The Health Care Blog – Page 720 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Health Data-Palooza!!!

Jun 2, 2011• 2

Thursday June 9, 2011, 9:00am EDT
Watch the Live Webcast: http://videocast.nih.gov/ or http://www.hhs.gov/live/

Harnessing the Power of Data to Improve Health

Featured Speakers: Aneesh Chopra, US CTO; Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media; Matt Miller, NPR; Harvey Fineberg, IOM President; Todd Park, HHS CTO; and many others

The Health Data Initiative is a public-private collaboration that encourages innovators, entrepreneurs, startups, data geeks, community activists and policy makers to utilize health data to develop products and applications to raise awareness of health and health system performance and spark action to improve health.

On June 9th the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institute of Medicine will hold a second health data forum that will bring together over 500 people in person to showcase how health data can create tools and applications to support more informed decision-making by consumers/patients, health care systems, and community officials.

The innovators presenting are a great example of how data and technology can be harnessed in powerful ways to help provide better care and better health.

Over 40 companies will be featured. This event will be live streamed throughout the day with a series of major announcements (challenges issued, new university programs and partnerships, and new major activity in the startup world).

Follow along on twitter: #healthapps

See the Agenda (The full day will be webcast live)

Attend a Viewing Party near you

Costs are Up…Because They’re Higher Than They Were

Jun 1, 2011• 5

By EVAN FALCHUK

In perhaps no other country is there a greater abundance of data about health care than there is in the United States. And in perhaps no other country is there more confusion as to what’s really going on.

Take the recent report by powerhouse actuarial firm Milliman (disclosure: Best Doctors uses Milliman for actuarial work). It’s a fascinating report with some of the best information on American health care there is.

The major take-away: U.S. health care costs continue going up.

But when people start interpreting the data, well, that’s where the trouble starts.

For example, NPR reports on why costs are going up:

For three straight years, outpatient care has led all other categories of care in cost increases. Ninety percent of the increase is in more types of care being delivered in outpatient settings.

Factually, of course, this is correct. More and more care is being delivered in outpatient settings.Continue reading…

First Meaningful Use Dollars Are Just the Start

Jun 1, 2011

By JONATHAN BUSH

The first of our clients just got issued his Meaningful Use check. He is Dr. Allen Ferguson, a family practice doc in Eaton, Ohio. He practices in a health professional shortage area so it was a little bigger than the $18K maximum year one payment. He was thrilled and we are thrilled for him…but not ecstatic, yet.

Unlike other companies, our goal is not and was never to build an application that could only be used to get a bonus like the Meaningful Use bonus. It is to actually GET EVERY BONUS available and every payment dollar deserved by every doc on our network. Our mantra for each service team is this: Be the best in the world at getting docs paid for doing the right thing.

This presents a two-fold challenge in this mini-era of Meaningful Use bonus infatuation. First, we want it all, and less than all will not do. We have guaranteed that every Medicare eligible doc on our athenaClinicals EHR service who signs up and does his or her part will in fact get it. Hence, our real measure of success is 100% of docs winning and NOT the idea that winning is possible. Second, we are committed to ensuring that every doc actually achieves the measures even though the government has taken a “don’t ask/tell” stance by requiring only that docs “attest” that they are compliant rather than show it. We can’t play that way. Since we’re on this thing called the cloud, we actually do know exactly how Meaningful Use compliant every one of our docs is and exactly what they have to do to cross the threshold to meet the definition. Continue reading…

The Role of Conflicted Science in the Cell Phone-Cancer Link

Jun 1, 2011• 1

By MERRILL GOOZNER

Dr. Len over at the American Cancer Society is raising legitimate questions about the early release of findings by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer (hat tip to Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview). The actual study — drawn from an analysis of “hundreds of scientific articles ” — won’t be published in Lancet Oncology “for a few days,” according to IARC. Says Dr. Len:

Unfortunately, drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on a press release and a news conference leaves many of us wondering just what the evidence shows that led to the conclusion announced today that “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” may be possibly cause cancer in people.

The evidence, when it appears, will be murky. A few years ago, I spent several months reviewing some of the evidence in this troubling field, largely from a conflict-of-interest perspective. The global telecommunications industry funds much of the science. Even when government agencies fund research, the results are difficult to interpret. The studies invariably involve looking for a very small number of negative health outcomes (brain cancers) in very large populations. Two researchers, looking at the very same set of epidemiological facts, will often come to different conclusions. And, as often as not, those conclusions correlate with whether the the researchers are independent or whether they are on industry’s payroll.Continue reading…

Getting Transparency Right

Jun 1, 2011

By PAUL LEVY

This is about transparency, when it is useful and when it is not. The term is now an established part of the health care lexicon, but there is little substantive discussion about how it is being used.

As I said in an article in Business Week over three years ago:

There are often misconceptions as people talk about “transparency” in the health-care field. They say the main societal value is to provide information so patients can make decisions about which hospital to visit for a given diagnosis or treatment. As for hospitals, people believe the main strategic value of transparency is to create a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other hospitals in the same city or region. Both these impressions are misguided.

Transparency’s major societal and strategic imperative is to provide creative tension within hospitals so that they hold themselves accountable. This accountability is what will drive doctors, nurses, and administrators to seek constant improvements in the quality and safety of patient care.

Now, there rises an additional misconception. The perversion of the transparency concept that has evolved rides on the desire of CMS and private insurance companies to use publicly published outcome data to financially reward or penalize hospitals. As expected, this is raising hackles. The complaints often heard from hospitals are ones we have discussed before: “The data are wrong.” “Our patients are sicker.”Continue reading…

The NYTimes gets sensible on privacy

May 31, 2011• 1

Today I got pretty depressed. I saw a link that 13 tech companies were funding a seminar put on by Deb Peel’s Patients Privacy Rights.org (and no I’m not helping with a link) It’s a big pity that sensible companies have been pressured into funding that organization and worse that somehow despite the gibberish Peel has spoken in so many places she’s accepted as being the main face of consumer concerns about privacy. Of course I’ve had my say about her in the past. However I was a little heartened by this Milt Freudenheim NY Times article which after decrying the “epidemic” of personal health information violations had both David Brailer and Wes Rishel basically saying, 1) yes there will be breaches, 2) no, that’s not a reason not to go electronic and c) we need a system that bans the illegitimate use of the data–rather than punishes the accidental breach. And no Deb Peel in sight. Well done NYT.

Coordinating Care: It’s A Moral Question, But Not A Hard One

May 31, 2011• 3

By JOE FLOWER

Under the headline, “Medicare Plan for Payments Irks Hospitals,” today’s New York Times details the opposition stirred up by the government’s “value-based purchasing” initiative. If you’re buying anything (and the US federal government is the largest purchaser of healthcare in the world), on what basis other than value would you want to buy?

The measure at issue is “Medicare spending per beneficiary” during hospitalization, and in the 3 days before and 90 days after. The hospitals and hospital associations that are complaining have, mostly, two beefs: “Our patients are sicker,” and “We can’t be responsible for what happens, and what tests and procedures doctors order, outside our walls.”

The government’s response to the first is that the system will be adjusted for older populations, more acuity, and other variables. The response to the second is more complex, but it amounts to: “Work it out.”

And there is good reason for this. In studies going back two decades, the Dartmouth Group has shown wide disparities in Medicare payments per beneficiary between regions and between hospitals. A recent Institute of Medicine study took the Dartmouth stats and, in response to all the talk from hospitals that “our patients are sicker,” or “but we have to pay for teaching and research,” re-worked them to back out all those confounding factors. The Dartmouth Group’s study showed that the most expensive areas spent three times as much as the least expensive. After the IOM backed out the confounding factors, the data still showed that the more expensive areas spent twice as much. And the expense does not vary so much with inner-city status or number of illegal aliens as it does with whether health care in a given area is well-organized and coordinated or unorganized and fractured. It’s a really easy pattern to see if you stare at the maps of expense long enough, and know a lot about different healthcare markets.Continue reading…

Remember: Social Media is Social

May 31, 2011• 3

By MARYA ZILBERBERG, MD

A few days ago, several news outlets reported on Newt Gingrich’s unfortunate turn of phrase about our President. In a speech in Georgia he referred to Obama as “the most successful food stamp president in modern American history.” Promptly, David Gregory of NBC News called Newt on the potential racist connotations of this remark, thus precipitating a maelstrom of “liberal media” accusations from the usual suspects (here and here). And so it goes, possibly a careless figure of speech, possibly racially charged code, but everyone is now yelling and screaming about whether or not it was OK to say and subsequently to accuse.

There is a much bigger issue at stake than just the utterance of these words. While they offend me and make me think that they were spoken deliberately to elicit racial tensions, the point is that, in an obtuse sort of a way, they can be defended as non-racial in nature. Unfortunately, the speaker’s intention is not the issue any longer, so much as the fact that these words can easily be construed as racially inciting by large swathes of the population. And this is an important point: once squeezed out, much like the toothpaste from its tube, these words cannot be forced back. They will exist in perpetuity and continue to elicit visceral reactions.

Such is the nature of public discourse. Which brings me to the discussion on Bryan Vartabedian’s site about the etiquette of healthcare professionals on Twitter. The example of the particular Twitter stream from a healthcare professional who tweets anonymously under a nom de plume, precipitated a spirited discussion (see over 100 comments) about the propriety and professionalism of her messages in this public forum. While many saw her behavior as at the very least undesirable, some MDs and, more concerning, medical students, did not see a thing wrong with her eructations. Furthermore, she responded via Twitter that she was quite surprised by this tongue lashing and did not know what was so offensive in her messages.

How to Lower Cancer Care’s Costs

May 28, 2011• 59

By MERRILL GOOZNER

A year-and-a-half ago, Howard Brody of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston wrote an opinion article in the New England Journal of Medicine calling on every medical specialty to develop ways of cutting the cost of care. Citing financial sacrifices that had been made by insurers, hospitals, drug and device companies in the then pending health care reform bill, Brody said physicians could do their part “if they were willingto practice more in accordance with evidence-based guidelinesand to study more seriously the data on regional practice variations.”

Toward that end, he called on each specialty to come up with a list that “would consist of five diagnostic tests ortreatments that are very commonly ordered by members of thatspecialty, that are among the most expensive services provided,and that have been shown by the currently available evidencenot to provide any meaningful benefit to at least some majorcategories of patients for whom they are commonly ordered.”

In the NEJM last week, two oncology specialists — Thomas Smith and Bruce Hilner of Virginia Commonwealth University — took up the challenge. They created a “top five” list of common oncology practices, which, if limited to situations where they were truly clinically useful, would sharply lower the cost of cancer care. Their lead paragraph noted the need for taking these steps:

Annual direct costs for cancer care are projected to rise — from $104 billion in 2006 to over $173 billion in 2020 and beyond. This increase has been driven by a dramatic rise in both the cost of therapy and the extent of care. In the United States, the sales of anticancer drugs are now second only to those of drugs for heart disease, and 70% of these sales come from products introduced in the past 10 years. Most new molecules are priced at $5,000 per month or more, and in many cases the cost-effectiveness ratios far exceed commonly accepted thresholds. This trend is not sustainable.Continue reading…

Five Things Hospitals and Health Systems Have to Get Good at Fast

May 28, 2011• 38

By JOE FLOWER

There is a way to avoid a collapse of healthcare in this country.

It’s getting scary.

We are facing, before the end of this decade, a bifurcated future. The way things are going now—with the economy wheezing, doctors bailing, chronic disease rising fast, boomers sliding out of the Viagra years into the Depends years, reimbursements getting squeezed ever tighter, Medicaid sputtering on fumes, and 30 million or more new people soon swarming our doors with insurance cards—if we don’t pull a rabbit out of a hat real soon now, we’re in serious trouble.

If we just muddle along, the best we can hope that “trouble” will look like is horrifying gridlock, no options, no exit. That would be the good outcome. The bad outcome would be the destruction by strangulation of all these great institutions, the utter collapse of our ability to serve this society with real medicine, real healing, real help.

The good news? There is a hat, and it has a rabbit in it.