The Health Care Blog – Page 712 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Seriously, Some Consensus About Health Care

Jun 21, 2011• 10

By GREGORY MANKIW

We are entering the season of polarization. With various Republicans vying to replace Barack Obama, the president eager to keep his job, and both the House and the Senate up for grabs, candidates from both sides of the aisle will spend the next year and a half stressing their differences.

But beneath this veneer of partisanship lie a few fundamental agreements. Consider health care, which will be at the center of the political debate. Here are four aspects of the issue in which Republicans and Democrats have stumbled into consensus.

THE VALUE OF COMPETITION Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, has attracted much attention with his plan to reform Medicare. He proposes replacing the current fee-for-service program, in which the government picks up the bill for medical expenses, with a “premium-support” system in which seniors use federal dollars to choose among competing private insurance plans.

Democratic critics of the plan suggest that enacting it would be akin to pushing Grandma over a cliff. But they rarely point out that the premium-support model is in some ways similar to the system set up under President Obama’s health care law. If choosing among competing private plans on a government-regulated exchange is a good idea for someone at age 50, why is it so horrific for someone who is 70?

Republicans, meanwhile, are eager to repeal Obamacare and so are also reluctant to point out its parallels with Ryancare. We can take heart, however, in the kernel of agreement about the value of private competition.

Lessons Learned from my Uncle’s Sacrifice

Jun 20, 2011• 6

By JOHN MAA, MD

My uncle’s tale illustrates the fundamentally American tragedy of experiencing financial and medical catastrophes simultaneously, and having to choose between rationing one’s own care or depleting precious financial resources for potentially lifesaving treatment that could as well be futile.

From my perspective as a surgeon, an additional tragedy is that my uncle never got the chance to know his cause of death with certainty. There is a small chance (approximately 5 percent) that his jaundice arose from a benign or treatable condition such as lymphoma, an autoimmune process, or another noncancerous condition, and that if he had received full treatment he would be alive and well today. But a diagnostic surgery would likely have added $100,000 to his final medical costs. Thus my uncle weighed the odds and rationed his own care to preserve his daughters’ inheritance for their future benefit.

To answer the question I posed at the end of the previous article, I do not believe that my uncle was treated fairly by the system. Sadly, he was just a few years too young to receive Medicare benefits, despite having paid into the system for decades. I was especially struck by the feedback about my uncle’s story from readers in France, Poland, Canada, Cyprus, and other countries with universal health care who were stunned to read of the dreadful timing in this desperate situation.

Death by Regulation

Jun 20, 2011• 2

By JOHN GOODMAN

“How many of you have not been able to get a drug you needed to properly deliver anesthesia to a patient?” I asked.

Every hand in the room went up.

“How did that affect your patients?” I asked. “Two of our patients died,” one woman answered.

I was speaking to a group of nurse anesthetists, enrolled in a business management program at Marshall University in West Virginia. I wish I could say their experience is unusual. It isn’t.

About 90 percent of all the anesthesiologists in the country report they are experiencing a shortage of at least one anesthetic. Drug shortages are also endangering cancer patients, heart attack victims, accident survivors and a host of other ill people. The vast majority involve injectable medications used mostly by medical centers, in emergency rooms, ICUs and cancer wards. Currently, there are about 246 drugs that are in short supply and, as the chart shows, the number has been growing for some time.

So what’s going on?

Fulfilling the PROMISe

Jun 20, 2011• 1

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

A brand new EMR is being rolled out in a midsize hospital. The EMR is exclusively based on touchscreen technology, with devices strategically placed on the floor. It provides concurrent access to medical records for all team members (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, dieticians, secretaries) wherever they may be. Patients are also accessing the EMR. They enter their own histories and describe symptoms in detail through the same touchscreen devices. This patient-centered EMR, built by a team of clinicians and technologists working together, is taking a huge step forward in Clinical Decision Support (CDS). Physicians are not only shown differential diagnoses based on what patients and other team members entered into the system, but are also presented with individualized care plans, possible side effects, dosage recommendations and drug-drug-interaction alerts, all referencing evidence available in medical literature. Longitudinal records, test results and narratives are available by problem and by patient, and the response time is never more than half a second between the thousands of screens available. The place is Vermont, and the year is 1970.

Half a century ago, when work on this EMR was taking place, Healthcare IT was on the cutting edge of technology. The Problem Oriented Medical Information System (PROMIS), the brainchild of Dr. Lawrence Weed, was pushing the envelope on every technology from hardware to operating systems, to network communications, database design and programming languages. By the time this government funded project was finally shut down, the PROMIS team dealt with such issues as mass storage, federated or single database, high availability, human interface design and networking between geographically dispersed locations. It will take several decades for the rest of the world to catch up with Dr. Weed’s, now defunct, innovation and produce something like IBM’s Watson software package, which is yet to be adapted and tested in health care. Somewhere, somehow, we took a wrong turn in Healthcare IT, and it wasn’t the much maligned billing influence, since PROMIS from day one, attempted to integrate billing in its software, with no ill effects.

Rads are Good For You. Take Twice as Many.

Jun 20, 2011• 2

By PAUL LEVY

Dear Mrs. Smith, I am writing to inform you that we exposed your body to an unnecessary level of radiation during your visit to our hospital. Oh, by the way, that was two years ago. We don’t intend to do anything about this for you. Also, we have known about this problem for a long time, and we don’t expect to change our procedures for future patients. Just wanted you to know. Yours in delivering the best health care in the world, Chief of Radiology and CEO. (Jointly signed.)

That’s the essence of this article by Walt Bogdanich and Jo Craven McGinty in the New York Times. Here are excerpts:

Long after questions were first raised about the overuse of powerful CT scans, hundreds of hospitals across the country needlessly exposed patients to radiation by scanning their chests twice on the same day, according to federal records and interviews with researchers.

Double scans expose patients to extra radiation while heaping millions of dollars in extra costs on an already overburdened Medicare program. A single CT scan of the chest is equal to about 350 standard chest X-rays, so two scans are twice that amount.

Health Data Discovery Contest at CureTogether

Jun 19, 2011

By Alexandra Carmichael

If the fine folks at Health 2.0 are any indication, contests seem to be the best way to spark innovation these days. CureTogether is throwing another contest into the mix this summer:

The Health Data Discovery Contest

Over the past 3 years, CureTogether has gathered millions of patient-reported data points on symptoms and treatments for over 500 conditions. Now it’s time to test on a larger scale how well CureTogether data represents the general population. Do they match up or not?

So we’re running a contest to tap the most brilliant stats minds out there. Challenge our dataset! See whether or not it holds up to existing research studies. Why? You’ll be helping to demonstrate the effectiveness of online platforms for medical discovery, and ultimately helping to reduce global suffering.

There are cash prizes, and the deadline to join the contest is June 29, 2011.Continue reading…

FDA Should Add a Comparative Effectiveness Arm to Final Trials

Jun 17, 2011• 33

By MERRILL GOOZNER

The Food and Drug Administration’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act is up for reauthorization next year, and so is the consumer and drug industry face-off over the contentious issue of comparative effectiveness research (CER). Consumers, patients and some physicians are demanding that CER be required of all new drugs coming to market when there are already FDA-approved therapies for the same condition. They say it will give payers and patients immediate feedback on the relative worth of the latest drugs, which are always more pricey than what preceded them, especially if the older drugs are coming off patent.

Industry opposes including CER arms in final efficacy trials. The companies claim it will place additional costs on the already expensive new drug development process; provide inadequate information for actually divining the relative worth of two competing therapies; and dissuade companies from investing in follow-on drug research, which can turn up drugs that are significantly better than older drugs.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Scott Gottlieb, who served in the FDA during the Bush administration, this week offered a lengthy brief in support of the industry position. Unfortunately, he sets up a straw man in order to knock down what could be a very effective tool for lowering the cost of medicine. It behooves industry leaders to ignore his advice, and to ignore the bleating of their marketing departments’ incessant demand for follow-on drugs.

EHR Can Make the Paper Problem Worse

Jun 17, 2011• 12

By FRED TROTTER

Once a persons record has gone electronic, it really should never go back.

A paper printout of an Electronic Health Record is often huge and unwieldy. If it is printed out or faxed it creates something so huge that it is pretty impossible to be useful in a paper record.

This is the reason why need electronic interoperability solutions like the Direct Project. Without it, when a patient leaves one doctor, they have to print out an electronic record, take it to the next doctor, and then have that doctor scan the record in.

That doesn’t sound too bad until you realize that a patients printed EHR record often looks like this:

This image was provided to me by Jodi Sperber and Dr. Eliza Shulman, who generously agreed to share the photo under a Creative Commons license. Here is the full description from Flickr, which provides greater context.

An example of why interoperability is as important as the electronic health record itself.

The story behind this photo: This is a printout of a patient’s medical record, sent from one office to another as the patient was changing primary care providers. An EHR was in place in both offices. Additionally, the EHR in both offices was created by the same vendor (a major vendor); each health organization had a customized version. Without base standards the systems are incompatible. Instead, the printouts had to be scanned into the new record, making them less searchable and less useful.

Note that this was not the entirety of the patient’s medical record… Just the first batch received.

Fred Trotter is a recognized expert in Free and Open Source medical software and security systems. He has spoken on those subjects at the SCALE DOHCS conference, LinuxWorld, DefCon and is the MC for the Open Source Health Conference. He has been quoted in multiple articles on Health Information Technology in several print and online journals, including WIRED, zdnet, Government Health IT, Modern Healthcare, Linux Journal, Free Software Magazine, NPR and LinuxMedNews.

Pawlenty sounding Bush-like on health care

Jun 17, 2011

AHIP is in town (as in San Francisco) and sadly that means I’m juggling the office and conference going. So altough I made the odd party I missed former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (who apparently was paid $30K to speak). However, Politico’s Kate Nocera seems to think he got a bit of a tough reception from the insurer crowd which by and large is going to enjoy the ACA and has set its course on making hay from it. But whether or not repealing ACOs and the experiments with Medicare financing are really going to happen (and they’re not) I was though struck by the final quote about exchanges: ‘And Pawlenty dismissed the importance of the state exchanges the law will create to provide consumer choice. “We already have an exchange: It’s called the free market,” Pawlenty said.’ Pawlenty shows himself to be a complete idiot on the Mark Pauly scale here. (Pauly is the Wharton professor who thinks that the individual insurance market works fine because it’s more or less OK for 80% of the people in it). But doesn’t this remind you of another not-too-bright former Republican governor? Remember who said this in 2007?: “I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” Let’s hope for logic’s sake alone we don’t end up with Pawlenty in the White House, as it could be a repeat of 2001-8 all over again.

Is TV Killing Us?

Jun 16, 2011

By MERRILL GOOZNER

The latest Journal of the American Medical Association has a meta-analysis of the limited number (8) of studies that looked at peoples’ television habits and their relationship to incidence of diabetes, heart disease and early death. According to Anders Grøntved of the University of Southern Denmark and Frank B. Hu of Harvard Medical School, two hours of television viewing per day resulted in a 20 percent increase in type 2 diabetes, a 15 percent increase in heart disease, and a 13 percent increase in all-cause mortality. All the findings were statistically significant. In absolute terms, for every 100,000 people who viewed TV for at least two hours a day, there were an additional 176 cases of type 2 diabetes, 38 cases of fatal cardiovascular disease, and 104 deaths of any type.

Is this really a smoking gun? Correlation is not causation. What else do we know about people who watch at least two hours of TV a day? Are they depressed? Are they bored? Is their sedentary lifestyle a product of some underlying condition, which may actually be the proximate cause of the diseased state?

As the authors note in their discussion:

Although the included studies attempted to control for various known risk factors, the possibility of residual or unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out. . . Although all of the included studies excluded participants with chronic disease at baseline, it is still possible that reverse causality may contribute to some of the associations reported herein if participants with subclinical stages of disease become more sedentary.

Karen Goozner, a certified school counselor, recently surveyed the literature that associated violent childhood behavior with watching violence on TV. The literature suggested it was a co-factor, not a causative factor. she said. In other words, families with a history of violence – who believed physicial violence was an appropriate response to social or child-rearing problems and role-modeled that behavior for their children — tended to also watch violent television for entertainment. Did the TV do it? Or was it mom or dad?

Television can be blamed for many things. Bad writing. Bad acting. But let’s not blame the escape valve for the pressures of modern life and worklife that has driven western Europeans (3.5 hours a day average); Australians (4 hours a day average) and Americans (5 hours a day average) to seek refuge in the depressing, all-night escape of drinking in front of the tube.