Categories

Tag: Uncategorized

POLICY: Nanotechnology and the Regulation of New Technologies by Bart Mongoven

Bart Mongoven is a senior analyst with Austin based strategic intelligence consultancy  Stratfor.com, where he tracks public policy. This piece first appeared in the Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report. If you find his analysis interesting, you may want to take a look at his earlier analysis of the issues facing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s health reform plan. You also may want to consider signing up for their free email reports, which I find very useful and well-informed.  — John 

Researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Aug. 16 released a study stating that the production of carbon nanotubes gives rise to the creation of a slew of dangerous chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including some that are toxic.
Discussion of a new regulatory regime for nanotechnology has been ongoing among think tanks, advocacy groups and industry for years, and findings that suggest the sector could generate public health risks will add to the growing pressure on regulators or legislators to decide how to regulate it.

The debate over the regulation of nanotechnology has taken place on two levels. The first is over the public health risks nanotechnology poses and ways to determine and measure those risks. This is mainly the familiar risk-assessment process applied to the products of a technology that acts slightly differently than previous technologies do.
At the center of a second debate over public policies governing nanotechnology is an older, more contentious issue: the politicization of science and technology.

At issue is the point at which government is justified in stepping into the realm of science to stop or slow scientific research, regardless of whether harm has been done. This concern lay at the center of the early debate over biotechnology, and also played a role in the debate over federal funding of stem cells and bans on human cloning.

Continue reading…

POLICY: Klepper, moonlighting again!

Just when we thought we had him pinned down, Brian is moonlighting over at Bob L’s blog. His piece is called Solving the Access Problem Isn’t Enough If We Don’t Deal With Costs. Not absolutely true in my view. I think you need to do access first then deal with costs. He thinks you need to do them both together. But we’re both sensible enough to think that they’re both problems, and plenty of people—whether at Cato or at Harvard—disagree.

Another Step Toward Transparency — Brian Klepper

It was the great economist Adam Smith who said that, for markets to work, they need (among other things) "perfect information." Health care hasn’t worked, in large measure, because its markets have had almost no information.

So in what could be a huge step forward for the health care transparency movement, a federal court has ruled that the public interest outweighs concerns about physician privacy, and that, next month, CMS should release to a consumer advocacy group the Medicare data sets for 4 states and the District of Columbia. Here’s a snippet from Saturday’s Wall Street Journal article (subscription required):

The data at issue include medical-procedure and
billing details that physicians send to Medicare to get reimbursed by
the federal insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Although
collected largely for billing and administrative purposes, the data
could be analyzed to see how often a doctor performs a given procedure
and even to compare mortality rates among patients of different doctors.

The government has until Sept. 21 to release the data,
covering Maryland, Illinois, Washington state, Virginia and Washington
D.C., to the nonprofit Consumer’s CHECKBOOK/Center for the Study of
Services. The group said it will set up a free database on its Web site
for public use. It has filed similar public-information requests for
Medicare claims data for all 50 states.

It’s worth noting that this Administration, which has prided itself on its advocacy for EMRs, transparency, RHIOs and all the rest of it, when it counted, sided with keeping doctor performance secret. When the chips were down, this is how it actually worked.

You can bet that analytical groups all over the country will pounce on this information, profile and post the performance of physicians in these states, and campaign for access to the rest of the data.

Until recently, despite a lot of very worthwhile effort, data that could be used to develop performance information have been scarce. Health plans, who had the largest health care data sets, weren’t forthcoming with them. Now they’re publishing pricing data, which are somewhat useful, but not as useful as some of the other information embedded in their repositories.

The importance of this case can’t be overstated. The release of the Medicare data, if it happens, will go far toward making physician performance data more available and commonplace. This is a major victory for health care reformers, and many thanks go to Consumer’s CHECKBOOK, the advocacy group that sued for the data. It’s still too early to break open the champagne, of course, because the powers that oppose transparency still have a month to get the decision reversed.

Read the court’s opinion here, and CHECKBOOK’s press release here. This is just one more brick in the wall, of course. But there’s steady progress. It’s happening. And everything will eventually change in health care as a result.

PHARMA/QUALITY: Merrill Goozner has dug into “The Most Costly Earmark in S-CHIP”

GoozNews: The Most Costly Earmark in S-CHIP

Increased risk of death. No benefit. Higher costs for taxpayers. The ongoing Epo saga, whose latest chapter is being written on Capitol Hill, is a perfect example of why our health care outcomes are second-rate, while our health care costs are second to none.

This is a great bit of digging from Merrill, and it shows why FFS or in this case, Fee for drugs is just a bad way of paying for medical care. Do read it.

Evaluating the Quality of Quality Improvement Claims: The Population Health Impact Institute – Brian Klepper

Thomas Wilson PhD is on a mission that’s important to health care. Tom, a respected epidemiologist particularly well-known in disease management circles, founded the Population Health Impact Institute (PHII), a not-for-profit devoted to establishing clear, objective rules to evaluate claims of financial and clinical improvement associated with health management programs.

In an August 16th press release, PHII announced its intention to develop a new accreditation program that

“will focus on the methods behind the claims.  It will be based on the established evaluation principles of transparency and scientific validity successfully used by the PHII since its founding in 2004:

  • Transparency of metrics,
  • Equivalence of populations,
  • Statistical significance of measures,
  • Plausibility of hypotheses, and
  • Disclosures of potential conflicts-of-interest.”

This isn’t a lightweight effort. To oversee the development of their "Quality Evaluation Process” (QEP) standards will be developed by a volunteer panel of national experts, and chaired by former URAC President and CEO Garry Carneal, who oversaw the development of 16 new accreditation programs during his tenure with that quality accreditation organization.

PHII also boasts the participation and support of Sean Sullivan, the CEO of the not-for-profit large employer group, The Institute for Health and Productivity Management. Sean has been an extremely balanced and important voice on health care reform. His group argues that it is in employers’ interests to stabilize and improve health care quality and costs, because employees and families with good health care produce are far more productive. The opposite is true as well.

PHII is looking for expert volunteers for its standards panel. Visit the site of this important effort and consider whether you or your organization might have a way to contribute expertise, financial resources or both.

By way of disclosure, I sit on PHII’s Steering Committee.

THCB: Matthew’s back, and many thanks to Brian Klepper

This is a photo of some of what I’ve been up to while I was away….and to those of you who asked, yes it was as wonderful as we’d hoped, in an "oh so on the beach in Northern California" way.

Dsc_0872_2

While I’ve been off getting married my friend Brian Klepper has done an amazing job covering a huge variety of topics with insight and humor. Thanks very much to Brian, and I hope that we can keep him contributing to THCB. (He’s in lots of demand from other blogs and publications, and a great person to have speak to any group). Brian will also be covering the upcoming Health2.0 conference for THCB (as I’ll be a mite busy otherwise).

Finally the team working on Health2.0 has been doing an amazing job while I abandoned them for purely personal (if unavoidable) reasons. So I want to thank Indu, John and Sara for their incredible work. If the conference is half as as successful as our wedding, then it’ll be great!

Health Care Wonk Review Is Up – Brian Klepper

Every month, some good soul hosts Health Care Wonk Review, an eclectic gathering of posts from around the expert health care  blogosphere. This month, its Daniel Goldberg at the Medical Humanities Blog, and he’s assembled a genuinely superb collection of thoughtful essays. One of the underlying themes of THCB, of course, is the vastness and complexity of health care, and those of us really interested in the diversity of health care issues, dynamics and perspectives will find plenty to feast on here. Go on over and work through the ideas on display.

Benign Neglect and the Nursing Shortage – Brian Klepper

I sit on the Dean’s Advisory Councils of the Colleges of Health at two public universities in Florida. Both Colleges are led by extremely capable PhD nurses, and have a variety of programs that train students to be health professionals, including nurses.

A few months ago, I was startled when one of the Deans mentioned that
her Nursing program had 500 qualified applicants for 132 student slots.
In other words, at a time when the market wants her to gear up, she
turns away 3 qualified applicants for each one she accepts. As it turns
out, it’s a national problem. In 2006, Colleges of Nursing turned away 43,000 qualified applicants.

It’s not news that health care institutions face a critical nursing shortage. An April 2006 AHA report estimated that American hospitals currently need 118,000 RNs to fill vacancies. That number is expected to triple by 2020, to 340,000 vacancies.

Continue reading…

HHS Secretary Leavitt’s New Blog – Brian Klepper

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has a new blog.

While its hard to know what information the posts will contain once he settles in, it can only be a good thing for a public official to lay out his thoughts in such an open format. HHS and CMS lie at the heart of much of health care change now, so the establishment of a venue for exchange is extremely progressive and valuable.Kudos to Mr. Leavitt for going down this path. We’ll be reading with interest.