Probable GOP nominee for president, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, came under attack over the past couple of days for comments on discounting the “very poor” as this demographic benefits from the existence of a societal “safety net” for the delivery of essential services — presumably basic healthcare among them. Terming the gaffe as simply a “misspoken” choice of words, the GOP frontrunner initially found it difficult to run from those words and their implications from members of his own party and the Democrats.
Chief rival Newt Gingrich jumped on the metaphorical bandwagon early.
Gingrich said both Romney and Democratic President Barack Obama think poverty can be solved with a safety net.”What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up,” he said. “So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline.” Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg responded that Gingrich was joining Democrats in “distorting Mitt Romney’s comments.”
South Carolina Gov. Jim Demint, a prominent force of social conservatism within the party, was a little more sanguine.
“He needs to address it,” DeMint told Roll Call. “Because I know he does care about the poor. But I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of. But, in fact, I would say I’m worried about the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they don’t need to be on social welfare programs. I think he needs to turn that around because — the middle class is key, and we have to focus on that. And, really, the problem with the middle class is not successful people, it’s politicians — but the key to making our country successful it to get everyone on that economic ladder.
Typical “bootstrap” rhetoric, to be sure, but a teachable point for Romney; because, as it applies to healthcare — let’s take Medicaid, for example — his disavowal of basic healthcare delivery to the poor (and elderly) runs in stark contrast to his pledge to “fix it” — meaning the “safety net”. What does Mitt Romney want to fix, exactly? Continued taxpayer subsidied care for the indigent without further acknowledgement, or does he want to weaken an already painfully inadequate payor of healthcare in chronically cash-strapped states — threatening any stake they have as the reform law takes hold? In his efforts in trying to explain away his current campaign gaffe, Romney has made his stance on healthcare reform much murkier in this young election season. | LINK
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
The cornerstone of the ACA is the provision for a coverage mandate — whether that coverage includes complete subsidized services (Medicaid or another fed subsidized program) or via private insurer. In order that individual states comply with this most essential of the reform law’s benefits, HHS has announced that states have the option to create “essential benefits packages” as a method of increasing compliance within the ACA.
“Flexebility” is the key, according to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The national health law lists 10 categories of health care that all insurance policies must cover: hospitalization, emergency care, out-patient services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, laboratory testing, preventive and wellness care, pediatric services (including dental and vision examinations), rehabilitative care and habilitative care such as services for children with developmental disabilities. But within those categories, the federal government is allowing each state to determine its own basket of essential benefits by choosing a “benchmark” package offered by any of a variety of insurers.
Sebelius: This move protects consumers by respecting states’ role in healthcare delivery under the ACA. Obama administration: This is the only way in which the mandate can be upheld while making essential services affordable in all fifty states. Consumers? Increased standardization among offerings of basic services by states under the ACA raises the possiblity of mandated coverage rather than making things too onerous for the feds in getting the legislation off the ground in just a couple of years. | LINK
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
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
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
This item comes as no surprise to those of us who primarily treat the elderly.
According to researchers, nearly 100,000 hospitalizations every year are linked to adverse drug events such as allergic reactions and unintentional overdoses. Nearly half, or 48.1 percent, of those hospitalized were adults 80 years old or older.
Those agents? Insulin, older generation anti-diabetic drugs (oral), aspirin, and warfarin. It is quite true — and as equally disturbing — that these medications are not only responsible for discrete adverse drug reactions in their own right, but their pharmacological behaviors are responsible for a substantial number of interactions whose iterative clinical manifestations are truly logarithmic in scope. | LINK | Abstract LINK
Political coalitions here in Minnesota have largely towed the Democratic line, having gone decidedly blue in the last presidential election in spite of reports that the state was a purple one “in play” in an ultimate result that was anything but close. The building within the democratic base also stands to reap benefits with respect to the reform law by its inception in 2014.
This, according to an MIT healthcare economist.
[Jonathon Gruber] told members of a governor’s task force Thursday that the federal health care law will reduce the health insurance racial disparities in Minnesota. [...] Gruber projects that almost 300,000 additional Minnesota residents would gain insurance coverage by 2016, and that those who currently buy health insurance on the individual market could pay 20 percent less in premiums after taxes.
Gruber was speaking in terms of the savings generated by increased access to healthcare with the advent of exchanges under reform. Dem Governor Mark Dayton has recently formed a couple of healthcare task forces — one of which will exclusively work to develop an exchange to increase access to the state’s un- and under-insured. | LINK
Just under 13 percent of skilled long term care facilities here in Minnesota are part of a project that is aimed at reducing the “supply side” of potentially unnecessary hospitalizations in the care of their elderly patients. The three year initiative is based upon data already gleaned from smaller tests and it essentially involves going back to the fundamentals of physical diagnosis — from all members of the skilled provider team.
“The problem is the doctors,” [Dr. Robert Kane, a University of Minnesota aging expert who is helping lead the experiment, said.] “Physicians familiar with nursing homes learn quickly to trust the precise information from nurses using the Interact tools. But for the others, especially nights or weekends, the default is hospitalization.”
I like to think of this as a recognition about what physicians have always known about medicine. Nothing substitutes for a thorough physical exam, regardless of who the examiner is. Any effort to utilize the good ol’ noggin to diagnose and treat without the knee-jerk rush to the hospital ED to provide primary care is always preferred, and it saves the proverbial bean counters on the acute care side of things (hospitals) of having to deal with yet another inappropriate admission. | LINK
One axiom is certain in medicine: there is always room for controversy. And that’s good, because it spurs further scholarly thought and research — both qualities can only help patients and providers in the long run. With the current discussion in the media regarding the utilization of the PSA in determining the course of action in prostate cancer screening, so many fundamental issues surrounding patient informed consent, unnecessary treatments, and the potential harms from treatments — can serve as valuable teaching points for patients and current and future physicians alike. The discussion — highlighted in the current NEJM — really brings this point home.
Watchful waiting and active surveillance may help prevent the conversion of overdiagnosis to overtreatment, mitigating the harms of screening that are so accurately portrayed by the task force. … we primary care clinicians must ensure there is no more routine, indiscriminate PSA screening — and no washing our hands of responsibility once the patient is referred to a specialist for prostate-cancer treatment. We owe it to our patients to provide them with the kind of guidance about this screening test that they need and deserve…
New rules for accountability care organizations out today from CMS may please providers amid reports of inefficient care delivery models and quality. When the feds released initial ACO rules earlier this year, the process was met with major rounds of criticism with physicians barking the loudest. As a group, its top concern was the financial risk involved (lowered reimbursements amid higher penalties) in agreeing to participate.
Quality benchmarks in EHR adoption and clinical outcomes in certain key chronic medical diagnoses as part of the ACA-mandated rules have all but been retooled with the release of new ACO parameters.
The regulations reduced the number of quality measures by about half and increased the financial incentives for providers. The changes won preliminary praise from major trade groups and professional associations, which moved quickly to digest hundreds of pages of rules from multiple federal agencies, including the CMS, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department.
Enhanced opportunities in order to improve quality amid a decrease in the perceived risks of doing so. With this new credo in place, many initial hostilities toward the inclusion of ACOs within the scope of reform may be tempered just a bit. | LINK
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
Infographic: Learn about the rise of the digital doctor http://t.co/XRefG3sk #Hcsm #Hc
RT @reedsmith: Infographic: Rise of the Digital Doctor http://t.co/FgZuSXL0 #hcmktg #hcsm #mccsm #mdchat
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
