October 6th, 2010 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, True Stories
No Comments »
Like most kids who grew up in the 1960s, I spent many a night watching the adventures of Fred, Wilma, Barney and Betty, the coolest cavemen ever (sorry, GEICO). It is hard to explain the appeal of the Flintstones, which [recently] celebrated the 50th anniversary of its first broadcast. Its animation was primitive, the stories campy and cliché, and it was horribly sexist — but the characters were lovable, the dialogue funny, and who couldn’t love the way it depicted “modern conveniences” (like washing machines) using only stone-age technologies (bones, stones and dino-power?)
What does Fred Flintstone have to do with healthcare? Not much, really, although Fred was the victim of a medical error. According to Answers.com: “A 1966 episode had Fred can’t stop sneezing, so he goes to the doctor for some allergy pills. The prescription gets mixed up with another package of pills which, when taken, transform Fred into an ape! Only Barney witnesses this metamorphosis, and naturally he can’t convince anyone what is happening … until a fateful family outing at the Bedrock Zoo.” (Of course, this all might have been prevented if they had e-prescribing in those days.) Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
October 3rd, 2010 by John Mandrola, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Could understanding the tacit rules which govern play on a neighborhood playground help us explain why some aspects of implementing healthcare reform are unlikely to succeed? Recent news involving McDonald’s Corporation suggests so.
On the playground, there are some simple precepts — like the fact that older and stronger kids get to make up the game, and the rules. That’s understood and mostly okay. As if these leaders are considered modestly benevolent and the rules are workable, the game is good and all benefit. And all players on the playground know this basic tenet of fairness: That the rules of the game shouldn’t change in the midst of the competition, and, taking it one step further, if the rules have to be changed they weren’t very good in the first place. Soon, if those in power become too controlling, too conflicted, or too self-serving, kids stop showing up, and the games cease.
In enacting this, our government gave us a very complicated game, with oodles of rules. (For the record, the PPACA of 2010 is 475 pages and 393,000 words.) But then, on further consideration of the rules, important players (McDonald’s) decided that they could not play. They were pulling out of the game, and they had many friends (Home Depot, CVS, Staples, etc.) who may not have spoke outwardly, but surely felt the same way. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr John M*
September 28th, 2010 by DavidHarlow in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services scrapped its old self-referral voluntary disclosure program in 2009 (it dated back to 1998, and was revisited in 2008), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) mandated that it be replaced. Just like clockwork, on the deadline for its promulgation the OIG obliged, and the new Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol is now posted and effective.
The new protocol could be clearer and offer more comfort, but it doesn’t. Makes one pine for the old policy’s clarity: In the old days, voluntary disclosure bought you a discounted fine for Stark violations — not like the new protocol’s wishy-washy, maybe-we’ll-give-you-a-discount language. The new protocol also fails to help a provider seeking to disclose past wrongs voluntarily in dealing with the Federales on a number of fronts simultaneously (e.g., for false claims violations, anti-kickback violations, etc., all arising from the same set of facts). We can perhaps blame Congress for that failure, rather than the OIG — the OIG is just implementing the statute as written.
Keep your eyes peeled for some tinkering on this front as the OIG gains some experience working under the new regime.
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
September 25th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
3 Comments »
One part of the health care law that took effect this week is widely reported as “establishing a menu of preventive procedures, such as colonoscopies, mammograms and cholesterol screening, that must be covered without co-payments.” For example, one of my local papers, the [St. Paul, Minnesota] Star Tribune, wrote: “Some people will no longer have to pay for copays, coinsurance or meet their deductibles for preventive care that’s backed up by the best scientific evidence.” (emphasis added)
That phrase should always include a huge asterisk, like the one hung on Roger Maris’ 61st home run. The best scientific evidence according to whom?
Time magazine reports, “Procedures, screenings and tests that are considered ‘preventive’ will be determined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Centers for Disease Control (for vaccines) and the Health Resources and Services Administration.” As written, that is incorrect and inaccurate at worst and misleading at best. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
September 11th, 2010 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (our government’s name for healthcare reform) may make our already crowded emergency rooms swarm with more patients.
A new study from Health Affairs shows that more than a quarter of patients who currently visit emergency departments in the U.S. are there for routine care and not an emergency. New complaints like stomach pain, skin rashes, fever, chest pain, cough or for a flare up of a chronic condition should not be treated in emergency rooms. They are best worked up and treated by an internist or family physician, preferably one who knows the patient. So why are these patients waiting for hours and spending up to 10 times as much money for emergency department care? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
