The Health Care Blog – Page 597 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Healthcare Law on the Ballot

Nov 2, 2012• 10

By David Merritt

Ezra Klein is right. In a recent Washington Post column, the left-leaning policy wonk laid plain that the future of ObamaCare is at stake in next week’s elections. If President Obama wins and Democrats hold the Senate, the Affordable Care Act will survive. If Mitt Romney wins and Republicans take the Senate, the law is dead. It is the starkest of differences.

How likely is each scenario? At this moment Democrats have the advantage. According to Real Clear Politics, the president is running slightly ahead in six out of ten battleground states. He could actually lose seven of these, but still be reelected if he hangs onto Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

While key Senate races have tightened, such as Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Democrats have a slight advantage there too. If the elections were held today, Republicans would fall two seats short.

What would this future look like? Implementing ObamaCare would be accelerated. HHS and states will have less than fourteen months to finalize major provisions of the law before they take effect on January 1, 2014.

Thousands of pages of regulation will be released shortly after the election, on everything from IRS rules for employers to essential health benefits to covering pre-existing conditions. It remains to be seen how prescriptive these regulations would be.

State officials will have to submit a blueprint for their insurance exchanges by November 16th. They will need to decide if they will create and exchange and how it will be designed.

They will also have to decide whether to expand their Medicaid programs, and they’ll need to determine essential health benefits and benchmark plans for the insurance options to be sold through their exchanges.

The Unheard Heart: A Metaphor For Medicine In the Digital Age

Nov 2, 2012• 10

By Clifton Meador, MD

A few months ago, a young cardiologist told me that he rarely listens to hearts anymore. In a strange way, I was not surprised.

He went on to tell me that he gets all the information he needs from echocardiograms, EKGs, MRIs, and catherizations. In the ICU, he can even measure cardiac output within seconds. He told me that these devices tell him vastly more than listening to out-of-date sounds via a long rubber tube attached to his ear.

There was even an element of disdain. He said, “There is absolutely nothing that listening to hearts can tell me that I don’t already know from technology. I have no need to listen. So I don’t do it much anymore.”

I began to wonder. I called my longtime friend and colleague, also a cardiologist. I knew him to be one of the best heart listeners. I asked him if he still listens to hearts. He answered, “Of course I do. I could not practice medicine if I didn’t. But you know every week, several patients tell me when I listen to their hearts that I am the first doctor ever to do that. Can you imagine that?”

Playing the devil’s advocate, I challenged my friend to tell me what he learned from listening to hearts.

He answered, “How could anyone not want to hear those murmurs, sometimes ever so soft, like whispers? Murmurs from the heart, even very faint ones, are trying to tell us significant things. Some sounds are very localized, even hidden or obscured by layers of air. And then there is the rhythm and the beat and the cadence that you cannot hear on the paper strip of the EKG. Also, careful listening is the only way to appreciate the rubs of friction if there are any. The devices are important, but the heart has its own spoken and unspoken language if you know how to listen.

Health Care Purchasers, Consumers Need Price Data if We Are Ever Going to Get to a System of Value-Based Care

Nov 2, 2012• 5

By Suzanne Delbanco

In a world where health care costs are rising and consumers are taking on a growing share, it is critical they have easy access to understandable information about the quality and cost of their care. While we have made decent strides in making quality data available, consumers still have little to no information about health care prices, making it difficult if not impossible for them to seek higher-value care. Numerous studies and articles have explored this problem, such as a recent UCSF study, highlighted in JAMA, which found routine appendectomies can cost as little as $1,529 or as much as $183,000. As PBGH Medical Director Dr. Arnie Milstein so eloquently stated in the Wall Street Journal, “Fantasy baseball managers have more information evaluating players for their teams than patients and referring physicians have in matters of life and death.”

Now Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR), an independent, non-profit corporation working on behalf of large employers and other health care purchasers to catalyze improvements in how we pay for health services, has just released a suite of tools to catalyze price transparency. The suite includes a first-of-its-kind Statement by CPR Purchasers on Quality and Price Transparency in Health Care, endorsed by several partner organizations, that takes plans and providers to task: give us price data by January 2014.

Why Everything You Know About EHR Design Is Probably Wrong

Nov 1, 2012• 23

By Margalit Gur-Arie

Every time someone publishes an article or a paper or a blog post that has anything remotely to do with Electronic Health Records (EHR), there is usually a flurry of reactions in the comments section, now available in most publications, and these always include at least half a dozen anonymous statements, usually from clinicians, decrying the current state of EHR software, best summed up by a commenter on THCB: “It is the user interface stupid!… It has to be designed from the ground up to be an integral part of the patient care experience”. Can’t argue with that now, can you? Particularly when coming from a practicing physician.

And why argue at all? The user interface in any software product is the easiest thing to get right. All you need to do is apply some basic principles and tweak them based on talking to users, listening and observing them in their “natural habitat”. Having done exactly that, for an inordinate amount of time, and being aware that most EHR vendors were engaging in similar efforts, I found the growing discontent with EHR user interfaces somewhat inexplicable. The common wisdom in EHR vendor circles is that doctors are unique in how they work and whenever you have two doctors in a room, there are at least three different preferences in how the EHR should present itself. As a result, you will find that most mature EHRs have dozens of different ways of accomplishing the same thing. These are called “user preferences” and are as confusing as anything you’ve ever seen. Hence the notion that if you spend enough time configuring and customizing your EHR upfront, you will increase your chances of having a less traumatic EHR experience down the road. We were an industry like no other, doomed to build software for users with no common denominator, or so I came to believe, until one afternoon in the summer of 2006…..

How Health Care Changed While You Were Watching the Election

Nov 1, 2012• 3

By Dan Diamond

After a seemingly endless presidential campaign, we’re just days away from the Nov. 6 election. And to be sure, health care issues remain at the forefront.

Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have tried to claim the high ground as Medicare’s number one defender. In his latest column, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman argues that next week’s vote “is, to an important degree, really about Medicaid.” And writing on Bloomberg View, columnist Ezra Klein takes an even broader stance, concluding that “this election is all about health care.”

But health care isn’t all about the election, despite politics’ seeming ability to draw every sector into its gravitational pull.

In fact, many of the most significant stories in health care from the past two months haven’t come from the campaign trail — where candidates have mostly rehashed their existing policies — but from the private sector, as employers and providers have made aggressive, and sometimes unexpected, deals and changes. Reforms that will continue regardless of who’s sitting in the Oval Office next year.

Here are some of those stories.

Top Employers Move to Defined Contribution

As previously discussed in “Road to Reform,” Sears Holdings and Darden Restaurants have made plans to shift away from their current “defined benefits” — where they choose a set of health insurance benefits on behalf of their workers — and roll out “defined contribution” instead.

Under that model, firms pay a fixed amount for employees’ health benefits and allow workers to choose their coverage from an online marketplace, such as the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges or the emerging number of privately run exchanges.

In theory, the model would slow employers’ health costs while allowing employees to have more control over their own health care spending. And Sears and Darden’s announcements aren’t wholly unexpected, given that many employers have signaled their interest in making a similar shift.

But given the long-entrenched employer-sponsored health coverage model, some employers needed to be the first movers before the rest would be ready to follow.

Will they? That will be a major industry issue to watch across the next months.

Großes Potential für digitale Gesundheitsdienste

Oct 31, 2012• 1

By Martin Schmucker

Digitale Innovationen mit echtem Mehrwert für die Patienten sind europaweit auf dem Vormarsch. In Deutschland gibt es jedoch viele Vorbehalte gegenüber neuen Technologien. Alexander Schachinger, Gründer und Geschäftsführer von healthcare42.com und Moderator auf der Konferenz Health 2.0 Europe, über die Chancen digitaler Gesundheitsdienste in Deutschland.

Herr Schachinger, derzeit bereiten Sie mit healthcare42 und Publicis Healthware / razorfish eine Haushaltsbefragung zur Nutzung von Gesundheitsinformationen im Internet durch chronische Patienten vor. Worauf genau zielt die Studie ab?

Alexander Schachinger: In Deutschland wurde noch nie repräsentativ und basierend auf der internationalen E-Patientforschung untersucht, wie sich die Nutzung von Gesundheitsinformationen durch Chroniker auf deren Wissen, ihre Einstellungen und ihr Verhalten auf dem Gesundheitsmarkt, also vor allem gegenüber Ärzten und Apothekern auswirkt. Hier wollen wir eine Forschungslücke schließen, denn das Thema „E-Patient“ ist in Deutschland bisher sträflich vernachlässigt worden. Unter anderem in Zusammenarbeit mit der KWHC GmbH haben wir bereits eine Online-Befragung mit 3.500 E-Patienten durchgeführt. Wir konnten zeigen, dass das Internet, der Austausch in Foren und ähnliches Auswirkungen auf die Patienten haben, insbesondere auf das Arztgespräch und auf die Entscheidung für oder gegen eine bestimmte Therapie.

Wie definieren Sie den “E-Patienten“?

Mit diesem Begriff meinen wir Patienten, die an chronischen Erkrankungen leiden, aber auch Akutpatienten, die das Internet zur Information über Gesundheitsthemen und zum Austausch nutzen. Wir verwenden einen sehr umfassenden Begriff, der auch die Angehörigen mit einbezieht, die sogenannten „Caregiver“, also Eltern, Kinder oder Ehepartner, die sich im Internet über Krankheiten von ihnen Nahestehenden informieren.

The Enormous Potential for Digital Health Care Services in Germany

Oct 31, 2012• 2

By Martin Schmucker

Throughout Europe, digital innovations with substantial benefits for the patients are spreading quickly. However, stakeholders in Germany are still reserved about these new technologies. Alexander Schachinger, founder and CEO of healthcare42.com and speaker at Health 2.0 Europe, talks about the chances of digital healthcare services in Germany.

Mr. Schachinger, healthcare42 and Publicis Healthware/ razorfish are currently preparing a survey about the utilization of health information by chronic patients in the Internet. What exactly is the objective of your investigations?

Alexander Schachinger: Up to now, there haven‘t been any representative scientific studies about the usage of health information by chronic patients. We still don‘t know how this influences their knowledge, their attitudes or their behavior in regard to the healthcare market, in particular towards doctors and pharmacists. We are attempting to close a gap here since research on e-patients has been unfortunately neglected in Germany. In a survey in cooperation with KWHC and others, we interviewed 3,500 e-patients online. We were able to show that the Internet, exchange in forums and suchlike do have an effect on the patients, especially in regard to medical consultations and the decision for or against a certain therapy.

How do you define “e-patients?”

With this term we refer to people suffering from chronic diseases, but also to acutely ill patients, who use the Internet to find out and share information about health issues. This term also comprises all sorts of caregivers, including parents, children or spouses who inform themselves about the medical conditions of their loved ones via the Internet.

Improving Patient Safety Through Electronic Health Record Simulation

Oct 31, 2012• 2

By William Hersh, MD

Most tools used in medicine require knowledge and skills of both those who develop them and use them. Even tools that are themselves innocuous can lead to patient harm.

For example, while it is difficult to directly harm a patient with a stethoscope, patients can be harmed when improper use of the stethoscope leads to them having tests and/or treatments they do not need (or not having tests and treatments they do need). More directly harmful interventions, such as invasive tests and treatments, can harm patients through their use as well.

To this end, health information technology (HIT) can harm patients. The direct harm from computer use in the care of patients is minimal, but the indirect harm can potentially be extraordinary. HIT usage can, for example, store results in an electronic health record (EHR) incompletely or incorrectly. Clinical decision support may lead clinician astray or may distract them with unnecessary excessive information. Medical imaging may improperly render findings.

Search engines may lead clinicians or patients to incorrect information. The informatics professionals who oversee implementation of HIT may not follow best practices to maximize successful use and minimize negative consequences. All of these harms and more were well-documented in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report published last year on HIT and patient safety [1].

One aspect of HIT safety was brought to our attention when a critical care physician at our medical center, Dr. Jeffery Gold, noted that clinical trainees were increasingly not seeing the big picture of a patient’s care due to information being “hidden in plain sight,” i.e., behind a myriad of computer screens and not easily aggregated into a single picture. This is especially problematic where he works, in the intensive care unit (ICU), where the generation of data is vast, i.e., found to average about 1300 data points per 24 hours [2]. This led us to perform an experiment where physicians in training were provided a sample case and asked to review an ICU case for sign-out to another physician [3]. Our results found that for 14 clinical issues, only an average of 41% of issues (range 16-68% for individual issues) were uncovered.

Four New Tools for Brain Workouts

Oct 31, 2012

By H. James Wilson

How do you sharpen your thinking?

I’ve written already about how you can use auto-analytics to measure and improve the tasks you take on every day at work, but there’s another class of auto-analytics that help you improve at a more fundamental level. These tools strengthen the underlying brain and behavioral structures that support smarter thinking, decisions, and routines in any professional field.

Here are four new tools that I’ve spotted in my research. I use the term “DIY” because each option can be tested, and learning outcomes quantified, without the need for an outside instructor or expert.

Quantified Mind is a personal online cognitive testing platform based on psychometrics, the measurement of cognitive performance in areas like reaction time, executive function, and verbal learning. You take a battery of tests to see your current cognitive performance; then you introduce an intervention to understand whether it helps or hurts thinking. Interventions can include changes to daily routine or diet.

Why Obamacare Is Good for White People

Oct 30, 2012• 27

By Michael L. Millenson

With some pundits predicting that President Obama’s re-election could be sabotaged by a slim level of white voter support, I decided to dig through the small print on Obamacare to see how this right-wing lightning rod actually affects my fellow Caucasians.

It turns out that the high-profile legislative highlight of Obama’s first term is very good for white people. When the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, 12.3 million more white people will have health insurance than have it today, according to an analysis in Health Affairs.

Obamacare looks even more positive for the pale skinned when put next to the Romney-Ryancare alternative. If Obamacare is repealed and replaced by the health reform plan Presidential-candidate Romney now proposes – not to be confused with the plan Massachusetts then-Gov. Romney enacted into law — an extra 24.8 million white people will not have health insurance. (That’s if you apply current demographics to a recent Commonwealth Fund analysis.)

By way of perspective, that’s nearly equivalent to the entire population of Texas (but all white people) having to cope with serious problems accessing medical care and paying for it. Or to use a more politically compelling comparison, 24.8 million white people would be more than twice the size of the whole population of Ohio.