Category Archives: complex adaptive systems

complex adaptive systems, data saving lives, health market quality, healthcare, musings, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

Pincer funding: how to support appropriate coding of adverse events without rewarding bad behaviour

There’s a problem with correct coding of adverse events. In effect, we want a system that rewards correct coding, but punishes harmful behaviour.

If the institution is punished in any way for adverse events, they will be far less likely to code their occurrence.

If the institution is not punished (i.e. rewarded or unaffected) for adverse events, then adverse events will either continue or at best remain unchanged.

A thought bubble had today at the safety and quality commission workshop involves the idea of a pincer funding arrangement, specifically suited to Australia’s current funding arrangements.

At the local hospital district (or individual hospital) level, pay for coded adverse events, but then impose financial penalties at the state (or local hospital district) level.

I imagine they’d just all learn new ways to game this, but the intent is to reward correct coding, but punish harmful behaviour.

complex adaptive systems, facts & data points, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems, storytelling

The many reasons why the US is losing in health

  • very interesting piece
  • covers off Cth Fund and IOM comparative work
  • also discusses social determinants, and specifically the idea that less equal societies are comparatively less healthy across the board (including the wealthy)
  • The critical importance of poverty prevalence in a country’s health (AU is 12.5% c.f. average of 9% cf. US of 15%)

Woolf explained this disparity by citing the work of the British social epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson, who has proposed that income inequality generates adverse health effects even among the affluent. Wide gaps in income, Wilkinson argues, diminish our trust in others and our sense of community, producing, among other things, a tendency to underinvest in social infrastructure. Furthermore, Woolf told me, even wealthy Americans are not isolated from a lifestyle filled with oversized food portions, physical inactivity, and stress. Consider the example of paid parental leave, for which the United States ranks dead last among O.E.C.D. countries. It’s not hard to see how such policies might have implications for infant and child health.

  • Political systems have important effects on policy:  fewer “choke points for special interests to block or reshape legislation,” such as filibusters or Presidential vetoes allows change to be enacted without extensive political negotiation.

Other countries have used their governments as instruments to improve health—including, but not limited to, the development of universal health insurance. Health-policy analysts have therefore considered the effect that different political systems have on public health. Most O.E.C.D. countries, for example, have parliamentary systems, where the party that wins the majority of seats in the legislature forms the government. Because of this overlap of the legislative and executive branches, parliamentary systems have fewer checks and balances—fewer of what Victor Fuchs, a health economist at Stanford, calls “choke points for special interests to block or reshape legislation,” such as filibusters or Presidential vetoes. In a parliamentary system, change can be enacted without extensive political negotiation—whereas the American system was designed, at least in part, to avoid the concentration of power that can produce such swift changes.

  • universal health coverage is not just altruistic, but also self-interested
  • healthcare is only responsible for between 10 and 25% of improvements in life expectancy – SDH responsible for the rest, mainly elements that impact on early childhood

Most experts estimate that modern medical care delivered to individual patients—such as physician and hospital treatments covered by health insurance—has only been responsible for between ten and twenty-five percent of the improvements in life expectancy over the last century. The rest has come from changes in the social determinants of health, particularly in early childhood.

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/06/why-america-is-losing-the-health-race.html

JUNE 13, 2014

WHY AMERICA IS LOSING THE HEALTH RACE

POSTED BY 
americans-health-reports.jpg
Many Americans are aware that the United States spends much more on health care than any other country in the world. But fewer people know that the health of Americans—by many different measures—is actually worse than the health of citizens in other wealthy countries.Two major reports, both released last year, provide further elaboration of this apparent paradox. The first, “The State of US Health, 1990-2010,” documented trends in mortality and morbidity across the thirty-four member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.). The study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (to which I am a contributing writer), showed that both life expectancy and healthy-life expectancy improved in the United States over two decades. But the pace of those improvements was considerably slower in the United States: in 1990, the U.S. ranked twentieth among O.E.C.D. countries for life expectancy, and fourteenth for healthy-life expectancy; by 2010, it had fallen to twenty-seventh and twenty-sixth, respectively. The other charts and tables in the report—about heart, lung, and kidney disease; diabetes; injuries and homicides; depression; and drug abuse—all show Americans suffering poorer health.

The second report, commissioned by the National Institutes of Health, and conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), convened a panel of experts to examine health indicators in seventeen high-income countries. It found the United States in a similarly poor position: American men had the lowest life expectancy, and American women the second-lowest. In some ways, these reports were not news. As early as the nineteen-seventies, a group of leading health analysts had noted the discrepancy between American health spending and outcomes in a book called “Doing Better and Feeling Worse: Health in the United States.” From this perspective, the U.S. has been doing something wrong for a long time. But, as the first of these two reports shows, the gap is widening; despite spending more than any other country, America ranks very poorly in international comparisons of health. The second report may provide an answer—supporting the intuition long held by researchers that social circumstances, especially income, have a significant effect on health outcomes.

Americans’ health disadvantage actually begins at birth: the U.S. has the highest rates of infant mortality among high-income countries, and ranks poorly on other indicators such as low birth weight. In fact, children born in the United States have a lower chance of surviving to the age of five than children born in any other wealthy nation—a fact that will almost certainly come as a shock to most Americans. But what causes such poor health outcomes among American children, and how can those outcomes be improved? Public-health experts focus on the “social determinants of health”—factors that shape people’s health beyond their lifestyle choices and medical treatments. These include education, income, job security, working conditions, early-childhood development, food insecurity, housing, and the social safety net.

Steven Schroeder, the former president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—the largest philanthropic organization in the United States devoted to health issues—had a definitive answer to my question about why Americans might be less healthy than their developed-country counterparts. “Poverty,” he said. “The United States has proportionately more poor people, and the gap between rich and poor is widening.” Seventeen per cent of Americans live in poverty; the median figure for other O.E.C.D. countries is only nine percent. For three decades, America has had the highest rate of child poverty of any wealthy nation.

Steven Woolf, of Virginia Commonwealth University, who chaired the panel that produced the NRC-IOM report, also pointed to poverty when I asked him to explain the causes of America’s health disadvantage. “Could there possibly be a common thread that leads Americans to have higher rates of infant mortality, more deaths from car crashes and gun violence, more heart disease, more AIDS, and more premature deaths from drugs and alcohol? Is there some common denominator?” he asked. “One possibility is the way Americans, as a society, manage their affairs. Many Americans embrace rugged individualism and reject restrictions on behaviors that pose risks to health. There is less of a sense of solidarity, especially with vulnerable populations.” As a percentage of G.D.P., Woolf observed, the U.S. invests less than other wealthy countries in social programs like parental leave and early-childhood education, and there is strong resistance to paying taxes to finance such programs. The U.S. ranks first among O.E.C.D. countries in health-care expenditures, but as Elizabeth Bradley, a researcher at Yale, has documented, it ranks twenty-fifth in spending on social services.

The NRC-IOM report emphasized the effect of social forces on children and how those forces carry over to affect the health of adults, noting that American children are “more likely than children in peer countries to grow up in poverty” and that “poor social conditions during childhood precipitate a chain of adverse life events.” For example, of the seventeen wealthy democracies included in the report, the U.S. has the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and the second-highest prevalence of H.I.V. This platform of adverse health influences in childhood sets up the health disadvantage that remains pervasive for all age groups under seventy-five in the United States.

It seems likely that many Americans would respond to these figures—and to the role poverty plays in poor health outcomes—by assuming that the data for all Americans is being skewed downward by the health of the poorest. That is, they understand that poor Americans have worse health, and presume that, because the United States has more poor people than other wealthy countries, the average health looks worse. But one of the most interesting findings in the NRC-IOM report is that even white, college-educated, high-income Americans with healthy behaviors have worse health than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

Woolf explained this disparity by citing the work of the British social epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson, who has proposed that income inequality generates adverse health effects even among the affluent. Wide gaps in income, Wilkinson argues, diminish our trust in others and our sense of community, producing, among other things, a tendency to underinvest in social infrastructure. Furthermore, Woolf told me, even wealthy Americans are not isolated from a lifestyle filled with oversized food portions, physical inactivity, and stress. Consider the example of paid parental leave, for which the United States ranks dead last among O.E.C.D. countries. It’s not hard to see how such policies might have implications for infant and child health.

Other countries have used their governments as instruments to improve health—including, but not limited to, the development of universal health insurance. Health-policy analysts have therefore considered the effect that different political systems have on public health. Most O.E.C.D. countries, for example, have parliamentary systems, where the party that wins the majority of seats in the legislature forms the government. Because of this overlap of the legislative and executive branches, parliamentary systems have fewer checks and balances—fewer of what Victor Fuchs, a health economist at Stanford, calls “choke points for special interests to block or reshape legislation,” such as filibusters or Presidential vetoes. In a parliamentary system, change can be enacted without extensive political negotiation—whereas the American system was designed, at least in part, to avoid the concentration of power that can produce such swift changes.

Whatever the political obstacles, a major explanation for America’s persistent health disadvantage is simply a lack of public awareness. “Little is likely to happen until the American public is informed about this issue,” the authors of the NRC-IOM report noted. “Why don’t Americans know that children born here are less likely to reach the age of five than children born in other high income countries?” Woolf asked. I suggested that perhaps people believe that the problem is restricted to other people’s children. He said, “We are talking about their children and their health too.”

The superior health outcomes achieved by other wealthy countries demonstrate that Americans are—to use the language of negotiators—“leaving years of life on the table.” The causes of this problem are many: poverty, widening income disparity, underinvestment in social infrastructure, lack of health insurance coverage and access to health care. Expanding insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act will help, but pouring more money into health care is not the only answer. Most experts estimate that modern medical care delivered to individual patients—such as physician and hospital treatments covered by health insurance—has only been responsible for between ten and twenty-five percent of the improvements in life expectancy over the last century. The rest has come from changes in the social determinants of health, particularly in early childhood.

Self-interest may be a natural human trait, but when it comes to public health other countries are showing the U.S. that what appears at first to be an altruistic concern for the health and care of the most vulnerable—especially children—may well result in improved health for all members of a society, including the affluent. Until Americans find their way to understanding this dynamic, and figure out how to mobilize public opinion in its favor, they will all continue to lose out on better health and longer lives.

 

Allan S. Detsky (M.D., Ph.D.) is a general internist and a professor of Health Policy Management and Evaluation and of Medicine at the University of Toronto, where he was formerly physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital. He is a contributing writer for The Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

Photograph by Ashley Gilbertson /VII.

business, complex adaptive systems, cool, data saving lives, entrepreneurship, facts & data points, file note, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, management and leadership, meaning, nutrition, policy, politics, quantified self, rapid learning health systems, research methodology, startup, storytelling

The Vitality Institute: Investing In Prevention – A National Imperetive

Vitality absolutely smash it across the board…

  • Investment
  • Leadership
  • Market Creation
  • Developing Health Metrics
  • Everything…!

Must get on to these guys…..

PDF: Vitality_Recommendations2014_Report

PDF: InvestingInPrevention_Slides

Presentation: https://goto.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1034543 (email: blackfriar@gmail.com)

 

From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/06/18/how-corporate-america-could-save-300-billion-by-measuring-health-like-financial-performance/

Bruce Japsen, Contributor

I write about health care and policies from the president’s hometown

How Corporate America Could Save $300 Billion By Measuring Health Like Financial Performance

The U.S. could save more than $300 billion annually if employers adopted strategies that promoted health, prevention of chronic disease and measured progress of “working-age” individuals like they did their financial performance, according to a new report.

The analysis, developed by some well-known public health advocates brought together and funded by The Vitality Institute, said employers could save $217 billion to $303 billion annually, or 5 to 7 percent of total U.S. annual health spending by 2023, by adopting strategies to help Americans head off “non-communicable” diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory issues as well as mental health.

To improve, the report’s authors say companies should be reporting health metrics like BMI and other employee health statuses just like they regularly report earnings and how an increasing number of companies report sustainability. Corporations should be required to integrate health metrics into their annual reporting by 2025, the Vitality Institute said. A link to the entire report and its recommendations is here. 

“Companies should consider the health of their employees as one of their greatest assets,” said Derek Yach, executive director of the Vitality Institute, a New York-based organization funded by South Africa’s largest health insurance company, Discovery Limited.

Those involved in the report say its recommendations come at a time the Affordable Care Act and employers emphasize wellness as a way to improve quality and reduce costs.

“Healthy workers are more productive, resulting in improved financial performance,” Yach said. “We’re calling on corporations to take accountability and start reporting health metrics in their financial and sustainability reports.  We believe this will positively impact the health of both employees and the corporate bottom line.”

The Institute brought together a commission linked here that includes some executives from the health care industry and others who work in academia and business. Commissioners came from Microsoft (MSFT);  the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; drug and medical device giant Johnson & Johnson (JNJ); health insurer Humana (HUM); and the U.S. Department of Health and Humana Services.

The Vitality Institute said up to 80 percent of non-communicable diseases can be prevented through existing “evidence-based methods” and its report encourages the nation’s policymakers and legislative leaders to increase federal spending on prevention science at least 10 percent by 2017.

“Preventable chronic diseases such as lung cancer, diabetes and heart disease are forcing large numbers of people to exit the workforce prematurely due to their own poor health or to care for sick relatives,” said William Rosenzweig, chair of the Vitality Institute Commission and an executive at Physic Ventures, which invests in health and sustainability projects. “Yet private employers spend less than two percent of their total health budgets on prevention.  This trend will stifle America’s economic growth for decades to come unless health is embraced as a core value in society.”

business, complex adaptive systems, entrepreneurship, health market quality, healthcare, policy, politics, quotes & aphorisms

Relman Obit: the medical-industrial complex

RelmanOnHealthcare

http://t.co/g9LnZnM5ta

“Many people think that doctors make their recommendations from a basis of scientific certainty, that the facts are very clear and there’s only one way to diagnose or treat an illness,” he told the review. “In reality, that’s not always the case. Many things are a matter of conjecture, tradition, convenience, habit. In this gray area, where the facts are not clear and one has to make certain assumptions, it is unfortunately very easy to do things primarily because they are economically attractive.”

Dr. Arnold Relman, Medical Editor and Health System Critic, Dies at 91

By 

Dr. Arnold S. Relman in 1979 at The New England Journal of Medicine. He led it for 23 years.Associated Press
Dr. Arnold S. Relman, who abandoned the study of philosophy to rise to the top of the medical profession as a researcher, administrator and longtime editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, which became a platform for his early and influential attacks on the profit-driven health care system, died at his home in Cambridge, Mass., on Tuesday, his 91st birthday.

His wife, Dr. Marcia Angell, said the cause wasmelanoma.

Dr. Relman and Dr. Angell filled top editorial posts at the journal for almost a quarter-century, becoming “American medicine’s royal couple,” as the physician and journalist Abigail Zuger wrote in The New York Times in 2012.

The couple shared a George Polk Award, one of journalism’s highest prizes, for an article in 2002 in The New Republic that documented how drug companies invest far more in advertising and lobbying than in research and development.

His extended critique of the medical system was just one facet of a long and accomplished career. Dr. Relman was president of the American Federation for Clinical Research, the American Society of Clinical Investigation and the Association of American Physicians — the only person to hold all three positions. He taught and did research at Boston University, the University of Pennsylvania, Oxford and Harvard, where he was professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine.

Early in his career, he did pioneering research on kidney function.

He was also editor of The Journal of Clinical Investigation, a bible in its field, and he wrote hundreds of articles, for both professional journals and general-interest publications. Days before he died, Dr. Relman received the galleys of his final article, a review of a book on health care spending for The New York Review of Books, to which he was a frequent contributor.

In a provocative essay in the New England journal on Oct. 23, 1980, Dr. Relman, the editor in chief, issued the clarion call that would resound through his career, assailing the American health care system as caring more about making money than curing the sick. He called it a “new medical-industrial complex” — a deliberate analogy to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning about a “military-industrial complex.”

His targets were not the old-line drug companies and medical-equipment suppliers, but rather a new generation of health care and medical services — profit-driven hospitals and nursing homes, diagnostic laboratories, home-care services, kidney dialysis centers and other businesses that made up a multibillion-dollar industry.

“The private health care industry is primarily interested in selling services that are profitable, but patients are interested only in services that they need,” he wrote. In an editorial, The Times said he had “raised a timely warning.”

In 2012, asked how his prediction had turned out, Dr. Relman said medical profiteering had become even worse than he could have imagined.

His prescription was a single taxpayer-supported insurance system, likeMedicare, to replace hundreds of private, high-overhead insurance companies, which he called “parasites.” To control costs, he advocated that doctors be paid a salary rather than a fee for each service performed.

Dr. Relman recognized that his recommendations for repairing the health care system might be politically impossible, but he insisted that it was imperative to keep trying. Though he said he was glad that the health care law signed by President Obama in 2010 enabled more people to get insurance, he saw the legislation as a partial reform at best.

The health care system, he said, was in need of a more aggressive solution to fundamental problems, which he had discussed, somewhat philosophically, in an interview with Technology Review in 1989.

“Many people think that doctors make their recommendations from a basis of scientific certainty, that the facts are very clear and there’s only one way to diagnose or treat an illness,” he told the review. “In reality, that’s not always the case. Many things are a matter of conjecture, tradition, convenience, habit. In this gray area, where the facts are not clear and one has to make certain assumptions, it is unfortunately very easy to do things primarily because they are economically attractive.”

Dr. Relman edited The New England Journal of Medicine from 1977 to 1991. Founded in 1812, it is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, reaching more than 600,000 readers a week. Dr. Angell was the editor in 1999 and 2000.

When he took the journal’s helm, interest in health news was booming, and newspapers and magazines competed to be first in reporting new developments. One policy he instituted was to ask general-interest publications not to disclose a forthcoming article in advance, a request almost always honored, albeit sometimes grudgingly.

He also began requiring authors to disclose any financial arrangements that could affect their judgment in writing about the medical field, including consultancies and stock ownership.

Dr. Relman and Dr. Angell met when she was a third-year student and he was a professor at Boston University School of Medicine. They published a paper on kidney disease together in The New England Journal of Medicine, then did not see each other for years.

After he became the journal’s editor, he asked her to come on board as an editor, which she did, abandoning her career as a pathologist. They began living together in 1994 — both were divorced by then — and married in 2009.

They became the ultimate medical power couple, not least because they were gatekeepers for one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. Their outspoken views further distinguished them.

“Some have dismissed the pair as medical Don Quixotes, comically deluded figures tilting at benign features of the landscape,” Dr. Zuger wrote in The Times. “Others consider them first responders in what has become a battle for the soul of American medicine.”

Arnold Seymour Relman was born on June 17, 1923, in Queens (in an elevator, according to Dr. Angell) and grew up in the Far Rockaway neighborhood. His father was a businessman and avid reader who inspired his son’s love of philosophy. His mother nicknamed him Buddy, and friends called him Bud the rest of his life.

He skipped grades in school and graduated at 19 from Cornell with a degree in philosophy, but he chose not to pursue the field because it “seemed sort of too arcane,” his wife said. He earned a medical degree from the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons at 22. His first marriage was to Harriet M. Vitkin.

In addition to Dr. Angell, he is survived by his sons, David and John, and a daughter, Margaret R. Batten, all from his first marriage; his stepdaughters, Dr. Lara Goitein and Elizabeth Goitein; six granddaughters; and four stepgrandsons.

Last June, Dr. Relman fell down a flight of stairs and cracked his skull, broke three vertebrae in his neck and broke more bones in his face. When he reached the emergency room, surgeons cut his neck to connect a breathing tube. His heart stopped three times.

“Technically, I died,” he told The Boston Globe.

He went on to write an article about his experience for The New York Review of Books, offering the unusual perspective of both a patient and a doctor.

“It’s both good and bad to be a doctor and to be old and sick,” he told The Globe.

“You learn to make the most of it,” he added. “Schopenhauer, the German philosopher, said life is slow death. Doctors learn to accept that as part of life. Although we consider death to be our enemy, it’s something we know very well, and that we deal with all the time, and we know that we are no different. My body is just another body.”

Correction: June 23, 2014 
An earlier version of this obituary misstated where Dr. Relman and his wife, Dr. Marcia Angell, met. They met when she was a student and he was a professor at Boston University School of Medicine, not Harvard Medical School. Because of an editing error, the earlier version also misstated the dates of Dr. Relman’s tenure as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. He held the post from 1977 to 1991, not from 1977 to 2000. (Dr. Angell was editor in 1999 and 2000.)

A version of this article appears in print on June 22, 2014, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Dr. Arnold Relman, 91, Outspoken Medical Editor, Dies. Order Reprints|Today’s Paper|Subscribe

complex adaptive systems, entrepreneurship, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, management and leadership, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

BBC Start The Week: Thinking about new forms of Government

Compelling discussion about new thinking about, and forms of government…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/stw

Tristram Hunt, Adrian Wooldridge, Charu Lata Hogg and Anjan Sundaram

Mon, 9 Jun 14

Duration:
42 mins

Tom Sutcliffe discusses whether Western states have anything to learn from countries like China and Singapore. Adrian Wooldridge argues that many governments have become bloated and there’s a global race to reinvent the state. In the past Britain was at the forefront of exporting ideas on how to run a country, as the Labour MP Tristram Hunt explains in his book on the legacy of empire. Charu Lata Hogg from Chatham House looks at the challenges to democracy in Thailand where the country is in political turmoil, and the journalist Anjan Sundaram spent a year in The Congo during the violent 2006 elections, and looks at day-to-day life in a failing state.

complex adaptive systems, data saving lives, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

Duckett: Has health reform failed? Yes

A big issue for the health system in Australia is that no-one’s in charge. Not the Commonwealth, not the states, not the private health insurance funds. Most provision is private: general practitioners are increasingly employed by for-profit chains, and before that, small business people. They respond to incentives designed by the Commonwealth government.

http://theconversation.com/did-the-health-reform-process-fail-now-well-never-know-27921

Did the health reform process fail? Now we’ll never know

Abandoning health reforms will undoubtedly lead to worse performance, including longer waiting times, across the health system. AAP Image/Quentin Jones

Yesterday was a sorry day in the long history of health reform in Australia. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council issued its five year score-keeper’s report on health reform progress. It will be the last such report, since the COAG Reform Council has been sacrificed on the altar of savings in the May budget, and we will no longer know how our governments are performing.

The COAG Reform Council paints some lipstick on the pig but overall reform results are poor in the health system. Compared to last year, Australians are waiting marginally longer for elective surgery, longer for community support in the home, and dramatically longer to get into residential aged care.

On the upside, we’re living slightly longer, having fewer heart attacks and the incidence of some cancers has reduced. The five-year trends for performance paint a similar picture to the year-on-year results.

It’s easy to conclude that the health reform process was a waste of time and money. But this is shortsighted. Many of the structural reforms focused on building the foundations of a health system that was on the verge of being able to deliver real improvements in patient care.

Slow road to reform

Kevin Rudd’s gab-fest of health reform talk in 2009 and early 2010 led to an alphabet soup of new health agencies, some investment in parts of the health system, more data in the public domain than we’ve ever seen but precious little in terms of real on-the-ground improvements.

But there were some important exceptions. The Rudd-appointed National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission identified a gap in availability of rehabilitation beds in the system. Without adequate rehabilitation care people were ending up in nursing homes when they could have been at home. Reform money helped to address that gap, although that funding was abruptly terminated in the 2014 budget.

Funding was also provided for better prevention programs and to reward improvements in waiting times where they occurred. Medicare Locals were created to provide a platform for improvements in primary care such as better after-hours services.

Running a health system is hard, improving it is even harder. But we have to improve every day just to stand still. The new treatments that are introduced every week put pressure on the health dollar. These new treatments, though, mean we’re living longer – so we get something for the extra money.

A big issue for the health system in Australia is that no-one’s in charge. Not the Commonwealth, not the states, not the private health insurance funds. Most provision is private: general practitioners are increasingly employed by for-profit chains, and before that, small business people. They respond to incentives designed by the Commonwealth government.

The pathology and radiology markets are also highly concentrated corporatised businesses. Around one-third of hospital beds are in private hospitals, and most of those are for-profit businesses as well.

Abolishing the foundations

The health reform process mainly concentrated on two aspects of the system: primary care and public hospitals. Primary care reform was mainly effected through the creation of Medicare Locals and GP Super Clinics.

Both were good ideas but flawed in implementation: some Super Clinics are still not open five years after the policy got underway. Medicare Locals were over-hyped by the previous government, wrapped up in red tape by the Commonwealth Health Department and as a result of the budget are being abolished and replaced by new organisations.

Public hospital reform had two elements. In most states it included increased local autonomy through introduction of local boards, and increased services with expanded rehab being the best example. At the national level it included a new alignment of Commonwealth and state interests in controlling hospital costs.

From June 1, 2014, the Commonwealth will meet 45% of the costs of increased hospital activity, but only up to an independently determined “efficient price”. This is a good reform, because could have ended the blame game between Commonwealth and states over money by locking the former into funding increased health state health spending. But these changes will be undone in 2017.

So come 2017, most evidence of health reform will have vanished. There will be some ongoing structures and services, but the big aspirations to address the big problems will have fizzled out.

The problems won’t go away, however. Innovation and system reform will still be required. If anyone is around to issue the next score-keeper’s report it will undoubtedly show worse performance, including longer waiting times, across the health system. There’ll then be more calls for reform and the whole cycle will start again, but with wasted years in the meantime.

complex adaptive systems, data saving lives, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

Cth Fund Country Comparisons

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

PPT: Exhibit_ES1_CthFund

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

Executive Summary

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).

Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Overall health care rankingClick to download Powerpoint chart.

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.5 Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law. Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with above- average and below-average incomes.

The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.

For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.

Major Findings

  • Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
  • Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
  • Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
  • Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
  • Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Summary and Implications

The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.

Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.

Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years.

us health care ranks last

complex adaptive systems, data saving lives, health market quality, healthcare, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

Selecting health insurance based on value of care covered…

A solid idea.

Allowing consumers to pick how “fruity” they want their cover to be. This takes self-serving autonomy from the clinicians and places it back with the patients, who no longer have to cross-subsidise silly, exorbitant care.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/how-to-pay-for-only-the-health-care-you-want.html

How to Pay for Only the Health Care You Want

Magoz

By Austin Frakt andAmitabh Chandra

One reason health insurance is expensive is that most plans cover just about every medical technology — not just the ones that work, or the ones that are worth the price. This not only drives up costs, but also forces many Americans into purchasing coverage for therapies they may not value. But there’s no reason things couldn’t be different, and better for consumers.

Consider the latest technology for treating prostate cancer: the proton beam. It’s delivered with a football field-size machine costing well over $100 million. Per treatment, this therapy costs at least twice as much as alternative approaches, but is no more effective. Many health plans cover it and other therapies of low or uncertain value because they pay for anything that physicians deem medically necessary even when evidence suggests otherwise. And, without even knowing it, Americans pay for it in higher premiums.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If plans could compete on the basis of the therapies they cover, consumers could decide what they wish to pay for. This sounds complicated, but it need not be.

Health plans could define themselves at least in part by the value of technologies they cover, an idea proposed by Professor Russell Korobkin of the U.C.L.A. School of Law. For example, a bronze plan could cover hospitalizations and visits to doctors for emergencies and accidents; genetic diseases; and prescription drugs that keep people out of hospitals. A silver plan could cover what bronze plans do but also include treatments a large majority of physicians find useful. A gold plan could be more inclusive still, adding coverage, for instance, for every cancer therapy shown to improve patient outcomes (no matter the cost) as long as it was delivered at a leading cancer center. Finally, a platinum plan could cover experimental and unproven cancer therapies, including, for example, that proton beam.

This way, nothing would be concealed or withheld from consumers. Someone who wanted proton-beam cancer treatment coverage could have it by selecting a platinum policy and paying its higher premiums. Someone who did not want to pay higher premiums for lower-value care, in turn, could choose a bronze or silver plan. This gives a different, but more useful, meaning to the terms “gold,” “silver” and “bronze” than they have in the new insurance exchanges today.

A second concern is that as people become sick, they will prefer plans that cover more treatments, including experimental ones. As sick people disproportionately choose more generous plans, their expenses and premiums will have to rise. This phenomenon, known as adverse selection, is familiar in most health insurance markets, including those for employer-sponsored plans, private plans that participate in Medicare and in the Affordable Care Act’s new marketplaces. One common way to address it is to permit individuals to switch plans only once per year, during an open enrollment period. This locks people into their choice for some time, so they can’t suddenly upgrade their plan after getting sick. If a once-per-year enrollment period proves insufficient in this case, a longer period could be imposed.

Structuring health plans according to value would give Americans the ability to buy whatever health care technologies they choose — including, if they want it, unproven and expensive care — without forcing others to pay for that choice. This would help address the key, though under-recognized, problem in American health care today: not that Americans spend a lot on health care, but that they spend a lot without always getting good value for the money.

Austin Frakt is a health economist with several governmental and academic affiliations. He blogs at The Incidental Economist, and you can follow him on Twitter at @afrakt.

Amitabh Chandra is a professor of public policy at Harvard’s John F Kennedy School of Government. His government affiliations and financial disclosures are listed on hisHarvard website. Follow him on Twitter at @amitabhchandra2.

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

complex adaptive systems, data saving lives, health market quality, healthcare, healthy habits, musings, policy, politics, rapid learning health systems

A chat with Terry

An excerpt of a conversation with Terry Hannan on the business and bureaucracy of health and clinical care…

 

Terry, thank you for sharing those terrific papers by John Wennberg and Brent James… inspiring and affirming thinking.

 

Regarding your request for me to expand on how “true” priorities of the system are expressed:

My overarching thesis for eHealth and its myriad follies is that the systems built often correctly reflect the “true” priorities of the system. The only glitch is that these priorities are often so radically divorced from those stated by the system’s leaders and in turn expected by clinicians and/or the public.[I would like you to expand this # as I am not sure I entirely grasp your focus here.]

 

Different stakeholders expect different returns from their investments. Roughly speaking (and apologies in advance for some of the generalisations that follow):

– politicians want to maximise votes in return for policy announcements

– bureaucrats want to maximise budget, status and power, and minimise risk in return to turning up to work

– public sector doctors want to maximise the health of their patients and status in return for turning up to work and working hard

– private sector doctors want to maximise income and status and minimise legal exposures in return for doing as much work as possible

– private hospitals want to maximise revenue in return for getting as many patients through their doors as possible

– nurses unions want to maximise members in return for negotiating improved work conditions

– not-for-profit (mutual) private health insurers want to maximise their perks by keeping doctors and private hospitals happy

– for-profit private health insurers want to maximise their profit margins by minimising doctor and hospital payments and maximising membership

– health researchers want to maximise their research capacity in return for increased publications

 

(Patients don’t even make my list of stakeholders, because they are not truly involved at present. An interesting remedy for this is citizen juries, a discussion for another time – did you ever engage with Prof Gavin Mooney before his untimely death?)

 

This suggests that each of these tribes wants a different “currency” in exchange for the “value” they deliver to the health system. They all use “patient interest” as the public justification for their claims on the system, but most of them are not actually remunerated in a currency that relates to the patient’s interest.

 

Indeed, in true “rent seeking” fashion, most of these stakeholders would rather not have to justify their remuneration to anyone – see this recent HLM news article.

 

At present, the easiest way to see what the system actually values is by looking at what it invests in. One “tell” that belies the health system’s “true” priorities is what it goes to the effort to properly records in electronic form i.e. billing data. This therefore suggests that money is the priority, and so it is what is tracked carefully.

 

If “patient interest” was truly the priority of the system, then far more effort and expense would be put into tracking patient outcomes, and in time, paying for them. On this, I am encouraged by the early shoots starting to sprout in the US around the development of ACOs, though I’m sure there are a lot more warts on it when seen up close.

 

My favourite “tale” of how to get there relates to how I’m told traditional chinese medical practitioners used to be paid. Everyone in the village would pay the practitioner as long as they were well, but stopped paying them whenever they ever got sick. This tight pecuniary alignment between patient and practitioner interest excites me, and makes me think there is still hope for ACO-style reform here. Indeed, my current health policy horizon doesn’t even involve hospitals and doctors, but rather looks at prevention efforts as the focus, as separate system with separate funding and separate participants.

 

I suspect this is best discussed over a long lunch or dinner, which I look forward to when the opportunity next arises.

 

Best regards, Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Hannan, Terry J (DHHS) [mailto:Terry.Hannan@dhhs.tas.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 9:07 PM
To: Paul Nicolarakis
Subject: RE: contact

 

See my inserted notes.

 

From: Paul Nicolarakis [mailto:pnicolarakis@cmcrc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 5:45 PM
To: Hannan, Terry J (DHHS)
Subject: RE: contact

 

Thanks for your forbearance Terry.

 

I’m inspired by your resilience and enthusiasm for the area, and quite certain that this particular eHealth conversation is going to yield some interesting insights. I present these ideas (which tend towards the political more than technical or clinical) to you in confidence, with a view to sharpening up the thinking. In light of my political experience, I would not want to offend any past masters as they were operating within some diabolical constraints.

 

My overarching thesis for eHealth and its myriad follies is that the systems built often correctly reflect the “true” priorities of the system. The only glitch is that these priorities are often so radically divorced from those stated by the system’s leaders and in turn expected by clinicians and/or the public.

 

Applying this analysis, it makes sense that an EMR purpose built to support HIV treatment in Africa would work because the only people involved in its development are dedicated clinicians, developers and minimal funding from similarly aligned entities with the specific purpose of improving the quality of care.

 

It also makes sense that physician led, integrated health systems (e.g. Regenstrief, Intermountain) that understand the “triple aim” nexus between high quality care and reduced costs would employ these systems successfully.

 

But finally, it also follows that systems built for governments in modern western democratic economies will never work because they are being built to get their political leaders re-elected, and make their vendors lots of money, but not really serve the community. The failure of these systems is ultimately guaranteed when the transparency they risk introducing into a system starts to threaten vested interests such as private medical providers and their associated institutions.

 

As per your slide from Blum, the red tail wags the yellow and blue dog because this is actually what matters in modern health care.

 

Microsoft learned this the hard way with their health solutions group efforts that I was involved in for a few years. The analytics software (Amalga) was quite impressive, initially developed by a group of keen, inquisitive (“data curious”) emergency physicians. They used the solution to monitor all sorts of clinical quality metrics across the business Washington Hospital Center service. Microsoft executives saw it, were impressed and acquired it. They then tried for 4 years to sell it to the world, only to discover that the “world” was not as interested in “clinical quality” as they were in bottom line revenues. What emerged from this experiment was the realisation that Microsoft had found itself ambushed by the gross conceit of modern healthcare i.e. stating that it was all about patient care, when in actual fact it was all about cash. Hence the highly administrative focus of most EMRs?

 

What has been terrific is to see US policy makers respond to this realisation by establishing “business models” around meaningful use and clinical outcomes. This is what seriously excites me now, though I suspect Australia is a decade away from adopting anything like what’s going on in the US at the moment.

 

One of the mantras we have here at the CRC (born in part out of our academic finance roots) is: “Healthcare is not a system, it’s a series of highly dysfunctional markets”. Applying this prism to healthcare really does start to clarify things, especially on the private side. On the public side, the currencies are sometimes different, but no less predictable.

 

I’ll pause here for fear of triggering some sort of global terrorist alert and/or offending you? Needless to say, I look forward to seeing where this conversation goes!

 

Best regards, Paul

 

 

 

From: Hannan, Terry J (DHHS) [mailto:Terry.Hannan@dhhs.tas.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 2:15 PM
To: Paul Nicolarakis
Subject: Re: contact

 

Take your time you just spark my enthusiasm. The fact that you are interested is such joy. Terry

Sent from my iPhone Terry Hannan
On 17 Jun 2014, at 1:40 pm, “Paul Nicolarakis” <pnicolarakis@cmcrc.com> wrote:

Please bear with me Terry… I’ve got lots on at work… will respond soon… Paul

 

From: Hannan, Terry J (DHHS) [mailto:Terry.Hannan@dhhs.tas.gov.au]
Sent: Monday, 16 June 2014 2:12 PM
To: Paul Nicolarakis
Subject: RE: contact

 

Paul, thank you for the taking the time to write to me and if you think about it this is the first time in our long association where we have done a bit of eHealth “together”.

Based on your enthusiasm in the text I will now send you some materials which should further extend our discussions.

 

Firstly I have attached nan short slide set that I had prepared for the Sydney meeting-just in case.

The next slide is explained in the text flowing it.

<image001.png>

 

This slide is taken from B. Blum’s Clinical Information Systems and you can see the small RED Administrativebox in the top left which is where most HIS funding and management comes from and they try to meet the needs of the most important cost generator Clinical Decision Making.

This is confirmed by the work in cost reduction in CDSS as shown in the slide set attached by Tierney in Regenstrief.

Also in the references below.

1.         Slack WV. Cybermedicine, How Computing Empowers Doctors and Patients for Better Health Care. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001 2001.

2.         Tierney WM, Fitzgerald JF, Miller ME, James MK, McDonald CJ. Predicting inpatient costs with admitting clinical data. Med Care. 1995;33(1):1-14. Epub 1995/01/01.

3.         Tierney WM, Overhage JM, Takesue BY, Harris LE, Murray MD, Vargo DL, et al. Computerizing guidelines to improve care and patient outcomes: the example of heart failure. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2(5):316-22. Epub 1995/09/01.

 

In addition these results from institutions such as Regenstrief, Intermountain Health (HELP System), Brigham’ and Women’s Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospitals confirm these findings and show that the current funding models by governments are incorrect.

 

I am attaching two summary papers from the Kenyan project.

I hope I have not burdened you.

 

Terry

Dr Terry J. Hannan MBBS;FRACP;FACHI;FACMI
Consultant Physician
Clinical Associate Professor  School of Human Health Sciences, University of Tasmania Department of Medicine, Launceston General Hospital
Charles Street Launceston 7250

Moderator: http://www.ghdonline.org/

Ph. 61 3 6348 7578
Mob. 0417 144 881
Fax 61 3 6348 7577
Email terry.hannan@dhhs.tas.gov.au

Skype: thehannans

 

From: Paul Nicolarakis [mailto:pnicolarakis@cmcrc.com]
Sent: Monday, 16 June 2014 1:33 PM
To: Hannan, Terry J (DHHS)
Subject: RE: contact

Paper (PDF): Are docs the weakness in the ehealth building

Dear Terry,

Thank you for sharing the paper and referring me to ghdonline.org – I’ve just signed up.

The paper touches on many issues close to my heart, but two that I am particularly interested in is the exploration of “healthcare as business” vs “the business of clinical care”.

I won’t commit my dismal views to this email for fear of offending due to lack of context, but would welcome an opportunity to a vigorous discussion with you when we next have an opportunity? To the discourse I would like to add “healthcare as a bureaucracy” and “the bureaucracy of clinical care” as I believe this frame paired with “business” frame are particularly explanatory of most things that happen (or in the case of e-health, don’t happen) in the sector. Needless to say, the clinical and information systems you helped to establish in Africa represent something of an ideal in my mind for an end-goal of a “lite”, modern, effective health system following the “less is more” maxim.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation.

Best regards, Paul

I’ve now seen the Australian health system laid bare while working for the Minister, and many other health systems up close while working internationally at Microsoft. I’ve concluded that with rare exceptions, health care represents “just another unremarkable business” or “just another unremarkable

bureaucracy” depending on the type of funding system that is used.

complex adaptive systems, cool, healthy habits, nutrition, policy

Prolonged fasting (2-4days) regenerates immune system…

The study has major implications for healthier aging, in which immune system decline contributes to increased susceptibility to disease as we age. By outlining how prolonged fasting cycles — periods of no food for two to four days at a time over the course of six months — kill older and damaged immune cells and generate new ones, the research also has implications for chemotherapy tolerance and for those with a wide range of immune system deficiencies, including autoimmunity disorders.

 

Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system

Date:
June 5, 2014
Source:
University of Southern California
Summary:
In the first evidence of a natural intervention triggering stem cell-based regeneration of an organ or system, a study shows that cycles of prolonged fasting not only protect against immune system damage — a major side effect of chemotherapy — but also induce immune system regeneration, shifting stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal.
During fasting the number of hematopoietic stem cells increases but the number of the normally much more abundant white blood cells decreases. In young or healthy mice undergoing multiple fasting/re-feeding cycles, the population of stem cells increases in size although the number of white blood cells remain normal. In mice treated with chemotherapy or in old mice, the cycles of fasting reverse the immunosuppression and immunosenescence, respectively.
Credit: Cell Stem Cell, Cheng et al.

In the first evidence of a natural intervention triggering stem cell-based regeneration of an organ or system, a study in the June 5 issue of the Cell Press journal Cell Stem Cell shows that cycles of prolonged fasting not only protect against immune system damage — a major side effect of chemotherapy — but also induce immune system regeneration, shifting stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal.

In both mice and a Phase 1 human clinical trial, long periods of not eating significantly lowered white blood cell counts. In mice, fasting cycles then “flipped a regenerative switch”: changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells, which are responsible for the generation of blood and immune systems, the research showed.

The study has major implications for healthier aging, in which immune system decline contributes to increased susceptibility to disease as we age. By outlining how prolonged fasting cycles — periods of no food for two to four days at a time over the course of six months — kill older and damaged immune cells and generate new ones, the research also has implications for chemotherapy tolerance and for those with a wide range of immune system deficiencies, including autoimmunity disorders.

“We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system,” said corresponding author Valter Longo, the Edna M. Jones Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the USC Davis School of Gerontology, and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

“When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged,” Longo said. “What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?”

Prolonged fasting forces the body to use stores of glucose, fat and ketones, but also breaks down a significant portion of white blood cells. Longo likens the effect to lightening a plane of excess cargo.

During each cycle of fasting, this depletion of white blood cells induces changes that trigger stem cell-based regeneration of new immune system cells. In particular, prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, an effect previously discovered by the Longo team to extend longevity in simple organisms and which has been linked in other research to the regulation of stem cell self-renewal and pluripotency — that is, the potential for one cell to develop into many different cell types. Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone that Longo and others have linked to aging, tumor progression and cancer risk.

“PKA is the key gene that needs to shut down in order for these stem cells to switch into regenerative mode. It gives the ‘okay’ for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system,” explained Longo, noting the potential of clinical applications that mimic the effects of prolonged fasting to rejuvenate the immune system. “And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting. Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or aging, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system.”

Prolonged fasting also protected against toxicity in a pilot clinical trial in which a small group of patients fasted for a 72-hour period prior to chemotherapy, extending Longo’s influential past research: “While chemotherapy saves lives, it causes significant collateral damage to the immune system. The results of this study suggest that fasting may mitigate some of the harmful effects of chemotherapy,” said co-author Tanya Dorff, assistant professor of clinical medicine at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital. “More clinical studies are needed, and any such dietary intervention should be undertaken only under the guidance of a physician.”

“We are investigating the possibility that these effects are applicable to many different systems and organs, not just the immune system,” said Longo, whose lab is in the process of conducting further research on controlled dietary interventions and stem cell regeneration in both animal and clinical studies.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Southern California. The original article was written by Suzanne Wu. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Chia-Wei Cheng, Gregor B. Adams, Laura Perin, Min Wei, Xiaoying Zhou, Ben S. Lam, Stefano Da Sacco, Mario Mirisola, David I. Quinn, Tanya B. Dorff, John J. Kopchick, Valter D. Longo. Prolonged Fasting Reduces IGF-1/PKA to Promote Hematopoietic-Stem-Cell-Based Regeneration and Reverse Immunosuppression. Cell Stem Cell, 2014; 14 (6): 810 DOI:10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014

Cite This Page:

University of Southern California. “Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 June 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140605141507.htm>.