The Health Care Blog

Use Emotion to Drive Adoption—Not Rejection—of Health IT

By LYGEIA RICCIARDI

 Last week I heard uber marketer Seth Godin speak about the power of fear. Fear is one of the strongest human emotions, based in the core of our brain--the “lizard brain” that evolved prior to our higher order thinking skills. Fear served us well throughout most of ancient history (stay away from the tiger!)--but it’s not always productive in modern day society.

Consumer fears about health information technology (health IT) privacy are a case in point. Surveys show that more than half of consumers voice fears which are, (in my opinion) appropriate, to an extent: risks such as discrimination are real, and public concerns should hold policymakers, vendors, and providers to the highest standard of privacy protection.

The real problem is fear mongering. Debroah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, has put herself and her organization on the map with sensationalism. As she said in a KTVU report earlier this month: “Anything that's in there, any information that's in there, can and will be used against you in the future. It's very important to know that in the electronic health world…" and, “This is a nightmare. It's nothing we've ever seen before in medicine."

Extremist statements like this are usually misleading and often just plain wrong.. But a response that focuses on the logical and rational alone doesn’t cut it.  In March Peel wrote an opinion for the Wall Street Journal online called “Our Medical Records Aren’t Secure.”

Continue reading "Use Emotion to Drive Adoption—Not Rejection—of Health IT"

Interview with Patrick Soon-Shiong

By Ida Strom Seljeseth

In this brief interview at the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington conference June 10, 2010 Executive Chairman of Araxis Health, Patrick Soon-Shiong, talks about the Health Transformation Institute.

The Reform Dartboard: Predicting Healthcare Costs

By ROGER COLLIER

One thing about a democracy, everyone is entitled to publish their predictions about the future, and on the costs (or savings) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act over the 2010-2019 decade, there are enough to cover the dartboard. 

Whether any have hit the bull’s-eye is another question.

The two most authoritative darts so far are those of the CBO and CMS’ Office of the Actuary. Each assumes that reform will be implemented exactly as stated in the new law, with no successful legal challenges and with legislated cost reduction targets achieved. The CBO forecast is limited to federal spending, while the OA projections cover both federal and overall national expenditures.

The CBO’s well-publicized (by reform advocates, anyway) dart hit the board immediately prior to passage of PPACA with an estimate of federal savings of $86 billion (excluding advance premiums from the new CLASS long-term care insurance program), or slightly less than one percent of projected federal health care spending.

The OA dart, thrown a month later and applauded by reform opponents as contradicting the CBO forecast, landed on the $289 billion number for increased federal spending (prior to CLASS premium collections), and on $310 billion for increased national health care expenditures.

Continue reading "The Reform Dartboard: Predicting Healthcare Costs"

Reactor Panel: Health 2.0 Goes to Washington

By Matthew Holt

In final panel at Health 2.0 Goes to Washington the reactor panel, Will Yu (ONC), Esther Dyson (EDventure) and Chris Schroeder(Healthcentral) discussed health issues, and innovation in the healthcare system with Matthew Holt.

Interview with Esther Dyson

By Matthew Holt

SUBTEXT:After being a panelist at the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington Conference, Esther Dyson, Chairman of EDventure Holdings, gave a backstage interview. She talked about the three markets that influence Health 2.0; the market for healthcare, bad health, and health.

Government as an Engine for Innovation

By LISA SUENNEN

I’ve been thinking a great deal about the newly formed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. (CMI). This entity was established as a result of the Affordable Care Act (the new healthcare reform legislation) and its purpose is to “research, develop, test and expand innovative payment and service delivery models that will improve the quality and reduce the costs of care for” patients covered by CMS-related programs.  The legislation gives this entity over $10 billion dollars initially and broad authority to figure out new ways of doing things better and differently than before.   What is great about CMI is that they have the authority to run their programs much more like a business would without many historical governmental constraints.  That’s great news for innovation, which is sorely needed in the U.S. healthcare system.

Among the key objectives that the administration has discussed is how to transition the collective mindset from one of healthcare to one of health.  In other words, if a person is healthy, they do not need health CARE. This is a very important distinction; it puts the emphasis on prevention and wellness as opposed to what you do when somebody is already sick.  In order to affect such a transition, there must be an emphasis on innovation to change the way we have traditionally looked at the healthcare world.

Continue reading "Government as an Engine for Innovation"

THCB Corporate Sponsors Include:

Can CMS Be a Venture Capitalist?

By PAUL LEVY

Lisa Suennen, a venture capitalist, writes this post about the provision in the national health care reform act that created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI). This agency has $10 billion to “research, develop, test and expand innovative payment and service delivery models that will improve the quality and reduce the costs of care" for patients covered by CMS-related programs. Lisa notes, "What is great about CMI is that they have the authority to run their programs much more like a business would without many historical governmental constraints. "

I don't want to be a stick in the mud, particularly as my able friend Don Berwick takes charge of CMS, but I want to point out that previous efforts by the government to be innovative in other fields have failed because:

(1) Venture funding embodies risk-taking. Government usually does not do this because there is a political imperative never to be blamed for misspending taxpayer money. The bureaucracy, therefore, systematically eliminates ideas that are untested.

Continue reading "Can CMS Be a Venture Capitalist?"

Panel Discussion: Can Health 2.0 Improve EHR Adoption?

By Matthew Holt

SUBTEXT: On stage at Health 2.0 Goes to Washington, June 07, 2010, this panel discussed the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and ways to improve its adoption and the relationship between physicians and patients. The moderator was Joshua Seidman, Office of Provider Adoption Support at ONC 9formerly from Ix Center) and true to his past Josh was focusing on the needs of the patient. The patient representative was the now famous Regina Holiday, with Jon White from AHRQ and Ted Eytan, from the Permanente Federation also on the panel. Watch for the cool AHRQ commercial about patients asking questions.

THCB Corporate Sponsors Include:

Interview with Jon White

SUBTEXTAt the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington Conference, June 07, 2010, Jon White, Health IT Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), gave a brief interview. He spoke about patient healthcare and how Health IT improves the quality of healthcare.

THCB Corporate Sponsors Include:

The Non-Scalability of Charisma

By BOB WACHTER, MD

 Early on, many social movements depend on a charismatic leader to focus attention, build a burning platform, and inspire people to action. You know when the movement has made it when it no longer needs such a leader for fuel.

The safety and quality movements have picked up tremendous steam over the past decade, but they haven’t yet hit that self-sustaining tipping point. Last week, there were two things that reminded me of this: the announcement of a new leader of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), and a doleful JAMA essay by Peter Pronovost.

During the circus that was Don Berwick’s recess appointment to lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), all eyes were trained Inside the Beltway. But 440 miles north, in Cambridge, MA, arguably the most important organization in the quality and safety galaxy needed to get on with its business. On July 8th, IHI announced its choice of Maureen Bisognano to become its new CEO. Maureen is a nurse and former hospital exec who has spent the last 15 years at IHI as Don’s consigliere. She is a terrific person, with boundless energy and great organizational skills – insiders will tell you that she was the reason that IHI’s trains ran on time for the past decade, as Don is the quintessential big picture guy.

Continue reading "The Non-Scalability of Charisma"

THCB Corporate sponsors include

Introduction to Health 2.0 Goes to Washington

By Bianca Grogan

SUBTEXT: At the start of  the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington Conference, June 07, 2010, Matthew Holt and Indu Subaiya welcomed all of the conference attendees with an introduction to Health 2.0. In the middle of that introduction Wil Yu, Director of Innovation at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), gave his opening remarks and spoke about health innovators and initiatives.

How About "Meaningful Exchange"?

By JONATHAN BUSH

At last, we have received from Mt. Olympus those much awaited writings….the definition of “meaningful use”!

Oy.

I understand how we got here. I could put myself in the shoes of government   decision-makers at every step of the way and see myself doing the same thing. “Step in and help … EMR adoption is too slow and costs are rising too high … the free market isn’t working, so step in.” I get that.

“Make the definitions hard and truly meaningful so that after we are thrown out of office, the social benefit of this program of ours will outlast the pure stimulus effect and create real social change in the health care market.” I get that too.

“Let hospital-owned practices into the mix. Even though we know they have the money, we want their leadership. Also, lots of docs are affiliated with hospitals.” This one was tough for me even though I have a lot of hospital clients that own practices and are growing that business.

“Delay a little to see if we can get more people to our higher standard.” Okay.

“Delay a little more and signal that maybe the standards won’t be so high … otherwise maybe no one will be a meaningful user.” Okay. Okay.

Continue reading "How About "Meaningful Exchange"?"

The Insurer's Dilemma

By PAUL LEVY

This has to be a very difficult time for insurance companies in Massachusetts. Notwithstanding that they are non-profits, they are under a lot of scrutiny with regard to reserve margins and profitability. Much of this is unfair, but I think that is just a sign of the times. Hospitals face a similar issue, too. Doctors are certainly next in line.

But the Massachusetts insurers have an additional problem. As we have discussed here, they have been participants in creating a very large disparity in payment rates among hospitals, rate differentials based mainly on providers' market power. They are now under pressure to limit rate increases to hospitals, but the ones that come up for renewal are not necessarily the ones that have received higher rates.

Nonetheless, insurers are telling those who are up for renewal that they should expect no rate increase at all, or at best, an increase well below the rate of medical cost inflation. Those hospitals, by definition, are the ones without market power. So if the insurers hold them to low rate changes, the disparity between the have's and the have-not's will grow. This enhances the market power of their competitors, allowing them to poach doctors into their networks and gain still more market power. This increases the percentage of patients who go to the high-rate providers, aggravating the overall health care cost situation.

Continue reading "The Insurer's Dilemma"

The Original Individual Mandate, Circa 1792

By BRADLEY LATINO

 Regardless of one’s opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, most commentators-and no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office)-agree (or concede, as the case may be) that Congress has never required Americans to purchase a good or service from a private entity as a condition of citizenship.  But, importantly, they are wrong. The ongoing debate over the mandate’s constitutionality has uncovered an unlikely precedent to the PPACA’s individual mandate to possess health coverage. I recently wrote about this overlooked original individual mandate in an article, “The First Individual Mandate: What the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 Tells Us about Fifth Amendment Challenges to Healthcare Reform.”

The Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, required every able-bodied white male citizen to enroll in his state’s militia and mandated that he “provide himself” with various goods for the common weal:

 [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service

This was the law of the land until the establishment of the National Guard in 1903.  For many American families, compliance meant purchasing-and eventually re-purchasing-multiple muskets from a private party.

This was no small thing.  Although anywhere from 40 to 79% of American households owned a firearm of some kind, the Militia Act specifically required a military-grade musket.  That particular kind of gun was useful for traditional, line-up-and-shoot 18th century warfare, but clumsy and inaccurate compared to the single-barrel shotguns and rifles Americans were using to hunt game.  A new musket, alone, could cost anywhere from $250 to $500 in today’s money.  Some congressmen estimated it would cost £20 to completely outfit a man for militia service-about $2,000 today.

Continue reading "The Original Individual Mandate, Circa 1792"

Panel Discussion: The Role of Consumers in Health 2.0

By Matthew Holt

At the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington conference June 7, 2010 there was an excellent panel discussing the role of consumers in Health 2.0. It was moderated by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn from THINK-Health. Panelists were Linda Harris from US Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), Carol Diamond from the Markle Foundation, Gordon Norman from Alere and patient advocate Trisha Torrey who runs the Guide to Patient Empowerment at About.com.

Health 2.0’s Role in a World of “Data Liberacion”

By Ida Strom Seljeseth
 

SUBTEXT This is the complete panel debate on the Role of "Data Liberacion" from the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington on June 10, 2010. The panel featured Todd Park from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Kenneth Buetow from the National Cancer Institute & the Founder of caBIG, Patrick Soon-Shiong of Abraxis Health and Josh Sommer from the Chordoma Foundation. It's about 40 minutes and was rated one of the best panels ever at Health 2.0--we're sure you'll really enjoy it.

What if All Americans Had at Least Catastrophic Health Care Coverage?

By ED PULLEN, MD

 

I really dislike the term healthcare reform. I think our system needs to be changed not reformed. I assume that I am not the only person who suspects that the recent health care reform act is not going to be the final solution for America’s health care problems. The cost of healthcare is not really addressed at all, and even if it works better than expected some Americans will not have even catastrophic health care coverage.

This post is really just my first shot at suggesting a way I think makes sense to address the problem of the large number of uninsured people in America, while at the same time leaving lots of choice and personal responsibility that seems to be needed and a part of the American culture. I am certain that I have not thought through all of the gritty details, and really don’t profess to have the talent or knowledge to write legislation, but I think this basic tenant might be a starting point.First my assumptions:

1. The biggest issue facing Americans who are uninsured is the possibility of personal financial ruin from a major medical condition.
2. Americans want personal choice in choosing a medical plan and providers.
3. American corporations are at a global disadvantage in having to pay for expensive health insurance plans that put their cost of producing goods and services higher than in countries with governmental health insurance.
4. If American’s were more responsible for their health care costs, it is likely that they would take a greater responsibility for how their dollars are spent on healthcare than if they are spending other people’s money.

Continue reading "What if All Americans Had at Least Catastrophic Health Care Coverage?"

Interview with Josh Sommer

By Ida Strom Seljeseth

SUBTEXT At the Health 2.0 Goes to Washington conference on June 10, 2010 Josh Sommer, Executive Director of the Chordoma Foundation gave this brief interview were he talks about the future he wishes to see in healthcare research. Josh has a deeply personal reason for this improvement as life expectancy for Chordoma patients is less than 10 years.

Beating up on ONC, mostly unjustified

By Matthew Holt

Earlier this week there was a curious little hearing at Pete Stark’s committee. Much of the Q & A—mind you post the announcement of the final meaningful use rules—was (apparently, as I can’t find the transcript) a beating up on the poor folks at ONC for reducing the barriers towards meaningful use. Here’s Jonathan Hare of upstart privacy/identity/network vendor Resilient explaining that things are not tough enough.
 

 

While Jonathan is having a bit of fun here (and, oh by the way, he does actually have a solution for the inadequacies of current HIEs which we’ll be showing you more about in the world of Health 2.0), some of this and the other stuff the ONC folks had to deal with was a little tough. They got a fair amount of abuse from the committee.

Continue reading "Beating up on ONC, mostly unjustified"

My Side

By ROB LAMBERTS, MD

I was planning on leaving behind the seriousness of the past few posts and going back to my usual inane writing, but some of the comments have made it too hard for me to keep quiet.  The response has been largely positive, and overall it has been overwhelming.  More people have read or commented on my letter to patients with chronic disease than any in recent history.  I am grateful that it is circulating around the web for others to contemplate, perhaps understanding the intent of what I wrote and improving their relationship with their doctors in the process.

The purpose of the letter was to give some helpful insight into the emotion on the other side of the equation.  I can’t understand what it is like to have a chronic illness without having the disease, but it is still fruitful for me to try to figure this out.  In the same way, patients with chronic illnesses benefit from a better understanding of the doctors they see so frequently and depend on so greatly.  I can sympathize, but I can’t feel the pain.  Still, I do need to listen closely to patients so I can have the best relationship possible.

Continue reading "My Side"

Knee Trauma, again

By Matthew Holt

One of my favorite topics is back in the news. Apparently ACL repairs may be unnecessary. Here’s the WSJ Health Blog write up about the NEJM study. Two groups of active young people with torn ACLs were split. Half got immediate ACL repair, half got rehab and later repair if they needed it. Of the second group around 39% needed surgery but when the two groups (surg vs surg when rehab wasn’t enough) were assessed there was no difference.

Mostly this is a big duh! A simple ACL tear doesn’t need fixing unless you are going to go skiing, play soccer, volleyball or some other sport that needs it. I had a left knee simple ACL tear in my early 30s, had it fixed after 6 months wait & rehab and went back to all those sports. (Although I never seriously tested it in a twisting sport before repair).

Then several years later I had both a right knee ACL tear and a few weeks later multiple trauma to my left knee—3 ligament tears and other damage. (Advice to you all; snowboard around the tree not into it). My left knee has never recovered (nor will it) to take part in those twisting sports so I never had the right one fixed (I did get a new ACL & PCL in left knee as I need to be able to walk again!). But the right knee with no ACL is fine for walking, running, biking and even controlled pivoting for snowboarding—where the leg is locked in place vis a vis the other one.

But if I try to twist in a gentle soccer kickabout on my right knee I fall on my ass. So for my earlier ACL repair I suspect that I would have been in the group that needed surgery anyway (the 39%). So if you don't want to or don’t need to play those sports OR if you do the rehab and are fine, you don't need a repair, But if you do need to play those sports and rehab alone doesn't work, then you do.

The question is how many people are getting the ACL repair but never gave rehab a try? Probably quite a few, and for them rehab with the option of surgery is a good idea.

But the real question is how many people are getting ACL repairs when they’re not participants in those sports? Anyone know?