By Carrie Winans

The Disruptive Women in Health Care blog continually aims to encourage discussion and debate among readers about emerging issues and topics in the health care world. Historically, one of the ways that we have done that is through our weekly round-ups – that is, posts containing summaries and links to some of the big stories in health care news for the given week, with some original commentary and content sprinkled in as well. The way we see it, there is just too much happening in this burgeoning industry; it’s hard to keep up, especially when you’re busy disrupting and making headlines in the health care world yourselves. We know the weekly round-ups have been on hiatus for a while, but are happy to report that they’re finally making a comeback. Each week, we’ll be gathering some of the biggest health care news you can use from at home and abroad for posting on Wednesdays. Feel free to comment on what’s included and send us some links to articles to be considered for next week!

Has your week been too disruptive for you to keep up with the news?  Disruptive Women are on the case!  Here is this week’s round up of some of the most pressing issues here in America and around the world.

(more…)

By Hope Ditto. Hopefully it is no secret to our blog readership that above all, the editorial team here strives to be Disruptive – in more than one sense of the word. As a news outlet in this century’s ever-changing media landscape, the niche we pride ourselves on filling is just that – disruptive, at least in the sense that we will have the conversations no one else is having, raise the questions no one else is asking and explore the angle no one else is pursuing. We don’t shy away from controversy, nor do we balk at intimacy – as long as topics are well-researched, provide substantiated arguments and at least acknowledge there is an opposing viewpoint, there are almost no topics we consider off-limits.

There is, however, one area we don’t touch (in fact, we avoid it at all costs): partisan support for a candidate. While certainly all of our individual bloggers have opinions and perspectives, points of view and inherent biases, we will never run posts that are blatantly promoting one candidate for elected office over another.

I say this as a caveat to this post, the purpose of which is to announce a new series we’ll be running this year on the Disruptive Women in Health Care blog in which we explore the presidential candidates’ positions on health care and health policy, where they stand on particular aspect or aspects, what they envision to be an ideal health care system for this country and what role they envision the federal government playing in it.

(more…)

CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner addressing Care Innovations Summit attendees. Image courtesy of Kaiser Health News.

“I think we would all agree that these are not ordinary times, that this is not an ordinary conference, nor is it an ordinary time in health care,” commented Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, in her address at the first ever Care Innovations Summit Thursday. In saying so, Tavenner captured not only the essence of the problems facing our nation’s health care system and the reason that over a thousand national thought leaders, senior government officials and industry experts had gathered, but also inspiring attendees with the idea that, by being there, they had the opportunity to be a part of the solution.

Driving the day at the Care Innovations Summit, which was hosted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Health Affairs and the West Wireless Health Institute, was the notion that American innovation could solve any problem, and the thousand-plus attendees were the innovators to solve this one. Emphasizing CMMI’s founding mission of better health, better care and lower costs, speakers across sectors, industries and areas of expertise continued to echo each other’s cries that it was all possible, if people began collaborating and innovating across fields.

(more…)

By Hope Ditto

If you chose to partake in what HuffPo referred to yesterday as “ your country’s empty displays of patriotic kitsch” — aka a State of the Union Drinking Game — last night, I certainly hope health care wasn’t one of your buzzwords.

President Obama delivered his 4^th State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress last night, outlining his goals and his priorities for the nation in the coming year, and – as Sarah Kliff from the Washington Post’s WonkBlog put it  – “For health policy wonks, Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech wasn’t a thriller.”

In fact, in his nearly 70-minute, 7,000 word address, “President Obama mentioned Medicare and Medicaid… once. ‘Health care’ got two shout-outs. The Affordable Care Act? Not even a name-check,” (per Kliff).

To think of it another way, consider how Daily Briefing editor Dan Diamond broke it down — the president spent 44 words on health reform, accounting for 0.6% of the total speech.

As Politico pointed out, “Obama spent so little time on the [health reform] law that he didn’t even acknowledge an audience member the White House had brought to the speech — a cancer survivor who could have been an example of someone with a pre-existing condition who was helped by the law.”

The White House had announced earlier Tuesday that this young man, Adam Rapp, would be sitting in the first lady’s box. Rapp was diagnosed with testicular cancer on his 23^rd birthday, the same day that he would have lost health insurance coverage were it not for the Affordable Care Act (per CBS) – a potentially powerful testament touting the impact of ACA, and yet one that went unmentioned.

All of this is more staggering when you consider what a departure it represents from years past.

Medscape Medical News reports that, “Obama mentioned either “healthcare” or “health insurance” only 3 times, compared to 6 references in 2011 and 10 in 2010.”

The California Healthline blog lays it out a bit differently, explaining that, “Two years ago, the president spoke for several minutes — a total of 570 words — in urging Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act. Last night, Obama devoted just 44 words to his health reforms — never once touting the law’s actual impact, like 2.5 million young Americans gaining coverage through the ACA. In comparison, the president spent more than 130 words on his renewed cause of streamlining the government.”

And for you visual learners and/or infographics enthusiasts like myself out there, Dan Diamond tweeted this graphic a few hours ago, which I think best serves to drive the point home.

Wondering what Obama spent 70 commercial-free minutes talking about, then? According to the Washington Post, the economy mostly. Check out WaPo’s interactive infographic breaking down the speech by time spent/mentions per subject, and how this year’s spread compares to his previous SOTUs, here.

Meanwhile, the GOP rebuttal, delivered by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, was only marginally better to us health wonks – at least for our interest’s sake. While it steered clear of “repeal and replace,” it did echo Rep. Paul Ryan’s pitch for an overhaul of entitlement programs.

“Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue. But after half and three-quarters of a century respectively, it’s not surprising that they need some repairs,” Daniels said. “We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.”

No one would deny that the SOTU, above all, is an act of political theater. But were there even more theatrics occurring last night than usual? Many Beltway insiders have seemed to indicate this, saying that the SOTU was not only a list of goals for the year, but also, as Kliff put it, “an opening campaign gambit.”

If that is the case, it raises some interesting questions about what we can expect to hear in the fall. After all, as The Hill’s Healthwatch blog pointed out, “Although Democrats insist that Obama will be able to campaign on the healthcare law, it was almost entirely absent from a speech that helped establish the themes and frames of his reelection campaign.”

Just because the president seems to be steering the narrative away from health care so far doesn’t mean it won’t be issue in the upcoming presidential election. Odds are that the Republican nominee – whoever it turns out he (or she… hey, you never know!) may be – will want to discuss health reform, as it has certainly been a hot topic on the campaign trail.

How important of an issue do you think health reform will be in the upcoming election? Will a candidate’s position on health reform and the Affordable Care Act impact your decision to support him or her? Tell us your thoughts in the Comments section below!

Gruber, director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, explains the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in comic book format

Millions of Americans disapprove of the Affordable Care Act without understanding what the act aims to accomplish or how it works.  Dr. Jonathan Gruber’s book “Health Care Reform:  What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works” breaks down the individual components of the act in order to give Americans a greater understanding of what all it includes and how its provisions will affect their daily lives.  Gruber discussed the book, ACA and the future of health care reform in the United States with an audience at Disruptive Women in Washington, DC last night.

Continue reading here…

Health consumers prefer supermarket-based pharmacies to chain or mass merchandiser drugstores, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. National Pharmacy Study.  Mass merchants, however, often beat out both supermarket and chain drugstores when it comes to price.

In the study, J.D. Power segments brick-and-mortar pharmacies from mail-order. Brick-and-mortar pharmacies cover chain drug stores, supermarkets and mass merchandisers/Big Box stores.

What drives top performance for consumers shopping brick-and-mortar pharmacies are the ordering and pick-up process, the store itself, cost, the non-pharmacist staff, and the pharmacist.

In mail-order, quality translates into cost competitiveness, prescription delivery, ordering, and customer service. Consumer satisfaction with the mail-order Rx channel declined between 2010 and 2011, primarily due to ordering and delivery problems. But due to price and challenges in switching back to the brick/mortar option, mail-order customers are largely expectedly to remain in the channel and not switch to a store. One-third of consumers are required by their insurance provider to use mail-order for maintenance and repeat scripts – these customers are even less satisfied with their pharmacy than those who freely choose to go the mail-order route for prescriptions.

J.D. Power, analysts on consumer satisfaction, notes that Amazon has set a high bar for speed and convenience in the online shopping world. Mail-order pharmacy has a ways to go to catch up to those standards.

High customer satisfaction ties to those consumers who have an ability to have a private conversation with the pharmacist or staff in a private area of the pharmacy. Furthermore, added services such as immunizations and wellness services are driving higher consumer satisfaction with those pharmacies who offer them.

The highest rankings by segment were:

Chain drug stores: Good Neighbor Pharmacy, Health Mart, The Medicine Shoppe (all well above competitors in the segment)

Mass merchandisers: Target, Sam’s Club, Costco (with Walmart at the bottom)

Supermarkets: Publix, Wegmans, Winn-Dixie, Jewel-Osco, Vons (all above the segment average)

Mail-order: Kaiser Permanente Pharmacy, Humana RightSourceRx (both well above competitors).

This is the fifth year J.D. Power has conducted the national pharmacy survey. The poll, fielded in May and June 2011, was conducted among 12,300 consumers who filled a new prescription or a refill in early 2011.

Health Populi’s Hot Points: The pharmacy has always been a touchpoint in consumers’ health, but its importance is growing as a primary care site for wellness, prevention, immunization and a growing menu of consumer-driven primary health care services. The supermarket channel, in particular, has begun to marry messages about nutrition and healthy food with chronic health condition messaging. For example, Wegmans (ranked #2 after Publix stores, features a food/health related display adjacent to the pharmacy: this month, my local Wegmans has been promoting quinoa’s nutritional contributions to healthy eating at a “pharmacy teaching table.’ In the winter, the pharmacy promoted the purchase of frozen blueberries to enhance shoppers’ intake of the fruit’s health benefits in the cold season.

This is another example of health being where our Surgeon General says it is – not in isolation in the doctor’s office, but where we live, work, play and pray. Let’s add the word “shop” to that mantra.

On a personal note, I have a comment to make on J.D. Power’s mail-order pharmacy results. In the past six months, we have been forced to switch to the mail-order channel to acquire a repeat prescription for a member of our family. The company, whom I will not name, is one of the poorer performers on the table – and no surprise to me. The company has a cumbersome, un-helpful, poorly designed website which it claims streamlines the process. For the first three months of the fulfillment process, I’ve had to dial into the company’s call center – which has no hours on the weekend, when I, and most working people, usually run household errands. Suffice it to say, after speaking with the doctor-prescriber’s insurance associate, our experience with this mail-order company was not atypical.

Would that this company, whose services I am compelled to use, could demonstrate the efficiency, accessibility, and friendly quality of my favorite shoe purveyor – Zappos. This is a case where I cannot, if you’ll excuse the pun, vote with my feet.

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…)

This post was co-authored by Disruptive Woman Archelle Georgiou and Emma Dougherty, Senior Analyst at TripleTree and originally published on the firms blog site, Uncommon Clarity. It was also posted on Archelle on Health.

9 million. That’s how many web hits are returned during a Google search for “Accountable Care Organization,” and reflects the countless articles, white papers and opinions that have been published regarding the potential successes and more likely pitfalls of the proposed ACO mandate. As highlighted in TripleTree’s recent post, our team is continuously evaluating the business development opportunities being fueled by the demands and requirements of these new provider organizations.  Last week, the members of our Healthcare Executive Roundtable recently discussed and debated an element of the ACO equation that is not typically highlighted but is clearly a critical component of ACO success (or failure)…Trust.

In boardrooms around the country, health care executives are focusing on the technical requirements for their future ACO’s clinical and administrative systems. They are pouring over spreadsheets and attempting to understand the data and analytical tools that will be necessary for adequate financial and quality of care reporting. Getting these operational elements “right” is important; however, these business leaders should also focus on designing a culture – and the corresponding behaviors, communication, and incentives that will fuel strong and collaborative relationships between the ACO and its community of providers.

As Ed Brown, CEO of Iowa Clinic puts it, “People are unclear about what the value-based world looks like, and they’re unsettled on what clini­cal integration really means. And nobody has really made it work.”  This lack of clarity around the value-based model will make it challenging for providers to leave the financial security blanket of the traditional fee-for-service payment engine.  Moreover, influencing them to modify their approach to patient care for the benefit of the system and the promise of shared savings is a monumental effort. Success by any measure will largely depend on the trust established between providers and the ACO organization itself. ACO’s should prioritize establishing trust with providers in three key areas:

• ACO Operations and Management:  Providers need to trust that the ACO is well run. Understanding the organizational governance, expertise of the management team and core capabilities (strategic assets) will help generate confidence that the ACO is well-positioned to generate enough shared savings to make participation worthwhile. In addition, it is critical that the ACO measure and report management performance metrics that demonstrate its accountability to the providers. (more…)

• A year after President Obama signed health reform into law, the public remains deeply divided over the landmark legislation, with a year of political debate over its merits and the beginning stages of its implementation doing little to alter Americans’ opinions about the law. In March, one year after enactment, 42 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the law while 46 percent view it unfavorably, a basic division that has changed little during the last 12 months. (In April 2010, 46 percent had favorable views and 40 percent unfavorable ones, but both figures have ticked up and down over the last year.) Opinion of the law continues to break sharply along partisan lines, with 71 percent of Democrats backing the law and 82 percent of Republicans opposing it.

• About half (51%) of Americans who like the law cite expanded access to insurance and health care as the reason. Those who do not like it give a greater variety reasons: 20 percent are concerned about costs; 19 percent have concerns about government’s role; and 18 percent mention opposition to the individual mandate.

• A majority of Americans do agree on something: 53 percent are confused about the law, the major provisions of which won’t take effect until 2014. This is nearly identical to the 55 percent who reported being confused in April 2010. Further, 52 percent this month say they do not have enough information about health reform to understand how it will impact them personally, while 47 percent think they do. Members of the groups most likely to benefit from health reform — the uninsured and those living in low-income households — are the most likely to say they do not know enough about the law’s potential impacts. (more…)

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.

By Casey Quinlan. I will admit to a bias on the subject of health insurance, and healthcare reform: I’m one of the millions of America’s uninsured. I’m female, over 50 (I told you, now I’ll have to kill you), and I was diagnosed with cancer in December of 2007.

The first of those facts – being female – is the biggest dinger of the three when it comes to health insurance premiums. The reasoning there: women use more health services, starting in their teens and 20s and continuing through menopause. The second – my age – could signal a better rate, since women typically tail off in their use of healthcare in their mid-50s. However, the third fact – cancer within the last 10 years – gets me insurance coverage quotes of $2,000 per month, with a deductible between at $3,000 to $6,000 a year.

For the math-challenged, that’s between $27,000 and $30,000 out of my pocket per year before insurance covers Dollar One. Since that amounts to much of my annual pre-tax income in each of the two years since Cancer Year – 2008 was the last year I had health insurance coverage – I’ve remained on the uninsured list. And developed some fierce opinions about the future of healthcare and health insurance in the US.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a/k/a “health care reform,” passed earlier this year includes some help for my situation…in 2014. Meanwhile, I’m managing to get the oral chemo meds I’ll be taking until 2013 (which cost $500 a month) with the help of a community clinic. And I’m keeping my fingers crossed that I stay as healthy as I was before the cancer diagnosis, and as I have been since I finished radiation treatment in 2008.

That’s my current health insurance policy: crossed fingers.

There are two things that I think have to happen to bring about meaningful change in the healthcare cost/payment/insurance conundrum, for me and everyone else:

1. Tort reform
2. Severing health insurance from employment

I realize that the tort bar, the health insurance industry, and pretty much everybody with a job-related health benefits package will take out a hit on me for making those suggestions. But the system has fallen, it can’t get up, and until major changes – not the chipping-away-at-the-edges approach of the current iteration of “health care reform” – are made in both the US legal system and how health insurance is marketed and sold, meaningful change doesn’t have a prayer.

How would tort reform help? Defensive medicine – practicing medicine with one eye over your shoulder looking for lawyers – adds as much as $45.6Billion-with-a-b annually to US spending on healthcare, according to a Harvard study published in September. That may seem like a drop in the bucket when the total annual spend on healthcare in this country is $2.3Trillion-with-a-t, but those dollars are all coming out of our pockets one way or another. Whether it’s in higher health insurance premiums, deductibles, fee increases to help providers cover those who can’t pay, fee increases to help defray the costs of malpractice insurance, or tax dollars for Medicaid and Medicare, we pay for it. (more…)

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.

By Phyllis Kritek. In my day job I function as a nurse who is also a health care conflict engagement specialist. Simply put, I work at improving our collective capacity in health care to discover alternatives to adversarial responses to conflict. As a student of conflict, early on I studied the arms race as an exemplar of irrational behavior. One cannot actually win the arms race without eventually cannibalizing oneself: every one is busy inventing the next iteration that requires that I do the same. Eventually, my investment in the arms race exhausts my resources. (Reference North Korea…)

I find this an instructive analog to the first fatal flaw in health care for profit. If I am engaged in such an enterprise, I am obligated to make a profit. Each year I am expected to meet or exceed last year’s profits. That requires that I continuously decrease expenses and expand my yield. If I fail to do so, I will go out of business or at least lose my stockholders and my stock value. I can never let up on profit expansion. My first best option in decreasing expenses is to cut back on major categories, such as personnel, the big budget item.

I then demand greater productivity. We did this in health care in the 90s when our national average for cutting nursing personnel in hospitals was 9%, while concurrently shortening length of stay with concomitant dramatic increases in patient acuity. Greater productivity not only evokes employee dissatisfaction; it also leads to stress, fatigue, and ERRORS. These errors are expensive. We begin to self-destruct. (I would suggest that this is the maze of horrors much of corporate America finds itself in today; most interestingly, they also now have eliminated so many workers that there is no one to buy their products because unemployed people cannot make purchases…see, it is irrational!)

The second fatal flaw that no one acknowledges is of course that another great way to make a profit is to withhold services. Insurance companies understand this. Hence, finding ways to game the system makes sense. They need to make a profit and delivering services costs money. No matter how dedicated they may be to quality health care, it is in their self-interest to deny services whenever they can. It is easiest to do this with the poor, powerless, and disadvantaged. They are less likely to raise a ruckus, and if they do, we can count on dominant groups to ignore them. After all, this profit making is our driving value, we need to serve our stockholders, and there will be acceptable collateral damage in our push to succeed. Besides, poor people might now even know they have received fewer services. (more…)

By Stephanie Cohen.

This month’s health insurance issue: Linda is having surgery in the morning, but at 4 p.m. the afternoon before, she gets a call from her HMO requiring her to post a $400 advance deposit — or the surgery is off. What should she do?

The situation: Our client Linda was scheduled to have surgery using a surgical group that had negotiated fees with her HMO carrier. Besides being told to post $400 in advance, she was told she needed to sign a form stating she would pay whatever fees the carrier would not pay to the doctor.

This came despite the fact that the surgeon was in her HMO network and Linda had gotten the proper referral and authorization from the carrier. In fact, her policy dictates that when a provider has signed a contract with an insurance carrier, the patient is held harmless from all fees associated and cannot be asked for additional payments other than applicable copays, deductibles, and coinsurance. In this case, the policy had a $20 doctor copayment and 100% coverage, with no hospital copayment.

Linda called us in a panic, and we immediately phoned our contact at her HMO. Due to the late hour, our contact couldn’t do anything until the following morning, when she would have a representative from provider relations step in. And after a long discussion with the insurance company, Linda did not have to post the deposit and did have a successful surgery.

The solution: Don’t assume anything before having surgery. Get on the phone and make sure you are covered.

1. Contact the insurance provider and verify all benefits. Always get the name of the representative you talk to, as well as the department name and number. Try to speak with a supervisor. Also, note the date and time you had the discussion, since all calls are recorded and can be pulled to make sure accurate information was given.

2. Get all pre-authorization agreements in writing. Typically, the doctor’s office will call, but you should insist on getting it in writing, too, so you can be sure everyone involved in the surgery — the surgical center, hospital, anesthesiologist, doctors, etc. — is covered by your health insurance plan.

3. Understand your policy and be clear about the items that you may be required to pay for. Many hospitals, surgical centers, radiological providers, and labs will send you a bill in addition to submitting it to the insurance company. Remember:: Never pay a bill unless the insurance company has received it first and re-priced it (including applicable discounts) and until you have received evidence of benefits that match the bill.

The painful truth: Unfortunately, the system is broken. Insurance carriers, doctors, and patients will continue to eek out whatever they can from the health-care and insurance system until new policies are in place that make it clear exactly what the contract is that they are entering into. If anything is unclear in your agreement, a new one needs to be worked out that will include cost, payment, and what insurance covers.

If we were the Health Insurance Ambassadors: We would require that all doctors notify the patient about the exact cost of the surgery before the procedure. The patient would then have a full understanding of the costs associated with the surgery and the doctor would receive the appropriate payment.

In defense of doctors, we would also change how they take payments. Doctors do not ask for money upfront. They provide a service and hope that they will receive payment afterward. Perhaps they should swipe a credit card before the procedure or at the time of an office visit.

Originally posted on http://www.beinkandescent.com/articles/251/scott-golden-and-stephanie-cohen.

By Trisha Torrey. Once upon a time when we experienced strange symptoms, we went to the doctor, the doctor listened and asked questions, we got the medical tests we needed, were correctly diagnosed and successfully treated, and we could afford all that great care.

I say “once upon a time” because today, that scenario is mostly a fantasy.  And sadly, today’s story doesn’t always end with happily-ever-after – for anyone.

Providers went to medical school to learn to heal and help. Instead they carry excessive patient loads amidst decreasing reimbursements, spend a small fortune on malpractice insurance, and reject some patients who don’t have the right kinds of payers, or who take up too much time with difficult diseases or comorbidities. They are frustrated with their inability to deliver the care they prefer to deliver, but they must protect themselves or they will lose their practices.

Since the passage of reform, insurers have been forced to realign their requirements and services so they can continue to suck money from employers, patients, providers and the government. They spend billions on lobbying efforts, and reduce their provider reimbursements – at the expense of patients who are continually denied the care they need. A million families go bankrupt each year because they erroneously believed their insurance would cover their care when they needed it.

Those patients, accustomed to provider paternalism and decent payment coverage, find themselves blindsided to this devolved system that no longer provides the care they need and deserve. They get sicker. They die from medical errors. They lose their homes. No one has ever even suggested, much less taught them how to stick up for themselves or take responsibility for their own medical decision-making.

Patient Advocates to the rescue! Patient advocates are the only participants in the healthcare equation who may deliver improved outcomes for everyone  – providers, payers and most of all –patients.

When an advocate accompanies a patient to an appointment, less time may be required because the advocate will facilitate communication and the process. In a hospital setting, a bedside advocate will double check drug dosing and insist on hand washing, keeping the patient safe and providers out of hot water.

Payers benefit from the efforts of patient advocates, too.  Advocates help patients understand when a generic drug makes sense, or question a diagnosis before the wrong treatment is dispensed or performed, and therefore must be reimbursed. A billing or claims advocate knows how to file paperwork correctly, or reduce a hospital bill, saving time and expense for payers and patients.

Of course, advocates provide the biggest benefits to us patients. We can rely on our advocates to be focused on our improved outcomes and well-being.  Just like – once upon a time — we relied on our doctors.

Talk about disruptive! Rare is the case that an extra person in any relationship can improve the outcomes for everyone involved. 

But this is no fantasy. Patient advocates are skilled and ready to help.  Including an advocate in the medical care delivery equation can help us refocus on the possibilities of the good care that providers wish to deliver, payers are willing to pay for, and patients deserve to get.