The Health Care Blog – Page 372 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

PCMH Fails Natural Experiment

Mar 14, 2016• 9

By AL LEWIS

Medical Homes Fail Yet Another “Natural Experiment”

Three “natural experiments,” three failures. Such is the fate of patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), a well-intentioned but unsuccessful innovation now kept afloat by the interaction of promoter study design sleight-of-hand with customer innumeracy.

By way of review, a natural experiment is an experiment in which the design is outside the control of investigators, yet mimics an experiment. The first two natural experiments below involve applying the intervention across entire states. The third involves a stimulus-response experiment in one specific community.

Statewide Natural Experiments: North Carolina and Vermont

In North Carolina, a statewide Medicaid PCMH was implemented years ago and steadily expanded until most Medicaid recipients belonged to one. There was no reduction in relevant event rates (for ambulatory care-sensitive admissions) and costs increased. While the overall Medicaid budgets were routinely exceeded and that should have caused legislators to realize that something in their PCMH was amiss, Milliman fabricated data to pretend the PCMH program was a success. Milliman got caught making up data (and ignoring other data that quite definitively invalidated its conclusion, and changed their story 180 degrees, a tacit admission that they lied. And shortly thereafter (at least “shortly” by the standards of state government), North Carolina announced that it is abandoning this failed experiment.

Philips — Interview with Carla Kriwet

Mar 14, 2016

By MATTHEW HOLT

Now I’ve got them uploaded and semi edited I’ll be running the interviews I did at the HIMSS conference earlier this month. They will hopefully give you a quick overview of the companies, and give you a sense of where the system is going.

Today is an interview with Carla Kriwet, CEO of Patient Care and Monitoring Solutions at Philips. The Dutch electronics giant has a huge footprint in the hospital and big ambitions outside it.

Retail Clinics Raise Medical Spending: So What?

Mar 13, 2016• 1

By DEVON M HERRICK

flying cadeucii New research published in Health Affairs finds that retail clinics don’t save money. Many health policy analysts had hoped that retail clinics would reduce medical spending by replacing more costly physician office visits. The article did confirm that retail clinics are less expensive than traditional physician visits for the same service. Yet retail clinic use was associated with an increase in medical spending of $14 per year by those who used them. The $14 per person-year increase was not a complete picture, however, because the study did not compare inpatient spending or prescription drug use.

The researchers looked at Aetna insurance claims for 11 low-acuity conditions to see if people were substituting cheaper retail clinic visits for more costly doctor visits. What they found was that patients tend to visit a retail clinic when they might otherwise forgo care. In other words, patients were adding visits for conditions that would have cleared up on their own rather than necessarily substituting cheaper visits for higher cost visits. Traffic at retail clinics tends to peak during off hours (evening and weekends) when physician offices are closed.

The research was reported by Kaiser Health News and also ran in MedCity News, where I found some of the comments especially interesting. One commenter asked if changing the term “utilization” to “engagement” might make a difference, as in:“clinics increase health ‘engagement’ to the tune of about $14/person.” Increasing patient engagement sounds like a positive benefit rather than the negative connotation of utilization.

As an economist, my knee jerk reaction is patients may want to visit a retail clinic when their traditional source of care is not available. They may be willing to spend a little extra in cost-sharing to take care of a medical need rather than suffer through it.

The ACO Information Vacuum

Mar 13, 2016• 4

By KIP SULLIVAN

flying cadeucii In my three-part series on why we know so little about ACOs, I presented three arguments:

We have no useful information on what ACOs do for patients;
that’s because the definition of “ACO” is not a definition but an expression of hope; and
the ACO’s useless definition is due to dysfunctional habits of thought within the managed care movement that have spread throughout the health policy community.

Judging from the comments from THCB readers, there is no disagreement about points 1 and 3. With one exception (David Introcaso), no one took issue with point 2 either. Introcaso agreed with point 1 (we have no useful information on ACOs), but he argued that the ACO has been well defined by CMS regulations, and CMS, not the amorphous definition of “ACO,” is the reason researchers have failed to produce useful information on ACOs.

Another reply by Michael Millenson did not challenge any of the three points I made. Millenson’s point was that people outside the managed care movement use manipulative labels so what’s the problem?

I’ll reply first to Introcaso’s post, and then Millenson’s. I’ll close with a plea for more focus on specific solutions to specific problems and less tolerance for the unnecessarily abstract diagnoses and prescriptions (such as ACOs) celebrated today by far too many health policy analysts.

Summary of Introcaso’s comment and my response

I want to state at the outset I agree wholeheartedly with Introcaso’s statement that something is very wrong at CMS. I don’t agree with his rationale, but his characterization of CMS as an obfuscator is correct.

Feeling the Bern on Universal Single-Player Healthcare

Mar 11, 2016• 37

By JIM PURCELL

Screen Shot 2016-03-12 at 10.40.23 AM

“Elephant in the living room” is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious untruth going unaddressed. In most political platforms about healthcare and its coverage, there is a most resolutely immovable elephant in our living room. It is there with every single candidate. But with Bernie….

You’ve just got to love Bernie Sanders. It makes me feel like I’m 22 years old in the 1960’s and dumb as all get out about how you pay for things. But let us consider Mr. Sanders’ healthcare proposal. From his own website:

“Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs…[etc.].”

Bernie sure didn’t go half way on this one. All care, whenever, wherever, however. A fundamental right with no filter. OK. So he jumped in with both feet. You’ve got to admire his elan. But what might this mean and how can he ignore what happened in his own home state?

Cancer and Moonshot Economics

Mar 11, 2016• 1

By STEVE FINDLAY

Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 8.50.18 AM

The Obama Administration’s cancer “moonshot” initiative, announced in January and now being debated in Congress, comes at a time of significant advances in cancer treatment and a spurt of cultural attention to the disease.

A batch of new immunotherapy drugs approved in the last few years, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo and Merck’s Keytruda, are being widely touted as breakthrough medicines—and aggressively advertised to both doctors and the public. Jimmy Carter’s unexpected remission from melanoma that had spread to his liver and brain is attributed to Keytruda.

At the same time, a cancer memoir (When Breath Becomes Air by Dr. Paul Kalanithi) tops The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list. The Death of Cancer by Dr. Vincent DeVita, a former director of the National Cancer Institute, has also garnered positive reviews and wide attention for its critical assessment of today’s cancer research establishment.

Before these two books, John Green’s 2012 novel The Fault in Our Stars—the touching story of two teens with cancer—was widely acclaimed and read, especially after it was made into a blockbuster movie in 2014.

The administration’s initiative comes at a significant time for me personally, too. My brother, 70, was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer 10 months ago. Unlike Jimmy Carter, one of the new immunotherapy drugs (Opdivo) did not defeat his cancer. He continues to fight for his life. As with so many families, cancer has stalked ours. My sister died of colon cancer in 2006, age 54. My mother died of lung cancer in 1985, at 65. Like anyone over age 60, I’ve seen friends suffer and succumb, their lives cut short. And I’ve battled two cancers myself, melanoma (localized) and a salivary gland tumor.

The Trump Healthcare Interview: Part 2

Mar 11, 2016• 7

By IAN MORRISON

Donald Trump is leading the Republican delegate count and has the best chance of becoming the Republican nominee and, just maybe, even President. In February, we at THCB asked Scottish-Canadian-Californian healthcare futurist Ian Morrison to conduct an interview with Trump, figuring that Morrison would have an in with Trump given Trump’s praise for Scottish and Canadian healthcare. Fittingly, that interview was published on THCB on President’s Day, February 16th. Since then Donald Trump has racked up impressive victories and more importantly has released some specifics of his healthcare proposal. THCB thought it was time for Morrison to reach out to Mr. Trump again–Matthew Holt

MORRISON: Thanks for making time Mr. Trump, it is a pleasure to have a chance to follow up with you.

TRUMP: You were a little rough on me last time, but I enjoyed it, I thought I did very well in the interview.

MORRISON: Indeed you did, it was incredible. Mr. Trump before we get to your healthcare plan, let’s just catch up on the race. Since we last talked you have had some impressive victories in a wide variety of states from Hawaii to Mississippi. Why do you think you have done so well?

TRUMP. I’m winning everywhere, everywhere, and with all the groups: vets, high income, low income (we love the low-income). I won Hispanics in Nevada? Hispanics, Trump? They like me because I am a winner, and I’m winning everywhere. I am winning by a lot.

MORRISON: You did particularly well in the South, the so called SEC primaries, where Ted Cruz was expected to do well, particularly with evangelicals. You won by more than 20 points in Alabama for example.

TRUMP: Well they loved me in South Carolina, I won big there and then I did the dog whistle to the Klan and that probably helped, in the South.

MORRISON: You mean being slow to disavow David Duke and the Klan before those southern primaries?

TRUMP: It worked well, we had hats ready: “Make America White Again” but Corey (Editor’s note–He’s referring to Corey Lewandowski Trump’s Campaign Manager who himself made news recently by manhandling a female reporter) told me it probably wouldn’t work in the General, but we trademarked them anyway, I couldn’t believe it was available, so we may use the “Make America White Again” hats later, we’ll see. But now I disavow, I disavow, how many times do I have to say it.

MORRISON: Mr. Trump are you a racist?

TRUMP: Look I told the New York Times Editorial Board the whole story on deep background. Republican primaries are about getting angry, white people to turn up. Those people are tired and angry at the Mexicans, the Muslims, and Obama (we still don’t know if he was born in Kenya). So when we win, we can be nicer in the general election, because I get along with everyone.Continue reading…

A New Federal Agency to Oversee Patient Safety?

Mar 10, 2016• 13

By TEJAL GANDHI, MD

flying cadeucii Patient safety should be a major priority for the United States, and that requires designating a centralized entity or coordinating body to oversee efforts to ensure it. Such centralized oversight is one of the key recommendations of “Free from Harm,” a report published in December by the National Patient Safety Foundation. The report highlights the need to create a safety culture, since preventable medical errors in hospitals are estimated to result in as many as 440,000 deaths annually. That would make it the third leading cause of death – after heart disease and cancer.

A new report by the U.S. Government Accounting Office illuminates the challenges that hospitals face in implementing evidence-based safety practices. One of those challenges – determining which patient safety practices should be implemented – underscores the need for a coordinating entity and resource. The report states: “(Hospital) Officials noted that they face challenges identifying which evidence-based patient safety practices should be implemented in their own hospitals, such as when only limited evidence exists on which practices are effective. For example, officials from one hospital told GAO that the hospital tried several different practices in an effort to reduce patient falls without knowing which, if any, would prove effective.”

What’s more, preventing medical errors in hospitals is only part of the national challenge, as most health care is provided outside of hospital settings: in physicians’ offices and clinics; in outpatient surgical, medical, and imaging centers; and, in long-term, hospice, and home-care settings, among others. There are about 1 billion ambulatory visits each year in the United States, compared to 35 million hospital admissions. Those ambulatory settings are subject to medical errors as well. According to studies cited in “Free from Harm,” more than half of annual, paid, medical malpractice claims were for events in the outpatient setting.

In Defense of Small Data

Mar 9, 2016• 4

By ANISH KOKA, MD

flying cadeucii I read with interest a recent editorial that opined on the poor evidence for screening in cancer trials. The evidence was judged poor because apparently no screening trial has demonstrated a clear reduction in all-cause mortality, only disease-specific mortality. One example discussed in the analysis reviews the data for colon cancer screening and notes that, while there were a statistically significant lower number of deaths related to colon cancer in the screened group, the total mortality in the two groups was no different. The authors posit that the study is either underpowered for total mortality or that the screened patients may have more deaths due to the ‘downstream effects’ of screening. The provocative conclusion by many a tweet and retweet is that cancer screening has not been shown to save lives. Apparently the path to progress in medicine now must be paved by studies with millions of patients. I understand the desire for more and more data, but I see danger in the sanctimonious protestations of those who can only find truth within the confines of a million-person, randomized control trial. This approach ignores the history of advances in clinical medicine, most of which live far outside of the boundaries of million-strong randomized clinical trials.

CMS Approval Another National Nod to the Power of Telehealth

Mar 8, 2016• 1

By KOFI JONES

Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 3.43.26 PM Approximately 12 million Americans utilize some type of home health care every year. From home health aides visiting the infirmed in their homes, to physical therapy services to aide in recovery, to medical equipment being used to treat the chronically ill, home health has been a critical component of care management for decades.

One of the Medicare payment requirements for these services is for the prescribing practitioner to have a “face to face” encounter with the patient within a reasonable timeframe. This has widely been viewed as a burden on patients, many of whom face mobility issues and other barriers to meeting this obligation. It has also been a barrier for our overburdened physician supply.

Just recently, CMS published a new rule extending this requirement to states – stating that home healthcare matching Medicaid funds will be linked to this same requirement. But, there’s another component of the rule which mirrors Medicare and will have a tremendously positive impact on the home health care community – the face-to-face requirement can be met through telehealth.