By Robin Strongin. Republicans on Capitol Hill are still steaming over President Obama’s decision to install Dr. Donald Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services via a recess appointment (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39759.html), bypassing the normal confirmation process which would have included a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee.

Now, GOP members of the Finance Committee are insisting, in a letter to committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), that a hearing should take place anyway.  In their letter, they argue that the lack of such a forum “casts a shadow over (Berwick’s) legitimacy and authority to serve as administrator during a critical time for CMS.”

That rhetoric may be overhyped.  After all, Berwick is hardly the first nominee, Democratic or Republican, to take office by virtue of a recess appointment.

Nonetheless, there is a legitimate point here that a hearing needs to take place.  But, while Senate Republicans want to grill Berwick on his now-infamous speech that some interpret as extolling the virtues of Britain’s National Health Service, I believe there is a far more compelling reason for him to face congressional inquisitors.

By 2014, approximately 30 million now-uninsured Americans are going to be joining the ranks of those with health coverage and, in so doing, significantly increasing the utilization of health services.  As many analysts have pointed out, if this utilization escalation happens within our current health care system, it’s reasonable to expect health costs to shoot skyward without a commensurate increase in quality and cost-effectiveness. (more…)

Donald M. Berwick, MD, MPP, is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) is a not-for-profit organization leading the improvement of health care throughout the world.

On July 7, 2010, Dr. Berwick was appointed to serve as the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

 Loading ...

By Glenna Crooks. Full disclosure – I’ve practiced yoga fairly consistently for decades. It’s been good for me.

In grad school it helped me stay focused – and calmer – through killer statistics classes. Later, it was a way to unwind at the end of a workday. Still later, it saved me from surgery to correct fairly severe scoliosis. It’s not cured the deformity but I’m virtually pain free most of the time – no small feat for one who spends 18-24 hours on flights and 8 hours standing to facilitate meetings.

More disclosure – I am certified to teach, though I don’t. The same erratic travel schedule that prevents attending classes on a regular basis precludes committing to teaching them. I trained to be able to practice on the road. It was a good investment of my time and funds.

Yes, my time and funds. Anyone familiar with yoga knows that for the most part, students pay a small amount for a class – or series of classes – out of their own pockets. Sometimes, yoga is offered in schools, hospitals, churches, workplaces and prisons and the cost partially or fully paid by some third party. Sometimes teachers donate their services as part of the ‘selfless service’ that embodies the lifestyle.

Recent weeks presented an interesting confluence of events in my life as a yoga-practicing health policy analyst: health reform passed and Yoga Journal published a major article on methods, issues, controversies and implications of yoga research.

I started a yoga research literature review a few years ago. It was to be the opening chapter of an adaptation of my grantseeking guide (see www.strategichealthpolicy.com for a free download), revised and updated for yoga teachers intending to seek and secure third-party – including health insurance – financing support for classes.

I abandoned the project for many of the issues raised in the Yoga Journal article: research methods were relatively undeveloped, uncontestable positive results were scant and within the yoga community both were controversial. That’s right, even the need for research to demonstrate the value of yoga is controversial. Many thought there was proof enough.

Proof enough for an individual to pay? Yes, that’s been well-demonstrated. Thousands of times each day, people around the world pay out-of-pocket to attend classes. Proof enough for a third-party to pay? Far from it, at least as we have defined proof within the American health care sector.

Now, the health reform era is upon us, some people will press for yoga services as a covered benefit and if a serious discussion takes hold – and succeeds – in adding yoga to American health care armamentarium, yoga teachers will face issues common to other product and service providers. Clearly, not all yoga teachers will want to participate and none will be forced, but those who choose to do so will need to address – at a bare minimum – questions commonplace to physicians, hospitals and drug companies:

First, is yoga effective? Any prevention or treatment modality used in health care is expected to be safe and effective, demonstrating that it performs as advertised, promoted and hoped.

That means prospective research, such as trials comparing yoga against a non-intervention, a placebo or a standard therapy treatment, or a study of a sufficiently large population through ‘natural observation’ to gather similar evidence over many years.

Research such as this will raise questions about whether the ‘style’ of yoga matters, how many sessions might be required to achieve results and whether results last after classes are stopped. People in the study will be carefully selected and ‘assigned’ to each intervention group. They’ll be asked about other aspects of their lifestyle to assure that they’re not confounding the results with other possibly-effective therapies.

Side effects will be monitored. Injuries in class or suicidal thoughts outside of class (if any occur) will be noted so that cautionary warnings and contraindications can be addressed in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Other unintended consequences – weight loss comes to mind – will be documented but can’t be claimed a benefit unless the study was specifically designed to test for it.

Research might also need to tease out yoga’s “mechanism of action” as is the case for medications; for example, by what mechanism does yoga breathing techniques reduce hypertension?

Researchers will be required to seek approval from Institutional Review Boards protecting patients, may be required to vet research methods with regulators or payers, will likely be required to disclose financial interests in yoga and if any are found might be precluded from doing research and/or might be restricted from committees that address yoga policy and financing issues – all to assure research subjects are protected and conflicts-of-interest are prevented. (more…)

Every January, new billing rules and rates go into place for physicians’ services as part of the annual update to Medicare’s Physician Fee Schedule. Dominating DC health policy concerns in this arena are the medical community’s efforts with Congress to address Medicare’s cost-of-living adjuster, known as the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR), which would have lowered 2010 fees across-the-board by 21 percent, if not for a last-minute temporary stay through the end of February. Negotiations with Congress are on-going to provide a long term or multi-year solution—a costly “fix” that I believe is well worth the price to keep physicians in the Medicare program, and seems to have widespread support.

Getting much less attention is a unilateral policy pronouncement made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) that Medicare will no longer pay specialists a higher rate for consultations—services often provided by specialists like cardiologists and neurologists. Instead, all physician visit services, whether defined as “evaluation and management” (E&M) services or consultations, will be reimbursed at the same E&M rates. (more…)

The following post by Liz Scherer, Principal of Digital Copy, LLC, is part of Disruptive Women’s “The Value of Health: Creating Economic Security in the Developing World” series.

Liz Scherer is a digital copywriter, health reporter, medical writer, marketing and social media consultant, blogger and women’s health advocate. With over 25 years experience in the healthcare arena, Liz has worked in the private and public sectors on behalf of web-based and traditional science publishers, public relations and advertising agencies and non-profits.

There’s an elephant in the room: band-aids.

Poverty and its relationship to the provision of and access to healthcare is a global problem. This month, esteemed Disruptive Women in Healthcare bloggers and guest posters are writing on this critical issue with a unique look at the problems abroad. Yet, this has prompted me to look within, for if we can’t address our own problems, how can we possibly be successful at addressing problems outside our immediate borders?

It’s no secret that the divide in the U.S. comes down to socioeconomic status. And while our representatives in Washington continue to battle it out to devise a healthcare reform bill that, for all intents and purposes, may ultimately serve the power lobbies more than the public, a significant proportion of our population is being pummeled into submission with powerful drugs.

According to an article in the New York Times, children from poor families receive antipsychotic medications four times as often as those from wealthier families. What’s more, it appears that these children are likely to receive a prescription for less serious conditions than would commonly prompt a prescription for a wealthier child. The divide: Medicaid versus private insurance.
(more…)

As the nation focuses on how to cut the cost of so-called health care reform, maybe it’s time to pay attention to demonstrated methods for improving care while reducing costs that are not yet supported by Medicare and other payers. We cannot afford the system we have and changing it should be on the top of the agenda for anyone who wants to extend coverage of health care to all and improve health outcomes.

For example, many readers of this blog will have had the experience of being a patient or family caregiver for someone who is older and has multiple chronic health problems that periodic become acute and require hospitalization. Once discharged from the hospital, the patient and caregiver often feel at a loss for how to manage some of the problems that can arise even within hours of discharge. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April of this year reported that one in five Medicare patients who are discharged from a hospital will be readmitted within 30 days. That number keeps increasing with time, so that by the end of one year, about half of these patients will have been readmitted. This is costing the nation an estimated $17 billion.

Mary Naylor is a nurse researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who has spent more than 20 years developing and studying what she calls a Transitional Care Model (PDF). Under this model of care, an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) goes into the hospital when high risk (for readmission) patients are admitted. The APRN assesses the patient and family caregiver, clarifies the plan of care and coordinates the input of sometimes multiple health care providers, prepares the patient and family caregiver for discharge, then makes a home visit within the first 24 hours after discharge and continues to work with the patient and family caregiver for up to 90 days post-discharge. Naylor says this is more than “care coordination.” She sees it as an opportunity to help patients and families rethink how they approach and manage their care. The APRN will even go with the patient and family caregiver on a follow up visit to the physician’s office to model how to make the best use of this time.

Naylor isn’t the only one doing this work. Eric Coleman of the University of Colorado at Denver Medical Center and Chad Boult of the John Hopkins University Health Institute have developed variations on the Naylor model. All show that hospital readmission rates decrease, money is saved and health outcomes improve in some way.

Now AARP has worked with Congress to develop a Medicare Transitional Care Act (H.R. 2773/S. 1295) that has been introduced into both houses of Congress. The Act calls for Medicare to pay for a transitional care benefit, first for high-risk patients and then, if the outcomes of this first phase are satisfactory, for low- and moderate-risk patients. It’s long overdue. I now believe it to be unethical for hospitals to discharge patients knowing that they don’t have the knowledge and resources to help them through this difficult transition to home. To read about the details of the bill, go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1295. The bill needs advocates who will urge Senators and Representatives to sign on as co-sponsors or, at the very least, support this important legislation.

What Nurses Can Teach Senators About Medicare:

Medicare took center stage earlier this week at a roundtable hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee to discuss reforming America’s health care delivery system. Because care for chronically ill older adults accounts for a disproportionate share of health care spending, Senate members were seeking solutions that could demonstrate Medicare savings for this population.

Dr. Mary Naylor, the Marian S. Ware Professor in Gerontology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and director of NewCourtland Center for Transitions and Health testified at the hearing and recommended the establishment of a Medicare benefit covering a program of transitional care to help coordinate care from hospital to home in the management of chronic illness. Mary’s main point: “There is an opportunity to reform our health care system using a rich base of evidence that demonstrates that nurse-led, team-based, transitional care can improve the health outcomes of at risk chronically ill elders, reduce avoidable hospitalizations and decreased health care costs.”

I was glad to see there was a great deal of interest in the transitional care model. I think the Senators get it that a significant portion of the Medicare population is costing the system dearly and models like Mary’s are innovations that need to be considered.

I heard some serious tension between the ideas of being bold with the reorganization of health care while others were saying too much disruption would scare purchasers and patients away. I heard Senators and former CMS Director Mark McClellan as well as the Director of MEDPAC say there will be upfront costs to do things differently such as scaling up primary care services. There were more conservative Senators who didn’t want to hear this.

Senator Hatch wants to create a Commission of the Health Care Workforce in response to the call from several physician groups present that we have a shortage of primary care docs, general surgeons. Others added nurses and nurse practitioners. I didn’t hear much support for his idea. The additional bonuses for primary care docs led to the discussion about medical homes and the admission from the MEDPAC director that this isn’t just about a payment to docs but evidence based practice, health IT integrations, and so on. The importance of nurse case managers for medication management, care coordination and patient compliance was a theme especially from health systems CEOs. Good to hear.

What next? Mary Naylor recommends the following: (more…)

On April 2, Julie Connelly reported that “Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare.¹” The article focuses initially on specialists but quickly turns to primary care clinicians as well, noting that 29% of Medicare patients surveyed last year were looking for primary care physicians.

Note to my health reform buddies working towards universal coverage… apparently having insurance coverage is not enough.

It’s a surprise to me that it took so long for this problem to hit the presses. About five years ago I had the opportunity to travel across the country with a small group of medical and employer leaders, facilitating discussions between physician groups and local employers collaborating to improve access, quality and cost dynamics in their local areas. To prepare, I called local physicians to “take their pulse and find out where it hurt.” They hurt plenty.

When we started on the East Coast, physicians said they were worried that “one day they would not be able to take Medicare patients.” Moving westward, by the time we reached Dallas later that year they “no longer accepted Medicare patients.” By the end of the year, in the Pacific Northwest, they did not take new patients aged 60 because “in five years they would be on Medicare.”

(more…)

Two reports recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, and Budget Options, Volume 1: Health Care, have dominated discussions this week.

Jane Zhang of the WSJ reported:

The Congressional Budget Office analyzed 115 options to change health care, some costly and others that would save the government and consumers some money.
…
Among the findings:

- If no changes occur, CBO says health care spending will rise to 25% of GDP by 2025 from 16% last year.

- If the federal government required all employers with more than 50 workers to provide insurance or pay a penalty, federal revenue would increase by $13 billion in four years and $47 billion over nine years.

- Allowing non-federal workers and companies to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would cost the federal government about $2 billion over four years and $6.2 billion over nine years.

Ezra Klein explained the importance of these reports and the impact they could have on healthcare reform plans:

How do we decide how much a government program costs? It’s an essential question. Programs need prices, because the government has to produce a budget. But pricing legislation in advance is impossible… But you still need a number. So Washington operates amidst a tacitly agreed-upon imprecision. What the CBO says, goes. “In this town,” says Henry Aaron, a senior economics fellow at the Brookings Institution, “it’s not infrequent to hear people say it doesn’t make any difference what it really costs. It only matters what CBO says it costs.”

The books that the CBO released this week are essentially a guide to the CBO’s scoring process. They tell congressmen, in advance, how the Number will be built. The Wonk Room and The New York Times are focusing on the equations. But they’re not what’s changed. Rather, the difference is that Congress knows what they’ll be in advance. The scoring process will still be a minefield, but now legislators will have a map. There won’t be a situation analogous to 1994, when the White House was shocked by an unwelcome assumption and their legislation was mortally wounded by a staggering price point. Obama and his allies in Congress, along with Orszag’s help, will be able to build a bill able to survive the scoring process. They can, effectively, decide their own Number.

(more…)

The holidays are upon us, and we all know what that means for health issues — besides higher sugar and alcohol intake. That’s right, healthcare reform house parties! Check out the message from HHS Secretary nominee Tom Daschle below, and learn more about hosting or attending a healthcare community discussion over the holidays.

Meanwhile, four issues dominating discussions around the web this week are the future of the FDA, the new Nursing Home Compare rating system and web site, physicians and health IT, and of course, healthcare reform issues.

At the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest DrugWonks blog, Peter Pitts shared his recommendations for reforming the Food and Drug Administration:

I was honored when the Obama FDA transition team called and asked for my advice on how the incoming administration could make the agency a more robust and forward-looking regulatory instrument.
…
My suggested areas of focus are

1. A strong, science-based FDA
2. The Reagan/Udall Foundation — a Partnership of Unequals
3. Clarity vs. Ambiguity
4. Information Management
5. Food Safety and Security
6. Risk Communications
7. The Drug Label and the “Safe Use” of Drugs

…
There are, obviously, many, many other important issues … and I look forward to working with the transition team to ensure that the new commissioner can hit the ground running… And kudos to the Obama transition team for reaching out to a wide variety of groups.

(more…)

Having received the diagnosis of stage 4 pancreatic cancer dad decided that his remaining days should be oriented toward providing him comfort rather than treatment. I had not heard the term (actively dying) before dad was admitted into inpatient hospice. It was a brief stay following his collapse at home. It seemed that he would have preferred and felt safer and more secure to stay longer; perhaps it was the supportive listening and personal care and attention they provided. Or the three meals a day he could have (if only he had an appetite). Or the audiences who came into his room and listened to him conversing fluently in various languages.

But the staff said that he was not yet “actively dying” and there was little (no?) need for him to remain on the inpatient hospice. Yet seeing the sad and fearful look in his eyes, the physician quietly mentioned that perhaps he could remain on the unit one more night. So he stayed another night and then we finalized the plans and arrangements for him to go home with round the clock home health aides.

(more…)

Given the historic opportunity to lead the nation as it transforms to a nation that is about to become a majority of current minority populations, President Elect Obama and his Transition Team, announced this week, should consider identifying a diverse leadership among the political appointees in the health related positions–not just HHS, VA, DOD, but at the White House-–to develop a realistic transformation in the health care reform policy making process. There is a critical need to consider health care reform that allows the health system to become more responsive to the new America with cultural competence and literacy as well as including issues based on the social determinants of health. The President-Elect plan for access to care and quality health care that addresses health disparities is a vision needed sooner than later in order to prepare for the changing population. And of course, the health of minority women and their families needs to become a priority item as the policy making starts after January with the attention to helping them through SCHIP, Medicaid and Medicare.