Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

June 9, 2010

Academic health center-community health center partnerships vital to health reform

89 percent of respondents to a recent survey (Academic Health Centers and Community Health Centers: The Landscape of Current Partnerships) by the Association of Academic Health Centers reported that the academic health centerution had an established partnerhsip with one or more community health centers.  These partnerships range from providing primary and preventive care to managing centers, training students, and conducting research. More than 60 percent of the partnerships are with federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).  The FQHC label is part of a designation category designed by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services indicating that the facility serves a medically underserved or health profession shortage area.

In this era of health reform, such partnerships are vital not only to expand access to care but also to address the nation’s health workforce needs.    Because community health centers provide care to more than 20 million people, of which a vast majority live in poverty, it is important to ensure that the policies and practices associated with the establishment,  operations, and collaborations of the community health center not only facilitiate effective care but also  promote innovation in care delivery.

The academic health center-community health center partnership is one that should be encouraged but improvement in federal policy is also needed so that the partnerships can adapt to changing needs.  Policymakers will need to examine regulatory, financing, management, and governance barriers that may be preventing collaborative models of care to flourish.

March 11, 2010

President Obama and the Insurers: Let’s Decide

As President Obama stumps the country trying to regain leadership on health reform—and get the health reform bill passes—he is now taking aim at the health insurers. Citing big rate increases for buyers of individual insurance policies in some states — 40 percent, 60 percent, even 100 percent — Mr. Obama is trying to focus attention on provisions in the legislation that he says will protect consumers from the worst excesses of insurers.

 Is this too little too late?  Where was the President’s voice early on? The process the President set in motion months ago has clearly emboldened the insurers and pharmaceutical companies.  One could argue that they know now that nothing substantive will change and they have carte blanche to do whatever they want.

HHS Secretary Sebelius is also confusing the insurance issue.  Today she told insurers,  “It’s not too late to work on this issue together, for insurance companies to come to the table and work with us.’’ Last week, the Secretary was attacking rate hikes by insurers in California. 

It’s hard for the American public to get the Administration’s message straight. The President and the Secretary have not focused on the day-to-day actions of the insurers that people can relate to and understand.  The insurers have gone hog wild on restrictions on drugs and services and pre-certifications for drugs and services.  People experience that every day.  People are frustrated and fighting that every day—and time and energy with the insurers (I should say with a recorded message machine that the insurers hide behind).  That’s the insurance industry the American people know.  Who will monitor that? Where is that in health reform? Will supporting health reform get the insurers out of medical decision making?  That is what the people want and that is what the President is not addressing.

December 18, 2009

The Spirit of the Season Lives Year Round in Health Professions

Dr. Philip PumerantzThe holidays are upon us once again, and as we become caught in the swirl of activities that mark this time of year, I am reminded of a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Joy is not in things; it is in us.”

It’s easy to lose sight of that big picture when countless smaller pictures get in the way: the frenzy of holiday shopping; endless hours spent online looking for the perfect gifts, then making sure they get shipped on time; rushing to and fro from friends’ and relatives’ homes for meals and parties; candle lighting; decorating the house; packing everything we want to do with friends into our time off; and scrambling to finish work projects before the holiday break takes effect.

This splintered focus on the things surrounding the holidays, rather than on the sentiment that lies at their core, is understandably lamented. As a society, we are chided not only for our embrace of the commercial and materialistic aspects of the season, but also for an inability to consistently care about and for our fellows the way we do around the holidays. How often have we heard what a shame it is that the “spirit of the season” doesn’t last all year long, or that widespread compassion and caring don’t breach the confines of a few short weeks in early winter?

Yet, I would submit to you that the holiday spirit is in effect and on display year-round anywhere that those trained to provide health care to their fellows are putting their expertise into practice, including my institution and the many other academic health centers around the nation and the world.

Skilled hands and caring hearts know no season. They acknowledge the calendar for its effect on others, but — wholly focused on improving the lives of those who seek their help – ignore its seasonal vagaries of sentiment in favor of a consistent commitment to those who most need their attention and expertise.

This commitment to serving our fellows epitomizes “the spirit of the season,” and thus lives throughout the year anywhere compassion and caring are practiced consistently and well.  It is the greatest gift we can offer, and in its giving we shall be fulfilled.

Guest Blog by Philip Pumerantz, PhD, President, Western University of Health Sciences, in Pomona, California

November 24, 2009

The Health Workforce and Health Reform: Progress Report

In the recently released Senate Bill on Health Reform, the establishment of a National Health Care Workforce Commission that “develops and commissions evaluations of education and training activities to determine whether the demand for health workers is being met” is proposed on page 1278.  (As an aside, I am concerned with the use of the word “demand” in the sentence, as the word “need” would more accurately reflect the spirit of true health reform).

Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the House’s proposal for reform, calling, on page 1275,  for the establishment of a “permanent advisory committee…[that would] develop and implement an integrated, coordinated, and strategic national health workforce policy relective of current and evolving health workforce needs.”

The Association of Academic Health Centers is pleased to see both recommendations, which in part reflect our advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill to make the health workforce a priority issue in health reform.

These Bills reflect some of the recommendations in our 2008 report Out of Order, Out of Time: The State of the Nation’s Health Workforce.  The report presented a comprehensive overview of health workforce policy (or, perhaps more aptly said, the lack of health workforce policy) and concluded that health reform cannot ultimately be successful without health workforce reform.  The report was widely circulated and followed up with testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, multiple meetings with offices in the White House, DHHS, and a variety of letters, news releases and so forth.

While neither the House or Senate Bill captures many of the critical recommendations in the AAHC Report, both attempt to address critical workforce issues and raise the significance of health workforce policy.   At this point, the fate of these Bills and the outcome of health reform is not known.  However, we are taking this opportunity before floor debate in the Senate to stress with the Congress the need for broad and comprehensive approaches to workforce policy, and the compelling need to connect the health reform with the health workforce.

November 11, 2009

Who’s Watching the Store? Congress Emboldens Insurers

The voluminous healthcare bill  passed by the House of Representatives last week overlooks several of the most egregious problems in our dysfunctional system.  Among them:

 Lack of meaningful oversight of the hugely expansive and expensive private insurance industry bureaucracy, resulting in rate increases that do not go to patient care. The most recent memorandum from the board of the group health insurance plan associated with my workplace shows double digit increases in the rate history of the medical plans provided by this group.  These are increases above inflation and cost of living and above the rate of any raises received by the average American. 

 Interestingly, some of the largest increases came in 2009, as health insurance reform started to move forward (from 12.4 to 28%, depending on the plan). Insurers are not stupid. They know how to make a fast killing as reform creeps forward and there is nothing to mandate that such actions do not continue into any reform era.      

 Tiered prescription and prescription precertification. Insurers are making medical decisions.  Insurance companies are mandating increasing numbers of medications must be pre-certified.  Insurance companies, not physicians, will tell you whether you are allowed to take the drug prescribed by your physician.  This is happening now and nothing in the legislation will prevent more of this in the future.

 Who will investigate the subversive practices that are emerging, such as demanding precertification for an ever-expanding list  of procedures and then denying payment (a practice that is growing at a startling speed)?  

 Will Congress now make a change and ensure strong oversight of this industry?  Who will monitor the rate increases?  What will be the penalities?  Who will enforce the law? Too many in the Congress have conflicts of interest when it comes to the industry–whether through contributions or spouses sitting on boards or lobbying for the industry. 

 The insurance companies have been emboldened by the ineffectiveness of Congress on health reform.  Until Congress can push back and ask the hard questions of the companies that over the last decade increased rates well beyond any cost of living or national standard, we will have no real reform.

November 2, 2009

More on Interprofessional Education and Practice

As we have previously noted, interprofessional education and practice is somewhat of a buzz word these days.  While there might be an informal consensus of opinion that the health care of the future needs to involve meaningful integration of various health professions into patient-care teams, we have pointed out how the rhetoric in this area is far in front of the reality (see Oct 22 post).  We are aware of many fine institutions engaging in important interprofessional activity, but not enough has been done to focus on this issue at the national level.  At a recent meeting that we convened on the topic, the following observations emerged:

  • The current approach to interprofessional education is a study in grass roots development, as opposed to top-down leadership;
  • Interprofessional education and practice sometimes operate at the periphery of the institution, and are not engrained in the institutional fabric;
  • Attaining accurate predictions and assessments of the skill sets that will be required of health professionals in the future is vital;
  • Determining whether the “education tail” wags the “practice dog” or vice versa is important in developing the content and substance of these programs;
  • The drivers of interprofessional education and practice need to move beyond “belief” and be more empirically driven; and,
  • Health care reform may create demand for interprofessional education and practice by pushing to better  align health professional education with the evolving health care needs of the public.

Health care reform holds the potential to serve as a catalyst for disruptive innovation in health care, and, in so doing, bring interprofessional health care into the mainstream.  Indeed, the drive to create value in health care may lead to team-care as a paradigm that needs to be integrated with health professions education.

October 30, 2009

House Health Reform Takes AAHC Health Workforce Recommendation: More Needed

Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) unveiled proposed health reform legislation from the House.  Put together from the work of three House Committees the bill  includes a public option. 

Also significant, the legislation also now includes language identical to the recommendation made by the Association of Academic Health Centers (AAHC) that a permanent health workforce advisory committee develop and implement “an integrated, coordinated, strategic national health workforce policy.”  The AAHC has advocated for a national workforce planning entity because it believes that the nation’s workforce policy must be changed; the nation’s customary piecemeal approach to the workforce is no longer viable or appropriate for the 21st century.

A  comparable Senate bill is still being negotiated. The Senate should not only include such language in any final bill but also move to ensure the creation of a permanent planning entity that operates continuously, makes ongoing findings and recommendations, and is available at any time to provide consultative support to federal, state, and private health workforce stakeholders. The planning entity must serve as an active policymaking partner, not a passive advisor.

The AAHC has been urging the congressional committees and congressional leadership to broaden the scope of activity of the proposed advisory committee/national commission to fully support a strategic national policy approach.

Specifically, the AAHC recommends the following modifications be incorporated into any health reform legislation considered by the full House and Senate:

  1. Make development and implementation of an integrated, coordinated, strategic national health workforce policy the primary objective of any advisory committee or national commission.
  2.  Constitute the advisory committee or national commission as a continuously available policy research and consultative resource, not simply as a body of external experts that convenes from time to time to make periodic recommendations.
  3. Amend the enumerated issues to be addressed by the advisory committee or national commission to include the harmonization of conflicting national and state-based regulatory and private self-regulatory standards (e.g., licensure, scope of practice, accreditation).

4.    As an interim step, create a national health workforce coordinator to assess current federal capabilities and prepare agencies for their interactions with the advisory committee or national commission once it is fully functional.

 This is the way to ensure that the nation  has the health workforce it needs for the short and long-term.

October 2, 2009

Congress: Listen to the Academic Health Center Leaders on Health Reform

I heard today that congressional staffers are “punch drunk” from logging in so many hours working on health reform.  I am not comforted by that thought given they are trying to  write one of the most significant pieces of legislation in decades.  I am  wary of the urgent rush to produce something—good or bad—to show that Congress is not twiddling its thumbs.  Does the Congress really have all the facts?  Or are they also developing legislation based on minimal or biased information, evidence, experience, or truth?

 I would point to an opinion piece in the LA Times by Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of the school of medicine of Stanford University and chairman of the board of the Association of Academic Health Centers, where he wrote, “Undertaking such an important shift in how we deliver healthcare requires a robust national debate.” With the members of Congress getting ready to say yea or nay on health reform,  we still have not had sufficient debate from all sides.  The nation has heard too much from those leaders who, as Dr. Pizzo says, “choose to rely on fear instead of facts to make their case.”

 Before the votes get counted, we need to hear from the patients who really use and have experience with the health care system as it exists today.  We need to hear more from the leaders of the nation’s academic health centers–some of the most experienced experts on health care in the nation.  Most are physicians who not only have practiced medicine for decades but also have had distinguished careers in academe (and sometimes government).  Most of all, they know what it means to lead and operate an institution, without which our communities–and the health system–cannot function. 

These leaders, who also include nonphysicians, can tell us about patient care, the impact of health on communities, the health and economic consequences of  having no insurance,  and the problems with the current reimbursement system.  They can tell us what it is like to run health professions schools–from medicine to allied health,   major departments at a children’s or other teaching hospital, or an entire teaching hospital or  health system–and what facilitates or impedes care delivery.  

Academic health center leaders are the people at ground zero, making sure that the nation can provide health professions education, biomedical research, and patient care.  They are sustaining the infrastructure that may determine the nation’s future.  Congress should be listening to these voices of experience and reason.

Academic health center leaders know what it takes to provide patient care and sustain a health system in challenging economic times. They not only know the problems but also how to resolve them.  Academic health center  leaders for example, will tell the Congress why we need to establish a permanent workforce planning entity or board so we can resolve primary care shortages and rural health problems–and  ensure the nation has a health workforce for the future.  

Congressional staffers—stop running on empty and get MORE input, advice, and recommendations from the academic health center community.