You’ve heard me before on the subject of shared decision making (SDM). Short version: I’m an advocate for partnership in medical care. Partnership that includes the values, outcome goals, and cost considerations of THE. PATIENT. Which means shared decision making.
A majority of patients (68 percent) say they would prefer to make collaborative decisions about treatment options with their healthcare provider.
Forty percent of patients say they have participated in SDM before, and 21 percent have done so within the past year.
Most patients surveyed say that SDM improves their satisfaction (89 percent) and makes them feel more involved in the care they receive (87 percent).
Nearly half (41 percent) of patients report that they would be “much more likely” to adhere to a treatment plan developed using SDM.
47 percent of patients would be “extremely” or “very likely” to switch to a provider whose practice offers SDM.
If you click through to the full article in the 2nd graf, you’ll see a number of graphs and charts reporting on patients’ responses to questions about provider choice and treatment protocol adherence – one of my least favorite words, but it’s a favorite of pharma and healthcare system peeps, so there it is. The pie chart that stood out for me was this one:
Likelihood to Switch to SDM Provider
For the math-challenged, 80% of the patients surveyed were moderately, very, or extremely likely to switch to a healthcare provider who practices SDM. Physicians and other clinicians who interact with patients at the point of care need to digest this: fully informing patients of the treatment options available to them, and working with patients to craft a treatment plan TOGETHER, is a survival strategy for the clinician. Ignore SDM principles at the peril of your continued professional relevance.
This is particularly timely given my upcoming attendance at the Lown Institute’sRoad to RightCare: Engage, Organize, Transform conference in San Diego March 8 through March 11. I’ll be hearing from researchers, clinical teams, patient voices, and policy wonks on how to create a right-care healthcare system whose bedrock is shared decision making.
Also, the recent JAMA Oncology articleson the myth of the demanding patient, which myth has formed some of the institutional-side (translation: dinosaur providers) pushback against the wide adoption of patient input on their treatment (in other words: SDM) in the U.S. and elsewhere, are starting to knock down the walls that have kept SDM from becoming the standard medical practice model it should be.
“Nothing about me, without me” is a rallying cry of the participatory medicine movement. Shared decision making is, I believe, part of an overall civil rights issue, since patients who aren’t asked their goals and preferences for treatment are being given care that isn’t their choice. A real hurdle for SDM is going to be the inevitable end-of-life conversation – life is, after all, 100% fatal – that we all have to have, unless we die suddenly in a plane crash or car wreck.
Where are you on the SDM spectrum? Does your doctor talk you through all your options, or just write you a prescription or send you for a scan? “Shut up and do as I say” medicine needs to be consigned to the scrapheap of history. Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments.
My last two posts explored the question of the doctor/patient relationship in the context of romantic relationships. The first one asked if we were anywhere close to getting engaged, the second looked at the possibility that the whole enchilada needed some intervention-level relationship counseling.
In the couple of weeks since, I’ve had some interesting digital and face to face conversations about digital communication tools, patient engagement, and the doctor/patient relationship that have led me to ask if the crop of EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems in current use across the land, as part of Obamacare’s drive toward healthcare system quality, safety, and access (or, as I like to put it, to the tune of “Old McDonald Had a Farm,” EHR, HIE, E-I-E-I-O!), aren’t analogous to online dating sites like Match.com.
Which leads me to the observation that the EHR tech I see – all of it, from Epic toPractice Fusionto athenahealth to NextGento Cerner– can in many ways be compared to Match.com. You put in personal data – name, personal details, outcome goals – and the technology (supposedly) helps you toward your goal. With EHR, that’s best-health, with Match.com, it’s a romantic relationship, but both take data input, digitize it, and claim to provide solutions based on that input.
And I have to say that my observed success ratio on both EHR technology and online dating is similar. As in: mostly it feels like “failure to launch.”
So … go grab a cup of coffee, or a bottle of water. This will be a lengthy look at that question, but I promise to bring it home with at least a couple of laughs along with my pointed observations.
The leading lights of healthcare IT haven’t made the doctor-patient relationship any easier to create and maintain than Match.com has for romatic relationships. For every success story, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of examples of bitter frustration. With the billions (yes, with a B) spent on buying and implementing EHR systems, the phrase “meaningful use” – which was supposed to be the demonstration of clinical and patient communication tools to enable better quality healthcare – has become a punchline.
A couple of weeks ago, I shared a post from The Health Care Blog by Bob Wachter, an interview with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CIO John Halamka, on my social media channels. In it, Halamka said that only 3% of patients wanted their health records kept locked up tight behind virtual doors, so he had to lock up the data of the other 97% to keep the 3% happy. When I shared that post on my LinkedIn profile, it opened a conversation about that statement, such as what the heck the underlying facts to support it were.
“It’s interesting that the 3% figure was not referenced. I am not in the health informatics field, nor do I have time to do an in depth literature review for discussion. However, a quick Google search yields several informative studies. One small study (n=30) of patient preferences found that patients wanted granularity in terms of what they want to share, or not share. No participant wanted to universally share ALL information. Another study (n=105) reported that 1 in 2 patients hid medical information from their own doctors.”
In other words, is that 3%/97% statement the equivalent of creating convenient details about yourself on an online dating profile? When I asked a few people in the e-patient zone about this, I heard this story about how a major health records system in Boston [spoiler alert: Halamka’s IT system] basically spewed garbage instead of useful patient health history data when they opened the data taps to the now-dead Google Health. So, apparently it’s exactly like confabulating facts on an online dating profile. Also, some additional reading led me to a story on CIO about an epic system failure, also in Boston [spoiler alert: I’ll let you figure out what/why], that tied up an entire hospital network’s system for five long days in November 2002.
Back to my metaphor, of EHR tech being analogous to online dating. If the communication partner you’re talking to says they’re a 42 year old architect in Cambridge, or the lab that’s just completed the path report on your biopsy, can you trust what they’re saying? Is there accessible, verifiable information to support the claim? Can you believe what you’re seeing? Can you even SEE what’s really there?
Both of those scenarios rely on trust, and a sense of security. And the ability to actually SEE. WHAT’S. GOING. ON. As Mordac, the “preventer of information services” in the Dilbert comic strip, says, “Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no one would be able to use anything.”
I had the opportunity last week to be part of the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)’s first Patient Engagement Summit in Orlando. Yep, more acronyms – E-I-E-I-O. The two panels I was part of talked about the current state of the doctor/patient relationship, and the overall event was all about how technology can either support, or hinder, that relationship. The crazy part is that both the clinical side of healthcare – doctors, nurses, researchers – and the patient side – the rest of us – are desperately determined to get engaged (with each other), get married (create the best possible outcomes), and live happily ever after (better community health for EVERYBODY!).
The trouble is, I’m afraid, that the tools that are supposed to be the grease on the rails to making that happen – the digital communication systems that hold our care data – are set up by Mordac. Screaming headlines about stuff like the recent Anthem breach are like screaming headlines about sharp rises in sexual assault figures – they’re a real buzz-kill for trust between possible relationship partners.
If you actually know me, you know I’ve taken a rather extreme step toward fostering relationship clarity, doctor/patient-wise. It’s the image that is my Twitter avatar (click that link to see it), and it is a real 3×3″ QR code tattooed on my chest. I can’t say that it has any effect on my dating profile (I bailed on online dating years ago), but it has made many of my healthcare-relationship interactions … interesting.
Can I, or any of us, trust health IT and EHRs to help make our healthcare relationships happy and successful? Or are we stuck in the slough of despond that is Match.com?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
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.
(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.
Amir Dan Rubin – the CEO of Stanford Hospital & Clinics, his master class on quality improvement will inform my hospital-med journo work for years to come
Dr. Marc Katz(I hadda go to Silicon Valley to meet a terrific doc who practices down the street from me – go figure)
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?
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!
Which leads me to the observation that the EHR tech I see – all of it, from 
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
