THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

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…

How’s Human Evolution Going? The Harris-Walz Health Policy team wants to know.

By MIKE MAGEE

Clearly the Harris-Walz ticket has been doing their homework. Last week, the book above was spotted on one prominent thought-leader’s pile: “Human Evolutionary Demography.” It’s a 780 page academic Tour de force read by veteran scientist Oskar Burger, leader of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the Laboratory of Evolutionary Biodemography.

That’s the Institute founded in 1917 in Berlin whose first director was Albert Einstein. These days, its researchers work (in an age of “alternate facts”) to separate justified belief from opinion. Their major focus is on “categories of thought, proof, and experience” at the crossroads of “science and ambient cultures.”

This is the field of Human Evolutionary Demography, a blending of natural science with social science. Demographers study populations and explore how humans behave, organize and thrive focusing heavily on birth, migration, and aging.

This has been a year of just that in American politics. First, the fallout of the Dobbs decision caught Republicans with their electoral pants down in reproductive freedom referendums in Kansas, Michigan, Kentucky and Vermont. Southern migration of Democrats to former red states like Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina have turned them various shades of purple. And this summer, octogenarian candidates from both parties have been all the rage, literally.

Up until July 21, 2024, the race for the Presidency was between two aging candidates with visible mental and physical disabilities. The victor was destined to a term of office that would extend into his 80’s.

The emergence of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee was a reflection of the electorates growing discomfort with turning a blind eye to the realities of aging. It also suggested that Americans, especially Gen X’ers, have grown tired of Boomer dominance in the lives of an increasingly multi-cultural America – tired as well of growing income disparity, attacks on reproductive freedom, and declining life expectancy in America.

But why the sudden interest in “Human Evolutionary Demography?” The answer lies in the numbers. Back in 2012 Oskar Burger studied Swedes and noted that in 1800 their life expectancy was 32 years. They gained an additional 20 years in the century that followed, and 30 more years by 2000.

What stumped Burger was not the gains over these two hundred years. Instead he focused on the question, “Why did it take the human race so long to progress?” The bottom line is this, we left chimpanzees behind in the evolutionary dust some 6.6 million years ago. We limped along, not faring very well, for all but the last 200 years. In the past century, a moment in time spanning just 4 of our historic 8000 plus human generations, we took off.

This period coincided with rapid scientific and technologic advances, cleaner air and water, greater nutritional support, improved education and housing, expanded public health related governmental policy, and establishment of a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.

But in the past decade, growth in U.S. life expectancy has all but stalled. For the first time, we actually saw declines each year from 2014 to 2019. For the decade just past, the numbers improved overall by less than 1/2 of 1 %. When first studied, declines were blamed on losses in working age adults due to trauma, addiction, suicide or “deaths of despair.”

But recent studies reveal losses due to poor maternal/fetal care, especially in red states, and made worse by fallout of the Dobbs decision. A second complicator has been losses starting at age 65 from complications of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, made worse by obesity and poor health care follow-up.

This has led the Max Planck Institute to issue an alert to U.S. health experts: “Our findings suggest that the U.S. faces a ‘double jeopardy’ from both midlife and old-age mortality trends, with the latter being more severe.”

Women’s reproductive advocates say it’s really a “triple jeopardy” demanding grass roots advocacy focused on access today, and political victory up and down the ballot in November. In their words, “Today, and every day, we work to ensure that every patient who seeks sexual and reproductive health care can access it, and to build a just world that includes nationwide access to abortion for all — no matter what.”

If this is true, a careful read of “Human Evolutionary Demography” could direct a 3-prong approach for the health policy leaders in the Harris-Walz campaign:

  1. Expanded safety net to address “deaths of despair.”
  2. Expansion of the ACA toward Universal Health Insurance to address the chronic disease burden of older Americans.
  3. Federal guarantees of reproductive freedom and open access to reproductive care.

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)

“Moral Distress” Has Arrived On Health Care’s Stoop

By MIKE MAGEE

When Andrew Jameton, a Nursing Professor at the Department of Mental Health and Community Nursing at UCSF in 1984 published “Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues”, the term “Moral Distress” was a novel term in clinical health care. It focused primarily on “care that they were expected to provide but ethically opposed.”

Over the past four decades, the definition has expanded and now encompasses the “inability to provide the care that one feels morally compelled to provide.” Beyond its’ impact on individual health professionals, it has growing health policy implications, explosively reverberating in the wake of the recent Dobbs decision.

There are approximately 1600 health care facilities nationwide that provide abortion care in the U.S. In the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, 14 states have near complete bans on all abortions and this reproductive care is severely restricted in an additional 11 states “with few or no exceptions for maternal health or life endangerment.”

The impact of these rulings has created not only a moral dilemma for health professionals, but also intense legal jeopardy. As one Tennessee Obstetrician recently put it, “There are weeks when I commit multiple felonies.”

There now exists a validated psychometric tool to measure the mental health impact of the Supreme Court’s actions called the Moral Distress Thermometer(MDT). Experts recently surveyed 310 practicing clinicians involved in women’s reproductive health care, with a focus on comparing moral distress in those from restricted versus unrestricted states. What they reported in JAMA was that those in restricted vs. protected states had scores on the MDT that were more than double their comparators.

As one might expect, high scores on the MDT also correlate with higher rates of job burnout and attrition. This means lower rates of abortion care, but also a smaller maternal health workforce overall. This is in states that had already been lagging behind in access to obstetrical and reproductive health care in general. Clinical shortages are expected to rise in the months approaching an historic Presidential election.

Project 2025’s agenda for future women in America is much more expansive and aggressive than restriction of abortion alone. Trump’s denials aside, his selection of JD Vance as a running mate signals an intent to thoroughly engage in restriction of women’s reproductive rights in allegiance with a Supreme Court that appears equally committed.

With that in mind, the massive response to the Harris-Walz ticket appears to be offering a response that appears to be go well beyond simple “weird” labeling. Those words are a promise to each other, “We’re not going back.”

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)

Fake News from MedPac on Medicare Advantage Needs to Be Corrected, Part 2

By GEORGE HALVORSON

Special Needs Plans Change Lives for The Lowest Income and Highest Need Patients

The people who benefit the most from Medicare Advantage are clearly the very low-income and high health-need people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid as programs and who enroll as members in the Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plan programs.

There clearly aren’t any other programs existing in our country that do more good for large numbers of needing people than the Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plans do for those members.

Those people with that dual eligibility are in major need for care.

We have millions of retirees who are eligible for both programs who have gone through years of inequities, inadequacies, and deficiencies relative to our care systems for a number of reasons, and who are now in need of care and support at multiple levels in their lives.

The plans do extremely good things for those high-need patients.

Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plan programs now help and provide services to millions of people who’ve actually never had good or adequate care in their entire lives.

The Special Needs Plan programs for Medicare Advantage reach into people’s homes and provide layers of service and support that are life changing, badly needed, and the Special Needs Plans are much appreciated, with very high satisfaction levels from the patients they serve for that better care and far better life support levels.

We tend, as a country, to abandon and under serve people in too many settings and communities who are old and who have no money and who are in significant need of care. The Medicare Advantage programs do wonderful and badly needed things for many of those patients that we need to understand, appreciate, and then protect as we look at Medicare Advantage plans and the overall Medicare Advantage programs and approaches.

The people at MedPac who are trying so hard to reduce the benefit levels for Medicare Advantage members and who do shamelessly inaccurate, distorted, and clearly intentionally fake news pieces on the cost of Medicare Advantage plans are trying to undermine and weaken the Special Needs Plan program in order to somehow create a level playing field with higher income patients for Medicare for the patients who get the most benefits from those programs.

That’s a very bad practice, and protecting those high-income people is a very wrong functional priority for MedPac to have. But they have it year after year in uncaring, insensitive, and cold ways relative to those patients and they seem impervious to data and information from all of the plans about those patients and that care, and their need for those benefits and services in their lives.

We need MedPac to clean up their act relative to their lowest income people, and we need them to start telling the truth about the actual relative cost of Medicare Advantage.

And we very much need them to understand how much the lowest income members need those benefits.

We need them to stop saying that the plans are overpaid when they know better from having more than 6 million people enrolled as Special Needs Plan members and benefit levels, and when they know that two out of three of the lowest income Members are in plans, and it should be painfully obvious to even the most cold-hearted observer, that those people clearly need the care and benefits that they get there from the plans.

The Medicare Advantage attacks from MedPac in their current report now say that the total cost of Medicare Advantage is 22% higher than those members would have cost as normal Medicare members.

They actually say in their most recent report that if all of the Medicare Advantage enrollees were now actually enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, those enrollees who are currently in the plans would cost 22% less money for the overall Medicare program.

That’s obviously impossible and it’s a complete fabrication that they do not support in their document with even a wisp of data.

They use that false information, and they use a very skillful and intentional fake news context to attack the plans with that information.

Continue reading…

Fake News from MedPac on Medicare Advantage Needs to Be Corrected, Pt 1

By GEORGE HALVORSON

MedPac has just released a report on Medicare Advantage that’s incorrect on multiple key points that need to be corrected.

Medicare Advantage currently enrolls the majority of Medicare members in the country, and it’s now the new basic plan for the Medicare program because of that majority enrollment level.

That’s very good news for Medicare because the average cost for those members is significantly less than those members would’ve cost under fee-for-service Medicare — and we can be comfortable and know that the lower cost is permanent because of the way we pay for the program.

The plans are paid a capitation for each member, and they’re not paid a fee for each piece of care that’s delivered to Medicare patients.

The capitation is an excellent purchasing approach for the program because it limits the amount paid for the enrollees, and when that amount, paid in capitation, is lower than the average cost of care for the traditional Medicare members, it guarantees that those lower costs will be paid for those members for the Medicare program, and that those costs will continue to be lower for Medicare.

The program that’s used to set the bids for the plans annually calculates the average cost of the traditional Medicare program in every county, and then lets the plans bid for the amount they will be paid for their members for the next year.

Those average costs for Medicare members are accurately calculated, and they’re based on consistent information that Medicare records, computes, and then reports on actual spending in every county by fee-for-service Medicare for the members every year.

The plans look at the information from the fee-for-service Medicare program in every county each year and then they each bid a capitation that’s always lower than that average cost, because those average Medicare costs are actually higher than the Plans need to provide the full set of required care for their members.

That bidding process guarantees that the plans will cost less than fee-for-service Medicare because it’s legitimately, appropriately and accurately based on the actual costs of that program in every county as the starting points for the bids each year.

We know that’s how much Medicare costs in every county using those numbers — and when the plans submit bids that are lower than that average cost, we know that the lower amount in those bids represents actual savings to the Medicare program.

In the world of insurance, having a bid that sets and determines the payment level for the coverage from every plan is a competent, appropriate, intellectually sound, financially legitimate, accurate, and fully functional payment approach and price for Medicare to spend on that coverage as a buyer.

Medicare is a buyer for Medicare Advantage and not just a payer as it is for the rest of the fee-for-service Medicare program.

Once the bid is set, all of the concerns, worries, risks, and uncertainties of the payment process that people used to have about the payments disappear, because that bid amount is exactly how much the plans will be paid for their members and it can’t be modified or changed in any way by the plans.

There are no possible upcoding approaches or risk pool manipulation processes or any possible subsequent plan fudging on the right cost for payments based on the risk levels of the patients that can happen for those payments because the capitation payment is the only one that Medicare will give to the plans, and that locks the cost in place.

That protection against future up coding problems is clear and true because the bids are the final payment to the plans, and there’s no way of doing any kind of risk-pool manipulation after the fact to create any level of overpayment after that capitation payment is made to each plan.

CMS Uses Good Encounter Data to Get that Risk-Level Information

CMS now has very good information about the actual risk levels of the members because they competently, appropriately, effectively and completely eliminated all of the old coding systems that were using estimates from the plans that they previously used to get the patient risk-level information to create the payments.

They replaced that old data flow from the plans with actual encounter data from the care delivered to each patient with information about each actual encounter, and that encounter data at the point of care ties back to the actual medical records that exist and that are used in the care settings for each patient.

The risk levels of the members in the plans are now determined and set by an extremely accurate process that uses the actual care encounter reports for each patient that are filed with the Medicare program to get each diagnosis for each piece of care.

There were some earlier systems for paying the plans that were built on plans filing data about the risk levels of the members, and there were some instances where some plans did filings in ways that upcoded and increased their payment levels, but CMS has actually completely eliminated and cancelled those old processes and reports, and now gets the needed diagnosis data for the payment system from the actual encounters that are filed by the providers for each piece of care.

We now have very current data about the patients, and the reporting process is extremely accurate in its information flow.

Continue reading…

What will Harris mean for Health Care? – Not much

By MATTHEW HOLT

The Democratic convention wrapped with a fine speech from Kamala Harris, star power from the Obamas and Clintons, and a bunch of Republicans telling their ideological brethren that it was better to be a Democrat than a Trumper. More importantly no Beyonce/Taylor Swift duet–as we were promised by Mitt Romney.

There was a lot of talk about some aspects of health care. But overall if Harris wins, don’t expect much change to the current health care system. 

Why not?

First there’s the pure politics. The Dems need to win back the House (probable but not certain) and hold the Senate to pass legislation. Right now they have a 51-49 edge in the Senate. Most likely that goes to 50-50 as the Republicans will definitely pick up Joe Manchin’s seat in West Virginia. There’s a series of seats the Dems currently hold in close races (Montana, Ohio, MIchigan, Nevada, Arizona) that they’ll need to keep to maintain it at 50-50, and it’s hard to see any pickups from Republicans (perhaps Florida or Texas if you squint really hard). The good news is that Manchin (WV) and Sinema (AZ) will soon both be gone, so the Dems that will be there won’t be as difficult to persuade to follow a Presidential agenda. But that will still leave Walz as VP to do what Harris did and pass a bunch of deciding votes under reconciliation, which massively limits what the legislation can do–it has to be “budget related.”

Which leads us to what we have been hearing from Harris and her campaign about health care? We’ve heard a lot about issues that have impacts on health, specifically creating affordable housing and fighting child poverty, but little that is directly related to health care itself. Really only two issues stand out. Abortion and reproductive rights, and drug prices.

Clearly Harris will take a swing at reversing Dobbs and passing a national right to abortion. This will need either a packing of the Supreme Court (my favorite) or ending the filibuster or both. Either of these will be incredibly tough to pull off constitutionally and politically and will take huge amounts of political oxygen. Of course the cynics would say, the Democrats are better off leaving this as an issue to use to beat up the Republicans on. But if it gets done, womens’ and reproductive rights will only be back where they were in 2022. 

Regarding the cost of drugs, there will continue to be much justified bashing of big pharma, but the extension of insulin price controls is something that (eventually) the market via CivicaRX and others is getting to anyway. Meanwhile the IRA gave Medicare the right to negotiate drug prices and the results are not exactly earth shattering. For example, CMS says it’s negotiated the cost of blood thinner Eliquis from about $6,000 a year to under $3,000 This sounds good until you realize that the price is only that high because of patent games the manufacturer BMS plays in the US, and the price in the rest of the world is under $1,000. We’ll hear more about this as the price cuts come into effect, (although not till 2026!) and more drugs get negotiated, but overall this isn’t exactly an earth-shattering change.

Finally there’s already a guaranteed fight about extending the premium subsidies for ACA plans. These were first in the pandemic American Rescue Act, then extended in the IRA, but they currently are scheduled to end in 2025. It’s hard to imagine them not being extended further whatever the makeup of the Senate, assuming a Democratic House of Representatives. (A Marjorie Taylor Greene speakership does give me pause!). But again there’s nothing new here and the overall flavor of expensive premiums and high deductibles in the current ACA marketplace won’t change.

So what’s not going to happen? Virtually all the interesting stuff we were promised by Harris and for that matter Biden in 2020. You may have missed the one actual “policy-first” speech at the convention which came from Bernie Sanders. To be fair a lot of his agenda was already in the Biden legislation. That was no accident as Biden deliberately reached out to him in 2020 and 2021 and enacted a pretty radical agenda on infrastructure, climate, industrial policy and more. And when I say radical I mean milquetoast social democrat by European standards! But what wasn’t in that agenda? No Medicare for all, which Bernie ran on in 2019/20 and brought up again at the convention. Who else proposed that in 2019? Why, a certain Kamala Harris. That never made it into the Biden agenda. We didn’t even get legislation introduced about lowering the Medicare age to 60, which was a campaign promise. There’s been no conversation about any of this from Harris or from Biden before he withdrew. It’s just a bridge too far.

Which leads to the stuff that gets debated about in THCB and elsewhere as to how the system actually works. There’s been nothing about Medicaid expansion (or its continued contraction). No talk about reining in hospital consolidation. No mention even of insurers gaming Medicare Advantage or private equity buying up physician practices. Nothing about the expansion of value-based care.

What we can expect in a Harris administration is more of the same from CMS and potentially a slightly more aggressive FTC. That will mean continued efforts to veer slightly away from fee-for-service in Medicare, a few more constraints on the worst behavior in Medicare Advantage, and possibly some warning shots from the FTC about hospital monopolies. But the trends we’ve seen in recent years will largely continue. We’re not getting a primary-care based capitated system emerging from the wreckage of what we have now, and unlike the Clinton and even Obama administrations, there’s not even any rhetoric from Harris or Biden about how that would be a good idea.

So politically I don’t think the Harris administration will be very exciting for health care. And if the other guy wins, as Jeff Goldsmith wrote on THCB last month, expect even less.

Take My Gun, I Mean, Phone, Please

By KIM BELLARD

I understand that states are “racing” to pass laws designed to help protect school-aged kids against something that has been a danger to their mental and physical health for a generation now, as well as adversely impacting their education. Certainly I’m talking about reasonable gun control laws, right?

Just kidding. This is America. We don’t do gun control laws, no matter how many innocent school children, or other bystanders, are massacred. No, what states are taking action on are cellphones in schools.

Florida seems to have kicked it off, with a new last year banning cell phones and other wireless devices “during instructional times.” It also prohibits using TikTok on school grounds. Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina followed suit this year, although the new laws vary in specifics. Connecticut, Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, and Vermont have introduced their own versions. Delaware and Pennsylvania are giving money to schools to try lockable phone pouches.

It’s worth pointing out that school districts were not waiting around for states to act. According to a Pew Research survey earlier this year, 82% of teachers reported their district had policies regarding cellphones in classrooms. Those policies might not have been bans, but at least the districts were making efforts to control the use.

Surprisingly, high school teachers – whose students were most likely to have cellphones — were least likely to report such policies, but, not surprisingly, the most likely to report that such policies were difficult to enforce. Also not surprising, 72% of high school teachers say students being distracted by cellphones in the classroom is a major problem.

Russell Shaw, the head of school at Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., writes in The Atlantic that his parents were given free sample packs of cigarettes in school, and warns:

I believe that future generations will look back with the same incredulity at our acceptance of phones in schools. The research is clear: The dramatic rise in adolescent anxiety, depression, and suicide correlates closely with the widespread adoption of smartphones over the past 15 years. Although causation is debated, as a school head for 14 years, I know what I have seen: Unfettered phone usage at school hurts our kids. 

Similarly, last year Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU, urged emphatically: Get Phones Out of School Now. At the least, he writes, they’re a distraction, harming their learning and their ability to focus; at worst, they weaken social connections, are used for bullying, and can lead to mental health issues. “All children deserve schools that will help them learn, cultivate deep friendships, and develop into mentally healthy young adults,” Professor Haidt believes. “All children deserve phone-free schools.”

Mr. Shaw agrees. “For too long, children all over the world have been guinea pigs in a dangerous experiment. The results are in. We need to take phones out of schools.”

Believe it or not, not everyone agrees. Some argue that, like it or not, our world is filled with cellphones, and to try to pretend that is not true will just make it harder for kids once they become adults. Along those lines, skeptics note that classrooms are filled with other devices; if kids aren’t distracted by their cellphones, there’s usually a tablet, laptop, or other device handy. And the kids can argue, hey, the adults – the teachers, the administrators, the volunteers – all have cellphones; why shouldn’t we?

Some parents are opposed to the bans. They want to know where their kids are at all times, and to be able to track them in case of an emergency. Even more chilling, some parents argue that if there is a school shooting, they want their kids to be able to call for help, and to let them know their status. None of us can forget the heartbreaking calls that some of the Uvalde children made.  

Of course, even if cellphones are banned during class time or even on school grounds entirely, those phones are going to be there once they leave the school grounds, so their potential for adverse mental impacts will still be there. If distraction is the problem – and I can see where it would be – isn’t it a similar problem for adults?  How many meetings, conferences, or social situations have you been in where many of the adults are paying more attention to their phone than to whatever is being discussed?  

I wonder if the Supreme Court has a policy about cellphones during its deliberations.

All this brings me back to guns. According to the K-12 Shooting Database, there have already been 193 school shooting incidents already this year, with 152 victims (fatal and wounded). That compares to 349 and 249 respectively in 2023, and 308/273 in 2022. I needn’t point out – but I will – that no other nation has numbers anywhere close to those.

I recently read John Woodrow Cox’s searing Children Under Fire. He points out that, even beyond the fatalities, wounded kids need not just medical care but ongoing mental health treatment. Their families usually need it too. The trauma goes well beyond the direct victims. The victim’s classmates and families often need it as well, as do schoolchildren in other districts, even in other states. Even practicing lockdowns have an impact on mental health.

He estimates that there are millions, perhaps tens of millions, of impacted schoolchildren and their families. Yet states aren’t racing to ensure support for all those victims. 

Mr. Cox suggests that the least we could do, the very least, are to ensure more background checks, to hold adults more responsible for the guns in their homes, and to conduct more research on gun violence. Instead, states are rushing to “harden” schools and to get more people with guns guarding (and teaching in) those schools. 

Oh, and to ban cellphones. We must have priorities, after all.

Look, if I was a teacher, I’d hate seeing kids on their phones during class. If I was administrator, I’d be worried about kids hanging out on their phones instead of talking with each other. If I was a parent I’d be nagging my kids to study or read a book instead of being on a screen. I get all that; I understand the drive to better manage cellphone use.

But if people think cell phones are more of a danger to their kids than gun violence, I’m going to have to disagree.  

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor

assetto corsa mods