The Health Care Blog – Page 209 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

A National Patient Identifier: Should You Care?

Jul 9, 2019• 6

By ADRIAN GROPPER, MD

The rather esoteric issue of a national patient identifier has come to light as a difference between two major heath care bills making their way through the House and the Senate.

The bills are linked to outrage over surprise medical bills but they have major implications over how the underlying health care costs will be controlled through competitive insurance and regulatory price-setting schemes. This Brookings comment to the Senate HELP Committee bill summarizes some of the issues.

Who Cares?

Those in f a vor of a national patient identifier are mostly hospitals and data brokers, along with their suppliers. More support is discussed here. The opposition is mostly on the basis of privacyand libertarian perspective. A more general opposition discussion of the Senate bill is here.

Although obscure, national patient identifier standards can help clarify the role of government in the debate over how to reduce the unusual health care costs and disparities in the U.S. system. What follows is a brief analysis of the complexities of patient identifiers and their role relative to health records and health policy.

HardCore Health Podcast, Episode 2: Consumerism & Privacy

Jul 8, 2019

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

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

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

Jul 8, 2019• 2

By MIKE MAGEE

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

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

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

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

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

12 Rules for Health Tech Startups

Jul 6, 2019

By MATTHEW HOLT

Last week Mark Cuban tweeted out 12 rules for tech startups and Jessica DaMassa challenged a bunch of people to respond for health care. VC and general health care wit Lisa Suennen came out with quite the list (she got to 13) but I thought someone ought to write the real rules…

1. Never start a health tech company if you can sucker someone into giving you a real job

2. When VCs at conferences say raising money isn’t a problem, throw a milkshake at them

3. Never work with a technical co-founder who won’t give you the last M&M in the packet

4. When a clinician wants to quit their job and co-found with you, remember that the good ones could be making $500K a year reading X-rays and be on the golf course at 4pm

5. Do the 50/2 diet. Starve for 50 weeks of the year then eat and drink as much as you possibly can at HIMSS & JP Morgan parties when someone else is paying

6. When the incubator/accelerator/matchmaker says that they “chose you from 700 applicants” remember that there are roughly 700 of them and every company applies to each one

7. When you get the elusive partnership deal with the big hospital system, tech company or corporate, you’re going to expect to work at the speed of the startup and the scale of the corporate. It’ll be the reverse . (I stole this from Michael Ferguson at Ayogo)

8. After your first few clients and funding rounds you’ll be losing money at a exponential rate that matches what you had for revenue on the hockey stick chart in your pitch deck

9. Hopefully you’ll eventually be able to start making the money the health care way, by establishing a monopoly that can arbitrarily raise prices to the moon and stick it to your customers. If not, start prepping for the really big Oscar/Collective/Clover type round.

10. Pray to whatever God you follow that Softbank is still in business when #9 happens.

11. If after a decade or so of slog, you finally get the IPO, or semi decent exit, try to ignore the fact that the Instagram guys sold for $1 billion 11 months after they founded the company

12. Hope that you can disrupt health care, but remember that UnitedHealth Group’s revenue is $220 billion and CMS spends $900 billion a year and they both appear mostly powerless to make anything better.

Matthew Holt is publisher of The Health Care Blog and advises startups at SMACK.health using these principles and a few others too!

Was the IOM estimate of medical errors correct?

Jul 5, 2019

By SAURABH JHA

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

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

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

Listen to their conversation on Radiology Firing Line Podcast here.

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

Jul 4, 2019

By JESSICA DAMASSA, WTF HEALTH

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

Filmed at Health Datapalooza in Washington DC, March 2019.

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

THCB Spotlights: Brooke LeVasseur, CEO of AristaMD

Jul 4, 2019

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

Sexism vs. Cultural Imperialism

Jul 3, 2019

By SARAH HEARNE

As I was getting ready for bed last night a friend shared a tweet that immediately caught my attention.

https://twitter.com/sbattrawden/status/1143465003409915905

The tweet was of a paper that has just been published online, titled “Does physician gender have a significant impact on first-pass success rate of emergency endotracheal intubation?” and showed the abstract which began,

It is unknown whether female physicians can perform equivalently to male physicians with respect to emergency procedures.

Understandably, this got the backs up of a lot of people, myself included. Who on earth thinks that’s a valid question to be researching in this day and age? Are we really still having to battle assumptions of female inferiority when it comes to things like this? Who on earth gave this ethics approval, let alone got it though peer review?

I then took a deep breath and asked myself why a respected journal, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, would publish such idiocy. Maybe there was something else going on. The best way to find out is to read the paper so I got a copy and started reading. The first thing that struck me was the author affiliations – both are associated with hospitals in Seoul, South Korea. The second author had an online profile, he is a Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine. I couldn’t find the first author anywhere which made me think they are probably quite early in their career. The subject matter wasn’t something I could imagine a male early career researcher being interested in so figured they are probably female (not knowing Korean names I couldn’t work out if the name was feminine or masculine).

Why the Health Care System Is Incapable of Reducing Its Own Costs: A Brief Structural System Analysis

Jul 2, 2019• 8

By JOE FLOWER

Leading lights of the health insurance industry are crying that Medicare For All or any kind of universal health reform would “crash the system” and “destroy healthcare as we know it.”

They say that like it’s a bad thing.

They say we should trust them and their cost-cutting efforts to bring all Americans more affordable health care.

We should not trust them, because the system as it is currently structured economically is incapable of reducing costs.

Why? Let’s do a quick structural analysis. This is how health care actually works.

Health care, in the neatly packaged phrase of Nick Soman, CEO of Decent.com, is a “system designed to create reimbursable events.” For all that we talk of being “patient-centered” and “accountable,” the fee-for-service, incident-oriented system is simply not designed to march toward those lofty goals.

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

Jul 1, 2019

By HANS DUVEFELT, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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