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.

Here at Home:

Thanks to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), women are now able to receive free birth control, but only if it’s prescribed.  The New York Times explains how Catholic Colleges are using this loophole to combat contraception.

And, speaking of the Catholic Church and the ACA, USA Today says that Obama’s decision on Friday not to expand the conscience exemption to include religious institutions has been met with outrage from Church leaders and parishioners.

Remember that moment of panic you had when the swine flu epidemic came to the United States?  CBS News reports that swine flu numbers are rising again in Mexico. Will the US be next?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s leading breast cancer charity, announced Tuesday that it is halting its partnership with Planned Parenthood (per NPR) – a controversial decision that ignited a backlash from some of its supporters.

Here’s one perspective on Komen’s decision. What do you think? Will this impact your decision in giving donating to Komen, or another breast cancer non-profit in the future?

Sick? Took a sick day?  Is that enough of a reason for you to wind up unemployed?  HuffPo explains how an issue as simple as recovery from the flu has reached the Supreme Court.

With nearly two million women lacking health insurance and a quarter of a million unplanned pregnancies per year, Florida has a lot of challenges in terms of women’s healthcare.  Here’s what the state is doing to try and move ahead.

Around the World:

Brazil is calling for a registration of all pregnant women.  What does this mean for a woman’s right to choose within Brazil?

Japan’s population is shrinking. As more women choose a career over family, Japan faces declining birth rates. Could the United States be next?  ABC News takes a look.

Check back each week for the latest health care news!

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.

This series is about more than just the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Medicare and Medicaid; it is about delving into each candidate’s philosophies, beliefs and stances towards health care and health policy, and trying to determine what specific policies and reforms each might undertake.

Image courtesy of the Mobile Press-Register.

The editorial team and I are very excited to be launching this series, as we feel it will provide us the opportunity to address important issues during a significant year from a much different perspective and in much greater detail than the mainstream media is likely to discuss.

You can expect to see a lot of substantive political and policy analysis being put forth via the series in the coming weeks and months, but like I said earlier — one thing you definitely won’t see is bias towards one particular candidate (though our posts will certainly contain links to articles from other outlets that may or may not be biased, because we feel it is important to provide a survey of what others are saying on the topic). Help us make the series even better by letting us know what topics or specific policy areas you would like to see explored – we’ll do our best to incorporate your feedback into upcoming installments.

We’ll be back with our first full installment of the series in the next few weeks, but in the meantime, we’ve rounded up some related articles we think are worth reading:

• CNN takes a look at claims of Medicare fraud being made against Mitt Romney by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC
• NPR explores “Romney’s unlikely and persuasive defense of the ‘Individual Mandate’”
• WaPo discusses Rick Santorum’s position on abortion in the context of his personal experiences

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.

Even before HHS Chief Technology Officer Todd Park compared data to rocket fuel, the Summit was beginning to sound like President Kennedy’s speech to Congress announcing the Space Race. In fact, the addresses and panels were broken up by “Ignite Talks” — wherein private-sector stakeholders presented problems and issued challenges to attendees and to entrepreneurs across the country, offering not only prizes, but implementation funding for the best solutions (you can see a list with links to descriptions of the various challenges issued here).

Park best captured the sentiment of the Summit, saying, “There is no problem that Americans can’t invent themselves out of…Transformation driven by a tide of grassroots innovation mojo has already begun.”

While this sentiment and attitude towards repairing and revitalizing our nation’s health care system certainly drove the day, it is not new, nor is it exclusive to CMMI. In fact, it echoes many of the themes that motivated us to launch the Health in Place™ (HIP) initiative last month. The concept of HIP is built around the idea that, thanks to wireless communications and emerging technologies, our homes are more than ju

st houses, our offices are more than just workplaces, our schools are more than just places of learning and our cars are more than just modes of transportation — and that, for this facet of 21st century health care to achieve its full potential, a number of public policy issues are involved, cutting across multiple disciplines from health care regulations and benefit structures to tax policy and technology incentives. HIP aims to connect the dots between industries, inspire innovation and drive policy changes that accomplish CMMI’s goals of better health, better care and lower costs while simplifying things in the process.

With all of this collaboration and innovative thinking, there is no doubt that this is an exciting time in health care, but as Don Casey expressed in his closing remarks at the Summit, there are some significant obstacles to overcome to get the rockets to the moon. “I think a lot of people are skeptical about two things,” Casey said, “the American economy and do we have the ingenuity to get this stuff done, and can we actually engineer a jailbreak for health care.”

Are you planning to take part in any of the innovation challenges issued? Do you think cross-industry collaboration is really possible? And, what do you think we need to do in order to break down the barriers Casey and others at the Summit alluded to?

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!

By Robin Strongin. We, as a nation, have made progress and I believe Dr. King would be proud.  But our work is far from complete–particularly where health care is concerned.  Another doctor, Dr. John M. Eisenberg, a physician of tremendous stature whose life was also tragically cut short (not by an assassin’s bullet but by brain cancer) was equally passionate about the dignity of life and justice for all Americans.   Dr. Eisenberg, who among other things, served as the Director of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (as AHRQ was known back in the day), cared deeply about access to and the integrity of health care for all Americans– regardless of skin color.

Twelve years ago, on January 14, 2000, Dr. Eisenberg gave what is, in my opinion, a brilliant speech to the employees of the Department of Health and Human Services.  As with the past two years I want to share his words with all of you today — as a reminder of how far we’ve come, and how far we still have to go.

BIRTHDAY OBSERVANCE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: REMEMBER! CELEBRATE! ACT! A DAY ON, NOT A DAY OFF!

When I was invited to welcome you to the Department of Health and Human Service’s 26th observance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, my first thought was about how honored I was to be asked.  My second thought was about what Martin Luther King’s birth could mean to a rebirth of health care in this country.  Few have had as much impact upon American consciousness.

But what did Martin Luther King think about health care?

My colleagues and I searched through his writings and his speeches, and realized that he didn’t give speeches about health care.  Martin Luther King Jr. was confronting the basic nature of American society.  He had mountains to move–and mountaintops to climb–for this country so that today we can address the issues of high quality health care for all Americans.

If Dr. King were alive today he’d be 71 years old.  He’d be eligible for Medicare.  Like many 71-year olds, he might be dealing with a chronic medical condition–maybe arthritis, or hypertension, or diabetes.  What would he think of the health care system we have today?  What would he think of the medical care he might receive?  And what advice would he be giving the Department of Health and Human Services?

No, Dr. King didn’t give many speeches about health care.  But like the rest of society, health care had to change too.

When I was a teenager in Memphis, before the Medicare program was passed, the Baptist Hospital was the biggest in town, and the proudest of the care it gave.  But if you were African American in Memphis and you went to the Baptist Hospital, you’d go in through a back entrance.  And you’d go to a segregated ward, where you would be in a big room with about 15 or 20 other people.  And your doctor, if he was black, wold not have privileges on staff.  And the same would have been true for Dr. King in Montgomery or in Atlanta.

Dr. Vanessa Gamble, who is the new director of minority afairs at the Association of American Medical Colleges here in Washington, has documented the incredibly important role that Medicare and Medicaid played in helping to desegregate hospitals.  Medicare was a lever that lifted equity and equality in hospitals.  In 1965, our Department issued regulations madating that hospitals had to be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act–which had been passed just the year before–in order to be eligible for Federal assistance or to participate in any federally assisted program.  The passage of Medicare and Medicaid legislation that year made every hospital a potential recipient of federal funds, and therefore obligated every hospital to comply with civil rights legislation if they wanted to get paid.

The law changed, but practice was slower.

When I was a medical student in St. Louis, at Barnes Hospital around 1970, researchers asked why the hospital still seemed to be segregated.  Why?  Because clerks in the admissions office–both black and white–were so accustomed to the old ways that they continued to admit the races to their old units.  The law had changed, but racial stereotypes had remained.  Racist practices were illegal, but racism was institutionalized, and the seeds of racism grew into practices that amounted to discrimination.

I ask you, is it any different today, 31 years after Dr. King was shot in my hometown, and we grieved over the loss of a great American?  Is it different 31 years after I was ashamed of the symbol that my hometown had become, when all that Dr. King wanted was to put into practice the placards that the Memphis sanitation workers wore, that read, “I am a man”?

Today, research shows that African Americans are one-third less likely to have coronary bypass surgery than whites with the same conditions.  Why? And today, African Americans with HIV are less likely to receive antiviral treatment.  Why do these disparities occur?

The easy answer is that it is because African Americans are more often uninsured.  And that is true.  But even with the same insurance, African Americans don’t have the same access to primary care doctors, specialists and hospitals.  And most distressing, even with the same insurance and being cared for at the same hospitals, African Americans get different care.  In one study I did, if you were a black woman you were much less likely to get referred for cardiac catheterization.

The reason–I fear–is that, despite Dr. King’s advances, and despite civil rights laws, and despite Medicare, racism is a part of the institution of American life, and the seeds of racism still grow into discriminatory practices.

So, now 31 years after Dr. King’s death and 35 years after Medicare broke down segregated wards in the nation’s hospitals, the question for us is:  What can we do today in our Department to eliminate these disparities, whether they grow out of the lack of insurance, lack of access, or lack of quality care for those who get access?

No matter where we work in this Department–

• At the Health Care Financing Administration
• At the Health Resources and Services Administration, where programs are supported to help access
• At the Food and Drug Administration, where safe drugs are assured
• At the National Institutes of Health, where research can identify the causes of disease
• At the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, where we find out why the quality of care isn’t what it can be, and where our name itself speaks of an arc, of closing gaps.

In every operating and staff division, We can use the levers that we are so lucky to have, and so privileged to use, to eliminate the barriers to high quality health care.

Because we shall overcome.

We shall overcome the disparities in health care, whether they are due to economic barriers, or institutionalized racism, or even unconscious discrimination.  We–as public servants–can build on Dr. King’s contribution to the moral health of our country to make our own contributions to the physical and mental health of all of its people.

Let’s make that commitment today.

For me, November’s Man of the Month needs no introduction (… because he is my father). For the rest of you for whom he is not a genetic relation, here goes…

The Disruptive Women in Health Care team is pleased to introduce our November Man of the Month — Dr. Peter Ditto, Department Chair and Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior at University of California, Irvine and a leading authority on the psychology of advance medical directives and end of life decision making.

Dr. Ditto is best known for the series of studies he conducted examining key psychological assumptions underlying the effective use of advance medical directives, so much so that he was one of the few psychologists invited to participate in the 1993 Squam Lake conference convened to establish a national agenda for research on advance care planning. He is also a member of the Advisory Panel for the American Psychological Association’s Ad Hoc Committee on End-of-Life Issues.

I sat down with Dr. Ditto (who I more commonly refer to as Dad) to learn more about the psychological aspects of end of life decision making, his research on the subject and more.

You often use the Terri Schiavo case  as an example of the decision making challenges families who must make choices about the use of life-sustaining medical treatment for an incapacitated loved one face. In what ways does the Schiavo case encompass your “traditional” case? In what ways does it diverge?

In many ways, the Terri Schiavo case is not at all typical.  She was a young woman who was struck down unexpectedly in her 20’s. Most end-of-life decision making occurs with elderly people, often with a lot of advance warning that a situation is approaching where the person is going to lose decision making capacity. It is actually interesting that the cases that have most captured the public’s attention and most shaped law and policy on end-of-life decision making have involved these quite rare and unusual cases of young people left in persistent vegetative states (Schiavo, Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan). This is likely because these are cases where the issues are displayed most poignantly – a person who has lost the ability to speak for themselves, about whom everyone is uncertain what the incapacitated person would want done if they could speak, and where family members (and public opinion more broadly) have strong and differing opinions about what is the morally appropriate course of action.

But it is important to point out that these are exactly the problems that occur writ small – in less dramatic and less poignant forms – in homes, hospitals and hospices every day in the US. It is typically older people who have become too sick to speak for themselves, have not completed a little will or conveyed their wishes in any way to their loved ones, and this uncertainty can easily lead to family conflict because people have differing beliefs about the person’s likelihood of recovery, and bring different moral views and emotional vulnerabilities to the situation.

You say that, while many think the presence of a living will would have negated what quickly disintegrated into an ugly situation for the Schiavo and Schindler families, it is not always that simple. What steps can people take to avoid (to the extent it is possible) leaving their loved ones in a similar situation?

In many ways, my scientific work on end-of-life decision making can be seen as a psychological critique of living wills. The problem with living wills isn’t the idea – it is a wonderful and noble concept to try to honor people’s wishes near the end of life by having them record those wishes while they are still able – it is the execution. Quite simply, it is just a really difficult situation to find oneself in, and there are no simple band aids that are going to fix it all up.

I remember during the height of the Terri Schiavo controversy watching an attorney on the Today Show saying that spending 15 minutes filling out a living will would have solved the whole thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our research identified a whole host of problems with this idea – people often complete living wills that are very vague (“no heroic measures”), people’s preferences of life-sustaining intervention change over time as people’s health waxes and wanes, and even a quality living will doesn’t necessarily communicate wishes in a way that helps your loved ones (what we refer to as surrogate decision makers) predict your wishes any more accurate than they can without having seen that living will (could give you a paper site if you want one).

The best advice I can give is to talk to your family about your end of life medical wishes. This is especially crucial if you develop a medical condition where one possible trajectory is that it might leave you unable to communicate. I really don’t believe it is cost-effective to try to develop policy and law to encourage every 20-year-old to write a living will or take other elaborate measures like that. It is so unlikely that a Schiavo-like incident will happen to them, and even if it does, the situation they are trying to make decisions about is so inconceivably different from their current situation as a healthy 20-something, that it just isn’t worth a major societal investment to encourage that level of planning [editorial note: forget 20-year-olds -- an AP article published this week suggests that 64% of baby boomers also feel this way]. But as one gets older, and especially if future incapacitation is one possible outcome, that is the time when talking with your loved ones and your physician about your wishes for end-of-life treatment make sense, and it is a time when it all becomes psychological “real” enough to allow someone to really make reasonable wishes.

Let me also say though that completing a living will is not sufficient all by itself, but it helpful to think of it as a means rather than an end. The key is to make completing a living will the process that stimulates you to think about what you would really want – for both yourself and your loved ones – if you lost the ability to speak for yourself. And, most importantly, to make this an opportunity to talk to your loved ones – your spouse, children, whoever – and try to convey to them the core values and feelings that motivate your wishes.

Do you have any advice for families who find themselves in this situation but whose loved one did not leave a living will? Is there a precedent that should be used to guide decision-making in that case?

The advice I always give people is to simply try your best to take your own feelings out of the situation, and try to make the decision for your loved one that they would make for themselves if they were able. This is both something that I think makes good common sense, and if precisely consistent with the fundamental ethical principles that have always been held to guide end-of-life decision making.

That is, the goal of living wills and other forms of advance directives has always been to maintain an incapacitated person’s personal autonomy, their right to self-determination that is enshrined in the Constitution. But how can a person in a coma make decisions for themselves? They can’t directly, but if you make the decisions for them that they would have made for themselves, they your judgment can be substituted for theirs (hence the technical term substituted judgment) and it is as if they are making the decision for themselves.

It is a beautiful, elegant idea – especially if your substituted judgments are informed by documents or discussions completed prior to the person losing their decision making capacity – and as I said before it is terribly difficult to actually bring to fruition in real life. We are often not very good at predicting our loved ones wishes – think about the last time you totally miscalculated on a birthday or anniversary gift for your spouse – and complicated medical situations flooded with emotion are not likely to maximize the accuracy of your predictions.

But another finding from our research is that many, perhaps most people are more concerned with who makes judgments for them than in trying to micromanage the judgments that will be made. Many people say that the most important factor for them is that they want someone they trust to make judgments for them. They are happy in fact to let those people make judgments in real time, with all of the information available to them, and thus are more interested in appointing a trusted loved one as a designated surrogate rather than completing a detailed living will where they feel like they are ill-equipped to address specific and inherently probabilistic medical decisions.

This is why I think policy should be focused on encouraging opening up dialogue between physicians, patients and their loved ones – and encouraging the completion of durable powers of attorney for health care (legally appointing a surrogate/proxy) rather than long, complicated advance directive documents.  The focus should be on discussion not documents, and documents are most useful as a stimulus to dialogue.

Obviously the cost of care is a factor in any medical situation no one wants their family to become destitute as a result of paying for their care. How do you think changes to Medicare/Medicaid and long-term care [i.e. the repeal of the CLASS Act] might affect the public’s end-of-life wishes?

I will say upfront that I don’t know a lot about specific policy details, but regardless, here is what I do know.  No one wants to mix up end-of-life decisions with financial considerations. It is not about saving money, it is about allowing people to make their own decisions about prolonging their own lives versus letting go and not prolonging the process of dying. And versus someone else making that decision for them – whether it is ending their life prematurely, or the problem that most people really care about – which is continuing treatment past the point that it makes sense and leaves people suffering or losing their essential dignity. That is why end-of-life decision making works best in the context of a situation where medical care costs are irrelevant. It is only when people know they can get all the care they need, that they will be comfortable making decisions to forgo that care. It is important the people are provided the ability to get the care they need at the end-of-life, and that physicians are incentivized to discuss end-of-life concerns issues with their patients – not to counsel them to check out early, but to help that make the end-of-life as dignified and free of unnecessary suffering as it can be.

The ironic thing about all this is that virtually every analysis shows that the key problem in end-of-life care is overly aggressive treatment that has little chance of success and that the patients likely would not want if we could ask them. So if people are allowed to make their own decisions, and we invest resources in helping them do that in the most effective possible way, it actually would cut the exorbitant costs of end-of-life care in a natural, humane way that honors every American’s right to make their own choices about their own lives.

Thank you Dr. Ditto, we appreciate you taking the time to discuss this important element of the End of Life with us.

What do you think about living wills and advance directives? Do you and/or your loved ones have them? Do you know what your loved ones would want, should they [heaven forbid] be unable to speak for themselves? Tell us in the comment section below!

The proposed legislation included the authorization of payments to physicians for conversations about advance directives and end-of-life preferences on a periodic basis, even among Medicare beneficiaries who were healthy. The “death panel” rhetoric created such a firestorm among average citizens that it stopped public conversations about informed choices about planning for how one prefers to die.

In October of this year, the American Academy of Nursing sponsored a public forum entitled “Critical Conversations on Advanced Care Planning and Decision Making: Models That Work” at the Kaiser Family Foundation with the intent of restarting a public conversation about these important issues. The event was co-sponsored by the Archstone Foundation, California Healthcare Foundation, Jonas Center for Nursing Excellence, Rita and Alex Hillman Foundation, and the John A. Hartford Foundation. All of these foundations know that we cannot improve care at the end of life until we have more thoughtful conversations about how to educate the public, health care professionals, and payers about best practices in this realm.

One of the panelists, Amy Berman, RN, Senior Program Officer for the John A. Hartford Foundation, has been sharing her story about being diagnosed with incurable breast cancer and her decision to forego aggressive treatment that may or may not prolong her life but would certainly have made this first year since diagnosis one of coping with major surgery and the adverse effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She announced at the forum that she was about to celebrate her first year post-diagnosis anniversary and that it had been the best year of her life. For Amy, her treatment choices have been about how she wants to life the rest of her life, not just how she wants to die.

In the discussion with the audience and other members of her panel–NY Times blogger and oncology nurse Theresa Brown and infectious disease physician Manoj Jain–she was adamant that all patients are entitled to full information about treatment options and adverse effects, including for “doing nothing”.  She called upon health care providers to realize that the decisions about her care are hers alone–not the nurses’ or physicians’.

That’s a tough sell to many health care professionals, particularly physicians, who are educated that dying is equated with professional failure. Supporting people in dying as they choose–as far as we can have choices in this matter–should be the pinnacle of best practices in health care.

To do so, we must do a better job of educating health professionals about supporting patients to make informed choices and show them how to have these constructive, but perhaps difficult conversations. But we must also take back the conversations with the public about choices in dying. In some cultures, people prepare their coffins before they know they are dying. In ours, we avoid evening talking about it. As a result, too many people have too little information about their choices around what is being called “advanced illness” care. And we must identify the public and private policies that are needed to support these conversations between health care professionals and patients/families and being ready to provide access to different approaches to care, whether palliation, hospice, or intensive care.

The Coalition to Transform Advanced Care, or C-TAC, is a multi-stakeholder group that is working to change this situation. The Academy event was one small step that was supported by C-TAC through the participation of its convener, Bill Novelli, professor at George Washington University School of Business and the former CEO of AARP. Stay tuned to C-TAC’s initiatives and work by following them at www.advancedcarecoalition.org. You can watch the Academy forum on Critical Conversations here.

And, when you see your loved ones this week of Thanksgiving, ask them whether they have an advance directive and talk with them about your own preferences around end-of-life care. Let’s take back the conversation.

By Randi Kahn.

I have been unable to get these strong, Disruptive Women out of my mind, and could not help thinking about both Evelyn and Cynthia while listening to the National Journal’s “Living Well at the End of Life” event on Tuesday, wondering what their conversations about end of life care were like with their clinicians, and if there was a difference between them as a result of their insurance and financial statuses. Did Cynthia choose to live her final days in the hospital?  Did her medical situation necessitate it? Was she given proper information about her hospice and palliative options?

Although we’ll never know the answers to those questions, it is interesting to take a look at barriers that exist for clinicians in end of life care that are likely impacting potential disparities.

First, there are Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement issues. Although both programs currently provide some coverage for hospice and palliative care, there is not reimbursement for the tough conversations doctors should have with their patients about their care options at the end of life. Former Obama advisor on health reform and now chair of the National Institute for Health’s Department on Bioethics, Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, said at the National Journal event, that those consultations can take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours and that without reimbursement for them, some clinicians don’t take the time to conduct them. His statements align with a survey of 500 board certified physicians conducted by the National Journal and the Regence Foundation where 82 percent of respondents identified inadequate reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers for end of life consultations as a significant barrier for palliative care.

There is also the issue that some clinicians put off the conversations because they do not know enough about end of life care options, or about how to talk to a patient about the decisions that need to be made as they near death’s door. The poll data found 73 percent of physicians 39 or younger reported “a great deal or some exposure to palliative care during medical school” compared to 36 percent of those 40-49, 23 percent of those 50-59, and only 6 percent of those age 60 or older, highlighting the need for continuing medical education courses on palliative care, hospice care, and the development of an advanced care directive. The poll didn’t inquire about communications training that, according to Dr. Emanuel, would help clinicians overcome their own psychological barriers to having these discussions and enable them to better address the patient’s psychological needs to make the conversations more effective.

With entitlement reform almost inevitable, and much of continued medical education focused more on health care reform related topics like coordinating care and utilizing health IT, what will the end of life look like for women like Cynthia and Evelyn in the future?

In Cleveland, Clinic CEO Delos Cosgrove has essentially declared war against preventable chronic disease.  Smoking is completely banned anywhere on the campus (and, in fact, physicians have been fired for violating this prohibition), deep fryers and sugared sodas have been removed from the Clinic premises, and Clinic employees pay higher health insurance premiums if they don’t take part in some form of fitness or stress management classes.  Employees’ health conditions – blood pressure, blood sugar, weight and other measurable – are monitored to make sure they are being proactive in improving their health.

The results, as Klein writes, are indisputable.  The Clinic has reduced its employee healthcare costs.  Smoking rates and blood pressure are way down.  Employees have lost a collective 125 tons of weight since 2005.

There will undoubtedly be disagreements over whether the Clinic’s tough love approach is an appropriate policy.  And if the same policies were brought to a large non-healthcare workforce like a General Motors or a Xerox, one could even project that there would be charges of discrimation against smokers, the obese and people who just happen to love a Wendy’s Baconator.

But this is a conversation that America needs to have.  At the same time in which policymakers are debating whether to cut reimbursement levels in the Medicare program, affecting access to quality care and medical innovation, there are billions of dollars being spent to treat cases of diabetes, heart disease, pulmonary illness and other conditions that are caused or exacerbated by lifestyle choices.

Employees and healthcare providers throughout the country are developing innovative ways to strengthen wellness and prevent chronic disease.  We’ve chronicled many of the very effective ones in the HLC Wellness Compendium.

If the Cleveland Clinic’s aggressive methods on employee wellness stir a widespread debate, that’s a very good thing.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention projects that one of every three Americans will have diabetes by the year 2050.  If that occurs, today’s healthcare cost concerns will seem like child’s play compared to what we’ll be facing later this century.  Wellness has to become a national priority.

This post originally ran on the Prognosis Blog on October 18th.

The newspaper listed five ways to “squeeze” Medicare spending and then discussed the political arguments for and against each.  Some, such as gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and requiring higher-income beneficiaries to pay full premiums for their Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D (prescription drug) coverage are recommendations that the Healthcare Leadership Council has made to the congressional deficit reduction “super committee.”

But, in a number of ways, the USA Today article missed the mark:

In discussing cutbacks to Medicare providers, including physicians, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, the newspaper expanded on the likelihood that those health sectors would strenuously argue against any cuts, but there was no reporting on the impact those reductions would have upon beneficiaries.

This is a pet peeve of mine, as I’ve noted previously.  Too often, both politicians and commentators speak of the value of cutting providers instead of patients, obscuring the fact that reduced payments to providers has an impact on both the accessibility and quality of healthcare.  If, as the Obama Administration has proposed, pharmaceutical companies are required to send over $100 billion in rebates back to the government, can there be any other outcome besides higher prices for consumers and less money available for research and development of new innovative medicines?

Relating to another sector, there was an interesting discussion on the KevinMD blog yesterday that raised legitimate questions over whether cutting physicians’ incomes will make a dent in overall healthcare spending.

• Aside from a quick reference to the controversy over Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI), USA Today quickly dismissed the idea of giving Medicare beneficiaries greater consumer choice among competing health plans, citing one study that showed it would increase out-of-pocket costs.

The concept deserves more consideration than that.  If, as the Healthcare Leadership Council and experts like former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin has proposed, you give beneficiaries the choice of staying in conventional fee-for-service Medicare or moving into a new competitive Medicare Exchange, both health plans and providers would be compelled to find innovative ways to reduce costs while maintaining high quality and value.  This is a pro-consumer direction that deserved more than a couple of sentences in a major story on Medicare costs.

• Where was any reference in the USA Today story to medical liability reform?  Fixing our nation’s broken medical malpractice system won’t, by itself, fix Medicare’s long-term fiscal problems, but reducing the practice of defensive medicine to protect against exposure to litigation will certainly generate meaningful savings.Or

Originally posted on Prognosis Blog on October 4th.

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.

It’s important to note, though, that the supercommittee isn’t limited to only using the subtract key on the calculator.  The panel has essentially been given carte blanche to recommend any steps it deems necessary to reach that $1.5 trillion target.  That means that, in addition to budget cuts, the committee can venture into areas like entitlement reform, tax reform and a host of wide-ranging policy changes.

Thus, a supercommittee born out of political necessity and the fear of financial default could also present a rare opportunity.  In the weeks between now and Thanksgiving, these 12 lawmakers have a window of time in which to gather input and develop concepts to improve health care quality and cost-effectiveness.  The Affordable Care Act started a process to implement health system delivery and payment reforms.  It could be said that this supercommittee has an opportunity and even a mandate to accelerate that evolution.

There are important choices to be made this fall.  This new legislative entity could very easily take steps that will prompt more doctors to turn away Medicare patients, make prescription drugs more expensive for consumers and make home health care less accessible for seniors and the disabled.  Or, they can go a step beyond and generate savings through better, more innovative care.

Perhaps the supercommittee should begin its work with a screening of Dave.

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.

What is seldom acknowledged is that, for every percentage point shaved off of Medicare provider payments, seniors lose a little more access to quality healthcare.  We’ve already learned, thanks to a survey by the American Medical Association, that approximately one in every three primary care physicians is limiting the number of Medicare patients in their practice.  That’s the consequence of payment levels that are significantly below private insurance levels.  Given the rising number of baby boomers entering the Medicare program, the last policy change we need is one that will reduce the number of physicians available for this population.

That’s the consequence, though, of budget reductions that “only affect providers.”

Originally posted on Prognosis Blog on August 1st.

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.

As with April’s narrowly-avoided government shutdown, pundits are all atwitter (figuratively and literally, as many seem to get special joy in posting their doomsday provocations in 140 characters or less) posting increasingly ugly “what if” scenarios and rumors. No doubt one day, a researcher will be reading the tweets of July 2011 (since all tweets are part of the official public record and documented in the Library of Congress) and come to the not-completely-unsubstantiated conclusion that mankind only narrowly averted total annihilation at the hands of some sort of Armageddon-like natural disaster (only to be corrected by a wiser researcher that there was a far greater threat to mankind in 2011 than natural disasters and that was Congress).

All joking aside, all the chatter led me to wonder – how would the various outcomes of the debt ceiling debate (yes, including defaulting) impact health care? Amongst all the speculating and posturing, despite the usual inclination of political reporters to relate everything back to the Affordable Care Act, I could find nary a mention of how a debt ceiling deal or even defaulting might impact health care [and the yet-to-be-implemented ACA provisions]. Until yesterday, that is, when Kaiser Health News first reported a document summarizing areas discussed by House and Senate negotiators at a debt ceiling meeting with Vice President Biden Monday had been leaked. As it turned out, this document was a spreadsheet identifying potential Medicare and Medicaid savings that could be included in a debt ceiling deal. In total, the list adds up to between $334 billion and $353 billion in savings over the next decade – including $100 billion in Medicaid cuts.

Want all the details? A PDF of the leaked spreadsheet can be viewed here: http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/07/list-of-potential-medicare-and-medicaid-cuts-stirs-washington/

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.

The new health reform law benefits people on Medicare in a number of ways. This video explains some of the ways, such as ending out-of-pocket expenses for recommended screenings, checkups and other preventive services, and reducing prescription drug prices in the “doughnut hole.” Featuring John Rother, executive vice president of policy and strategy for AARP.

“Will Health Reform Reduce the Federal Deficit?” 

 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the health reform law will reduce the federal deficit by $124 billion by 2020. Respected analysts disagree, however. In this video, economist Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute explains why he believes health reform will cost much more than expected, primarily because he doubts that future Congresses will go along with the Medicare savings in the Affordable Care Act.

Written with reporters in mind, “Covering Health Issues” is useful for anyone looking for concise information on health policy issues, and experts from across the political spectrum. Chapters contain fast facts, background, tips for reporters, story ideas and experts with contact information. The book also includes an extensive glossary, ideas and examples for TV and radio reporters, and links to polls on health issues. Supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

To see a video demonstration of the book by Julie Rovner of NPR, click here. To see individual chapters, click on any of the chapter titles below. To download the entire sourcebook as a PDF, click here.

For all chapters, links are available to local news stories on the chapter topic. For many chapters, there is also a short video featuring one of the nation’s top health policy experts.

Table on contents:

• Introduction and Acknowledgments
• Health Reform
• Cost of Health Care
• Quality of Care
• Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage
• Individual Health Coverage
• Children’s Health Coverage
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Long-Term Care
• Disparities
• Mental Health and Substance Abuse
• Public Health
• Polls on Health Care Issues
• Covering Health Issues for TV and Radio
• Acronyms and Glossary
• Experts
• Websites

The Alliance for Health Reform is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit health policy education group. We are committed to helping journalists, elected officials and other shapers of public opinion understand the roots of the nation’s health care problems and the trade-offs posed by various proposals for change. Our aim is quality, affordable health coverage for all in the U.S., although we do not lobby or take positions on legislation. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is our founder and honorary chairman; Robert Graham, MD, of the University of Cincinnati is our board chairman.

But the Washington Post reminded us this weekend that the premium support concept has its roots in bipartisanship.  The idea was, in fact, endorsed by the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, which did its work in the late 1990s.  One of the co-chairs of that commission, then-U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA) championed the approach, saying “Medicare as we know it is going to end by itself if we don’t make some changes.” 

More recently, Alice Rivlin, President Clinton’s budget director, worked with Congressman Ryan on a bipartisan premium support proposal when they were both members of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission (although she makes it clear that she does not support the current Ryan plan).

Senator Breaux and I have served together as co-chairs of the Medicare Today coalition, a group that helps provide information to seniors about the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.  Senator Breaux has told me that his work on the Part D issue has convinced him that seniors value the ability to make their own healthcare decisions, including a choice of coverage plan, and that supporting this freedom of choice really should be a bipartisan objective.

It isn’t bipartisan today, but we can only hope that as work continues on making Medicare sustainable for future generations, we’ll rediscover the bipartisanship that existed on Senator Breaux’s Medicare commission and see Democrats and Republicans working together to make changes the program needs to live on for future generations.

Originally posted on Prognosis on May 2nd.

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.
• Compensation Incentives:  Providers need to trust that they are getting their fair distribution of shared savings. Clinical algorithms defining quality and outcomes must be evidence-based; and the financial tools and risk-adjustment methodologies used to distribute payment must be easy to understand. Above all, the organization’s compensation schemes must be highly transparent and accessible so that providers can validate that they are being treated as an equally valued business partner in the organization.
• Confidence in Provider Team:  Providers need to trust their ACO provider colleagues. If the right incentives are in place to bring members within the organization together, providers will need to trust that their peers will also be active participants working toward fully coordinated care within the ACO. Under an accountabilities and outcomes-based model, it will be important that providers view their care responsibilities as extending beyond the encounter. Active provider participants should be practicing first-class follow-up care, improving patient satisfaction, and reducing re-admission rates which will achieve collective rewards.

The inclusion of ACOs as a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is a strategy to realign delivery systems in the US so that they provide high quality, coordinated care.  The bottom line for achievement might simply boil down to whether providers can engage in meaningful and integrated relationships with the ACO and with each other. Since relationships are based on trust—predictability, integrity, and reciprocity–it is imperative that ACOs make trust a deliberate priority.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that the ideal American, from a budget standpoint, “is one who dies at age 65 on the drive home from his retirement party.”  His comment gets to the heart of the budget conundrum.  If our healthcare system takes steps to help people live longer in their retirement years, then they consume more Social Security and Medicare resources.

Yet, as Frieden also said, we should all be able to agree to the societal goal that “Americans are better off not dead.”

There are some important points here.  First, that there is not necessarily a perfect alignment between budgetary goals and the imperative to have a healthy population, that funding for medical research and the effort to prevent and cure disease should not be viewed in the same vein as other areas of discretionary spending.  And, second, as Frieden also pointed out, investments in disease prevention do not always fit into the neat, tidy 10-year window that Congress and federal budgeters like to use to score spending, that health prevention measures can sometimes take 20 or 30 years to fully assess their return on investment.

At the same Research! America event, former Congressman Mike Castle said that the need to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs will be one of the major campaign issues in the 2012 elections.  No doubt he’s correct, but let’s hope we hear office holders and candidates provide some creative solutions on how to curb cost growth while still achieving the greater objective of keeping Americans alive and healthy.

First posted on the Prognosis Blog on March 15th.