By MICHAEL TURPIN

For veterans of the healthcare industry, the current debate over the future of the Affordable Care Act – and proposed changes that would fundamentally alter Medicaid and individual market exchanges – is a frustrating battle of ideologies with the future of healthcare at risk. Our debate over who should be eligible for expanded coverage and how we reform reimbursement is often laced with self-preservation, which in our case means preserving an employer-sponsored system that is riddled with inequities, opacity, dubious middlemen and weak public and private sector fiduciary oversight. Those who provide, pay for and/or consume healthcare are drowning under rising per capita costs while many in the middle of these transactions grow fat.

As brokers, consultants and advisors, we have to face an inconvenient truth: we have presided over and benefited from a system in crisis. Not everyone believes our industry’s purpose is noble or necessary.

Health system stakeholders long to deal direct with employers. Many professional benefits managers hate being on the end of the latest pitch from their advisor  to sell a project or broker to hawk a new product to increase commission income. In the digital age, there is a heavy bias in favor of disintermediation and the elimination of distribution costs that are often not easily rationalized.

How does one grade the contribution of a sentinel? How does a client know whether the advisor who is paid a commission or fee is acting out of self-interest or as a trusted change agent?

How one makes money is as important as how much one makes in certain industries. There are ethical implications to anyone who adds cost to a healthcare system fraught with waste, fraud and abuse. This expense translates into higher cost and erodes the ability for employers and public entities to finance care for those that are often most in need.

In the last two decades, ineffective regulatory and advisory oversight of the financial and healthcare industries has allowed abuses to take place in the form of mergers and protected opacity in pricing.

Continue reading…

By HANS DUVEFELT, MD

“I made myself a hypodermic injection of a triple dose of morphia and sank down on the couch in my consulting-room….I told her I was all right, all I wanted was twenty-four hours’ sleep, she was not to disturb me unless the house was on fire.”
– Axel Munthe, MD, The Story of San Michele (1929)

When people in this country mention the opioid epidemic, most of the time it is in the context of addiction with its ensuing criminality and social deprivation, and the focus is on opioids’ medical complications like withdrawal, overdose and death.

But that is only one of the opioid epidemics we have. Far greater is the epidemic of largely compliant patients who take their modest three or four daily doses of opiates for pain that was originally described as physical, but which in many cases is at least as much psychological – not imagined, in fact often quite severe, but nevertheless without a physical explanation or available cure.

Stimulation of opioid mu-receptors in the central nervous system induces euphoria more reliably than it reduces pain. In fact low dose opiates have been shown to sometimes lower pain thresholds but at the same time allowing dissociation from the pain experience.

Continue reading…

By KAREN SIBERT, MD

Just say No to Fentanyl.

No, I’m not talking about putting fentanyl into my own veins — a remarkably bad idea. I’m questioning the habitual, reflex use of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, in clinical anesthesiology practice.

I’ve been teaching clinical anesthesiology, supervising residents and medical students, in the operating rooms of academic hospitals for the past 18 years. Anesthesiology residents often ask if I “like” fentanyl, wanting to know if we’ll plan to use it in an upcoming case. My response always is, “I don’t have emotional relationships with drugs. They are tools in our toolbox, to be used as appropriate.”

But I will say that my enthusiasm for using fentanyl in the operating room, as a component of routine, non-cardiac anesthesia, has rapidly waned. In fact, I think it has been months since I’ve given a patient fentanyl at all.

Here’s why.

What is fentanyl?

Fentanyl is an opioid pain-killer in the same class as morphine or Demerol, meaning that it acts on the same receptors in the brain to lessen the subjective experience of pain. It appeared on the market in 1960, and quickly gained wide use in anesthesia practice.

Fentanyl is potent and works fast, which makes it very effective in treating the intense stimulus of surgical pain, and its peak effect lasts only a short time. It’s also inexpensive, which makes it attractive in an era of cost containment in healthcare.

When I started my anesthesia residency, we assumed that since fentanyl’s analgesic and euphoric effects were so brief, short-term exposure to the drug wouldn’t increase a patient’s risk of long-term narcotic abuse. For the first few years, fentanyl was kept in unsecured medication carts in the operating rooms along with Benadryl, lidocaine, and other commonly used medications.

Continue reading…

• Venrock and Robin: Robin is a brand new digital assistant for doctors. Hear Venrock Partner Bryan Roberts and Robin CEO Punit Son discuss the opportunities Venrock sees in Robin.
• 415 and Lemonaid: Patient experience has gotten easier with Lemonaid’s accessible online platform. Lemonaid CEO Paul Johnson sits with investment firm 415 to talk about their business strategy.
• Thrive Capital and Honor: An online service that connects in-home caregivers, seniors and their families, Honor sits down with its investor Thrive Capital to discuss the purpose of their investment.
• Grandrounds and Venrock: Owen Tripp of Grandrounds and Bob Kocher of Venrock discuss their working partnership, and give insight into what those closed-door meetings look like.

By ROSEMARIE DAY

The sweeping tax reform package recently signed into law will eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) individual mandate in 2019, which is projected to reduce the number of people covered by health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027, while increasing premiums in the nongroup market by about 10% annually.1 For taxpayers seeking protection from high health care costs, this is a potentially catastrophic result.
Say what you like about the individual mandate, it is clearly an essential component of the ACA’s “three-legged stool” that – along with guaranteed issue and premium subsidies – has been effective in expanding health insurance coverage to millions.

Why is an individual mandate important?

Several studies show that, in a market that requires insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions, an individual mandate helps ensure a healthy risk pool, which in turn helps to manage cost, affordability and sustainability. We learned this in Massachusetts, in the early days of implementing our version of health reform (which later became the model for the ACA). We had something close to a “natural experiment,” in which we launched a subsidized healthcare program before we implemented the individual mandate (we put the carrots out before we brought in the stick, in other words). Researchers were then able to study what happened to the risk pool, before and after the mandate.

As illustrated below, when the Massachusetts individual mandate went fully into effect in late 2007, there was a much larger increase in the number of healthy enrollees compared with enrollees with a chronic illness.2 What’s remarkable is that nothing else had changed in the program – the subsidy amounts were the same, as were all of the other enrollment requirements. But once people in Massachusetts understood they had to purchase insurance, the number of healthy enrollees jumped up.

Based on these results, and other relevant studies, the following projections have been made regarding the impact of eliminating the individual mandate:

Continue reading…

By ANISH KOKA, MD

A recent kerfuffle ensued when a CDC analyst leaked details of a meeting that noted a list of banned words and phrases that included ‘evidence-based’ and ‘science-based’.  This most recent assault on reason from the Trump administration was lapped up by partisans as yet another example of the dangers of having reality stars occupy the White House.

Unfortunately no one apparently told the director of the CDC, who took to twitter to respond:

I want to assure you there are no banned words at CDC. We will continue to talk about all our important public health programs.

— CDC Director (@CDCDirector) December 17, 2017

Details are sparse.  A meeting took place.  Words were discussed.  No Trump administration official has come forward to take ownership of the meeting.

Regardless, we should all be relieved that we can now get back to the business of implementing evidence based health care policy.

How has that been going anyway?

Ten years ago this month Atul Gawande wrote a widely read article in the New Yorker called The Checklist.  In it he related a masterful riveting story of a 3 year old girl in Austria who slipped into an icy pond, and was underwater for 30 minutes.  On arrival to the intensive care unit, she required massive support – a heart lung machine, treatment and monitoring of brain swelling.  The end result in this case was nothing short of miraculous.  Two years later, she was like any other than 5 year old.  The point Gawande goes on to make is that the complexity of patients in the critical care setting is overwhelming.  In these sickest of sick patients even one mistake could be the difference between life and death.  Humans can’t do it – and the error rate that inevitably results is not one that society should bear.

Continue reading…