THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Privatize Medicaid? Have We Learned Nothing??

• 44

By MONA MANGAT, MD

As we move thru 2011, many states are eagerly progressing with implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have many Early Innovators that are leaders in setting up the state based exchanges.  These states are Kansas, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin and a multi-state entity led by the University of Massachusetts Medical School that consists of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  Furthermore, Vermont is poised to pass the country’s first state-wide single payer system.

You can imagine when I look in my own back yard I get a bit depressed. Despite our 80 degree sunny weather, our state is leading the charge to overturn the ACA. Our newly elected governor, Rick Scott (the past CEO of Columbia/HCA when the company pleaded guilty to MCR fraud and paid $1.7 bil fine) is singularly focused on not implementing the ACA in Florida. As the months go by and other states move forward, we continue to move backwards.

As expected, it is the poor and sick that continue to suffer the most. The current assault occurring in Florida is on Medicaid. Medicaid currently covers close to 3 million Floridians (nearly 15% of the population) at a cost of nearly $19 billion dollars. The cost of each state Medicaid program is a burden shared jointly by the states and the federal government.

For every $1 spent by the state, the federal government matches $1.84. Florida Medicaid already has some of the most restrictive eligibility criteria in the country, such that the only people who can qualify for Florida Medicaid are: 1) low-income infants, toddlers, preschool-age children, and pregnant women; 2) extremely low-income school-age children, seniors, people with disabilities; and 3) parents of children in deep poverty. 60% of FL Medicaid recipients are children.Continue reading…

The Promise of Stem Cell Research: Recent Advancements and Setbacks

By JOE McWILLIAMS

Few technologies spark as much fascination, hype, and controversy as stem cell technology. One of the most interesting medical applications of stem cell research is in regenerative medicine, where stem cells are being developed to regenerate tissue and repair failing organs. Perhaps the most befitting symbol for this emerging technology is the Greek god, Prometheus, whose immortal liver was feasted on day after day by Zeus’ eagle and day after day was able to regenerate. The leading minds in science and medicine today hope to make this legendary concept of regeneration into reality, but hurdles abound.

The excitement about stem cell research and its potentially transformative therapeutic applications is evidenced by the large investments into research that have been made by companies, governments, and universities around the world. Significant unmet needs associated with chronic diseases have catalyzed this investment. In contrast to the symptomatic-focused treatment offered by conventional therapeutics, stem cell therapies offer potentially curative treatments for many diseases that arise as a result of damage to terminally differentiated cells. High market potential for both embryonic and adult stem cell therapies has resulted in strategic partnerships between large pharmaceutical companies and stem cell research-based companies, such as the agreement between Athersys and Pfizer to develop and market MultiStem for the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Pharmaceutical companies are also interested in exploring the various methods in which stem cells could be utilized in the drug discovery process to accelerate the discovery of novel and safe drugs. Illustrative of this interest, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Roche teamed together to form a consortium with the UK government to develop stem cells for safety testing of new drugs.Continue reading…

Bias And How to Deal With It

• 1

By DERICK LOWE, PHD

The coverage of the Japanese reactor situation reminds me of the coverage of many other technical issues when they overlap with serious breaking news stories. I wrote a little on this subject a few years ago, talking about the Merck/Vioxx business, but I wanted to expand on it.

I’m not going to rant on about the popular press not understanding this or that scientific or technical issue. There are more systemic problems with the way that news is reported, and in the way that we take it in. I’m not sure of what to do about them other than to be aware of them, but that’s an important step right there.

The first of these is narrative bias. Reporters like to relay stories (and the rest of us like to hear stories) that have a progression. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end, the way our most popular novels and movies do. Something starts, something happens, something ends. Real life sometimes conforms to this template, but sometimes it doesn’t. For example, some situations don’t start, so much as they suddenly get noticed after they’ve been there all along. And some don’t end, so much as they just stop having attention paid to them.

Another narrative-bias problem is the tendency to assign participants in any event to recognizable categories: good guys and bad guys, for starters. Moving to finer distinctions, there’s Plucky Young X, Suffering Y, Salt-of-the-Earth Z, along with Untrustworthy Spokesman A, Obfuscating B, Crusading C, and the whole crowd. Mentally, we tend to assign people to such categories, especially if we don’t know them personally, and it makes it easier for reporters, too. It’s a team effort. The problem is, of course, that not everyone fits into a recognizable category, and many others overlap in ways that a simple narrative structure won’t accommodate. Most real people are capable (more or less simultaneously) of great and venal actions, of heroism and cowardice, of altuism and selfishness.

Continue reading…

The Inspector General Observes

• 5

By PAUL LEVY

A recent report by the Massachusetts Inspector General raises a thoughtful concern about the implementation of global payments in the state.

In the effort to contain health care costs, much discourse has centered on moving from a predominantly fee-for-service system to one based mainly on global payments to providers organized as Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”). There is little doubt that fee-for-service reimbursements create incentives for providers to increase utilization of health care services, with obvious inflationary consequences. But moving to an ACO global payment system, if not done properly, also has the potential to inflate health care costs dramatically.

There is nothing inherent in the current marketplace that would cause an ACO-based global payment system to contain health care costs. The evidence, in fact, suggests the opposite conclusion. For the past two years, the primary experiment with global payments in the private insurance market in Massachusetts has been the Alternative Quality Contract (“AQC”) popularized by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (“Blue Cross”). The payments to providers under this contract are made on a global capitated basis. The capitated amounts are determined by starting with the previous year’s experience of the population of lives covered by the specific AQC. That entire amount becomes the base year from which all future payments are derived. Therefore, the AQC embraces and adopts any excessive or wasteful payments in that base year, including all overutilization resulting from over a decade’s worth of fee-for-service provider contracts. Implicitly, the premium increases of that decade, which overall were well in excess of 100%, are made a permanent part of our health care system’s cost structure.Continue reading…

AEI defends Health 2.0 vs the “old guard”

• 1

Not often a lefty like me promotes AEI, but Jon Entine has written a great piece attacking the behavior of the FDA. For the last 3 years the establishment has been attacking the DTC genomics companies for basically allowing people to access their own information. But it’s worse than FDA and others telling the fibs that Entine’s exposed. At a meeting two years ago in DC I asked the regulator from New York state why they were going after Navigenics & 23andMe. Her answer “doctors have power in my state”.

Tele-what?

• 14

By NEIL VERSEL

As a journalist who for the last decade has covered the use of information technology in health care, I’m rather disgusted at some of my brethren in the mass media. I’m none too happy with the medical establishment, either. Both seem hopelessly stuck in the past, refusing to look beyond the status quo. And the public suffers because of it.

This fall, for example, the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets covered a Yale University study that sought to determine whether or not “telemonitoring” heart failure patients recently discharged from the hospital would reduce heart attacks or readmission. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at a November meeting of the American Heath Association, concluded that that telemonitoring, which involved patients calling in their weight measurements and health symptoms after being discharged, made virtually no difference in the outcome. The Times called the trial “a good, commonsense idea that simply didn’t work out.”

Was it, really?

Keeping in touch with one’s physician on a frequent basis after being hospitalized for heart failure is a fine idea, as is monitoring one’s weight. But, as happened in the Yale study, patients generally don’t stick with the program. One in seven study participants never called their doctors, while just 55 percent of patients were making at least three calls per week six months after discharge.Continue reading…

Looking For Quality In the Wrong Place

• 3

By CHRIS LANGSTON

Last week I attended the first annual meeting of the Long-Term Quality Alliance and listened to Gregg Pawlson (a geriatrician and executive with NCQA) talk about quality measurement.  Right now, quality measurement does too little to drive practice towards quality care because it is based only on things that are “feasible,” or easy to measure—like what gets coded on medical bills. Pawlson observed that while feasibility must be one of the watchwords of quality measurement for now, in the near future electronic medical records should allow us to move beyond billing codes to gather real clinical data for more important quality measurement, including key care processes and outcomes.

I sure hope so. Because those who have looked beyond the dim illumination of current billing-based “quality measures” and searched in the darkness where real processes of clinical care can found have found that the situation is grave.  The ACOVE (Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders) process, while laborious, looks at clinical care where it really happens – in offices and charts – rather than in bills and therefore has a better chance of driving meaningful quality improvement. Readers  know that I am a big fan of this work, begun at RAND by outstanding clinician-researchers including Neil Wenger, David Solomon, David Reuben, and many others.  I believe that ACOVE is an example of what we need in elder care: high quality evidence about essential clinical practices that are sensibly related to real health outcomes and show how we could (often easily) do better for older people.  ACOVE is a blessing.Continue reading…

Not So Fast – Why It Pays to Wait Until FY 2012 on Meaningful Use

• 18

By PROTIMA ADVANI

The registration process and reporting period for the meaningful use incentive program officially commenced on Jan. 3. More than 21,000 health care providers have registered to date and many more are ramping up efforts to meet meaningful use criteria and collect federal incentives in fiscal year 2011. However, rushing out the gates in FY 2011 is extremely risky and not advisable. In fact, the Advisory Board Company strongly recommends waiting until FY 2012 to first demonstrate meaningful use.

Three key reasons hospitals should wait until FY 2012 are outlined below.

Compressed, unreasonable timeline for achieving Stage 2: The final rule states hospitals that first demonstrate meaningful use in FY 2011 will need to achieve Stage 2 by FY 2013 (i.e. Oct. 1, 2012). Furthermore, hospitals must demonstrate meaningful use requirements for the entire year in Stage 2 as opposed to the 90-day reporting period for the first year that a hospital is a meaningful user. Unfortunately, the final rule defining Stage 2 requirements will not be finalized until mid-2012, leaving hospitals that first demonstrate meaningful use in 2011 with less than six months to meet Stage 2 by Oct. 1, 2012. This will be an unattainable leap for health care providers, especially because Stage 2 is being positioned as a step down from Stage 3, not a step up from Stage 1. Stage 2 comprises enhancements to Stage 1 requirements in addition to a host of new, more complex criteria and clinical quality measures. Furthermore, hospitals will be dependent on their vendors’ ability to rapidly develop, test and seek certification for the Stage 2 EHR capabilities, adding another barrier to provider Stage 2 meaningful use achievement in the short time frame available. In contrast, waiting until FY 2012 to first demonstrate meaningful use will afford hospitals nearly 18 months to migrate from Stage 1 to Stage 2 — a more adequate time frame to acquire, implement and adopt the required capabilities for Stage 2.Continue reading…

From Jeopardy! To Your Physician’s Black Bag: Could a Supercomputer Really Assist With Health Care?

• 6

By DAN PELINO


IBM’s Jeopardy-champion computer, Watson, has huge potential for helping physicians and other clinicians work with patients.

The leap from TV game show to physicians’ offices will probably take at least two years. But Watson’s understanding of natural language, vast storehouse of information and ability to keep up with rapidly changing medical research could significantly improve medical care.

The medical faculty at Columbia University and University of Maryland are helping program a Watson-type computer to assist clinicians.

A few years from now, consulting Watson could become a routine part of a clinician’s practice. Caregivers have traditionally resisted computerized assistance in diagnosis and treatment because the technology has been awkward to use and questionnaire-based systems have been too rigid. But Watson can “understand” descriptions of a patient’s symptoms in natural language, and it can even scan years of medical records and doctors’ notes to determine what diagnostic and therapeutic options it might suggest. Doctors can ask it questions using the same terms they would use in an e-mail to a colleague. Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods