraines and high cholesterol. This means that you would be able to go to your local pharmacy, fill out a questionnaire, receive a diagnosis and purchase a medication, all without intervention or direction from a physician.

As a doctor, I think this is a very bad idea. Although it is true that diagnoses are often missed — reports estimate that as many as 7 million diabetics in the U.S. remain undiagnosed — and although easier access to drugs could theoretically encourage patients to take their medications, I am concerned that expanding over-the-counter access will lead to wrong diagnoses with improper treatments, which carry side effects.

Remember, medicine is an art, practiced on an individual basis. A medication that works for one person doesn’t always work for another. I am constantly changing cholesterol or high blood pressure medications for my patients because of unanticipated side effects such as muscle aches or dizziness.

Lack of follow up

What would happen if I weren’t involved to monitor treatments and make necessary changes? The upfront cost savings from cutting out doctors and their office fees will be more than made up by longer term costs of improper diagnoses or unmonitored complications.

Advocates of expanding over-the-counter medications point to aspirin or allergy drugs as examples that have proved successful without a doctor’s prescription. But for every patient who is glad not to have to visit my office for an allergy prescription, I can point to another patient who has suffered side effects like fatigue that he or she didn’t realize were due to that same pill, or where the allergic reaction was due instead to food.

The fact that common painkillers have been available over the counter for decades also doesn’t provide a convincing argument for bypassing prescriptions. Consider that more than 100,000 Americans are hospitalized every year due to bleeding from aspirin or other OTC non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pills, and acetaminophen is the No. 1 cause of acute liver failure. Continue reading “Expand Over-the-Counter Medications? Very Bad Idea”

By Michael Millenson

There I was, going one-by-one through a list of doctor and hospital groups that had volunteered to be one of the “accountable care organizations” authorized by health care reform, when I inexplicably found myself breaking into song. I know: it’s a really strange way to react to ACOs, but bear with me.

You remember, “This Land is Your Land,” don’t you? Written by Woody Guthrie in 1940, it caught the folk music wave of the 1950s, and has been sung ever since by performers ranging from Pete Seeger to Johnny Cash. Odds are you at least know the first verse:

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

ACOs are not obviously song-worthy, although they are significant. One of the Affordable Care Act’s signature initiatives, they initially drew bipartisan support as far back as…well, 2010. In April, the government announced that thousands of doctors serving more than 1.1 million Medicare beneficiaries had voluntarily joined ACOs, giving up fee-for-service reimbursement for some patients in exchange for a paycheck that’s based on measurable standards related to high-quality, cost-effective care. They’ve made the switch because it’s the right thing to do and because they’re getting ready for a day when Medicare’s fee-for-service money dries up.

Continue reading “Pete Seeger’s Blues”

By Rob Lamberts, MD

I saw a gentleman in my office recently.  He was having severe pain radiating from his lower back, down to his calf.

I was about to describe my plan to him when he interrupted me saying, “I know, Doc, I am overweight.  I know that this would just get better if I lost the weight.”  He hung his head down as he spoke and fought off tears.

He was clearly morbidly obese, so in one sense he was right on; his health would be much better if he would lose the pounds.  On the other hand, I don’t know of any studies that say obesity is a risk factor to ruptured vertebral discs.  Besides, he was in significant pain, and a lecture about his weight was not in my agenda.  I wanted to make sure he did not need surgery, and make him stop hurting.

This whole episode really bothered me.  He was so used to being lectured about his obesity that he wanted to get to the guilt trip before I brought it to him.  He was living in shame.  Everything was due to his obesity, and his obesity was due to his lack of self-control and poor character.  After all, losing weight is as simple as exercise and dietary restraint, right?

Perhaps I am too easy on people, but I don’t like to lecture people on things they already know.  I don’t like to say the obvious: “You need to lose weight.”  Obese people are rarely under the impression that it is perfectly fine that they are overweight.  They rarely are surprised to hear a person saying that their weight is at the root of many of their problems.  Obese people are the new pariahs in our culture; it used to be smokers, but now it is the overweight.

Continue reading “Shame”

By Shannon Brownlee and Joe Colucci

When most of us think about Facebook, the first phrase that comes to mind probably isn’t “good Samaritan.”  Facebook is an easy way to keep in touch with friends, and it can be a gigantic time-suck, for sure, but last week the site did something that could truly benefit a lot of people. On May 1, Facebook launched an initiative to encourage users to become organ donors, and within 24 hours there had been a spike in the number of people volunteering their body parts for the good of others.

California’s registry saw almost two months’ worth of people sign up within the first day after the Facebook put up the feature.

Organ transplantation is one of the miracles of modern medicine, but there simply aren’t enough organs to go around for all the patients who need them. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), there are 72,900 people on active lists waiting for an organ. Compare that number to the 2,263 transplants that took place between January 2011 – 2012. Last year, more than 6,000 people died waiting for an organ.Obviously, increasing the number of organ donors could have a huge impact on the number of transplants – and on the lives of thousands of people.

Why don’t more people become donors? Some object on religious grounds, but the biggest obstacle is inertia. Most of us who sign up to be organ donors (I’m one of them) do so when we renew our driver’s license, by checking a box on a form saying we want to donate our organs. If you don’t mark the form, it’s assumed you don’t want to donate. Most people only encounter this choice every few years, when their driver’s license is up for renewal, and it’s hard to think about such a decision while standing at a Department of Motor Vehicles counter.

Some countries, such as Spain, Australia and Germany, have opt-out systems. It’s assumed that you are willing to donate unless you’ve said you prefer not to. Rates of donation in those countries are sometimes higher than in the US, although some presumed-consent countries have much lower rates. (Factors other than the number of donors, like the availability of surgical facilities and transplant surgeons, can affect the number of actual transplants in different countries.)

Continue reading “The Lifesaving(?) Technology of Facebook”

By Marya Zilberberg, MD

Reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Bright-Sided” has been liberating in that is has given me permission to let my pessimistic nature out of the closet.

Well, it’s not exactly that I am pessimistic, but certainly I am not given over to brightness and cheer all the time. My poison is worry. Yes, I am a worrier, in case you had not noticed. So, imagine how satisfying it is for me to find new things to worry about. As if climate change were not enough, lately I started to worry about science.

No, my anxiety about how we do clinical science overall is not new; this blog is overrun with it. However, the new branch of that anxiety relates to something I have termed “fast science.” Like fast food it fills us up, but the calories are at best empty and at worst detrimental. What I mean is that science is a process more than it is a result, and this process cannot and should not be microwaved. Don’t believe me? Let me give you a couple of instances where slow science may be the answer to our woes.

1. Lies and damned lies

Remember this story in the Atlantic that rattled us with its incendiary message? Researcher John Ioannidis has been making headlines with his assertion that most, if not all, of what we know in medicine is in doubt, given how we do and publish research. And how we do and publish research has everything to do with the speed of “progress.” Academic careers are made with positive results, to sell news the media demand positive results, and to respond to this demand academic journals prefer only to publish positive results (this last phenomenon is referred to as “publication bias,” and is something Ben Goldacre rails against at length). A further manifestation of this fast science is that “no replicators need apply.” I am, of course, referring to an extension of the publications bias, whereby journals are not interested in publishing even a positive study that replicates a previous finding — this is simply not sexy. Thus, results have to be quick and positive to grab a share of our attention and sell academic prestige, journals and news. Continue reading “Fast Science: The Uncertainty Paradox”

By Peter W. Carmel

As physicians, our primary concern is ensuring the health and safety of our patients. The Food and Drug Administration has offered a new concept to make more prescription drugs available over the counter (OTC). Proponents claim it could improve patient health and outcomes, reduce patient costs and promote proper medication use. We are skeptical that it would achieve any of these goals.

The American Medical Association is concerned about patients taking certain drugs without physician involvement — especially patients with chronic diseases. No evidence has been offered that the innovative technologies underpinning this concept would actually allow patients with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma or migraine headaches to self-diagnose and manage these serious chronic medical conditions safely on their own.

As a chronic condition evolves, treatment changes are often needed from a physician. Without physician involvement, patients might take the wrong medication or dose for their needs, potentially causing harm. Self-diagnosis and treatment conflict with the care coordination and disease management that new health care payment and delivery models are trying to achieve.

Continue reading “Don’t Bypass Physicians”

By Aza Raskin

Privacy policies are long legalese documents that obfuscate meaning. Nobody reads them because they are indecipherable and obtuse. Yet, these are the documents that tell you what’s going on with your data — how, when, and by whom your information will used. To put it another way, the privacy policy lets you know if some company can make money from information (like selling you email to a spammer).

Creative Commons did an amazing thing for copyright law. It made it understandable.

Creative commons reduced the complexity of letting others use your work with a set of combinable, modular icons.

In order for privacy policies to have meaning for actual people, we need to follow in Creative Commons footsteps. We need to reduce the complexity of privacy policies to an indicator scannable in seconds. At the same time, we need a visual language for delving deeper into how our data is used—a set of icons may not be enough to paint the rich picture of where you data is going.

Continue reading “Making Privacy Policies Not Suck”

By Rob Lamberts, MD

Don’t assume anything.

Assumptions can kill.  Assuming something regarding your own health care can cost you money, cause you pain, and yes, even kill you.  Here’s my list of potentially harmful assumptions:

1.  No news is good news

If you have a test done and don’t hear anything about the result, do not assume it is fine.  This assumption kills people.  I have too many patients with too much information flying at me every day for me to catch every important detail.  Sometimes things are missed, but sometimes the results don’t come to our office.   We have trained our patients to expect an email or letter with their results within a certain amount of time, so they sometimes call when the test results don’t come in.  I tell them to do so in the clinical summary sheet I hand out at the end of each visit, but the assumption remains.

Always know what tests are being run, and always get the results of those tests (in writing, if possible).

2.  The doctor will think I am stupid

I often have patients apologizing to me.  They apologize when they have a “weird” symptom, when they “ask too many questions,” when they stop taking a medication due to side-effects, and when they are really, really worried about something.  They seem afraid that I am going to roll my eyes and think of them as “one of those patients” – the kind that I complain about to my office staff.

I hate it when people apologize.  Apologies assume there is some standard or expectation that a person is not meeting, and the only expectations that I have of my patients is:
a. they have or want to prevent medical problems
b. They want my help.

Why should I get mad at people for either of these things, as it is the job of a doctor to help people who need them.  I know there are doctors out there who treat patients like bad kids or like they are morons, but those doctors are out of step with reality.  They are the morons.  I don’t apologize to the barber that my hair grew.  I don’t apologize to my accountant for having tax questions.  Understand your position as the paying customer; get what you paid for.

Continue reading “Zen and the Art of Not Thinking Magically”

By Peter Doshi and Tom Jefferson

In the fall of 2009, at the height of fears over swine flu, our research group discovered that a majority of clinical trial data for the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu ― data that proved, according to its manufacturer, that the drug reduced the risk of hospitalization, serious complications and transmission ― were missing, unpublished and inaccessible to the research community. From what we could tell from the limited clinical data that had been published in medical journals, the country’s most widely used and heavily stockpiled influenza drug appeared no more effective than aspirin.

After we published this finding in the British Medical Journal at the end of that year, Tamiflu’s manufacturer, Roche, announced that it would release internal reports to back up its claims that the drug was effective in reducing the complications of influenza. Roche promised access to data from 10 clinical trials, 8 of which had not been published a decade after completion, representing more than 4,000 patients from every continent except Antarctica. Independent verification of the data seemed imminent. But more than two years later, and despite repeated requests, we have yet to receive even a single full trial report. Instead, the manufacturer released portions of the reports, most likely a very small percentage of the total pages. (One of us, Tom Jefferson, has been retained as an expert witness in a lawsuit relating to some of these issues.)

Continue reading “Drug Data Shouldn’t Be Secret”