Thursday, September 13, 2012

Details, or rather the lack of them

It is interesting to see the lengths at which the Romney/Ryan campaign has gone to avoid any specifics on nearly all of their platforms.  Their campaign strategy seems to be to ride out the distaste for Obama and hope to reveal everything once elected.  The Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking poll from August 2012 found that although people see Obama and Romney's plans for health care as different, 51% are unsure how Romney's plan is different.

As if this is all an intentional game of confusion, Romney said over the weekend that he would keep some parts of the ACA, like the no pre-existing conditions clause.  From Romneycare to repeal the ACA to keeping parts of it?  What's really going on here?

As always, John Stewart says it best:

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

NY Times "quiz" on the Institute of Medicine's recent report

I ran across this little quiz in the NY Times and thought I'd share it as a relatively fun intro to their article covering the Institute of Medicine's recent report "Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Healthcare in America".  

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/the-well-quiz-cutting-health-costs/?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto

I thought as a break from heavier reading, the quiz was fantastic!  On the more serious side, I have not read the IOM's report but it seems like the NY Times coverage is pulling out some of the more sensationalist and optimistic findings, without including many of the caveats that I'm sure are in the report.  For instance, they report that the IOM has calculated that the American healthcare system wastes $750 billion per year, but don't include any of the myriad of reasons that it's challenging to even begin to figure out how to cut down on that overspend.

On the other hand, I love that the NY Times is trying to make healthcare issues a little more fun for readers and pull them in - hopefully this will help people sit up and really think about healthcare in the coming election.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Hi everyone - glad to see many of you were able to get/accept the invite to be blog authors. Been a busy week with the DNC and the platform back and forth. This IOM report about waste also caught my eye as something we hear about all the time. Thoughts? http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/September/07/iom-report.aspx

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Welcome to the Fall 2012 run of the Foundations of HPM course and its blog. I hope you will find the practice of starting threads, posting reactions, etc engaging! I thought this was an interesting article in the Times by Eduardo Porter Thoughts on how we should come to grips with the need to find a place in the health care system to say NO? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/business/economy/rationing-health-care-more-fairly.html?_r=1&ref=policy

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

The Career Cost of Family

This quick article from the times made me think of our conversation last week in class. It summarizes a study done by the Department of Economics at Harvard about the career costs of family. Not surprisingly, the corporate world posed the highest penalty in salary for women who took time off to raise kids. In contract, MDs were found to have had the best outcomes.

Though the focus of the study is on having children, I think it follows that a job with more flexibility has implications on other work-life trade-offs.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/m-b-a-s-have-biggest-mommy-penalty-doctors-the-smallest/

Monday, December 6, 2010

“Patient-Centered” Patient-Centered Medical Homes

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) places a strong emphasis on illness prevention, promoting health, and management of chronic conditions. The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) has taken a front row seat in health nomenclature. For instance, In particular, the ACA requires some Medicaid enrollees to be in a “health home,” invests in primary care and family medicine, and initiates Accountable Care Organizations for Medicare.
While many are excited by the PCMH concept, providers and policy implementers are concerned that there is not a specific PCMH definition or a common understanding of what one is. Political task forces and major provider organizations are researching and discussing the specific requirements and goals that these entities should strive to achieve. But what if the answer is in our own backyard? For instance, when reforming a community clinic, why wouldn’t one start by asking what the community wants from their clinic?
At the North American Primary Care Research Group Meeting earlier this month, I met a few community physicians doing this type of patient engagement. They reached out to the community and asked them to sit on their redesign boards and to be active participants in the discussion of how the fundamental PCMH principals could be applied to their clinic.
One physician relayed his story of working with his community. When the providers in his clinic met alone, they decided that 48 hours was an adequate goal for returning a patient’s email. A patient had a very different opinion. She thought a few hours was even too long. She said that patients mainly contact their physicians when they are in need of an urgent medicine refill or if they have symptoms that aren’t quite concerning enough for the emergency room and that both of those situations deserve a quick response.
I found this idea very powerful because it is the beginning of a paradigm shift in medicine from the historical paternalistic patient-provider relationship to a new partnership in health. As a family doctor in training, I see a future where all community delivery systems (clinics, hospitals, or other providers) reflect the needs and values of the communities in which they serve. To do this, community involvement is key. Patient-engagement not only provides the clinic with effective quality improvement strategies, but also empowers the patients to take ownership over their local health system and over their own health.
For more information on patient-engagement in healthcare, please read Lansky, D. Patient Engagement and Patient Decision-Making in US Health Care. Foundation for Accountability. July 11, 2003. Accessed from www.gih.org/usr_doc/FACCT_Paper.pdf on December 2, 2010.
And for more on PCMH generally, I recommend checking out the PCHM page at HHS (http://www.pcmh.ahrq.gov/portal/server.pt/community/pcmh__home/1483), the Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative (http://www.pcpcc.net/content/joint-principles-patient-centered-medical-home), and this nifty little video (http://www.emmisolutions.com/medicalhome/transformed/english.html).

Saturday, December 4, 2010

AZ Cuts Some Transplant Services for Medicaid Patients

The recent NY Times article on how Arizona is cutting financing for transplants patients on Medicaid, effective in October, is worth a read, even during this crazy finals week. While reading the article, I had many mixed emotions, from anger over the patients being turned away to seeing the financial constraints Arizona is facing and trying to come to terms with how to deal with providing health care in the face of economic constraints. This article provides many important takeaways to consider that reflect the horrible shape our health care system is in. The increasingly high expenditures is leading to rationing of care, leading to a real "death panel." Should Medicaid patients be turned away from having lifesaving transplant operations if they cannot afford to pay for it? Perhaps Arizona could reduce their health care costs by eliminating waste in their Medicaid operations/payments in order to keep transplant services. The article also brings up the question of how much we value an individual life, and how much extra time as a result of a treatment is worth what cost. Any thoughts on how AZ should proceed?


LINK