By Carrie Winans

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

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

(more…)

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

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

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

(more…)

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

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

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

(more…)

The following is a guest post by Wendy Lynch, PhD the Director of the Altarum Center for Consumer Choice in Health Care. It was originally posted on the Altarum Institute’s Health Policy Forum.

By Wendy Lynch. There is a massive untapped resource in health care: consumers. Like a sleeping giant, unaware of its size and power, consumers have yet to realize what effect they could have on the system simply by asking questions or making choices. It’s not certain when, or if, consumers will awaken.

Consider this finding from our recent online survey of consumer opinions (1). The survey asked a national sample of about 3,000 employed individuals about where they get health information and how they use it. Only half of all respondents ever remember a doctor offering them multiple treatment options from which they could choose. Let’s remember the evidence: individuals who participate in medical decisions have better outcomes, better recovery, lower costs and higher satisfaction than those who don’t (2). Against this backdrop combined with national agencies promoting shared decision making with their “Questions are the Answer” campaign (3), and the new Physician Ethics Manual (4) insisting that the patient should be the primary decision maker about options, this answer is disturbing. But not surprising.

The subtle distinction is this: consumers remain recipients of care rather than participants in care. Sitting in an examination room, waiting for a doctor, possibly half-naked, not feeling well, patients are more inclined to say “ok, whatever you say” than “tell me what my options are.”

Despite huge advances, the environment is still not conducive to active participation. For most consumers, the information revolution in health care has not yet arrived. By and large, most consumers still get their recommendations from friends and family and don’t spend much time or energy making comparisons. We surveyed and interviewed consumers about where they get their information, how much they know about price and quality, and what would make them choose a different provider. What we learned tells us a lot about the ways consumers are and—perhaps more importantly—are not actively involved in care decisions and what factors get them more involved.

Our observations do confirm the obvious: there is no such thing as a “typical” consumer. Opinions vary dramatically on everything from desired control over decisions, satisfaction with care, use of information, and loyalty to a specific provider. Consumers’ level of health literacy also varies. We conducted random interviews of “people on the street” about health care topics to hear what typical responses sound like. One look at these video interviews asking about price (5) or what quality means (6) reminds us just how unique each person’s perceptions and preferences can be. Their feedback also reveals how much our own experiences shape our views and our decisions about care. (more…)

By Hope Ditto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John King moderated the GOP debate on Thursday night during which the Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul debated the health law and abortion. To view Kaiser Health New’s coverage click here.

Marc Siegel wrote a column on January 18th in USA Today that discussed why doctors are unsure of  “Obamacare”. We at Disruptive Women believe it is important for all sides to be presented, so in contrast to the information in our post yesterday on the Jonathan Gruber event we hosted this week, take a look at this column.

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

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

Continue reading here…

By Hope Ditto

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. (more…)

By Mary Grealy. Yesterday, USA Today devoted its front page to a topic many of us have been discussing intensely for some time – how to address Medicare’s escalating costs. 

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? (more…)

By Rozalynn Goodwin. Everyone seems to be quoting and tweeting the tender line of Miss Aibileen in “The Help”, “You is kiiiind. You is smaaaart. You is important.”

But there was another line in the blockbuster movie that moved me even more. I heard it and the heavens seemed to open. The light bulb came on.

Hilly Holbrook’s new maid is $75 short on one of the college tuitions for her twin sons and asks Hilly and her husband for a loan so she doesn’t have to choose which son should go to college. Doing the ‘Christian thing,’ Hilly refuses, “God does not give charity to those who are well and able.”

Twelve simple words from a fictional 1960’s character summed up our nation’s current political will regarding the poor. And allow me to condense this into just one word: selfishness.

We movie-goers were quick to see the bigotry in Hilly’s statement. The maid and her husband had been saving money from their meager wages for a long time and she wasn’t seeking a hand-out, but a loan she would pay off with her thankless labor. But I was also quick to see the hipocracy in those of us who identify ourselves as Christians regarding the poor–many like this maid are in temporarily tight spots by no fault of their own. I was convicted by the thought that a selfish Christian is just as much of an oxymoron as a Christian murderer. (more…)

The following is a post by Dr. Jessie Gruman from the Center for Advancing Health. This blog post was originally published at Prepared Patient Forum: What It Takes Blog.

“There is a better way – structural reforms that empower patients with greater choices and increase the role of competition in the health-care marketplace.” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)August 3, 2011

The highly charged political debates about reforming American health care have provided tempting opportunities to rename the people who receive health services.  But because the impetus for this change has been prompted by cost and quality concerns of health care payers, researchers and policy experts rather than emanating from us out of our own needs, some odd words have been called into service.  Two phrases commonly used to describe us convey meanings that mischaracterize our experiences and undervalue our needs: “empowered patient” and “health care consumer.”

As one who has done serious time as a patient and who spends serious time listening to talks and reading the literature that use these words to describe us, I ask you to reconsider their use.

“Empowered patient” The fabrication of the verb “to empower” from the noun “power” was used in the civil rights and community development movements to describe a benevolent bestowal of influence on disenfranchised individuals and groups by those who had previously excluded them.  When used in relation to health care, the word perpetuates the idea that we are passive entities, waiting to be gratefully endowed by our clinician or a new policy with the right and ability to act on our own behalf.  Our “empowerment” takes place not as a result of our own will or preference, but rather because we have been given permission to act in a different way by some external agent. (more…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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