Month: January 2012

A Win-Win: Job Creation Will Grow the Economy and Improve Health

Jan 16, 2012• 7

By Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D. and Mark Pinsky

The current economic recovery effort presents an opportunity to build stronger, healthier communities. That’s a central goal for the Create Jobs for USA Fund that Opportunity Finance Network (OFN) and Starbucks launched late last year to support job creation and retention.

Economic growth and job creation provide more than income and the ability to afford health insurance and medical care. They also enable us to live in safer homes and neighborhoods, buy healthier food, have more leisure time for physical activity, and experience less health-harming stress. The research clearly shows that health starts in our homes and communities and not in the doctor’s office.

In that way, economic policy is, in fact, health policy.

Since 1985, OFN’s national network of community development financial institutions (CDFIs) has loaned more than $23 billion to benefit low-income, low-wealth, and other disadvantaged communities. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), with an endowment of around $8.5 billion, is the nation’s largest philanthropy focused solely on improving health and health care for all Americans. Marrying the business acumen of CDFIs and others to health philanthropy’s ability to supply the research, analysis, and expertise to make sure community development activities improve residents’ health is a powerful union.

Why This Well-Known Biotech Firm Deploys 17,000 iPads and iPhones

Jan 16, 2012• 3

By ERIC LAI

There were some impressive enterprise deployments discussed at the AppNation conference in San Francisco on Thursday.

I’ll lead off with Genentech, the Bay Area biotech firm that is now a subsidiary of Roche. Their 7,000 iPad rollout was news to me, and ranks them sixth on my list of largest iPad deployments in the world.

(View the entire list of more than 530 enterprises that have publicly-confirmed iPad deployments here).

According to mobile application team manager, Paul Lanzi, Genentech has standardized on Apple for mobile, with 17,000 iOS device users worldwide (so by inference, 10,000 iPhones, though it surprises me less and less when I hear about companies deploying iPod Touches, too). All of the Apple devices are corporate-owned, as the company doesn’t do Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). Genentech does have 15,000 BlackBerry users, but they are only allowed to do e-mail, no apps. It doesn’t support Android due to the fragmentation-related hassle. “It’s a really tricky one,” Lanzi said.

While many firms talk about how their device deployments are driven by the ROI they hope to get from using apps, Genentech is actually following through. The company has deployed 60-some apps to employees. Indeed, Genentech rolled out its first mobile Web page even before the iPhone was released, said Lanzi. “We’ve already retired some apps,” he said.Continue reading…

Can You Really Fire Your Insurance, Mitt?

Jan 15, 2012

By TRUDY LIEBERMAN

Romney’s remark last week about firing your insurance company apparently harmed him little in the New Hampshire primary. But as the quote has rocketed around, it might be misleading some into thinking that the Massachusetts health care reforms that Romney signed into law made it so people can willy-nilly get rid of an insurer that doesn’t pay their claims on time.

The comment deserves a second look. Can you really fire your insurance company? The answer is that it’s darn difficult even in Massachusetts—the land of Romneycare.Continue reading…

Sizing Up the Obama Administration’s Defense of the Health Reform Law

Jan 15, 2012• 13

By Henry J. Aaron

Back in 2009, when the Affordable Care Act was being written, few doubted that Congress can constitutionally impose a tax penalty on people who refuse to carry adequate insurance. Congress’s power to regulate insurance markets under the Constitution’s commerce clause is settled law. While it seemed clear that Congress has the constitutional power to mandate coverage, some doubted the political wisdom of using that power. Simply forcing people to buy insurance seemed too much like a mean parent saying “eat-your-broccoli, or no dessert.” The mandate, it was feared, would arouse needless opposition. The opposition was needless because most people could be encouraged to buy coverage with positive incentives to enroll, such as direct subsidies, and penalties for refusal to enroll, such as extended denial of access to subsidies and exclusion from insurance market protections.

To the surprise of many, opponents of the Affordable Care Act took the broccoli analogy literally. Not buying insurance is simply inactivity, they argued. If government can prohibit this form of inactivity by forcing people to buy insurance, it can force them to buy anything, even broccoli. If Congress can prohibit such ‘inaction,’ they argued, freedom is in jeopardy. More to the point, the constitution doesn’t allow limits on ‘inactivity.’

The appeal to the broad public of the argument that not buying insurance is inactivity may not have been surprising. But the acceptance of the argument by some federal judges is downright astounding, as the distinction rests on a fundamental ignorance of how insurance markets work.

Tonsillectomy Confidential

Jan 14, 2012• 10

By Seth Roberts

In 2008, Rachael Hoffman-Dachelet’s eight-year-old son started having frequent sore throats. He’d run a fever, feel stiff and tired, and miss a few days of school. After six sore throats in a year, her pediatrician said This is crazy. I’m going to refer you to an ear nose and throat specialist. I think he’ll recommend a tonsillectomy (tonsil removal).

Rachael and her son saw the specialist, who did recommend a tonsillectomy. Tonsils are part of the lymphatic system, a network of tiny tubes and nodes all over the body. It is mostly a drainage system. Lymph drains into the tubes, which carry it to the heart, where it reenters the blood. En route to the heart, lymph passes through nodes. How can lymph move through the system if you remove part of it? Rachael asked the specialist. If there were any bad long-term consequences we’d know because so many tonsillectomies have been done, he said. The correct answer is that lymph does not pass through the tonsils. Rachael asked about the benefits of the surgery. Your son will miss a lot less school, he said.

Rachael teaches art at a Minnesota middle school. Her experience with doctors had made her skeptical of their predictions.

To decide for herself if a tonsillectomy was a good idea, she googled “pubmed tonsillectomy meta-analysis” and found a Cochrane Review about tonsillectomies and tonsillitis. There are thousands of Cochrane Reviews. Each tries to summarize the evidence about the effect of a treatment on a health problem (e.g., “Antibiotics for sore throats“). They are meant to be practical — to help everyone, including outsiders like Rachael, make treatment decisions (such as “should my son have a tonsillectomy?”). They are produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, a British non-profit, which says its reviews are “internationally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health care”.

Competition in Health Insurance: What Should Government Do?

Jan 13, 2012• 3

By John Graham

Many Americans complain that there is too little competition between health plans. To some degree, this is true. Few of us are allowed to choose our own health insurance. Instead, we take whatever our employers offer us.

However, we must not succumb to the natural temptation to call for more government intervention to reverse this problem. On the contrary, concentration among health plans has largely occurred subsequent to government action.

Signed in March 2010, ObamaCare has certainly had the opposite effect than that promoted by its advocates. The table below shows premiums in the small-group market in 2008 and 2010, for 37 states with available data.

Two Patients Coded

Jan 13, 2012• 1

By Paul Levy

My recent post on end-of-life care issues, “What if they had had to pay?,” generated a lot of comments in the blogosphere and beyond. One intensive care doctor sent me a particularly poignant note. It gives a good sense of what it is like on this person’s side of the bed. The note re-emphasizes the need for better end-of-life planning, for the sake of patients, families, and providers.

Here’s my day so far. This is my first day of a 7-day stretch in a tertiary ICU. The average census in this ICU is 10, but today we have had to surge to 15.

Let me stop right there. This is doctor (and nurse) shorthand for, “I expect to be very busy, very tired, and very stressed out. I am going to have to make some highly critical clinical judgments, sometimes with very little time to react. I don’t know anything about these patients beyond what is in the charts and what our care team sees and hears for themselves.”

Two patients today coded in our hospital. One family wants “everything” done, and seemed shocked to learn that I don’t think it is right to provide “everything.” The other family wished someone from the healthcare team had bothered to ask them what their 89 year old dad would really like to accomplish from his hospital stay before he tried to die. We decided to let him finish dying.

Continue reading…

Meet the iPAB!

Jan 13, 2012• 10

By D. Brad Wright

Contrary to the title, the IPAB is not a new Apple product. Rather, it is the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” created by the Affordable Care Act to solve the problem of ever-increasing Medicare spending.

In people’s worst nightmares, the IPAB is a death panel that will make decisions about how to ration health care for the elderly and disabled. Images of 15 people sitting in a room handing out death sentences flash through the minds of the anti-government crowd.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as the IPAB has no authority to limit benefits, increase beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs, or otherwise alter the Medicare program in any way that would “ration” care.

So what can the IPAB actually do to promote slower spending growth in Medicare?

They can suggest legislation, that’s what. Legislation that, for example, would reduce or alter the way in which payments are made to providers. It’s debatable if the recommendations from IPAB will work to actually control spending. What’s not up for debate is whether action will be taken, and that’s what I’m most pleased about.Continue reading…

A Constitutional Right not to Be Bankrupted

Jan 13, 2012• 6

By Frank Pasquale

Those challenging the ACA in court profess deep concern about government forcing citizens to buy insurance or pay a fine. The fundamental harm here is monetary; it’s about being required to purchase insurance, not to use it (or to get any medical care at all).

If the Court agrees with them, why can’t there be a parallel monetary right not to be bankrupted by health care costs? In the 1973 case San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-4 vote, that children did not have a constitutional right to education. But at that time, at least four justices thought the state was obliged to make a decent education available to all. Why can’t a future Court do the same for health care?

If the current Supreme Court were to declare the ACA unconstitutional, it would need to abandon several landmark precedents. That’s not a problem for the Roberts Court; it’s already jettisoned once-venerable holdings on campaign finance, equal protection, antitrust, and voting rights.

For many Americans in these tough economic times, rights to education, housing, health care, and food are a lot more meaningful than the right to be free of an insurance mandate. We the people can locate these ideals in a Constitution and a Declaration of Independence rich with grand and sweeping language. If the ACA’s opponents can use our nation’s founding texts to undermine the ACA, those who care about meeting basic human needs need to gear up to use them to do quite a bit more.

Bring Back the Public Option

Jan 13, 2012• 108

By Scott Carroll

The way health care is administered in the United States is unsustainable and in need of fundamental reengineering — right? During the 2008 presidential race, the country appeared to be in agreement on this point. But that all changed somewhere, somewhere after the election of a dark-skinned new president with a foreign-sounding name whom even proud Medicare card-carrying Americans were viscerally driven to deride as a socialist.

This was recently reported in The Hill: “The six largest investor-owned health insurance companies saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income in the third quarter, putting them on pace to break profit records for 2010.” The president was castigated by loud little crowds around the country for championing the overwhelmingly popular idea of a publicly funded, public health insurance alternative to challenge the partly publicly funded, private health insurance companies’ assertion that they simply cannot provide their services any cheaper. Rather than groundbreaking legislation, what we got was the president being caricatured on national television, in effigy, as The Joker — and health insurance executives laughed all the way to the bank.