THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

Can Someone Actually Be Responsible?

By MATTHEW HOLT

I was having a fight on Twitter this week and it hit me. America 2024 is Japan 1989. 

The topic of the fight was right-wing VC Peter Thiel. In 2001 he put a ton of Paypal stock allegedly worth less than $2,000 into a Roth IRA. The Roth IRA was designed so that working stiffs could put post tax cash into an IRA, grow it slowly and take out money tax-free. (For traditional IRAs you put in pre-tax money and get taxed when you take it out). You may have read the story in ProPublica. Magically Thiel earned less that year than the max allowable income limit (around $100K) to contribute to a Roth IRA, and magically that stock was within weeks worth much more and then, later, hundreds of millions more. Since then Thiel has invested those Paypal returns in Facebook, Palantir and much more, and that Roth IRA has billions of dollars in it that can never be taxed.

My twitter adversary was saying that Thiel obeyed the law. I doubt it, but that’s not really the point. When the Roth was introduced it wasn’t meant to be a loophole that Silicon Valley types could use to hide billions from tax. But neither my twitter “friend” nor Peter Thiel want to take responsibility or pay their fair share.

Japan in 1989 was wealthy and successful and heading off a speculative cliff which it’s since taken 3 decades to dig out of. There were numerous academics pointing this out, but the most interesting analysis was The Enigma of Japanese Power written by a Dutch journalist named Karel van Wolferen. Here’s a summary from wikipedia with my emphasis added

Van Wolferen creates an image of a state where a complicated political-corporate relationship retards progress, and where the citizens forgo the social rights enjoyed in other developed countries out of a collective fear of foreign domination….Japanese power is described as being held by a loose group of unaccountable elites who operate behind the scenes. Because this power is loosely held, those who wield it escape responsibility for the consequences when things go wrong as there is no one who can be held accountable.

In Thiel’s case a collective network of tax accountants, junk philosophers, and purchased politicians like JD Vance ensure that no one has to be accountable. Ultimately Thiel doesn’t feel responsible for paying what he owes. Of course the exposure of Trump’s tax cheating shows that he doesn’t either. And many people find this OK.

Meanwhile I got into it a little with Jeff Goldsmith on last week’s THCB Gang about why hospitals are still paid per transaction when it would be much better for them to be paid some kind of global budget for the services they provide and for doctors to be paid a salary to exercise their best judgment rather than be tempted into providing care just because they get paid for it. Both COVID and the recent Change Healthcare outage put health care providers in a terrible situation financially because they depend on being paid fee-for-service via claims for individual transactions. Did the leadership of America’s hospitals and doctors come out asking for a change to the system? No, they just got a government hand out and begged for a return to standard operating procedure. No one can rationally look at how we pay for health care in America and say “give us more of the same” but there’s no leadership to change it at all.

Talking about lack of leadership, Amber Thurman died in Piedmont Henry Hospital because no-one on the medical team was prepared to give her the D&C that she desperately needed. They were scared of going to jail under Georgia’s draconian anti-abortion law. There are many, many guilty parties here.

Continue reading…

A Baby Step Backwards

Bringing the Tools of Accountable Care to Maternity Care is a Great Idea – But This Sure Ain’t It

By VICTORIA ADEWALE & J.D. KLEINKE

How desperate are we to find some kind of good news about the sorry state of maternity care in America? To find out, look no further than the current cover of no less venerable a health policy journal than Health Affairs.

With the headline “Medicaid ACO Improves Maternity Care” jumping off the cover of its September issue, we were expecting great things from the article “Massachusetts Medicaid ACO Program May Have Improved Care Quality for Pregnant and Postpartum Enrollees” (Megan B. Cole, et al.). The headline certainly promises some rare good news for all of us working to fix the national embarrassment that is maternity care in the US in general, and the maternal mortality crisis in particular.

But alas, the article itself is one more reminder that process improvements are not outcomes improvements. It is also a classic case of earnest researchers’ tendency to torture retrospective data — because it happens to be available for study — into something that might be useful. While it would be easy to dismiss out of hand the listless findings of this study of data-convenience, the danger here is they may well provide yet more ammunition for skeptical payers not to pay for more care that numerous studies have shown patients desperately need.

The authors make a valiant effort with an elegant study design to glean what they can from the “natural experiment” of analyzing pre- and post-natal care delivered to pregnant patients before and after the implementation of Accountable Care Organizations in Massachusetts. But as another old saw goes: when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail; and patient enrollment in a primary care ACO, as with this dataset, hardly counts as an independent variable with much power to predict the care utilization and outcomes of maternity care for covered enrollees.

It is well established in the literature – not to mention an accepted truism among providers and patients – that when most women become pregnant, the bulk of their care shifts from the primary care setting to obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). Many researchers and clinicians believe that much of this shift occurs even before a confirmed pregnancy, as a consequence of fertility challenges and pregnancy planning.

The authors did find that pregnant patients newly enrolled in ACOs had a small increase in the number of pre- and post-natal visits.

Continue reading…

THCB Gang Special! Women Healthcare Leaders for Progress talk about health care & the election

THCB Gang is back! (I know you’ve all missed it) and we started with a bang. I met with five powerhouse women leaders in health care who’ve just issued a public statement signed by another 500+ women leaders in support of the Harris/Walz campaign.

On the Gang are Missy Krasner, digital health veteran most recently at Amazon and Redesign Health but wayback on the founder team at ONC; Molly Coye, who ran Medicaid in NJ and CA and has had every role in health innovation know to womankind; Miriam Paramore, investor board member and operator at many, many health tech companies; (Lori Evans Bernstein, founder of Caraway, Health Reveal & many more but also at ONC back in the day, who actually couldn’t make the call); Laurie McGraw, EVP at Transcarent, formerly at AMA, Allscripts, etc; and Audrey Mann Cronin, communication advisor to CEOs and Founder, Say it Media.

Despite my obvious political leanings, this wasn’t be a push over. Do we need this group? What does Harris want to do about health care? What can she do? I am on record as saying “not much”. This was great discussion, and I was (virtually) ducking alot! — Matthew Holt

Miscarriage or Abortion? The Crisis in 14 States Post Dobbs.

By MIKE MAGEE

“What did they know, and when did they know it?”

These are the questions Americans have become accustomed to asking of their leaders, dating back to Nixon and extending to Trump, and all Presidents in between. But now the same questions have surfaced, to the extreme discomfort of conservative Justices, as death and destruction of lives begins to mount in the wake of the Dobbs decision.

As predicted, graphic cases of young women bleeding out in parking lots after being refused life-saving acute care for miscarriage in 14 states across the nation are being documented and described. These stories are not only affecting the lives of couples across the land, but also threatening the “political lives” of downstream Republicans facing an upcoming election.

The responsible Supreme Court Justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) and their legions of Ivy League clerks had scoured the literature far and wide before making the decision to eliminate women’s reproductive freedom in the U.S. and inflict lasting harm to their life-saving relationships with their local doctors.

Their review had to include Blue Cross & Blue Shield’s timely publication, “Trends in Pregnancy and Childbirth Complications in the U.S.” That report, surveying over 1000 pregnant women ages 18 to 44 in April, 2020, was, in part, designed to understand the impact the Covid epidemic had had on prenatal care nationwide. But what it revealed was that pregnancy complications were up 16% over prior years, in part due to “social barriers such as availability of appointments, lack of transportation or nearby providers.”

A comparison of 1.8 million pregnancies in 2014 versus 2018 demonstrated a severely compromised women’s health support system. 14% did not receive prenatal care in their first trimester, and 34% missed scheduled prenatal visits with 1 in 4 of these suffering complications in pregnancy. The BC/BS summary “underscores the importance of focusing on the health of pregnant women in America, especially as health conditions increase in this population…”

The Conservative Justices were forewarned. Yet they still elected to throw fuel on a maternal health system which was already in flames. They were also aware of a 2021 study that confirmed that miscarriage was 43% more likely in Black women than in their white counterparts.

On May 2, 2022, Justice Alito and his allies engineered the release of a draft of a majority opinion in part to freeze attempts by Chief Justice Roberts to secure a compromise. The leaked document labeled Roe v. Wade “egregiously wrong from the start.”  As predicted, the ruling spawned chaos.  When 14 Red states established total bans on all abortions, miscarrying women seeking help in ER’s literally had to fight for their lives. Their doctors were criminalized. Was this an abortion gone bad?

A miscarriage, or pregnancy loss before 20 completed weeks, is not an uncommon affair. Approximately 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, mainly the result of chromosomal or genetic abnormalities. That amounts to some 540,000 women in crisis, which most believe is under-counted. 80% of miscarriages occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

25% of pregnant women experience some vaginal bleeding in the first trimester. For most (6 in 10) this is self-limiting and they go on to deliver a healthy baby. But for 4 in 10 (or 10% who present with bleeding) they go on to miscarry. All pregnant women who experience vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy need to have a medical examination. Doctors and midwifes check blood work, perform a physical examination, and do an ultrasound examination.

Most pregnancy loss (95%+) occurs before 20 weeks gestation. If miscarriage occurs before 13 weeks, there is a good chance of clearing the blood clots and uterine tissue with medication and no surgical intervention. But if bleeding is severe, or the loss is occurring beyond 13 weeks, dilation and curettage (D&C) is both necessary and at times life-saving. Under anesthesia, the cervix is dilated and any remaining pregnancy-related tissue is gently scraped and suctioned from inside the uterus. Patients are then closely monitored for several weeks for any evidence of continued bleeding or infection.

What did the Justices know, and when did they know it?

  1. They knew that Miscarriages were a medical emergency and exceedingly common.
  2. They knew that 80% occur during the first trimester, and that existing state abortion laws on the books would restrict access to acute life-saving treatments in 14 states.
  3. They knew that pregnancy loss was far more common in non-whites and in rural underserved communities.
  4. They knew that the medical community opposed overturning Roe v. Wade in overwhelming majorities, and predicted maternal loss of life if the Justices proceeded.
  5. They read, two years after their deadly decision, the Commonwealth Report which stated that “The United States continues to have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation, despite a decline since the COVID-19 pandemic. And within the U.S., the rate is by far the highest for Black women. Most of these deaths — over 80 percent — are likely preventable.”

They knew all this, and they did it anyway.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and regular contributor to THCB. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)

Streamlining Public Benefits Access is a Must to Address Poverty

By ALISTER MARTIN and TARA MENON

If a friend were to ask you which state, Massachusetts or Texas, has a more streamlined federal benefits enrollment program, what would your guess be?

Having screened over 17,000 families and helped them obtain more than $1.8M in federal and state aid through our work in both Massachusetts and Texas, our experiences doing federal benefit enrollment have led us to a surprising conclusion: Texas is leading the way. While Massachusetts has room for improvement, this issue extends beyond a single state—many other states face similar challenges with complex and fragmented benefits systems.

At Link Health, where our work spans the bustling neighborhoods of Boston and Houston, this revelation has been both a surprise and a call to action. In many underserved communities, through partnerships with Federally Qualified Health Centers, our organization seeks to assist eligible people in the navigation and enrollment in benefit programs that address crucial needs like access to affordable internet, food access, healthcare support, and housing resources.

One of the main obstacles we’ve encountered is that people are often unaware of the benefits they qualify for or find the process overwhelming. In states like Massachusetts, separate applications are required for each benefit program, making it harder for families to get the help they need. Programs such as LIHEAP, which offers heating subsidies, Lifeline, which provides internet access for telehealth, and SNAP, which helps with food assistance, all come with different paperwork and requirements. This fragmentation creates unnecessary barriers.

This is not unique to Massachusetts. Across the U.S., many states have similarly disjointed systems, leaving millions of dollars in federal aid unclaimed. It’s estimated that around $140 billion in federal aid goes unclaimed each year due to these inefficiencies.

In contrast, we have found that Texas’s “Your Texas Benefits” platform is efficient and user-friendly. This centralized, comprehensive application process covers a wide range of state benefit programs, including SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP, as well as other services like WIC, family violence support, adult education, and substance abuse prevention programs. This unified system allows users to apply for multiple programs through a single portal, streamlining the process considerably. Plus, this common application system allows groups like ours to efficiently connect patients with the help they need without the usual bureaucratic entanglements — it benefits us both.

Although Massachusetts made some progress with its limited common application for MassHealth and SNAP in 2021, it still doesn’t offer a fully unified system for all its programs. This means that many residents must continue navigating multiple applications and processes. During the recent Medicaid “unwinding,” people across the U.S. lost coverage because they couldn’t manage the renewal process. It’s estimated that between 8 million and 24 million people are at risk of losing Medicaid benefits nationwide(Center For Children and Families), not because they no longer qualify, but because of these application challenges.

Continue reading…

The Art of Political Jiu-Jitsu: Project 2025 and Donald Trump

By MIKE MAGEE

Funny think about that Project 2025’s  “Mandate for Leadership.” Trump declared in this week’s  debate, “I know nothing about it.” But in addition to the vast majority of authors and editors of the document having served in the prior Trump administration, the former President’s name is mentioned in the 887 page document over 300 times.

Described by Pulitzer Prize winning economics columnist, Carlos Lozada, the work itself is an “off-the-shelf governing plan.” It’s packed with conservative fan favorites, not simply “militarizing the southern border” and reversing what they call “climate fanaticism”, but especially placing DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) efforts in the waste bin, banning abortion nationally, and pushing deregulation and tax cuts for the richy rich.

None of that is surprising if you’ve run into these characters on K street and beyond. This is who they are, and largely who they have always been. Over the years, I’ve bumped elbows with them in Washington and in corporate C-suites galore. What makes this effort a bit unique is, of course, the presence of a cooperative headliner who will clearly endorse “the elevation of religious beliefs in government affairs” and actively diminish “the powers of Congress and the Judiciary.”

This is political jiu-jitsu practiced at its highest level. Rather than dismantling the “deep state,” these operators are fast at work “capturing the administrative state” for their own self-serving purposes.

Understanding jiu-jitsu takes one a long way toward understanding the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Institute’s puppet masters. The word “Jū” means “gentle, soft, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding.” It’s companion, “jutsu” is the “art or technique.” Combine the two, and you have the ”yielding-art.” The intent in bodily (or political) combat is to harness an opponent’s power against himself, rather that confronting him directly.

Political jiu-jitsu may be deceptive and confusing in the absence of visible weaponry, but it is anything but gentle. In the physical version, you are instructed in joint locks and chokeholds of course, but also biting, hair pulling, and gouging. Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation and editor of Project 2025, is a master of the political version. While he and Trump outwardly employed a “nothing to see here” stance, demographic realities were cued up in the document. The solution to the growing minority status for Republicans? “Voter efficiency” and a rigged census. Or in the Project’s words: “Strong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureau’s mission with conservative principles.”

Robert’s language is soft, but its impact hard indeed. In the introduction he suggests that the Declaration of Independence’s words “pursuit of happiness” were better understood to be “the pursuit of blessedness” while providing corporations a market free hand “to flourish.” Career civil servants are recast as “holdovers” without “moral legitimacy.” And the Justice Department suffers this put-down – “a bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are infatuated with the perpetuation of a radical liberal agenda.”

Majority rules and demographic changes being what they may, alternative facts and voter suppression have been added to the tools of “political jiu-jitsu” artists. But Kelly Anne Conway was nowhere to be seen this week, and their headliner was long-winded, boring, and tired. As for voter integrity, the Democrats are fully funded and lawyered up. Finally, good Republicans everywhere have begun to recognize that towing the MAGA line much further puts their down-ballot hopes in the direct line of fire.  Those 300 mentions are beginning to look like a liability instead of an asset.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and a regular THCB contributor. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)

Why We Still Kill Patients (And What We Need to Stop Doing It)

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

This article is adapted from a talk given Sept. 7 at the 11th Annual World Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit in Irvine, California, sponsored by the Patient Safety Movement Foundation. World Patient Safety Day is Sept. 17, with a series of events in Washington, D.C. from Sept. 15-17 sponsored by Patients for Patient Safety (US). An agenda and registration, which is free, can be found here.

Since I started researching and writing about patient safety, one question has continually haunted me: given the grievous toll of death and injury from preventable medical harm that has been documented in the medical literature for at least 50 years, why have so many good and caring people – friends, family, colleagues – done so little to stop it?

To frame that question with brutal candor: Why do we still kill patients? And how do we change that? The answer, I believe, lies in addressing three key factors: Invisibility, inertia and income.”

When it comes to invisibility, we’ve all heard innumerable times the analogy with airline safety; i.e., plane crashes occur in public view, but the toll taken by medical error occurs in private. That’s true and important, but there are other factors that promote invisibility that we in the patient safety movement need to address.

For instance, while I’m not a physician, I can say with certainty that every patient harmed in the hospital had a diagnosis (right or wrong), and often more than one. Yet disease groups such as the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society have been uninvolved in efforts to eliminate the preventable harm that’s afflicting their presumed constituents.

Why have we let these influential groups sit on the sidelines rather than make them integral partners in raising public and policy visibility? For instance, there are a number of Congressional caucuses – bipartisan groups of legislators – focusing on cancer. While much attention is paid to the Biden administration’s cancer moonshot, what about the safety of cancer patients treated today, while we wait for an elusive cure?

In a similar vein about missed opportunities for visibility, the stories told by patient advocates about the harm a loved one has suffered are always powerful. However, the specific hospital where the harm took place is typically not mentioned, perhaps for legal reasons, perhaps because it’s become a habit. The effect, however, is to dilute the visibility of the danger. The public is not confronted with the uncomfortable reality that my reputable hospital and doctor in a nice, middle-class area could cause me the same awful harm.

Finally, one time-tested way to hide a problem is to use obscure language to describe it. Back in 1978, RAND Corporation published a paper provocatively entitled, “Iatrogenesis: Just What the Doctor Ordered.” It concluded: “In terms of volume alone, we are awash in iatrogenesis.”  

That would have been a compelling soundbite decades before the 1999 To Err is Human report if everyone in America studied ancient Greek. “Iatrogenesis” is a Greek term meaning “the production of disease by the manner, diagnosis or treatment of a physician.” In short, patient harm is “what the doctor ordered.” Although there was plain English in the paper, the technical focus allowed the stunning prevalence of patient harm to remain publicly invisible.

Of course, today we don’t need to use a foreign language to hide unpleasantness. We can use jargon and euphemism. We have “healthcare-acquired conditions” and “healthcare-associated infections.” At least the Greek term acknowledged causality and responsibility.

The invisibility of the scope and causes of patient harm leads inevitably to inertia and complacency.

Continue reading…

Moving the bar(rier) forward: the benefits of de-risking cytokine release syndrome

By SAMANTHA McCLENAHAN

Every breakthrough in cancer treatment brings hope, but it also comes with a staggering price, raising a critical question: how do we balance groundbreaking advances with the financial reality that could limit access for many patients? 

Developing new cancer medications involves extensive research, clinical trials, and regulatory approvals; a lengthy process that requires substantial financial investment. Within clinical trials, this includes maintaining stringent safety protocols and managing a variety of adverse events, from mild reactions requiring little to no care to extremely severe events with hefty hospital stays and life-saving medical intervention. Take Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS), for example. CRS is a common adverse event associated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy and other immunotherapies that presents across this spectrum with flu-like symptoms in mild cases of CRS to organ damage, and even death, in severe cases. The median cost of treating CRS following cancer-target immunotherapy is over half a million dollars in the United States. Tackling that large price tag – in addition to another $500,000 for CAR-T cell therapies – and reducing associated risks are necessary to break down barriers to care for many patients – especially those who are uninsured or with limited resources hindering the ability to travel, miss work, or secure a caregiver.

Unlocking Cost Efficiency in Clinical Trials with Digital Health Technologies

Integration of digital health technologies (DHTs) including telehealth, wearables such as smart watches, remote patient monitoring, and mobile applications in oncology care and clinical trials has shown immense value in improving patient outcomes, despite the slow uptake within the field. General benefits during clinical trials are captured through: 

  1. Reducing clinical visits and shortening trial length – Remote patient monitoring and virtual consultations minimize the need for physical visits, accelerating trial timelines. 
  2. Enhancing recruitment, diversity, and participant completion – Targeted outreach supported by big data analytics and machine learning algorithms helps to effectively identify and engage with eligible candidates, leading to faster recruitment and lower dropout rates. Digital technologies also overcome traditional barriers to participation, such as location, transportation, language barriers, and information access.  for a broader representation of patient demographics and more generalized findings and improved healthcare equity. 
  3. Increasing availability of evidentiary and safety requirements – Continuous data collection and monitoring in the setting most comfortable to patients – extending beyond clinical walls. This provides a pool of data to support clinical endpoints and enhances patient safety by enabling early detection of adverse events. 

While the exact cost of these digital interventions varies by study, there is significant evidence that cost-saving measures are emerging.

Continue reading…

Everything you ever want to know about birth control and much more — Sophia Yen, Pandia Health

Dr. Sophia Yen is the Chief Medical Officer (and Founder) of Pandia Health. She is about as expert as it comes on the topics contraception, emergency contraception, medication abortion, menopause and lots more. Her PR peeps asked if I’d interview her about Pandia Health, which is a fantastic online clinic & pharmacy for women at basically all ages. But I couldn’t have her on THCB without having her tell all about the world of contraception, menopause and of course reproductive health. I promise you that if you are a woman or somone who knows a woman, this is a fascinating interview. You will learn a lot, and there are lots of suggestions for how to manage many aspects of your health–Matthew Holt

Convention Invisibility Teaches A Crucial Health Policy Lesson

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

It’s close to an iron rule: Politics drives policy. In that context, the health policy issues that were largely invisible at the Republican and Democratic conventions taught a crucial political lesson.

Start with access. According to KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), more than 25 million Americans have been disenrolled from Medicaid as of Aug. 23. Ten states, all dominated by Republican legislatures and/or governors, have declined to expand the program, leaving 2.8 million Americans unnecessarily uninsured.

Yet if you were looking to either convention to find protestors telling heart-rending personal stories to humanize those statistics, you’d search in vain. There were none.

The Poor People’s Army, a group advocating for economic justice, did invite reporters covering both conventions to focus on one of the most urgent issues facing the poor and near-poor – not medical care access, but the lack of basic housing.

Homelessness set a record in 2023, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, affecting one in 500 Americans, while the number of renters forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income has surged since 2015. The former is apparent on the streets of every big city, while the latter is felt by millions in every paycheck.

The political lesson is clear. While support for Medicaid expansion was buried deep in the Democratic platform, at the grassroots level there’s no sign of the kind of passionate involvement that could drive votes in a close election. Medicare, of course, is a separate issue, with both parties promising to protect the program dear to the hearts of the nation’s elderly, who have the highest percentage voting turnout of any age group.

Of course, even those with good health insurance often have to worry about medical costs, with KFF polling finding that a shocking 41% of U.S. adults have medical debt. However, although the phrase, “It’s the prices, stupid!” has become a bipartisan policy refrain, there are no swing state votes to be swung by harping on the alleged cupidity of the local hospital. So while denouncing “medical debt,” no one did.

On the other hand, Democrats spoke repeatedly about the depredations of “Big Pharma.” The GOP platform satisfied itself with a vague promise to “expand access to new…prescription drug options” to address prescription drug costs that “are out of control.” The responsibility for those prices was unspecified.

As for health insurers, articles about questionable denials of medical claims by giant insurers like United Healthcare and Humana have garnered headlines and expressions of outrage. Once again, however, the grassroots reaction is the key. There has been no outpouring of public indignation remotely comparable to the HMO backlash of the 1990s. As a result, health insurers have largely vacated the role of politically visible corporate villain.

Continue reading…
assetto corsa mods