Author Archives

cindywilliams

Not So Fast – Why It Pays to Wait Until FY 2012 on Meaningful Use

Mar 15, 2011• 18

By PROTIMA ADVANI

The registration process and reporting period for the meaningful use incentive program officially commenced on Jan. 3. More than 21,000 health care providers have registered to date and many more are ramping up efforts to meet meaningful use criteria and collect federal incentives in fiscal year 2011. However, rushing out the gates in FY 2011 is extremely risky and not advisable. In fact, the Advisory Board Company strongly recommends waiting until FY 2012 to first demonstrate meaningful use.

Three key reasons hospitals should wait until FY 2012 are outlined below.

Compressed, unreasonable timeline for achieving Stage 2: The final rule states hospitals that first demonstrate meaningful use in FY 2011 will need to achieve Stage 2 by FY 2013 (i.e. Oct. 1, 2012). Furthermore, hospitals must demonstrate meaningful use requirements for the entire year in Stage 2 as opposed to the 90-day reporting period for the first year that a hospital is a meaningful user. Unfortunately, the final rule defining Stage 2 requirements will not be finalized until mid-2012, leaving hospitals that first demonstrate meaningful use in 2011 with less than six months to meet Stage 2 by Oct. 1, 2012. This will be an unattainable leap for health care providers, especially because Stage 2 is being positioned as a step down from Stage 3, not a step up from Stage 1. Stage 2 comprises enhancements to Stage 1 requirements in addition to a host of new, more complex criteria and clinical quality measures. Furthermore, hospitals will be dependent on their vendors’ ability to rapidly develop, test and seek certification for the Stage 2 EHR capabilities, adding another barrier to provider Stage 2 meaningful use achievement in the short time frame available. In contrast, waiting until FY 2012 to first demonstrate meaningful use will afford hospitals nearly 18 months to migrate from Stage 1 to Stage 2 — a more adequate time frame to acquire, implement and adopt the required capabilities for Stage 2.Continue reading…

From Jeopardy! To Your Physician’s Black Bag: Could a Supercomputer Really Assist With Health Care?

Mar 14, 2011• 6

By DAN PELINO

IBM’s Jeopardy-champion computer, Watson, has huge potential for helping physicians and other clinicians work with patients.

The leap from TV game show to physicians’ offices will probably take at least two years. But Watson’s understanding of natural language, vast storehouse of information and ability to keep up with rapidly changing medical research could significantly improve medical care.

The medical faculty at Columbia University and University of Maryland are helping program a Watson-type computer to assist clinicians.

A few years from now, consulting Watson could become a routine part of a clinician’s practice. Caregivers have traditionally resisted computerized assistance in diagnosis and treatment because the technology has been awkward to use and questionnaire-based systems have been too rigid. But Watson can “understand” descriptions of a patient’s symptoms in natural language, and it can even scan years of medical records and doctors’ notes to determine what diagnostic and therapeutic options it might suggest. Doctors can ask it questions using the same terms they would use in an e-mail to a colleague. Continue reading…

Maine Waiver Expected to Increase Insurer Pressures on States

Mar 14, 2011• 1

By ROGER COLLIER

HHS’s bellwether decision of last week to grant the State of Maine a three-year waiver from the medical loss ratio provision of the ACA may lead to new efforts by insurers across the country to persuade states to demand similar waivers.

The HHS decision on Maine was not unexpected. The ACA language clearly allows for waivers when imposition of the MLR 80/85 percent threshold penalties would lead to disruption of a state’s insurance market. Maine, a state with very few major employers, has a higher than average percentage of small group and individual policies which typically provide higher out-of-pocket costs—and consequently higher administrative percentages. HealthMarkets, one of the two dominant insurers in Maine, had threatened to abandon the state’s individual market unless a waiver was granted. (According to a Bloomberg report, HealthMarkets, which is majority-owned by two large investor funds, was recently sued by the City of Los Angeles for selling policies with provisions that allegedly effectively eliminated needed coverage.)

Three other states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Nevada) have already filed waiver requests with HHS, and an additional eleven states are reported to be preparing waiver requests.

Almost certainly, every insurer with significant business in the small group and individual markets will be eying the Maine waiver decision with a view to applying pressure to those state insurance regulators who are not yet preparing waiver requests. While Maine appears to have had an unusually strong case for a waiver, the absence in the ACA of any specific measures for “market disruption” may make it difficult for HHS to reject such requests.

Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies. He is editor of Health Care REFORM UPDATE.

Medicaid and (supposed) Welfare Dependence

Mar 14, 2011• 62

By HAROLD POLLACK

Jonathan Cohn has a piece on Medicaid yesterday with which I agree. I want to amplify one related point.

National Review and Forbes writer Avik Roy believes that Medicaid is a “humanitarian catastrophe” which is actually worse than no insurance at all. Now Scott Gottlieb has taken up the argument in the Wall Street Journal. I’ve noted before that this is a bad argument. Medicaid should certainly provide better coverage. I’d also like to see the new exchanges provide poor people with better options outside of Medicaid. Yet the claim that people would actually be better off uninsured than they would be with Medicaid—this strains credulity.

I’ve basically said my piece regarding the causal impact of Medicaid in various studies. I want to pick up a different aspect of this debate.

Roy’s response to my initial column includes the following:

Many of the factors Harold raises as flaws of the study are actually flaws of Medicaid. It’s Medicaid that restricts access to the best hospitals and the best doctors and the best treatments. It’s Medicaid, i.e., welfare dependency, that leads to family breakdown and social disrepair. (For those who seek a more extensive discussion of this problem, read Charles Murray’s landmark book, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980.)

I took umbrage at that, as indicated below. Roy then took umbrage at my umbrage, writing:

One aspect of Harold’s post is wholly unjustified, and a bit of a cheap shot: his assertion that I am “disrespectful” and “disparaging” to welfare recipients, because I’ve highlighted the corrosive effects of welfare dependency (something Harold dismisses as a “bromide”). We’ll never have a constructive debate on Medicaid policy if we can’t get past this kind of nonsense. The entire point of my series of posts on Medicaid is that Medicaid beneficiaries are the victims of an uncaring and bureaucratic system, and also the victims of those who, for ideological reasons, ignore the very real problems that Medicaid has.Continue reading…

A Speed Bump on the Road to Meaningful Use

Mar 14, 2011• 7

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

Meaningful Use has hit a speed bump. It’s of the low, wide and gentle type, not the old raggedy, narrow and mean bump you find in older parking lots. Now that a tentative proposal for Meaningful Use Stage 2 has been published by ONC, and duly commented upon by the public, it just dawned on folks that there isn’t enough lead time between Stage 1 and Stage 2 to allow for an orderly transition, and here is the problem in a nutshell.

Meaningful Use is divided into three, increasingly more demanding, stages, starting in 2011 with Stage 1 and advancing every two years to a higher Stage. So 2013 marks the beginning of Stage2 and 2015 is the start of Stage 3. It seems that ONC and CMS need about a year and a half to define each Stage from start to finish, so if they start working on Stage 2 right after Stage 1 commences, there are only 6 months left for NIST to define certification criteria, EHR vendors to update their wares and certify them, and physician and hospitals to roll the new and improved products out. Oops……

The hand wringing in “industry experts’” circles began immediately after this realization, culminating with an Advisory Board publication advising hospitals in particular to not apply for Meaningful Use incentives in 2011, but instead wait for 2012, which they can do without penalty, and the same advice is applied to ambulatory practices owned by hospitals. They did not recommend anything for physicians in private practice. Continue reading…

A Doctor is Not a Bank

Mar 14, 2011• 5

By KEITH W. BOONE

All too often I’ve heard the comparison between the financial industry and its efforts to make transactions electronic, and the healthcare industry. But health is not something that I can make deposits on and withdraw later. We aren’t talking about a case where there are only two organizations completing business transactions on behalf of their customers.

There’s a lot more going on here. A better comparison would be to automation supporting electronic commerce between multiple businesses. I’ll use electronic publishing as an example, since I have some history in that space.

Imagine that you had a customer needing a new web page. You have to understand what the customer is trying to accomplish, and then design a page to meet their needs. Along the way, you have to obtain assets: Text content, media (pictures or video), put it together, get approvals, and publish the content. Obtaining the assets might involve negotiating access to content from others, paying someone to provide it, or simply assigning the job of creating it to someone on your staff. Afterwards, you need to put all those pieces together into a coherent whole, possibly get someone to review and approve it, and then it gets pushed out to the web. Anywhere along the way you may learn that there are other tasks to perform. Some of the content may need to be coded in Flash, in which case, you might need to put a flash player download button on the site (which means you need another piece of content), et cetera. Oh, and if you are providing full service, you might also evaluate how people respond to the page, and make any adjustments necessary to improve their response. Now, consider making that whole process electronic, and you begin to understand the complexity of healthcare. BTW: There are systems that support this process electronically, but they are proprietary.Continue reading…

Tough Talk

Mar 12, 2011• 6

By PAUL LEVY

Some people at the University of Washington and colleagues from around the country run a wonderful website called Tough Talk: Helping Doctors Approach Difficult Conversations. They call it a “toolbox for medical educators” who want to teach about ethics and communication. Topics include:

Common teaching challenges plus tips for recovering from them • Optimizing small group dynamics • Providing effective, honest feedback • Helping clinicians develop and operationalize personal learning goals • Motivating engagement and self-assessment in reluctant participants

Look at this statement of philosophy:

Many argue that ethics and communication cannot be taught. Since these skills lie in the realm of the interpersonal, they do build on skills and practices we begin developing from our earliest interactions. However, evidence shows that practice and experience can lead to development and enhancement of these skills. This human element is where the moral work of medicine happens. We have a responsibility to attend to these skills and work to develop them, even as we strive to perfect our other core clinical skills. Quality patient care depends on it.Continue reading…

Quality or value? A Measure for the 21st Century

Mar 11, 2011• 77

By MARYA ZILBERBERG, MD

One of the founders of the evidence-based medicine movement, Muir Gray

Fascinating, how in the same week two giants of evidence-based medicine have given such divergent views on the future of quality improvement. Here (free subscription required), Donald Berwick, the CMS administrator and founder and former head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, emphasizes the need for quality as the strategy for success in our healthcare system. But here, one of the fathers of EBM, Muir Gray, states that quality is so 20th century, and we need instead to shine the light on value. So, who is right?

Well, let’s define the terms. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines quality as “the degree of excellence.” The same source tells us that value is “a fair return or equivalent in goods, services or money for something exchanged.” To me “value” is a holistic measure of cost for quality, painting a fuller picture of the investment vis-a-vis the returns on this investment. What do I mean by that?

Simply put, the idea behind value is to establish what is a reasonable amount to pay for a unit of quality. Let’s take my used 1999 VW Passat as an example. If my mechanic tells me that it needs to have some hoses replaced, and it will cost me under $100, and the car will run perfectly, I will consider that to be a good value. However, if my transmission has fallen out in the middle of Brookline Ave. in Boston (really happened to me once, many years ago and with a different car), and it will cost me $5,000 to fix, I may say that the value proposition is just not there, particularly given that the car itself is worth much less than $5,000. Given that my budget is not unlimited, I have to make trade-off decisions about where to put my money, so I may instead spend the money on another used Passat that has good prospects.

But in medicine, we routinely avoid thinking about value. There seems to be an overall impression that if it out there on the market, and especially if it is new, it is good and I am worth all of it. This impression is further enabled by the fact that CMS has no statutory power to make decisions based on value of interventions — they are legislatively mandated to turn a blind eye to the costs. Does this make sense? How toothless is our comparative effectiveness effort likely to be if it has to ignore half of the story?Continue reading…

Why Medical Ethics Should Matter to Patients

Mar 11, 2011• 3

By MICHAEL KIRSCH, MD

Medical ethics has properly gained a foothold in the public square. There is a national conversation about euthanasia, stem cell research, fertilization and embryo implantation techniques, end-of-life care, prenatal diagnosis of serious diseases, defining death to facilitate organ donation, cloning and financial conflicts of interest. Nearly every day, we read (or click) on a headline highlighting one of these or similar ethical controversies. These great issues hover over us.

We physicians face ethical dilemmas every day. They won’t appear in your newspapers or pop up on your smart phones, but they are real and they are important. Here is a sampling from the everyday ethical choices that your doctor faces.

How would you act under the following scenarios?

1. A physician has one appointment slot remaining on his schedule. Two patients have called requesting this same day appointment. The first patient who called has no insurance and owes the practice money. The second patient has medical insurance coverage. Neither patient is seriously ill. Who should get the appointment?

2. Two hours before a doctor is to see a patient, her husband calls to relate private information that he fears the patient will not share with the physician. Should the physician disclose this conversation to the patient? What is the risk if she discovers at a later time that a confidential conversation occurred?

3. A patient has been non-compliant with medical care. He has missed appointments and does not take his medication reliably. The physician is contacted by a local emergency room after the patient arrives there for a medical evaluation. Can the doctor ethically decline to treat this patient who has repeatedly rejected the physician’s advice?Continue reading…

Nurses: Protocol -ed to Extinction?

Mar 10, 2011• 20

By SARAH BETH COWHERD

If you have been at your nursing job for a while, you’ve probably almost forgotten.

Forgotten what it was like to come in to the healthcare system you now work for and realize there are hundreds of new protocols for you to learn and adhere by as a nurse. After years of routine, you now go about your day as if you actually have some choice in the way you give care.

At one point you probably did. I was not around during this age of nursing. The age when we had autonomy. Freedom to practice. Freedom to be innovative.

Today, I am somewhat saddened by the current state of the nursing profession. Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE what I do. I am so thankful for the opportunities set before me.

But whatever happened to “nursing judgment”? Or “nursing decision”?

I can’t tell you how much recently I’ve heard the phrase, “It is hospital policy that…” “You can’t do that, it is protocol that…”

I understand the need for protocols. They help us in the case that something goes wrong and the hospital gets sued. Did the nurse adhere to the protocol? If not, they will be subject to disciplinary action and take the fall. If something goes wrong and there is no protocol, the hospital can say in its defense: “There is now a protocol in place.”

Maybe a less cynical need for protocols: promote and regulate evidenced-based practice among nurses. Evidenced-based practice was developed for a reason: it brings good outcomes and protects the patients.

Even so, to me it seems we are being protocoled to extinction.