By Glenna Crooks. On Sunday July 4, HealthDay News reported on a June 30 Environmental Health Perspectives item that the health benefits of cycling in an urban environment outweigh the risks. Huh? I asked myself.

I live in Center City Philadelphia and far too many cyclists – I’ll go out on a limb and say a majority – are a menace. They ride on pedestrian walkways, sometimes IPod hearing-impaired, weaving through pedestrians. They ride on the wrong side of the roads, the wrong way down one-way streets and weave between traffic lanes. They do not stop for red lights. In fact, some bikes don’t have brakes.

I’ve been nearly hit twice by cyclists running red lights, coming from between trucks and therefore not visible to a pedestrian until they appear suddenly, inches away. And, at 6:10 AM several months ago, while taking a work-out jog on a paved path along the Schuylkill River with my trainer Morris (March Man of the Month), was rammed from behind by a cyclist. Though it was clearly past dawn, he did not see me, perhaps because his head was down to lower the drag created by an upright body, going fast on a path that is frequented by walkers of all ages.

The accident has cost me nearly $500 a month in out-of-pocket expenses since, to address the back pain it caused. I’m lucky, though. Around that same time two pedestrians were killed in my neighborhood by cyclists.

I had visions – no, nightmares – of public policymakers seeing this report and encouraging more cycling in the US. Who on earth would believe that cycling was safe, I wondered? How could I change their minds? I had to read beyond the first sentence to understand. (more…)

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…)

By Rozalynn Goodwin. Yes, I said “cooties.”  You remember that childhood imaginary disease believed to spread through contact with those infected or worse, those of the opposite sex.  The cooties epidemic has spread to Washington, DC, and has politicians frightened to work across the aisles for the greater good.  I heard that the lesson: “They Have the Cooties” takes up most of the first day of orientation for newly elected congressmen and senators.  This class perfects neophytes’ skills in murdering any attempts for bipartisanship.

Cooties can be deadly for a politician.  Just look at SC’s latest casualty, outgoing Congressman Bob Inglis.  His independent thinking and willingness to sometimes side with the other party were clear symptoms that he had been infected, and now he’s being sent home to be quarantined.  Senator Lindsey Graham’s case of the cooties is thought by some to be in the advanced stages.

Cooties are not only taking out politicians who think for themselves and for the good of America.  Cooties are also killing good policy.  The six-month extension of the FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) increase appears to be the latest victim.  This temporary fiscal relief for states was first provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) back in February 2009 to prevent the decimation of state Medicaid programs at a time of rising unemployment and increasing Medicaid rolls.  This relief runs out the end of 2010 (right in the middle of most states’ fiscal years), and therefore produces a significant fiscal problem for state budgets.  Just last week, several governors from across the nation gathered in DC to lobby for this extension.  Guess whose governor was not there…

Earlier this year, it was widely assumed that this extension was a done deal, but Congress has been punked into inaction by some primary election results across the country that some believe reflect voters’ frustration with government spending.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I understand the need to be conservative in tough economic times, but I also understand the need to stimulate the economy and give our most economically vulnerable a helping hand.  It’s funny how we can bail out financial institutions and their wealthy executives, and turn a deaf ear to those truly suffering.

If FMAP is not extended, not only will SC’s disabled, very poor and senior citizens lose access to health care services, our state’s struggling economy will lose as well.  SC stands to lose over $200 million in federal dollars that could help patch our frail Medicaid budget and stimulate our economy with high-paying healthcare jobs and the accompanying exchange of goods and services.  (more…)

By Glenna Crooks. During my years in the Administration I was sometimes directed to draft responses the President would send in reply to letters he’d received from individual citizens.

Sometimes, rather than drafting the letter for him, I’d be directed to reply on the President’s behalf. Such was the case when the White House directed I write to a young boy from Texas.

His father – a young, healthy man – collapsed and died suddenly during an after-work run on the local high school track. Later, at the funeral home, the director complimented the boy’s Mother about her generosity in having donated her husband’s corneas. But there was a problem: it had not been her decision. In fact, until that moment she had not even know her husband’s corneas were removed.

The ‘donation’ was made under Texas law that provides for the ‘presumed consent’ on the part of deceased individuals. A medical examiner was allowed to remove corneas from a deceased person if the examiner was not aware of the relatives’ objections. The law did not require that the medical examiner ask the family before doing so, however. In other words, every one is ‘opted in’ to organ donation unless they ‘opt out’ and the medical examiner knows about their ‘opting out.’ This family, like most in Texas, had never been asked. The wife had never been given the opportunity to ‘opt out’ for her husband.

The boy wanted the President’s help to change the law. He was distressed that his Father was now in heaven and, without corneas, could not see God. He wanted others spared a similar tragedy. I can’t recall what I wrote to this boy in response; I do recall it was a hard letter to write and I doubt my reply did justice to the pain of his loss and his grief over his Father’s blindness in heaven.

That experience came to mind when I saw an AP report that a New York Assemblyman, whose daughter had been helped by two kidney transplants, intended to pass legislation to ‘presume consent’ for not just corneas, but for donations of all organs in the state. If he succeeds, New York won’t be the first state to try, but will be the first state to succeed in enacting that type of legislation.

More than 6,000 people die each year in this country awaiting donor organs. Improvements in surgical techniques and post-transplant medications offer hope to people who only a few decades ago would have had none.  I have seen lives transformed by organ transplants and we need more donated organs, that’s for sure. But can it possibly be a donation if the person or their loved ones are never asked? Is ‘presumed consent’ donation, or is it just plain ‘taking,’ in this case endorsed by legislators?

I think it is ‘taking’ and for that reason, I oppose it.

I can’t stop thinking about that 10 year old boy and his distress. Like him, I don’t want other families to suffer that fate. The joy of one family for the life of a loved one saved by a transplant does not justify the pain inflicted on another family whose loved one’s organs are taken without consent.

By Stephanie Mensh. House and Senate Appropriations health subcommittees are in full swing this month. On May 5, the National Institutes of Health Director testified to the Senate subcommittee.

I follow NIH funding because they have a leadership role in understanding and treating cardiovascular and neurological diseases. For example, NIH sponsored the recently-reported landmark CREST study comparing surgery to stenting for patients with carotid artery disease related to stroke, conducted in 117 centers over 9 years.

NIH also sponsored historic research on the clot-buster tPA treatment that reduces morbidity and mortality in acute stroke patients when initiated within three hours of onset.  Stroke is the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of disability in adults. So, I assumed that a lot of privately-supported research was underway.

I was shocked and dismayed to hear Story Landis, Ph.D, Director of NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), tell the American Heart Association’s lobby-day lunch attendees that pharmaceutical and biotech companies are abandoning research into acute stroke and neuroprotective drugs that could extend the window for tPA treatment beyond three hours.

This means that NIH will be left to develop new treatments. Unfortunately, only 1% of the federal NIH budget goes to stroke.  President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget for NIH is $32 billion. I’m advocating for the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association’s recommendation that Congress appropriate $35 billion for NIH, so more grants can be made for stroke research.

My husband, Paul Berger, had a stroke 20 years ago at age 36.  Paul wouldn’t have qualified for tPA even if it was available back then because his stroke was the result of a ruptured aneurysm dumping blood in his brain, instead of a clot (80% of strokes are caused by clots).  I am very  encouraged to see NINDS support research into other treatments for the acute phase as well as post-stroke rehabilitation.

May is National Stroke Awareness Month. You can find information on stroke warning signs and risks posted to the NINDS website: http://stroke.nih.gov/ .

Even with emergency medical treatment, many stroke survivors will require rehabilitation and suffer chronic health problems—weakness or paralysis in arms and legs, difficulty with speech/language, and problems with everyday living skills.

Strokes affect people of all ages, including younger people who may lose their jobs due to stroke-related disabilities. The sudden, life-changing nature of a stroke impacts the survivor’s spouse and family as well.

To help make everyday better, my husband and I have written 3 new E-Books on stroke recovery just launched by Positive Power Publishing and  StrokeSurvivor.com:  (1) “Conquering Aphasia & Stroke TODAY!”; (2) “Conquering Aphasia & Stroke for Caregivers”; and (3) “Articles to Take With You.”  Excerpts and details are posted at: http://www.strokesurvivor.com/e-books.html.

By Rozalynn Goodwin.  It’s pretty sad that we have come to the point that “civil discourse” must be taught on college campuses.  Parents, not professors, should teach children to be polite and courteous and to take turns listening and speaking.  But I guess with all the recent pre- and post-health reform tomfoolery displayed by juvenile-acting public officials and hate groups disguised as patriots, such coursework is necessary.

While  I was watching the televised health reform vote in the United States House of Representatives a few weeks ago, I heard someone yell, “Baby killer!” and thought, “Oh no!  Not again!  As if South Carolina hasn’t had enough embarrassment for the 21^st century!  Please don’t let it be one of our congressmen in another act of immaturity and lack of self-control.” 

Thank goodness my state doesn’t have a monopoly on grown people acting like undisciplined five year-olds.  Here’s to you, Texas!

We all read or heard about the spitting, cursing, racial slurs and vandalism that occurred during and after the bill’s passage.  We can debate about whether this was the eruption of a sedentary volcano filled with deep-seated bigotry or simply the lust for power out of control, but one thing is certain.  Elected officials in what many consider the most civilized of modern civilizations should exemplify civil discourse, setting examples for our children who will one day fill their shoes and run this country.  I would like to believe that most parents are teaching their children to respect others, so it doesn’t help our children to see such disrespect and intolerance in the highest offices of the land.  Our country may not demand that the men and women we elect to public office prove themselves to be role models of moral purity, but we should at least demand that they act their age.    

Let’s take this opportunity to condemn such behavior to our children, and reinforce the importance of good old-fashioned manners.  Maybe they can teach our elected officials a thing or two.

By Santi Bhagat, MD, MPH. Health Care Reform is off to a good start.  A couple of days ago, I blogged on the debate between the insurance industry and the administration about the interpretation of this new law.  Hats off to insurers for making the right choice, right away, to heed regulations that are forthcoming from Health and Human Services.   I first heard this through the grapevine at the Disruptive Women Breakfast Series this week from Stephanie Cohen, the expert panelist representing the insurance industry.

The law is intended to require insurers to issue policies that provide a full range of benefits for all children with pre-existing conditions starting in September 2010.  That means insurers can no longer refuse to cover children with pre-existing conditions under their parents’ plans, even if the children never had insurance.

This law has far-reaching ramifications.  A recent story about a newborn who was denied coverage at the age of a mere 9 days highlights how critical this law is.   Born with a congenital heart defect, Houston Tracy underwent lifesaving open heart surgery when he was just 4 days old.  His parents cannot afford insurance for themselves, being small business owners, and have individual policies for their older two sons.  After being charged and given the run-around by the insurance company, they resorted to enrolling their newborn in the state’s high-risk pool.

The big question now is how much will insurers charge for these policies.  If the price tag is too high, parents will not be able to afford to purchase policies, and in effect, coverage will be denied to these children.

It is not clear whether HHS regulations will speak to this issue.  The administration will be watching the insurance industry closely.   So will we.

Our sincere thanks to Mary Grealy, Judy Feder, and Stephanie Cohen for their insightful comments at this morning’s breakfast.  And a big shout out to Jennifer Berk, Julie Minevich and Jose Guzman, all of whom tweeted, emailed, and contributed to the success of our first breakfast.  If you weren’t able to be with us, you’ll want to read the summary post by Disruptive Women’s Wendy Grossman: 

Now that Healthcare Reform Legislation has finally passed – what’s going to happen next?

“The law is an outline – now the novel has to be written,” said Stephanie Cohen, Co-founder of Golden & Cohen. “This is changing daily.”

What happened, how it happened, and what will happen now were topics discussed at the first meeting of Disruptive Women’s 2010 breakfast series early this morning. The discussion, entitled: “Health Reform: US Patience (not a typo) Pay the Price,” was sponsored by Amplify Public Affairs’ Disruptive Women in Health Care Blog and its media partner, The Hill.

Mary Grealy, President of the Healthcare Leadership Council said Americans waited and waited for the new legislation (this is where the patience comes in) – like kids waiting for Christmas morning.  But now, we have to open the presents and see what’s inside. Did we get what we wanted? Or did we just get socks?  “We either had one of the greatest achievements or the downfall of the republic,” she said.   

Grealy discussed both the positives and the negatives of the new legislation. Most agree that making health insurance more affordable for millions of uninsured Americans was good. “It really was the right thing to do,” she said.

But, what happens next remains to be seen. What if people wait until they get really sick to get health insurance (since they will no longer be denied coverage).  Will that lead to higher rates? “Will Washington say, ‘Hey, we made a mistake and fix it?’” she asked. Or will they go the predictable route and blame the insurance companies?

Will people rather pay a fine, than pay for coverage? Plus, while more Americans will be eligible for Medicaid – they may not be able to get treatment, since many doctors don’t accept it. Just because the legislation passed, doesn’t mean the work is done. “Congress is really going to have to revisit this,” she said. 

After Mary spoke, Judy Feder, Professor of public policy and former Dean of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute talked about the history and politics of the new legislation.  “I’m beside myself with excitement,” Feder said. “My God, you couldn’t have a more dramatic process – we were up, we were down, we were dead, we were alive…. I am of the camp that calls this a bloody miracle.”  

Healthcare reform has been decades in the making, she said. “It goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.”  “This was too big to fail.”   She spoke about all the roadblocks the bill faced – like losing the 60th vote when Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected. “I loved Senator Kennedy – but I am still mad at him,” she said. “He could have held on just a little longer.”

Still, the day of the vote was a “cliff-hanger,” she said – no one knew what would happen. But, “they compromised, rallied the troops, and delivered,” she says. “It shows that Congress can get something done…. If we can pass this legislation – we can do anything.”   

Stephanie Cohen, who recited insurance change after insurance change, told the group that the legislation is still a work in progress. “There are a lot of misunderstandings,” Cohen told Disruptive Women. “The book is being written chapter by chapter. It has to be revised. This is just the beginning.”

There isn’t a solid plan for exactly how everything will be implemented.  “I learned that a lot of this is still up in the air,” said Cara Tenenbaum, Vice President of Policy and External Affairs for the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance. “I don’t know what to tell patients. I don’t think anyone does.”   

Still, the discussion this morning tried to fill in the blanks and explain exactly what happened and what’s next.   “It’s important to be able to distill this information, because much of it remains uncertain at this point,” said Santi KM Bhagat, MD, MPH and President of Physician-Parent Caregivers.  “We don’t yet understand the full implication of the legislation… I don’t think there was time for transparency, it moved so fast. It helps to be able to discuss it together.”
   
The next breakfast meeting, “News: (Hot) Flash: Sex, Drugs & Menopause,” will be April 29, 2010 from 7:30 a.m.-9 a.m. If you are interested in attending, please register here: www.disruptivewomen.net/breakfastseries.  Men are welcome, encouraged even, to attend.  Come on, you know you want to.

By Santi Bhagat, MD, MPH.  Policymakers and insurance industry are battling over a key feature of health care reform.  As the president proclaims the bill will cover and protect all children with pre-existing conditions this year, the insurance industry is contending that the law reads differently.   

Congressional leaders are outraged that insurers are trying to wriggle out of their legal responsibility to insure new children who have pre-existing conditions. 

1. Insurers are interpreting bill language to mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions of children only if they are currently enrolled in plans, but not for new, uninsured child customers with pre-existing conditions. 
2.  The administration vows to fix this by having Health and Human Services (HHS) issue regulations next month to clarify the law’s intent to both provide access to insurance and a full range of benefits for all children with chronic conditions this year. 
3. Insurers plan to act on legislation language.  They will not say how they will respond to regulations and forecast that the courts will be the final arbiters.
4.  HHS spokesman and chairmen of Congressional health policy committees in the House of Representatives assert that the administration’s solution adequately addresses this problem.  
5. Citing experiences in other states, insurers are saying that covering children with chronic conditions now will lead to higher rates that may be unaffordable.  They believe that it is better to wait until 2014, when the risk can be spread since most Americans will have to be covered that year.
6. Regardless, insurers are free to charge what they want until 2014, when health status can no longer be used to calculate premiums. 

This is no small matter, for one in five American households, 8.8 million, has at least one child with a pre-existing condition.  Contrary to popular thought, most of these children are covered by private insurance.  The economic and job crises have impacted the ability of parents to maintain employer-based health insurance, forcing them to turn to the exorbitant individual market.  Children with individual coverage and who go without insurance for two months are at the greatest risk of being denied access.  From September 2010, the health care bill is supposed to prohibit insurers from denying individual and group coverage to children based on health status.

Health care reform does provide for a $5 billion dollar insurance pool of last resort that these families can turn to.   Hopefully, this mechanism will help families until this problem is straightened out.

Parents cannot wait to obtain coverage for their children who are in urgent of need of health care now.   Children are not simply little adults:  denying access and care to chronically ill children denies them the ability to grow, develop, play and learn.  As we watch the deliberations and wait for implementation of this piece of law, our children and families are losing precious time that can never be recovered.

Yesterday we encouraged our readers to take part in the live video chat presented by the White House, during which HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle took questions about President Obama‘s recent health care reform proposal.

Did you watch yesterday’s live chat? If so, what are your thoughts and reactions on what was said? What additional questions do you have for the President as well as the HHS Secretary and the Health Reform Director?

The following post originally appeared on The White House Blog. The Disruptive Women in Health Care blog encourages its readers to take part in the live video chat described below, which will take place today at 3:40 EST.

---

The President has now laid out a path forward for health reform that  puts families and businesses in control of their own health care, reduces costs and the deficit, and incorporates new Republican ideas while still instituting fundamental protections again insurance company abuses.  He opened his remarks saying, “I want to especially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that — on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius — as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle.”  We’re happy to have both of them in a live video chat at 3:40PM EST to take your questions on the President’s proposal.  Secretary Sebelius will also be meeting with insurance company leaders in the morning to get answers on the alarming premium hikes being ushered in on families across the country and will be able to discuss what she heard from them.

• Watch the discussion at WhiteHouse.gov/live
• Watch and join the chat through Facebook

Help Wanted: PHRMA ISO New CEO
By Robin Strongin | February 13th, 2010

Immediately after the snow stopped falling in Washington DC this week, another news story took DC by storm–the resignation of Billy Tauzin, effective June 30th.

Mr. Tauzin’s departure comes at a critical time for those involved with health reform efforts, not to mention PHRMA’s own thick portfolio of issues that include patents and trade, the economy, taxes (think offshore), and shrivelling pipelines, just to name a few.

The job pays well, but the applicant will surely inherit a daunting to-do list…

Read the rest of Robin’s “Help Wanted: PHRMA ISO New CEO” post.

Stop Running Red Lights AND Pay for Health Care Reform
By Rosemary Gibson | February 1st, 2010

With all the hand wringing about health care costs, it is possible to cut costs without harming patients. Even better, costs can be reduced while making patients better off. Here’s how.

An unspoken truth is that three kinds of medical treatment are provided in the U.S. The first is treatment whose benefit is unquestionable. Surgery to treat a ruptured appendix is an example. Without it, death from life-threatening infection is almost certain. The life-saving medical care being rendered to earthquake victims in Haiti is in this category…

Read the rest of Rosemary’s “Stop Running Red Lights AND Pay for Health Care Reform” post.

A new meaning for super-size
By Lisa Korin | February 10th, 2010

During this blizzard of 2010, I thought about the difficulties an ambulance would have reaching someone in need on an unplowed street—let alone if the person were significantly obese and hard to transport on even an ordinary day. Then today I read an astounding Washington Post article that noted “a patient between 400 pounds and 600 pounds is part of every workweek for many crews throughout the [DC metro] region.” Really? I thought this only happened on occasion in select areas shown on the Discovery Channel. Apparently, not the case…

Read the rest of Lisa’s “A new meaning for super-size” post.

Chairman Wu, Congresswomen Edwards and Biggert, and Committee Members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing on the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

I ask that my written testimony be accepted into the record.

Today you will hear from accomplished researchers and leaders in their fields of study from Duke University and Stanford. These individuals are scientists, entrepreneurs and biotechnology innovators.

I come here primarily as a mom. I am here today to address the critical link between my experience as a mother striving for treatments, for my kids and millions of others, and the question before this Committee — How our National Institute of Standards and Technology can more effectively influence innovation in life sciences.

I begin with a plain statement about NIST and its activities — it can appear to be boring, non-interesting, and terribly esoteric. NIST suffers from being hidden, embedded into the foundational infrastructure of the scientific and early commercial enterprise of innovation, as well as having the thankless task of creating measurement standards for a whole array of scientific disciplines. However, it is precisely because of these elements that this Committee needs to champion a more active role for NIST in the life sciences.

Some have argued quite convincingly that the next century of scientific and technological innovations will be most profound in the life sciences. NIST is critical to a robust biomedical enterprise and must contribute high quality materials, methods, and expertise for the field to advance on a platform of certainty and high quality measurements.

(more…)

Probably the thousands of nurses who have been following this case were encouraged to read the press report of its outcome:

“Texas jury finds nurse not guilty for reporting a physician for unsafe practices.

It took the jury less than an hour on February 11, 2010, to return a not guilty verdict for the nurse, Anne Mitchell, of felony charges of “misuse of official information,” for reporting a physician to the Texas Medical Board for what she believed was unsafe patient care.

Since news of the criminal indictment – and Mitchell’s being fired from her job – first spread through the nursing community, nurses across the country have followed developments. Labeling the criminal indictments “outrageous,” an outpouring of support – and financial contributions to the Texas Nurses Association Legal Defense Fund – has continued.

According to a New York Times article on February 9, the prosecutors claimed that Mitchell intended to damage the physician’s reputation when she reported him to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors. Mitchell explained that she felt an obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures – including a failed skin graft that was performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges.

Conflicts of interest seemed to be part of this case with allegations that this case was, in part, a result of the local sheriff being good friends with, and a former patient of the physician, and bending the rules to protect his reputation.

A number of nurses who had previous worked at the same Winkle County Rural Health Clinic testified in court that they left the clinic because of their concern about the care provided by the same physician that had never been addressed. The case is no less perplexing as to why Mitchell was even indicted – all witnesses (even the state’s) have agreed nurses have a duty to report unsafe care.

(more…)

Immediately after the snow stopped falling in Washington DC this week, another news story took DC by storm–the resignation of Billy Tauzin, effective June 30th.

Mr. Tauzin’s departure comes at a critical time for those involved with health reform efforts, not to mention PHRMA’s own thick portfolio of issues that include patents and trade, the economy, taxes (think offshore), and shrivelling pipelines, just to name a few.

The job pays well, but the applicant will surely inherit a daunting to-do list.

Job Qualifications

It’s a given that she would have impeccable bipartisan connections at the highest levels of government (both here and abroad); a robust rolodex full of private sector titans and Wall Street mavericks; a keen understanding of marketplace complexities (both here and abroad); superior people skills (it can be a b*tch managing those board room egos); not to mention a thorough grasp of and respect for the unique political and policy complexities that define health, health care, and innovation.

But that won’t  be enough.  I would love to see the next CEO take some bold action and harness the power of e-patients:  increasingly, patients (e-patients and their e-caregivers) are hungry to engage in participatory, user-generated health care, often referred to as Health 2.0.  Kaiser’s Dr. Ted Eytan explains it this way, “enabled by information, software and community that we collect or create, we the patients can be effective partners in our own health care and we the people can participate in reshaping the health system itself.”[1]

(more…)