You’d get something like this:
HAT TIP: Jeanne Pinder. WHHY Philadelphia. Learn more about Pinder and her project here.
By THCB MD
You’d get something like this:
HAT TIP: Jeanne Pinder. WHHY Philadelphia. Learn more about Pinder and her project here.
By SHIRIE LENG, MD
Recently I wrote about the problems with Maintenance of Certification requirements. One of the phrases I read repeatedly when I was researching the piece was “the patient as customer.” Here’s a quote from the online journal produced by Accenture, the management consulting company:
Patients are less forgiving of poor service than they once were, and the bar keeps being raised higher because of the continually improving service quality offered by other kinds of companies with whom patients interact—overnight delivery services, online retailers, luxury auto dealerships and more. With these kinds of cross-sector comparisons now the norm, hospitals will have to venture beyond the traditional realm of merely providing world-class medical care. They must put in place the operations and processes to satisfy patients through differentiated experiences that engender greater loyalty. The key is to approach patients as customers, and to design the end-to-end patient experience accordingly.
Except for one thing. Patients are NOT customers.
The definition of a “customer” is a person or entity that obtains a service or product from another person or entity in exchange for money. Customers can buy either goods or services. Health care is classified by the government as a service industry because it provides an intangible thing rather than an actual thing. If you buy a good, like a car, you voluntarily decide to shop around and get the best car you can for the price. Even a vacation, especially a vacation package or a cruise, is a good. A nice dinner, while a good in the sense of the food, is also a service. You buy the services of the cook and servers.
Here is why the patient shouldn’t be considered a customer, at least not in the business sense.
1. Patients are not on vacation. They are not in the mindset that they are sitting in the doctors office or the hospital to have a good time. They are not relaxed, they have not left their troubles temporarily behind them. They have not bought room service and a massage. They are not in the mood to be happy. They would rather not be requiring the service they are requesting. Which leads to number 2:
2. Patients have not chosen to buy the service. Patients have been forced to seek the service, in most cases.
3. Patients are not paying for the service. At least not directly. And they have no idea what the price is anyway.
4. Patients are not buying a product from which they can demand a positive outcome. Sometimes the result of the service is still illness and/or death. This does not mean the service provided was not a good one.
5. The patient is not always right. A patient cannot, or should not, go to a doctor demanding certain things. They should demand good care, but that care might mean denying the patient what the patient thinks he or she needs. The doctor is not a servant; she does not have to do everything the patient wants. She is obligated to do everything the patient needs.
6. Patient satisfaction does not always correlate with the quality of the product.A patient who is given antibiotics for a cold is very satisfied but has gotten poor quality care. A patient who gets a knee scope for knee pain might also be very satisfied, despite the fact that such surgery has been shown to have little actual benefit in many types of knee pain.
By LESLIE KERNISAN, MD
After a night of feeling awful, I went looking for help. I found it at a Minute Clinic in a CVS near the hotel. I was seen right away by a friendly NP who did a rapid strep test, and prescribed me medication. I picked up my medication at the pharmacy there. The visit cost something like $85, and took maybe 30 minutes. They gave me forms to submit to my California insurance. And I was well enough to present my research as planned by day 3 of the conference.
Fast forward to this year. After feeling a bit blah on a Monday evening, I developed a sore throat, headache, and fever overnight.
I figured it was a winter viral pharyngitis, rearranged my schedule, and planned to make it an “easy day.” Usually a low-key day plus a good night’s sleep does the trick for me.
But not with this bug.
By DEEPA MISTRY
Susannah Fox, CTO of HHS, shares how she is fostering patient empowerment and engagement through technology. Matthew Holt, Co-Chairman of Health 2.0, had the opportunity to personally chat with Susannah and learn more about the democratization of healthcare!
Matthew Holt: Matthew Holt here, delighted to be on with a really wonderful amazing person in healthcare who is not only my friend but also the CTO of HHS, Susannah Fox. Susannah, thanks so much for joining us.
Susannah Fox: I am thrilled to be talking with you.
Matthew Holt: Well, so those of you who don’t know — Susannah originally was a journalist at U.S. News and World Report and spent many, many years at Pew Research, and is basically leading the survey research understanding the patient experience — probably in healthcare as a whole but studying the patient experience with the use of technology. She happens to be the first proper keynote speaker we ever had at a Health 2.0 conference back in 2008, attended Health 2.0 in many different places with us, and has been a great friend and colleague.
By KYM MARTIN
One of my favorite patient
advocates consultants–that’s Kym Martin (far right) on a panel I ran at Health 2.0–has a new job at one of the most interesting patient consultant companies. Here’s her story!–Matthew Holt
Let me ask you two questions.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the quality of the “real-world” patient insights your team gathers to inform your mission-critical, life-altering work?
Are you clear on the needs, trends, and challenges facing the patients you’re trying to serve?
Why Listen to Me?
For the past four years, I’ve listened to hundreds of healthcare leaders discuss patient issues from their perspective as clinicians, technologists, researchers, academics and administrators.
While I’m grateful to these leaders for working feverishly on my behalf as a patient, I question the completeness of their patient view.
The reason shouldn’t come as a surprise. Patients are too often left out of the conversations about the services and products designed to improve their care.
By Joe Selby, MD
Too often they — and their clinicians — must make choices about preventing, diagnosing and treating diseases and health conditions without adequate information. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was created to help solve this problem — to help patients and those who care for them make better-informed health decisions.
Established by Congress through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an independent research institute, PCORI is designed to answer real-world questions about what works best for patients based on their particular circumstances and concerns. We do this primarily by funding comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER), studies that compare multiple care options.
But more research by itself won’t improve clinical decision-making. Patients and those who care for them must be able to easily find relevant evidence they can trust. That’s why our mandate is not just to fund high-quality CER and evidence synthesis but to share the results in ways that are meaningful to patients, clinicians and others.
We’re also charged with improving the methods used in conducting those studies and enhancing our nation’s capacity to do such research.
We will be evaluated ultimately on whether the research we fund can change clinical practice and help reduce the variations and disparities that stand between patients and better outcomes. We’re confident that the work we’re funding brings us and the audiences we serve closer to that goal.
Recently, some questions have been raised in health policy circles about our holistic approach to PCORI’s work. That view holds that direct comparisons of health care options — especially those involving high-priced interventions — should be the dominant if not sole focus of PCORI’s research funding approach as a path to limiting the use of expensive, less-effective options.
We agree that discovering new knowledge on how therapies compare with one another is a critical mandate of PCORI and is essential to improving the quality and effectiveness of care. However, ensuring that patients and those who care for them have timely access to and can use this knowledge, so that they can effectively apply it to improve their decisions, is also very important.
By ROB LAMBERTS, MD
He’s a middle-aged man with diabetes. This kind of thing is a “red flag” on certain patients. He’s one of those patients.
“When does it happen?” I ask.
“Just when I do things. If I rest for a few minutes, I feel better.”
Now the red flag is waving vigorously. It sounds like it could be exertional angina. In a diabetic, the symptoms of ischemia (the heart not getting enough blood) are atypical. It’s the pattern of symptoms that is the most important, and to have exertional shortness of breath which goes away with rest is a pattern I don’t like to hear.
What he needs is a stress test – more specifically in his case, a nuclear stress test (because his baseline EKG is abnormal). But there’s a problem: he has no insurance. A nuclear stress test will cost thousands of dollars.
I can refer him to the hospital, but I know the financial situation he and his wife face. They have no money because of a chronic pain problem he has. He hasn’t worked in several years, but hasn’t ever been able to get disability either (“I tried, but was denied three times”). Without insurance he’s not able to get his problem fixed, so he’s disabled. But he can’t get disability, so he can’t get insurance to get his problem fixed and no longer be disabled.
But the problem on hand is this: he needs a test he can’t afford.
There are many folks out there in this same situation. It may not just be the people with no insurance, and it may not even be people who don’t have money. In fact, my own family is facing this same problem. Multiple family members (myself included) need dental work done. Some need it done badly, yet we don’t yet have the money to pay for it. So we wait for the money to show up while the problems gets worse.
By JAAN SIDOROV, MD
While your correspondent is tantalized by the prospect of healthcare consumers using mHealth apps to lower costs, increase quality and improve care, he wanted to better understand their real-world value propositions.
Are app-empowered patients less likely to use the emergency room?
Do they have a higher survival rate?
Do they have higher levels of satisfaction?
In other words, where’s the beef?
That’s when this paper caught my search engine eye. It’s a report on using an app to monitor post-operative patients at home.
I am a public health professional, educated at the vaunted Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Hygiene and Public Health. I like guns, and I believe the Second Amendment clearly secures the rights of individuals to own firearms.
You read that correctly. I am a public health professional.
And I like guns.
This make me a heretic in American public health, where embracing firearms and the rights of gun owners is a gross violation of orthodoxy.
As a society, our focus on guns and not gun users derives from the shock of mass killings, such as those in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, Virginia Tech, and Norway, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Mass killings, however tragic, get distorted by saturation media hysterics and 24-hour political grandstanding. What gun opponents refuse to discuss is the precipitous fall in violent crime and deaths by firearms over the past 20 years, and how it coincides with an equally dramatic increase of guns in circulation in the US.
While that isn’t cause and effect, the association is certainly curious.
In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control, produced a report on firearms violence that has been ignored by the mainstream media. The upshot: defensive use of firearms occurs much more frequently than is recognized, “can be an important crime deterrent,” and unauthorized possession (read: by someone other than the lawful owner) of a firearm is a crucial driver of firearms violence.
That report went away for political reasons. Translation. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it raised more questions than it answered.
By LYGEIA RICCARDI
At the recent Health 2.0 Conference in Santa Clara, co-chair Matt Holt expressed frustration about the difficulty of getting copies of his young daughter’s medical records. His experience catalyzed a heated discussion about individuals’ electronic access to their own health information. Many people are confused about or unaware of their legal rights, the policies that support those rights, and the potential implications of digital access to health data by individuals. The Health 2.0 conference crowd included 2000 entrepreneurs, consumer technology companies, patient advocates, and other potentially “disruptive” forces in healthcare, in addition to more traditional health system players.
Why is this topic so important? Until now, most people haven’t accessed their own health records, whether electronically or in paper, and I believe that making it easier to do so will help tip the scales toward more meaningful consumer/patient engagement in healthcare and in health. Access by individuals and their families to their own health records can empower them to coordinate care among multiple healthcare providers, find and address dangerous factual errors, and take advantage of a growing ecosystem of apps and tools for improving health-related behaviors, saving money on health services, and getting more convenient, personalized care.
A shorthand phrase for this kind of personal empowerment through access to digital health data is “Blue Button,” which is also the name of a public-private initiative in which hundreds of leading healthcare organizations across the US participate. The Blue Button Initiative is bolstered by the electronic access to health information requirements for patients in the “Meaningful Use” EHR Incentive Program, which is administered by CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) with companion standards and certification requirements set by ONC (the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology).