Against the backdrop of the so-called safety net hospital (those with heavy Medicare, Medicaid claims utilization) as a healthcare-related industry and campaign ’12 meme, there is interesting data out in JAMA this week that either supports Mitt Romney’s assertion that the “very poor” are taken care of in this country quite adequately, or there is reason to believe that P4P measures (or, at least the idea, anyway) are superficially quite similar in non-safety net acute care centers in terms of ultimate patient dispositions.

Researchers studied whether patients were admitted to the acute hospital within eight hours ED admission or if they were to be discharged, transferred or moved to observation within four hours of coming to the ED. They found that

compliance with proposed ER length-of-stay measures for admitted, discharged, transferred, and observed patients to not differ between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals

Although length-of-stay (LOS) data is interesting, it is not compelling — quite limited in its implications, actually. Currently there is no “accepted” ED LOS strict guideline in the U.S. Digging deeper into this study (abstract-only text cited above available without a JAMA susbscription), one can infer more from the upper decile of data — in which LOS significantly increased among both types of institutions (10-15 h in length), the authors citing mostly acute patient decompensations in mental illness as the reason for protracted admission LOS.

Still, the trial provides renewed attention over a surrogate care parameter just a few years ago was hailed as an agreeable target upon which to base healthcare reform on spending within the government sector. These days, the study may only serve as yet another reason why P4P as a quality measure is so derided by many as the ACA is just beginning to take hold.

Related posts:

1. CDC: The Use of Imaging Studies in Emergency Medicine Up 4X in Fifteen Years It’s often said that the beleaguered emergency department (ED) is...
2. Minnesota’s Largest Acute Care Safety Net Announces Cuts in Care Delivery So much of what happens to safety-net healthcare delivery really...
3. Amid Budget Shortfall, Minnesota Hospitals Defend Spending on Economic Terms The current economic crisis that is afflicting many states, including...

We’re inching closer to the multi-day arguments set to happen before the SCOTUS regarding the constitutionality of the ACA, specifically, the individual mandate provision. A Kaiser Foundation tracking poll indicates that a third of all voters (respondents) think that the entire law will be revoked if the high court finds the plaintiffs’ assertions has cause. Perhaps what is more important is the fact that Americans remain divided over the issue of the existence of the law.

As the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act approaches on March 23, Americans remain as divided on the law as ever, with 37 percent in January saying they have a favorable view of it, and 44 percent having an unfavorable view. At the same time, the share of the public that favors expanding the law (31%) or keeping it in its current form (19%) remains larger than the share who would like to see the law repealed outright (22%) or repealed and replaced with a Republican-backed alternative (18%).

Mitt Romney, the probable GOP nominee for president, will have to exploit the differences between presiding over the initiation of the reform law’s progenitor in his home state of Mass. and Obama’s finished product — backed by the full faith and support of Big Insurance. | LINK to study PDF

Related posts:

1. Poll: Majority of Midterm Voters Want Repeal of Entire Reform Law, or in Part The agenda Republican leaders will be setting in the coming...
2. Predictions and Reflections on Reform Law, One Year Later The one year anniversary of the ACA is giving many...
3. Report Examines Progress of States in Insurance Exchange Formation Ahead of Reform Ever wonder how the preparations for healthcare exchanges are proceeding?...

The good news: the media have done a reasonably good job of getting the word out to consumers of healthcare with respect to the prevention of medical and surgical mistakes in acute care settings. The bad news? Here in Minnesota, the numbers of “wrong surgeries”, a collective term meaning never-events in this care realm, topped 2010′s tally by five cases — creating a surge in such cases last year.

The figure is the highest in eight years of self-reporting by Minnesota hospitals. Officials cited many reasons for the mistakes — from doctors filling out incorrect orders to sloppy inventories that make it easy to grab the wrong joint implants for orthopedic procedures.

While the surge appears to be from the absolute numbers of incorrect procedures performed, the rate of adverse events has globally decreased, bringing into question the efforts of many healthcare systems in the processes involved in preventing completely avoidable lapses in care delivery. | LINK

Related posts:

1. Minnesota Hospitals Post Improvements in Fatal Avoidable Med Error Rates The state of Minnesota is doing a better job with...
2. Report: Minnesota’s Pharma Disclosure Laws Fail to Provide Audit Mechanism Policy wonks, regulatory agencies, legislators, and just about any interested...
3. Report: Congress Should Consider Alternatives to Tort Reform in Decreasing Healthcare Delivery Costs President Obama and the GOP-led House aren’t the only entities...

The cost of the delivery of healthcare in this country always seems to be independent of traditional models of demand in practically any other market-based, for-profit operation. That is, instead of relying on the parameters of patient (consumer) satisfaction or dissatisfaction; further innovation fuels the development of costlier, more advanced technology seemingly designed to break the bank (in one way or another) the very entity it is supposed to benefit: the patient.

An editorial reprint in today’s Minneapolis-St. Paul paper of record, the Star Tribune, makes the case for the unintended costly consequences this very innovation has on the big picture with respect to healthcare delivery in the 2010s. It focuses on the use of nuclear diagnostics developed by the Mayo Clinic as a superfluous and disruptive innovation which does the patient-as-consumer no favors…while benefiting the institution at the hands of government abetting.

Proton beam therapy is a kind of radiation used to treat cancers. The particles are made of atomic nuclei rather than the usual X-rays, and theoretically can be focused more precisely on cancerous tissue, minimizing the danger to healthy tissue surrounding it. [...]

To generate sufficient revenue, proton beam facilities need to treat patients with other types of cancer. Consequently, they have been promoted for patients with lung, esophageal, breast, head and neck cancers.

But the biggest target by far has been prostate cancer, diagnosed in nearly a quarter of a million men each year. [...]

With Medicare reimbursement so generous, and patients and doctors eager for the latest technology, building new machines is sane, profitable business for hospitals like Mayo.

But it is crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy.

Maybe so, but the practice of medicine depends upon the richness of technologies in which parties not only compete toward developing paths of effective treatments for chronic diseases (like cancer, in this case), but also race to spur further research on the nature and behavior of disease. It is within this self-fulfilling prophecy of the cycle of medical education that knowledge moves forward — something the creators of publications like this one thrived upon. And, that’s a good thing. | LINK

Related posts:

1. MN Study: Subsidized Access to Healthcare Did Not Predict Better Outcomes Than for Those Privately Insured In the wake of the recent Minnesota legislative action to...
2. Report: FDA Pharma Approval Process Undermines Patient Access to Timely Healthcare A conservative health and public policy think tank reports on...
3. Innovation in Minnesota Chain of Nursing Homes Offers Critical Look at Dementia Symptom Treatment and Care Delivery Since the late 20th century, innovation in long term care...

As a primary care geriatrician, I am especially fortunate to have the dual experience of meeting the difficulty of treating chronic disease and, at the same time, making a difference in the lives of patients and their families. But, I have also been bitten by the acute care bug. For the past couple of years, I have also done urgent care medicine part time. I really enjoy it. And it seems to be falling into a healthcare delivery niche, as far as reform is concerned.

Across the country, an estimated 3 million patients visit these centers each week, according to the Urgent Care Association of America, a trade group based in Chicago. To meet increased demand, the number of facilities has steadily increased from 8,000 in 2008 to more than 9,200 this year, the association said. About 600 new urgent centers opened this year. Fueling that rise are two longstanding trends — crowded emergency rooms and a lack of primary care doctors. Urgent care operators also say another factor is helping to propel business: the drive to lower costs.

I’m not sure what to make of the supposition that the cost savings derived from urgent care as an emergency department surrogate. In the long run, these presumed cost savings will likely be minimal if patients-as-conumers remain in the mindset that urgent care access is equivalent to primary care access. Yes, the decreasing numbers of primary care physicians may be entering a critical phase, and as this scenario demonstrates, urgent care as a delivery mechanism, will not replace the reality of impaired access to primary care. Paitents desirous of value as recipients of health care will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance. Only by increasing the primary care workforce can that level of access and value actually be realized. | LINK

Related posts:

1. In an Abundant Managed Care Market, a Young Physician’s Simple Quest to Just Practice Good Medicine The battle to preserve both quality healthcare delivery and access...
2. Physicians Tackle So-Called ‘Heavy Utilizers’ to Control Acute Care Costs A pretty interesting piece on the role some hospitals are...
3. Study: Most Healthcare Consumers Pleased with Care Delivery in Mass. Believe it or not, the very first indication of polling...

The federal government finally announces that it will open up its Medicare claims database to allow third party access (advocacy groups, insurers, hospitals, etc). This follows a few years of speculation on the part of pundits and legislators alike on what such a move could entail and how it would impact heatlhcare reform — in particular, enhancing quality parameters. The benefits of availability of such information gleaned from billing, requisitions, and payments will vary among groups seeking such data.

Though the data aggregate is invaluable for constructing tools for everything from clinical trials to arranging care delivery based upon demographics, there is always the specter of misrepresentation of that data. For years, many clinicians (including professional associations like the AMA) have lobbied against the release of such info on the gounds that internal reviews should be made before that info is released to the general public. End data may not always be reflected by the healthcare delivery means for many difficult-to-treat patients, for example.

Still, the move is a win for groups wanting to move beyond the formerly impenetrable wall imposed and maintained by physicians and physician groups in order to access that gold mine of clinical, financial, and parametric information. | LINK

Related posts:

1. Hospitals to Face HAI Reporting Requirements Hospitals that accept Medicare funding will eventually have to report...
2. MN Health Plan Set to Release Crucial Quality Data on Its Physicians The planned rollout for quality scores and transparent data from...
3. Study: Comparative Data on Pharma Products Lacking from Previous Decade Comparative effectiveness research — the direct comparison of care interventions to determine...

Are the citizens of Minnesota ready to take a look at prototype models for healthcare exchanges? The marketplace stimuli as part of reform are being unveiled today. Although it may seem early for such exposure, MN must demonstrate that it can operate an exchange as part of reform much sooner — just over a year from now, in fact. Four companies have placed demo modules up for public review. Playing around with a couple of them, I get the feel of sites that are actually consumer portals into products that resemble reservation services, only instead of purchasing a flight or hotel accomodations, I am choosing a provider which can treat certain chronic conditions more cheaply, for instance, in one organization in comparison another based upon my personal situation.

States participating in this exercise which are not able to fully integrate these virtual exchanges at the outset of reform will get fed assists. Minnesota seems ahead of the curve here, as the governor has taken a seemingly personal role in getting this state’s offerings public and implementing diligent task-force support to the process early.

Related posts:

1. HHS: States to Compete for Early Insurance Exchange Models This is a surprise. Well, at least I wasn’t expecting...
2. Amid Budget Shortfall, Minnesota Hospitals Defend Spending on Economic Terms The current economic crisis that is afflicting many states, including...
3. Report Examines Progress of States in Insurance Exchange Formation Ahead of Reform Ever wonder how the preparations for healthcare exchanges are proceeding?...

As a follow-up to a DP post on the unusual strategy pharma company Pfizer is implementing in trying to protect market share for the formerly solely branded drug Lipitor, here’s another take on the issue. According to one analyst profiled, Pfizer faces an uphill battle in trying to convince the pharma marketplace that its branded agent is more clinically efficacious than generic atorvastatin.

Pfizer is doing a so-so job of convincing health plans and [pharma benefit managers] that Lipitor is somehow better than a generic. On a scale of 1 to 10, Pfizer received a 4. Nonetheless, 54.8 percent say they will offer the authorized generic, which is being sold by Watson Pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, only 30.4 percent report they will receive added rebates or discounts from Pfizer.

Of course, the pharma company stands to lose a ton during its loss of exclusivity over the next 6 months, but it will remain tenacious — as many analysts do not believe future antitrust issues will occur. Perhaps even more interesting is the new ground being broken here: can healthcare consumers be weaned off of generics and stay loyal to branded medications — if insurers and key third parties allow them to gain incentives by continuing to utilize them? | LINK

Related posts:

1. Senate Bill to Prohibit Competition-Stifling Move by Pharma Introduced Two-thousand nine is being dubbed “the year of the generic”....
2. MN Health Plan Set to Release Crucial Quality Data on Its Physicians The planned rollout for quality scores and transparent data from...
3. Report: Branded Drug Use Sharply Down, Generics Way Up A healthcare informatics company issues a report today that I...

Medicare will now expand its breadth of covered preventive services to include obesity treatment and management. In what could be a sign of the increasing population of beneficiaries who were weaned in the Boomer mentality, treatment coverage for such a hot-button topic among politicians, lobbyists, healthcare advocates, and physicians themselves — will remain, indeed, controversial. According to CMS, obese Medicare beneficiaries (defined as those with a body mass index of 30 or higher) may see their primary care physician for one face-to-face visit every week for the first month. Then, Medicare will pay for one face-to-face visit every other week for the next five months. If the patient loses at least 3 kg (6.6 lbs.) over the first six months, Medicare will pay for an additional six months of once-a-month face-to-face visits with the doctor.

Insurance remains above the fray here. While the feds may explain away this coverage as putting a dent in future healthcare costs associated with the obese patient, the fact remains, that outside of a universally defined pragmatic treatment regimen (ie, dedicated drugs = dedicated reimbursements/payments) — provider acceptance of this latest move by CMS will continue to advance at a trickle. It’s hard to get on board with yet another taxpayer funded government initiative whose intentions really haven’t been proven to lower across-the-board healthcare costs, lower all-cause mortality, and assume that all physicians are competent weight-loss counselors. Also: about 30 percent of beneficiaries are projected to qualify for this latest Medicare preventive care benefit. | LINK

Related posts:

1. Innovation in Minnesota Chain of Nursing Homes Offers Critical Look at Dementia Symptom Treatment and Care Delivery Since the late 20th century, innovation in long term care...
2. Medicare to Reimburse Voluntary Physician Counseling of End-of-Life Care Remember the “death panels” the GOP and other right-wing pundits...
3. One Month in, Multiple Parties Already Reporting Problems with Medicare Bidding Program Just over a month into the Medicare competitive bidding program,...

The year was 1989. Late summer. The pressure was on to perform. Whether it was due to studying inertia, laziness, or simply hubris — I elected to take the dreaded MCAT (the medical college admissions test) at the latest possible offering. Yes, I was reasonably confident of my standardized test-taking abilities, and I knew that my GPA could definitely hold its own. Still, as I look back on my senior year in college, delaying such an important and redoubtable requirement was pretty foolhardy.

Nineteen eighty-nine was also approximately the period in which the test gurus who formulated the exam took a curious turn and seemed to bend over backwards answering critics’ and educators’ assertions that the exam was too narrowly focused on the left-brain aspect of scholarship. What was needed, the sage designers of the MCAT decided, was a tool to measure the non-scientific literacy of those who were audacious enough to consider a career in medicine. Thus, the maligned essay question was introduced.

The body tasked with reviewing the MCAT’s current state of affairs has made its concerns with the exam’s future known, and it reflects a growing reality in the state of preparing those with an interest in medicine to be able to succeed in medical school. That medicine is constantly changing with respect to rapid advances in basic science research and social and economic healthcare policy trends is a complete understatement, one that is highlighted by the committee’s recommendations.

The new MCAT will preserve the best features of the previous exam, while ineffective sections (e.g.,the writing sample) will be jettisoned. The two natural science sections will be revised to focus on relevance to living systems, emphasis on critical analysis, and reasoning skills will increase in a revised verbal section; and a section on behavioral and social sciences will be added.

Yes, it has taken the testing gods some twenty years to kill the essay section. Well, here’s hoping that future practitioners of medicine will have the intestinal fortitude that successive iterations of the MCAT (starting in 2015) will now require — the quality of endurance. As it stands, testing length will increase by over 40 percent — to 6 hrs and 15 min. Ouch! Guess I’m glad my laziness didn’t get the best of me some 22 years ago! | LINK [PDF]

Related posts:

1. Medical Student Org Publicizes Medical Schools’ Pharma Policies In a way, the “predation” of pharma companies on medical...
2. Saturday Briefs in Cardiac Medical News Vanderbilt University (my undergrad alma mater) has announced that it...
3. International-Flavored Medical Reference Makes Online Debut The three-volume Oxford Textbook of Medicine, coming in at a...