THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Modest step in the reform journey shows the idiocy of our political system

• 14

By MATTHEW HOLT

It does seem to take a health care bill to remind us all how incredibly screwed up the political process is in these here United States. The Medicare Modernization Act was railroaded through by Tom Delay and friends using all their charm and finesse. And last night the House passed its version of the health reform bill. It includes employer mandates, exchanges, subsidies, public option and taxes on those earning more than $500,000 to close the cost gap. And CBO in its wisdom says that it doesn’t increase the deficit.But it didn’t pass by much. 40 Democrats opposed it. These were the Blue Doggers who needed some political cover to be able to say in 2010 that they were against the bill before they were for it. Their expected course of action is that a less liberal bill comes back from final conference with the Senate which they can support. Apparently out there in purple state land uninsurance and egregious health plan behavior are not a problem—at least not compared to the desire of the people to protect the incomes of those earning over $500,000 a year.

But in order to stop even more Democrats opposing it at the last moment Pelosi had to let some previously unheard of Congressman called Stupak become the mouthpiece of the Catholic Bishops who decided that they needed to impose their views about reproductive medical care into the debate. Cynics like me may wonder about the validity of views on that issue from a bunch of old men who’ve allegedly never been married or had sex with a woman, and whose main contribution to child welfare over the past few decades has been to ignore and assist in flagrant abuses of it by their colleagues. But no matter, over recent days they started putting pressure on various Democrats to tighten restriction on Federal funding of abortion.Continue reading…

We the Consumers

• 32

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE


There has been much talk lately about the Consumer movement in health care. The health insurance industry has given us the Consumer Driven Health Care (CDHC), which has gained much traction in the marketplace in the form of high deductible insurance plans, where the Consumer, having “skin in the game” now, is expected to make informed decisions on how to spend his or her money on health care services. The Consumer is empowered and in control of health care expenditures.

And then there are the various Consumer advocacy groups demanding an end to the paternalistic approach to the practice of medicine. Doctors should relinquish control to the Consumer. Consumers should actively manage their care by obtaining and controlling their medical records. Consumers should be informed by the medical establishment of the latest evidence-based best practices, timely research and costs of treatment. The Consumers will then make an informed decision aided by a myriad of peer and professional information available on the internet.

That’s a lot of new responsibilities for most of us who have no idea how much a visit to the doctor costs and even less of an idea whether or not we need that stent, assuming that we even know what a stent really is. Well, since we are Consumers now, not just passive patients, let’s see how we stack up to our brand new responsibilities.Continue reading…

“The possible” vs “what we want,” resumed

• 2

By MATTHEW HOLT

Not so long ago (actually less than 2 weeks), there was quite the spat on THCB between the Four Horseman (Klepper, Kibbe, Lazewski & Enthoven) and Maggie Mahar. Essentially it came down to this question:

Is there enough in the current House & Senate bills to restrain spending and remake the health care system? Or is the whole effort so bought off by the health industry as to be a waste of time?

I put myself in the camp of agreeing with both the Four Horsemen (that the bills were pretty much emasculated) and with Maggie (in that at least we’ll get some significant improvements in coverage for the uninsured).

And don’t they need it. In fact I wonder how many of the 50–odd million uninsured and the 50–odd million Americans who don’t have enough to eat are the same people.

But today the chorus of “fiscal responsibility through health reform” being orchestrated by the Administration got a little louder. It started about a week ago with Peter Orzsag banging the drum for health care reform being deficit neutral. He pointed to a letter from a group of moderate to liberal economists supporting HR 3962.

Today many of that same group (although not all and without the non-economists) were joined by some heavy hitters on the health economics side supporting many of the tenets of the Senate bill. This new group includes many of the same liberals but also some sensible Republicans (well Mark McClellan) and some real big guns including Uwe Reinhardt, Victor Fuchs, Joe Newhouse,  Laura Tyson, Henry Aaron, Alan Garber and Kenneth Arrow. Alain Enthoven (one of the Four Horsemen) is notable by his absence.

However, the economists probably wouldn’t disagree with the Four Horsemen about how limited the changes in the Senate and House bills actually are, and they appeal for an independent Medicare Commission and serious delivery system reform—all of which will be emasculated in Congress. But nonetheless they are providing valuable intellectual cover for the Administration—no one on the other side will be able to put a crew like this together! Meanwhile over on the Health Affairs blog Jack Wennberg (with Shannon Brownlee) is giving an assist by stepping up his counter-attack against the Academic Medical Centers who are complaining that their patients are sicker.

So the “realists” are coming out in support—all believing that once we get the legislation out of Congress and into sensible hands within the Administration there’s a chance that we might be able to do some good in terms of delivery system change.

Stay tuned. This is a good reason to keep reading THCB for the next decade.

Why “free market competition” fails in health care

• 32

By JOE FLOWER

In trying to think about the future of health care, thoughtful, intelligent people often ask, “Why can’t we just let the free market operate in health care? That would drive down costs and drive up quality.” They point to the successes of competition in other industries. But their faith is misplaced, for economic reasons that are peculiar to health care.

More “free market” competition could definitely improve the future of health care in certain areas. But the problems of the sector as a whole will not yield to “free market” ideas – never will, never can – for reasons that are ineluctable, that derive from the core nature of the market. We might parse them out into three:

  1. True medical demand is wildly variable, random, and absolute. Some people get cancer, others don’t. Some keel over from a heart attack, get shot, or fall off a cliff, others are in and out of hospitals for years before they die. Aggregate risk varies by socioeconomic class and age – the older you are, the more likely you are to need medical attention; poor and uneducated people are more likely to get diabetes. Individual risk varies somewhat by lifestyle – people who eat better and exercise have lower risk of some diseases; people who sky dive, ski, or hang out in certain bars have higher risk of trauma. But crucially, risk has no relation to ability to pay. A poor person does not suddenly discover an absolute need to buy a new Jaguar, but may well suddenly discover an absolute need for the services of a neurosurgeon, an oncologist, a cancer center, and everything that goes with it. And the need is truly absolute. The demand is literally, “You obtain this or you die.” Continue reading…

Back to Basics: Toward a Core Set of Relevant and Portable Personal Health Information

• 21

By DAVID KIBBE

In the cacophony of health IT issues, products, and goals that compete every day for our attention, it is easy to lose sight of the profound value that could come from the universal availability of a simple core set of relevant and portable personal health information in digital format.

If everyone in the country who wanted one, and if every doctor or nurse taking care of a patient needing one, had access to a digitally formatted set of current health data about the person in question, we as a country would benefit at many levels.  I am talking about basic information — such as demographics, a problem and diagnosis list, a list of medications, allergies, recent vital signs (blood pressure, weight, etc.), and information about the most recent health care encounters. Individuals would get more continuous care and better coordinated care decisions.  Payers would pay for fewer duplicated or unnecessary tests and procedures.  Doctors would face less risk of error when making decisions in the ER.  Researchers would give us better feedback on populations of patients, e.g. those with diabetes, to improve care and care processes.  And the whole of society would benefit from a real-time, steadily enhanced knowledge database about what works to promote wellness, health, and to lower health care costs.Continue reading…

Health 2.0 and AccessDNA

Each year at Health 2.0, we present Launch!, a debut of new products and services to the Health 2.0 community.
This year we were able to hear from many great companies, including AccessDNA, a new site that generates personalized genetics reports that help you identify which genetic tests could be right for you. I had the opportunity to chat with Jordanna Joaquina, Director of Genetics and Co-Founder, about the site and genetic counseling. 

Here's the interview.

For an introduction to AccessDNA, check out Lee Essner's demo at Health 2.0:  

Spotlight on Health 2.0: Launch! from SF 2009

• 2

health 2.0 tvEvery week we’ll be bringing you a new video from Health 2.0! This week we’re featuring Launch!, an introduction of new tools and services to the Health 2.0 community.

To see more videos from past Health 2.0 conferences, or to purchase the entire conference DVD sets click here.

A “Third School” of Cost Containment?

• 6

By Bill Kramer

Is there a “Third School” of reformers that could help Bill Kramerus resolve the long debate about how to contain health care spending?  Drew Altman’s recent column describes the history of the debate between the “Regulators” and the “Marketeers”, and he suggests that a new school of thought – the “System Reformers” – is in the ascendance.  According to Altman:

The Systems Reformers believe that the best way to bend the cost curve is not through external market incentives or regulatory controls, but from the inside out, by creating a smarter health care system with the information base, new delivery models and payment incentives that will improve quality and lower costs. . . .

The Systems Reformers’ paradigm is reflected in the “bending the curve” elements of the health reform legislation currently in Congress, which mostly come in the form of pilot projects and experiments. These include tests of ideas like Accountable Care Organizations, “pay for performance” and “bundled payments,” as well as efforts to create a smarter, evidence-based health delivery system through comparative effectiveness research.

He describes the Systems Reformers’ approach as a  “third leg of the stool of cost containment strategies.”

While Altman is right about the importance of the Systems Reformers’ ideas, I don’t consider this to be a new paradigm.

Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods