Could retail be the solution to comprehensive healthcare delivery? Well, if big-box retailer Walmart has anything to say about it — then, bring it on! Stretching the idea of retail minute clinics to extremely absurd heights, the retailer wants to partner with other entities to increase care access ahead of the tsunami of increased coverage sure to occur once reform kicks in a couple of years from now. It lays out its plans in a 14-page Request for Information [PDF].
In-store medical clinics, such as those offered by Walmart and other retailers, could also be players in another effort in the health law: encouraging collaborations of doctors and hospitals who want to win financial rewards for streamlining care and lowering costs. Such collaborations, known as “accountable care organizations,” might contract with in-store medical clinics, says Paul Howard, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
The other entities, sometimes labeled as “vendors” in Walmart’s RFI, appear to be (healthcare) organizations which have the potential to collaborate on best practices for many chronic conditions — enabling the partner vendor to benefit in terms of quality, accountability, delivery of healthcare services in order to maximize their bottom lines.
This mode of healthcare delivery raises concerns, to be sure. Could we be seeing an entirely new way of the delivery of healthcare as a pure commodity to be negotiated and priced like any other product? Will it encourage other major national retailers to follow suit? What will this do to the traditional model of healthcare organizational delivery of primary care? Will it enhance it? Will it make it more accountable to third parties? How will this model benefit insurance companies’ approach to premiums in an altered delivery marketplace? Quite an interesting development in the ongoing saga of the cost of healthcare in this country. | 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…
A physician advocacy group has released a report detailing the costs to Massachusetts in the wake of its healthcare reform. The goal is to shed light on the potential costs to the country as a whole once reform begins in earnest. The single-payer advocacy group mainly cites that cost shifting of taxpayer subsidies to fund the private insurance marketplace is creating an access burden for the state’s impoverished and lower middle class by pricing them out.
Most of the gains in coverage have come from expansions in publicly subsidized insurance. This largely represented a shift of patients from the state’s former Free Care Pool, which compensated hospitals and community health centers directly for care of the uninsured, to private insurance plans, which is a more costly way to provide care.
Read the PDF of the entire report. The report appears to yearn for a less-than-market-based approach to solving this financial crisis as a way in which access to care can remain intact amid long-term reform sustainability. This report was released jointly among this group and via the state chapter of Physicians For a National Health Program.
With the continued destigmatization of some forms of mental illness in the community (namely, the diagnoses of depression and anxiety), it comes as no surprise that we are more willing than ever to discuss treatment and prevention more openly. Oh, and it also doesn’t hurt that — within the general population at any given time — 10 percent of Americans are taking an antidepressant.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of antidepressant use has skyrocketed by a factor of 4X over the past 25 years. Females lead the pack in all age demos save for the youngest — ages 12-17. Interestingly, income status was not a predictor of use, the agency cites; although, slightly more than 1 in 12 persons taking the drugs is Caucasian. Most disturbingly, though, is the apparent lack of care access or followup once these drugs are prescribed: just under a third of patients have seen a mental health professional (or primary care physician — assuming the drugs are possibly given for off-label uses) within the previous 12 months. Excellent survey data here.
A new study out of Harvard finds that approximately a third of all Medicare beneficiaries in the last year of life chose to have a major surgical procedure. The operative (excuse the pun) issue here is whether such timed, elective surgeries are necessary — implying a possible increase in life expectancy. Problem is, no one knows when the beneficiary will die.
By analyzing Medicare claims data the study authors found that, in a group of almost 2 million elderly beneficiaries, all of whom died in 2008, almost one-third had inpatient surgery in the year before they died, almost one in five in the last month of their lives and almost one in 10 in the week before they took their last breath.
The study itself is a good lesson in who exactly “benefits” in these cases. As futile as these findings may sound, there is no question that any procedure done within FFS Medicare coverage remains a reimbursement cache for the provider and hospital, crudely suggesting a financial incentive. While this scenario is entirely possible, it really doesn’t seem to be the impetus for the study’s findings, in my humble opinion. Besides being reflective of a cynical and laconic way of approaching the study’s results, it really makes no sense in a healthcare delivery system increasingly focused on positive outcomes (read: anything but mortality or unacceptable morbidity). The study, however, does usher in the need to discuss the perennial issue of quality of life versus the “appropriateness” of acute surgical treatment among consenting patients with significant chronic illness.
As a geriatrician, another reminder of the work that I do and why it is so important in today’s delivery of healthcare as it relates to chronic, complex diseases (especially with the explosion in the sheer numbers of Boomers into that hallowed 65-and-older territory):
Some 89 percent of the state’s medium and larger hospitals offer palliative care — which focuses on easing pain and discomfort while often continuing aggressive treatment. That placed Minnesota among seven states getting an A in a report released Wednesday by the Center to Advance Palliative Care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
The report also cites cost-of-care decreases in aspects of delivery of care to the very infirmed while noting the provisions of dignified, compassionate care characteristic of established palliative care programs. Imagine that. | PDF LINK to report
A lot of what happens in 2014 will depend on what happens in 2012. Take this item, for example:
A large majority of employers in both studies said they expect to continue offering benefits once the exchanges start. But former insurance executive Bob Laszewski said he was surprised that as many as 8 or 9 percent of companies already expect to drop coverage a couple of years before the exchanges start.
Apparently, according to this survey, some employers are considering dropping their employer-sponsored plans on the heels of reform-generated healthcare exchanges. The decision by these companies to consider foregoing the costs of their coverage if they assume that fines levied will be a “cheaper” option is somewhat problematic, perhaps in the short term. If recruitment of workers is affected by a move to shutter employer-sponsored plans, for instance, smaller companies may have to rethink this strategy — especially in the face of likely government subsidies starting in ’14, that will assist them in this endeavor of corporate coverage.
For larger companies that can resist the likely call by GOP rabble-rousers as contributing to government-run “dumping” of consumers into exchanges, the joke may be on the punditry — as the entire healthcare marketplace would likely benefit from the influx of potential consumerism and competition among private carriers within those government created exchanges. Sure, some companies may be thinking of making these “painful” decisions now, but we will have to get through ’12 first to see exactly what forms insurance purchasing in the expanded marketplace will take. This point may be a mute one by January 2013.
An observational trial published in the latest issue of Annals shows that the initial savings to overall healthcare costs incurred by acute hospitals with hospitalist (hospital-based physician) care are offset by increased costs to Medicare in spite of the earlier discharges of beneficiaries (0.5 day on average shorter than those patients without hospitalist care).
Most of the extra costs stemmed from re-admissions and patients being sent to nursing homes instead of home. But there’s no clear explanation for the findings.
“Under pressure to shorten length of stay, hospitalists may be willing to discharge sicker patients, leading to increased re-admissions,” Dr. Lena Chen and Dr. Sanjay Saint of Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center wrote in an editorial, according to Reuters, which was first to report the study.But they added that unmeasured differences could also play a big factor.
Besides the fact that this study is observational in nature, and therefore immediately affected by selection bias, it does shed light on areas to be studied further — including disease-based criteria for discharges based upon DRGs, the effect of preventive medicine on readmission rates in Medicare patients, and the impact of undocumented acute care complications at discharge (eg, medical errors). The proverbial tip of the iceberg is at play here. Still an interesting read, though. | PDF LINK
For the first time, a major private coporation is partnering with a local hospital in assisting Medicaid beneficiaries in obtaining legal assistance in squabbles with the entitlement over public health care delivery, housing, medical equipment, and other basic needs guaranteed by Medicaid. It’s not just any partnership. The corporate entity is Wal-Mart, and it insists it will not be an adversarial force to the feds. The retailer’s involvement with a local Arkansas hospital is being piloted and could become a model for future national rollout. These medical-legal partnerships, as they are called, are designed to promote changes in the healthcare public-private policy sphere by becoming part of the beneficiaries’ heatlhcare team — alongside providers and hospitals.
Onsite, legal professionals become a part of the healthcare team. Doctors will refer patients to lawyers for legal assistance when appropriate. Just as a pediatrician refers a patient to a radiologist for a broken bone, a healthcare provider may refer a patient to an onsite attorney when an underlying social circumstance impairing a patient’s health is detected.
Lest one believes that this is some conservative vs. progressive battle implemented by activists to inflame further the current drive toward reform in this administration — think again. These MLPs have the backing of the traditionally liberal-leaning American Bar Association. It is the hope of the parties involved that providing this type of legal assistance to Medicaid beneficiaries will usher in a new area of accountability by building broad public-private networks with a common goal enriching Medicaid care delivery as reform begins to take shape. | LINK
Getting the word out about all the preventive services available to Medicare beneficiaries is about as easy as wiping out fraud within CMS completely. But that’s not stopping HHS from pulling out all the stops in an effort to curtail future spending on preventable medical problems.
On Monday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the agency was launching a publicity campaign, known as “Share the News, Share the Health” to alert Medicare patients, their doctors and their relatives that the services are available at no charge. “Our job is to make sure every single Medicare beneficiary in the country knows,” Sebelius said.
Chalk it up to a (political) campaign by the federal government to get patients knowledgeable and accepting of the benefits afforded them under the reform law. Overall, this effort is a good thing. At its most superficial, it is a way to catch disease earlier, implement higher quality care delivery for less ill patients sooner, and it represents a time saver for the primary care physician, freeing him from informing the beneficiary in order to make the most of the covered physician service/visit. More profound, however, is the stark effect this initiative could have on patient empowerment — as only slightly more than 10 percent of beneficiaries takes advantage of at least one of the covered preventive medical screenings and services.
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.
Pfizer in News These Stocks are Forming a Rising Wedge (Bearish) on May-17: These Stocks are For... http://t.co/710gScqn #pharma #pfizer
RT @markraganceo: 14 ways social media may change doctors' visits http://t.co/CXpyRFRV #hcsm #physicians
FCC proposes allocation of spectrum for Medical Body Area Networks (for vote on 5/24) http://t.co/bAiyRaRk #mHealth
#eHealth News: These Stocks Will Thrive, Obamacare or Not http://t.co/6uXhFARZ http://t.co/b7p882rP
#pharma news: Playoff Trifecta Means Windfall Curbed by L.A. Traffic http://t.co/voOlghpt
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.
