Health for life

A CAT scan. Wheres that big spleen?

Years ago, the Disease Management Care Blog ordered an abdominal CAT scan for one of its patients. The study was reassuringly normal except for the unexpected - and most likely benign - finding of an enlarged spleen. In the absence of any other worrisome findings, the interpreting radiologist recommended that another CAT scan should be done in six months to make sure it wasnt getting bigger. The patient agreed. The DMCB then fired up the electronic health record (EHR), scheduled the CAT scan order for six months, closed the encounter and moved onto the next patient.

Approximately one year later the patient returned for an appointment. Thats when it was discovered that the CAT scan had never been scheduled. The DMCB was later told that the EHR wasnt configured to schedule tests 6 months in advance.*

Its on behalf of patients like this and their physicians that the DMCB welcomes this Institute of Medicine report on Health IT and Patient Safety. It recognizes what most front-line EHR-using physicians have known for years:

"The evidence in the literature about the impact of health information technology (IT) on patient safety, as opposed to quality, is mixed but shows that the challenges... involve people and clinical implementation as much as the technology. The literature describes significant improvements in some aspects of care in health care institutions with mature health IT.  For example, the use of computerized prescribing and bar-coding systems has been shown to improve medication safety. But the generalizability of the literature across the health care system may be limited. While some studies suggest improvements in patient safety can be made, others have found no effect. Instances of health IT–associated harm have been reported. However, little published evidence could be found quantifying the magnitude of the risk." (bolding from the DMCB)

In other words, selective reporting involving best case scenarios fail to account for the reality that the old safety issues of a paper-based system are being displaced by new safety issues of an IT system and, whats worse, we dont know the extent of the problem.

Here are the IOMs (paraphrased) recommendations to Health and Human Services (HHS):

1. HHS, working with the EHR vendors, should develop a health IT surveillance plan.

2. HHS should foster the free exchange of information and address the "legal clauses" in contracts that shift liability from the vendors to the doctors (The AMA has erred to these as "hold harmless" clauses).

3. Data is needed that allows health IT users to publicly compare and share experiences among multiple vendors.

4. "A Health IT Safety Council" that assesses and monitor health IT safety should be established.

5. A public register of all health IT vendors should be established.

6. Its time to specify those processes that reduce risk and make the vendors adopt them.

7. Health IT related deaths, serious injuries and unsafe conditions need to be centrally reported.

8. An independent federal entity should be established that is empowered to any investigate deaths, injuries or unsafe conditions.

9. HHS should report annually on its progress.

10 More cross-disciplinary research is needed to improve the design, testing and use of health IT.

Bravo says the DMCB, bravo!



*many of the facts are changed, but you get the gist

Enshrining a term only an actuary could love, the Affordable Care Act sets health insurance coverage on the basis of "actuarial value" (AV).  A good summary can be found in this Consumers Union Health Policy Brief.  As the Disease Management Care Blog understands it, AV is the percent of typical medical expenses that a health insurance policy will cover for a typical population.  In other words, some individuals will have no out of pocket expenses (deductibles, coinsurance and limits) while other individuals will have end up paying for most of their services.  When those expenses are rolled up over thousands of persons and compared to total health care costs, the percent left over is the "AV."

Once the Disease Management Care Blog wrapped its head around the AV, it next tackled the ACA concept of the "essential health benefit" (EHB).  This is the minimum package of covered services (outpatient, emergency room, maternity, hospitalization, medications, rehabilitation and the like) that a health insurer must include in its coverage plan.  This will ultimately be defined in yet-to-be-determined federal regulations. 

Now that we have the jargon nailed down, plans that fail to meet at least 60% of AV on the EHB will be excluded from the exchanges and ineligible for federal subsidies.  60% is "bronze" coverage, while 70%, 80% and 90% are "silver," "gold" and "platinum," respectively.  This is important because not only did most members of Congress not understand AV (consumer costs) or EHB (coverage), but because both will determine the future cost of our nations health care bill. 

Enter the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which has just released a report on how the Feds should best determine the EHB.  A handy summary can be found here.

Bottom line? 

The IOM has backed into the EHB, not basing it on notions of optimum health coverage but on affordability.  It recommends that the basic affordable EHB be based on a survey of what is typically covered by an insurance plan that is purchased by a small business employer.  With that as the baseline, the EHB be further modified (based on scientific evidence and public input) so that the premium ultimately matches 70% of the small business AV.  According to John Iglehart writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, that could work out to be about $5000 per year for individuals and about $13,500 for families.

This is significant because the key underlying assumption of the ACA was that forcing everyone in the risk pool (with the Constitutionally suspect "play or pay" provision) with insurance rich in wellness, prevention and services like rehab, mental health and pediatric oral care would, by itself, drive down health costs.

The smart folks over at the Institute of Medicine respectfully disagree.  They believe the best approach is to figure out what is affordable first and then define the insurance coverage second.

Its finally happened.  While its not explicitly stated, the Federal deficit has noisily bumped into the Affordable Care Act. The IOM has given the ACAs supporters cover over the inconvenient intrusion of costs into coverage, affordability into access and reality into fantasy.  Even if the IOM recommendations fall on deaf ears, DMCB readers can expect the the Federal budgets problems to now and forever be part and parcel of the ACA.

What to do?  When the Disease Management Care Blog is flummoxed, it likes to break into song.  One song that comes to mind is Taxman......