The latest video from the Alliance for Health Reform is now available. It  features Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund.

Health care spending will be a target of efforts to cut the federal deficit. The best way to reduce unnecessary spending, Dr. Davis says, is to make sure everyone gets the right care, using new provider payment mechanisms such as bundled payment and value-based purchasing. In this video, Dr. Davis describes some of these payment reforms and lays out the case for greater use of comparative effectiveness research to learn “what really works.”

This video is part of a series produced by the Alliance and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

By Robin Strongin. In the 1993 movie Dave, the temp agency owner posing as the President of the United States (if you haven’t seen the film, just trust me on this) is determined to come up with the funding to save a federal homeless shelter program.  Gathering all of the cabinet officials together with pencils, legal pads and calculators, they brainstorm different wasteful programs that can be cut, totaling numbers as they go, until they come up with the necessary $350 million.

A bit of Hollywood silly escapism?  No doubt.  But, you can say this for President Dave and his fictional cabinet.  At least they approached the budget process with a constructive purpose and vision.

We can only hope that the same holds true for the supercommittee, the panel of 12 Senators and Representatives created as part of the cobbled-together solution to the debt ceiling debacle.  By Thanksgiving, the supercommittee must come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that must then be ratified by the full Congress no later than December 23.

There’s no question that health care will play a key role in those calculations.  When it comes to finding ways to reduce federal deficits, health spending is the rapidly growing elephant in the room. 

And that leads to genuine concerns about this process.  Already, policymakers are bouncing around ideas to extract more money from the healthcare system and tighten belts further.  Medicare provider payment cuts.  New home health care co-pays and budget reductions.  Mandated Medicare Part D prescription drug rebates.  The upshot of each of these steps will be a health care system that’s more expensive, less accessible, but not necessarily better. (more…)

By Mary Grealy. I wonder how long it will take before people who should know better stop implying, or even saying outright, that payment cuts to Medicare providers don’t affect beneficiaries.

This weekend, I was among those following the cable news shows to see if Congress would finally reach agreement on a debt ceiling package.  It appears now that, even though it may be a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich” to some, a legislative approach has been crafted that will raise the debt ceiling and establish a process for achieving approximately $2.5 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. 

In this process, a congressional super-committee will be charged with identifying $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions by Thanksgiving.  If they fail to do so, automatic cuts will occur and fall most heavily on the defense budget and Medicare.

As I was watching the news analysis, though, I saw a continued misunderstanding of what it means to cut Medicare provider payments.  One commentator praised the deal for protecting the most vulnerable in society, pointing out that Social Security and Medicaid were exempt from cuts, and Medicare cuts “would only affect providers.’  We’ve seen the same type of analysis several times today in print reports.

This kind of verbage creates the impression that an acceptable way to reduce Medicare spending, in a way that doesn’t do harm to patients, is to ratchet down payments for physicians, hospitals, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. (more…)

Many of the debt-reduction plans being considered by Congress and the Administration include proposals that would achieve substantial savings from the Medicare program over time. A  side-by-side summary of the proposals allows users to easily compare the key Medicare provisions found in five major debt-reduction plans put forward by the White House, Congress and independent, bipartisan commissions. The five plans are: the President’s Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility; the House Concurrent Budget Resolution; the Senate “Gang of Six” Proposal; the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson); and the Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force (Domenici-Rivlin).

The summary also includes brief descriptions of Medicare proposals in other deficit reduction proposals from American Enterprise Institute; Cato Institute; Center for American Progress, Sen. Tom Coburn; Congressional Progressive Caucus; Dr. Bill Galston and Ms. Maya MacGuineas; Heritage Foundation; Institute for America’s Future; Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Coburn; Our Fiscal Security; Dr. Alice Rivlin and Chairman Paul Ryan; Republican Study Committee; Roosevelt Institute Campus Network; and Chairman Ryan.

The side-by-side summary is part of the Foundation’s Project on Medicare’s Future, which focuses on producing timely analysis of leading Medicare reforms affecting people on Medicare.  .The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit private operating foundation dedicated to producing and communicating the best possible analysis and information on health issues.

By Hope Ditto. Most of the country is sweltering its way through this week’s heat wave, but there is one thing here in DC rising faster than the mercury in our thermometers – tensions on the Hill as the debt ceiling stalemate continues. Whispers [well, tweeted whispers] of default “what ifs” abound here in the nation’s capital as lawmakers continue to play a high-stakes game of chicken through day after day of floor debates, committee hearings and negotiating sessions. With interest rates, Social Security payments and America’s credit score dangling in the balance, and the clock ticking towards the Aug. 2 deadline, the air is even thicker with panic than it is with humidity (though my frizzy hair would say otherwise). (more…)

My mama told me you’d better shop around, as Smokey Robinson also told us. We now know it pays to shop the prices for digital imaging. The price of an MRI of the brain ranges from a low of $825 to a high of $3,600 within the Southeast region of the U.S. In the Northeast, the low is $1,540 and the high, $3,500. There are similar price “spreads” in other regions of the country for the same imaging study, and across other imaging modalities such as PET and CT.

The greatest regional variances by service type are for MRI scans of the brain, varying 747% between a low price of $425 in the Southwest to a high of $3,600 in the Southeast, based on an analysis from change: healthcare‘s Q2 2011 Healthcare Transparency Index.

USA Today reported on this study on June 30, 2011. Christopher Parks, founder of change:healthcare, pointed out that it’s not uncommon to find inter-regional differences of health prices. However, this is happening ”within a 20-mile radius in your own town,” Parks points out based on his firm’s research.

change:healthcare launched the Healthcare Transparency Index (HCTI) in Q4 2010 to analyze health claims data for various health care services and provide health care buyers with data about cost trends. The tool helps people identify savings opportunities for various health care products and services such as prescription drugs, dentistry, physician office visits, physical therapy, and imaging.

(more…)

By Val Jones. I’ve often heard physicians say that “the history is 90% of the diagnosis.” In other words, they can usually determine the underlying cause of a patient’s problem just by listening to their account of how it evolved. The physical exam is merely to confirm the diagnosis, and is often cursory, limited, or ignored.

I believe that the physical exam is far more important than it seems – and I learned this during my recent oral medical specialty board examination. Although I have been sworn to secrecy regarding the content of the test questions, I will share an epiphany that I had during the exam.

The examiners’ job is to describe a patient and then ask the examinee what else she’d like to know and what she’d do next. With each description, I found myself struggling to visualize the patient – wishing I could see their face and hear their tone of their voice as they described their condition. I hadn’t realized that so much of my clinical judgement was based on laying eyes on a patient – I needed to see if they were in pain, if they were straining to breathe, if their skin was pasty or pale, if they were disconnected and potentially drug-seeking, if they were fidgety, if they were articulate, forgetful, or well-groomed. All of these subtle cues were gone.  I was left staring at the examiner – who himself couldn’t describe the patient more fully because he was to stick to the script, reading verbatim from a prepared list of signs and symptoms.

And then something interesting happened – based on the short description of an imaginary patient’s complaint, I began to go down an inappropriate (and expensive) diagnostic pathway. Since I couldn’t see the patient, and some of the symptoms could have been life-threatening, I suggested some pretty aggressive measures. I would not have ordered any of these tests had I been able to see the patient in-person, because I would have been able to see what was actually wrong quite quickly.

I realized that when two doctors plan for the care of a patient they’ve never met, all manner of inappropriate and expensive testing and treatment can occur. So I wondered to myself: what will happen to our healthcare system if we continue to divorce ourselves from patient contact? When diagnostic algorithms become even more rigid, and patients are pressed into diagnostic code categories with pre-determined courses of action prescribed for them long in advance? It’s going to become easier and easier for people to be locked in to an incorrect diagnosis, and subjected to a battery of expensive, and unnecessary tests and procedures… when all that was needed was a pair of human eyes and a thoughtful exam at the very beginning.

I’m pleased to report that I passed my specialty board exam, and I’m now certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. However, as I consider my clinical future – I know that to be a good diagnostician, I must spend time with my patients in-person… and I’m looking forward to it.

Health is where we live, play, work and pray — and also where we moisturize.

Eucerin is working to create a Skin Savvy Nation. Welcome, health consumers, to the Eucerin Skin Health Cost Calculator, a tool that quantifies the financial impacts of skincare habits by estimating the life-cycle costs and benefits those skin health habits would have. The Calculator takes the consumer through a battery of questions together which yield a “skin score.” These include personal health habits such as not smoking, using skin-protecting moisturizer on a daily basis, and staying out of the sun.

Eucerin gauges the cost of poor skincare at $400 billion a year in the U.S., about $400 per capita for each American.

This is part of Eucerin’s PR campaign called the “Skin First Movement,” in which the company is trying to persuade consumers to classify personal skincare as part of their overall health care. The campaign offers a site on Skin Wisdom (a blog), and, of course, a Facebook page to ‘like.’

While beauty companies have been involved in marketing the health aspects of SPFs in moisturizers and makeup foundations, this is the first time one of them has offered a health cost estimating tool for consumers.

This development follows the FDA’s announcement earlier this month that the Agency would simplify the labeling of products marketing SPFs for sun protection.

Health Populi’s Hot Points: In the 2008 Edelman Health Barometer, we learned that physical appearance ranks just after physical health and mental/emotional health as part of their personal definition of “health” for 9 in 10 of the most engaged health citizens, as shown in the bar chart.

Eucerin worked with a pharmacoeconomist Rajesh Balkrishnan to develop the Calculator. He is quoted in Eucerin’s press release, saying, “The sooner you put your skin first, the less you’ll have to pay for skin recovery and the higher your quality of life will be.” Paying for skin recovery can reach as much as $100,000 for a patient, based on Balkrishnan’s calculations. (more…)

By Val Jones.  You probably see your primary care physician once a year, and your dentist twice a year. But how often do you see your eye doctor? Vision is the most valued of the 5 senses, and yet Americans don’t seem to be making regular eye exams a priority. A recent CDC survey suggests that as many as 34.6% of adults over the age of 40 (with moderate to severe visual impairment) believe that they don’t need regular eye exams. About 39.8% of the respondents said that they didn’t get regular exams because they were too costly, or because their health insurance didn’t cover the expense.

Although cost may play a role in peoples’ thinking, a comprehensive eye exam costs as little as $45-50 at retail outlets. I suspect that the real reason why people don’t get regular eye exams is because they incorrectly believe that if their vision is stable, their eyes are healthy.

A comprehensive eye exam is a type of medical check up – it is not just a vision assessment. Eye care professionals can diagnose everything from glaucoma and cataracts to high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, and even neurologic conditions such as brain tumors and multiple sclerosis. The eyes are more than a “window to the soul” but a window to general physical health. And the good news is that exams are relatively inexpensive and painless – so please consider making them part of your yearly health maintenance routine.

And to my primary care friends – don’t forget to encourage your patients to get annual eye exams. As the CDC notes:

Recommendations from primary-care providers can influence patients to receive eye-care services; persons who had visual screening during routine physical examinations had better eye health because of reminders to visit eye specialists. Public health interventions aimed at heightening awareness among both adults aged ≥65 years and health-care providers might increase utilization rates among persons with age-related eye diseases or chronic diseases that affect vision such as diabetes.

I myself have had an unexpected diagnosis during an eye exam, and feel passionate about the importance of preventive screening. In fact, I’ll be the upcoming host of a new eye health education initiative – a radio show called, “Healthy Vision with Dr. Val Jones” supported by ACUVUE brand contact lenses. The first show will be released here today, and it’s also available at Blog Talk Radio. (more…)

By Mary Grealy. It wasn’t a head-to-head battle, as such, but Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) squared off against the USA Today editorial board yesterday on the subject of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and I believe the lawmaker clearly made the better arguments.

USA Today’s editorial made the point that the IPAB, created as part of the Affordable Care Act to curb Medicare costs, is essential to do the job that Congress won’t in cutting program spending.  The newspaper compared the new board to the base closing commission that successfully shuttered unneeded military installations.

That’s a dubious argument, though, at best.  The base closing commission carefully studied the value and usefulness of military bases before choosing which ones could be closed without undermining national security.

IPAB will function in a completely different way.  If Medicare spending goes above arbitrary levels, then the board will bring the ax down on program budgets without regard to quality, value or seniors’ access to healthcare.   We’re facing a near future in which the senior population will be rising in number while physicians will be in shorter supply.  Simply cutting provider payments is the wrong answer.

Congresswoman Schwartz, in her response, acknowledged that Medicare costs must be contained, but she wrote that the solution is to reduce costs through innovations in health delivery to “reduce errors, eliminate duplication and waste, use technology to safely share information, and coordinate care between practitioners and settings.” 

She said it best when she wrote, “The threat of reduced payments is the least imaginative option.”  She’s absolutely right, and Washington can and should address the Medicare cost issue more creatively and effectively without diminishing healthcare for those who need it most.

Originally posted on the Prognosis Blog on May 24th.

By Casey Quinlan. In my daily business life, I have lots of conversations about healthcare IT (HIT), electronic medical records (EMR), personal health records (PHR), and the rest of the alphabet soup of acronyms used in health care’s march into the 21^st century. Each of those conversations always winds up leading to the same question, “what’s the ROI?” Meaning what’s the expected financial benefit to the provider deploying the technology.

This is most definitely a valid question – any enterprise looking at a technology product or service needs to have a solid understanding of what the business results of that technology can be, and what the cost of those results will be. Also, the likelihood of those results actually showing up is important: what’s the track record of the system or service on offer?

Here’s where the ROI question falls short of the mark in the current health care landscape: results become all about revenue. This is a particularly sticky question in health care, given that, outside of large health systems like Kaiser Permanente or the Veterans Administration, health care IT has been more about managing information and data flow within a closed system than about sharing information with patients, other providers, or payers.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or as it’s known in arguments across the US, “health care reform”) is the best attempt yet to get everybody in health care – from major hospitals to urgent care centers, from Park Avenue ob/gyns to free clinics – into the EMR pool. The carrots driving adoption are meaningful use incentive payments. The sticks are lower reimbursement schedules for failing to adopt EMR or to achieve that meaningful use.

Looking for strictly financial ROI in this landscape is almost impossible – there isn’t enough data yet to make any accurate statements about what the return, in dollars, might be. Vendors make promises, but anyone who’s been involved in a large-scale IT implementation knows that projects take a big commitment in time and treasure, and can often stretch far beyond the original scope of the project.

The ROI on EMR won’t be visible until EMR systems have been in wide use for at least two years within a provider organization. It will take another two years to see how the creation of state, regional and national health information exchanges (HIEs) return results in time or money.

A better question for HIT in its current state is, “what will it cost to do nothing?” I don’t just mean not getting the meaningful use stimulus payments – I mean the cost to health care providers who don’t adopt EMRs, or who don’t join up with state and regional HIEs as they come online.

The push to repeal PPACA that started when the balance of power in Congress shifted after the 2010 election risks making health care worse, not better, if repeal leads us back to Square 1. Health care – all parts of the process: providers, patients, and payers – has a stake in creating a better system. From Square 1, looking for the ROI on technology that can create that better system is only half the question.

What will it cost to do nothing? The answer to that question shows the way forward.

By Glenna Crooks. This is the week many of us will consider – or finally make – Valentine’s Day purchases. Some of us will consider chocolate. Maybe more of us should.

I wondered about that as I saw some disparate bits of data over the weekend. An article on Valentine’s Day spending was informative: couples will spend just under $70 on each other and we’ll spend, on average, $5 on pets, $6 on friends, $5 on teachers and $3.50 on co-workers.

What will we be buying? In all, about $12.B in treats for the day: $3.5B on jewelry, $1.6B on clothing, $3.4B on dinner, $1.7B on flowers, $1.5B on candy (of which $285M will be on chocolate) and $1.1B on greeting cards.

I get interested in items like this when I hear that we ‘can’t afford health care.’ I’ve noticed over the years how we can spend more on the launch of a blockbuster movie in a weekend than we spend immunizing our children against measles, mumps and rubella in a year. 

In the past, I might have gone on a rant about that but this weekend another set of statistics caught my eye as well; those related to chocolate. Seems that chocolate-making companies have higher margins than other food companies, raking in 11.7% profits over the 8.1% of others.

Chocolate is a discretionary, luxury item and – though some friends will disagree – not at all essential to a person’s health or well-being, so we need not quibble over those margins, argue for price controls or suggest the industry become a public utility. That same article cited per-capita rates of chocolate consumption, however, which got me to thinking that consumption of chocolate appears to be correlated with two items we care about in health care: expenditures and satisfaction.

Sure enough! Though not a perfect correlation, it’s directionally so. Countries with higher rates of chocolate consumption have lower rates of dissatisfaction with health care and lower per capita health care spending. Wow!  Note in particular the difference between Switzerland and the US. The Swiss eat twice as much chocolate, have a dramatically lower percentage of people who grouse about healthcare and spend nearly half per capita as Americans. 

The policy wonk in me says perhaps we ought to make chocolate a covered benefit and promote its use! And, I’m only half kidding.

The following post is written by guest blogger Joanna Fief. Joanna works at Regence BlueCross BlueShield and encourages you to visit the company’s blog and website about health care costs at www.WhatsTheRealCost.org to learn more.

By Joanna Fief. About two years ago in the wee hours of the morning, I found myself in a local emergency room with severe stomach pain, incessant vomiting and dehydration.  It wasn’t pretty, and I was desperate for something – anything – to ease my pain and stop my vomiting. 

Gratefully, within minutes of receiving an IV with medications for pain and nausea, my symptoms subsided.  After a couple of blood tests that all came back normal, I was discharged.  The ER doctor said I probably just had a virus.  I wish …

Over the next six months, I lost 20 pounds, and had repeated bouts of stomach pain and vomiting.  After another ER visit, countless doctor visits, an ultrasound, an x-ray, a CT scan, an endoscopy and a gastric emptying study, I was diagnosed with gastroparesis.  Gastroparesis is a disorder where food moves slowly – or sometimes not at all – through the stomach and digestive tract.

Thankfully, today my condition is well-managed, and I feel pretty good.  However, it took me until last month to finish paying my medical bills – and that’s with good insurance.  Although I definitely don’t mind paying for the care that I received, I do wish medical pricing was more straightforward and transparent.

My mother is a nurse and I work for a health insurance company. Until I got sick, I considered myself pretty savvy about the health care system.  Over the course of my medical journey, though, I realized even with “insider’s knowledge” it can be extremely difficult to navigate the system, know the right questions to ask, and make informed decisions about cost and quality of care.

Not until after I got my first emergency room bill did I find out that while the hospital was in-network, the doctor was out-of-network.  Only when I was lying on the gurney getting ready to be sedated for my endoscopy did it occur to me to ask the doctor how many of these procedures she had done (thankfully, more than 5,000).  And, not until a few months ago, did I even consider that I might have shopped around for the best price on a CT scan.  I always felt like I was one step behind. 

The new health reform law promises to change the health care experience and stem rising health care costs, but based on my experience, we shouldn’t underestimate the power each of us holds to drive that change.  If I had it to do over again, I would ask more questions about the cost and reason for each procedure – while there was still an opportunity to influence the outcome.  The questions might make others uncomfortable, or as I found, the answers might not be readily available, but it’s the best way to be your own advocate.

Learn from my experience.  When your doctor suggests going to the ER for a non-emergency x-ray just because it’s faster, you might think twice before going along with it.  Below are five simple questions from www.WhatsTheRealCost.com, a website dedicated to helping people make more informed health care cost decisions, you can ask to create options and protect your pocketbook.

1. How much does that cost? 
2. Is that really necessary? 
3. Is there a cheaper option? 
4. Is there a generic for that? 
5. Has anybody out there had this before? 

By Jane Sarasohn-Kahn. For every $1 spent on health care in the U.S., 10 cents goes to prescription drugs, 31 cents goes to hospital care, and 27 cents goes to professionals (doctors, dentists, and other services), based on 2009 health spending reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

There’s evidence that by spending a bit more on medication and bolstering prescription drug adherence among patients, total health spending can be lowered for vascular medical conditions. The study and data which leads to this conclusion is published in Medication Adherence Leads to Lower Health Care Use And Costs Despite Increased Drug Spending appears in the January 2011 issue of Health Affairs.

The study cites the World Health Organization’s report from 2003 that stated medication compliance rates globally averaged about 50%. This number may be high compared with other newer studies on adherence, such as reports from

Peoples’ lack of adherence to medication treatment regimes costs: diabetes patients who do not take their medications have a 58% increased risk for hospitalization and an 81% increased risk of mortality. The New England Healthcare Institute (NEHI) calculated that more than half of all Americans currently suffer from at least one chronic disease such as diabetes, heart disease and asthma at a cost to the economy of $1 trillion annually.

The Health Affairs study, sponsored by CVS (the retail pharmacy chain), established a causal link between medication adherence and outcomes: specifically, hospitalizations and total health costs. The researchers examined four conditions under the umbrella of vascular disease: congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia (high cholesterol). Among these four conditions, bolstering adherence had positive impact (i.e., lowered) health costs across all categories, most markedly for CHF, as shown in the chart.

The average benefit-cost ratios from adherence for the four conditions were 8:4:1 for CHF, 10:1:1 for hypertension, 6:7:1 for diabetes, and 3:1:1 for dyslipidemia.

Health Populi’s Hot Points:  Focusing just on CHF, the average cost-savings per patient was $7,893. About 5.7 million Americans have CHF, and there are 400,000 new cases of CHF in the U.S. each year, according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Do the math: bolstering medication adherence among CHF patients could save $billions to the U.S., which would positively and directly impact Medicare — the nation’s largest threat to financial security in the not-so-long-term.

Furthermore, improving medication adherence as described in this study would avert hospital admissions for patients with vascular conditions, which would enhance millions of Americans’ quality of life and productivity. This is one example of how to bend the cost curve in health, and it doesn’t require a lot of new technology – just strong doses of sound communication between patients and doctors, access to prescription drugs and medication adherence programs, and a culture of participatory health where patients feel vested in their own care in partnering with their physicians.

Posted originally on Health Populi by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn on January 10th.

Do you find yourself a little confused about what happens when with the health care reform law? To help clear up the confusion the Kaiser Family Foundation wrote and produced a short animated video that explains the problems with the current health care system, the changes that are happening now, and the big changes coming in 2014. The video is narrated by Cokie Roberts, a news commentator for ABC News and NPR and a member of Kaiser’s Board of Trustees. View the video.

In addition to this video, the Kaiser Family Foundation has great resources/basic information to help you understand the new law. To access this information, click here.