Skip to main content
Tag

find the funny

Jan 15 2015

Patient Engagement. You’re doing it wrong.

By healthcare industry

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…

Read More
May 09 2014

Employer-backed health insurance plans on life support?

By healthcare industry

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…

Read More
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: 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…

Read More
Mar 08 2013

Snowflakes and bitch-slaps at the ePharma Summit

By healthcare industry, technology

I had the great good fortune of being asked (by WEGO Health) to participate on a panel titled Social Media for Pharma: A Match Made in Heaven or Hell?at the ePharma Summit in New York (#epharma) earlier this week. When the opportunity presented itself, I asked to be registered for the whole event so I could do my fly-on-the-wall thing by attending some sessions and schmoozing in the exhibit hall. What did I learn? I learned something I already knew: pharma, and healthcare in general, talks a good game at the corporate level about “engagement” when it comes to patients. However, their use of the word tends to run along engagement-as-shiny-object-syndrome lines; in other words, passive message consumption is the desired model, since two-way dialogues are problematic, with pharma afraid of FDA bitch-slaps in the form of warning letters and healthcare in general sweating bullets about the powerful bitch-slap known as the HIPAA violation, given the $1.5M fine potential. I understand their aversion to drawing the gimlet eye, and the ire, of the feds when they’re considering how to communicate with their marketplace. Pharma is a conservative, slow-to-innovate business that’s focused on shareholder value and ROI for said investors, given that they can spend billions developing a new drug for market before they can sell the first pill of said wonder drug. At least, that’s what pharma balance sheets and annual reports tell us. Pharma is anxious to open dialogues with its customers – the real customers, patients – but isn’t sure how to go about doing that without winding up in deep kimchee with federal regulators. That was the purpose of the panel I was on: to let pharma know what kind of conversation patients were looking for, and what we’d like to hear from the pharma industry. Our…

Read More
Jan 01 2013

2013 Manifesto: short and salty-sweet

By healthcare industry, technology

Last year’s look-ahead for 2012 was a 5-point manifesto. Reviewing progress against that list, I see that I did pretty well, with only #2 falling a little short – which is not a bad track record. This year, I’m keeping it tight. I’m going with a 2-rule manifesto. Rule #1: Be accountable We’ve all got metrics to measure ourselves against. Revenue, connections, sales, errors, accomplishments – all of those are important. The trouble comes when you focus too much on one area, which usually means that other important metrics wind up taking a back seat. If you focus exclusively on incoming revenue, you might miss some mistakes that will cost you at least some of that revenue. If you concentrate only on building more connections in the industry, you might lose some long-term relationships that are just starting to ripen. For me, accountability this year will be tied to two metrics: raising the revenue gained from the speaking side of my business, and widening my marketing net beyond the mid-Atlantic region. Tracking both will be easy, and each will challenge me to focus very tightly on activities and outreach that will move my game-plan forward. Accountability – at least here at Mighty Casey Media – will be baked in to the spreadsheet I’ll use to track that game-plan. What accountability will you bake in to your 2013 goals? How will you track your progress? Who will you report to? That last one is a challenge for me, since I’m a solo-preneur. Stay tuned, since one of my accountability check-boxes will be reporting progress here, on the Mighty Mouth Blog. Rule #2: Laugh more, bark less That’s a purposeful scrambling of the “wag more, bark less” bumper sticker I see … everywhere. My version of wagging is laughter. If I’m laughing,…

Read More
Jun 13 2012

The black box that caused the crash (of healthcare)

By healthcare industry, politics

This week, NPR’s Marketplace aired a piece on what I have taken to calling the “black box of healthcare” – pricing. There is a committee, called the RUC, set up and run by the American Medical Association, that reports to CMS (the federal unit that runs Medicare and Medicaid) on relative value numbers for the thousands of medical procedures that wind up as billing codes in Medicare and your health insurer. Those relative value numbers = PRICES. This isn’t considered price-fixing under anti-trust rules because the RUC reports to CMS, which then publishes the numbers on the Medicare reimbursement rate schedule. So the AMA isn’t publishing the prices, CMS is. Fox, meet henhouse. Or, stated in another way: airplane, meet the black box that is making you crash and burn. The Marketplace page linked in the 1st graf has plenty of linkage to additional context for this issue. Read them, and weep. How is it that an industry whose aggregate cost is now at close to 20% of US GDP gets to set its own prices, and then have them published by the federal government as The Official Price List? It’s called effective lobbying, and it’s so effective that it’s essentially kept access to the pricing committee process a secret for decades. Which makes it pretty clear why so much of our GDP goes to healthcare, doesn’t it? The sound bite in the story that I found the most hilarious was from Charlie Baker, the former CEO of the Harvard Pilgrim health plan in Massachusetts. His quote: By having a process that for all intensive [sic] purposes isn’t a public process, and doesn’t appear to actually be accountable to much of anybody, I think that’s kind of un-American! I find this hilarious because Harvard Pilgrim is a member of America’s…

Read More
Close Menu