Tag: Health Care Reform

Kids Can’t Vote but Health Reformers Should Still Listen

Aug 9, 2009• 20

By ALAN L. GOLDBLOOM, MD

Depending on who you listen to, health care reform in Washington is either closer to reality than it has ever been, or it’s on life support. Competing ideas are all over the map in terms of how health care should be delivered in America, and how we should pay the tab. About the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the current system doesn’t work, and that we need to get something – anything – done.

But with all the energy and effort going into reform, getting “anything done” isn’t good enough. This is a chance to change the core values of our health care system to deliver access to high quality, low cost care. It’s time to “invest” in the health of our nation. We can’t settle for anything less.

As president and CEO of Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, my number one concern is the health of children, and I feel a responsibility to be a voice for children in this debate. The simple fact is, children don’t vote. They don’t have political action committees and they don’t make campaign contributions. But the decisions that elected officials will make about health care will have a huge impact on the health and well being of our children.

If we want to provide the best quality care for children, a few key principals must guide any and all health care reform decisions.

First, we need to address issues around Medicaid reimbursement. Medicaid is the single largest insurer of children in the country. In Minnesota Medicaid reimburses only around 80 percent of the cost of care, and in many other states, it’s less. In fact, for all the talk about poor Medicare reimbursement levels, Medicaid pays providers at rates 20 to 30 percent lower than Medicare. That’s why more and more doctors and clinics are declining to treat Medicaid patients, leaving families without access to proper care.

The current House bill recognizes this inequity and proposes to increase primary care physician payments under Medicaid to 100 percent of Medicare by 2012. However, it does not address inequities for other key providers such as pediatric hospitals and specialists.

At Children’s of Minnesota, we served more than 42 thousand children on Medicaid in 2008. We treat all children regardless of insurance status, but Medicaid reimbursement rates do threaten our ability to provide the kind of high quality, specialized services we believe children in our community deserve.

The second key element to reform involves a simple philosophy: we need to reward quality rather than quantity. My state, Minnesota, has a well-deserved reputation for delivering high quality, low cost health care. Because of this, our reimbursement rates are among the lowest in the country.

We are very concerned about any reform proposals that would apply across-the-board cuts to existing reimbursement rates, without taking into account the value of care already being delivered.

We need reform that provides incentives to caregivers to be innovative around efficiency. We should be rewarding providers who develop unique care models that eliminate waste while delivering excellent results. Only then will we see the cost savings that health care reform advocates are promoting.

Finally, we need to change the way we think about health care for children. Providing health coverage for all children should not be a luxury in this country. We have already acknowledged that every child has a right to an education, and as a society, we pay for it. Children’s health care deserves the same support. After all, the money we spend on children’s health is an investment that pays off for 70 or 80 years, not only in productive lives, but in avoidance of long term health costs. No other health care expenditure has that kind of return on investment. The needs of children must be front and center in this debate.

There are no easy answers for health care reform. Honest and thoughtful people can disagree on how we should go about changing the system. But by sticking to these core principals around Medicaid reimbursement, encouraging efficiency, and investing in children, we will have a good foundation to build on.

Alan L. Goldbloom, MD, is president and CEO of Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, the 7th largest pediatric health system in the United States. Previously, Dr. Goldbloom was executive vice president and chief operating officer at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada’s largest children’s hospital. After graduating in medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and training in pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital, Dr. Goldbloom practiced General Pediatrics and served as Director of Residency Training at both Dalhousie University in Halifax and at the University of Toronto, before becoming involved in hospital management.

Finally, A Reasonable Plan for Certification of EHR Technologies

Aug 4, 2009• 28

By DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPER

A caution to readers: This post is about methods for certifying Electronic Health Record (EHR) technologies used by physicians, medical practices, and hospitals who hope to qualify for federal incentive payments under the so-called HITECH portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It may not be as critical as the larger health care reform effort or as entertaining as Sarah Palin, but it WILL matter to hundreds of thousands of physicians, influencing how difficult or easily those in small and medium size practices acquire health IT. And indirectly for the foreseeable future, it could affect millions of American patients, their ability to securely access their medical records, and the safety, quality, and the cost of medical care.

Three weeks ago, on July 14-15, 2009, the ONC’s Health IT Policy Committee held hearings in DC to review and consider changes to CCHIT’s current certification process. The Policy Committee is one of two panels formed to advise the new National Coordinator for Health IT, David Blumenthal. In a session that was a model of open-mindedness and balance, the Committee heard from all perspectives: vendors, standards organizations, physician groups, and many others.

And then, on July 16, they released their final recommendations on what is now referred to as “HHS Certification.” The effects of their recommendations – these are available online and should be read in their entirety to grasp their extent – are potentially monumental, and could very positively change health IT for the foreseeable future.

At the heart of these hearings was the issue of who will define the certification criteria and who will evaluate vendors’ products. Among many others, we have voiced concerns that the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT), the body currently contracted by HHS to perform EHR certification, has been partial to traditional health IT vendors in defining the certification criteria, and in the ways certification is carried out, and thereby able to inhibit innovation in this industry sector. Despite its leaders’ claims that the certification process has been developed using an open framework, CCHT’s obvious ties to the old guard IT vendors have created an overwhelming appearance of conflict of interest. That appearance has not been refuted by CCHIT’s resistance to and delays in implementing interoperability standards, or by its focus on features and functions over safety, security, and standards compliance.

In the hearings that led to the recommendations, longtime IT watchers were treated to some extraordinary commentary, much of which dramatically undermined CCHIT’s position.

“HHS Certification means that a system is able to achieve government requirements for security, privacy, and interoperability, and that the system would enable the Meaningful Use results that the government expects…HHS Certification is not intended to be viewed as a ‘seal of approval’ or an indication of the benefits of one system over another.”

In other words, as the definition of Meaningful Use is now tied to specific quality and safety improvements and cost savings that result from health IT — among them e-Prescribing, quality and cost reporting, data exchange for care coordination, and patient access to summary health data — HHS Certification will closely follow. Rather than pertain to an EHR’s long list of features and functions, some of which have nothing to do with Meaningful Use, certification will be focused on each IT system’s ability to enable practices and hospitals to collect, store, and exchange health data securely.

Who Determines the Certification Criteria

The Office of the National Coordinator – not CCHIT – would determine certification criteria, which “should be limited to the minimum set of criteria that are necessary to: (a) meet the functional requirements of the statute, and (b) achieve the Meaningful Use Objectives.” As regulator, funder for this project, and a major purchaser of health services, the government, not users or vendors, will now determine HHS’ Certification criteria.

A New Emphasis on Interoperability

“Criteria on functions/features should be high level; however, criteria on interoperability should be more explicit.” That is, functions/features criteria will be broadly defined, but there will be a greater focus in the future on the specifics associated with bringing about straightforward data exchange.

Multiple Certifying Organizations

ONC would develop an accreditation process and select an organization to accredit certifying organizations, then allow multiple organizations to perform certification testing. In other words, the Committee recommended that CCHIT’s monopoly end.

Third Party Validation

The “Validation” process would be redefined to prove that an EHR technology properly implemented and used by physician or hospital can perform the requirements of Meaningful Use. Self-attestation, along with reporting and audits performed by a Third Party, could be used to monitor the validation program.

Broader Interpretation of HHS Certification

HHS Certification would be broadly interpreted to include open source, modular, and non-vendor EHR and PHR technologies and their components.

These bold, forward-thinking proposals from the HIT Policy Committee have not been accepted yet. But in our opinion they should be. These measures would encourage new technologies to enter the market for physician medical practices seeking EHR technology, and wrest control away from the legacy health IT vendors that have maintained barriers and delayed adoption, so you can be sure that the old guard players are doing everything possible to have them rejected.

But these are hugely progressive steps in the right direction, toward allowing HIT to enable improvements in care and cost efficiencies that would be in the best interests of users and the public at large. If implemented, the changes recommended by the HIT Policy Committee would create greater choice, more standardization, lower price, less interruption of the practices — as well as a check from CMS or Medicaid each year to help smooth the implementation, starting in 2011.

David C. Kibbe MD MBA is a Family Physician and Senior Advisor to the American Academy of Family Physicians who consults on health care professional and consumer technologies. Brian Klepper PhD is a health care market analyst. Their collected collaborative columns may be found here.

The Case for Taxing “Cadillac” Healthcare Coverage

Aug 4, 2009• 39

By CLAYTON MCWHORTER ClaytonMcWhorter1

With President Obama’s plan for healthcare reform recently being dealt a tough blow by the Congressional Budget Office over soaring federal deficit projections, I am beginning to wonder if it is time for the President to modify his stance against taxing “Cadillac” healthcare coverage offered by employers. It’s no secret what Senator Max Baucus, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the most powerful people in the healthcare reform debate, thinks President Obama should do. Senator Baucus has been a vocal advocate of taxing healthcare benefits. He recently told reporters that taxing employer-sponsored benefits is “the best way to raise money for an overhaul of the healthcare system.” He has also been somewhat critical of President Obama’s decision to not tax healthcare benefits by saying, “Basically, the president is not helping us.”

In recent days, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House Democratic legislation would add more than $230 billion to the federal budget deficit. On the Senate side, Senator Baucus, who has been working with Senate leaders to formulate another plan, has pointed out the difficulties his committee has had with funding reform without some other type of significant revenue.

One way that raises enough revenue to cover well over the $230 billion figure projected by the CBO is through taxing employer-sponsored health benefits. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that taxing employer-sponsored benefits above the value of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), adjusted for inflation, would generate nearly $420 billion over the next 10 years, which would easily fund the difference in the budget gap. Many other estimates place this number considerably higher. Furthermore, many experts believe that this policy is a key way to reduce costs, because tax-free benefits encourage more spending on health care.

About 18 months ago, as I worked with a committee that I chaired in Tennessee called the Rolling Hills Group to create a structural model for national healthcare reform, I ran into the same problem that President Obama is facing today. How do you pay for reform? After considering several options on how to finance universal insurance, our group kept coming back to the same, single solution – the same one that Senator Baucus is a proponent of, taxing “Cadillac” healthcare benefits.

Under our proposal, we created a basic level of coverage similar to what members of Congress are offered today, known as the FEHBP standard option plan. This plan is very generous and has been successful in holding down costs compared to other plans. In order to make sure our plan was budget neutral, we decided we would no longer allow what we consider “Cadillac” coverage benefits to be tax free. For example, in 2009, under our proposal, any individual policy worth more than $5,871.84 or any family policy worth more than $13,445.64 would be subject to a tax. Anything less than this amount would be tax free. For individuals, any amount above the base value of the plan would be considered income. While for companies, any amount above the base value of the plan would no longer be deductible as a business expense.

We had this idea vetted by the Moran Company, who said that our plan is actuarially sound and budget neutral for the federal government once fully phased in. Just as a note, in our plan we also derive revenue from Disproportionate Share Payments (DSH) and hold down up front costs by phasing in the reform over a 10 year period. Disproportionate Share Payments is funding that hospitals receive for treating indigent populations. Thus, it is reasonable to decrease DSH payments as the uninsured population decreases.

If taxing “Cadillac” coverage raises enough revenue to make healthcare reform budget neutral and encourages less spending on healthcare, why has such an attractive option for reform been pulled off the table amidst the President’s insistence on urgency? As is usually the case with healthcare reform, the answer may be in the politics.

In recent weeks, several articles have outlined strong opposition by labor unions to the taxation of their healthcare benefits. In the Washington Post, the AFL-CIO stated its opposition to taxing “Cadillac” coverage. Michael Sullivan, the President of the Sheet Metal Workers Union, has also adamantly stated his opposition to taxing healthcare benefits by saying, “Any bill that taxes health care benefits is dead on arrival.” Understanding these political difficulties, but still seeing the taxing of benefits as a viable way forward, lawmakers have demonstrated that there may be room for compromise. Senator Baucus himself has hinted that he might consider grandfathering in the taxation of health benefits that are part of a collective-bargaining agreement, which would allow union plans to remain tax-free until new contracts can be negotiated.

Labor unions are not the only ones who have come out against the taxation of “Cadillac” plans, as many large corporations have exhibited significant opposition as well. However, if healthcare reform is going to happen this year, Congress and President Obama may want to take a harder look at taxing “Cadillac” healthcare benefits as a means of raising revenue and achieving their other healthcare priorities. I think it is fair to say that if Obama explains to the American people that the Government is only going tax the most lavish of benefits, he might find greater support from the American public for the change in health care that he promised to bring and that this nation so desperately needs.

Clayton McWhorter is a former President and chairman of HCA and current chairman of Clayton Associates and the Rolling Hills Group. He is the founder of the group SHOUTAmerica, a Nashville based organization that uses social networking and other internet-based technologies to push for change in the healthcare system.

Are “Cadillac” health plans the problem?

Aug 4, 2009• 9

By BILL KRAMER

The debate over proposals to tax health insurance plans is confusing and frustrating. The proposals are usually described as a tax on “gold plated” or “Cadillac” health coverage. According to the media and many spokespeople on the Hill, these health plans with “overly generous benefits” supposedly encourage overuse of medical services and drive up the overall costs of health care. People express outrage that Wall Street executives have expensive tax-subsidized health benefits that include coverage for cosmetic surgery. Is this really a problem? If we fix this, will it raise lots of revenue and bend the cost curve? I don’t think so. The problem is not “Cadillac” coverage, whatever that is.

I know that some economists believe that people ought to have more “skin in the game” by paying a significant share of the costs of medical services they receive. I agree, but only up to a point. Health care services are not like other goods and services. If you give me more money, I might build a fancier house, buy a new car, go to more concerts, fly first class, etc., because I like all of these things. Frankly, I don’t particularly like going to the doctor, and I wouldn’t spend my extra income on more blood tests, CT scans, colonoscopies, or surgeries (ouch!). It’s fine to have modest copayments to discourage unnecessary doctor visits or to encourage use of generic instead of brand name drugs, but onerous cost sharing when someone is seeking medical care won’t solve our problem. A tax on “Cadillac” plans won’t raise much revenue, and it won’t bend the cost curve in any significant way.

Health-Care Reform and the “Culture Wars”

Aug 4, 2009• 13

By MAGGIE MAHAR

Friday, Politico.com editor Fred Barbash posed this question to “Arena” contributors: “Does the ongoing debate about healthcare reform reflect a :”kind of culture war” that can be traced to a “fundamental difference in world views?”

Barbash then pointed to a thought-provoking piece by Bill Bishop, titled “Health Debate Runs Along Familiar Lines” which was published on Politico.com in March. Bishop, who is the co-author of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart,” argues that “The health care discussion reveals that the country is still divided along lines drawn more than 100 years ago. . . divisions in the country were never about specific issues . . .. They were about ways of looking at this world (and the next), and those century-old differences are now shaping the health care discussion.”

Bishop frames the age-old religious debate this way: “Do you get to heaven by your good works, by what you do for your brothers and sisters on Earth? Or do you find salvation by your individual relationship with God? Does the world get better through public acts or private ones?“When Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said recently that ‘this health care issue s D-Day for freedom in America’ he was talking from one side of this division. President Barack Obama says, ‘I am my brother’s keeper.’ That’s the view from the other bank. “This isn’t a policy issue or a disagreement about strategy,” Bishop adds. “It is a fundamental difference in worldview. It’s a division in what people expect out of life, and it’s been part of this country for more than 100 years.”

Say we get some sausage–then what?

Aug 1, 2009• 9

By MICHAEL PAINTER J.D., M.D

sausage (sô´sǐj)
n. A highly seasoned minced meat usually stuffed in casings of prepared
animal intestine.

Congress is obviously in the thick of the sausage making. The August recess is pending. Bills may or may not be moving. The legislative process, especially at this point, is not particularly pretty or, to be honest, as thoughtful as we all might hope. It is the process, though, right? There was essentially no way around something like this intestine stuffing, especially in an effort to fix health care–such a large sector of the American economy. And in spite of the messy work and depending on the day, the observer and the poll, it nevertheless seems likely that something will come out of the kitchen, right? It is also probably safe to say, though, that any reform law is not going to be the panacea–the ultimate health and health care fix. Instead, if a law indeed passes, it's clear that we're going to spend the next five, 10, 15 years adjusting, backtracking, redesigning and working toward better care. In other words, the implementation is going to matter, and it's going to matter a lot. On July 30 in Washington, D.C. at the Hart Senate Office Building, the RWJF-funded High-Value Health Care Project led by Mark McClellan of the Engelberg Center at Brookings hosted a panel discussion focused on just that–the implementation. Specifically, Mark, Carolyn Clancy of AHRQ, John Tooker of the American College of Physicians, Steve Findlay of the Consumers Union and Jim Chase of Minnesota Community Measurement talked to a large Capitol Hill audience about what it will take to make health care deliver sustainable high value.

California Moves Backward on Covering Uninsured Children

Jul 31, 2009

By JOCEYLN GUYER

During tough budget times, most states have maintained their commitment to covering uninsured children. At least eighteen states have even further strengthened coverage for uninsured children, despite budget problems, as the recession has increased the need.While many states have prioritized covering uninsured children, California lawmakers voted to deny coverage to nearly 800,000 children. This decision ignores strong public support for providing affordable health coverage to children and families. This decision also undermines California’s ability to access federal funds, just when the state needs them most. The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 made the federal government an even stronger partner for states that prioritize covering uninsured children. California’s $144 million children’s coverage cut will cost the state $267 million in federal funds.This is a difficult time for state budgets but an even harder time for family budgets, and many states are responding to meet the need. Alabama, Washington, North Dakota, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Montana have all expanded coverage; Oregon and Ohio are on the verge of doing the same. Other states have instituted reforms designed to make their CHIP and Medicaid programs more family-friendly, all with the goal of increasing access to affordable health coverage for children.California faces unique public policy challenges that have contributed to this step backward for children. The state was hit particularly hard by the economic and housing crises. More importantly, California has legal restrictions that put large shares of the state’s budget out of lawmakers’ reach, as well as supermajority requirements for passage of budget legislation.While the search continues for ways to help California restore affordable health coverage options for children and families and hope remains high that national health insurance reform will be enacted soon, California’s decision should not diminish the accomplishments of the other states. It is critical that states keep working to strengthen and maintain the gains they’ve made in offering affordable health coverage options to uninsured children and that the federal government remain a strong partner in their efforts.

Two rules by which to judge a health reform bill

Jul 31, 2009• 49

By Matthew Holt

Right now we have sausage-making going on in DC and lots of uninformed opinions and outright lies being strewn across the front pages and on cable from newly declared experts. I sat in an airport last night and heard 5 Wall Street pundits spewing rubbish about health reform on one cable show. It even included an aging upper-class British twit declaring that government health care was more expensive than private systems. Clearly he’d managed to miss comparing the 8% of GDP his (and my) original homeland spends on health care versus the 17% we spend here. Later on CNN had 4 random people including Christine Hefner—yes one of those Hefners—talking about it. I suspect that if you know something about health care and your name’s not Michael Cannon you’re just not allowed on cable TV.

But all the hot air aside, even those of us in the punditocracy who know something about the subject matter (i.e. anyone reading THCB) seem to be so deep in the weeds that we have lost the basics about what we should be looking for from a health care bill. So it’s time to make that very clear, and here in my not so humble opinion are the rules by which to judge reform.

Rule 1 A health care reform bill needs to guarantee that no
one should find themselves unable to get care simply because they
cannot afford it. Neither should anyone find themselves financially
compromised (or worse) because they have received care.

Rule 2 A health care reform bill needs to limit the amount of
GDP that is going to health care to its current level, with an overall
aim of reducing the share of health care going to GDP.

Health Care Reform Coming Out of Senate Finance?

Jul 29, 2009• 20

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI Baucusgrassley110th

We’ve been getting lots of news these past few days leading to optimism that a bipartisan health care bill will soon emerge from discussions between the “Coalition of the Willing.” That term refers to the three Republicans and three Democrats trying to find common ground in the Senate Finance Committee.First, let me be clear that I have the greatest respect for Senators Baucus and Grassley and their four colleagues. Theirs is the kind of bipartisan approach that all of Washington, DC should be following on any number of issues.And, as I have posted here before, I am concerned that in their efforts to find compromise they are headed for a health care bill that is based on a formula of cost containment “lite,” minor paring of Medicare and Medicaid provider payments, and at least $500 billion in new taxes. I don’t see much changing fiscally if that is the final result in a health care system that is already unsustainable and on the way to spending upwards of $35 trillion to $40 trillion over the next ten years as it goes to 22% of GDP by 2018.From what we have heard, their bill would hardly "bend" any curves.

Speculators Bet Reform Won’t Hurt Industry

Jul 27, 2009• 19

By DON JOHNSON

Speculators seem to be betting that a watered down health insurance reform bill won’t hurt health insurers, hospitals, drug makers or medical device and supply manufacturers.

Stocks for almost all of these health sectors and for exchange trade funds that track health stock indexes turned higher last week. Why?

1. Congress is not going to get health bills through the Senate or the House in face of strong opposition by a minority of Democrats in both houses. This means opponents of the health insurance reform bills will have at least 45 days to convince members of Congress and the public that the bills favored by the president and his hard left supporters in Congress are a bad idea.

2. It is very unlikely that Congress will create a public option health plan, or Government HMO (Fannie Med). The votes aren’t there. This is a bit bullish for health insurers over the short term. White House talk about taxing insurers that offer gold plated health benefit plans makes no sense because few do. If such taxes were enacted, insurers would stop offering or administering such plans, and self-insured employers probably would drop them as long as union contracts didn’t lock them into such plans.

3. If the very liberal Coastal Democrats who lead Congress and most of the five commitees drafting health insurance legislation want to get the support of Democrats from Western, Midwestern and Southern states, they’ll have to up Medicare payments to providers in those states. This is bullish for hospital chains, which operate mostly in the fly-over states.

4. The Congressional Budget Office Saturday threw cold water on the idea of putting MedPac, a panel of self-interested health care and medical experts who would be subject to tremendous political pressure from Congress, in charge of deciding what insurers would cover and how much they would pay for procedures. The panel would save only $2 billion out of trillions over 10 years, the CBO guessed. And it was being generous to the idea that MedPac would save anything. This is good for drug and medical device makers, because it lessens the threat of new price and utilization controls on their products.

5. While www.intrade.com bettors think there’s at least a 46% chance that some kind of health insurance reform will be enacted before year end, the polls are showing Americans are increasingly opposing the bills before Congress. The politicians who created the laws and regulations that make Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and state and federal regulations of health insurance markets unworkable failures are promising to fix the health markets. They have less and less credibility every day.

6. Proposals to tax millionaires to pay for covering the uninsured and increasing benefits for others are in trouble, if not dead on arrival. The economy’s in no shape to be stalled by tax hikes, and there appear to be enough Democrats opposed to the tax to stop it.

7. While the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are stalling health insurance reform for economic and ideological reasons, the Congressional Black Caucus has made it clear that it won’t support a bill that the Blue Dogs will support. Throw in the opposition by anti-abortionists who don’t want the legislation to use taxpayers money to pay for abortions, and you have a pretty complex political problem for President Obama, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). While the Speaker claimed Sunday that she has the votes to pass health insurance reform, few believe her.

Some Democrats are saying that drafting health insurance reform bills is 70% to 80% done and it won’t take long to get a bill. Other Democrats are saying they want to take the time to write good legislation. The question is, can the Democrats and a few Republicans resolve the last 20% to 30% of the issues that need to be agreed upon to get a bill? It doesn’t look very good for health insurance reform at the moment, but some kind of a bill may pass in the next year or so, if not this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush II all enacted major health legislation in their third and later years in office. All three bills have been financial and health care disasters.

Charts for health insurers are here.

Charts for hospital chains are here.

Charts for drug makers are here.

Charts for medical device and supply makers are here.

Charts for long-term care stocks are here.

Chart for health stock exchange traded funds are here.

Click on a chart to see a gallery of charts for a stock or ETF. Disclosure: I own BDX and options on STJ.

Don Johnson blogs at The Business Word Inc. Between 1976 and 1986 he was editor of Modern Healthcare magazine. As its top editor, Don helped build Modern Healthcare, a Crain Communications Inc. publication, into the hospital industry’s leading business magazine and one of the top magazines in the country.

More by this author: