Skip to main content
All Posts By

admin

Dec 07 2014

Keeping Patients in the Dark

By e-patients, healthcare industry

Back when I slaved in the depths of Hunter Thompson’s “shallow money trench,” we had a phrase we deployed whenever we thought the grownups were keeping us in the dark. We would say we’d been sent to Mushroom Land, where one is kept in the dark and fed sh*t, the better to keep us from making, or spotting, trouble.

patient engagement cartoon

source: HITconsultant.net

These were the very same grownups who, every four years like clockwork, would look at the calendar and say, “Holy crap, there’s a Presidential ELECTION this year?” But I digress.

The medical-industrial complex has, for eons, kept its customers (commonly called “patients”) in Mushroom Land pretty consistently. For a very long time, that was facilitated by a lack of access to scientific knowledge for the common human, but that started to shift in the 19th and 20th centuries, as public education rose across most parts of the globe. Of course, “math phobia” and “science denial” are still pernicious little devils, but the average person with an 8th grade literacy level and an internet connection can find out about just about anything.

I had the privilege of being awarded a seat at Dartmouth’s 2014 Summer Institute for Informed Patient Choice, or SIIPC14 for short, in late June 2014 (last week, as I write this). The purpose of the conference was to chew on topics and issues related to not keeping patients in the dark when it comes to making informed decisions about their health, their healthcare, and their relationships to the medical care teams they work with to gain or retain “best health.”

This event had some serious meat on its bones, both in reputational throw-weight of the presenters and breadth of stakeholder groups represented in the audience. Dartmouth itself is no stranger to uber-smart-ness, particularly in healthcare, given the work and thinking that emerges from Geisel School of Medicine and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (one of 23 Pioneer ACOs in the US).

The conference was put together by Glyn Elwyn, an MD who is on the faculty at Dartmouth’s Center for Health Care Delivery Science, and its Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (mouthful), and Ben Moulton, who is one of the leaders of the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation and on the faculty at Harvard Medical School teaching health law in clinical practice.

I’m not going to walk you through the whole program, because who wants to read 15,000 words, really? What I will do is walk you through a very short list of the presentations that cast the longest memory shadow, for me at least, in the conference aftermath.

Dr. Jack Wennberg

How I had not known of Wennberg’s work is a mystery, but it doesn’t need solving ‘cause I now not only know about it, I’m officially an evangelist for it. He’s one of the people behind the Dartmouth Atlas (if you follow that link, pack a lunch – it’s a glorious time-sink for healthcare geeks), and has participated in more thought-provoking and system-transforming research than pretty much anyone I’ve met in my health policy wonk travels to date. His presentation drilled in on what he calls the “Glover phenomenon,” referring to the research of James Alison Glover, a British physician who studied medical practice variation region to region in the UK, with some interesting results that essentially boil down to (my paraphrase) “everyone’s doing it, so I will, too.”

Dr. Wennberg’s talk was the perfect scene-set to kick off the conference, because his work, inspired by Glover’s, points up the price of keeping patients in the dark about why their medical care team is recommending any particular course of treatment for [whatever]. Simply “because I said so” – which was the prescriptive rule in medicine for … ever – is a really bad idea if you’re trying to reduce unnecessary treatments, control costs, or create a healthcare system that runs on scientific evidence, not patriarchy. Shared decision making requires that all participating in that decision have a grasp of all the facts, including possible outcomes.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

Dr. Al Mulley

“The care they [patients] need and no less, want and no more.”

That’s a quote from Dr. Mulley’s involvement with the Salzburg Global Seminar in 2012, and is a pretty good anchor for his message at SIIPC, which was titled “The Silent Epidemic of Misdiagnosis.” That misdiagnosis can come from misattribution of the patient’s outcome preferences (do doctors even ASK most of the time?), which then puts both patient and care team on a trip down the rabbit hole. This approach causes everything from unnecessary surgery to unwanted extraordinary measures at the end of life to who-knows-HOW-many unneeded pharmacological “interventions.”

One quote from Mulley’s talk really stands out for me: “Doctors talk about the science of medicine to preserve their authority and the art of medicine to preserve their autonomy.” Shifting that boulder will take some persistent pushback from patients who want to work with participatory medicine practitioners. (Alliteration-itis.) Click this link to read a paper by Dr. Mulley, Dr. Glyn Elwyn, and a colleague on why patient preferences matter.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

Dr. Elliott Fisher

I met Elliott Fisher at Health Datapalooza in DC in early June of this year, and sat pretty much at his feet (in the 2nd row) as he delivered the opening keynote at that event. Since he’s the director of Dartmouth’s Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, I knew he’d be presenting at SIIPC and looked forward to hearing what he had to say.

As an MD with deep experience working to build Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Fisher has a 3D view of the healthcare delivery landscape. He rings all my favorite changes, particularly in the areas of cost and quality of care delivered to patients. My favorite slide from his deck said, simply, “No outcome, no income.” In the gold rush that US healthcare has been since … forever, now sucking up close to 20% of GDP – and making the defense lobby look like homeless people in the process – tying money to outcomes, and to the patient preferences that define those outcomes, seems downright revolutionary.

Since I am myself a revolutionary when it comes to pushing for healthcare system transformation, I’m thinking of Elliott Fisher as a brother from another mother, on this topic at least.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

BUT … (and there are many buts in this story)

If the smart folks running the Dartmouth thinkiness on healthcare system transformation are smart enough to invite the wide panoply of players who attended this conference to listen, and to talk about, how that transformation might be driven … where’s some outcome there? Bueller, Bueller … anyone?

There was much conversation traffic on Twitter throughout the conference, anchored by the hashtag #SIIPC14 (clicking that link will take you to Symplur’s Healthcare Hashtag Project, where you can parse the SIIPC conversation). Much of the undertone of that conversation was “OK, so what’s going to be DONE here?” From the e-patient perspective, that’s a perpetually unanswered question at ALL healthcare related conferences, even our own.

As individuals, and even as groups (professional and consumer), we’re arrayed against what I call the K Street Mafia, who I called out during the Q&A after Elliott Fisher’s talk on the last day of the conference. I also said that silos where the greatest danger to the health of all mankind. Used to be missile silos that risked global destruction. Now it’s just silos of doctors, data geeks, revenue cycle management types, policy wallahs, software developers, patients, and a partridge in a pear tree. I said, “End the silos – can I get an AMEN?” To which the assemblage responded with a rousing “AMEN!” But … did it move the needle, any needle, at all?

Even though gatherings like SIIPC are dedicated to including the patient voice, the scales are not at all balanced when it comes to the power matrix in healthcare. As I said in a long conversation on my Facebook wall in the aftermath of my trip to Dartmouth, “It is not lost on me that, in most of the rooms where I am invited to share my recommendations for system transformation, I’m paying my own way amongst a large cohort of well-dressed […] folks on expense accounts.”

This is IN NO WAY meant to snipe at the great folks who put on the Dartmouth conference, and who invited me to attend. I was delighted to be there, and am deeply grateful for the experience. I met some great people, and connected with some others that I already knew.

But … I’ve been doing this for a while now. When will the number 210,000 (the number of avoidable medical error deaths in the US annually) go back to being just another number? When will the cost of care stop being a game of Where’s Waldo? When will expert patients be seen as equals when it comes to getting paid for the work we do to drive system transformation?

The plethora of horror stories that emerge from the “medical professional” ranks about their own terrible experiences when they’re on the other end of the scalpel from their usual position hasn’t made a dent in the stone wall that is the medical-industrial complex’s change management rodeo.

We all have to work on this. The outcome is still uncertain, because institutionally, healthcare seems to be dedicated to “business as usual” in spite of all efforts to shift that thinking. We – the change agents – are arrayed against some powerful forces with very deep pockets.

Are we stuck in a bad remake of “Groundhog Day”? Only time will tell … but this e-patient is very impatient. She’s been doing this for more than 20 years, and she hasn’t seen much “transformation” yet.

Aug 08 2014

GM recalls are bad. Medical device recalls are worse.

By healthcare industry, technology

It’s bad enough when your GM SUV turns into a rolling fire hazard.

Imagine needing, and getting, a hysterectomy, only to discover that the surgical procedure itself turned you into an advanced stage cancer patient?

USPTO image of morcellator

Giant sucking sound. And cancer risk.

That’s exactly what’s been going on since power morcellators became common in laparoscopic uterine surgery to remove fibroids. In morcellation, the fibroid tissue, and/or the entire uterus, is ground up prior to being sucked out of the abdominal cavity. I’m sure that you, and I, can do the biological math on this question, “What if that fibroid is cancerous?” Yep, that would mean that previously encapsulated cancer cells would be set free to run rampant through the aircraft – the patient’s body – spreading its metastatic self far and wide.

Why didn’t anyone at the FDA do that bio-math? Turns out that when these devices were approved in the late ’90s, since other similar devices were already on the market, no clinical trials were ever done. Here’s a graf from the NY Times back in April, talking about this very thing:

“Morcellators were allowed onto the market in the 1990s without the usual clinical trials in patients because they were similar to other devices that had already been approved — a process that critics of the agency say can lead to safety problems like the one that has now been recognized.” tweet

I’ve known about morcellators for only about 10 months – which is surprising, considering my interest in medical quality and patient safety – but my eyes were opened by my buddy Gilles Frydman, the man who started the Association of Cancer Online Resources (ACOR), which gets credit for helping some friends of mine, including ePatient Dave himself, save their own lives by giving them the information they needed to fully participate in their own care. Gilles is also behind SmartPatients.com, but I digress. Gilles tipped me off to the morcellation controversy when we were both at a meeting at a major pharma company – irony! – and asked me to add my voice to the “Morcellator, begone!” chorus. Which I did.

I was delighted to see stories in Medscape and the Wall Street Journal about the FDA warning. But I was not delighted at the fact that it was simply a warning, and an end to sales, not a full-on recall. Because that means that morcellators are still out there in surgical suites and ORs across the globe, putting women’s lives at risk.

One bright spot in this morcellated mess arrived in my inbox last Monday (Aug. 4, 2014) from American Recall Center. I saw the send address, and wondered if my car was getting recalled again. When I opened the email, I discovered that American Recall Center is all and only about medical device and pharma recalls – what a great idea, and how double-delighted I am to learn of its existence.

Here are the facts about morcellation, and its unintended outcome in gynecological surgery:

  • Hysterectomy is the 2nd most common surgery among women in the United States
  • By age 70, one out of three American women will have had a hysterectomy
  • 90% of these surgeries are done to remove fibroids (non-cancerous tumors found in the uterus)
  • The average life span following accidental morcellation of sarcoma is only 24-36 months (editor’s note: WHOA)
  • Only 15% of women who have leiomyosarcoma (LMS) that has spread (stage 4) will be alive after 5 years
  • Women with sarcoma who are morcellated are about 4 times more likely to die from sarcoma than if they had not been morcellated

If you’d like to know more, visit the ARC’s power morcellator page. If you’ve had a hysterectomy or myomectomy where a morcellator was used, you can get a claim review, gratis, from ARC.

Add your voice to the “Morcellator, begone!” chorus – let’s not leave it at “warning,” let’s get these power tools from hell removed from medical practice, shall we?

Addendum: Turns out there’s a page on the ARC site that actually talks about GM recalls. So my opening comment turns out to be not *just* snarky.

May 09 2014

Employer-backed health insurance plans on life support?

By healthcare industry

tipping point road sign imageI’ve been heard in these precincts and elsewhere on the topic of employer-backed group health insurance, and the reasons why I believe it’s an idea whose time has gone. Granted, I’ve felt like a little voice crying in the wilderness, but with a firm conviction that I was just an early adopter of this opinion.

So imagine my glee when a headline popped up in my Google+ news feed that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had published a study showing a distinct downward trend in the number of companies paying for employee health insurance.

The key findings:

  • The percentage of non-elderly people with employer-sponsored insurance declined 10.2 percentage points from 69.7% to 59.5% over the study period while pubic coverage increased 3.1 percentage points.
  • While most states saw “significant declines” in employer-sponsored insurance coverage, the range was wide—from New Hampshire (73.8% coverage) to New Mexico (48.0% coverage).
  • Employer-sponsored insurance coverage varied by income. It fell less (2.8%) for high-income groups (400% federal poverty level [FLP] or above) than for those with lower incomes (200& FPL or below) where the fall was 10.1%.
  • Nationally, the percentage of private-sector firms offering employer-sponsored insurance fell from 58.9% to 52.4% (although the percentage of workers eligible for coverage at firms that offered employer-sponsored insurance held steady). The take-up rate also fell from 81.8 percent to 76.3 percent. Small firms offering coverage declined (67.7% to 56.3%) while at large firms it remained essentially unchanged.
  • Single-person premium costs doubled ($2,490 to $5,081); family premiums rose 125 percent ($6,415 to $14,447); employee contributions increased (17.5% to 20.8% of the total premium).

In short, less than 60% of adults who are employed full-time now have employer-backed group health insurance coverage. My response in the G+ thread? HALLELUJAH.

The prospect of losing group health insurance scares the pants off of those who still have that coverage. What I say to those who are currently pants-ing themselves in fear of losing their coverage is: keep calm, and carry on. There is a path to group coverage – even keeping the coverage you now have – if your employer wants an exit strategy on paying for health insurance for their employees.

I’m not an HR expert. I’m not in the insurance industry. I’m a journalist and writer who has built up, over a couple of decades, a wealth of both research and anecdotal experience in buying healthcare, buying health insurance, and being a member of the great unwashed, um, un-insured. When it comes to healthcare and the purchasing of same, I’ve been there, done that, have the t-shirts/knife scars/stories to prove it.

glass spilling imageHere’s my recommendation on how the scenario of shifting group health insurance from “company pays” to “individual pays” unfolds:

Employer chooses give-employer-backed-the-Heisman option

  • Smart employers will raise this issue in a conversation with their employees, not as a done deal. This will take at least 3-6 months of discussion, team meetings, all-hands meetings, and will likely include at least a few opportunities for people to gnash their teeth and rend their garments, because this will scare the pants off of them. That’s the first rent garment: the pants.
  • The idea needs to be shared as an ultimate win for the employees (it is), not as “we don’t wanna pay any more” whinging.
  • Your HR and marketing teams will be invaluable resources here. Work with them ahead of making any announcements about the plan to create online and handout resources for your employees that will help them walk themselves through the plan and process. All of these resources should have a solid answer to any employee’s “what’s in it for me?” questions.
  • UPDATE: [added as a result of a conversation on Facebook] Employers need to look at what they’re paying in insurance premiums for their crew, and adjust salaries to help defray the premium costs that will, as a result of this decision/process, be coming directly out of their employee’s pockets. This should be (a) obvious and (b) freakin’ obvious.

Selling the roll-your-own option to employees

  • If this is your first trip down the change-management path (if it is, how long have you been in business?? really??), hire a change management expert to work with you on this. If it’s not your first change-management rodeo, you already know you’ll be doing this.
  • Work with that change management team and your health benefits broker – who will continue to be a critical player and your BFF throughout and after this process – to build a plan that will, over 6-12 months, shift from “company pays” to “individual pays” on health insurance premiums.
  • Your benefits broker will be the expert on maintaining the existence of “the group” under the new regime. Given that the same people are being covered, there should not be a big uptick in premium cost. If there is, your broker can horse-trade to keep premiums as flat as possible.
  • I strongly recommend shifting, over the two years conversations that follow “we’re changing this whole thing” and the implementation of same, to a high-deductible health coverage plan that includes a health savings account (HSA) if you have not already done this.
  • Here is where things get interesting (really) – you’re going to have to spend some money short-term to save money long-term. The money you’ll spend is to fully fund each and every employee’s HSA to the extend of their annual deductible. If their annual deductible is $5,000, you put $5,000 in their HSA. Yes, I can hear the screaming, but here’s the thing: you’ll only have to do that once. Once you’ve fully funded everyone’s first year’s deductible, they’ll make contributions (via payroll, pre-tax) each pay period to their HSAs. The amount of that contribution will be their choice.

leaning stack of quarters imageGroup health insurance, 12 months later

  • Premiums are paid by your employees, not by you. Your payroll deductions system will be funneling regular employee contributions to their HSAs. You can be a mensch and match HSA contributions if you want. Your payroll deductions system can also help your employees pay their health insurance premiums – your broker can advise you on how to set that up in the planning phase of setting up your Brave New Health Insurance World.
  • You’ll be devoting a bit of HR time to helping your employees and your broker work together on managing the group plan, but you will no longer be footing the bill for health insurance. As said in the last bullet, you can be a mensch and kick in on their HSAs – that’s now a true benefit of working for you, right?
  • Worried about the Obamacare penalties for not offering health insurance coverage to your crew? (Here’s a handy chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation that outlines those penalties.)Don’t, and here’s why: if you have fewer than 50 employees, you’re off the hook. If you have more than 50 employees, that penalty is $2,000/employee. Annual health insurance premiums currently average around $5,000 for individuals and $14,000 for family coverage. I’m not a mathematician, but all I need are basic arithmetic to know that $2,000 saves you between $3,000 and $12,000 per employee in that first year. There’s your salary increase funding mentioned in the getting-started bullet list.

Important considerations and actions

  • HSAs are currently not allowed to pay insurance premiums. Get your state and federal representatives to start looking at changing those laws.
  • Join those calling on state insurance commissions to make health insurance products more 50-state (like Geico and Allstate) rather than the state-by-state hodge-podge that currently exists.

Think I’m outta my mind? That I’m singing a solitary chorus of crazy here? Not so much. Sears and Darden Inc. (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and LongHorn restaurants) have initiated health benefits changes that are mighty like what I outline above.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it. Got an opinion you’d like to share? Want to beat me up in the comments? Go for it.

Apr 23 2014

Human Health. It’s . . . Human.

By e-patients, healthcare industry, participatory medicine

Guess who got invited to WHO? No, really.

The World Health Organization (WHO) invited yours truly to its First Global Experts’ Consultation in service of building a WHO framework for patient and family engagement. This is all due to my part in the ongoing anvil chorus that is the new Patient & Family Engagement Roadmap, developed by a group of dedicated folks from all parts of the healthcare compass over the last couple years, with funding from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation.

WHO_signsI spent just over two days in Geneva, most of the time head-down in discussions about how the global health system – a patchwork of services delivered by an even patchwork-ier cadre of healthcare delivery systems – can better serve the needs of the people/patients who seek medical care and health information from them.

This post will not attempt to report everything I saw/heard/thought/felt in that jam-packed 16 hours of ideas and outlooks. What I’ll share is my perspective on the challenges, the opportunities, the pitfalls, and the hopes that – in my view, at least – emerged during that lightning round of global spitballing.

CHALLENGES

There’s an old joke that asks, “What’s an elephant?” The answer: “A mouse designed by a government committee.”

That’s the risk, and challenge, to any attempt to build a definable set of standards for a human effort. Education, transportation, trade, infrastructure, communication, medicine – all require some sort of standardization to make them useful to more than one or two people huddled over a campfire. A study of history will show that as much as we humans are great idea generators, trying to get the rest of the tribe to adopt our new idea isn’t easy.

The father of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, said it best: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” To paraphrase: Science advances one funeral at a time.

Medicine, which has been practiced for millennia by magical beings initiated into secrets of “science” that could not be understood by the common human, has only become understandable to the average Joe and/or Jane as public education has become available across the globe. Public education still isn’t available everywhere, and the character and content of that education can be complicated by cultural views of science, of the education of women, and other factors that impact access to information.

So the challenges I see here are two-fold:

  • Calcified thinking in power structures, both scientific and political.
  • Lack of science education and information access in the wider population.

That’s true in developed nations – just witness the “science denial” movement in the US that stubbornly insists on not being confused with facts on issues like climate change or human reproduction – as well as in emerging nations that are still building basic infrastructure.

OPPORTUNITIES

Well, let’s start with who was in the WHO-room. Clinicians, policy wonks, and healthcare advocates from Uganda, India, Canada, Ecuador, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Ireland, the UK, the US, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Thailand, Australia, China, and Malaysia, along with a wide array of WHO folks from their Geneva HQ as well as a robust representation of their Western Pacific Region Office (WPRO). WHO’s Envoy for Patient Safety Sir Liam Donaldson (that link is to his Twitter feed, which I highly recommend) was actively engaged in every part of the discussion over the two days, and I was deeply encouraged by his clear insights into the issues we’re all wrestling with in transforming the global healthcare system.

The story that had the biggest impact on me was the one told by Dr. Jonás Gonseth, head of Hospital de Especialidades in Guayaquil, Ecuador. His experience was one that I think spotlights the core problem: lack of trust in the care delivery system by the people that system purportedly serves. I wish I had a link to the video he shared, which clearly showed the lack of trust that the Ecuadoran people had in their healthcare system. Demonstrations outside the hospital, intercut with a number of clips that included a patient on a gurney being rolled toward the hospital door who got dumped on his head when the gurney tipped over as the dweeb hauling it couldn’t figure out how to get it over a curb … you get the picture.

Dr. Gonseth was asked (begged?) by the President of Ecuador to tackle the mess that was the Guayaquil Hospital de Especialidades. In just over two years, he’s worked what could be called miraculous change in quality improvement and patient safety, largely by advocating for community social participation in that work, and for patient empowerment. He’s transformed the culture inside the hospital, and the level of community trust in the care delivered by that hospital. The money quote: “It was such a disaster we had nothing to lose [by involving patients].”

What that story told me is that grassroots frustration with healthcare systems is a global issue, one that was made clear by all the from-the-ground presentations over the two days. That leads me to the opportunities here, which are shared by both developed and emerging countries:

  • “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.” That quote from Arthur Ashe makes it clear that any – ALL – of us can work on healthcare system transformation. So let’s get this party started.
  • Transformation does not happen from the top down. There does need to be a leader, but a successful leader will more likely come from outside the system needing the transformation.

That calcified-thinking challenge I mentioned above presents a solid opportunity to those of us on the ground, working to transform the system. Designing from the outside in is a software development approach that focuses on satisfying the needs of the end user. Healthcare systems *must* look at system transformation from that perspective: start with the people you’re serving, not with the folks running the hospital/professional society/medical association. The people being served – THE PATIENTS – are the end-user stakeholders.

PITFALLS

There’s much inertia confronting transformation of a massive human system like healthcare delivery. It’s exhausting if you look at it as a “system,” but since it is a system, any action has to be considered in the context of what sort of dominoes – or dynamite – that action might trigger. Plus, attempts at transforming bureaucratic process lead to what I’m going to call Donaldson’s Dictum (in honor of Sir Liam Donaldson, who said it): “Ability to simplify bureaucratic complexity draws heavy fire from the bureaucrats who create that complexity.”

And then there’s the elephant in every room: the money. Whatever the economic basis is for the healthcare delivery system in question, getting quality improvement and patient safety into the budget is a daunting task. Dr. Jonás Gonseth effected his hospital transformation in Ecuador without any increase in budget, but I wonder how much heavy lifting he had to do to sell his ideas to the bureaucrats? Since he’d been asked by the country’s President to take charge and fix a major mess, that might have gotten him through the first week. But transformation at this level takes months and years, so figuring out where the money’s gon’ come from is critically important.

So, in short:

  • Is there a budget for real system transformation?
  • Is there enough political will to allow that transformation to occur?

HOPES

Health_Care_is_a_Right_Not_a_PrivilegeWhen it comes to complex systems thinking, I’m a simple creature. I believe that the more complex the system you’re looking at gets, the more you have to go right down to the molecular level to regain perspective.

If you’re trying to end a disease like polio, you have to start where Jonas Salk did: with the virus itself. If you’re trying to create a healthcare system that delivers human health, you have to start with … the people who are seeking health care. June Boulger, Ireland’s National Lead for Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare, said the overarching message of her work is “people helping people.”

When I took the mic to make a comment on Monday afternoon, I told everyone in the room to run right back to the ground level whenever they got too “system”-y in their thinking or their approach to quality improvement, delivery improvement, and/or patient safety.

Design from the outside in, begin with the end in mind, “start where you are, use what you have, do what you can,” lather, rinse, repeat.

That’s my entire philosophy of healthcare system transformation in one sentence.

Let’s get this party started.

Dec 12 2013

Myriad Finds a Myriad of Ways to be Total Trolls

By cancer, e-patients, healthcare industry, participatory medicine

As the author of a rabble-rousing call to action, with a heavy dose of humor, on managing medical care called Cancer for Christmas, I have some street cred on both cancer and on dealing with tough personal health conversations over a Christmas standing rib roast dinner.

My hair has been on fire since I heard that Myriad Genetics had patented genes, back in the previous millennium. First, how in the pluperfect f^ck is a naturally-occurring part of the human body – microscopic or not – patentable?? Second, why is a commercial enterprise allowed to dictate scientific research at a university? If they’re funding it … maybe. If they’re trying to prevent it from moving forward? What. The. F^CK? I expect crass commercialism at Walmart. When it comes to cancer research, a primary profiteering motive should be a capital offense. Yep, off with their heads, baby.

It recently came to my attention, thanks to my buddy BraveBosom‘s tip-off …

… that the trolls at Myriad Genetics are up to newer, stinkier tricks: “helping” us make cancer a holiday centerpiece!

Hey, Myriad, here’s a tip: WE DON’T TRUST YOU. You’re trolls. Support from you? I’d sooner eat dinner with Hannibal Lecter.

If you haven’t heard of Myriad Genetics, here’s the Cliff’s Notes version:

  • Founded in Salt Lake City in 1992 by, among other names, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Walter Gilbert
  • In 1997, Myriad is granted a patent on BRCA1 (one of two genes that indicate high risk of breast and ovarian cancer)
  • In 1998, Myriad is granted a patent on BRCA2 (2nd of two breast cancer risk genes)
  • BRCAnalysis, the company’s genetic test for breast cancer risk, costs $4,000 (you can get an entire genomic sequence for less than that – the Myriad test only looks at two genes!)
  • Myriad hits research institutions with cease and desist letters to prevent their research into BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes as patent infringement (it seems they think your genes are their intellectual property)
  • The Association for Molecular Pathology files suit, challenging Myriad’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents
  • June 13, 2013: the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, saying that human genes are not patentable
  • Myriad starts to press legal action against other genetics companies, alleging trade secrets infringement (pre-SupCo-decision story here, post-decision story here)

With me so far? OK.

Yo, MySupport360 – your “support” would cost me how much, exactly? My liver, with some fava beans? The sticker price of an Escalade? The entire contents of my 401(k)? Given your track record for bottom-lining other people’s health risks, why the French-pressed f^ck should we trust you on anything, much less guiding health-related conversations with our families?

Your invitation to “talk about genetic testing” with our families over Christmas dinner … hell, we’d HAVE to serve up a bottomless flagon of nice Chianti to get through it, given that the “talk” (following your paradigm) would wind up with us wanting to clap a restraint mask on the faces of everyone behind MySupport360. ‘Cause sure as shootin’ you’d be picking our pockets all the way.

How much more powerful it would be if you followed the rising call for open science, backed by notable minds from 2012 ISEF Prize winner Jack Andraka to 2013 Nobel Prize in medicine winner Randy Schekman.

So get off your Scrooge train for Christmas, will ya? You low-down, dirty, rotten trolls.

cheezburger scrooge image

Nov 18 2013

Healthcare.gov and me: I win!

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

Unless you’ve been living under a rock since October 1, you’ve heard that Healthcare.gov, the site where Americans can shop for health insurance, had a rocky start in life. OK, it was an epic mess.

I was one of the people who was eager to jump on the site on October 1, since I haven’t had health insurance since I completed cancer treatment in 2008. That cancer diagnosis and treatment put me in the pre-existing condition pile, which put renewal insurance premiums for my individual coverage at an eye-popping level. You can read the details on that here. On October 1, I hopped on my Mac, and surfed over to Healthcare.gov … and had the same experience everyone else seemed to be having:

healthcare.gov error message image

image credit: forbes.com

That continued over the following seven days, with me developing a nice little flat spot on my forehead from head/desk-ing my way through many attempts per day at getting past the first step of creating a profile on the site. Even when I had completed that process of creating a profile, every time the site announced “Success! Click here to continue.” I clicked “there” and … got a blank page.

On October 8, I realized that I, and the site’s developers, might have missed something. I was using Google Chrome, my default browser, and the dominant browser across the web. Could it be that the dim bulbs that built the Frankenstein that is the Healthcare.gov site optimized the site only for native browsers? I opened Safari, and discovered that yes, they were indeed that dim, because even though the site loaded at the speed of a slug on Quaaludes, it did load. And “Success!” allowed me to continue the enrollment process. No blank pages.

I re-enacted scenes from 1995, when I would log on to Netscape to download email on my dial-up connection: open the page, hit “go,” and then make coffee. When I returned with a hot cup of joe, I’d repeat the process on each subsequent page, working in another tab while the site loaded the next page in the process. I managed to complete the entire enrollment process, save for the last “pull the trigger” step of hitting the ENROLL button, because I wanted to make sure I had the money for my first month’s premium available. Which turned out to be unnecessary, since when I did hit the ENROLL button, I got a message saying that my selected insurer would be contacting me about billing. That conversation happened a few days ago, and I’ve paid my first month’s premium.

As of January 1, 2014, I’ll have health insurance again for the first time since December 31, 2008. WIN.

Here is the upside of what I saw in my voyage through Healthcare.gov:

  • Even though my state is one that announced it “hated Obamacare, would not be building its own marketplace, and we hate Obamacare,” there was a wide array of plans offered to me.
  • I could compare plans side-by-side.
  • Premiums were a wide range, with some surprises: the lowest-premium Bronze Plan had 0% co-insurance (I wasn’t on the hook for a percentage of cost on covered services), with higher premium plans tagged with 25% co-insurance.

Here’s the thing that made me go “WTF?”:

  • Only the Bronze Plans are HSA-friendly. HSA=Health Savings Account, essentially 401(k)s for healthcare. Individuals can sock away $3,300/year (in 2014) of pre-tax money in a dedicated savings account for healthcare costs, with people over 55 allowed to sock away an additional $1,000 for a total of $4,300 in 2014. Since all the Bronze Plans I was offered had deductibles of $5,500 or more, with the plan I selected carrying a $6,350 deductible, it would seem reasonable – fairer? – to allow consumers to fund their HSAs annually to match the level of their deductible.

On the whole, this is a big win for me, and other uninsured people who fell into the “pre-existing condition” bucket. By the way, just being female was considered a pre-existing condition until the Affordable Care Act passed. In spite of the views of Fox News talking heads (all male, of course), gender equality needs to exist in all phases of public life, including health insurance.

Bottom line? I win.

Oct 29 2013

Healthcare Talk: Patients with Power

By healthcare industry, technology

I had the chance to participate in a Hangout on Air with Kathi Browne, who is the founder/moderator of the Google+ Healthcare Talk community. If you’re on G+ and in the healthcare industry, that community is one you want to join – lots of discussion on topics from healthcare policy to social media to patient safety to care quality. It’s invitation-only – if you’d like to join, hit the G+ link above and ask Kathi to add you to the community.

Last night’s (Monday, Oct. 28, 2013) Hangout on Air was a conversation with Bill Guthrie, CEO of Patients with Power, a new web-based platform for shared decision-making for cancer patients and their oncology teams that’s in beta at UCSF’s lung cancer oncology unit and also as a survival-planning tool at Cornell-Weill/New York Presbyterian’s ob-gyn onco unit.

Decision-making for cancer patients – shared, or not – is a firehose. Patients with Power does what its name promises, it gives patients access to the information they need to make an informed decision, information that’s solidly based in evidence-based medicine since it’s based wholly on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cancer treatment. Bill has given me a demo of the tool, and it’s superb. He also did a walk-though last night. Give a watch/listen: //www.youtube.com/embed/FPTIjDwirDI

Oct 13 2013

MEDX: Persistence of Vision

By e-patients, healthcare industry

The firehose of amazeballs ideas and connections that was Stanford MedicineX is now over two weeks back in my rear-view mirror. That does not mean that my head has not been on fire ever since, chewing on all the data that got packed into my cranium in those three days. If you want to read a recap of the joyful noise that was those days, it’s over on MightyCasey.com.

A forest fire between my ears has flared up with this thought: all the “big idea” thinking that happens when smart people gather to talk the future of healthcare is terrific. How can that be translated, today, into actual care improvement for the average human? Not just ePatients, but just-plain-folks? How can we start little centers of excellence in a free clinic for undocumented workers in the South Bronx, or in a village in AIDS-ravaged sub-Saharan Africa?

Is there an app for THAT?

global child photo illustration

Image credit: HuffingtonPost.com

I often feel myself at the crossroads of Possible and Are You F***ing Nuts. In other words, I dream of smartphone apps that could help a little boy in Ghana avoid getting malaria. I could lose an hour wondering how an app might help a little girl in Pakistan avoid a forced marriage at 12. As I type this, I’m thinking of how the kids in the public housing projects of the small city where I live could really use some how-to-manage-your-healthcare apps they’d be able to relate to. And the smartphones to go with them, of course.

Is there an app for THAT?

The grass, and its roots, are where we all stand. Healthcare, like charity, needs to begin at home. How do we help that happen? How do we empower children, and their parents, to understand how to interact with the healthcare system when so many of them are overwhelmed by just ensuring another 24 hours of survival?

Is there an app for THAT?

Here’s what I would LOVE to see at MedX 2014 (at which I firmly intend to be in attendance): real-world, right-now ideas for putting empowerment tools in the hands of not only the privileged, and the connected, but also into the hands of children across the globe. They’re more than our future … they’re our only hope.

Oct 10 2013

“Patients included.” On ‘roids. In a good way.

By e-patients, healthcare industry, participatory medicine

medicinex regina holliday painting

I had the great good fortune of being tagged as an ePatient Scholar for the 2013 edition of Stanford Medicine X. That allowed me to sit at the feet – literally, since the ePatients were the mosh-pit for the three day conference plenary stage – of some of the best and brightest minds in healthcare. And guess what? Many of those best/brightest were … PATIENTS.

patients included logo

(c) Lucien Engelen

MedicineX (a/k/a MedX and #medx) is the uber Patients Included medical conference. It grew from seeds planted at conferences like Health 2.0 and Patients 2.0, for which seeds-to-beautiful-flowers gardener credit goes to Dr. Larry Chu and his team from Stanford Anesthesiology AIM Lab, who seem to prestidigitate rabbits out of hats without breaking a sweat. Or the hats. Or the rabbits.

MedX – in my opinion, at least – trumps every other Patients Included event by not just including patients, but by putting them front and center throughout the program. In fact, I cannot think of a session that I attended that didn’t have someone who was there primarily as a customer of healthcare (commonly called “a patient”) on the platform, presenting or participating in a panel discussion.

My ePatient socks were knocked off from jump thanks to the opening keynote by Michael Seres and Marion O’Connor on “The New Engaged Patient,” which was the morning keynote on Friday. Michael uses his blog as his personal health record, up to and through a lifetime battle with Crohn’s disease that led to his becoming the 11th patient to ever receive a bowel transplant, and only the 6th to survive that transplant experience. Michael is hilarious, and Marion is exactly the sort of caring brainiac any patient would like bedside as s/he battled a life-threatening illness. Here’s the video of their session:

The rest of the day played out as a firehose of ePatient awesome, including the first presenter to bring me to tears: Sara Riggare, a brilliant woman who is, among many other things, an engineer and a Parkinson’s patient. During the panel discussion on “The Self-Tracking Patient,” and my (somewhat sobby) conversation with Sara afterward, was when I fully realized, even though I’d talked about it last year on one of my blogs, that I had been born an ePatient. Well, maybe not born, but them that brung me into the world also brought me to ePatient-cy. I felt my late father, whose Parkinson’s laid him low, and then to rest, over 10 years ago, standing by me as I listened to Sara talk about her own self-tracking and self-advocacy. My dad was a warrior – literally, a US Navy fighter pilot – and brought that warrior spirit to his battle with Parkinson’s. I’d like to think that Big Mike would be proud of the work I do today to bring sense, and sensibility, to the most human of all sciences: medicine.

The Friday sessions ended with a “What If Healthcare …” panel discussion, conveniently tagged for the Twitter-verse as #whatifhc (click that link for a Symplur transcript of the conversation as it unfolded live). This session is the only one that pressed my buttons in a not-good way, and here’s why: there were a group of white-dude brainiacs, and one not-a-white-dude, on that panel. Don’t get me wrong, I like white dudes. Hell, I’ve married two of ’em (NOT at the same time!). But I found it sort of anachronistic that, as the “dream big” panel on the first day of a Patients Included medical conference on the campus of a major medical school (Stanford Med), the participants on that panel were so very white-dude, with the notable exception of healthcare artist/activist Regina Holliday. Regina herself mentioned the very-not-diverse makeup of the panel during the session. I made the observation on Twitter, as I listened to the panel’s conversation, that healthcare in the US is a great wealth-transfer system … but as a health-transfer system?

Saturday opened with something for which I was utterly unprepared: hearing first-hand about the project that won the 2012 Intel ISEF Prize. Jack Andraka is the 16 year old kid from Baltimore who, at 13, decided that not having a reliable early-detection test for pancreatic cancer was a terrible thing. He resolved to create that test … and he did. It’s been patented in the US, and is in the process of being patented globally. Here’s the first-look video of his hilarious and inspiring call to action for open science:

Frankly, I count hearing that talk, and meeting Jack later that day at the MedX reception on the Dean’s Lawn, as the highest high point of my MedX experience. I told Jack that I couldn’t wait to see what he did next, but that even if he decided to rest on his uber-science-geek laurels with his mesothelin discovery, he’d given a gift to humanity unlike any other since Jonas Salk. Visit his website to keep track of this approachable, funny, huge-hearted young man who has the mind of a god.

The other big high of my MedX time was finally – FINALLY – being in the room with all three of the women who birthed #BCSM, one of the most powerful healthcare communities on Twitter. My ePatient journey may have been started by the voyage with my parents through their health issues, but it was forged into hardened steel by my own breast cancer experience. Connecting with Alicia Staley was one of the things that helped turn my book, Cancer for Christmas, into an Amazon bestseller in ’09. I spent much of the conference touching base with the #BCSM crew, who were in attendance in force at MedX. It was #BCSM Summer Camp!

The conference closed on Sunday with a keynote by Vinod Khosla, “2025: 20% Doctor Included?” Khosla’s viewpoint – which I share – is that technology will provide more reliable and efficient diagnostic tools, removing the mis-diagnosis risk that leads to most medical errors. He also stated that transformation of the healthcare system will not happen from within. Khosla backed up his positions with evidence, and I was nodding so hard in agreement I risked whiplash. It was the perfect close for the epic firehose of forward-thinking that was MedX 2013. Here’s the first-look video of Khosla’s talk:

What will I remember most about my MedX experience? I’ve listed some of it above, but even as I write this post I realize how much more mental food was served up during those three days. There were the conversations that happened over coffee, during lunch, with a frosty beverage in the Sheraton bar. I met people I’d known online for years, but had not had the opportunity to hug and thank for the impact they’d had on my life until MedX put us in the same room.

The Honor Roll there (in totally random order):

The list of people who I had not known before MedX, and who literally blew me away with their heart and insight? Here’s another random list:

And the amazeballs of awesome that is Zöe Chu:

zoe chu photo

4

What did I learn at MedX? I learned that there’s hope. Hope for healthcare, hope for humanity, and hope for every single person who winds up a patient (and hey, we’re all patients, right?). The key is that medicine is a team sport. It requires the full participation of everyone in every health-related transaction.

So pick up your ball, and let’s play together, shall we?

Sep 11 2013

#HCSM Review 36: Exploring healthcare costs, access, e-patients as experts

By healthcare industry, media commentary, technology

hcsm-triptych.jpg

Welcome to the MightyCasey–hosted edition of the HealthWorksCollective #HCSM Review, a peer-reviewed compendium of timely, on-topic writing about healthcare from across the web.

Last Friday, I put out a call for posts about healthcare costs and/or health insurance innovation for the HCSM community. Here’s the brain candy that flew over the MightyCaseyMedia transom:

First up: an examination of STD occurrence alongside STD testing costs in the New York metro area from ClearHealthCosts.com (@chcosts), written by Sherry Mazzocchi. This is a deep dive into the incidence of STDs across New York City, with snapshots of what consumers actually pay for STD testing at a number of facilities across the region. Runs from $0 (for members of a subscription medical practice) to $600 for women who visit a Westchester County practice. Like Uwe Reinhardt has said for years, healthcare pricing is chaos behind a veil of secrecy.

For patients looking to pierce that veil and direct-pay for their care, ClearHealthCosts’ founder Jeanne Pinder offers up this post – New ways of paying: Cutting out the middleman. Seems like everybody’s looking for a better way to hold down health costs. In a number of cases, that means patient and provider are getting together directly, without the middleman (the insurance company). You could start asking, “How much is that?” and acting on the answer.

With Oct. 1 and the dawn of the ACA’s new health insurance marketplaces, Jeanne Pinder shares What it means to you: Oct. 1 and buying health insurance. Maybe you avoid the topic of health insurance, but you can’t any longer. If you’re not covered by employer insurance, Medicare or Medicaid, you will need to know things about buying insurance (or choosing not to buy it). Her post offers some actionable advice on how to figure out what the marketplace means to you.

From one of my favorite places, Costs of Care (@CostsofCare), comes a post by David Marcovitz titled “A Routine Denial,” about how it feels to have an expensive test declined by your insurer after it’s been done. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of one of these notices, you know that it feels anything but routine. After the appeals process. David discovered just how chaotic healthcare pricing is. A great read.

Like David, Brave Bosom founder Andrea Downing (@BraveBosom) discovered that she had a genetic predisposition to a disease. In her case, it was BRCA, the genetic mutation that increases risk for breast cancer. Andrea is a leader in the young “previvor” community, and offers up this post on what healthcare reform means for her, for her community, and for other people who have potential destructive dynamite in their DNA. Genetic testing and counseling is a terrific resource; worrying how it might impact your insurance coverage shouldn’t have to be a consideration when you’re making a decision about your health.

ePatient Dave deBronkart (@ePatientDave) is a world-famous (really) patient activist. He’s written two books, and spoken at conferences across the globe. His post “Ratty boxers: what it means to really, truly have no money” resonated powerfully for me, since all e-patient experts face the same challenge: patients aren’t yet seen as experts worthy of remuneration by the healthcare industry. Dave has helped move the needle on that – here’s hoping that his message spreads into the hearts and minds of organizations who are still expecting patients to pay for the privilege of speaking to audiences who need to know what we know: how to make healthcare more human-friendly.

Alan Brewington (@abrewi3010) blogs at PainTalks.com – he’s a guy with chronic arthritis from some rather epic sports injuries. He sent along a post on the pending health insurance exchanges from the front lines in a Red State: Idaho. Titled “Health Insurance Exchange, Idaho, Arthritis, and Me,” Alan’s post walks the reader through an exploration of the new health insurance exchange marketplace, figuring out what kind of coverage is available at what premium cost. As a chronic pain patient, Alan knows more about the ins and outs of health insurance than the average guy his age, and makes some good observations about what it will take for healthcare reform to work.

Closing our cavalcade of #HCSM awesome, here’s a post from Carolyn Thomas at MyHeartSisters.com (@HeartSisters) on how online communities help patients cope, and give them the power to move on. “Discover. Join. Leave.” is a great journey through the life cycle of online patient groups. Some come and stay, others arrive looking for specific help, all make a contribution when they can. Peer-to-peer healthcare is a web, just like … the web. Carolyn tells a great troll-taming story, too – another terrific read.

If you’d like to participate in the HealthWorksCollective #HCSM Review – click this link to look at the schedule, and find out how to get on the list. Thanks for reading, and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Close Menu