Finally, Research Solves Scarecrow’s Problem

scarecrowBy Peggy Salvatore MBA

“If I only had a brain.” – Scarecrow, Wizard of Oz

Here’s the latest place where research, technology, medicine and biology meet in new and amazing ways. From The Guardian on August 18, 2015:

An almost fully-formed human brain has been grown in a lab for the first time, claim scientists from Ohio State University. The team behind the feat hope the brain could transform our understanding of neurological disease.

Though not conscious the miniature brain, which resembles that of a five-week-old foetus, could potentially be useful for scientists who want to study the progression of developmental diseases. It could also be used to test drugs for conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, since the regions they affect are in place during an early stage of brain development.

lab grown brain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where Does This Go?

Meanwhile, computer engineers are working to replicate human intelligence. Beyond the value that biological brain models contribute to medical research, is there a place where the ability to grow a fully-functioning brain becomes part of the effort to extend and improve the quality of human life…and

Is there a point where these two efforts converge?

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in biotechnology, health policy, healthcare change management | 2 Comments

Health Wonk Review: The More Things Change, The More They Cost

Free range freshly laid eggs in a straw barn setting

By Peggy Salvatore MBA

When you look out over the healthcare landscape the last few years, you see nothing but uncharted territory. That goes for science and payment systems. Let’s start with very different change on the far horizon.

(If you are wondering about the eggs, stick with this.)

We’ll kick off this week’s health wonkery with David Williams of The Health Business Group in Boston who writes about a new kind of selfie in Ready for the EyeSelfie that has tremendous implications for just about everything – from the role of doctors to the locus of care to privacy to payment. David reports a story in The Boston Globe about research over at MIT where innovation meets science fiction.

While eye selfies might be a few years away, other transformational scientific discoveries are allowing docs to tailor treatment based on your genetics today. That is the real end game of personalized medicine as explained by Jason Shafrin at Healthcare Economist. Read about it in Personalized Medicine is the Future.

The excitement of paradigm-smashing discoveries is attracting investment into research. Ann Bonham, Chief Scientific Officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges writes at Wing of Zock about the 21st Century Cures Act, and the role of public-private investment in bringing bench science to patients. Check out Investing in Medical Research: Intensive, Long-Term and Worth It.

Who Pays?

All this innovation will come at a cost. To whom? We’ve been sorting that out for nearly a century when the cost of healthcare exceeded the average family budget sometime after the local doc stopped taking a basket of eggs (there it is!) as payment for services rendered for delivering the farmer’s baby. Which leads us to Obamacare, single payer and other insurance permutations.

While some things change, Obamacare is here to stay, predicts Joe Paduda at Managed Care Matters. When the ridiculously large field of GOP presidential contenders gathered to discuss the important issues of the day, Where was Obamacare, asks Joe. The landmark healthcare legislation’s failure to get much attention from the blustery, bloviating group is proof on its face that the matter is settled, he suggests.

Even if Obamacare is the law of the land, the states are still looking for a better way to pay. Louise Norris at Colorado Health Insurance Insider  says universal healthcare coverage could be a reality in Colorado a few years from now, although it admittedly has some significant hurdles to overcome in the meantime. Supporters need to gather 99,000 signatures in order to get the ColordoCare initiative on the 2016 ballot. And then voters would need to approve the measure to get the ball rolling. If both those things happen, Colorado could have a universal healthcare system in place by the start of 2019.

Iowa is one of 50 states struggling to figure out how to pay for Medicaid obligations, and has decided to join those who are giving their problems to private managed care organizations. University of Iowa’s Brad Wright at Wright on Health was interviewed by NPR on this important issue and he links to the audio in this week’s blog Medicaid Managed Care in Iowa.

It is not only Medicaid that is seriously under water. Guest blogger Wendell Potter at MedicareResources.org says that a poorly constructed Medicare pharmaceutical benefit is lining the pockets of BigPharma and the insurance companies while the senior health insurance program is seriously underfunded. Oh, and Wendell points out that corporations will continue to call the shots as long as they have lobbying access to lawmakers. Meanwhile, Americans pay a disproportionate share for drugs to keep the game going. Read the detail in Paying Through The Nose For Prescription Drugs.

Attacking Costs at the Source

While drugs are a part of the high cost of healthcare, when you look at who consumes a large proportion of healthcare resources, it is the superusers who are costing the big bucks, as explained by Brad Flansbaum this week in The Hospital Leader. Brad discusses a new Health Affairs study that digs into the profile of the superuser to find that while a constant percentage of people are superusers, the individuals who comprise that group are not constant, and what that means for managing high-cost patients. Details are here in Misjudge the Outlier Patient at Your Peril.

Not all rejected claims are bogus or go unpaid. In fact, most rejected claims have a legitimate and often correctable problem, says insurance executive Mike Feehan who is blogging at Hank Stern’s InsureBlog.com this week. Mike debunks the notion that insurance companies routinely (and fraudulently) deny perfectly legitimate claims, and explains the simple steps necessary to avoid delays. Read about it at Urban Legends, Insurance File No. XXIV.

If you really want to attack healthcare costs at the source, you can’t ignore the influence of the tobacco lobby on business, says Roy Poses of Health Care Renewal. In this week’s post, Roy traces the connections of some of the most influential members of the American business community – the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – and how the U.S. business group impacts global antismoking policy. If you never fail to be amazed, read With 10 Healthcare Executives on Board, U.S. Chamber Defends Big Tobacco Abroad.

Finally, corporate responsibility is also on the mind of Julie Ferguson in her post this week, Fall from Grace: Dupont in OSHA’s Severe Violator Program.  Once the poster child for model occupational health and safety programs, things are very different at Dupont today. At Workers Comp Insider, Julie posts about the many failings that led up to the deadly chemical leak at the LaPorte, TX facility last November and OSHA’s subsequent actions. While workers paid the price in this incident, shoddy safety handling highly lethal chemicals poses a frightening public risk, too.

With that, we’ll end The More Things Change edition of Health Wonk Review. The moral of the story: You can’t pay for 21st Century medical advances with a dozen eggs.

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in health economics, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | 8 Comments

Looking for Healthcare’s Leading Edge

By Peggy Salvatore

Health technology has become massively disruptive. Previously unimaginable leaps in personal healthcare are currently widely accepted, and that has completely changed the trajectory of where health information technology is headed. Yet entrenched entities are clinging to the pre-ordained path set out by CMS and HHS before disruption.

Disruption and innovation are the currency of the healthcare today. What will it cost organizations that ignore this reality?

One writer with HealthData Management has written very insightfully and skillfully about the challenges of achieving disruption when organizations set known parameters, use existing tools, and ask for specific outcomes. As Christopher Surdak points out in his August 14 article “6 Signs You Are Going to Fail at Big Data“:

Much of the recent hype surrounding big data focuses on disruption; how data analytics can lead to insights that allow businesses to completely transform themselves. The definition of disrupt in Webster’s dictionary reads: “To cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way : to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something).”

Businesses have been collecting, analyzing and learning from data for decades, which implies that something must be different this time around… If disruption leads to results that aren’t normal or expected, how in the world can you possibly make a prediction of its business value? How can you possibly figure out how much disruption a given change is going make, if both the disruption and its effects are DISRUPTIVE?  Isn’t unpredictability a synonym for disruption?

…When I meet executives who are developing their big data strategy and they ask me…”What’s the ROI of this project?” I explain to them that any such estimate, if achieved, is the definition of a failure to disrupt. If they don’t get what I’m saying within a couple of minutes I’m usually pretty certain that whatever they subsequently invest in will fail to generate much, if any, disruption.

Can You Create Change Without Discomfort?

Businesses want to confirm their existing beliefs and rely on their projections; they want certainty so they can create a budget, set a goal, meet a deadline, point to an achievement. Those things happen in a world of knowns.

The exciting process that Surdak suggests is that healthcare needs to embrace the uncomfortable and abandon the known in order to see and accept the truly disruptive where massive change is occurring. And why might healthcare want to find the innovative disruptor in the haystack? Simply, the known path has been costly and rambling.

If numbers don’t lie, the answer to the straight path of better healthcare at lower costs can be found in the data. That is, if the business side of the house is willing to let go of their need for certainty and listen to what the data is saying.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in electronic patient records, health economics, health IT, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | Leave a comment

Health Wonk Review: Hot Summer Nights, Cool Summer Drinks with Hank Stern

 

Hank introduces us to the concept of the “Designated Blogger” in this roundup of Midsummer Wonkery.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in electronic patient records, health economics, health IT, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | Leave a comment

The 21st Century Cures Act: Using Energy to Pay for Healthcare?

By Peggy Salvatore

I liked what I had heard about the 21st Century Cures Act. It seems like a good thing, about time, getting the FDA to streamline the drug and medical device approval process. The logic behind the bill is that a lot of patient information and data are available today that can be included in decision-making to accelerate the process with access to accurate, immediate information.

This legislation combines a few of my favorite things, namely health information technology and biopharma. The gist of the bill is that it is intended to accelerate the approval of drugs and medical devices through the FDA’s regulatory process by accepting new kinds of evidence of efficacy like physician’s documentation of patient response and patient registries, two sources of data much more accessible with health information technology.

The 21CCA (I just invented this acronym) throws in funding for the National Institutes of Health which has suffered from cutbacks in recent years. The article from which I drew this information quotes NIH Director Francis S. Collins, saying, “If we hadn’t had massive cuts to N.I.H., we probably would have a vaccine for Ebola.”

So far, this bill is sounding like a good thing. What’s not to like? I’m always looking for ants at the picnic. I found a few.  Where is the money going to come from for the 21CCA?

Some bold and creative individual (or lobbyists) suggested the pharmaceutical industry pay for the cost of the FDA changes and the NIH funding in exchange for adding a few extra years of exclusivity to drug patents. Right now, drug companies get about 17 years of patent exclusivity including the years a drug is in clinical trial to earn back the billions the R&D drug industry spends developing branded (original, novel) drugs. When a drug goes off patent, generic drug companies are free to copy the drugs and sell them for pennies on the dollar because they didn’t incur the cost of development; they just reverse engineer the existing drug. That’s not a bad thing on its face. But the cost of research and development (and yes, yes, marketing to let patients, doctors and health plans know about the new drug) is recouped basically in those halcyon years of patent protection. Getting a few more years of exclusivity is worth a bundle of dough which the biopharma industry could funnel back a bit to updating the FDA regulatory process and funding NIH research.  Based on the outcome of that suggestion, however, somebody must have screamed “greedy drug companies”. So that idea was off the table.

The bill is now drafted so the money comes from…the oil industry. Hey, why not sell off some of our strategic oil reserves?

When healthcare turns to the energy sector to fund its forays into research, perhaps we need to re-evaluate whether we’re able to pay for the healthcare we’re getting or if some other agenda is skewing the game. Considering healthcare is coming up on 20% of the economy, you’d think it could pay for its own R&D. Apparently not.

I enthusiastically welcome comments to deepen my understanding of this issue.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in electronic patient records, health economics, health IT, health policy, health reform | 5 Comments

Live! From Boston Health News! It’s Health Wonk Review!

SNL soundstage

…starring Tinker Ready.

With special guests to be revealed upon opening this link!

 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Decrying the end of the private physician practice? Not so fast!

by Peggy Salvatore

I spent the better part of a decade writing training about the healthcare system. I use the term “better part” literally, as it is fascinating to closely watch the ebb and flow of different payment and treatment options manipulated to keep people healthy and productive.

One of the trends over time has been the waning and near obliteration of private medical practice. A few years ago we pretty much rang the death knell for “mom and pop” practices. The reason is that volume-based payments forced physicians into group practices and eventually those group practices into health systems with hospitals and other providers along the care continuum. The integration of health providers into one system chased the economic model that volume drives down price. For a while, it seemed to make sense.

Volume-based practice developed because physicians were paid based on an algorithm that assumed certain procedures or interactions took a specific amount of time. Under these assumptions, physicians are paid to see a certain number of patients to reach their numbers. It is similar to a car mechanic’s fee schedule set by a dealership that pre-determines how long it takes to put in a new battery, for example. The only problem with this model is that humans are not machines and no such standard fee schedule encouraged physician behavior that served the best interest of patients.

Last month, I read an article that said accountable care organizations will make it financially feasible to bring back private medical practices because health plans will pay for outcomes. This concept really has to set you back on your heels because it is tantamount to admitting that volume-based payment didn’t get very good patient outcomes. Isn’t it?

The good news for patients and the physicians who care for them is that new payment structures encourage doctors to make sure their patients get better so they get paid. Most physicians didn’t really need the financial incentive. It’s just nice to think there won’t be perverse incentives built into the system to encourage the three-minute exam room handshake.

As if to put an exclamation point on this development, last month the local medical society dinner featured a speaker from a third party administrative firm encouraging physicians to consider once again the joys of entering private practice. The speaker said the tide is turning back toward incentivizing quality (as opposed to volume, not as opposed to negligent) care that pays for outcomes. The company was at the meeting to hawk its wares to take the bookwork out of private practice.

That fact alone, that a financial services company encouraged physicians to re-enter private practice again as a means to make a good living doing good, should be enough for both patients and physicians to be at least cautiously optimistic about the future health of the doctor-patient relationship in an intimate private practice setting.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in health economics, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | 4 Comments

Summertime! Health Wonk Review

Louise Norris hosts a hot-off-the-presses edition: Summertime! Health Wonk Review at Colorado Health Insurance Insider. It’s an eclectic edition in her signature style – love the photos!  You can find a link to the post here.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in electronic patient records, health economics, health IT, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | Leave a comment

Pre-Memorial Day Edition of Health Wonk Review

Depositphotos_26137759_s

Julie Ferguson of Workers’ Comp Insider gave us a roundup of health wonkery before we head off to a long weekend to remember those who died serving in our armed services. Read her roundup here.

And remember to remember.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Internet of Healthcare Things @Point of Care

We are oh-so-close to there.

By Peggy Salvatore

For those of you who follow the Health System Ed blog, you know this doesn’t happen often. I am speechless.

I just got off the phone with Dr. Sandeep Pulim, the CMIO of @Point of Care, a company that developed an app that pulls together all the pieces of the patient puzzle into an informed treatment plan that can do nothing else except improve outcomes and lower costs.

The computer brain meets patient data.

The Vision

Here’s a synopsis of my vision for healthcare that I summed up in my first Health System Ed blog six years ago:

Let’s play John Lennon for just a second.

Imagine going into a doctor who already knows your medical history and won’t require you to fill out pages of information which you’ve done countless times before, and may have forgotten some or most of it because you’re worried about whatever is ailing you at the moment.

Imagine that doctor’s staff won’t have to re-input that inaccurate data.

Imagine if we could track whether prescriptions are filled, so we’d know which treatments worked in which patients and which ones caused a side effect.

Imagine having baseline mammograms, colonoscopies, x-rays, c-scans and more that were available to any healthcare provider at any time in your life to see if you have a condition, a change, or just an old scar.

Imagine the mistakes avoided, the conditions identified and treated early and effectively, the cost of duplicate paperwork and medical testing eliminated.

Imagine knowing what works in whom, why, for how long, and under what circumstances.

If you can imagine that, you can imagine the end game for electronic health records.

Not to pooh-pooh concerns about patient privacy, rationing and all the other hurdles. They are serious concerns, and are being taken seriously by serious people.  But for now, let’s just play John Lennon and imagine there’s no duplication, it isn’t hard to do.

@Point of Care Marries Watson

Yes, the Fitbit and the patient record can talk to each other right now, and that information can be combined with latest published medical studies available at the point of care to come up with the best treatment plan for the patient in front of you. Doctors and nurses can transfer de-identified patient data into the electronic health record to become part of the database of patient information to be parsed across health systems. The patient has a HIPAA-compliant smartphone or tablet app and can choose which providers receive their personal records and biometric data.

@Point of Care recently announced a relationship with IBM/WatsonHealth which IBM promoted as one of its partners at HIMSS15. Watson’s cognitive computing power is now being put to work on the patient in the treatment room to pull all patient and medical information together in an ascending spiral of knowledge.

The @Point of Care app and its interface with Watson is exactly the kind of technological advance that catapults healthcare technology into the future and leapfrogs over many of the plodding but necessary steps we’ve taken to put the infrastructure in place.

As Dr. Pulim explained, “Our work with Watson is…exciting because it lays the foundation for what the IOM (Institute of Medicine) calls a ‘Learning Healthcare System’.”

WIIFM?

Who should care about this? Everybody. Here’s why:

  • What’s the incentive for the patient? Best practices applied securely to your current condition immediately for optimum outcome. Patients get better faster.

 

  • What’s the incentive for the providers? Evidence-based medicine plus ultra. And @Point of Care has built in the ability to earn those pesky CME credits while researching and treating the patient in front of you.

 

  • What’s the incentive for the health systems? Follow the money. New payment structures based on outcomes require implementation of best practices at the point of care to maximize reimbursement.

 

  • What’s the incentive for the payers? Identifying the best treatment, first time, all the time. No guessing, no spending money on less than ideal treatment. Let’s imagine that we can lose the pre-authorization process and cost associated with it.

 

  • What’s the incentive for the pharmaceutical companies? It’s the pharma mantra come to life: prescribe the right treatment for the right patient at the right time. An interface with health plan payers ensures that the treatment is included in the patient’s benefit package. The interface with the patient encourages compliance and persistency.

A few years ago I imagined the promise of health IT to deliver better outcomes, lower cost and improve access. I am here to report that we are oh-so-close to there.

Where are you and your organization in the Internet of Healthcare Things? Please post a comment below. 

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in electronic patient records, health economics, health IT, health IT training, health policy, health reform, healthcare change management | 3 Comments