Robin Strongin

By Robin Strongin. When the Obama Administration announced the new regulations expanding preventive care, ensuring that essential screenings and tests would be covered without co-pays for deductibles, my first thought was that this may be one of the most important provisions of health reform in terms of improving the overall health and well-being of the American people.

My second thought concerned forests, falling trees and sounds we may or may not hear.

The history of health care in the United States is, in large part, defined by sound policies and vital programs that are not accompanied by effective outreach to  the patients and consumers who have the most to gain from these innovations.  Thus, new provisions expanding preventive coverage have the potential to be like the proverbial tree falling in an empty forest.  If we don’t do a good job letting people know these services are more accessible, will they take advantage of them?

I think of the millions of people who are eligible for Medicaid or for Children’s Health Insurance Programs who aren’t enrolled.

I think of the widespread confusion that existed in the early days of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program until several organizations stepped in to conduct coast-to-coast information sessions with seniors.

And I think of the story that just appeared in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/health/15chen.html?_r=2&ref=health&pagewanted=print) regarding the growth in usage of the “medical home” model for health care.  (I prefer the term health home, but that’s for another post.) As Dr. Pauine Chen pointed out in the Times, empirical evidence is showing that the medical/health home – shorthand for greater care coordination between the patient’s primary care physician, specialists and other health care professionals – is working.  A demonstration project sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians showed that the new model was improving quality of care, efficiency of operations and physicians’ job satisfaction.

But patients hated it, because no one bothered explaining to them why their one-on-one relationship with their health provider was being replaced by a one-in-three or one-in-four relationship with multiple providers, even if it resulted in better care.

And, thus, does this new innovation in health care delivery fall within the proud history of U.S. health care in which great ideas are not linked with communication to the patient.

As health reform is implemented, both the public and private sectors need to do better, beginning with outreach to let people know about the new preventive care coverage and, more importantly, to ensure that Medicaid expansion and the new subsidies to help make private health insurance more affordable affect the people for whom they are intended.

Subscribe to our newsletter




Leave a Reply