Category: Uncategorized

Healthcare Insurance Future: Brokers, Consultants, Agents

Jan 10, 2011• 2

By JOE FLOWER

When people and companies buy healthcare insurance, they usually go through a broker, a consultant, or an agent.

Agents sell insurance from one company, brokers from many companies; both make a commission—a percentage of the premium. Consultants take a fee from the client to help them set up their insurance situation, then typically turn around and hand the business to a broker or agent to handle the actual sale.

As premiums have skyrocketed, that’s been good for brokers and agents, since they get a percentage of that. As health insurance offerings have gotten both more expensive and complex, that’s been good for consultants; employers increasingly feel that they need a professional helping them sort out their choices.

How will their situation change under the looming reform—not to mention the deep reorganization that healthcare is going through at the same time? It’s a “Good News/Bad News” story.

There are five key factors here:

1. Market expansion: It’s got to be a good thing when your market gets tax credits for buying your product—let alone when everyone has to buy what you’re selling or get fined, right?

2. Less risk: One reason why people go to professionals for their insurance is that the consequences of making a mistake about what’s covered, can you get covered, or will you get kicked out “rescinded,” can be huge. If everyone can get covered for everything and you can’t get kicked out of the plan, signing up for healthcare insurance is less risky—so buyers may feel less need to involve a broker or consultant.

Definition of HIE: What’s Yours?

Jan 10, 2011• 6

By JOHN MOORE

Trying something new here – soliciting your collective input, the proverbial wisdom of the crowd.

As you may have read in yesterday’s post, Chilmark is quickly approaching publication of the Health Information Exchange (HIE) report. One of the last tasks is final editing/polishing of report. Am now in the process of creating a definition for HIE that clearly articulates what the primary purpose of an HIE is, but also keeping that definition loose enough to reflect what a market that is evolving so quickly that in five years time, there will not be an HIE market as we know it today.

So, with that in mind, here’s the HIE definition for the report.

Definition of an HIE:
A Health Information Exchange (HIE) is a technology network infrastructure whose primary purpose is to insure the secure, digital exchange of clinical information among all stakeholders that are engaged in the care of a patient to promote collaborative care models that improve the quality and value of care provided.

Does this make sense to you? Does this definition resonate with your own view of the market? Any and all comments welcomed, but please be quick to get them in as we are on a fast track to have this report done within the week.

John Moore is an IT Analyst at Chilmark Research, where this post was first published.

Definition of HIE: What‚Äôs Yours?

Jan 10, 2011

By JOHN MOORE

Trying something new here ‚Äì soliciting your collective input, the proverbial wisdom of the crowd.

As you may have read in yesterday‚Äôs post, Chilmark is quickly approaching publication of the Health Information Exchange (HIE) report. One of the last tasks is final editing/polishing of report. Am now in the process of creating a definition for HIE that clearly articulates what the primary purpose of an HIE is, but also keeping that definition loose enough to reflect what a market that is evolving so quickly that in five years time, there will not be an HIE market as we know it today.

So, with that in mind, here‚Äôs the HIE definition for the report.

John Moore is an IT Analyst at Chilmark Research, where this post was first published.

Early Experiences with Hospital Certification

Jan 10, 2011

By JOHN HALAMKA, MD

As one of the pilot sites for CCHIT’s EHR Alternative Certification for Hospitals (EACH), I promised the industry an overview of my experience.

It’s going very well. Here’s what has happened thus far.

1. Recognizing that security and interoperability are some of the more challenging aspects of certification, we started with the CCHIT ONC-ATCB Certified Security Self Attestation Form to document all the details of the hashing and encryption we use to protect data in transit via the New England Healthcare Exchange Network.

Next, I had my staff prepare samples of all the interoperability messages we send to patients, providers, public health, and CMS. Specifically, we created

CCD v.2.5 used to fulfill the Discharge summary criterion
HL7 2.51 Reportable lab
HL7 2.51 Syndromic surveillance
HL7 2.51 Immunizations
PQRI XML 2009 for hospital quality measures

We validated them with the HL7 NIST test site

and the HITSP C32 version 2.5 NIST test site.

CCHIT validated the PQRI XML as conforming.Continue reading…

The Moral Component to Transparency

Jan 9, 2011• 1

By PAUL LEVY

Many of you have asked if I intend to continue this blog, now that I am stepping down as CEO of BIDMC. Yes. (I’ll have to change the name. How about “The blog formerly known as . . . ” or just a simple “Not Running a Hospital”?)

Please expect a combination of commentary on current events and issues. But also please expect an occasional lesson or two from my experience of the last nine years, all offered in the hope of being helpful to others in the field. I apologize in advance if some portions seem self-aggrandizing or self-praiseworthy. I don’t mean them that way, but sometimes, to be historically accurate, I’ll have to include a few good things about myself!

Here we go. Act 2.

In a comment on a post below, author Charles Kenney asks:

Isn’t there a compelling — perhaps even overriding — moral component to transparency?

The answer, of course, is yes. Doctors and others pledge to do no harm. How can you be sure you are living by that oath if you are unwilling to acknowledge how well you are actually doing the job? As scientists, how can you test to see if you are making improvements in evidence-based care if you cannot validate the “prior” against which you are testing a new hypothesis? At the most personal, ethical level, how can you be sure you are doing the best for people who have entrusted their lives to you if you are not willing to be open on these matters?

Clueless in Utah?

Jan 9, 2011• 16

By ROGER COLLIER

The trials and tribulations of Utah’s much-touted Health Exchange continued in December, with the announcement that yet another chief executive had quit, along with the admission that very few eligible employer groups had signed up for the exchange.

The Utah exchange differs from that of Massachusetts in that it currently focuses on coverage for small employers offering defined contribution plans, a policy that was hoped to demonstrate the effectiveness of such plans. However, so far enrollment has been far too low to test the merits of this approach.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported in late December that a new executive director had been appointed to head the exchange, which is administratively located in the Governor’s Office, making the third director in just over six months.

The Tribune went on to compare the expectations of State officials, who had anticipated enrolling 3,000 small employers with an estimated total of 40,000 employees, with the current reality. As of late December, with coverage scheduled to start on January 1, 2011, just 43 of the State’s estimated 50,000 small businesses had signed up and been determined eligible.

Back in September, when the Utah exchange started to accept coverage applications, Utah’s Governor Gary Herbert was quoted as saying: “[the exchange] is quickly becoming a model for the rest of the nation when it comes to health care reform.”

Hopefully not.

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.

The Study Question

Jan 8, 2011• 1

By MARYA ZILBERBERG

Let's start at the beginning. Why do we do research and write papers? No, not just to get famous, tenured or funded. The fundamental task of science is to answer questions. The big questions of all time get broken down into infinitesimally small chunks that can be answered with experimental or observational scientific methods. These answers integrated together provide the model for life as we understand it.

Clearly, the question is the most important part of the equation, and this is why in my semester-long graduate epidemiology course on the evaluative sciences we spend fully the first four to five weeks talking about how to develop a valid and answerable question. The cornerstone of this validity is its importance. Hence, the first question that we pose is: Is the study question important?

This is a bit of a loaded question, though. Important to whom? How is "important" defined? This is somewhat subjective, yet needs to be scrutinized nevertheless. In the context of an individual patient, the question may become: Is the study question important to me? So, importance is dependent on perspective. Nevertheless, there are questions upon whose importance we can all agree. For example, the importance of the question of whether our current fast-food life style promotes obesity and diabetes is hard to dispute.

That Which We Call a Rose

Jan 8, 2011• 6

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

What’s in a name? Sometimes nothing much.

Sometimes a shift in paradigm. The Medical Record in its current format was created over a century ago by Dr. Henry Stanley Plummer at the Mayo Clinic. When in the course of human events the Medical Record began migrating from paper folders to computer files, the Institute Of Medicine naturally named the new invention Computer-based Patient Record System (CPRS)

The Medical Records Institute chose the term Electronic Patient Record (EPR). Somewhere along the line the “patient” got dropped from the concept and the software used to compose and store medical records became known as Electronic Medical Record and the name EMR stuck.

As EMR software evolved and started exhibiting rudimentary information exchange abilities and some semblance of “intelligence”, it was felt that a name change was in order. To differentiate the newer and smarter software from the original EMR, the term Electronic Health Record (EHR) was introduced and is now enthusiastically supported by the Federal Government. The term EHR is used in acts of Congress, rule makings from CMS and ONC and Presidential speeches. Since EMR has been around for quite some time, most industry veterans, as well as most doctors, are a bit confused about the new terminology.

Wicked Good

Jan 8, 2011• 5

By ED PULLEN, MD

I grew up in Maine and wicked is an adverb or adjective meaning “very” or “especially” that can be attached to almost any verb or adjective. Wicked good is by far the most prevalent use though, and so I thought I’d take a minute on what I hope you think is a wicked good health blog to talk about what I think is wicked good medical care.

Let’s talk about what would qualify a specific care as wicked good.

First it would need to have excellent evidence that it is beneficial. In this regard effective treatment of hypertension could qualify as wicked good, but pushing for a HemoglobinA1C or less than 6.5% rather than less than 7% in a diabetic wouldn’t as the evidence for significantly better outcomes is unconvincing. Second it would have to be something that is realistic to do for most or at least many patients.

For example here effective treatment of CHF with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB and a beta blocker would qualify, whereas counseling patients to lose weight by better diet and exercise wouldn’t as it is just something that seldom is successful. The third and most challenging criterion is that it needs to be applicable to a large number of patients. The more patients for whom a medical intervention can be used, the more likely it is to be wicked good medicine. Here is a list of Dr. Pullen’s wicked good medical interventions:

How the Republican Assault on Health Care Could Backfire On Them

Jan 7, 2011• 6

By ROBERT REICH

When it comes to health care, Republicans should be careful what they wish for.

Their upcoming vote to repeal the health-care law will be largely symbolic — they don’t have the votes to override President Obama’s certain veto. The real thing happens later, when they try to strip the Department of Health and Human Services of money needed to implement the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. This could easily precipitate a showdown with the White House—and a government shutdown later this year.

On its face it’s a smart strategy for the GOP. The individual mandate is the lynchpin of the heath-care law because it spreads the risks. Without the participation of younger or healthier people, private insurers won’t be able to take on older or sicker customers with pre-existing medical conditions, or maintain coverage indefinitely for people who become seriously ill. The result would be to unravel the health-care law, which presumably is what many Republicans seek.

At the same time, the mandate is the least popular aspect of the law. According to a December 9-12 ABC/Washington Post survey, 60% of the public opposes the individual mandate. While they want help with their health-care bills, and over 60% want to prevent insurers from dropping coverage when customers become seriously ill, most Americans simply don’t like the idea of government requiring them to buy something. It not only offends libertarian sensibilities, but it also worries some moderates and liberals who fear private insurers will charge too much because of insufficient competition in the industry.