Month: June 2011

Health Data-Palooza!!!

Jun 2, 2011• 2

Thursday June 9, 2011, 9:00am EDT
Watch the Live Webcast: http://videocast.nih.gov/ or http://www.hhs.gov/live/

Harnessing the Power of Data to Improve Health

Featured Speakers: Aneesh Chopra, US CTO; Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media; Matt Miller, NPR; Harvey Fineberg, IOM President; Todd Park, HHS CTO; and many others

The Health Data Initiative is a public-private collaboration that encourages innovators, entrepreneurs, startups, data geeks, community activists and policy makers to utilize health data to develop products and applications to raise awareness of health and health system performance and spark action to improve health.

On June 9th the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institute of Medicine will hold a second health data forum that will bring together over 500 people in person to showcase how health data can create tools and applications to support more informed decision-making by consumers/patients, health care systems, and community officials.

The innovators presenting are a great example of how data and technology can be harnessed in powerful ways to help provide better care and better health.

Over 40 companies will be featured. This event will be live streamed throughout the day with a series of major announcements (challenges issued, new university programs and partnerships, and new major activity in the startup world).

Follow along on twitter: #healthapps

See the Agenda (The full day will be webcast live)

Attend a Viewing Party near you

Costs are Up…Because They’re Higher Than They Were

Jun 1, 2011• 5

By EVAN FALCHUK

In perhaps no other country is there a greater abundance of data about health care than there is in the United States. And in perhaps no other country is there more confusion as to what’s really going on.

Take the recent report by powerhouse actuarial firm Milliman (disclosure: Best Doctors uses Milliman for actuarial work). It’s a fascinating report with some of the best information on American health care there is.

The major take-away: U.S. health care costs continue going up.

But when people start interpreting the data, well, that’s where the trouble starts.

For example, NPR reports on why costs are going up:

For three straight years, outpatient care has led all other categories of care in cost increases. Ninety percent of the increase is in more types of care being delivered in outpatient settings.

Factually, of course, this is correct. More and more care is being delivered in outpatient settings.Continue reading…

First Meaningful Use Dollars Are Just the Start

Jun 1, 2011

By JONATHAN BUSH

The first of our clients just got issued his Meaningful Use check. He is Dr. Allen Ferguson, a family practice doc in Eaton, Ohio. He practices in a health professional shortage area so it was a little bigger than the $18K maximum year one payment. He was thrilled and we are thrilled for him…but not ecstatic, yet.

Unlike other companies, our goal is not and was never to build an application that could only be used to get a bonus like the Meaningful Use bonus. It is to actually GET EVERY BONUS available and every payment dollar deserved by every doc on our network. Our mantra for each service team is this: Be the best in the world at getting docs paid for doing the right thing.

This presents a two-fold challenge in this mini-era of Meaningful Use bonus infatuation. First, we want it all, and less than all will not do. We have guaranteed that every Medicare eligible doc on our athenaClinicals EHR service who signs up and does his or her part will in fact get it. Hence, our real measure of success is 100% of docs winning and NOT the idea that winning is possible. Second, we are committed to ensuring that every doc actually achieves the measures even though the government has taken a “don’t ask/tell” stance by requiring only that docs “attest” that they are compliant rather than show it. We can’t play that way. Since we’re on this thing called the cloud, we actually do know exactly how Meaningful Use compliant every one of our docs is and exactly what they have to do to cross the threshold to meet the definition. Continue reading…

The Role of Conflicted Science in the Cell Phone-Cancer Link

Jun 1, 2011• 1

By MERRILL GOOZNER

Dr. Len over at the American Cancer Society is raising legitimate questions about the early release of findings by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer (hat tip to Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview). The actual study — drawn from an analysis of “hundreds of scientific articles ” — won’t be published in Lancet Oncology “for a few days,” according to IARC. Says Dr. Len:

Unfortunately, drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on a press release and a news conference leaves many of us wondering just what the evidence shows that led to the conclusion announced today that “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” may be possibly cause cancer in people.

The evidence, when it appears, will be murky. A few years ago, I spent several months reviewing some of the evidence in this troubling field, largely from a conflict-of-interest perspective. The global telecommunications industry funds much of the science. Even when government agencies fund research, the results are difficult to interpret. The studies invariably involve looking for a very small number of negative health outcomes (brain cancers) in very large populations. Two researchers, looking at the very same set of epidemiological facts, will often come to different conclusions. And, as often as not, those conclusions correlate with whether the the researchers are independent or whether they are on industry’s payroll.Continue reading…

Getting Transparency Right

Jun 1, 2011

By PAUL LEVY

This is about transparency, when it is useful and when it is not. The term is now an established part of the health care lexicon, but there is little substantive discussion about how it is being used.

As I said in an article in Business Week over three years ago:

There are often misconceptions as people talk about “transparency” in the health-care field. They say the main societal value is to provide information so patients can make decisions about which hospital to visit for a given diagnosis or treatment. As for hospitals, people believe the main strategic value of transparency is to create a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other hospitals in the same city or region. Both these impressions are misguided.

Transparency’s major societal and strategic imperative is to provide creative tension within hospitals so that they hold themselves accountable. This accountability is what will drive doctors, nurses, and administrators to seek constant improvements in the quality and safety of patient care.

Now, there rises an additional misconception. The perversion of the transparency concept that has evolved rides on the desire of CMS and private insurance companies to use publicly published outcome data to financially reward or penalize hospitals. As expected, this is raising hackles. The complaints often heard from hospitals are ones we have discussed before: “The data are wrong.” “Our patients are sicker.”Continue reading…