The late, great economist Uwe Reinhardt once likened the ability of U.S. consumers to shop for health care to sending blindfolded shoppers into a department store. In a new report to the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, the “Shoppable Care Work Group” provides advice on how to take the blindfold off.
In an inspiring perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, new LDI Senior Fellow Atheendar Venkataramani and Alexander Tsai of Harvard explain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and urge medical and public health professionals to counter the threat posed by the program’s rescission.
The package of Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) ushered in by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been under attack in the GOP-led Congress. The latest incarnation of the Senate health reform plan includes the Cruz amendment, which would allow insurers to offer plans that do not cover all ten categories of EHBs.
This is the way it is supposed to work. You develop policy and processes to drive innovation. You design and test innovative ideas in a small, efficient way. You learn and adapt. Successful innovation drives new policy. Rinse and repeat.
And this is the way it appears to have worked, in the case of Medicare bundled payment. Start small with a pilot. Expand in reach and scope if promising. Scale up if successful.
Health care and immigration, two hot button issues for the incoming Administration, come together in a new paper in The Milbank Quarterly on Spanish-speaking immigrants’ access to safety net providers.
Is cancer “special” in terms of the public view and the value placed on potential treatment and cures? The multidisciplinary Penn Precision Cancer Medicine Consortium discussed whether cancer is treated differently from other diseases, and then considered the more normative question of whether it should be treated differently.
Yes, we're aware that it's 2017. But in looking back, we're really looking forward. Each of these important, popular pieces brings evidence to bear on policy issues that will continue to draw attention in 2017.
[content_elements:element:0] 1. Medical Debtor Nation
The eye-popping price tags on some new cancer drugs pose two fundamental questions: are the drugs worth their cost, and if they are, how can we afford them? The Penn Precision Cancer Medicine Consortium considered cost trends and drivers in the second of its conference calls leading up to an in-person conference in May.
Medicare Part D beneficiaries can face as much as 33% coinsurance for some drugs listed in a “specialty tier,” which can result in thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. The concern, of course, is that this level of cost-sharing creates a barrier that may put patients at risk for poor outcomes because they cannot afford the drugs they need.
A new multidisciplinary consortium of more than 20 experts and stakeholders has come together at Penn to address the promise and challenges of precision cancer medicine. Through multiple conference calls culminating in a conference in May 2017, the group will tackle the hard questions that precision medicine raises for patients, providers, and payers. This is the first in a series of posts on the consortium’s work.
This chart on the educational debt level of medical school graduates was tucked away in supplementary material for an excellent article by Ari Friedman and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine on loan forgiveness programs:
How should social risk factors enter into Medicare’s value-based payments to hospitals? The answer goes beyond an arcane discussion of payment policy; it has a direct impact on hospital bottom lines and the quality of care provided to underserved communities. A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—the third in a series of five—lays out criteria and methods to account for social risk factors in Medicare payment.
Kristin Maurer, Edward Norton, PhD, Anup Das, and Andy Ryan, PhD (University of Michigan)
Studying the Value of Value-based Payment