THCB

Categories

Tag: Kim Bellard

Health Care Needs a 21st Century Infrastructure

By KIM BELLARD

Matthew Holt is going to tell me I’ve been thinking about infrastructure too much lately (e.g., cybersecurity of them, backup plans for them), but if you don’t have infrastructure right, you don’t have anything right.

And healthcare most definitely does not have its infrastructure right.

We’re spending between 15-30% of our healthcare dollar on administration, and no one views our healthcare system as efficient or even particularly effective. We have numerous intermediaries like PBMs, billing services, revenue cycle management vendors, and all sorts of digital health solutions. There are layers upon layers upon layers, each adding its costs and complications.

In some ways, healthcare’s infrastructure has changed remarkably in the last two to three decades. Most transactions – e.g., claims or eligibility – are sent, and often processed, electronically. Most physicians, hospitals, and other health care clinicians/organizations have electronic health records. You can find out the expected cost for prescription drugs at point-of-sale. You can do a virtual visit with your doctor. There are vast amounts of health information available online. AI is coming to health care, and, in some cases, is already here.

But: we’re still sending faxes. We’re still filling out paper forms, repeatedly. We still make innumerable phone calls, usually spending long waits in queue. Everyone hates provider directories, which are never up-to-date and often inaccurate. Talk of interoperability notwithstanding, there are far too many data silos, leading to at best us lugging around disks with our downloaded records to at worst physicians acting with incomplete information for us. Healthcare has had far too many data breaches, and cyberattacks have held patient data hostage (e.g., Ascension) or put a halt to those electronic transaction (e.g., Change Healthcare). And we’re not at all sure how to govern AI.

The amount of medical literature has been growing exponentially for decades, and the volume of health care data is growing much, much faster. Physicians once guarded health information like the guild they are, but the Internet has democratized health information – while doing the same for misinformation. If anything, we have too much information; we just can’t use it as effectively as we should (e.g., it can take 17 years for evidence to change physician practice).

This is not an infrastructure that is not coping well with the 21st century.

Continue reading…

Where Are Health Care’s Value Meals?

By KIM BELLARD

If you’re anything like me, you’ve noticed that food costs have been increasing. Whether it is food from the grocery or at a restaurant, the bill can be eye-opening compared to a few years ago. Blame the pandemic, blame corporate greed, blame the President – take your pick. But the bottom line is, you have to eat. You can buy lower priced options, you can go out less often, you can skimp on non-food spending, but you’re going to buy food. The other thing you can do is to complain.

Well, the fast food industry, for one, is listening to those complaints, and many leading fast food companies have launched a variety of “value meals” to reduce the pain consumers feel. Evidently they are still capable of feeling shame, or at least of recognizing that consumers have choices.

I just wish the healthcare industry was capable of doing the same.

Let’s be clear: the fast food industry has brought this on themselves. The Wall Street Journal reports that prices of food eaten away from home rose 30% since 2019, according to labor Department statistics, and that prices for a Big Mac increased 21% over the same period. McNugget meals were up 28% over the same period.

McDonald’s recognized the problem. It announced a $5 meal bundle in mid-May, targeting a June 25 launch date. For those of you craving a McD’s fix, the deal includes McDouble or McChicken sandwich, small fries, small soft drink and a four-piece Chicken McNuggets. “I’ve been in our restaurants. I’ve sat in focus groups,” Erlinger said on the Today show, touting the new deals.

It didn’t take long for other fast food chains to offer their own version. KFC introduced its $4.99 value menu back in April, even before McDonald’s announcement. Wendy’s has a $3 breakfast deal, Burger King has a $5 Your Way Meal, Taco Bell has something it calls a Luxe Craving Box for $7, Starbucks has a new Pairing Menu priced between $5-$7, Jack in the Box has a $4 munchies Meal, and Sonic now offers a $1.99 menu it calls “Fun.99,” which it says will be permanent, not a time limited promotion. I’m sure there are others.

“It still holds true that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” Burger King North American president Tom Curtis said in a May email to restaurant operators. “We know the competition is doing that. So we will be in that game,” Jack in the Box Chief Executive Darin Harris said. 

Lest anyone be worried about hurting the fast food companies’ margins, R.J. Hottovy, head of analytical research at Placer.ai, told Yahoo Finance: “It really comes down to … repeat visits after the fact. You’re not making money on the value menu. You’re making menu money on the other products, the more premium products, the dessert products, the beverage products that go along with that.”

Health care is like food in that almost anywhere you go you can probably find it. There are fast food restaurants seemingly on every corner, but there also are drugstores and doctors’ offices somewhere near those fast food restaurants. Health care may not quite be omnipresent, but it’s pretty present.

Unlike food, you may not need health care every day — but you are going to need it at some point. It may be a simple visit, it may be a pill a day for a few days, but it could be a mind-boggling array of tests, medications and procedures you never imagined or lifelong care.

In a fast food restaurant, you look at the menu, pick what you want and how much you are willing to pay, but with health care you don’t have such a menu. Someone else is usually telling what you need and dictating how much you’ll pay for it. After numerous “price transparency” efforts in these last few years, you might be able to find some set of prices, but if anyone has ever successfully been able to use them for anything other than the simplest of interactions, I’d like to know about it.  

Continue reading…

Batteries All Around

By KIM BELLARD

Quick question: how many batteries do you have? Chances are, the answer is way bigger than you think. They’re in your devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops, ear buds), they’re throughout your house (e.g., clocks, smoke detectors), they’re in your car (even if you don’t have an EV), and they may even be in you. We usually only think about them when they need recharging, or when they catch fire. They can be an environmental nightmare if not recycled, and recycling lithium-ion batteries is still problematic.  

So I was intrigued to read about some efforts to rethink what a battery is.

Let’s start with some work done by Swedish tech company Sinonus, a spinout of Chalmers University of Technology and KTH Royal Institute of Technology. The company is all about carbon fiber; more specifically, integrating structural strength and storing energy.

It seeks to make things multipurpose: “Just think of your smartphone, today it seems farfetched to use a single purpose phone, camera and mp3 player when you can have them all in one. In the same way we can transform single purpose materials, such as structure materials and batteries, through our multipurpose carbon fiber composite solution.” 

Or, as TechRadar put it, “how the laptop could become the battery.”

Continue reading…

Who Needs Humans, Anyway?

By KIM BELLARD

Imagine my excitement when I saw the headline: “Robot doctors at world’s first AI hospital can treat 3,000 a day.” Finally, I thought – now we’re getting somewhere. I must admit that my enthusiasm was somewhat tempered to find that the patients were virtual. But, still.

The article was in Interesting Engineering, and it largely covered the source story in Global Times, which interviewed the research team leader Yang Liu, a professor at China’s Tsinghua University, where he is executive dean of Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR) and associate dean of the Department of Computer Science and Technology. The professor and his team just published a paper detailing their efforts.  

The paper describes what they did: “we introduce a simulacrum of hospital called Agent Hospital that simulates the entire process of treating illness. All patients, nurses, and doctors are autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs).” They modestly note: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first simulacrum of hospital, which comprehensively reflects the entire medical process with excellent scalability, making it a valuable platform for the study of medical LLMs/agents.”

In essence, “Resident Agents” randomly contract a disease, seek care at the Agent Hospital, where they are triaged and treated by Medical Professional Agents, who include 14 doctors and 4 nurses (that’s how you can tell this is only a simulacrum; in the real world, you’d be lucky to have 4 doctors and 14 nurses). The goal “is to enable a doctor agent to learn how to treat illness within the simulacrum.”

The Agent Hospital has been compared to the AI town developed at Stanford last year, which had 25 virtual residents living and socializing with each other. “We’ve demonstrated the ability to create general computational agents that can behave like humans in an open setting,” said Joon Sung Park, one of the creators. The Tsinghua researchers have created a “hospital town.”

Gosh, a healthcare system with no humans involved. It can’t be any worse than the human one. Then, again, let me know when the researchers include AI insurance company agents in the simulacrum; I want to see what bickering ensues.

Continue reading…

Your Water, or Your Life

By KIM BELLARD

Matthew Holt, publisher of The Health Care Blog, thinks I worry too much about too many things. He’s probably right. But here’s one worry I’d be remiss in not alerting people to: your water supply is not as safe – not nearly as safe – as you probably assume it is.

I’m not talking about the danger of lead pipes. I’m not even talking about the danger of microplastics in your water. I’ve warned about both of those before (and I’m still worried about them). No, I’m worried we’re not taking the danger of cyberattacks against our water systems seriously enough.

A week ago the EPA issued an enforcement alert about cybersecurity vulnerabilities and threats to community drinking water systems. This was a day after EPA head Michael Regan and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sent a letter to all U.S. governors warning them of “disabling cyberattacks” on water and wastewater systems and urging them to cooperate in safeguarding those infrastructures.

“Drinking water and wastewater systems are an attractive target for cyberattacks because they are a lifeline critical infrastructure sector but often lack the resources and technical capacity to adopt rigorous cybersecurity practices,” the letter warned. It specifically cited known state-sponsored attacks from Iran and China.

The enforcement alert elaborated:

Cyberattacks against CWSs are increasing in frequency and severity across the country. Based on actual incidents we know that a cyberattack on a vulnerable water system may allow an adversary to manipulate operational technology, which could cause significant adverse consequences for both the utility and drinking water consumers. Possible impacts include disrupting the treatment, distribution, and storage of water for the community, damaging pumps and valves, and altering the levels of chemicals to hazardous amounts.

Next Gov/FCW paints a grim picture of how vulnerable our water systems are:

Multiple nation-state adversaries have been able to breach water infrastructure around the country. China has been deploying its extensive and pervasive Volt Typhoon hacking collective, burrowing into vast critical infrastructure segments and positioning along compromised internet routing equipment to stage further attacks, national security officials have previously said.

In November, IRGC-backed cyber operatives broke into industrial water treatment controls and targeted programmable logic controllers made by Israeli firm Unitronics. Most recently, Russia-linked hackers were confirmed to have breached a slew of rural U.S. water systems, at times posing physical safety threats.

We shouldn’t be surprised by these attacks. We’ve come to learn that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia have highly sophisticated cyber teams, but, when it comes to water systems, it turns out the attacks don’t have to be all that sophisticated. The EPA noted that over 70% of water systems it inspected did not fully comply with security standards, including such basic protections such as not allowing default passwords.

NextGov/FCW pointed out that last October the EPA was forced to rescind requirements that water agencies at least evaluate their cyber defenses, due to legal challenges from several (red) states and the American Water Works Association. Take that in. I’ll bet China, Iran, and others are evaluating them.

“In an ideal world … we would like everybody to have a baseline level of cybersecurity and be able to confirm that they have that,” Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, told AP. “But that’s a long ways away.”

Tom Kellermann, SVP of Cyber Strategy at Contrast Security told Security Magazine: “The safety of the U.S. water supply is in jeopardy. Rogue nation states are frequently targetingthese critical infrastructures, and soon we will experience a life-threatening event.” That doesn’t sound like a long ways away.

Continue reading…

Getting the Future of Health Care Wrong

By KIM BELLARD

Sure, there’s lots of A.I. hype to talk about (e.g., the AI regulation proposed by Chuck Schumer, or the latest updates from Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI) but a recent column by Wall Street Journal tech writer Christopher Mims – What I Got Wrong in a Decade of Predicting the Future of Tech —  reminded me how easily we get overexcited by such things.   

I did my own mea culpa about my predictions for healthcare a couple of years ago, but since Mr. Mims is both smarter and a better writer than I am, I’ll use his structure and some of his words to try to apply them to healthcare.  

Mr. Mims offers five key learnings:

  1. Disruption is overrated
  2. Human factors are everything
  3. We’re all susceptible to this one kind of tech B.S.
  4. Tech bubbles are useful even when they’re wasteful
  5. We’ve got more power than we think

Let’s take each of these in turn and see how they relate not just to tech but also to healthcare.

Disruption is overrated

“It’s not that disruption never happens,” Mr. Mims clarifies. “It just doesn’t happen nearly as often as we’ve been led to believe.”  Well, no kidding. I’ve been in healthcare for longer than I care to admit, and I’ve lost count of all the “disruptions” we were promised.

The fact of the matter is that healthcare is a huge part of the economy. Trillions of dollars are at stake, not to mention millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of profits. Healthcare is too big to fail, and possibly too big to disrupt in any meaningful way.

If some super genius came along and offered us a simple solution that would radically improve our health but slash more than half of that spending and most of those jobs, I honestly am not sure we’d take the offer. Healthcare likes its disruption in manageable gulps, and disruptors often have their eye more on their share of those trillions than in reducing them.

For better or worse, change in healthcare usually comes in small increments.

Human factors are everything

“But what’s most often holding back mass adoption of a technology is our humanity,” Mr. Mims points out. “The challenge of getting people to change their ways is the reason that adoption of new tech is always much slower than it would be if we were all coldly rational utilitarians bent solely on maximizing our productivity or pleasure.” 

Boy, this hits the healthcare head on the nail. If we all simply ate better, exercised more, slept better, and spent less time on our screens, our health and our healthcare system would be very different. It’s not rocket science, but it is proven science.

But we don’t. We like our short-cuts, we don’t like personal inconvenience, and why skip the Krispy Kreme when we can just take Wegovy? Figure out how to motivate people to take more charge of their health: that’d be disruption.

We’re all susceptible to this one kind of tech B.S.

Mr. Mims believes: “Tech is, to put it bluntly, full of people lying to themselves,” although he is careful to add: “It’s usually not malicious.” That’s true in healthcare as well. I’ve known many healthcare innovators, and almost without exception they are true believers in what they are proposing. The good ones get others to buy into their vision. The great ones actually make some changes, albeit rarely quite as profoundly as hoped.

But just because someone believes something strongly and articulates very well doesn’t mean it’s true. I’d like to see significant changes as much as anyone, and more than most, and I know I’m too often guilty of looking for what Mr. Mims calls “the winning lottery ticket” when it comes to healthcare innovation, even though I know the lottery is a sucker’s bet.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan (!), hope but verify.

Tech bubbles are useful even when they’re wasteful

 Healthcare has its bubbles as well, many but not all of them tech related. How many health start-ups over the last twenty years can you name that did not survive, much less make a mark on the healthcare system? How many billions of investments do they represent?

But, as Mr. Mims recounts Bill Gates once saying, “most startups were “silly” and would go bankrupt, but that the handful of ideas—he specifically said ideas, and not companies—that persist would later prove to be “really important.”’  

The trick, in healthcare as in tech, is separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff, both in terms of what ideas deserve to persist and in which people/organizations can actually make them work. There are good new ideas out there, some of which could be really important.

We’ve got more power than we think

Many of us feel helpless when encountering the healthcare system. It’s too big, too complicated, too impersonal, and too full of specialized knowledge for us to have the kind of agency we might like.

Mr. Mims advice, when it comes to tech is: “Collectively, we have agency over how new tech is developed, released, and used, and we’d be foolish not to use it.” The same is true with healthcare. We can be the patient patients our healthcare system has come to expect, or we can be the assertive ones that it will have to deal with.

I think about people like Dave deBronkart or the late Casey Quinlan when it comes to demanding our own data. I think about Andrea Downing and The Light Collective when it comes to privacy rights. I think about all the biohackers who are not waiting for the healthcare system to catch up on how to apply the latest tech to their health. And I think about all those patient advocates – too numerous to name – who are insisting on respect from the healthcare system and a meaningful role in managing their health.

Yes, we’ve got way more power than we think. Use it.

————

Mr. Mims is humble in admitting that he fell for some people, ideas, gadgets, and services that perhaps he shouldn’t. The key thing he does, though, to use his words, is “paying attention to what’s just over the horizon.” We should all be trying to do that and doing our best to prepare for it.

My horizon is what a 22nd healthcare system could, will and should look like. I’m not willing to settle for what our early 21st century one does. I expect I’ll continue to get a lot wrong but I’m still going to try.

You Bet Your Life

By KIM BELLARD

America is crazy about gambling. Once you had to gamble illegally with a bookie, or go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas; now 45 states – plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – have state lotteries. Since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA, the federal ban on sports betting, 38 states – plus the D.C. and Puerto Rico – offer legal sports betting. I didn’t think we could get any crazier, until I saw last week that arcade chain Dave & Busters was going to allow betting on some of its games.

Honestly, healthcare may be the only industry upon which you can’t bet, and I’m beginning to think that’s too bad.

Dave & Busters are working with Lucra Sports, a “white-label gamification” technology company. “We’re thrilled to work with Lucra to bring this exciting new gaming platform to our customers,” said Simon Murray, SVP of Entertainment and Attractions at Dave and Buster’s. “This new partnership gives our loyalty members real-time, unrivaled gaming experiences, and reinforces our commitment to continuing to elevate our customer experience through innovative, cutting-edge technology.”

“Friendly competition really is a big fuel for our economy, whether you’re playing golf on Sunday with your buddies, or you’re going to play pickleball or video games or even cornhole at a tailgate. There’s so many ways that you can compete with friends and family, and I think gamifying that and digitizing all this offline stuff that’s happening is a massive opportunity,” Lucra CEO Dylan Robbins told CNN.

The companies are careful not to describe what they’re doing as gambling; they avoid terms like “bet” or “wager.” Michael Madding, Lucra’s chief operating officer, told The New York Times that the focus was on “skills-based” games, such as Skee-Ball or shooting baskets: i.e., “recreational activities for which the outcome is largely or entirely dependent on the knowledge, ability, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence of the participants and is subject to the control of those participants.”

This falls into a category I had never heard of: “social betting.” With social betting, there is no third party setting the odds, and more head-to-head competition with people you know. You’re not betting against the house; you’re challenging your friends. It is estimated by gaming research firm Eilers & Krejcik to be a $6b market, and its proponents argue that it is not subject to licenses & regulations that other gambling does.

Not everyone agrees. Marc Edelman, a law professor and the director of sports ethics at Baruch College in New York, told NYT:

If two people are competing against one another in Skee-Ball, presuming that there is nothing unusual done in the Skee-Ball game and physical skill is actually going to determine the winner, there is no problem. If I am taking a bet on whether someone else will win a Skee-Ball game, or whether someone else will achieve a particular score in Skee-Ball, if I myself am not engaged in a physical competition, that very likely would be seen as gambling.

Brett Abarbanel, executive director of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, International Gaming Institute, went further, telling CNBC: “regardless of the legal classification of the activity as ‘not gambling’ vs. ‘gambling,’ this is an activity in which participants are risking something of value on an outcome that is uncertain. Therefore, there should be consumer protection measures in place for players, particularly when the target audience is skewed toward younger participants.”

Both Illinois and Ohio gambling authorities have already expressed concerns; Illinois State Rep. Daniel Didech, chairman of the Illinois House Gaming Committee,, told CNBC: “It is inappropriate for family-friendly arcades to facilitate unregulated gambling on their premises. These businesses simply do not have the ability to oversee gambling activity in a safe and responsible manner.”

There are also numerous “social sportsbooks,” including Flitt, PrizePicks, and Underdog Fantasy, that are blurring the line between online sports gambling and social betting, between fantasy leagues and plain old gambling. And they do it with users as young as 13 and with little or no state oversight. Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, told The Washington Post: “What a lot of these social gaming — social casinos, social sportsbooks — have found is that the regulators … either don’t feel like they have the jurisdiction or the time or energy to go after every single app that springs up.” 

Whether we like it or not, people are going to bet. “People will place a bet on ‘Will we have rainfall?’, or ‘How much snow will a certain place get?’, or ‘What will be the first day of snowfall?’” sports policy expert John Holden, JD/PhD, associate professor at Oklahoma State University, told Fox 5 NY last year.

So why shouldn’t they bet on health care?

Let’s face it: we all already bet on health care.

Continue reading…

Ready for Robots?

By KIM BELLARD

When I was young, robots were Robby the Robot (Forbidden Planet, etc.), the unnamed robot in Lost in Space, or The Jetsons’ Rosey the Robot. Gen X and Millennials might think instead of the more malevolent Terminators (which, of course, are actually cyborgs). But Gen Z is likely to think of the running, jumping, back-flipping Atlas from Boston Dynamics, whose videos have entertained millions.

Alas, last week Boston Dynamics announced it was discontinuing Atlas. “For almost a decade, Atlas has sparked our imagination, inspired the next generations of roboticists and leapt over technical barriers in the field,” the company said. “Now it’s time for our hydraulic Atlas robot to kick back and relax.”

The key part of that announcement was describing Atlas as “hydraulic,” because the very next day Boston Dynamics announced a new, all-electric Atlas: “Our new electric Atlas platform is here. Supported by decades of visionary robotics innovation and years of practical experience, Boston Dynamics is tackling the next commercial frontier.” Moreover, the company brags: “The electric version of Atlas will be stronger, with a broader range of motion than any of our previous generations.”

The introductory video is astounding:

Boston Dynamics says: “Atlas may resemble a human form factor, but we are equipping the robot to move in the most efficient way possible to complete a task, rather than being constrained by a human range of motion. Atlas will move in ways that exceed human capabilities.”

They’re right about that.

CEO Robert Playter told Evan Ackerman of IEEE Spectrum: “We’re going to launch it as a product, targeting industrial applications, logistics, and places that are much more diverse than where you see Stretch—heavy objects with complex geometry, probably in manufacturing type environments.”

He went on to elaborate:

This is our third product [following Spot and Stretch], and one of the things we’ve learned is that it takes way more than some interesting technology to make a product work. You have to have a real use case, and you have to have real productivity around that use case that a customer cares about. Everybody will buy one robot—we learned that with Spot. But they won’t start by buying fleets, and you don’t have a business until you can sell multiple robots to the same customer. And you don’t get there without all this other stuff—the reliability, the service, the integration.

The company will work with Hyundai (which, ICYMI, owns Boston Dynamics). Mr. Playter says Hyundai “is really excited about this venture; they want to transform their manufacturing and they see Atlas as a big part of that, and so we’re going to get on that soon.”

Continue reading…

Health Care’s Debt Problem

By KIM BELLARD

Among the many things that infuriate me about the U.S. healthcare system, health systems sending their patients to collections – or even suing them – is pretty high on the list (especially when they are “non-profit” and./or faith-based organizations, which we should expect to behave better).

There’s no doubt medical debt in the U.S. is a huge problem. Studies have found that more than 100 million people have medical debt, many of whom don’t think they’ll ever be able to pay it off. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates Americans owe some $220b in medical debt, with 3 million people owing more than $10,000. It’s oft cited that medical debts are the leading cause of bankruptcy, although it’s quite not clear that is actually true.

So you’d think that helping pay off that debt would be a good thing. But it turns out, it’s not that simple.

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) by Raymond Kluender, et. alia, found that, whoops, paying off people’s medical debt didn’t improve their credit score or financial distress, made them less likely to pay future medical bills, and didn’t improve their mental health.

“We were disappointed,” said Professor Kluender told Sarah Kliff in The New York Times. “We don’t want to sugarcoat it.”

The researchers worked with R.I.P. Medical Debt, a non-profit that buys up medical debt “at pennies on the dollar,” to identify people with such debt, and then compared people whom R.I.P. Medical Debt had helped versus those it had not. One set of people had hospital debts that were at the point of being sold to a collection agency, and another had debts that had already been sent to collection. And, perhaps to highlight how little we understand our healthcare system, they asked experts in medical debt what their expectations for the experiment were.

Much to everyone’s surprise, having debt paid off made no difference between control and debt-relief groups. I.e.,

  • “We find no average effects of medical debt relief on the financial outcomes in credit bureau data in either of our experiments.
  • We similarly estimate economically small and statistically insignificant effects on other measures of financial distress, credit access, and credit utilization.
  • We find that debt relief causes a statistically significant and economically meaningful reduction in payment of existing medical bills.
  • We estimate statistically insignificant average effects of medical debt relief on measures of mental and physical health, healthcare utilization, and financial wellness, with “opposite-signed” point estimates for the mental health outcomes relative to our prior.”

In short: 

Our findings contrast with evidence on the effects of non-medical debt relief and evidence on the benefits of upstream relief of medical bills through hospital financial assistance programs. Our results are similarly at odds with views of the experts we surveyed, pronouncements by policymakers funding medical debt relief, and self-reported assessments of recipients of medical debt relief. 

Amy Finkelstein, a health economist at the MIT and a co-director of J-PAL North America, a nonprofit group that provided some funding for the study, told Ms. Kliff: “The idea that maybe we could get rid of medical debt, and it wouldn’t cost that much money but it would make a big difference, was appealing. What we learned, unfortunately, is that it doesn’t look like it has much of an impact.”

If only it was that easy.

To be clear, there were three key statistically significant effects:

  • “small improvements in credit access for the subset of persons whose medical debt would have otherwise been reported to the credit bureaus,
  • modest reduction in payments of future medical bills, and
  • worsened mental health outcomes, concentrated among those who had the largest amount of debt relieved and those who received phone calls to raise awareness and salience of the intervention.”

The authors admitted they had not expected the mental health results and had no good explanation, but their “preferred interpretation is that recipients of the cash payments viewed the transfers as insufficient to close the gap between their resources and needs, raising the salience of their financial distress and harming their mental health.”

As Neale Mahoney, an economist at Stanford and a co-author of the study, told Ms. Kliff: “Many of these people have lots of other financial issues. Removing one red flag just doesn’t make them suddenly turn into a good risk, from a lending perspective.”

The authors concluded:

Nonetheless, our results are sobering; they demonstrate no improvements in financial well-being or mental health from medical debt relief, reduced repayment of medical bills, and, if anything, a perverse worsening of mental health. Moreover, other than modest impacts on credit access for those whose medical debt is reported, we are unable to identify ways to target relief to subpopulations who stand to experience meaningful benefits.

On the other hand, Allison Sesso, R.I.P. Medical Debt’s executive director, told Ms. Kliff that study was at odds with what the group had regularly heard from those it had helped. “We’re hearing back from people who are thrilled,” she said.

As statisticians would say, anecdotes are not data.

————-

Removing medical debt seems like a can’t-lose idea. A number of states and local governments have passed programs to pay off medical debt (most working with R.I.P. Medical Debt) and a number of others are considering it.

Last fall the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau initiated rulemaking that would remove medical bills from credit reports. It has also, according to NPR, “penalized medical debt collectors, issued stern warnings to health care providers and lenders that target patients, and published reams of reports on how the health care system is undermining the financial security of Americans.”

Director Chopra admits: “Of course, there are broader things that we would probably want to fix about our health care system, but this is having a direct financial impact on so many Americans.”

If nothing else, the new study should remind us that our health system is best at putting band-aids on problems rather than solving them. The problems we should be addressing include: why are so many charges so high, why aren’t people better protected against them, and why don’t more Americans have enough resources to pay their bills, especially unpredictable ones like from health care services?

I’m glad R.I.P. Medical Debt is doing what it is doing, but let’s not kid ourselves that it is solving the problem.

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

Microplastics, Major Problem

By KIM BELLARD

It’s been almost four years since I first wrote about microplastics; long story short, they’re everywhere. In the ground, in the oceans (even at the very bottom), in the atmosphere. More to the point, they’re in the air you breathe and in the food you eat. They’re in you, and no one thinks that is a good thing. But we’re only starting to understand the harm they cause.

The Washington Post recently reported:

Scientists have found microplastics — or their tinier cousins, nanoplastics — embedded in the human placenta, in blood, in the heart and in the liver and bowels. In one recent study, microplastics were found in every single one of 62 placentas studied; in another, they were found in every artery studied.

One 2019 study estimated “annual microplastics consumption ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 particles depending on age and sex. These estimates increase to 74,000 and 121,000 when inhalation is considered.” A more recent study estimated that a single liter of bottled water may include 370,000 nanoplastic particles. “It’s sobering at the very least, if not very concerning,” Pankaj Pasricha, MD, MBBS, chair of the department of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved with the new research, told Health. 

But we still don’t have a good sense of exactly what harm they cause. “I hate to say it, but we’re still at the beginning,” Phoebe Stapleton,a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Rutgers University, told WaPo.

A new study sheds some light – and it is not good. It found that people with microplastics in their heart were at higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. The researchers looked at the carotid plaque from patients who were having it removed and found 60% of them had microplastics and/or nanoplastics. They followed patients for three years to determine the impacts on patients’ health and found higher morbidity/mortality.

“We are reasonably sure that the problem comes from a frailty of the plaque itself,” says Giuseppe Paolisso, a professor of internal medicine and geriatrics at the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Naples, Italy, and one of the study’s authors. “We suppose due to the fact that the plaques with microplastics and nanoplastics have a higher degree of inflammation, this kind of plaque can be broken more easily; and once they are broken, they can go into the blood streams.”

“This is pivotal,” Philip Landrigan, an epidemiologist and professor of biology at Boston College, who was not involved in the study, wrote in an accompanying opinion piece. “For so long, people have been saying these things are in our bodies, but we don’t know what they do.” He went on to add: “If they can get into the heart, why not into the brain, the nervous system? What about the impacts on dementia or other chronic neurological diseases?”

Scary stuff.

If that isn’t scary enough, an article last year in PNAS found: “Indeed, it turns out that a host of potentially infectious disease agents can live on microplastics, including parasites, bacteria, fungi, and viruses.” Even worse: “Beyond their potential for direct delivery of infectious agents, there’s also growing evidence that microplastics can alter the conditions for disease transmission. That could mean exacerbating existing threats by fostering resistant pathogens and modifying immune responses to leave hosts more susceptible.”

However much you’re worrying about microplastics, it’s not enough.

Continue reading…