Categories

Author Archives

Christina Liu

The General Public is Meant to be Deceived: The American Food Conspiracy

By HANS DUVEFELT

Everybody knows how to operate smartphones and understands complex modern phenomena, but many Americans are frighteningly ignorant about basic human nutrition.

I am convinced this is the result of a powerful conspiracy, fueled by the (junk) food industry. Here are just a few examples:

Milk has been advertised as a healthy beverage. It is not. No other species consumes milk beyond infancy. Milk based products like ice cream and yogurt are on top of that often sweetened beyond their natural properties.

Fruit juices make it possible to consume the calories of half a dozen pieces of fruit faster than eating just one. Naturally tart juices, like cranberry, are sweetened the same way as soft drinks (high fructose corn syrup), and therefore no healthier than Coca Cola.

Things made from flour—like bread, crackers, boxed and instant cereal, pasta and snacks like pretzels or chips other than plain potato chips—raise blood glucose levels faster than eating table sugar: The breakdown of flour starts in our mouths because of enzymes in our saliva while sucrose doesn’t break down until it reaches our small intestine.

Sugary foods, even candy like Twizzlers, are advertised as “fat free”, which is a relic from the days when fat was believed to be bad for you. Many fats, like those in olive oil, salmon, tree nuts and avocado are extremely healthful.

Another example of tangential descriptions is when flour based snacks are promoted as “baked, not fried”. Flour is bad, no matter what you do with it and, in fact, the presence of fat slows down the blood glucose rise from highly processed carbohydrates.

Continue reading…

Digital Health: Avoiding a Second TechLash!

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

As John Glaser argued a recent piece in Harvard Business Review, many health care executives seem have been blinded by the shiny object that is digital health. Forgive us for a powerful feeling of déjà vu. Since the last major digital innovation in health, the electronic health record, fell far short of expectations and probably generated a negative return on investment for many care systems, it is worth thinking about to avoid the same fate with this new wave of digital tools.

As COVID raised concerns about the safety of in-person visits to clinics and physicians’ offices, digital health visits soared during the spring. Traditional health care organizations large and small–hospitals, health plans, physician groups–have since struggled to integrate digital technology effectively into their care offerings and management structure. 

In other industries, digital technology acts as a  force-multiplier for the core business–it helps firms make much more efficient use of their workforce, customers’ time and physical capital. Amazon used its cloud-based IT infrastructure and sprawling  digital “catalog” to compress time to customer fulfillment, eliminating the need for customers to visit stores to get what they needed. And by leveraging other firms’ inventories, it reduced the need to purchase, warehouse and physically handle more than half of what they sell. 

Similarly, digital health applications should not be thought of as a “new product”. Indeed, the capability for digital visits and monitoring and digitally enabled remote work has existed (some say, languished)  for almost two decades. Digital health tools should be thought of as force multipliers for the trusted relationships at the heart of healthcare. Clinicians can be in two places at once-  transforming how patients and clinicians interact by removing both time and physical location as constraints. At the same time, telework enables healthcare enterprises to make more efficient use of scarce clinical and administrative person-power,  shrinking their physical capital footprint. 

Achieving savings in clinician time and reduction in overhead were the twin drivers of Kaiser Foundation Health Plans’ successful digital health strategy. Kaiser’s two-decade long investment in virtual care has resulted in more than half of Kaiser subscriber interactions with their caregivers (preCOVID)  being electronic. The savings in reduced clinic time and overhead dropped through directly to Kaiser’s bottom line by minimizing the consumption of resources inside Kaiser’s fixed capitation pool. But you do not need to be fully, or even partially, capitated to reap digital health’s benefits.

Continue reading…

#Healthin2Point00, Episode 176 | Optum acquires Change & deals for Hinge, Liva, and Metronom

Insurgents have stormed the Capitol and we’re still here to talk about health tech deals. On Episode 176, Jess and I discuss Optum acquiring Change Healthcare in a $13.5 billion deal, bringing it back to Jess’s interview with CEO Neil Crescenzo bout what Change Healthcare does with the connective tissue of big healthcare. Hinge gets $300 million in a Series D – this is valued now at $3 billion. Finally Liva Healthcare, which is like European Livongo, raises €24.5 million and Metronom Health gets $22.2 million for yet another CGM. —Matthew Holt

#Healthin2Point00, Episode 175 | Haven, Color, RapidSOS & more

Today on Health in 2 Point 00, Jess and I chat about Haven finally closing its doors. On Episode 175, we cover Color raising $167 million growing fast as the major COVID tester in the Bay Area and 23andMe scoring $82.5 million. RapidSOS quietly raised another $51.2 million on New Year’s Eve, Fruit Street Health raises $22 million for chronic condition management, and finally Centene acquires Magellan for $2.2 billion. —Matthew Holt

No Safe Haven to be Found!

By MIKE MAGEE

Can you wrestle a collusive, private, profiteering Medical-Industrial Complex to the ground by throwing more private entrepreneurs at it? Apparently not.

The very public collapse of Haven – the widely heralded health joint venture of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase – is a case in point. After three years, it is unclear whether they were a public-spirited triad trying to bathe efficiency into our bizarre employer-based health insurance scheme, or becoming predatory investors in one of the most profitable segments of our national economy.

When launched nameless in January, 2018, most of the focus was on the three amigos – Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, and Jeff Bezos. The linking of hands of the nation’s biggest technology power player, her most revered and respected investor, and her highest ranked financial all star, was impossible to ignore.

What were they up to? No one was quite sure. But there was enough concern about disruption of a sector controlling nearly 1/5 of the American economy that prices of CVS Health, Walmart, Cardinal Health and Express Scripts dove south.

This week, with the announcement of the non-profit joint venture’s collapse, analysts wasted no time piling on. As one said, “Haven had a rocky three years, running up against vague marching orders, a lack of direction, and obstacles inherent to the healthcare landscape.”

But it didn’t start that way. Warren Buffett presented health care that day as “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.” Jamie Dimon noted that we pay twice as much for poorer quality care than other developed nations. And Jeff Bezos suggested that it was time for PBM’s and insurers to trim their sails.

By the summer of 2018, the three signaled they were seriousby hiring widely acclaimed health leader, Atul Gawande, as their CEO. As Buffett said, “Jamie, Jeff, and I are confident that we have found in Atul the leader who will get this important job done.” It would be another nine months before they could settle on a name for the venture – Haven (as in safe haven for their 1.3 million combined employees).

Continue reading…

Health Care: Don’t Be Evil

By KIM BELLARD

Google’s corporate motto – written in its original Code of Conduct — was once “Don’t be evil.”  That softened over time; Alphabet changed it to “Do the right thing” in 2015, although Google itself retained the slogan until early 2018.  Some Alphabet employees think Google/Alphabet has drifted too far away from its original aims: they’ve formed a union in order to try to steer the company back to its more idealistic roots.

Parul Koul and Chewy Shaw, two Alphabet software engineers, announced the Alphabet Workers Union in a New York Times op-ed, vowing to live by the original motto, and to do what they can to ensure that Alphabet and its various companies do as well.  They assert: “We want Alphabet to be a company where workers have a meaningful say in decisions that affect us and the societies we live in.”

It’s past time that health care workers, including physicians and executives, stood up for the same thing.

Ms. Koul and Mr. Shaw cite several grievances, including payouts to executives accused of sexual harassment, the firing of a leading AI expert over her efforts to address bias in AI, and company efforts to “keep workers from speaking on sensitive and publicly important topics.”  Doing the work, even doing it well and being well paid for it, is not enough:

We care deeply about what we build and what it’s used for. We are responsible for the technology we bring into the world. And we recognize that its implications reach far beyond the walls of Alphabet.

Their goal is for Alphabet “to be a company where workers have a meaningful say in decisions that affect us and the societies we live in.”  Alphabet, they say, “has a responsibility to prioritize the public good. It has a responsibility to its thousands of workers and billions of users to make the world a better place.” 

Investors may not quite agree.

Continue reading…

Quality in Healthcare: Cultural Competence, Diagnostic Accuracy or Patronizing Insensitivity?

By HANS DUVEFELT

I sometimes tell patients “I work for the government”, but sometimes I say the opposite, “I work for you”.

Herein lies a dichotomy that is eating away at primary care in this country, like a slow growing cancer. I suspect everybody is aware of it, but it seems nobody has the inclination to deal with it.

2020 exposed how differently Americans view and prioritize things like personal freedom and public safety. We have also seen how vastly different perceptions of reality suddenly exist about what constitutes medical facts. Alternative facts and fake news are suddenly household concepts.

For years, American healthcare has paid lip service to ethnic and cultural sensitivity, as long as minority opinions or practices don’t clash too badly with the holy cows of western society. We tolerate circumcision in men, but not genital mutilation in women, for example. But we don’t even pay lip service to the majority’s right to direct their own healthcare.

Continue reading…

Goodbye, 2020. Hello, 2030

By KIM BELLARD

2020 is almost over; thank goodness.  It has been one of the strangest, and longest, years most of us have ever endured.  We’ve all probably known someone who contracted COVID-19; many of us have had lost loved ones from it.  Most of us have had to make drastic changes to our lives – masks, social distancing, limits on family visits, eating out, concerts, or trips among them.  No, 2020 can’t get over fast enough.

I was struck, though, by a quote I recently read.  Loren Padelford, a vice-president at Shopify, told The Wall Street Journal: “Covid has acted like a time machine: it brought 2030 to 2020.” 

Gosh, I hope not.

Mr. Padelford went on to explain: “All those trends, where organizations thought they had more time, got rapidly accelerated.” These trends include the shift from physical to online, further decline of cash, and work from home/remote learning.  Individuals/families without broadband are being left behind; companies not investing in IT and logistics may not be here in 2030.  Healthcare has not been exempt from these trends.

The pandemic has illustrated both the great strengths and the great weaknesses of the U.S. healthcare system.  Among the strengths are the courage and professionalism of our health care workers, the innovation that has delivered several vaccines within a matter of months, and the ability to adapt to an existing but underutilized mode of care in telemedicine. 

Among the weaknesses, of course, are the lack of planning and coordination that has doomed testing, contact testing, and supply of personal protective equipment; the patchwork quilt of insurance coverage that has left even more without coverage (e.g., due to loss of job based coverage and/or lack of Medicaid expansion); the refusal of many to act in their own best health interests, such as not wearing masks or taking vaccines

Legislators/regulators may be taking bold actions like throwing money at healthcare organizations, vowing that the COVID testing and vaccines are “free,” and loosening restrictions on telemedicine, but the underlying disfunction in our healthcare system has never been more visible.  We don’t test enough or fast enough.  We have sick people on gurneys in gift shops, we have dead people in refrigerator trucks, and we still have people crushed by their healthcare bills.

Please, don’t let this be a picture of 2030.

Continue reading…

Need to Choose a Doctor? What Does AI Think About the Choices?

By ZEESHAN SYED

Tens of millions of Americans rely on consumer experience apps to help them find the best new restaurant or the right hairdresser. But while relying on customer opinion might make sense for figuring out where to get dinner tonight, when it comes to picking which doctor is best for you, AI might be more trustworthy than the wisdom of the crowd.

Consumer apps provide us with rich data categories that often take into account preferences, from location to free wi-fi, to help users narrow down choices. Navigating your health insurer’s network of physicians is a different proposition, and some of the popular ranking systems reportedly have significant limitations. Doctors are often categorized by specialty, insurance, hospital, or location, which may be effective for logistics, but fail to take into account a patient’s unique health conditions and say very little about what an individual patient can expect in terms of health outcomes. Research from my company Health at Scale shows that 83% of Medicare patients seeking cardiology care and 88% of cases seeking orthopedic care may not be choosing providers that are highly rated for best predicted outcomes based on each patient’s individual health conditions. 

Deep personalization is exactly what physicians, health systems, and insurers need to offer patients to improve outcomes and lower costs across the board. A study using our data recently published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research sought to quantify how consumer, quality and volume metrics may be associated with outcomes. Researchers analyzed data from 4,192 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing elective hip replacements between 2013-2018 in the greater Chicago area, comparing post-procedure hospitalization rate, emergency department visits, and total costs of care at hospitals ranked highly by popular consumer ratings systems and CMS star ratings as well as those ranked highly by a machine intelligence algorithm for personalized provider navigation.

Continue reading…

Evaluating President-Elect Biden’s Healthcare Plan | Part 2

By TAYLOR J. CHRISTENSEN

In Part 1 of this series, I reviewed the relevant context of our post-ACA healthcare system to show why President-Elect Joe Biden’s healthcare plan is perfectly reasonable. In this part, I will critically evaluate that plan to show what he got right and what he got wrong or missed altogether.

Joe Biden plans to get rid of the current limit (400% of the federal poverty level) on who qualifies for health insurance premium subsidies and instead convert it to a flat percentage of income (8.5%), which means anyone whose health insurance is going to cost more than 8.5% of their annual income would qualify for a subsidy. And those subsidies would be more generous, being based on a gold-level insurance plan’s price rather than a silver-level insurance plan. He also plans to create a new government-run health insurance company to offer an insurance plan—a “public option”—on the private market, which would be available to private market health insurance shoppers and some other groups as well.

Ok, now for some evaluation of all that.

First, let me frame how I am going to evaluate Joe Biden’s plan.

There are three problems healthcare reformers are usually trying to solve. They want to (1) increase access to care, (2) decrease healthcare prices, and (3) improve the quality of care.

But if we merge the last two goals into one, we can say they want to (1) increase access, and (2) improve the value of care (Value = Quality / Price). We will take these one by one.

Goal 1: Increase Access

How will Joe Biden’s plan do at increasing access?

There are three things to consider when evaluating access-increasing policies. The first is how many people will be covered. The second is how much it will cost. And the third, almost universally forgotten, is how much it will interfere with efforts to accomplish the second goal to improve the value of care.

Continue reading…
assetto corsa mods