The Health Care Blog – Page 708 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Are Patients Becoming Day Traders?

Jul 29, 2011• 7

By DAVIS LIU, MD

Let me say first that I am a practicing primary care doctor who is very much focused on patient centered care. Though I cannot go back to being a patient who is unaware about what a doctor does, the terminology she uses, or what the importance of certain test results are, I can empathize with the overwhelming amounts of information, challenges, and stressors patients and families can have in navigating the healthcare system to get the right care. This is the reason I wrote my book.

However, over the past few months I’ve noticed a particularly disturbing trend. Patients are not consulting doctors for advice, but rather demanding testing to force diagnoses which are not even remote possibilities. A little knowledge can be dangerous particularly in the context of little to no clinical experience. Where many patients are today are where medical students are at the end of their second year – lots of book knowledge but little to no real world experience.

More patients are becoming the day traders of the dot.com boom. Everyone has a hot stock tip, only now it is “be sure to ask your doctor for this test” or “ask for this medication because it is the only one that works”. Everyone is an expert with his own suggestion on what should be done. If a medical expert, like a doctor, weighs in and does not agree, then there is a set of patients and doctors who begin to argue that these doctors are out of touch or arrogant.

Hardly.Continue reading…

Making Doctors More Human

Jul 28, 2011• 5

By ANONYMOUS, MD

Recently at lunch I sat with a general surgeon who I have known for many years. Like many of our peers, he is hard working and puts in many more than 40 hours of work each week. Before I decided to “slow down” a few years ago, my typical workweek was 60-80 hours. Dr. N, the surgeon, was lamenting about how things had changed and how new physicians did not share our same work ethic. He should know––his son is in training now to become a surgeon too.

“They don’t want to work as hard as we did,” he said. They realize they will make less money, but they want more time off for themselves and their family.”

“How can they do that and still practice good medicine?” I asked.

His response was simple and obvious––“Shift work.”

In the years since the two of us completed our training, the medical establishment has finally realized that putting in such grueling and long hours is not good for either the patient or the doctor. As an intern in the emergency room, I recall doing a two-month rotation of “24 on/24 off, meaning working non-stop for 24 hours, and then off for 24 hours. This pace was purportedly to prepare us for the rigors of private practice. It also weeded out those docs who would later enter a specialty with more humane hours like dermatology or pathology.

Bending the Curve with EHRs

Jul 28, 2011• 20

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

The post you are about to read may not be suitable for wonks. Its claims are not fact checked. Its author is not a researcher. And its opinions are not fully thought through. Reader discretion is advised.*

EHR adoption rates are picking up significantly, exceeding the most optimistic expectations. Instead of an EHR for every American by 2014, as the President commanded, we will have dozens of EHRs for each American long before that. And in health care, more is always better, not to mention the freedom of choice that comes with having a different EHR in each care setting. Not surprisingly, we are seeing a decrease in health care expenditures taking place in parallel with the uptick in EHR adoption. Following best practices in health care economics research, when two phenomena develop in parallel, the learned assumption is that there is a causality connection between the two. Deciding which phenomenon is the cause and which is the effect is discretionary and commonly based on undisclosed agendas.

It is therefore postulated here that health care expenditures are inversely proportional to EHR usage rates. The following is a rigorous analysis of the mechanisms by which EHRs are reducing health care costs, intended to inform policy makers as customary in most health care related studies, which cannot be completed, or published, without a salient recommendation of interest to policy makers.

From Gray to Red

Jul 27, 2011• 75

By RONALD BROWNSTEIN

With their vote this week to impose strict limits on future federal spending, House Republicans continued an argument not so much with Democrats as with demography. The real current they are seeking to reverse is not some ideological drive from President Obama to convert America into Sweden; it’s the inexorably rising cost of providing retirement security, especially health care, to an aging society.

The cut, cap, and balance bill that Republicans muscled through the House would authorize an increase in the federal debt ceiling only after Congress approved a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. The bill doesn’t specify the spending level at which Washington must balance the budget, but each of the major balanced-budget proposals that House Republicans have already introduced would eventually limit federal spending to an amount equal to 18 percent of the nation’s total economic output.

Federal spending hasn’t represented that small a share of the economy since 1966, when it stood at 17.8 percent. That’s an especially revealing comparison because 1966 was the year when Medicare went into effect—the first guarantee of health coverage for the nation’s seniors. The program didn’t even begin until July 1; Washington spent only about $100 million on it that first fiscal year. Medicaid, which provides care for both the poor and the elderly, was also just getting started; it cost the federal government only about $800 million in fiscal 1966.

Is FDA Getting Ready to Stifle Innovation in Diagnostic Software?

Jul 27, 2011

By DAVID E. WILLIAMS

FDA is proposing regulation for mobile medical applications. Not a bad idea. But I have some concerns about what it will mean for clinical diagnostics software. Here’s the definitional passage:

Mobile apps that allow the user to input patient-specific information and – using formulae or processing algorithms – output a patient-specific result, diagnosis, or treatment recommendation to be used in clinical practice or to assist in making clinical decisions. Examples include mobile apps that provide a questionnaire for collecting patient-specific lab results and compute the prognosis of a particular condition or disease, perform calculations that result in an index or score, calculate dosage for a specific medication or radiation treatment, or provide recommendations that aid a clinician in making a diagnosis or selecting a specific treatment for a patient.

Apps that provide differential diagnosis tools for a clinician to systematically compare and contrast clinical findings (symptoms/ results, etc.) to arrive at possible diagnosis for a patient.

EHR Tweetjam for Xerox 1pm EST Today

Jul 27, 2011• 2

Today from 1:00 – 1:30 p.m EST (10-10.30 am PST) we’re hosting a TweetJam for our friends over at Xerox (FD-Yes they are paying us). We’ll be discussing the results from their recent survey on Electronic Health Records and invite you to join in on the conversation. Never heard of a TweetJam before? It’s simply a time to gather on Twitter around a particular topic and learn from each other. Anyone can ask, or answer, a question. All you have to do is login to Twitter, follow the Twitter handles @THCBStaff and @ServicesatXerox and use hashtag #EHRJam to participate in the discussion. We hope to see you there!

Vermont’s Bold Experiment

Jul 27, 2011• 26

By DAVID DRANOVE

I was delighted to see the lead article in Health Affairs describing Vermont’s new single payer health care financing system. Harvard Professor William Hsiao and his coauthors describe this as a “Bold Experiment” and I couldn’t agree more. It is also a very welcome experiment. For over thirty years I have heard the rhetoric that a single payer system would never work in the United States. For that matter, I have heard that a true market-based system (with vouchers) would never work either. Why not let the states experiment and find out what will and won’t work? Thankfully, the Vermont legislators and Governor Shumlin had the courage to take this leap of faith.

The biggest obstacle to implementation appears to be ERISA, which limits the extent to which states can regulate self-funded plans. Apparently, self-insured employers could object to having their tax payments used to support the plan. But Vermont can apply for an ERISA waiver under terms in the Affordable Care Act and the state hopes to begin its bold experiment in 2015.

As bold as the plan might be, Hsiao et al. might be even bolder in projecting the potential cost savings, which they peg at 25.3 percent. Academics rarely go out on a limb with projections like this that can easily be assessed in a few years time. And academics are rarely so optimistic. I wish I could share that optimism.Continue reading…

Don’t Forget Medicaid

Jul 26, 2011• 27

By REP. CHRIS MURPHY

As we wait for the white smoke to emerge from the “grand bargain” negotiations at the White House, most Americans are already aware of the Republicans’ plan to dismantle and privatize Medicare and Social Security. But what many people may not realize is just how dangerous it would be to slash funding for a program that 60 million Americans rely on for their basic health care needs: Medicaid.

While it seems that just about every major industry or interest group has teams of lobbyists in Washington looking out for them, some of our most vulnerable citizens simply don’t have a voice in a town where unfortunately, money still talks the loudest.

Why? Medicaid covers only the impoverished and disabled, so it lacks a traditional advocacy base. This may be news to Republicans — but most poor people I know are spending all their time trying to find a job and put food on the table. Lobbying Congress just isn’t on these folks’ to-do list right now. Unfortunately, this means that my colleagues aren’t going to spend a lot of time over the next 30 days sticking up for the 60 million Americans who rely on Medicaid to pay their medical bills. That’s unfortunate, because if the Republicans are successful in turning the program into a block grant program that greatly diminishes funding to states, three awful things are going to happen — people are going to die, more jobs are going to be lost, and health care costs and taxes will actually increase.

Why Everything We Are Doing in Health Policy May Be Completely Wrong …

Jul 25, 2011• 36

By JOHN GOODMAN

A relatively obscure paper (gated) published in an academic journal the other day was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Yet if the study findings hold and if they apply to a broad array of health services, it appears that the orthodox approach to getting health services to poor people is as wrong as it can be.

At first glance, the study appears to focus on a rather narrow set of issues. Although most states try to limit Medicaid expenses by restricting patients to a one-month supply of drugs, North Carolina for a period of time allowed patients to have a three-month supply. Then the state reduced the allowable one-stop supply from 100 days of medication to 34 days and at the same raised the copayment on some drugs from $1 to $3. Think of the first change as raising the time price of care (the number of required pharmacy visits tripled) and the second as raising the money price of care (which also tripled).

The result: A tripling of the time price of care led to a much greater reduction in needed drugs obtained by chronically ill patients than a tripling of the money price, all other things remaining equal.

This study pertained to certain drugs and certain medical conditions. But suppose the findings are more general. Suppose that for most poor people and most health care, time is a bigger deterrent than money. What then?

If that idea doesn’t immediately knock your socks off, you probably haven’t been paying attention to the dominant thinking in health policy for the past 60 years.

Letting Go Of Employer-Based Health Insurance

Jul 25, 2011• 12

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Other than the egg-laying exercise surrounding the ACO regulations, 2011 was a quiet year among Washington health policy experts until June 6 when McKinsey released the results ofa survey of employer plans under the Affordable Care Act. The McKinsey study found that roughly 30 percent of employers were considering dropping their employee insurance coverage and encouraging their employees to receive federally subsidized health insurance through the Exchanges created in the Affordable Care Act. This compared to low- to mid-single digit estimated drop rates based upon economic modeling by the Urban Institute, Lewin and, importantly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

To judge by the storm of angry political reaction, you would have thought that McKinsey had advocated mass psychedelic drug use. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) sent McKinsey a letter demanding that the firm disclose its methods and questioning its motives. There followed a flurry of hostile press coverage of the study, echoed in the progressive blogosphere. Horrified, McKinsey released its study methodology, survey instrument, and tabulations of responses.

Why such a sharp reaction? If McKinsey turns out to be right about employer intentions, the cost estimates of the federal subsidies for individuals to purchase coverage through the Exchanges (roughly $777 billion from 2012 to 2021 according to CBO’s March, 2011 analysis) are far too low, making the program even more vulnerable to Republican efforts to cancel it. And if a third of employers drop coverage, President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your health insurance coverage, you can keep it” won’t look so great either.