Category: Uncategorized

HIPAA’s Broken Promises

Sep 27, 2009• 19

By SUSANNAH FOX

If you hate HIPAA, it’s your lucky day. Paul Ohm is handing you ammunition in his article, “Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization.” His argument: our current information privacy structure is a house built on sand.

“Computer scientists…have demonstrated they can often ‘reidentify’ or ‘deanonymize’ individuals hidden in anonymized data with astonishing ease.”

Ohm’s article describes HIPAA, in particular, as a fig leaf – or worse, as kudzu choking off the free flow of information.

“[I]t is hard to imagine another privacy problem with such starkly presented benefits and costs. On the one hand, when medical researchers can freely trade information, they can develop treatments to ease human suffering and save lives. On the other hand, our medical secrets are among the most sensitive we hold.”

Catalyzing the app store for EHRs

Sep 27, 2009• 4

By STEVE DOWNS and JOHN LUMPKIN, MD

Recently, Steve posted about the idea, floated by Ken Mandl and Zak Kohane, that EHRs (or health IT more broadly) could move to a model of competitive, substitutable applications running off a platform that would provide secure medical record storage. In other words, the iPhone app model, but, for example, you could have an e-prescribing app that runs over an EHR instead of the Yelp restaurant review app on your iPhone. We’re thinking about the provider side of the market here, as Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault are already doing this on the consumer side.

It’s nice to ponder these “what ifs,” but we’re a bit more action-oriented here and we’ve turned our attention to asking what it would take to make this happen. It seems that there are two things that are needed. First, we need the platform. Some of the most notable platforms started out as proprietary that were then opened up. The IBM PC comes to mind as an example. Some were designed from the beginning to be open platforms with limited functionality until the market started developing applications. A recent example is the development of iGoogle and the tons of applications that are available for free. Finally, there was the purely public domain development from the beginning to end that we’ve seen in the Linux world. Or perhaps we don’t need a common platform and maybe what is needed is to stimulate the market for health IT products that have open application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow for third-party application development? Several ideas come to mind.Continue reading…

Capitol Shortage: Can the Two Democratic Parties Get It Together on Health Reform?

Sep 27, 2009• 1

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

As an exceptionally grumpy American summer grinds to a conclusion, it is apparent that only a bipartisan solution will enable Congress and the Obama Administration to complete health reform. No, we’re not talking about co-operating with the Republicans. Other than a handful of contrarian Republican moderates on the Senate Finance Committee, at least one of whose votes might be needed for eventual passage, the Republicans are irrelevant to the final outcome.

No, the bipartisan solution we’re talking about is co-operation between the two Democratic parties represented in Congress: the “Safe-Seat” Democrats- the Pacific Heights/Beverly Hills/Berkeley Hills/Upper West Side/Harlem Democrats and the “Running Scared” Democrats from the western, southern and border states, who actually require independent and some moderate Republican support to get elected. These parties have very little in common other than the Capital D after their names.

What would actually work? Driving down the cost of health care

Sep 25, 2009• 45

By JOE FLOWER

If competition actually drives the cost of health care up rather than down, what would bring lower costs?

What provisions in a “health reform act” would actually drop costs in health care? Let’s leave aside for the moment all the myriad other arguments – some might be seen as too much government intrusion, some would destroy the health plan industry, some would be cripplingly difficult for providers, and so on – and just focus on cost. Given the real structure of health care markets in the United States at this moment, what could be written into federal law and regulation that would actually reduce cost?me of these changes are massive, some would be invisible to those outside the industry, but all could be legislated or regulated, and all would “bend the curve” toward lower costs. Choose any you like, though some are “and” choices, others are “or” choices:

Single payer: Eliminates insurance company overhead, increases medical loss ratio (the percentage of dollars put in returned as medical resources) to perhaps 95%, and gives the government (probably some rate-setting commission) the power to dictate prices and availability, like Medicare on steroids.
“Robust” public option: All providers must take its payments as full payment, rates tied to Medicare rates (perhaps plus a percentage), Medicare rates decided by an independent rate-setting commission.
Limiting medical loss ratios: Many European countries dictate that health plans must return 85% or 90% or 92.5% of the premium paid in as medical services paid out. U.S. health plans, in contrast, compete on (and brag to Wall Street analysts about) how low their medical loss ratio is. Some are as low as 60%.

Commentology: Obama and End-of-Life Care

Sep 24, 2009• 9

THCB reader Molly Holmes wrote us to say:

As a member of a hospital geriatric emergency team, I’m on the front lines of a major health care issue that need immediate attention. The costs of keeping a person barely alive during their last few weeks of life easily run into the millions. The procedures undertaken at such times are painful and poorly thought out, and do not at all increase the quality of one’s life. The unfortunate senior who falls into the end-of-life emergency medical cycle can expect his or her final days to be miserable and lonely, with family relegated to the sidelines, while medical people rush around administering “care.” Such a person is robbed of dignity, and robbed of the right to die with loved ones nearby.

The reason why medical teams are pressured to perform endless procedures on our most ill seniors is because the legal and ethical issues at stake are in limbo. That’s because the questions raised are not just for individuals to answer, but for society as well. They are questions for a nation.

A Remedy for Healthcare Organizations

Sep 23, 2009

By PAUL LUNDY, VP, Xerox Global Services

The switch to electronic health records can be a daunting task. To make the shift less painful, healthcare organizations should first consider taking control the number of documents flowing through the organization – and the costs associated with printing, sharing and updating them. Developing proactive ways to better manage both hard copy and electronic documents will better equip these organizations for the 2014 EHR deadline.

A recent survey of healthcare professionals found that nearly half (46 percent) of respondents chose document and records management as the most inefficient area within healthcare organizations.1 In fact, the survey revealed that document inefficiencies trump traffic woes – 58 percent said that searching for information at work is worse than being stuck in traffic.

Aneesh Chopra, Federal CTO, talks Health 2.0

Sep 21, 2009

Aneesh Chopra is the new and first CTO of the Federal Government, and he’s also going to be the keynote speaker for the Health 2.0 Conference (Oct 6-7,register here!). I caught up with him for a quick interview yesterday where he discussed his role, Health 2.0 and the new apps.gov site. Off camera we had a great chat and Aneesh both forced me to give a brain dump on exciting companies in Health 2.0 and showed that he knows plenty about the space and has really big ambitions. I can’t say more yet, but let’s say he’s very interested in using new sources of data to improve decisions. I think that it’s great that someone so committed to making technology work for people (and not vice versa) is in such a strong position to influence Federal policy. Here’s the interview

“Reform” Means Higher Costs, Not Lower

Sep 21, 2009• 4

By JOE FLOWER

A reader asks: “If the current bill passes are my health insurance costs likely to go up, down, or remain about the same?”

If the form that I believe most likely to pass actually passes (insurance reforms, individual mandate, weak or no public option or co-ops), I believe that they will continue to go up. There simply is nothing in the bill that would make things more affordable. In health care markets, for a convoluted nest of reasons, more competition causes prices to go up, not down.

Health Care Outlook Not Improving

Sep 21, 2009• 58

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mon) released his much-anticipated healthcare proposal Wednesday morning.

The next big test for a health care bill in 2009 (notice that I did not call it health care reform) will come in Senate Finance.

The
final vote in that committee will tell us a lot about whether the
Democrats have any chance for 60 votes in the full Senate. So far, it
does not look good.I have the greatest respect for Senators
Baucus and Grassley and their good faith efforts to find a bipartisan
health care solution. But I also think their efforts were fatally
flawed from the beginning.I think the problem is that Baucus
and Grassley were trying to bridge the wide chasm between liberal and
conservative ideas. Finding the fine balance necessary has created an
unwieldy compromise—no one is happy. Most striking, the compromise
reached between cost and premium subsidies has yielded an $880 billion
bill that requires middle class people to buy health insurance they will in no way will be able to afford. On top of that, the policies have big deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Limited English Proficiency Shouldn’t Mean Limited Health Care

Sep 21, 2009• 8

By CHANIN BALLANCE

It’s impossible to know exactly what shape healthcare will take for Americans as Congress and President Obama struggle with reform measures in the coming months. But one thing is certain: Those who have limited English proficiency will continue to have more health care services they can understand. Though the U.S. has prohibited discrimination, including language access for limited English proficient persons, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the reality in the healthcare industry is very different. Whether insured or not, those who don’t speak or read English “very well” tend to have care that’s not as good as those who do. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that in 2005 only 54 percent of Latinos experiencing an injury or illness had timely access to healthcare, compared to 65 percent of whites. And if uninsured, Latinos got care in only 27 percent of cases.