December 10th, 2011 by BarbaraFicarraRN in Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: Doctors, Employers, Financial Incentives, Health, Health 2.0, Health and Wellness, health care, Health IT, Healthy Lifestyle, Healthy Living, Hospital Care, Incentives, Insurance, Matthew Holt, Nurses, Patient Engagement, Public Health, Wellness
No Comments »
How do companies curb health care costs?
Do healthier employees lead to increased productivity? Several progressive companies believe so and have committed to providing employees with programs to help engage them in a healthier lifestyle.
As part of the incentives to lead a healthier lifestyle some employers have instituted a penalty and reward system tied to the companies’ benefits. For example, smokers may incur a significant surcharge to the cost of their health insurance plan while nonsmokers could see a reduction in cost.
According to an article in The New York Times, a growing numbers of companies including Home Depot, PepsiCo, Safeway, Lowe’s and General Mills are seeking higher premiums from some workers who smoke, similar to Wal-Mart’s addition of a $2,000-a-year surcharge for some smokers.
Escalating health care costs Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Health in 30*
December 10th, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: Cost Drivers, Finance, Government, Health Insurance, Healthcare Costs, Hospital Systems, Hospitals, Monopolies
No Comments »
The primary stakeholders in the healthcare system are patients and physicians. Without patients or physicians there would not be a healthcare system.
Patients should be the drivers of the healthcare system. They are not. The primary drivers are the government and the healthcare insurance companies.
Hospital systems play the next largest role in driving up the costs of the healthcare system. Large hospital systems are constantly playing a game of chicken with the government and the healthcare care insurance industry.
Somehow, large hospital systems have been able to stay under the radar. They have been able to avoid the responsibility of the rising costs of healthcare.
Large hospital systems and large hospital chains know that insurers need them to service their network of patients. The healthcare insurance companies know that the hospital systems can hold them hostage to increased reimbursement.
When a large hospital system demands an increase in reimbursement the healthcare insurance industry simply increases premiums.
An example is the Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
December 9th, 2011 by BarbaraFederOstrov in Health Policy, News
Tags: Birth Control, Emergency Contraception, HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, OB/GYN, OTC, Pediatrics, Plan B, Prescription, Reproductive Health, teens
No Comments »
There’s plenty of of analysis, criticism and praise of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ controversial decision to prevent the “morning after” contraceptive pill Plan B from being sold over the counter at drugstores and to girls under 17 without a prescription. The top question: how much did election-year politics affect the decision?
President Barack Obama, father of two daughters, defended Sebelius today and said he was not involved in her decision. The New York Times quotes him:
The reason Kathleen made this decision is that she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drug store should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect.
Here’s a roundup of the national conversation so far:
NPR’s Julie Rovner reports today on the angry reactions from women’s health advocates, who note that Sebelius’ reasoning – that young girls might not use the OTC birth control correctly – sets a double standard for birth control. She quotes former assistant FDA commissioner Susan Wood: Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Reporting on Health - Barbara Feder Ostrov's Health Journalism Blog*
December 9th, 2011 by DrWes in Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: Auditors, Cardiac Care, CMS, Defibrillator, Government-run Healthcare, Health Care Reform, Medicare, Orthopedics, Rationing
1 Comment »
With the announcement that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin auditing 100% of expensive cardiovascular and orthopedic procedures in certain states earlier this week, we see their final transformation from the beneficent health care funding bosom for seniors to health care rationer:
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require pre-payment audits on hospital stays for cardiac care, joint replacements and spinal fusion procedures, according to the American College of Cardiology in a letter to members. Shares in both industries fell with Tenet Healthcare Corp., the Dallas- based hospital operator, plunging 11 percent to $4.18, the most among Standard & Poor’s 500 stocks. Medtronic Inc., the largest U.S. maker of heart devices, dropped 6 percent to $34.61.
The program means hospitals won’t receive payment for stays that involve cardiac care or orthopedic treatment until auditors have examined the patient records and confirmed that the care was appropriate, Jerold Saef, the reimbursement chair for the Florida chapter of the American College of Cardiology, wrote in a Nov. 21 letter to members. The review process is expected to take 30 days to 60 days, beginning January 1, Saef said.
This is not at all unexpected. In fact, Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
December 8th, 2011 by Jann Bellamy in Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed
Tags: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Legal, Medical Ethics, Pediatrics, Vaccines
No Comments »
In November, the journal Pediatrics published an entire supplement devoted to Pediatric Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Legal, Ethical and Clinical Issues in Decision-Making. The authors purport to have “examined current legal, ethical, and clinical issues that arise when considering CAM use for children and identified where gaps remain in law and policy.” (S150) Their aim is to “illustrate the relevance and impact of identified [ethical, legal and clinical] guidelines and principles,” to recommend responses, identify issues needing further consideration, and thus “assist decision makers and act as a catalyst for policy development.” (S153)
Unfortunately, as we saw in Pediatrics & “CAM” I: the wrong solution, the authors’ solution for the “issues that arise when considering CAM use for children” consist, in the main, of placing a huge burden on the practicing physician to be knowledgeable about CAM, keep up with CAM research, educate patients about CAM, warn patients about CAM dangers, refer to CAM practitioners, ensure that CAM practitioners are properly educated, trained and credentialed, and so on.
Limit CAM? Not happening
Curiously absent are recommendations placing responsibility on those who profit from the sale of CAM products Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
