The Health Care Blog – Page 711 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

So Many EHRs. So Expensive.

Jul 15, 2011• 15

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

There are currently 386 software packages certified by an ONC approved certification body as ambulatory Complete EHRs, which means that the software should allow the user to fulfill all Meaningful Use requirements and possibly qualify the proud owner for all sorts of CMS incentives. There are 204 more software packages which are certified as ambulatory EHR Modules, and a proper combination of these packages could result in a Complete product, which if used appropriately could lead to the same fortuitous results.

There are 423 distinct manufacturers of ambulatory EHRs and EHR modules on the federal list. Most are software vendors, or wannabe software vendors, but a fair amount are facilities that developed an EHR for in-house use and had it certified. These are not really available for purchase. A very large number of listed vendors offer niche products for distinct specialties, such as optometry, oncology, behavioral health, etc. All that said, there is still an inordinate number of EHR “choices”, or so the story goes. By comparison, since we all love car analogies, there are 1,310 individual trims currently sold in the U.S., and around50 car manufacturers overall. If you ask an average citizen on the street to name their top 10 cars, chances are that you will get a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, a Caddie, maybe a Ford truck, a Beemer, a Porsche and perhaps even a Beetle. You are not likely to hear anything about a Tesla or a Coda and rarely will anybody mention a Scion. Automotive modules are not widely sold for home assembly, so there is no parallel lesson there. One way or another, we manage to find our way when it comes to automobiles.

Innovation and Competition

Jul 14, 2011• 1

By FRANK PASQUALE

Last year I published a piece called “Beyond Innovation and Competition,” questioning the dominance of those values. Economists celebrate innovation and competition as the main source of future growth. Innovation has become the central focus of Internet law and policy. While leading commentators sharply divide on the best way to promote innovation, they routinely elevate its importance. Business writers have celebrated search engines, social networks, and tech startups as model corporations, bringing creative destruction and “disruptive innovation” in their wake. Maximum innovation is the goal, and competition is billed as the best way of achieving it. Players in the vast and dynamic tech marketplace are supposed to constantly strive to innovate in order to attract consumers away from rivals.

In the piece, I explain how both competition and innovation can be as destructive as they are constructive. There are many social values (including privacy, transparency, predictability, and stability), and companies can compete for profits in ways that erode those values. In an era of inequality and hall-of-mirrors stock market valuations, innovations of marginal or negative impact on society at large can be vastly overvalued by a stampede of fickle investors.

The shortcomings of the innovation and competition story also play out in health information technology. Stimulus legislation in 2009 provided many carrots and sticks for doctors to digitize their recordkeeping systems, ranging from bonuses now to reimbursement haircuts later this decade if they fail to implement the technology. Congress structured the incentives to encourage a competitive and innovative marketplace in health information technology. But many doctors are shying away from implementation, in part because they fear that the fast and loose ethics of the market can’t mesh with a medical culture of constant commitment to quality care.Continue reading…

If Doctors Lead, Will Health Care Costs Follow?

Jul 14, 2011• 1

By NAOMI FREUNDLICH

Can doctors and other health care providers be the driving force in achieving cost-effective health care? In their commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine, Stanford professors Victor Fuchs and Arnold Milstein, call this the “$640 billion question.” That figure represents the savings to the national health care bill if all U.S. physicians and health care organizations could follow the example of individual providers who already deliver high-quality care at a costroughly 20% lower than the average.

The authors ask “Why don’t cost-effective models diffuse rapidly in health care, as they do in other industries?” The answer, according to Fuchs and Milstein, is that a long list of stakeholders has interests that are effectively blocking the “diffusion of cost-effective care.” These include drug and medical device-makers who tout their new, more expensive products as always better than older (and cheaper) alternatives; insurance companies with high administrative costs; employers who offer just one or two benefit plans to workers; legislators who accept donations from health industry insiders, academic health centers that tolerate cost inefficiency as the price of training residents; and others whose vested interests keep them from fully embracing cost-effective care.

The media is also to blame, write the authors, by publishing articles that tout miracle cures and treatments to boost newsstand sales and failing to convey risk/benefit information accurately.

Trying to cut health care costs has often been compared to squeezing a balloon; pinch the air out of one end and it will fill up the other. Or as the Canadian economist Robert G. Evans recently told a Group Health audience, “look carefully at so-called ‘waste’ in the U.S. health care system. ‘Nothing is ever wasted… Every dollar ‘always goes somewhere, which is what makes it so difficult to bend the (cost) curve.’ In other words, one person’s waste is another person’s income.”

Trying Too Hard to Save Medicare

Jul 14, 2011• 29

By DAVID DRANOVE

In the latest edition of Health Affairs, Dr. Francis Crosson, chair of the Council of Accountable Physician Practices and senior fellow at Kaiser Institute of Health Policy, offers an impassioned defense of Accountable Care Organizations. Crosson’s main point is in his title: “The Concept is Too Vitally Important to Fail.” He adds:

“The accountable care organization model is intended as an option both for Medicare and for non-Medicare, commercial health care services. However, the general model and the specific shared savings model proposed for Medicare have come under criticism. Much of the criticism is valid and should be addressed. However, none should serve to prevent the evolution of this model.”

If the concept is “It sure would be nice to hold down costs and improve quality” then how can I argue? Who wants to argue against God, Mother or Country? But if the concept is “The only way to save the healthcare system is to organize everyone into ACOs,” well forgive me for disagreeing.

Why This Lawyer Won’t Sue Me

Jul 13, 2011• 2

By MICHAEL KIRSCH, MD

I spent the entire last weekend with an attorney, not a desirable circumstance for most physicians. However, I wasn’t being deposed or interrogated on cross examination. This was a rendezvous that we both sought with enthusiasm.

Lewis is my closest friend, a bond that was forged since we were eight years old. We are separated now only by geography, and we meet periodically because we both treasure the friendship. Earlier this year we rolled the dice in Vegas. Last weekend, we sweated in the sweltering heat of the Mile High City. Next stop? Back to Denver with a few youngins’!

Lewis is the managing partner in a prominent west coast law firm that specializes in tax evasion. (Or is it tax avoidance? Am I confusing my terms here, Lew?) He has been redrafted to this position because he has earned the respect of his colleagues. Clearly, both Lewis and I have ascended to the highest strata of our professions. Lewis is in charge of a large law firm that has global reach; he travels all over the world cultivating business and negotiating deals; and he navigates clients through complex and labyrinthine legal conundrums. I, an esteemed community gastroenterologist, perform daily rectal examinations and counsel patients on flatulence.

The Federal Exchange–Lost in alternate history

Jul 12, 2011

The next few days will be all about exchanges, or more accurately the “American Health Benefit Exchanges for Individuals and Small Business Health Options Program.” Tim Jost has a long and excellent article at Health Affairs blog explaining them, and–Yikes!–it’s the first of three. There’s going to be different rules for individuals versus small businesses, and of course differences as to whether Medicaid plans (which will cover more poor individuals) will be part of the exchange. For states that decide not to implement the exchange themselves, it’ll be done by the Feds–assuming that the whole thing doesn’t get repealed (and it won’t). But I remain very concerned that the complexity of 50 different exchanges, not to mention the ability of HHS to really keep an eye on all of them, is a problem–one that would be much reduced with a single Federal Exchange looking something like FEBHP. As Jost says, The Senate version of the ACA which became law (in contrast to the House version which did not) creates the exchanges at the state rather than the federal level. For that we have Scotty Brown and the voters of Massachusetts to blame. And thus the weirdness of the American political system has given us a long series of headaches for years to come.

Myths about Medical Malpractice: Part 2 Crisis or Hoax?

Jul 12, 2011• 56

By MAGGIE MAHAR

Conservatives call it the “malpractice crisis.” Public Citizen, a liberal non-profit consumer organization based in Washington D.C., calls it “The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax.”

No doubt you have read that ambulance-chasing lawyers have escalated their assault on health care providers, and that as a result, malpractice insurance premiums have been levitating, along with malpractice suits, further hiking the cost of medical care.

Various solutions have been floated, including “caps” on compensation for pain and suffering; “health courts” where expert judges replace juries; immunity for doctors who follow “best practice guidelines;” and “full disclosure” policies which urge doctors and hospitals to move quickly to disclose errors, apologize, and offer compensation.

In the end, the best solutions would make malpractice reform part of heath care reform. Our malpractice system should be redesigned to reduce medical mistakes, fully compensate patients who are injured by human error, reward doctors and hospitals that disclose errors, and penalize those that try to “cover up.” When it comes to the cost of malpractice, reform should slash the exorbitant administrative costs built into an adversarial process that moves at a snail’s pace, while subjecting both plaintiffs and defendants to what a recent report from the American Enterprise Institute rightly describes as “inhumane.”

Continue reading…

Let’s Stop Bashing Profits and Business In Healthcare

Jul 12, 2011• 167

By MERLE J. BUSHKIN

I’m tired of profit-bashing and business-bashing in healthcare. And every American should be, too!

Well-run, profitable businesses, along with our sense of decency, democratic institutions, education and free enterprise systems, and adherence to the rule of law, have made the United States the most extraordinary nation in recorded history. Together they have unleashed the talents, creativity and productivity of our people, generated enormous sums of capital, and created unheard of social, economic, scientific and political advances.

Is there anything nobler than providing the environment and opportunity for people to fulfill their potential and achieve their dreams, and for providing the goods and services that enable people to raise their standard of living? Not even the practice of medicine can do so much good for so many people. But that’s precisely what businesses do. (That also may explain why far more Americans today are interested in job creation than restructuring healthcare.)

In our system, an individual has an idea, attracts capital, and hires people to build a product or provide a service. When they meet a need, they prosper – and attract more capital and hire more people. Everybody wins. If they fail, they alone suffer the consequences. That’s what capitalism is all about and that’s what has made America great.

Frances Dare, Cisco: Global Health Leaders’ Survey

Jul 12, 2011• 6

By Matthew Holt

Cisco’s Frances Dare is an occasional but regular and welcome guest on THCB. Frances spends a lot of time looking at the environment for Cisco’s products and services in health care both in the US and internationally–think demand and readiness bandwidth and live video! Earlier this year Cisco released the results of a survey done with numerous international leaders in health care about their problems in general and their readiness for telehealth solutions in particular. The overall verdict? It’s getting pretty close, especially outside of the US. For the longer story, grab a cup of coffee and watch this interview in which I bring chat and Frances brings data!