The Health Care Blog – Page 714 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Project ECHO: A Game-Changer for Patient Care?

Jun 14, 2011• 7

By BRIAN QUINN

I met Sanjeev Arora as part of the RWJ crowd at TEDMED last year and was pretty impressed with his approach–especially given the lack of access to care in poor and minority regions. Now there’s proof his approach works —Matthew Holt

On June 1 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study about how primary care providers can treat very sick patients who previously did not have access to specialty care. The piece described Project ECHO, a disruptive model of health care delivery based on collaborative practice that has the potential to transform health care. Supported by Robert Wood Johnson’s Pioneer Portfolio and based at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center (UNMHSC), Project ECHO was developed by Sanjeev Arora, M.D., a hepatologist at UNMHSC and leading social innovator.

The ECHO model organizes community-based primary care clinicians into disease-specific knowledge networks that meet through weekly videoconferencing to present patient cases. These “virtual grand rounds” are led by specialists at academic medical centers who train providers to provide specialized care, share best practices and co-manage complex chronic illness care for patients with the local care team. Under this model, primary care providers treat patients in their own communities – burdens on academic center capacity are reduced, poor access to care is eliminated (patients are no longer limited by geography when seeking quality care), and the health care systems’ capacity to provide high quality care to more patients, sooner, is dramatically expanded.

In the NEJM study, patients with hepatitis C treated by primary care clinicians working through Project ECHO achieved results that were identical to patients treated by UNMHSC specialists. The evaluation also showed that the ECHO model can reduce racial and ethnic disparities in treatment outcomes.

Lost in the Mckinsey mire

Jun 13, 2011• 1

It’s a good week for Bob Kocher, a key architect of the ACA, to be leaving Mckinsey and moving into the word of venture capital. There’s lots of fuss in wonkdom about whether Mckinsey’s survey of employers was statistically correct and peer reviewed or more of a push poll. There’s lots of fuss even apparently within the firm about the validity of the estimate that 30% of employers (or is it employees) will be moved over to the exchanges. But despite ballyhoo over the Mckinsey report, because in 2009 the White House got stuck into the mantra that “if you like your insurance you can keep it” the fact that it’s good to get employers out of providing health insurance has been missed. If you have insurance from an employer that puts you in the exchange it’s a fair bet that your coverage was anyway going to move to levels worse than that mandated by the government. And the levels of coverage and behavior of the plans in the exchange which will hopefully actually be enforced–with the threat of being booted out being a motivator. And as we all know employers are the worst purchasers of health care out there and need to be got out of the game. That was what the very sensible Wyden-Bennet plan did, but as the collective stupidity of the nation’s unions and chambers of commerce is very high, we ended up with the ACA instead. Oh well, welcome to America.

Prospecting for Gold

Jun 13, 2011

By JANE SARASOHN-KAHN

3 in 4 of the Fortune 50 companies are part of the U.S. health economy in some way. Only 1 in 3 of these is in traditional health industries like pharmaceutical and life science companies, insurance, and businesses in the Old School Health Care value chain.

2 in 3 of the Fortune 50 companies involved in health are in new-new segments. In their report, The New Gold Rush, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) identifies four roles for “prospectors” in the new health economy which will represent 20% of the GDP by 2019:

Fixers
Connectors
Retailers, and
Implementers.

These are the disruptive roles that will be played by new, non-traditional entrants seeking their piece of the health care economy.

Jane’s Hot Points: This week marks the second annual Health Care Innovation Week in metro Washington, DC. Each day held a different meeting addressing some aspect of disruptions in health care. Today marks the second annual Health Care Data Initiative meeting, to be held at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, where I will participate in a health data-palooza organized by the Health 2.0 Conference.

“Connectors” will play an all-important role today and in the new-new health economy. PwC says that Connectors succeed “by linking information and technology across the health system. They provide meaningful analysis and context so that clinicians and consumers can make better decisions about health behaviors.”

As physicians and providers continue to adopt electronic health records, and use them more deeply and smartly, consumers will be doing the same in their world via USB-connected blood pressure devices, digital glucometers for managing diabetes, WiFi weight scales, and a score of mobile health apps to track real-life, personal data. Without interoperability and connectivity between these siloed applications, the “gold” can’t be mined. Providers won’t optimize clinical decisions at the point of care, and consumers won’t be empowered to stay as well as they could or manage chronic conditions as effectively as they would in a data-liquid health world.

Jane Sarasohn-Kahn is a health economist and management consultant that serves clients at the intersection of health and technology. Jane’s lens on health is best-defined by the World Health Organization: health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. She blogs regularly at HEALTHPopuli.

Economists Gone Wild

Jun 13, 2011• 5

By PAUL LEVY

Economists are so embedded in their training with the concept of ceteris paribus — “all other things held equal” — that their policy prescriptions often go awry. Here are two recent examples:

First, in the March 10, 2011 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, David Cutler and Leemore Dafney argue against transparency of pricing in the health care sector.

The rationale for price transparency is compelling. Without it, how can consumers choose the most efficient providers of care? But though textbook economics argues for access to meaningful information, it does not argue for access to all information. In particular, the wrong kind of transparency could actually harm patients, rather than help them.

Applying the sunshine rule in the provider–payer context, however, could have the opposite of the intended effect: it could actually raise prices charged to patients.

[T]he sunshine policy would create a perverse incentive for the hospital to raise prices (on average), and as a result its rivals could do the same. This adverse effect of price transparency would arise only in cases in which the buyer or supplier in question had some leverage (market power), but such leverage is fairly common in health care settings, including many local hospital markets.

What’s the flaw here? In markets like Eastern Massachusetts, there is a dominant provider which uses its market power to garner above average prices from the insurance companies in its service area. That provider, in turn, can use those revenues to offer higher salaries than its competitors, drawing doctors into its orbit. It also has more resources to expand its ambulatory care facilities. Both steps serve to further expand its market power.

Analyzing A Crucial Battle In The Legal War Over Health Reform

Jun 10, 2011• 10

By TIMOTHY JOST

For a lawyer, the argument of Florida v. the Department of Health and Human Services before a three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals on Wednesday, June 8, was a beauty to behold. (For a non-lawyer it was probably tedious, repetitive, and much too long). Three active and very well-prepared judges spent two and a half hours grilling three very talented lawyers about intricacies of health policy and constitutional law, rarely allowing the lawyers time to finish a thought before interrupting with yet another question.

This is arguably the most important of the many Affordable Care Act (ACA) challenges currently pending in the courts. The plaintiffs include over half of the states, as well as the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) and two individual plaintiffs. It is one of only two cases in which a part of the ACA has been held unconstitutional (out of over thirty cases that have been filed), and it is the only case in which the lower court struck down the entire statute as unconstitutional. Thirty-six amicus briefs were submitted to the appellate court, including briefs filed by professional and provider organizations, members of Congress, states and state legislators (on both sides), Nobel Prize winning economists, law professors, disease and consumer organizations, and just about every conservative advocacy group in the country.

The attorneys. The importance of the case is underlined by the fact that the federal government was represented by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, while the states were represented by Paul Clement, Solicitor General under the Bush administration, perhaps the first time two solicitor generals have squared off against each other in a court of appeals argument. (The NFIB was represented by a third well-known lawyer, Michael Carvin).

Quality Like Beauty Is In the Eye Of The Beholder

Jun 10, 2011• 8

By HUMPHREY TAYLOR

For as long as I can remember we have told ourselves that the health care priorities of the American people are access, cost and quality. However there was never a consensus as to what exactly we meant by quality, let alone how to measure it, or pay for it. The truth is that there are many ways of defining quality and our research shows that different players define quality very differently. Patients, physicians , employers, insurers, the I.O.M, hospital managers, drug companies, the NCQA, public health experts, demographers and policy wonks all focus on different indicators of quality. Clearly quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Patients tend to define quality as meaning affordable access to almost everything. Naturally they care about the outcomes of their own care. They tend to believe that more care is better than less. The demeanor and bedside manner of doctors and nurses, being treated with respect and courtesy, are important. They often judge hospitals the way they judge hotels; good food and a nice atrium make a difference. As Ian Morrison has written “good quality is being in a waiting room with people who have more money than you”.

The Institute of Medicine has equated quality with the avoidance of medical errors (adverse events) and patient safety , and the pursuit of ways to improve these.

Most Employers tend to equate quality with having happy , uncomplaining employees at the lowest possible cost. A minority of progressive employers , such as those who participate in the NBGH and PBGH meetings, also focus on “value” and the use of sticks and carrots to influence the behavior of their employees and pay for performance incentives to influence providers.

“But they are different.” Not!

Jun 10, 2011• 1

By PAUL LEVY

Whenever I talk about the spectacular work Brent James and his colleagues have done with process improvement at Intermountain Health, someone says, “But they are different.” These comments are often based on prejudice. It reminds me of the folks in the US automobile industry who initially said of Toyota’s use of Lean principles, “It will never work in America. Those Japanese are different. They are so much more compliant than Americans.” Then, those competitors discovered that Toyota factories in the US, with American workers, also effectively used Lean. And ate their lunch.

What do they say about IH? They talk about the homogeneity of the population in Utah, meaning that there is a predominantly Mormon population. They subtly suggest that Mormons are somehow more complaint with regard to health care treatment, have fewer health problems, or that the doctors are more likely to follow orders, or something equally foolish. Here’s the more accurate description:

The IH network of twenty-three hospitals and 160 clinics provides more than half of all health care delivered in the region. Intermountain’s hospitals range from critical-access facilities in rural areas to large, urban teaching hospitals. Although Intermountain has an employed physician group and a health insurance plan, the majority of its care is performed by independent, community-based physicians and is paid for by government and commercial payers.

No Magic Pill to Cure Poor Medication Adherence

Jun 9, 2011• 7

By JESSIE GRUMAN

You are sick with something-or-other and your doctor writes you a prescription for a medication. She briefly tells you what it’s for and how to take it. You go to the pharmacy, pick up the medication, go home and follow the instructions, right? I mean, how hard could it be?

Pretty hard, it appears. Between 20 percent to 80 percent of us – differing by disease and drug – don’t seem to be able to do it.

There are, of course, many reasons we aren’t. Drugs are sometimes too pricey, so we don’t fill the prescription. Or we buy them and then apply our ingenuity to making them last longer by splitting pills and otherwise experimenting with the dosage.

Some drugs have to be taken at specific times or under specific conditions, posing little challenge when you are taking only one. But it can be devilishly difficult to coordinate the green pill half an hour before breakfast, the yellow ones on an empty stomach four times a day and the orange one with a snack between meals. It’s complicated; we don’t understand. We’re busy; we forget. We’re sick; it’s confusing.

Some drugs produce uncomfortable side effects while others set off an allergic reaction. Every single day, we have to decide if the promised outcomes are worth the discomfort.Continue reading…

It’s THCB’s Health Wonk Review

Jun 9, 2011• 1

By Matthew Holt

It’s Thursday morning. Fresh off the digital presses. It’s finally here. THCB (after a long absence) is back hosting Health Wonk Review….

Health IT Dept

We start close to home with huge news for THCB’s sister organization Health 2.0. (FD-Matthew Holt THCB’s Founder is also Co-Chairman at Health 2.0). And the news is that the world has gone crazy for Challenges, and that HHS and ONC (they of the billions for EMRs) are joining in, and funding a huge series of challenges for tech innovation in health care. Over at Health 2.0 News Matthew and Health 2.0 CEO Indu Subaiya explain Heath 2.0’s role in Investing In Innovation or i2.

And if that wasn’t enough, the entire health data wonk world is descending physically or virtually on Rockville, MD this morning for the Data-Palooza inspired by HHS’ CTO Todd Park. If you don’t know about Todd you should read this great profile by Simon Owens in The Atlantic. But THCB published Todd’s piece about the Data-Palooza (or more formally the Health Data Initiative Forum) a fraction ahead of the HHS blog, so we’re linking to it here. It includes information about what, who and how you can see it live–and if you care about health and tech and data, how can you miss it?

Of course, i2 and HDI is not all that’s been announced in tech this week. Inspired by Steve Jobs’ iCloud keynote this week in San Francisco, Dr. Jaan Sidorov at the Disease Management Care Blog ponders the healthcare potential of Apple’s ballyhooed mobile operating system.

Despite the boom over the past few years in new technologies and services targeting healthcare, many new services are not doing as well as the experts have predicted. (Note LOTS more HWR below the jump)

HIT Trends Summary for May 2011

Jun 9, 2011• 1

By MICHAEL LAKE

This is a summary of the HIT Trends report for May 2011. You can get the current issue or subscribe here.

E-prescribing scale and innovation. Surescripts reports dramatic growth for e-prescribing with a third of office-based physicians on its network and 20% of all scripts now going electronically to pharmacies and mail order. Yet formulary and prescription history data are underutilized by practices. This according to a study by Center for Studying Health System Change who finds that while most physicians have access to formularies and about half to medication histories, many don’t utilize it because they don’t see the value or systems are too cumbersome. However, there continues to be innovation in this area. CVS Caremark is piloting electronic prior authorization and Medco released a consumer pharmacy app for Verizon phones that alerts consumers to lower cost alternatives that Medco hopes will be discussed with prescribers. This is a terrific model for supporting the provider-patient dialog around medications. The key is the personalization to the member’s specific benefit information and the application’s ease of use. Perhaps these innovations can help address the utilization issues.

EHR market dynamics. There is also market growth and adoption of EMRs. According to report by Kalorama Research it’s a $15.7B U.S. market in 2010 with predicted market growth of 18%-20% per year for the next two years. California Health Care Foundation is reporting that over half of California’s primary care physicians using an EHR, and of the largest practices, adoption is over 80%. EHR is increasingly a global issue with new reports on the European experience highlighting that 81% of hospitals there have electronic patient records. This is a comprehensive European study of 909 hospitals in 30 countries. Larger public and university hospitals are more advanced than smaller private ones. Nordic countries are leading. Individual spider-charts give readers a summary at-a-glance. Still all is not rosy. England’s National Audit Office reports its National Health Service EHR project is failing.