Categories

Category: Uncategorized

India’s Mob Problem

By SAURABH JHA, MD

Recently, my niece gingerly confided that she was going to study engineering rather than medicine. I was certain she’d become a doctor – so deep was her love for biology and her deference to our family tradition. But she calculated, as would anyone with common sense, that with an engineering degree and an MBA, she’d be working for a multinational company making a comfortable income by twenty-eight. If she stuck with tradition and altruism, as a doctor she’d still be untrained and preparing for examinations at twenty-eight.

Despite the truism in India that doctors are the only professionals never at risk of starving, the rational case for becoming a physician never was strong. Doctors always needed a dose of the irrational, an assumption of integrity and an unbridled goodwill to keep going. Once, doctors commanded both the mystery of science and the magic of metaphysics. As medicine became for-profit, the metaphysics slowly disappeared.

Indians are becoming more prosperous. They’re also less fatalistic and expect less from their gods and more from their doctors. In the beginning they treated their doctors as gods, now they see that doctors have feet of clay, too. Doctors, who once outsourced the limitations of medicine to the will of Gods, summarized by the famous Bollywood line “inko dawa ki nahin dua ki zaroorat hai” (patient needs prayers not drugs), now must internalize medicine’s limitations. And there are many – medicine is still an imperfect science, a stubborn art, often an optimistic breeze fighting forlornly against nature’s implacable gale.

Continue reading…

HardCore Health Podcast, Episode 2: Consumerism & Privacy

HardCore Health is back and on today’s show Jess & I start by addressing how hard it has become for the health care consumer to navigate the “in-and-out of network” system that exists in health care today, and later discuss how money is being poured into some of the strangest sounding startups ideas in the health tech industry. We have a special interview from the best health data privacy lawyer around, Deven McGraw, from Ciitizen, commenting on the new patient privacy legislation that was released and Jess also speaks to Fred Trotter about how he, Andrea Downing, and David Harlow wrote a letter to Facebook, addressing their concerns over the privacy of Facebook groups. Last, but certainly not least, we have a rant from Ian Morrison about price transparency. Enjoy! —Matthew Holt

Matthew Holt is the founder and publisher of The Health Care Blog and still writes regularly for the site.

Is “Medicare For All (Who Want it)” Enough?

By MIKE MAGEE

In the 2nd night of the Democratic Primary debate on June 27, 2019, Pete Buttigieg was asked whether he supported Medicare-For-All. He responded, “I support Medicare for all who want it.” 

In doing so, he side-stepped the controversial debate over shifts of power from states to the federal government, and trusted that logic would eventually prevail over a collusive Medical-Industrial Complex with an iron lock grip on a system that deals everyone imaginable in on the sickness profitability curve – except the patient.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law “Medicare,” a national insurance plan for all Americans over 65. He did so in front of former President Truman, who 20 years earlier had proposed a national health plan for all Americans, and for his trouble was labeled by the AMA as the future father of “socialized medicine.”

For Truman, there was a double irony that day in 1965. First of all, the signing was occurring at around the same time as our neighbor to the north was signing their own national health plan, also called “Medicare”, but their’s covered all Canadian citizens, not just the elderly.

The second incongruity was that Truman was fully aware that in 1945, as he was being tarred and feathered as unpatriotic by taxpayers for having the gall to suggest that health care was a human right, those very same citizens were unknowingly funding the creation of national health plans as democracy stabilizers in our two primary vanquished enemies – Germany and Japan – as part of the US taxpayer funded Marshall Plan.

Continue reading…

Was the IOM estimate of medical errors correct?

By SAURABH JHA

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in their landmark report – To Err is Human – estimated that the number of deaths from medical errors is 44 ,000 to 98, 000. The report ushered the Quality and Safety Movement, which became a dominant force in all hospitals. Yet the number of deaths from medical errors climbed. It is now touted to be the 3rd leading cause of death. How easy is it to precisely quantify the number of deaths from medical errors? Not many physicians challenged the methodologies of the IOM report. Some feared that they’d be accused of “making excuses for doctors.” Many simply didn’t have a sufficient grip on statistics of measurement sciences. One exception was Rodney Hayward – who was then an early career researcher, a measurement scientist, who studied how sensitive the estimates of medical errors were to a range of assumptions.

Saurabh Jha (aka @RogueRad) speaks with Professor Hayward for the Firing Line Podcast about his research in JAMA published in 2001 – Estimating Hospital Deaths Due to Medical Errors: Preventability Is in the Eye of the Reviewer. It was a landmark publication of the time, and its objective methods have stood the test of time.

Rod Hayward a Professor of Public Health and Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan and Co-Director of the Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research at the Ann Arbor VA HSR&D. He received his training in health services research as a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at UCLA and at the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. His current and past work includes studies examining measurement of quality, costs and health status, environmental and educational factors affecting physician practice patterns, quality improvement, and physician decision making. His current work focuses on quality measurement and improvement for chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.

Listen to their conversation on Radiology Firing Line Podcast here.

What Oncology’s Figured Out About the EHR | Dr. Ed Kim of Atrium Health

By JESSICA DAMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Is there a silver bullet for making EHRs more useful to doctors? The Oncology team at Atrium Health thinks they’ve figured it out. From better integrating new info on FDA approved cancer treatments to just working with doctors and patients more intuitively, Dr. Ed Kim talks about how the underlying challenges health technologists need to address is figuring out what info is important to care delivery teams in the first place.

Filmed at Health Datapalooza in Washington DC, March 2019.

Jessica DaMassa is the host of the WTF Health show & stars in Health in 2 Point 00 with Matthew HoltGet a glimpse of the future of healthcare by meeting the people who are going to change it. Find more WTF Health interviews here or check out www.wtf.health.

THCB Spotlights: Brooke LeVasseur, CEO of AristaMD

Today on THCB Spotlights, Matthew talks to Brooke LeVasseur, who is the CEO of AristaMD. AristaMD provides eConsults to empower providers to get patients faster access to care. The average wait time to see a specialist is one to two months, and the proportion of referrals to specialists that never happen can be incredibly high, at 40% in Medicare populations for instance. AristaMD aims to provide an efficient way for primary care providers to tap into the expertise of specialists to immediately start executing on a treatment plan without the patient having to wait or travel. Tune in to find out how AristaMD is actually rolling this out and get a demo of the platform.

Psychiatrist: My Medicine Raised Our Patient’s Blood Sugar, Can You Help? PCP: That’s a Dump!

By HANS DUVEFELT, MD

If my hypertensive patient develops orthostatism and falls and breaks her hip, I fully expect the orthopedic surgeon on call to treat her. I may kick myself that this happened but I’m not qualified to treat a broken hip.

If my anticoagulated patient hits his head and suffers a subdural hematoma, I expect the local neurosurgeon to graciously treat him even though it was my decision and not his to start the patient on his blood thinner. After all, brain surgery is tricky stuff.

Why is it then that primary care docs, sometimes myself included, feel a little annoyed when we have to deal with the consequences of psychiatric medication prescribing?

My psychiatry colleagues diligently order the blood work that is more or less required when prescribing atypical antipsychotics, for example. But when the results are abnormal I get a fax with a scribble indicating that the PCP needs to handle this.

We need to just deal with that and appreciate that there has been communication between treating providers. Because that doesn’t always happen. Particularly with medication prescribing, we don’t always get a notification from our psychiatry colleagues when a patient is started on something new because their records are so much more secret than ours.

The other day I sat in my monthly conference with staff from the Behavioral Health Home that I serve as the medical director for. I consult on clinical and policy matters.

Continue reading…

Health in 2 Point 00, Episode 87 | Omada, Call9 & Politics

Today on Health in 2 Point 00, Jess and I are getting in the spirit of things with this week’s Democratic debate. In Episode 87, Jess asks me about Omada Health’s $73 million raise, bringing its total to $200 million, and about what happened with nursing home telehealth startup Call9 shutting down. We turn to politics with Trump telling HHS to have hospitals publish their price list—and it’s unclear that this is even going to make a difference—and to health care coverage in the Democratic debate. —Matthew Holt

DANGER! COURSE CORRECTION ALERT!

By JOE FLOWER

A hot take on healthcare in the Democratic debate: They’re doing it wrong.

Healthcare is not a reason to choose between the Democratic candidates. 

They are all for greater access and in some way to cover everyone, which is great. 

None of their plans will become law, but if they are elected those plans will become the starting point of a long discussion and legislative fight. The difference in their plans (between, say, Buttigieg or Biden and Warren or Sanders) is more of an indication of their general attitude toward governance rather than an outline of where we will end up.

Democrats are focused on coverage, Trump is on cost. 

Around 90% of Americans already have coverage of some sort. Polls show that healthcare is voters’ #1 priority. Read the polls more closely, and you’ll see that it’s healthcare cost specifically that they are worried about.

Democrats seem to assume that extending more government control will result in lower costs. This is highly debatable, the devil’s in the details, and our past history on this is good but not great. 

The President, on the other hand, can make flashy pronouncements and issue Executive Orders that seem intended to bring down costs and might actually. It’s highly questionable whether they will be effective, or effective any time soon. Still, they make good headlines and they especially make for good applause lines at a rally and good talking points on Fox.

But, Ms. and Mr. Average Voter will hear that Trump is very concerned about bringing down their actual costs. The Democratic plans all sound to the untutored ear (which is pretty much everyone but policy wonks like you and me) like they will actually increase costs while taking away the insurance that 90% already have in one way or another.

It is important to take care of everyone. But it is a mistake for the Democrats to allow this to become a battle of perception between cost and coverage. Voters’ real #1 concern is about cost, not coverage.

Joe Flower has 40 years of experience in the healthcare world and has emerged as a thought leader on the deep forces changing the system in the United States and around the world.

Can we move on?

By CHADI NABHAN MD, MBA, FACP

Every so often, my cynical self emerges from the dead. Maybe it’s a byproduct of social media, or from following Saurabh Jha, who pontificates about everything from Indian elections to the Brexit fiasco. Regardless, there are times when my attempts at refraining from being opinionated are successful, but there are rare occasions when they are not. Have I earned the right to opine freely about moving on from financial toxicity, anti-vaxers, who has ‘skin in the game’ when it comes to the health care system, the patient & their data, and if we should call patients “consumers”? You’ll have to decide.

I endorse academic publications; they can be stimulating and may delve into more research and are essential if you crave academic recognition. I also enjoy listening to live debates and podcasts, as well as reading, social media rants, but some of the debates and publications are annoying me. I have tried to address some of them in my own podcast series “Outspoken Oncology” as a remedy, but my remedy was no cure. Instead, I find myself typing away these words as a last therapeutic intervention.

Here are my random thoughts on the topics that have been rehashed & restated all over social media outlets (think: Twitter feeds, LinkedIn posts, Pubmed articles, the list goes on), that you will simply find no way out. Disclaimer, these are NOT organized by level of importance but simply based on what struck me over the past week as grossly overstated issues in health care.  Forgive my blunt honesty.

Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods