Categories

Above the Fold

EHR and Practical, Tactical Outcomes

I hope people are watching the news around the Meaningful Use attestation data released by CMS recently, because it is so instructive as to the difference between where we are in health care and where the deliverers of keynotes THINK we are. Since last September, we’ve been publishing our Meaningful Use (MU) dashboard data and as of this week for example, we know that 83% of our Medicare MU doctors have attested to the measures.

But our constraints as a marketplace are at the practical, tactical level. According to our analysis, some 48% of what doctors order does NOT turn into a documented update to the chart within 60 days of that order. And we all know the average EHR makes docs go slower—causing employment by hospitals in large numbers—at large losses to the hospital. And NOW, based on the CMS data, it looks like a large percentage of docs are on track to miss a bloody lay-up of a bonus from the federal government! Do you guys really think we are going to build integrated ACOs that drive down hospitalization?

Pass it on—we are further behind than we think we are, and we need to hold ourselves accountable for PRACTICAL, TACTICAL outcomes before we even talk about grand outcomes like “total quality.” So what do we do? So glad you asked. I hazard three guesses, and you guys can throw in more… or challenge mine.

1. Make a market for health information exchange. Today, HIE is universally used as a NOUN. It’s a thing you buy from Aetna or Lockheed Martin or IBM. In every other information supply chain I know of, people who WANT info PAY others to give that info to them. They pay only when the info is delivered in usable form. This is, of course, not allowed in health care, but it can be. We should get behind legislation that allows for the most rudimentary mechanism for exchange in the history of man.

Continue reading…

Do You Want Your Doctor to Tell You When You’re Going to Die?

Paul Kostick’s DNA was under attack and his fate was sealed. Forces beyond his control were hacking large pieces of genetic material off the ends of his chromosomes. His telomeres (a bit of junk DNA that protects other DNA whenever his cells divide) were wearing down. In patients with this amount of telomere destruction, the average life expectancy is around five years.

Should Kostick’s doctor tell him how long he has to live? Not how long as in: “You are going to perish on February 26, 2017.” Instead, I’m asking whether this physician, when discussing the pros and cons of colon cancer screening with Kostick or when talking about the risks and benefits of major surgery, should make sure Kostick knows that there is a good chance he won’t live long enough to experience the benefits of these procedures.

At first glance the answer to my question is obvious: of course doctors should discuss life expectancy with terminally ill patients when they face important medical decisions. And yet, Kostick’s doctor never mentioned this terminal illness to him. In fact, most doctors taking care of people with Kostick’s condition are hesitant to discuss prognosis with these dying patients.

If this were the 1960s, such silence would not be so surprising. Surveys back then revealed that more than 90% of doctors routinely withheld cancer diagnoses from terminally ill patients, out of concern that such news would cause patients to suffer. Better to comfort them with evasions and out-and-out lies than to burden them with the truth of their imminent demise.

This silence largely ended in the 1970s, a decade that saw the rise of the empowered patient—the dawn of the bioethics movement. Doctors realized that they could no longer keep patients in the dark about their health and healthcare. “Informed consent” became the law of the land—as in: if you don’t inform your patients about their situations before consenting them for interventions, you will be held legally responsible!

Continue reading…

Feed the Beast: Renewing the Prescription Drug User Fee Act

The entire biopharmaceutical industry is suffering a crisis of poor productivity in research and development, some of which is due to overregulation. It’s not suprising that an increasing number of observers conclude that the Food and Drug Administration is broken and needs radical redesign.

The pages of august publications such as the Wall Street Journal are peppered with op-eds condemning the FDA’s sluggish proceedings and bloated bureaucracy. Proposed solutions include stripping the FDA’s power to judge the “efficacy” of new medicines, and limiting it to determining “safety”; increasing patients’ freedom to use investigational new medicines before being finally approved by the FDA; and (my own long-standing recommendation) allowing American patients to use medicines approved in Europe or other developed jurisdictions, if the FDA is too slow.

These are all great ideas, but they are not ready for primetime in 2012. Indeed, over emphasizing them now runs the risk of making the situation significantly worse. This is because the federal law that largely determines the FDA’s funding, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) must be reauthorized by this September. This would result in the fifth version of PDUFA, which was first passed in 1992.

These renewals have generally granted more money and power to the FDA, in exchange for promises of faster approval of new medicines – promises which were fulfilled initially but eventually slipped. The negative consequences of the FDA’s failure to meet its commitments have become very apparent in all segments of biopharmaceutical enterprise.

Continue reading…

Doctors Struggle to Make Ends Meet?

I’m already preparing for hate mail.

So I open up my email this morning to find a gem from the WSJ, entitled, “Doctors struggle to make ends meet.” Usually, when I hear that phrase used, it’s describing the plight of the poor, unable to figure out how to make a mortgage payment, pay off medical bills, and still find enough left over to put some food on the table for the family. That’s what “struggling to make ends meet” means. This? Not so much.

To be fair to the author, I’m sure she didn’t choose the title. In my experience, editors do that, and they sometimes choose catchy titles that are inflammatory and don’t, perhaps, truly capture the flavor of the piece. That is sort of the case here. It’s not really an article about a doctor struggling personally, it’s an article on how a doctor is struggling to keep his practice profitable. That practice sounds like a very nice place to be cared for:

His family practice uses electronic health records, calls up patients at home to check on their progress, and coordinates with other specialists and hospitals—all the things that policy makers and insurers say should be done to improve patient care.

Recently, the practice has been upgraded to attempt to qualify for anticipated future incentives for a “medical home”. In essence, we’re talking about more accountable care and paying for “quality”, not “quantity”. But there’s a problem. Getting ready for those new incentives ain’t cheap:

For a five-doctor practice, the Advisory Board Co., a health-care research firm, projects the total first-year cost at between $126,000 and $346,500, including two added nurses.

The upshot: Doctors fear a squeeze as they try to ramp up changes in tandem with evolving reimbursement schemes. “You’re asking a practice that may be only marginally viable as a business to invest in significant infrastructure,” says Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “Is the payment model going to be there to support that?”

Continue reading…

Am I My Genes? The Question Of Fate, Free Will And Genetics

“I live with knowledge of my own death,” she told me. “I found out I have the Alpha mutation, and that it will eventually kill me.”

Individuals who learn they have a genetic mutation often feel this way. They may struggle to cope with this sense of fate, and frequently wonder: “Why me?”

The answers are not easy.

Genetic testing is on the rise and beginning to confront us with profound questions of who we are, and why. The human genome was first decoded only 10 years ago. But the price of sequencing the full 3 billion “letters” that make us has fallen from $10 billion per person to less than $1,000 per person, and will soon probably be only $100. Hence, many medical centers are now arranging to sequence every patients’ genome. In a few years, most, if not all of us will have our full genomes mapped, whether we like it or not. We will learn what mutations we each have, and what diseases we may get.

This knowledge can potentially help in preventing certain diseases, and determining which medications, at which doses will work best for us.

Continue reading…

Public Needs Voice in Health Care Decisions

As the presidential election heats up and the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the 2010 health care overhaul, it’s clear that the issue will remain a major national priority this year.

Comparative effectiveness research, the idea of doing research to find out what works for whom in health care, has been a prominent, and at times contentious, issue in health care reform.

Prominent because CER can serve a very important purpose in advancing high-quality care. Contentious because some propose that CER be used by the government to decide what medical care should and shouldn’t be available to patients.

The institute created by the law is now up and running. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute holds great potential in advancing comparative effectiveness research that supports doctors and patients and improves the quality of care.

One of the reasons that so many organizations representing patients, providers and people with disabilities supported creation of the PCORI was the opportunity that it offers for us to have a meaningful voice in decision-making.

The PCORI recently began the process of making a crucial early policy decision — that of setting national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.

Unfortunately, the PCORI’s process does not give patients and people with disabilities a real opportunity for meaningful input in this decision. That’s because the only priorities that it is seeking comment on are broad categories of health care that restate the institute’s research mandate from statute.

Continue reading…

Give Young Adults Needed Privacy for Health

Under the 2010 health care overhaul, millions of young adults in the United States can access health care on a parent’s health insurance policy. That’s a good thing because it means they are more likely to get preventive care that can keep them from getting sick in the first place.

Yet a glitch in the system means that young adults might forgo treatment for conditions they don’t want their parents to know about — such as sexually transmitted diseases.

These young people are afraid, and rightly so, that an insurance company will send an explanation of benefits home to the parent who holds the health insurance policy. And that means Mom or Dad will know about the services they received at the doctor’s office.

Research suggests that young adults ages 19 to 26 will skip a visit to the doctor if they are worried about privacy. In the worst-case scenario, that translates to no treatment at all or delayed care for sexually transmitted diseases, mental health problems, substance abuse, domestic violence, unplanned pregnancies and many other serious and potentially costly conditions.

EOBs do serve an important function. These letters document receipt of health care services, listing specific information such as the type of care, the patient’s name, the provider, total payment made and the date of service. They’re required by law in most states, because they notify the patient about services received and encourage them to report errors or fraudulent billing to the insurer — and in this way, they save money for our health care system.

At the same time, this glitch in the system can negatively affect an individual’s health. For example, if a young woman doesn’t want her parents to know about an unplanned pregnancy, she might delay getting the prenatal care that helps lead to a healthy pregnancy and a full-term baby. If a young man with serious depression doesn’t get treatment, he might end up losing a job, or worse.

And if we consider the effect that this privacy glitch could have on the spread of STDs, it is easy to see this problem as a public health issue.

Chlamydia is the most common STD in the United States, causing more than a million reported cases of infection every year. Yet health plan data shows that chlamydia screening has remained below the 50 percent mark since 2000. Some experts attribute the low testing levels among privately insured young women to concerns about confidentiality.

The tragedy of the situation is simply this: Left undetected and thus untreated, chlamydia can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and potentially deadly ectopic pregnancies. If the EOB loophole were fixed, young adults would be more likely to be screened and treated, and we would prevent many of these costly complications.

Privacy concerns might also drive some minors and young adults to visit publicly funded clinics that provide care for STDs and other conditions — usually at a reduced price that the patient pays up front. In that case, young adults get the treatment they need without a breach in privacy due to a billing disclosure. But that means your tax dollars are paying for care covered by private insurance.

These public safety net providers already are strapped trying to care for uninsured patients who cannot get care any other way. Let’s not add to that burden.

So what’s the solution?

Individual states have eliminated EOB requirements when a dependent requests a sensitive service such as testing for an  STD. For example, Washington state allows young adults to maintain privacy for such services as long as a written request goes to the insurance company.

Many insurance companies eliminate the EOB when the holder of the policy, in this case a parent, has no financial obligation. But patchwork solutions will not give young adults all over the country the privacy they deserve.

We believe the time has come for a national solution to this problem, one that might follow the example set by the state of Washington. It is time for a national policy or rule that eliminates the EOB requirement when young adults seek access to or treatment for a limited set of sensitive services and conditions.

Young adults are just that: adults. And it is time we give them the privacy they need to access services they need to stay healthy.

Denise Chrysler is director of the Network for Public Health Law in the Mid-States Region. Robyn Rontal is network collaborator for health information data sharing at the Network for Public Health Law in the Mid-States Region. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the position or policy of the Network for Public Health Law or its funders.

How to Win Facebook Friends and Influence People

Instead of picketing outside company headquarters, an advocacy group is using Facebook ads to try to influence people whose profiles identify them as employees of Freddie Mac or JPMorgan Chase.

The anti-foreclosure ad campaign, which launches today, asks Freddie and Chase employees to talk to their CEOs about a veteran — a former Marine — who’s facing eviction in California.

“This is not any sort of attack on the employees there,” said Jim Pugh of Rebuild the Dream, which is running the ad campaign. “We’re trying to let them know what’s happening.”

The ad that targets Freddie Mac employees features a small picture of CEO Charles Haldeman’s face, and the message, “Freddie Mac did what???? Freddie Mac is evicting a former Marine who’s been trying to pay his mortgage. Tell CEO Haldeman to work out a fair deal with him!” according to a copy of the ad provided by Pugh.

The JPMorgan Chase ad is similar, but with a Chase logo instead of an executive’s face.

We’ve contacted Freddie Mac and JP Morgan Chase spokespeople for comment, and also reached out to Freddie Mac and JPMorgan Chase employees on Facebook. If you’ve seen one of these ads, please let us know.

Targeted online advertising is nothing new. (As anyone who has changed their Facebook status to “engaged” can tell you, a simple update can bring a deluge of new ads.) But political campaigns and advocacy groups are increasingly adopting the same microtargeting tactics that companies use.

Rick Perry’s campaign, for instance, targeted faith-focused ads to people in Iowa who listed themselves as Christians on Facebook, and ads featuring his wife to the state’s female conservatives, Politico reported.

According to FEC data, Endorse Liberty, a super PAC that supports Ron Paul, has led the way on Facebook expenditures, spending a total of $241,508 through January 2012.

And it’s not just Facebook and Google where campaigns and activists are doing microtargeting. The music site Pandora announced last year that it would be selling political ad space targeted to the zip codes of particular listeners, the Wall Street Journal reported.

There’s nothing inherently problematic about targeted ads. Campaigns have been using direct mail to target particular voters for decades. Digital targeting can be a cost-effective way of spending advertising dollars, especially for smaller groups, like Rebuild the Dream, which sees the ads as a great way to get more bang for their buck in terms of reaching their intended audience. (The group also launched a special donation drive specifically for the Facebook ad buy.) ProPublica even used Facebook ads to try to find sources for our 2009 series, When Caregivers Harm.

But as the ability to use data to reach particular people grows more sophisticated, targeting risks crossing privacy lines, as demonstrated by a recent New York Times article on how Target knew a teenage customer was pregnant before her father did.

What’s clear is that if all this microtargeting translates into electoral gains, the scale and sophistication of these efforts will continue to grow, and the data science that gained traction in 2008 will become a regular part of campaigning. In the meantime, the Obama campaign’s already substantial data team continues to hire statistical modeling analysts and analytics engineers.

The increasing ease and flexibility of online targeting also raises new questions about how politicians are presenting themselves to different audiences, how much campaigns need to tell their supporters about the personal information they collect — and what will happen to the massive databases of voter information collected during the 2012 presidential campaign. Will they be sold? Passed on to other politicians?

Rebuild the Dream, which focuses on economic issues, was launched by MoveOn.org in 2011, but has been independent since January, Pugh said. The group’s president is former Obama green jobs adviser Van Jones.

Pugh worked on the Obama campaign’s digital analytics team in 2008 while also trying to finish a Ph.D. dissertation in robotics, and later did similar work for the Democratic National Committee. He said he was not sure what kind of reaction the ads would receive.

“I would imagine that people are fairly used to targeted ads at this point,” he said. But while people who work in politics and advocacy may be used to receiving Facebook ads targeting specific causes, “It’s hard to know in advance how unusual it will seem to the employees of Freddie Mac and JP Morgan Chase.”

This piece first appeared at ProPublica.

Insurance Fraud, Abuse and Waste Could Be Reduced With High Deductible Policies

There is huge amount of money expended in the American health care delivery system – 17% of the GDP. Some of it is diverted through fraud, some is garnered via abuses and a lot is due to waste.

Fraud, abuse and waste are words used by politicians frequently. How much of each is there? Are there straight forward ways to reduce them? Among the best approaches is to enlist the patient as the first line of defense – with high deductible policies.

Not surprisingly fraud is relatively common in healthcare given the huge amount of dollars involved. As Willie Sutton once said when asked why he robbed banks – “That’s were the money is.” A Dallas-area physician stands accused of systematically defrauding Medicare of $350 million largely by excessive or grossly inappropriate referrals to home health agencies. Given all of the rules and regulations, how is it possible that such a gigantic fraud could be perpetrated over a five year period with no one noticing until recently?

The extent of medical fraud is uncertain. Commercial insurers estimate about $60 billion and Medicare/Medicaid estimates about $72 billion or more per year. In 2010 the US government was able to reclaim about $4 billion and convict more than 700 individuals of Medicare fraud and abuse.

Continue reading…

It’s a Healthy Expense That CEOs DREAD … Well, WAKE UP!!!

Most chief executives in America DREAD the nightmare they experience each year when it comes time for their companies’ annual health insurance renewal.

Just as with any nightmare, of course, the answer is to wake up.

Unfortunately, most CEOs can’t wake up from this nightmare because they don’t have a clue how to manage skyrocketing employee health costs — now the third largest expense in business today.

That’s hardly surprising, given that the healthcare industry appears at first to be completely immune from normal market forces and economic incentives. I learned this shortly after I graduated from college with a Master of Health Administration and started running hospitals — 10 different hospitals, in fact, in five different states. And as I traveled the country, I became fascinated with the economics of health care. Costs kept surging year after year, far outpacing inflation or average earnings.

What’s more, there seemed to be a curious lack of checks and balances in the system. As providers, we all made more money the more patients we saw. The government paid us our costs, so the more we spent to attract the doctors who could admit the most patients, the more we got paid by the government.

Where were the market incentives, the economies of scale, that drive other industries? Who had a financial incentive to keep people from falling off the health cliff and getting sick? The answer is, no one did. We all made more money by driving our expensive ambulances up to the bottom of the cliff and waiting for the next person to fall off.

It’s no secret what causes people to fall off that cliff. Poor health habits represent the cause of the majority of health claims. Indeed, six out of seven full-time workers in the U.S. — that’s 86 percent of them — suffer from a chronic health condition.

Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods