The healthcare system is all about building patient engagement lately. Which makes me ask: if we get to engagement, will we ever get married? And if we do … will we wind up needing marriage counseling?
Short answer: we already need marriage counseling, and we’re not even officially engaged yet.
You aren’t talking – Given the state of digital, or even analog, communication in healthcare, how can doctors and patients talk? Even when we’re in the same room, it’s conversation-us interruptus, given the whole 10 minutes we have for face to face interaction. And remember the last time you emailed your doctor with a question, and got an answer that day? Oh, right. That was the 14th of Never. Thank you, health IT infrastructure of doom, which is so dedicated to the security of our medical data that NO. ONE. CAN. SEE. IT.
You see your partner as an antagonist – The healthcare system seems dedicated to keeping doctors and patients in an adversarial relationship. Doctors rat us out for our poor compliance in medication regimens without asking if we can afford said meds. Patients worry that their insurance premiums will go up if they tell the truth about stuff like smoking, or eating habits. Neither side seems capable of climbing off the “forces set in opposition” ledge. And the band plays on … getting less and less healthy in the process.
You’re keeping secrets – See #2, and know that antagonists don’t share information well with each other. Doctors keep secrets from patients, i.e. how much treatment options will cost, with payers being fully indicted co-conspirators on that secret-stashing. Patients keep secrets, too, on stuff like cutting pills in half so that fiercely expensive medication will last twice as long. So we’re not talking, we’re forces set in opposition, and we’re keeping secrets. Next up, Divorce Court.
You’re financially unfaithful – Doctors are keeping costs a secret (see #3, and it’s not really their fault, but still …), and patients aren’t being truthful about what treatment options they can afford, so they’re buying snake oil that Dr. Oz is pushing in the hope that it will work as well as the medication they can’t afford for their [insert condition here]. Which only guarantees bigger bills down the road. Everybody loses – money, health, lives – here.
You’re living separate lives – No talking. Walled barricades. Secrets and lies. Money trouble. This relationship might as well be the Hatfields and the McCoys, or even the Russians and the Ukrainians. With 10 minute forced-march conversations, and little chance for touch-points in between, this isn’t a relationship, it’s armed camps on opposite banks of a wide river. Who speak different languages.
Can this marriage be saved?
I – and a whole host of other folks– think it can, but it’s going to take some serious work. And, most importantly, a whole lot of support from the village we all – all of us, humanity at large – live in. We need to flip the entire relationship paradigm of healthcare on its head, and put patients and their doctors in charge of deciding what our relationship/marriage means.
We have to be honest and transparent with each other. Lay down our arms, knock down the barricades, and reach out to each other for help and comfort. Let’s recommit to our relationship, shall we?
Now that I have, for my sins, been tagged as a patient engagement expert, I figure that entitles me to the occasional rant on the topic of the healthcare system – particularly the US iteration thereof – and its utter inability to understand how to connect and communicate effectively with its customer base: patients.
If you’ve been a patient, for anything beyond a short trip to your primary care doc for something simple (and easily diagnosed) like a laceration or a minor infection, you know that arriving at the doors of The Medical-Industrial Complex is like being the new kid in school.
There’s an old joke about bacon and eggs – the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. In the ongoing sketch comedy/Shakespearean tragedy that is medical care. the clinical teams who deliver care, and the facilities in which they deliver it, are most certainly involved. Patients? We’re fully committed. We are engaged, we are fully present. What we’re not getting from the delivery side is an authentic invitation to engage.
en•gage•ment: noun, a formal agreement, i.e. to get married; an arrangement to do something at a specific time; the act of being engaged, i.e. “continued engagement in trade agreements”
Seems simple, right? Patient appears, asking for care. Clinical professionals deliver that care. Patient happy, clinicians happy, everybody wins. Oh, wait – did the doctor wash her hands before she started the physical exam? If the patient is aware of the importance of handwashing in preventing infection, and asks if the doctor lathered up and rinsed according to protocol, does that patient risk being labeled “difficult” or “aggressive”?
If so, so much for patient engagement. Given that the statistics on handwashing in healthcare settings aren’t at 100% (~ 90% for RNs, < 75% for attending MDs in a 2008 study at an Ohio hospital), clinical folks are as non-compliant as the patients they slap that label onto.
Then there’s the whole medical records dance. I got so sick of filling out health history forms that I said, out loud and online, that I’d get a barcode tattooed on my neck if it meant I never had to fill out another one. Even if you’ve been to a practice countless times before, you’ll likely have to fill one out EVERY. TIME. you have an office visit. Then, if you actually want to SEE your health history – the one contained in the electronic health record (EHR) system, hospital or office, or even the old school paper version – it’s like petitioning the Vatican for a dispensation: begging, more paperwork, and the forking over of cash money.
[Side note: I did tattoo my medical history on myself – not a barcode on my neck, but a QR code on my sternum. It’s visible online as my Twitter avatar– without the password that opens the page, of course.]
When you need medical care, you want to know what your treatment options are. Your doctors should be using a shared decision making approach, where they outline the options and possible outcomes of each one. They also should be able to provide you with COST impacts of the various options, but they don’t – usually because they can’t, since the array of insurance plans they take don’t make cost/price information easy to find.
We can thank what I call “stupid payer tricks” for the opacity of the money side of medical care delivery. Cost – the reimbursement numbers for physicians and facilities, along with the patient co-pay numbers – is considered “proprietary negotiated rate information” that’s the property of the insurance company. They dole it out in drips, only AFTER the bill has been submitted. Imagine buying a car, or a house, and signing the sales contract with no price on it, while being told that the bill will arrive in 60/90/120 days, and that’s what you’ll have to pay.
Hard to engage with something like what’s outlined above, isn’t it?
Add to all this the perception by the people who aren’t regular users of the healthcare system that healthcare is something that happens “over there, to sick people, but not to me,” and you have a complete lack of system literacy for healthy folks. Until, of course, they wind up at the hospital door with “a thing” – a car wreck, cancer – when they have to navigate new territory while sick, and in pain, without a map.
What’s needed here is not another earnest academic study from the health-system side, examining how to drive patient engagement. What we need is a grassroots-led effort, by expert patients who have created maps navigating the “new territory” mentioned above, to work with the doctors, nurses, administrators, data geeks, and scientists who recognize the need to flip the patient engagement paradigm from top down – Ivory Tower Rules – to bottom up: built with patients.
Now that I have, for my sins, been tagged as a patient engagement expert, I figure that entitles me to the occasional rant on the topic of the healthcare system – particularly the US iteration thereof – and its utter inability to understand how to connect and communicate effectively with its customer base: patients.
If you’ve been a patient, for anything beyond a short trip to your primary care doc for something simple (and easily diagnosed) like a laceration or a minor infection, you know that arriving at the doors of The Medical-Industrial Complex is like being the new kid in school.
There’s an old joke about bacon and eggs – the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. In the ongoing sketch comedy/Shakespearean tragedy that is medical care. the clinical teams who deliver care, and the facilities in which they deliver it, are most certainly involved. Patients? We’re fully committed. We are engaged, we are fully present. What we’re not getting from the delivery side is an authentic invitation to engage.
en•gage•ment: noun, a formal agreement, i.e. to get married; an arrangement to do something at a specific time; the act of being engaged, i.e. “continued engagement in trade agreements”
Seems simple, right? Patient appears, asking for care. Clinical professionals deliver that care. Patient happy, clinicians happy, everybody wins. Oh, wait – did the doctor wash her hands before she started the physical exam? If the patient is aware of the importance of handwashing in preventing infection, and asks if the doctor lathered up and rinsed according to protocol, does that patient risk being labeled “difficult” or “aggressive”?
If so, so much for patient engagement. Given that the statistics on handwashing in healthcare settings aren’t at 100% (~ 90% for RNs, < 75% for attending MDs in a 2008 study at an Ohio hospital), clinical folks are as non-compliant as the patients they slap that label onto.
Then there’s the whole medical records dance. I got so sick of filling out health history forms that I said, out loud and online, that I’d get a barcode tattooed on my neck if it meant I never had to fill out another one. Even if you’ve been to a practice countless times before, you’ll likely have to fill one out EVERY. TIME. you have an office visit. Then, if you actually want to SEE your health history – the one contained in the electronic health record (EHR) system, hospital or office, or even the old school paper version – it’s like petitioning the Vatican for a dispensation: begging, more paperwork, and the forking over of cash money.
[Side note: I did tattoo my medical history on myself – not a barcode on my neck, but a QR code on my sternum. It’s visible online as my Twitter avatar– without the password that opens the page, of course.]
When you need medical care, you want to know what your treatment options are. Your doctors should be using a shared decision making approach, where they outline the options and possible outcomes of each one. They also should be able to provide you with COST impacts of the various options, but they don’t – usually because they can’t, since the array of insurance plans they take don’t make cost/price information easy to find.
We can thank what I call “stupid payer tricks” for the opacity of the money side of medical care delivery. Cost – the reimbursement numbers for physicians and facilities, along with the patient co-pay numbers – is considered “proprietary negotiated rate information” that’s the property of the insurance company. They dole it out in drips, only AFTER the bill has been submitted. Imagine buying a car, or a house, and signing the sales contract with no price on it, while being told that the bill will arrive in 60/90/120 days, and that’s what you’ll have to pay.
Hard to engage with something like what’s outlined above, isn’t it?
Add to all this the perception by the people who aren’t regular users of the healthcare system that healthcare is something that happens “over there, to sick people, but not to me,” and you have a complete lack of system literacy for healthy folks. Until, of course, they wind up at the hospital door with “a thing” – a car wreck, cancer – when they have to navigate new territory while sick, and in pain, without a map.
What’s needed here is not another earnest academic study from the health-system side, examining how to drive patient engagement. What we need is a grassroots-led effort, by expert patients who have created maps navigating the “new territory” mentioned above, to work with the doctors, nurses, administrators, data geeks, and scientists who recognize the need to flip the patient engagement paradigm from top down – Ivory Tower Rules – to bottom up: built with patients.
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.
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, orSIIPC14 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).
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.
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.
“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 Seminarin 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.
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 keynoteat 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 along conversation on my Facebook wallin 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.
Most of the people I meet in my voyages ’round healthcare system transformation, grassroots edition, arrived at the portal of #epatient via a trip through the medical-industrial complex. Either they, or someone they cared for, wound up getting “a thing” – cancer, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, player to be named later – and they found themselves inside the medical care delivery system, bewildered, and looking for answers.
In short, most – not all, by any means, but most – are over 40.
Imagine my surprise, and delight, when I was sent a report on a survey conducted with 385 randomly selected patients across the US*, with most of the responses coming from 18 to 35 year old millennials (people born 1982 and after). The survey asked them their opinions on shared decision making, open notes, and shared medical visits, three new medical practice models that are rising in adoption.
Here’s the context of the survey questions:
Shared decision-making involves the doctor and patient evaluating multiple treatment options and deciding together on the best course of action.
Open notes is a policy allowing patients to view the medical notes doctors take about them during visits, which includes accessing those notes from home.
Shared medical appointments, or “group visits,” involve attending an extended (60- to 90-minute) medical appointment with 10 to 15 other patients and one or more physicians.
The survey results make me think we might finally be reaching a tipping point toward positive change, given that a big majority (76%) of respondents said they were extremely or very likely to use shared decision making. Over 60% were extremely or very likely to welcome open notes:
The demographics of the survey respondents was a pretty representative sample as far as chronic conditions go:
One surprise in the demographic detail was that more men responded than women. Given that, historically at least, women have been more likely to use the medical care system (annual Pap smears, reproductive health visits) than men, the fact that men outnumbered women in this gives me even more hope. Are dudes getting it? “It” being that their health is their responsibility, and that a relationship with a good primary care provider is a good life plan.
To recap, millennials want shared decision making and open notes. Shared/group appointments, not so much. I think that the shared/group appointment approach would be best deployed in “building health literacy” settings: condition-specific education on diabetes, for example. I also think that telemedicine needs its own survey, given that practice model could be used both real-time or asynchronously via secure video links.
The millennial generation has grown up with digital tools and instant access to information. I seriously doubt that they’re going to be willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous wait times, or outrageous balance billing, when they seek medical care. Hope for real system transformation may have crested the distant horizon, and be riding toward us. May its speed be supersonic.
This is a guest post by TechnologyAdvice.com writer Jesse Jacobsen. TechnologyAdvice.com is based in Nashville, TN, and their stated mission is to provide valuable insight to business technology buyers, while creating connections with the products and vendors that best meet those buyers’ needs. Their site is a goldmine of industry-specific intel on current software and IT products and trends … and they have a dedicated healthcare tech content channel!
According to the 2013 HIMSS Analytics Report, 73 percent of respondents indicated they were participating in health information exchange (HIE), with 57 percent only participating in a single HIE. Of the practices in an HIE, 52 percent reported experiencing benefits with better access to patient information, 20 percent experience promoted patient safety, and 12 percent said HIE led to time savings among clinicians. Only 16 percent reported no benefits.
As evidenced above, HIEs can be effective tools for improved practice operations, but that doesn’t mean the system is foolproof. In the same report from HIMSS, the top challenges faced by hospitals included other organizations not sharing enough data (49 percent), lack of necessary staff (44 percent) and resources (40 percent), and privacy concerns (39 percent).
As government mandates continue to push provider use of electronic medical records (EMRs) and HIEs, more practices are beginning to consider if it’s time to participate in a health information exchange. The following will look at some of the current benefits from HIE participation and address some current challenges.
Benefits
Better Patient Information
HIEs provide physicians with easier access to patient information, especially on a state level, such as the recently implemented HIE in Florida. Currently, accessing patient information can be a costly and inefficient process, with too much reliance on faxing and email. Utilizing an information exchange makes gaining patient data a quick process with far fewer expenses.
Reduced Imaging Duplication
By reducing duplication of diagnostic tests, physicians can heavily reduce expenses and increase practice efficiency. According to a study from the University of Michigan, around 20 percent of all scans performed by emergency department clinicians were considered repeats. When hospitals used HIEs, patients were 59 percent less likely to have a redundant CT scan, 44 percent less likely to get an additional ultrasound, and 67 percent less likely to have a repeated chest X-ray. Eliminating such duplication can result in significant cost savings for providers, patients, and payers.
Improved Care and Reduced Errors
Simply put, when doctors have quick and easy access to patient records, they can make informed and effective treatment decisions. Without access to this information, physicians are basing diagnosis and treatment decisions on a narrow view of their patient’s health history. With quick access to a longitudinal view of a patient’s health history, physicians can see current and past prescriptions, previous diagnoses, reactions to medications, and any other pertinent information. This information is essential when prescribing medication to ensure that new prescriptions won’t adversely interact with current medication that patients are taking. Between 26 and 32 percent of total medication errors are caused by administrative errors. These are potentially fatal mistakes that can easily be prevented with proper HIE implementation.
Use in Emergencies
For patients in emergency situations, time is of the essence. Being able to access patient information from HIEs helps clinicians act quickly and responsibly. In 2009, the average time spent being treated in emergency rooms was four hours and seven minutes, an increase of 27 minutes since 2002. Increased treatment time in the ER results in increased wait times, which on average took six hours in 2009. ER doctors can decrease patient interaction and wait times with quick and easy access to patient records from HIEs, including information on allergies, past treatments, pre-existing conditions, and applicable test results.
In addition, emergency departments can use HIEs to reduce expenses and unnecessary admissions. According to a study conducted by Weill Cornell Medical College, the chances of a patient being admitted to the hospital was 30 percent lower when the HIE was used, leading to estimated annual savings of $357,000. Decreasing unnecessary admissions also results in shorter wait times.
Challenges
Security Concerns
A report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that25 percent of clinicians cited privacy and liability concerns as barriers to participating in health information exchanges. The argument behind these security concerns is logically sound; if HIE affiliates have increased ease of access to patient information, who else might have this increased access as well? How can we be sure that sensitive patient and practice information is secure? After all, HIPAA violations are quite expensive.
While this concern is justified, most HIE affiliates recognize this potential shortcoming and have established a wide array of policies to prevent any information leaks. For example, when electronic requests for patient information from a healthcare provider are made from an unknown provider, most HIEs refuse to provide any data. As these platforms for data exchange continue to advance and increase in adoption, more policies and safeguards will be put into place to ensure the security of patient files.
Inconsistent or Insufficient Information
Many healthcare providers who have already integrated HIEs into their practice complain that insufficient patient information and inconsistent filing methods are a huge hindrance to HIE success. Data fragmentation is already an issue for the healthcare system as a whole, costing up to $226 billion per year.
Unfortunately, this is a challenge will take time and continual effort to alleviate. As more hospitals and practices begin sharing data, and as the government groups continue to establish detailed, reasonable standards for patient records, data silos will be broken down.
Insufficient Funds
For many providers, developing HIE networks makes very little sense strictly as a business investment. According to a study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 74 percent of respondents listed developing a sustainable business model as a moderate or substantial barrier to HIE deployment, in addition to a high level of concern about a lack of funding (66 percent).
To tackle this issue, some practices are joining cloud-based HIEs, which charge monthly fees, alleviating the heavy upfront costs typically incurred by other systems. These pay-as-you-go systems can become more expensive than their counterparts however when used for a long period of time. Additionally, transferring patient information through the cloud presents a potential security concern. But, for cash-strapped practices seeking a means to effectively exchange data, a cloud-based community could be the answer.
Lack of Infrastructure
Similar to lacking proper funding, many healthcare providers list a lack of infrastructure as a major challenge with HIE. A survey from Doctors Helping Doctors Transform Health Care found that 71 percent of respondents listed lack of infrastructure as a primary challenge. Adding infrastructure is not only expensive because the infrastructure itself is pricey, but also because the labor and resources required to outfit new systems are expensive as well.
Again, selecting a cloud-based solution can alleviate many infrastructure shortcomings. Cloud systems require very little on premise infrastructure to gain access, and accordingly require minimal labor investment to setup. While building the proper infrastructure to maintain a normal HIE is recommended, cloud-based options are growing in popularity and accessibility, making it a viable solution for smaller practices and struggling health care providers.
HIEs are far from perfect, but the information and resources they provide can add value to practices everywhere. Unfortunately, many of the improvements that need to happen to HIEs simply require time and commitment from a large volume of healthcare providers. The technology is there, and eventually the commitment and investment from practices will be as well.
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 Journalabout 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?
I’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.
Here’s my recommendation on how the scenario of shifting group health insurance from “company pays” to “individual pays” unfolds:
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.
Group 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.
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.
I 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
When 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.
Long ago and far away … well, OK, from 1979 to 2008, I had health insurance. Started with employer group insurance, moved to rolling my own (individual) in ’89, then negotiated small business group insurance for the micro-enterprise I ran with my 2nd husband in the ’00s.
Then came the Cancer for Christmas adventure, during which I had insurance (still deeply grateful for that), but at the conclusion of treatment when I got to become a Friend of NED (No Evidence of Disease) I got a jack-you notice from my insurer.
All of these stories are already available for your delectation all over the interwebs: Here. Here. And here. For starters.
In my five years sitting on the Group W bench known as “uninsured,” I became an advocate for price visibility in healthcare. Since I was paying my own way, I needed to know before making a medical purchase. Other more high-profile folks have joined me on the quest for answers to “how much is that?” See my thoughts on that here.
So along comes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to help me get back in the game.
Short answer: we already need marriage counseling, and we’re not even officially engaged yet.
I’ve been heard in these precincts and 
Here’s my recommendation on how the scenario of shifting group health insurance from “company pays” to “individual pays” unfolds:
Group health insurance, 12 months later
I 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.
When 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.
