jump to navigation

Blumenthal: NHIN project is a road to meaningful use June 30, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in NHIN.
add a comment

* By Mary Mosquera
* Jun 29, 2009

The ability of providers to connect to each other through the national health information network equates directly to improved medical care for individuals, Dr. David Blumenthal, the national health IT coordinator, said today at a seminar on the federal government’s use and development of the NHIN.

NHIN connectivity will also be a key tool for the getting the most out of health IT, according to Blumenthal. He spoke at an event hosted by his office about ways federal agencies are starting to exchange health information with each other and third parties through the federal Connect gateway.

“We are here for the millions of patients whose lives can be improved by the work we do, by the millions of patients whose care is currently sub-optimal because their physicians and caretakers, the institutions and hospitals where they get their care, do not have the necessary information to provide the best possible care that they could receive,” he said.

Federal agencies involved in healthcare banded together to develop the Connect gateway, a set of open source software tools that enable organizations to access NHIN protocols and core services. More than 20 federal agencies under the auspices of the Federal Health Architecture project helped develop the tools, which are free and downloadable by any organization.

Blumenthal made it clear he views participation in the NHIN as a path to “meaningful use,” the as yet-undefined set of terms health care providers will have to meet to qualify for federal stimulus funding for their purchase of health IT.

“Given the investment that the federal government is now making in electronic health records and health information technology, given the definition that has been specified in [stimulus] law for meaningful use, involving at its core health information exchange, it is clear that there is a vibrant future for the nationwide health information network,” Blumenthal said.

“Our hope is that the nationwide health information network will support health information exchange and meaningful use at the federal, state and local levels,” he added.

Other speakers offered testimonials about the value of a federal-NHIN gateway. Sarah Wade, the wife of Sgt. Ted Wade, an Iraq war veteran who was critically injured in a roadside blast there, said the ability for physicians to share vital information can make life simpler and safer for the patient.

She detailed the real-life burdens she and her husband, who has traumatic brain injury, limb amputations and other complex injuries, experienced in getting care from 15 facilities, including the VA, DOD and private hospitals. His care is detailed in 12 unconnected electronic health records, she said.

The inability to share his case information meant that physicians have ordered duplicate tests on her husband on a regular basis and often possessed incomplete information about his medications and reactions to them.

Although she praised the level of care at VA and DOD facilities, she said VA’s VistA system and DOD’s AHLTA could not share patient summaries. Consequently, she has printed out copies of her husband’s record, a case file of about 6,000 pages of records to date.

“Both VA and DOD have impressive medical records systems,” Wade said. “I’m hoping with the Connect solution that not only will my husband not have his blood work done so often, but also we will be able to take full advantage of the features that these medical records systems have,” she said.

Aneesh Chopra, the nation’s chief technology officer, also addressed the conference. He said he wants to see innovation in the healthcare community come from open collaboration and use and reuse of data, such as it is done in the retail sector to personalize customer transactions.

“I am not as wedded to whether the foundation is open source or is a proprietary platform. I care more about the sharing and reuse of intellectual property,” he said.

He called for entrepreneurs to come up with ideas that can advance what is relevant, such as improving healthcare outcomes. ”It’s about marrying ideas with relevance,” he said.

“When we listen to providers who actually want to achieve the outcomes goals, there may be a different approach. New ideas will emerge that will price differently and structure differently but will still achieve the goals that have been outlined,” Chopra said.

About the Author: Mary Mosquera is senior editor for Government Health IT. She is based in Washington.

John Butler of Uber Operations is attending the NHIN Connect Conference in D.C. this week.

Can contractors be part of health IT reform? June 27, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Health IT.
Tags: ,
add a comment

June 26th, 2009

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:02 am ZDNET

In covering efforts to reform health IT based on open standards most reformers I have spoken with have reserved a special disdain for federal contractors.

Contractors got us into this mess, they sneer, with proprietary models and cost overruns.

John Loonsk is trying to change that.

A longtime advocate for a national healthcare network while at the Department of Health and Human Services, Loonsk joined CGI Group, a major federal contractor based in Montreal in April, and wrote at Government Health IT this week as an advocate of standards-based reform.

But what kind of reform? Carefully-engineered reform, he says.

Now that there are funds, the national health IT agenda is no longer emphasizing proactive engineering. Instead, the focus is more narrowly on getting electronic medical records into practice settings, supporting the general idea of health information exchange, and hoping that the organic growth of the two solves the many needs of a nationwide infrastructure.

The administration should reconsider this plan.

Instead, he suggests, standards need to be engineered that all vendors would meet and connect to.

Doubtless, a contractor such as CGI Group could be hired to engineer those standards. But would that speed or slow the pace of health IT reform?

Loonsk argues his case based partly on the development of Internet standards. But those standards were negotiated, not imposed. And they developed organically along with the network, in an open, transparent process.

Of course, while the Internet standards door was always open, few other than engineers walked in for nearly a quarter century. The Web was overlain on a set of standards that were engineered, but also negotiated, and existed before it was spun.

Is that possible with health IT, given the large number of vendors already serving the market and the urgency of the task?

A Holistic, Business Approach to Data Integration June 25, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Data Integration.
add a comment

What if we rethought integration?

What if, instead of individual projects and technology solutions, enterprises took a holistic approach to data integration? How would that look?

Rick Sherman, a consultant with Athena IT Solutions and the Data Doghouse blogger, has more than an idea of how it would look. In the most recent installments of his series, “People, Process and Politics: Stop the (Integration) Madness,” he shares a roadmap for making it happen.

First, you have to admit that what you’ve been doing hasn’t worked, writes Sherman. On the contrary, as he sees it, the status quo has just created different silos. That means, among other things, canceling your subscription to the acronym-of-the-year club – the CDIs, the MDM, the BI and DW:

“Many enterprises are blind to their integration silos. All they see is their investments in ERP, DW, BI, CPM, MDM, CDI, SOA and PIM applications and the resulting databases with terabytes of data stored in them. Smug with the knowledge that they have all the data that the business needs, they’re not even aware of the data silos surrounding them created by their integration silos.”

Instead, he suggests in the third post of the series, you should view each of these pieces as part of an “integration investment portfolio” for building an enterprise-wide infrastructure.

But more important than how you approach integration technology is how you approach data integration itself. Sherman advocates viewing data integration from a political/organizational perspective.

This means establishing data integration as a “fundamental business problem that needs to be addressed,” writes Sherman.

Okay, enough with the preachy. You get it: Stop treating data integration as a technical requirement in other projects, and create a more strategic approach.

This is where I think Sherman’s series starts to get interesting. He explains how you can justify this approach. Spoiler: It involves costs and benefits. Then he lists three steps for rallying business support for holistic data integration:

1. Appoint a data integration evangelist, “who preaches that there is a problem and that something must be done about it,” writes Sherman. We’ll call this your bishop.

2. Find a champion. This is someone who has the ear of the CIO, CFO or other relevant CXO and can champion the business case for a strategic approach to data integration. We’ll call this your knight.

3. Involve the sponsors. This means getting the CIO and CFO – your King and Queen, if you will – signed on and providing organizational support. Sherman writes that this support can take different forms, ranging from a single data integration budget to a “more realistic approach of budgetary reviews of all projects with data integration components.”

These steps aren’t revolutionary – in fact, you’ve probably seen these steps recommended for many strategic IT projects and initiatives.

And therein lies the exciting, potentially revolutionary, core of Sherman’s vision. Data integration would be treated as a single, strategic initiative, rather than a series of unrelated techical requirements.

This is a fascinating perspective on data integration, from a veteran in the data warehousing field. I’ve long respected Sherman’s writings, from back in the days when he wrote for DMReview, one of my favorite IT publications.

In an upcoming post, Sherman promises to explain how you would pull it all together with an enterprise integration infrastructure and an Integration Competency Center

SOURCE: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/lawson/a-holistic-business-approach-to-data-integration/;jsessionid=4E3732EE909EC56868503E2A4CCE59FB?cs=33642&decorator=print

A Pound of Cure June 25, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Health IT.
add a comment

July/August 2009

The federal government is about to spend big on health-care IT. Too bad the medical industry has a vested interest in inefficiency.

By Andy Kessler

Technology is once again being touted as a cure-all, this time for what ails the American health-care industry. The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan includes $19 billion for health-care IT spending that provides incentives for doctors and hospitals to adopt electronic health records. Starting in 2011, stimulus funds will provide additional Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for health-care providers using such systems.

These federal funding programs assume that the critical hurdle to widespread adoption of electronic medical records is cost. Indeed, hospitals surveyed in a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported cost as the major barrier. Yet compared with other businesses, the health-care industry has been unmoved by the logic of lowering costs to increase profits. The truth is that these folks could have digitized the whole industry ages ago. The technology has been around for a long time: Wall Street began phasing out physical stock certificates over 35 years ago. Even the cash-strapped airline industry has gone ticketless, removing huge labor and overhead costs. These industries started using electronic records because they believed it would save money. The health-care industry simply has not followed suit.

The reason lies neither with cost nor with inadequate technology. Rather, the health-care industry’s reluctance to digitize its records is rooted in a desire to keep medicine’s lucrative business model hidden. Dangling $19 billion in front of a $2.4 trillion industry is not nearly enough to get it to reveal the financial secrets that electronic health records are likely to uncover–and upon which its huge profits depend. In those medical records lie the ugly truth about the business of medicine: sickness is profitable. The greater the number of treatments, procedures, and hospital stays, the larger the profit. There is little incentive for doctors and hospitals to identify or reduce wasteful spending in medicine.

The amount of unnecessary spending is huge. In a project that analyzed 4,000 hospitals, the Dartmouth College Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice estimated that eliminating 30 percent of Medicare spending would not change either access to health care or the quality of the care itself. The Congressional Budget Office then suggested that $700 billion of the approximately $2.3 trillion spent on health care in 2008 was wasted on treatments that did not improve health outcomes. This excessive spending has kept the entire health-care industry growing faster than the population, and faster than inflation, for decades.

While electronic medical records do have sizable up-front costs, they also have the potential to save big, in part by streamlining administrative costs. According to a 2003 article by Dr. Steffie Woolhandler in the New England Journal of Medicine, administration accounts for 31 percent of expenses in the U.S. health-care industry, or more than $500 billion per year. (To put that in perspective, Google has spent well under 10 percent of that on all its R&D.) Richard Hillestad of the Rand Corporation wrote in Health Affairs, in 2005, that health-care information technology could save physicians’ offices and hospitals more than $500 billion over 15 years thanks to improvements in safety and efficiency.

Electronic medical records would make it much easier to conduct the studies needed to track down this wasteful spending. According to one estimate, only about 4 percent of U.S. hospitals use comprehensive electronic record systems; most rely on paper records. As a result, analyzing the effectiveness of specific treatments–for example, spinal-fusion surgery versus physical therapy for back pain caused by a herniated disc–is unnecessarily expensive and time consuming. Physicians must compile data for a significant number of patients undergoing each treatment and correlate that information with each patient’s outcome.

Using electronic health records, in combination with data mining and search technology, would make this kind of analysis much easier. Patients who fit specific criteria could be identified and tracked automatically, for example. Researchers would be able to analyze larger numbers of patients and a wider variety of treatments. With easy access to this kind of information, wasteful spending could be identified more readily, allowing payers, whether Medicare or private insurers, to stop reimbursing for expensive but unnecessary tests and procedures.

An even bigger threat to the sickness industry’s business model is that by allowing automated tracking of patients over time, electronic health records would set the stage for early detection and preventive medicine. Currently, the entire industry is organized around treating sickness, rather than keeping people healthy in the first place. Three-quarters of health-care spending is devoted to chronic care, but the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allot just 12 percent of their budgets to research on early detection. Moreover, the payment system is structured around reimbursement for treatment rather than prevention.

With widespread use of electronic health records, it would be easier to expand preventive medicine, not only by educating patients about lifestyle changes but also by conducting mass screenings. A recent American Cancer Society study concludes that prevention, early detection, and better treatment decreased cancer death rates between 1990 and 2005 by 19 percent for men and 11 percent for women. I would like to see funding for technologies that could ultimately improve early detection. Studies are now being launched on CT scans that can evaluate a patient’s heart in less than one heartbeat. They produce finer resolution than existing technologies and return fewer false positives. These tests cost $1,000 now, but within five years, thanks to expected advances in computing power, we should see a $200 CT scan to detect heart disease before a heart attack.

The ability to detect cancer early enough and cheaply enough for effective treatment would prove much more cost effective than the current approach, which involves spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend the life of a cancer patient for a few months–generally, with low quality of life.

As valuable as electronic health records are for streamlining costs, their biggest contribution will lie in moving medicine toward early detection. Let’s hope that the adoption of this screening technology is not postponed as long as electronic medical records have been, in a misplaced desire to protect the lucrative status quo. Like all good technology, it’s probably going to get off the ground on the grassroots level. Expect your local Walgreens to promote these tests sooner than your doctor does.

Andy Kessler is a Wall Street analyst turned author, most recently of The End of Medicine.

Copyright Technology Review 2009.

How to Use Social Media: An Interview with Lee Aase of Mayo Clinic June 24, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Social Networking.
add a comment

Guy Kawasaki of How to Change the WorldGuy Kawasaki of How to Change the World | June 23rd, 2009 – 02:23 PM

Lee Aase is the manager for syndication and social media for Mayo Clinic. This means he’s in charge of making in-depth health and medical news content available directly to patients and interested consumers in order to encourage feedback, dialog, and sharing of information. He is also the chancellor of Social Media University, Global (SMUG), an institution that provides training in social media. In this interview he explains how the Mayo Clinic uses social media as a marketing and communications tool.

1. Question: How did an old, established organization like Mayo Clinic get so involved in social media?
Answer: If you knew what made Mayo Clinic’s reputation for more than a century, you’ll see that social media is consistent with that tradition. At the turn of the twentieth century, when Dr. Will and Dr. Charles Mayo built what was to become Mayo Clinic through a collaboration with the Sisters of St. Francis, it was relatively unusual for patients to survive a hospital stay. Quite often they succumbed not to the underlying ailment but to an infection resulting from surgery. The Mayo brothers and the Franciscan sisters pioneered aseptic surgical techniques which meant that many more patients lived to tell their stories. And when they went home, they spread the word about their experience.

Even today word-of-mouth recommendations are the most important source of information that makes Mayo Clinic the top choice for diagnosis and treatment of serious diseases. Stories in the news media rank second in influence, and physician recommendation—another kind of word of mouth—is third. Social media combines the potential worldwide reach of news media stories with the personal touch of a friend’s recommendation. With over 90 percent of Mayo Clinic patients reporting that they say “good things” to their friends after a visit, using social media tools to amplify their impressions seemed reasonable.

That said, we didn’t just immediately jump into blogging, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It was a natural, gradual progression that incorporated what I like to call, “The MacGyver Mindset.” creating new solutions out of resources we already had on hand. Mayo Clinic created its “Medical Edge” syndicated weekly TV news resource in 2000 and offered local stations trustworthy health and medical news content. In 2004, we established a similar daily program for radio stations.

Our first “new media” foray involved creating an RSS feed for the radio segments to publish a podcast and because of its early entry into the iTunes podcast directory and the Mayo Clinic brand, it was featured on the front page. This led to a significant increase in downloads, which provided impetus for further new media exploration.

Producing our Medical Edge TV segments typically involved interviewing physicians for 20 minutes or more, while only eight seconds or so actually made the air. Our next MacGyver step was to make the audio tracks from the complete interviews available as audio podcast segments and to categorize them as Heart, Cancer, Men’s Health, Women’s Health, Children’s Health and Bones & Muscles podcast feeds.

Within the next year or so we established a Mayo Clinic Facebook page, YouTube channel, and Twitter account. Part of the goal for each was to keep others from “squatting” on the name and posing as Mayo Clinic. For the Twitter account, we started with an RSS feed. For the YouTube channel, we uploaded our Medical Edge segments. With the rapid growth of Facebook, we saw a “fan” page as a way for people to share their stories on our wall, and for their friends to see them. Again, this was consistent with our word-of-mouth tradition.

2. Question: What were the costs for such efforts?
Answer: The total out-of-pocket cost for Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube was $0. I’ve had several people say that’s misleading because maintaining these sites takes time, which is money. Granted, but we had a passion for the projects, so no one was getting any extra pay, and we didn’t add staff. If the sites had not grown to provide significant benefit, we could have continued maintaining them without additional staff. But we found that as we got more interactive with these platforms they also grew in popularity.

3. Question: What other tools were important?
Answer: Another key low-cost tool that greatly extended our social media presence is the Flip video camera which lets us shoot miniDV quality video, edit and upload to YouTube quickly and easily. We also can provide the raw video files to journalists for incorporation into their online stories. For subject experts who lack national TV experience, this video lets us show program producers how they perform in interviews, which has helped us secure national network placements.This video camera made blogging realistic for us because we want our blogs to be authentic, not ghost-written, but yet we don’t want to take time away from patient care. By shooting interviews with physicians we can take just fifteen minutes of their time and ask them to explain their studies as they would for a patient in the office. Then we lightly edit and upload that video, and this which provides patients all over the world exactly what they’re looking for: the perspective of a Mayo Clinic doctor on what the study practically means.

4. Question: Where does blogging come into play?
Answer: We have several blogs currently hosted on WordPress.com—each of which has a specific place on our metaphorical “magazine rack:”
* Mayo Clinic News Blog (RSS Feed) provides pre-embargo resources for journalists and then makes that same information available directly to patients. It’s our “hard” news analog to Time, Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report.
* Mayo Clinic Podcasts (RSS Feed) provides evergreen health information and general medical news. It’s our version of Prevention.
* Sharing Mayo Clinic (RSS Feed) is our version of People.
* Physician Update (RSS Feed) is aimed at the physician audience but open to anyone.
* Advancing the Science (RSS Feed) is a medical version of Scientific American.

5. Question: How much does this cost you?
Answer: For less than $100 per blog per year, we can customize the look and feel, upload audio and video files and map to a subdomain of either mayoclinic.org—our patient site—or mayo.edu—our research/education site. MayoClinic.com, our consumer health information site, also has several blogs, but they’re published differently. You can see and subscribe to those blogs on MayoClinic.com.I understand there are additional true costs if you need someone edit the CSS, but if you’re a larger organization you likely have that capability. And if you’re operating on a shoestring as a start-up, you probably could use one of the existing WordPress.com themes since you likely don’t have strong visual branding identity yet anyway. In any event, this CSS customization is a one-time expense, and not likely very expensive.

6. Question: What is your main blog in all of this action?
Answer: Sharing Mayo Clinic, which was launched in January, is our flagship blog. It’s the place where we feature employees in various roles, but mainly where patients can share their stories. And it provides a glimpse into what makes Mayo Clinic special.

7. Question: What kind of impact has this blog had?
Answer: One case study in how Sharing Mayo Clinic works is a video of Marlow and Fran Cowan, an octogenarian couple from Ankeny, Iowa (Mr. Cowan has since turned 90). Their impromptu performance on a piano in the atrium of our Gonda building was captured on video by a patient, Sharon Turner, and uploaded to YouTube by her daughter, Jodi Hume. You can read the story of how that video came to be in a Sharing Mayo Clinic post Jodi wrote. By the way, I connected with Jodi through Twitter.This video had 1,005 views in the six months leading up to April 7, when we embedded it on Sharing Mayo Clinic and then posted that link to the Mayo Clinic Facebook page and started tweeting. The subsequent slides chronicle the developments that led to its viral status including a posting to Fark.com and a story in the Des Moines Register.

As of this writing, the video has been seen more than 3.7 million times, and almost 1.4 million of those views have come from Sharing Mayo Clinic. This has led to significant traffic for other posts on our blog, too. The comments we’ve received have been wonderful. ABC flew the Cowans to New York for a live appearance on Good Morning America in late May, and Jay Leno even did a spoof of the video as part of his monologue.

8. Question: But this is the Mayo Clinic, after all—what will “mere mortal” organizations experience?
Answer: This is where the “your mileage may vary” disclaimer enters the picture. You can’t and shouldn’t start a blog or a YouTube channel with the expectation that you’ll have a viral video. Viral isn’t a strategy. But yet there is a sense in which having the vehicles in place makes it possible for a video to go viral. Without the blog, Facebook, and Twitter, the Cowan video had reached 1,000 people in six months. At it’s peak it was being seen by more than 5,000 people an hour.The video was terrific all along, and it captures a great story of a special couple married sixty-two years and still having fun. The social media platforms helped it get seen and more easily shared. The key to these platforms is that they enable us to connect with our community. The community creates and responds to the content. We sometimes use tools like the Flip video camera to facilitate their participation, but the stories come from volunteer contributors, whether they be employees or patients.

9. Question: What’s your advice to organizations that want to achieve this kind of success with social media?
Answer: It’s not an overnight process, so start by listening and taking advantage of the free or low-cost tools. By keeping your costs low, you will be able to create the breathing room you need to have time to achieve results. If you go in and ask for two FTEs right at the beginning, you will be expected to show more immediate traction, and that may be hard to achieve. But if you use the social tools with your existing staff as a way to accomplish your current work more effectively, you will get some wins that will enable you to expand your scope.I would also stress that a video with 3.7 million views is a nice bonus, but it’s not the goal. The real power is being able to create niche videos that may reach only a few thousand views, but they’re seen by the people who are most interested. That’s another reason for keeping the costs low, so that this niche content can show positive results through what Chris Anderson called “The Long Tail.”

10. Question: And what’s SMUG?
Answer: SMUG started as my personal journey of social media exploration, and I highly recommend that path. If you get hands-on experience in social media with your own personal accounts, you will develop comfort with the tools, insights into potential work-related applications and confidence to champion their adoption. If you’re interested in step-by-step guidance on your own journey, I hope you’ll become a SMUGgle. You can get started by Googling “SMUG U.”

The bottom line is that if you have a compelling product or service, with a Flip, a few hundred bucks, and some hardworking, multiple-hat-wearing employees, your organization can succeed in social media too. To view the entire collection of Mayo Clinic blogs, click here, and you will go to MayoClinic.alltop.

Enjoy this post? Discover more like it when you Subscribe to the OPEN Forum Blog RSS feed.

open

Health IT In Government “Progress & Best Practices” June 22, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in NHIN, Vish Sankaran.
add a comment

Web Conference details: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1692826&nid=50

Guest Article: 5 Big Advantages of Electronic Record Keeping in Health Care Institutions June 18, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Electronic Medical Records, Health Care IT.
add a comment

With hospitals around the country switching over records to electronic formats, the question is raised as to what the advantages of these electronic systems really are. After all, the cost of the switch may be in the billions for institutions who are trying to move into a digital format. While it isn’t necessarily a budget option there are some pretty big advantages to keeping records on a computer rather than in traditional paper formats. These can include:

1. Records are accessible from anywhere in the hospital. No matter where a patient is taken or needs to go, the staff and medical personnel will be able to bring up their complete records, match them up with barcodes and ensure that their treatments are in accordance with their ailments.
2. Ideally, these systems prevent errors. While some hospital staffers have claimed otherwise, the reality is that when used properly these technologies are designed to prevent medical errors that cause injury and even death in thousands of patients each year. With a bar-coding system and integration of orders between all departments, errors certainly are harder to make.
3. Reading handwriting is not a problem. Doctors have notoriously bad handwriting, but with an electronic system the days of trying to make out what the chicken scratch on a chart or prescription says are over. Now both of these can be delivered electronically and doctors can use voice transcription hardware to keep track of patient progress, making it immediately available and legible to others in the hospital.
4. It’s easy to communicate between departments. In most electronic systems, if a patient is sent for an X-ray or some other medical diagnostic test, the results will immediately appear in the system so that doctors, nurses and specialists can check out the results right away, saving precious minutes. The same goes for cooperation with pharmacists and those working in the lab.
5. Electronic records don’t require space to store or staff to retrieve them. Medical records take up a lot of room, room that could be better used for more patient space or new facilities. Electronically stored records and even a large system for backups takes up significantly less room.

While there are still several major issues that need to be worked out before electronic records can become the norm (integration of systems between hospitals, costs, changing hospital budgets, etc.) the reality is that EHR are more than likely the direction health care is moving for the future, as despite their faults they have a lot of potential benefits as well.

This post was contributed by Meredith Walker, who writes about the top nursing schools. She welcomes your feedback at MeredithWalker1983@gmail.com

CCHIT proposes three certification paths June 18, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in CCHIT.
add a comment

* By John Moore
* Jun 17, 2009

The Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology has floated a proposal that would create more certification options for health IT firms and healthcare providers, including open-source developers.

The group’s proposal would create three certification paths: EHR Comprehensive (EHR-C), EHR Module (EHR-M) and EHR Site (EHR-S). EHR-C, which most closely resembles CCHIT’s current EHR certification effort, would provide what the organization termed a “rigorous certification of comprehensive EHR systems that significantly exceed minimum federal standards.”

EHR-M, meanwhile, would offer a more flexible certification option for vendors whose products might be more specialized than a comprehensive system. And EHR-S is geared toward providers who take a do-it-yourself approach to EHR and assemble systems from noncertified components.

“We obviously need to change,” said CCHIT chairman Dr. Mark Leavitt during a conference call June 16. “When you look at our work before [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] and after, it’s just dramatically different.”

Leavitt noted that ARRA casts EHR adoption into law, with incentives for deployment and penalties for waiting. The law provides those incentives to providers who demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR systems. Currently, CCHIT is the only federally recognized certification entity, but ARRA states that the national coordinator may recognize more than one program.

Against the backdrop of ARRA, CCHIT needs a solution that satisfies “broader swaths” of the marketplace, Leavitt said.

Some of the impetus for change stems from the open-source community. Leavitt said feedback from a CCHIT-hosted forum in April showed open-source developers are concerned with the cost of certification. As for meeting all of CCHIT’s criteria, open-source developers run into licensing issues when they attempt to include certain code sets, Leavitt added.

Another issue is that although CCHIT certifies a specific version of a given software product, open-source software, by its nature, is frequently modified.

Leavitt said he anticipates that EHR-M might attract open-source developers. The certification track offers lower pricing compared with EHR-C, which the CCHIT proposal indicates will cost as much as $50,000. The proposal places EHR-M in the $5,000 to $35,000 range, depending on the scope of the module. CCHIT said scholarships might be available for nonprofit suppliers, if grants can be obtained.

In addition, open-source vendors would not be compelled to address the full spectrum of criteria required for EHR-C.

“EHR-M…is meant to be much more flexible,” Leavitt said.

In another shift, Leavitt said project forks splitting from certified open-source software will inherit certified status without the need for CCHIT approval. The same principal will apply to software certified under the EHR-S effort, he noted.

“We will make this change,” he said.

However, broader changes that would map CCHIT’s certification criteria to ARRA’s meaningful use language could take longer than anticipated.

Leavitt said it was “a bit of a surprise” when the Health IT Policy Committee tabled its meaningful use definitions in a meeting June 16.

He said he assumed the policy committee would accept the definitions at the June 16 meeting, at which the committee heard a presentation by its Meaningful Use Workgroup. The timetable for resolving the definition of meaningful use could affect the timing of CCHIT’s certification programs for the ARRA 2011-2012 incentive window, he suggested.

About the Author

John Moore is a freelance writer based in Syracuse, N.Y.

President Obama’s speech to American Medical Association June 16, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Obama.
add a comment

From the moment I took office as President, the central challenge we have confronted as a nation has been the need to lift ourselves out of the worst recession since World War II. In recent months, we have taken a series of extraordinary steps, not just to repair the immediate damage to our economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth. We are creating new jobs. We are unfreezing our credit markets. And we are stemming the loss of homes and the decline of home values.

But even as we have made progress, we know that the road to prosperity remains long and difficult. We also know that one essential step on our journey is to control the spiraling cost of health care in America.

Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50% more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend less than we do are actually living longer than we do.

Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.

It is unsustainable for Americans like Laura Klitzka, a young mother I met in Wisconsin last week, who has learned that the breast cancer she thought she’d beaten had spread to her bones; who is now being forced to spend time worrying about how to cover the $50,000 in medical debts she has already accumulated, when all she wants to do is spend time with her two children and focus on getting well. These are not worries a woman like Laura should have to face in a nation as wealthy as ours.

Stories like Laura’s are being told by women and men all across this country – by families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages. This is forcing Americans of all ages to go without the checkups or prescriptions they need. It’s creating a situation where a single illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings.

Our costly health care system is unsustainable for doctors like Michael Kahn in New Hampshire, who, as he puts it, spends 20% of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters; a routine that he calls disruptive and distracting, giving him less time to do what he became a doctor to do and actually care for his patients.

Small business owners like Chris and Becky Link in Nashville are also struggling. They’ve always wanted to do right by the workers at their family-run marketing firm, but have recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren’t so high. Across the country, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one third have dropped their workers’ coverage altogether since the early 90′s.

Our largest companies are suffering as well. A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable, and less competitive with automakers around the world. If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.

When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so. This is a test of whether we – Democrats and Republicans alike – are serious about holding the line on new spending and restoring fiscal discipline.

But let there be no doubt – the cost of inaction is greater. If we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans.

If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. In thirty years, it will be about one out of every three – a trend that will mean lost jobs, lower take-home pay, shuttered businesses, and a lower standard of living for all Americans.

And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare will grow over the coming decades by an amount almost equal to the amount our government currently spends on our nation’s defense. In fact, it will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. It’s a scenario that will swamp our federal and state budgets, and impose a vicious choice of either unprecedented tax hikes, overwhelming deficits, or drastic cuts in our federal and state budgets.

To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.

And yet, as clear as it is that our system badly needs reform, reform is not inevitable. There’s a sense out there among some that, as bad as our current system may be, the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. There is a fear of change – a worry that we may lose what works about our health care system while trying to fix what doesn’t.

I understand that fear. I understand that cynicism. They are scars left over from past efforts at reform. Presidents have called for health care reform for nearly a century. Teddy Roosevelt called for it. Harry Truman called for it. Richard Nixon called for it. Jimmy Carter called for it. Bill Clinton called for it. But while significant individual reforms have been made – such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program – efforts at comprehensive reform that covers everyone and brings down costs have largely failed.

Part of the reason is because the different groups involved – physicians, insurance companies, businesses, workers, and others – simply couldn’t agree on the need for reform or what shape it would take. And another part of the reason has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.

Despite this long history of failure, I am standing here today because I think we are in a different time. One sign that things are different is that just this past week, the Senate passed a bill that will protect children from the dangers of smoking – a reform the AMA has long championed – and one that went nowhere when it was proposed a decade ago. What makes this moment different is that this time – for the first time – key stakeholders are aligning not against, but in favor of reform. They are coming together out of a recognition that while reform will take everyone in our health care community doing their part, ultimately, everyone will benefit.

And I want to commend the AMA, in particular, for offering to do your part to curb costs and achieve reform. A few weeks ago, you joined together with hospitals, labor unions, insurers, medical device manufacturers and drug companies to do something that would’ve been unthinkable just a few years ago – you promised to work together to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade, relative to what it would otherwise have been. That will bring down costs, that will bring down premiums, and that’s exactly the kind of cooperation we need.

The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?

That’s what I’ve come to talk about today. We know the moment is right for health care reform. We know this is an historic opportunity we’ve never seen before and may not see again. But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that’s worked in the past. They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.

So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.

If we do that, we can build a health care system that allows you to be physicians instead of administrators and accountants; a system that gives Americans the best care at the lowest cost; a system that eases up the pressure on businesses and unleashes the promise of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, making take-home wages thousands of dollars higher, and growing our economy by tens of billions more every year. That’s how we will stop spending tax dollars to prop up an unsustainable system, and start investing those dollars in innovations and advances that will make our health care system and our economy stronger.

That’s what we can do with this opportunity. That’s what we must do with this moment.

Now, the good news is that in some instances, there is already widespread agreement on the steps necessary to make our health care system work better.

First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping. And we have already begun to do this with an investment we made as part of our Recovery Act.

It simply doesn’t make sense that patients in the 21st century are still filling out forms with pens on papers that have to be stored away somewhere. As Newt Gingrich has rightly pointed out, we do a better job tracking a FedEx package in this country than we do tracking a patient’s health records. You shouldn’t have to tell every new doctor you see about your medical history, or what prescriptions you’re taking. You should not have to repeat costly tests. All of that information should be stored securely in a private medical record so that your information can be tracked from one doctor to another – even if you change jobs, even if you move, and even if you have to see a number of different specialists.

That will not only mean less paper pushing and lower administrative costs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It will also make it easier for physicians to do their jobs. It will tell you, the doctors, what drugs a patient is taking so you can avoid prescribing a medication that could cause a harmful interaction. It will help prevent the wrong dosages from going to a patient. And it will reduce medical errors that lead to 100,000 lives lost unnecessarily in our hospitals every year.

The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.

It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That’s a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that’s a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.

Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you’re one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their “Healthy Measures” program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13% and workers save over 20% on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.

Our federal government also has to step up its efforts to advance the cause of healthy living. Five of the costliest illnesses and conditions – cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and strokes – can be prevented. And yet only a fraction of every health care dollar goes to prevention or public health. That is starting to change with an investment we are making in prevention and wellness programs that can help us avoid diseases that harm our health and the health of our economy.

But as important as they are, investments in electronic records and preventive care are just preliminary steps. They will only make a dent in the epidemic of rising costs in this country.

Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself – a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren’t making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.

A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County – not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments – treatments they don’t really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you’re no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I’m talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can’t spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it’s not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession – a calling – to a business.

That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient’s bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it’ll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers – and that’s what our health care system should let you be.

That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.

And we need to rethink the cost of a medical education, and do more to reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physicians and who choose to work in underserved areas instead of a more lucrative path. That’s why we are making a substantial investment in the National Health Service Corps that will make medical training more affordable for primary care doctors and nurse practitioners so they aren’t drowning in debt when they enter the workforce.

The second structural reform we need to make is to improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients. We have the best medical schools, the most sophisticated labs, and the most advanced training of any nation on the globe. Yet we are not doing a very good job harnessing our collective knowledge and experience on behalf of better medicine. Less than one percent of our health care spending goes to examining what treatments are most effective. And even when that information finds its way into journals, it can take up to 17 years to find its way to an exam room or operating table.

As a result, too many doctors and patients are making decisions without the benefit of the latest research. A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence. Half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective, or placing a stent when adjusting a patient’s drugs and medical management is equally effective – driving up costs without improving a patient’s health.

So, one thing we need to do is figure out what works, and encourage rapid implementation of what works into your practices. That’s why we are making a major investment in research to identify the best treatments for a variety of ailments and conditions.

Let me be clear: identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. It’s about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.

Still, even when we do know what works, we are often not making the most of it. That’s why we need to build on the examples of outstanding medicine at places like the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where the quality of care for cystic fibrosis patients shot up after the hospital began incorporating suggestions from parents. And places like Tallahassee Memorial Health Care, where deaths were dramatically reduced with rapid response teams that monitored patients’ conditions and “multidisciplinary rounds” with everyone from physicians to pharmacists. And places like the Geisinger Health system in rural Pennsylvania and the Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, where high-quality care is being provided at a cost well below average. These are islands of excellence that we need to make the standard in our health care system.

Replicating best practices. Incentivizing excellence. Closing cost disparities. Any legislation sent to my desk that does not achieve these goals does not earn the title of reform. But my signature on a bill is not enough. I need your help, doctors. To most Americans, you are the health care system. Americans – me included – just do what you recommend. That is why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. And together, if we take all these steps, we can bring spending down, bring quality up, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike.

Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. And while I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.

These changes need to go hand-in-hand with other reforms. Because our health care system is so complex and medicine is always evolving, we need a way to continually evaluate how we can eliminate waste, reduce costs, and improve quality. That is why I am open to expanding the role of a commission created by a Republican Congress called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – which happens to include a number of physicians. In recent years, this commission proposed roughly $200 billion in savings that never made it into law. These recommendations have now been incorporated into our broader reform agenda, but we need to fast-track their proposals in the future so that we don’t miss another opportunity to save billions of dollars, as we gain more information about what works and what doesn’t in our health care system.

As we seek to contain the cost of health care, we must also ensure that every American can get coverage they can afford. We must do so in part because it is in all of our economic interests. Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that is reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher health care costs; a hidden tax that will be cut as we insure all Americans. And as we insure every young and healthy American, it will spread out risk for insurance companies, further reducing costs for everyone.

But alongside these economic arguments, there is another, more powerful one. It is simply this: We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women, and children. We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without the coverage they deserve; or turns its back on those in need. We are a nation that cares for its citizens. We are a people who look out for one another. That is what makes this the United States of America.

So, we need to do a few things to provide affordable health insurance to every single American. The first thing we need to do is protect what’s working in our health care system. Let me repeat – if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don’t have their facts straight.

If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family – just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

Now, I know there’s some concern about a public option. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today’s Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. These are legitimate concerns, but ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not the current piece-work reimbursement. What we seek is more stability and a health care system on a sound financial footing. And these reforms need to take place regardless of what happens with a public option. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way tied to patient outcomes instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that’s based on politics and the state of the federal budget in any given year. The alternative is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate, threatening your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system.

What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I’ve even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.

What I am trying to do – and what a public option will help do – is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans. And to help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our Exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.

Indeed, it is because I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance that I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can’t afford it. The same is true for employers. While I believe every business has a responsibility to provide health insurance for its workers, small businesses that cannot afford it should receive an exemption. And small business workers and their families will be able to seek coverage in the Exchange if their employer is not able to provide it.

Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured – and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate. But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies have more customers on Uncle Sam’s dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities. That is why we need to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny – those days are over.

This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do – for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice. And it will put health care within reach for millions of Americans.

Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that it will come at a cost – at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits. Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade.

There are already voices saying the numbers don’t add up. They are wrong. Here’s why. Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of one trillion dollars over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot of money – and it is. But remember: it is less than we are projected to spend on the war in Iraq. And also remember: failing to reform our health care system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages.

That said, let me explain how we will cover the price tag. First, as part of the budget that was passed a few months ago, we’ve put aside $635 billion over ten years in what we are calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount – more than $300 billion – will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years. Some are concerned this will dramatically reduce charitable giving, but statistics show that’s not true, and the best thing for our charities is the stronger economy that we will build with health care reform.

But we cannot just raise revenues. We also have to make spending cuts in part by examining inefficiencies in the Medicare program. There will be a robust debate about where these cuts should be made, and I welcome that debate. But here’s where I think these cuts should be made. First, we should end overpayments to Medicare Advantage. Today, we are paying Medicare Advantage plans much more than we pay for traditional Medicare services. That’s a good deal for insurance companies, but not the American people. That’s why we need to introduce competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, a program under which private insurance companies offer Medicare coverage. That will save $177 billion over the next decade.

Second, we need to use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Right now, almost 20% of Medicare patients discharged from hospitals are readmitted within a month, often because they are not getting the comprehensive care they need. This puts people at risk and drives up costs. By changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals, we can discourage them from acting in a way that boosts profits, but drives up costs for everyone else. That will save us $25 billion over the next decade.

Third, we need to introduce generic biologic drugs into the marketplace. These are drugs used to treat illnesses like anemia. But right now, there is no pathway at the FDA for approving generic versions of these drugs. Creating such a pathway will save us billions of dollars. And we can save another roughly $30 billion by getting a better deal for our poorer seniors while asking our well-off seniors to pay a little more for their drugs.

So, that’s the bulk of what’s in the Health Reserve Fund. I have also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways. One way is by adjusting Medicare payments to reflect new advances and productivity gains in our economy. Right now, Medicare payments are rising each year by more than they should. These adjustments will create incentives for providers to deliver care more effectively, and save us roughly $109 billion in the process.

Another way we can achieve savings is by reducing payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people. I know hospitals rely on these payments now because of the large number of uninsured patients they treat. But as the number of uninsured people goes down with our reforms, the amount we pay hospitals to treat uninsured people should go down, as well. Reducing these payments gradually as more and more people have coverage will save us over $106 billion, and we’ll make sure the difference goes to the hospitals that most need it.

We can also save about $75 billion through more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. And we can save about one billion more by rooting out waste, abuse, and fraud throughout our health care system so that no one is charging more for a service than it’s worth or charging a dime for a service they did not provide.

But let me be clear: I am committed to making these cuts in a way that protects our senior citizens. In fact, these proposals will actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 7 years and reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by roughly $43 billion over 10 years. And I’m working with AARP to uphold that commitment.

Altogether, these savings mean that we have put about $950 billion on the table – not counting some of the longer-term savings that will come about from reform – taking us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health care reform. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to working with Congress to make up the difference so that health care reform is fully paid for – in a real, accountable way. And let me add that this does not count some of the longer-term savings that will come about from health care reform. By insisting that reform be deficit neutral over the next decade and by making the reforms that will help slow the growth rate of health care costs over coming decades, we can look forward to faster economic growth, higher living standards, and falling, not rising, budget deficits.

I know people are cynical we can do this. I know there will be disagreements about how to proceed in the days ahead. But I also know that we cannot let this moment pass us by.

The other day, my friend, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, handed me a magazine with a special issue titled, “The Crisis in American Medicine.” One article notes “soaring charges.” Another warns about the “volume of utilization of services.” And another asks if we can find a “better way [than fee-for-service] for paying for medical care.” It speaks to many of the challenges we face today. The thing is, this special issue was published by Harper’s Magazine in October of 1960.

Members of the American Medical Association – my fellow Americans – I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.

I want them to benefit from a health care system that works for all of us; where families can open a doctor’s bill without dreading what’s inside; where parents are taking their kids to get regular checkups and testing themselves for preventable ailments; where parents are feeding their kids healthier food and kids are exercising more; where patients are spending more time with doctors and doctors can pull up on a computer all the medical information and latest research they’d ever want to meet that patient’s needs; where orthopedists and nephrologists and oncologists are all working together to treat a single human being; where what’s best about America’s health care system has become the hallmark of America’s health care system.

That is the health care system we can build. That is the future within our reach. And if we are willing to come together and bring about that future, then we will not only make Americans healthier and not only unleash America’s economic potential, but we will reaffirm the ideals that led you into this noble profession, and build a health care system that lets all Americans heal. Thank you.

Eduardo Gonzalez Loumiet to be profiled in Loyola New Orleans Magazine June 16, 2009

Posted by gonzalezloumiet in Loyola University New Orleans, Uber Operations.
add a comment

Eduardo Gonzalez Loumiet, Director of Business Development will be profiled in the next issue of the Loyola University, New Orleans Magazine. The article will include Eduardo’s recent work in health care IT with Uber Operations. Stay tuned for the article in the Fall.

loyola mag

More information on Loyola University New Orleans Magazine

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.