The Health Care Blog – Page 495 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Republicans Considering Proposing High-Risk Pools: Health Insurance Ghettos???

Mar 20, 2014• 2

By Robert Laszewski

We are hearing that Republicans are considering proposing high-risk pools as part of an alternative health insurance reform proposal to Obamacare.

A high-risk pool proposal would likely mean the Congress giving states the flexibility, and perhaps funding, to set up these risk pools. Risk pools by definition are a place where people can go when they are not able to buy health insurance in the regular market because they have a health problem.

That means Republicans would be turning the clock back to a time when insurance companies could turn people down for health insurance because of their health status.

Presumably, the Republicans are contemplating a market where insurance companies could once again choose just who they wanted to cover––the healthy but not the sick.

Anyone turned down could then go the high-risk pool to be assured of having health insurance. Presumably, Republicans would assure consumers that they would be able to access the same kind of comprehensive health insurance and at the same market rates as those able to buy from insurance companies would be able to get.

Let me be clear at this point that I don’t know of anyone in the insurance industry asking to go back to the days when a carrier could exclude people as a result of their health status and make money just covering the healthy.

Whether it’s Obamacare or a risk pool concept, policymakers are faced with the same dilemma: How do you insinuate the unhealthy and otherwise uninsurable into a health insurance system in a way that benefits are comprehensive and costs are affordable for everyone?

The Oncologist’s List

Mar 19, 2014• 1

By James Salwitz, MD

Lists guide our lives. Some are easy, even fun, like a menu or shopping list. Some are simple tick-offs for work, like my wife’s honey-do list. Others are frightening, like a draft list.

Some are melancholy, such as the inventory in a Will. We are inspired by our bucket-list. Finally, some are exciting, but stir conflict, like awedding invitation list.

I have a list, which makes me slightly anxious, a little depressed, and which takes modest courage to open up. That is my patient’s list of daily X-ray reports.

Our Electronic Medical Record (EMR), as based around a home page or “Inbox.” This is a continuously updated assembly of data and messages from our practice and patients.

There are medical orders to approve, questions from nurses and patients, billing inquiries, documents to sign, lab results and emergency alerts about patients in trouble.

Except for the drudgery of pushing through a pile of CMS documentation, those lists have scant emotional impact on me. Not so the eighth list, just four from the bottom: Radiology Documents.

These are the results delivered electronically of any MRI, CT scan, bone scan, chest X-ray or other imaging study, that I, or other doctors, have ordered on my patients. Every 24 hours, between 15 and 30 new reports pop-up.

Opening this section I see three columns; the patient’s name, the date the test was performed, and the type of test.

One click on each line yields a neat, formatted, typed report. These are more than just data. More than simple facts. These are final, cold, hard answers to the biggest questions of all.

Is Sue’s cancer is responding to therapy? Does Pete’s shortness of breath mean “just” pneumonia or a blood clot, or has his kidney cancer has metastasized to his lungs? Did Sid pull his back shoveling snow or is that sharp pain a vertebra fractured by prostate cancer?

Is Alan’s forgetfulness fatigue, Alzheimer’s or perhaps something more insidious, the bloom of glioma cells deep in his brain?

Very Big Data

Mar 19, 2014• 9

By DWIGHT MCNEILL

The field of analytics has fallen into a few big holes lately that represent both its promise and its peril. These holes pertain to privacy, policy, and predictions.

Policy. 2.2/7. The biggest analytics project in recent history is the $6 billion federal investment in the health exchanges. The goals of the health exchanges are to enroll people in the health insurance plans of their choice, determine insurance subsidies for individuals, and inform insurance companies so that they could issue policies and bills.

The project touches on all the requisites of analytics including big data collection, multiple sources, integration, embedded algorithms, real time reporting, and state of the art software and hardware. As everyone knows, the implementation was a terrible failure.

The CBO’s conservative estimate was that 7 million individuals would enroll in the exchanges. Only 2.2 million did so by the end of 2013. (This does not include Medicaid enrollment which had its own projections.) The big federal vendor, CGI, is being blamed for the mess.

Note that CGI was also the vendor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which had the worst performance of all states in meeting enrollment numbers despite its long head start as the Romney reform state and its groundbreaking exchange called the Connector. New analytics vendors, including Accenture and Optum, have been brought in for the rescue.

Was it really a result of bad software, hardware, and coding? Was it that the design to enroll and determine subsidies had “complexity built-in” because of the legislation that cobbled together existing cumbersome systems, e.g. private health insurance systems? Was it because of the incessant politics of repeal that distracted policy implementation? Yes, all of the above.

The big “hole”, in my view, was the lack of communications between the policy makers (the business) and the technology people. The technologists complained that the business could not make decisions and provide clear guidance. The business expected the technology companies to know all about the complicated analytics and get the job done, on time.

This ensuing rift where each group did not know how to talk with the other is recognized as a critical failure point. In fact, those who are stepping into the rescue role have emphasized that there will be management status checks daily “at 9 AM and 5 PM” to bring people together, know the plan, manage the project, stay focused, and solve problems.

Walking around the hole will require a better understanding as to why the business and the technology folks do not communicate well and to recognize that soft people skills can avert hard technical catastrophes.

The Apple Has Landed

Mar 19, 2014• 2

By Dan Diamond

Apple transformed portable music players. It redefined what we expect from cell phones. It brought tablet computing to the masses.

Is the company planning to do the same for mobile health?

Some industry watchers think so.

This isn’t a small venture. Apple executives suggest that Healthbook is being positioned as perhaps the key selling point when the company releases its next operating system for iPhone, likely later this year. And the app also may pair with a new “iWatch” that’s under development and will contain biometric sensors.

In his lengthy post, Gurman further details how Healthbook is expected to work. Its interface is “largely inspired” by an existing iPhone application called Passbook, which is intended to centralize a user’s boarding passes, loyalty coupons, and so on in one place. Beyond fitness and diet, the app also has sections devoted to tracking physical activity, our sleeping habits, and hydration.

And Healthbook will offer blood monitoring features—”perhaps the most unique and important elements of the application,” Gurman writes—although it’s unclear exactly what it will track beyond oxygen saturation and glucose levels.

App’s appearance not unexpected

The long-awaited screenshots of Healthbook follow months of reports that Apple’s readying a push into the health care space. While the company’s interest in the sector is nothing new—my team has spent years covering its health-related innovations—Apple’s recent focus has been much more discrete.

Why the Subsidy Gap Isn’t Actually a Gap

Mar 19, 2014• 5

By Janet Weiner

A 26-year-old man who makes $36,000 a year in Philadelphia finds out that he is not eligible for a health insurance subsidy, and must pay his $205 monthly premium without any help.

This, despite the ACA’s subsidies for people earning up to 400% of poverty (about $46,000).

Has he fallen into the subsidy gap?

The latest talk about a subsidy gap into which some millennials are falling is mystifying to me. It seems to be a product of a misunderstanding about how the subsidies are calculated.

Let’s remember that the goal of the subsidies is to ensure that people earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) pay no more than a certain percentage of income on health insurance premiums.

This cap is set on a sliding scale, so that people on the higher end of the FPL scale are expected to pay a higher percentage.

The caps range from 2% for someone at poverty level up to 9.5% for someone earning between 300-400% of poverty level. That’s how the Affordable Care Act defines “affordable.”

The amount of subsidy is based on the difference between that cap and the premiums for the second-cheapest silver plan on the market. The subsidies are not an entitlement for all people earning 100%-400% of FPL, nor should they be.

They kick in only when the premium for that silver plan exceeds the stated percentage of income.

Below that cap, the premiums are considered affordable and people are not eligible for subsidies. That’s not a gap; that’s the way the law is designed.

What Do Millennials Want from the Healthcare System?

Mar 18, 2014• 54

By Paul Keckley

The 18-34 year old segment of our population is large, growing and important in our society. They are 80 million strong. Their attitudes, beliefs, values and actions are re-shaping the way every organization, business and institution thinks about its future.

According to a Pew Research report released last week, Millennials are independents and skeptics: 50% have no political affiliation, 29% no religious affiliation, and 19% say they do not trust established institutions to do the right things (versus 40% for Baby Boomers).

Millennials worry about money. A study by the Investor Education Foundation of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority concluded that their concerns about their auto, credit card and school debt trump other issues.

Most think economic stability should come before marriage and family life. Half who went to college have a student loan to repay, and one third moved into the homes of their parents at some point to make ends meet.

And they worry about the future. Paul Taylor’s The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown predicts economic battle between Millennials and Baby Boomers:

“Every family, on some level, is a barter between the generations…If I care for you when you’re young so you’ll care for me when I’m old…But many Millennials won’t be able to afford that…The young today are paying taxes to support a level of benefits for the old that they themselves have no prospect of receiving when they become old.”

Pew survey data supports his contention:

51% of Millennials do not think there will be any money for them in the Social Security system by the time they retire.
39% believe they’ll get reduced benefits

So what do Millennials want from the health system? Their view is likely to disrupt how industry leaders operate their businesses and how policymakers make laws that govern its commerce.

Why Bad Research Makes It into Good Medical Journals

Mar 18, 2014• 4

By Josh Herigon

Last week, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine called into question the effectiveness of surgical checklists for preventing harm.

Atul Gawande—one of the original researchers demonstrating the effectiveness of such checklists and author of a book on the subject—quickly wrote a rebuttal on the The Incidental Economist.

He writes, “I wish the Ontario study were better,” and I join him in that assessment, but want to take it a step further.

Gawande first criticizes the study for being underpowered. I had a hard time swallowing this argument given they looked at over 200,000 cases from 100 hospitals. I had to do the math. A quick calculation shows that given the rates of death in their sample, they only had about 40% power [1].

Then I became curious about Gawande’s original study. They achieved better than 80% power with just over 7,500 cases. How is this possible?!?

The most important thing I keep in mind when I think about statistical significance—other than the importance of clinical significance [2]—is that not only does it depend on the sample size, but also the baseline prevalence and the magnitude of the difference you are looking for. In Gawande’s original study, the baseline prevalence of death was 1.5%.

This is substantially higher than the 0.7% in the Ontario study. When your baseline prevalence approaches the extremes (i.e.—0% or 50%) you have to pump up the sample size to achieve statistical significance.

So, Gawande’s study achieved adequate power because their baseline rate was higher and the difference they found was bigger. The Ontario study would have needed a little over twice as many cases to achieve 80% power.

This raises an important question: why didn’t the Ontario study look at more cases?

Why the Creative Destruction of Healthcare May Not Be Such a Good Idea

Mar 18, 2014• 12

By BILL CROUNSE, MD

From childhood most of us remember the sage parental advice on how to deal with bullies–“sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”.

Of course, we all know that words do hurt, maybe not physically, but they certainly take a toll on our psyche.

These days in planning meetings at my own company, in articles I read on the web and at various tech industry conferences, I come across words and language that I know feel hurtful, or are at least disrespectful, to the health industry and the people who work there. I hear cavalier talk about the need to disrupt the healthcare industry.

Some thought leaders even say we will creatively destruct the healthcare industry. Consumers armed with technology will rise up, they say, and disrupt everything about the current state of healthcare.

Now imagine for a minute that you are a hospital executive, a doctor, a nurse or other clinician and you hear people who work outside your industry talking about disrupting or destructing it.

Imagine being told that consumers, patients, and tech companies will rise up and destroy your business.

There you are doing the best you can to make it through each day keeping your hospital or practice economically sound, dealing with the barrage of patients at your door, staying one step ahead of ever-increasing rules, regulations and rising costs, while those who’ve never worked a day in your world tell you they are going to disrupt and/or destroy it.

Even if there is a need to disrupt healthcare (and even many who work in the health industry might agree), nobody appreciates being told by some outsider that they know your business better than you do.

I don’t imagine my colleagues who work at Microsoft (or Google, or Apple, or Amazon) would appreciate being told by a hospital administrator or a doctor that they knew better how to run a tech company, or what ails the tech industry.

Nor do I think that most patients and consumers can really appreciate the amazing complexity of our healthcare system or the unbelievable pressures under which it operates these days.

Mixing Politics and Science Is Injurious to Public Health

Mar 18, 2014• 9

By Saurabh Jha, MD

If Obama’s nominee for the position of Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, is not endorsed by the Senate because Senate Democrats from conservative states are too scared to vote for him for fear of losing votes from a population, egged on by the National Rifle Association (NRA), that passionately supports firearms, the first words that come to mind are ‘unfortunate,’ ‘tragic’ and ‘daft,’ although not in that particular order.

Words that do not come to mind are ‘surprising’ or ‘unprecedented.’ This is the natural result of decades of actively encouraging science to mix with politics.

In an ideal world, or I should say reasonable world, noting that perfection is not a pre-requisite to being reasonable, it would scant matter what Murthy thought about firearms.

He would be judged on his (impeccable) credentials, (unmistakable) leadership, and (imaginative) entrepreneurship not to mention his gumption in standing up for what he believes.

It would, of course, be utterly naïve to believe that in the real world his politics do not matter.

I doubt Murthy would have advanced so precociously, let alone been nominated for the position of Surgeon General, if he were a second amendment absolutist, an implacable limited government advocate or had written extensively about the role of free market in healthcare, all things else being equal.

We applaud him for standing up for his convictions not just because of his standing up but for the nature of his convictions.

This is not to suggest that Murthy’s worldview is expedient. There’s no reason to doubt its sincerity. It’s to suggest that a certain weltanschauung is incompatible with progress in academia and beyond.

That’s because despite living in an age of unprecedented reason we have been unable to render unto science what is unto science and render unto politics what is unto politics, a distinction our species has made little progress in making in the last two thousand years.

Silly Republican Insurance Reform Ideas

Mar 17, 2014• 5

By Robert Laszewski

There are news reports indicating Republicans will be proposing such longstanding health insurance reform ideas as selling insurance across state lines and association health plans.

These ideas have been around for some time and have served Republicans as convenient talking points out on the campaign trail positioned as common sense alternatives to Obamacare.

When I discuss these ideas with people in the insurance industry––people who know how their market really works––these ideas generally command plenty of snickers.

Selling Insurance Across State Lines
Presumably, Republicans are targeting the many state benefit mandates that drive health insurance policy prices up. The idea is to allow the sale of policies from states with the fewest benefit mandates to be able to be sold in a high mandate state––thereby encouraging the state with more mandates to curtail them.

There are a number of problems with this idea:

IF it did attract new carriers to a market, it would be a great way to blow up an existing health insurance market––for example, the high market share legacy Blue Cross plan whose business is in compliance with all of the existing state benefit mandates. A new carrier could conceivably come into the market with much lower rates––because it is offering fewer benefits––attracting the healthy people out of the old more regulated pool leaving the legacy carrier with a sicker pool.Stripping down a health plan is a great time tested way for a predatory insurance company to attract the healthiest consumers at the expense of the legacy carrier who is left with the sickest.
It’s a 1990s idea that that fails to recognize the business a health plan is in in 2014. Health plans don’t just cross a state line and set up their business like they did decades ago when the insurance license and an ability to play claims was a all a carrier needed to do business. This idea was first suggested by the last of the insurance industry cherry pickers back in the 1990s and it has long outlasted its relevance.Continue reading…