Category Archives: complex adaptive systems

Doctors move to salaried positions…

Spineless rent seeking psychopaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/salaried-doctors-may-not-lead-to-cheaper-health-care.html?_r=0

Apprehensive, Many Doctors Shift to Jobs With Salaries

By 

Launch media viewer
Dr. Suzanne Salamon, with a patient at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said she has had trouble filling a prestigious fellowship because of relatively low salaries. Katherine Taylor for The New York Times
American physicians, worried about changes in the health care market, are streaming into salaried jobs with hospitals. Though the shift from private practice has been most pronounced in primary care, specialists are following.

Last year, 64 percent of job offers filled through Merritt Hawkins, one of the nation’s leading physician placement firms, involved hospital employment, compared with only 11 percent in 2004. The firm anticipates a rise to 75 percent in the next two years.

Today, about 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians, 50 percent of surgeons and 25 percent of surgical subspecialists — such as ophthalmologists and ear, nose and throat surgeons — are employees rather than independent, according to the American Medical Association. “We’re seeing it changing fast,” said Mark E. Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins.

Health economists are nearly unanimous that the United States should move away from fee-for-service payments to doctors, the traditional system where private physicians are paid for each procedure and test, because it drives up the nation’s $2.7 trillion health care bill by rewarding overuse. But experts caution that the change from private practice to salaried jobs may not yield better or cheaper care for patients.

“In many places, the trend will almost certainly lead to more expensive care in the short run,” said Robert Mechanic, an economist who studies health care at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.

When hospitals gather the right mix of salaried front-line doctors and specialists under one roof, it can yield cost-efficient and coordinated patient care. The Kaiser system in California and Intermountain Healthcare in Utah are considered models for how this can work.

But many of the new salaried arrangements have evolved from hospitals looking for new revenues, and could have the opposite effect. For example, when doctors’ practices are bought by a hospital, a colonoscopy or stress test performed in the office can suddenly cost far more because a hospital “facility fee” is tacked on. Likewise, Mr. Smith said, many doctors on salary are offered bonuses tied to how much billing they generate, which could encourage physicians to order more X-rays and tests.

Mr. Mechanic studied 21 health systems considered good models of care — including the Mayo Clinic and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation — and discovered that many still effectively rewarded doctors for each procedure. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

Hospitals have been offering physicians attractive employment deals, with incomes often greater than in private practice, since they need to form networks to take advantage of incentives under the new Affordable Care Act. Hospitals also know that doctors they employ can better direct patients to hospital-owned labs and services.

“From the hospital end there’s a big feeding frenzy, a lot of bidding going on to bring in doctors,” Mr. Mechanic said. “And physicians are going in so they don’t have to worry — there’s a lot of uncertainty about how health reform is going to play out.”

In addition, Medicare had reduced its set doctors’ fees over the last decade, while insurers have become more aggressive in demanding lower rates from individual practices that have little clout to resist. Dr. Robert Morrow, a family doctor in the Bronx, said he now received $82 from Medicare for an office visit but only about $45 from commercial insurers.

Dr. Cathleen London practiced family medicine for 13 years outside Boston, but recently took a salaried job at a Manhattan hospital. She said she accepted a pay cut because she could see that she was losing ground in her practice. “I think the days of what I did in 1999 are over,” she said. “I don’t think that’s possible anymore.”

The base salaries of physicians who become employees are still related to the income they can generate, ranging from under $200,000 for primary care doctors to $575,000 in cardiology to $663,000 in neurosurgery, according to Becker’s Hospital Review, a trade publication.

Because of the relatively low salaries for primary care doctors, Dr. Suzanne Salamon said that for the last two years she has had trouble filling a prestigious Harvard geriatrics fellowship she runs.

Dr. Howard B. Beckman, a geriatrician at the University of Rochester, who studies physician payment incentives, said reimbursements for primary care doctors must be improved to attract more people into the field. “To get the kinds of doctors we want, the system for determining salaries has to flip faster,” he said.

Dr. Joel Jacowitz, a cardiologist in New Jersey, and his 20 or so partners decided to sell their private practice to a hospital. In addition to receiving salaries, that meant they no longer had to worry about paying malpractice premiums themselves or finding health insurance for their staff members.

Dr. Jacowitz said that the economics drove the choice and that the only other option would have been to bring in more revenue by practicing bad medicine — ordering more heart tests on patients who did not need them or charging exorbitant rates to people with private insurance. He said he knew of one cardiologist in private practice who charges more than $100,000 for a procedure for which Medicare pays about $750.

“Some people are operators and give the rest of us a bad name,” he said, adding that he had changed his opinion about America’s fee-for-service health care system. “I’m fed up — I want a single-payer system.”

Dr. Kirk Moon, a radiologist in private practice in San Francisco, also sees advantages for the nation when doctors become employees. “I think it’s pretty clear that sooner or later we’re all going to be on salary,” he said. “I think there’ll be a radical decrease in imaging, but that’s O.K. because there’s incredible waste in the current system.”

Various efforts to change incentives for doctors and hospitals are being tested. An increasing number of employers or insurers, for example, pay health systems a yearly all-inclusive payment for each patient, regardless of their medical needs or how many tests are dispensed. If doctors order unnecessary tests, it costs the hospital money, rather than bringing it in.

And instead of offering bonuses for productivity — doctors cite pressures from hospital employers to order physical therapy for every discharged patient or follow-up M.R.I. scans on every patient who got an X-ray — some hospital systems are beginning to change their criteria. They are providing bonuses that reward doctors for delivering high quality and cost effective care, such as high marks from patients or low numbers of patients with asthma who are admitted to the hospital.

“The question now is how to shift the compensation from a focus on volume to a focus on quality,” said Mr. Smith of Merritt Hawkins. He said that 35 percent of the jobs he recruits for currently have such incentives, “but it’s pennies, not enough to really influence behavior.”

Feeding time significance in fat metabolism…

An interesting new dimension in research that would readily emerge from data…

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Meal-times-may-have-significant-impact-on-liver-fats-and-metabolism-Mouse-data/

Meal times may have significant impact on liver fats and metabolism: Mouse data

Post a comment

By Nathan Gray+

10-Feb-2014

Alterations to meal times may have a significant effect on the levels of triglycerides in the liver, according to new research that links such effects to a range of metabolic conditions.

The study, published in Cell Metabolism, investigated the role of circadian clocks and meal timings in lipid homeostasis, by performing lipidomic analysis of liver tissues from wild-type and clock-disrupted mice either fed ad libitum or night fed.

Led by Yaarit Adamovich and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute’s Biological Chemistry Department, the team measured the levels of hundreds of different lipids present in the mouse liver – finding that levels of triglycerides (TAG) in the liver were reduced by 50% in mice that were fed during the night-time only.

“The striking outcome of restricted nighttime feeding — lowering liver TAG levels in the very short time period of 10 days in the mice — is of clinical importance,”explained Asher. “Hyperlipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia are common diseases characterized by abnormally elevated levels of lipids in blood and liver cells, which lead to fatty liver and other metabolic diseases.”

“Yet no currently available drugs have been shown to change lipid accumulation as efficiently and drastically as simply adjusting meal time — not to mention the possible side effects that may be associated with such drugs.”

Of course, mice are nocturnal animals, so in order to construe these results for humans, the timetable would need to be reversed, the team added.

Wearables meets big data

Some see this as an opportunity to mobilise a peer-to-peer health knowledge commons outside the healthcare system that is filtered through government, hospitals and GPs’ surgeries. This new healthcare system would exist out among the public.

Pioneered by Tedmed’s clinical editor, Wellthcare tries to pinpoint the new kind of value that this people-powered healthcare system would create.

“Wellth” is closer to the idea of wellbeing or wellness than health; it is about supporting “what people want to do, supported by their nano-networks”.

A healthcare system that uses data we collect about ourselves would require these new bodies to make much bigger choices about how NHS trusts procure products and services.

Going back to the ever expanding market for wearable technology – with a potential patient group of 80m, there should be a lot more going on to turn our physiological data in the treasure trove it could be. Forget supermarket reward points and website hits, the really big data only just arrived.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/jan/27/science-policy

Big data gets physical

Posted by 
Tuesday 28 January 2014 01.05 EST
Can we make the rise of wearable technology a story about better health for everyone, not just better gadgets for me?
Smartphone app visualises two similar running routesSmartphone app visualises two similar running routesI am obsessed with my running app. Last week obsession became frustration verging on throw-the-phone-on-the-floor anger. Wednesday’s lunchtime 5km run was pretty good, almost back up to pre-Christmas pace. On Friday, I thought I had smashed it. The first 2km were very close to my perennial 5 min/km barrier. And I was pretty sure I had kept up the pace. But the app disagreed.As I ate my 347 calorie salad – simultaneously musing on how French dressing could make up 144 of them – I switched furiously between the two running route analyses. This was just preposterous; the GPS signal must have been confused; I must have been held up overtaking that tourist group for longer than I realised; or perhaps the app is just useless and all previous improvements in pace were bogus.My desire to count stuff is easy to poke fun at. It’s probably pretty unhealthy too. But it’s only going to be encouraged over the next few years. Wearable technology is here to stay. Smart phone cameras are also heart rate monitors. Contact lenses can measures blood sugar. And teddy bears take your temperature. A 2011 market assessment, estimated that there will be 80m sports, fitness and “wellness” wearable devices by 2016.

At the moment, it’s difficult to retrieve the data these systems collect. Nike only allow software developers access to data produced by people like me so they can create new features for their apps. I cannot go back and interrogate my own data.

Harbouring user data for product development is an extension of part of the search engine or mobile provider business model. When you log in to Gmail while browsing the internet, you give Google data about your individual search behaviour in exchange for more personalised results. Less obviously, when you use the browser on your phone, mobile companies collect (and sell) valuable data about what you are looking for and where you are. The latest iteration of this model is Weve, providing access to data about EE, O2 and Vodafone customers in the UK.

After Friday lunchtime’s outburst, I accepted that I’d never find the cause of my wayward run and quickly got absorbed back into the working day.

But I shouldn’t have.

We talk about the economic and social value of opening up government data about crime numbers or hospital waiting times. But what about the data we’re collecting about our daily lives? This is not just a resource for running geeks to obsess over, it provides otherwise unrecorded details of our daily lives. Sharing data about health has the potential to be an act of generosity and contribution to the public good.

For some areas of healthcare, particularly for type 2 diabetics or those with complex cardiovascular conditions, lifestyle information could make a huge difference to how we understand and treat patients. It could provide the kind of evidence badly needed to make headway in areas where clinical trials aren’t enough.

But it’s not yet easy to make something of this broader value created by fitness apps or soft toys with sensors in them. One person’s data is saved in different ways through different services – making for a messy, distributed dataset.

There is also no clear way to incorporate this into the current healthcare system. Some companies have made strides in that direction. Proteus Digital Health offers a system for monitoring a patient’s medication and physical activity using an iPad app and ingestible pills. This takes some much needed steps towards understanding how people comply with their prescription. At the moment, only 50% of patients suffering from chronic diseases follow their recommended treatment. If Proteus starts to sell information back to the health service, it will take digital health into mainstream healthcare. However,it hasn’t reached that point yet. And it is still a rare example of a company with the regulatory approval to do so. For example, Neurosky’s portable EEG machines, which measure brain activity, make excellent toys. But the company has no intention of certifying its products as medical equipment, given the time and expense it requires.

But does that matter? Neurosky’s wizard-training game Focus Pocus improves a player’s cognitive abilities including memory recall, impulse control, and the ability to concentrate. Some US medical practitioners are now prescribing Focus Pocus. This makes biofeedback therapy to ADHD patients available at home, replacing two to three hospital visits a week. This is going on anyway – outside the mainstream healthcare system.

Some see this as an opportunity to mobilise a peer-to-peer health knowledge commons outside the healthcare system that is filtered through government, hospitals and GPs’ surgeries. This new healthcare system would exist out among the public. Pioneered by Tedmed’s clinical editor, Wellthcare tries to pinpoint the new kind of value that this people-powered healthcare system would create. “Wellth” is closer to the idea of wellbeing or wellness than health; it is about supporting “what people want to do, supported by their nano-networks”. There is the potential for a future where we move from producers of data that is sucked up by companies into producers of data who consciously share it with one another, learn to interpret it and make judgments from it ourselves.

The current healthcare system may evolve to support this kind of change. In the UK, Academic Health Science Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups provide new structures within the NHS that have the potential to support disruptive innovations. But so far these have led to small, incremental changes. A healthcare system that uses data we collect about ourselves would require these new bodies to make much bigger choices about how NHS trusts procure products and services.

Going back to the ever expanding market for wearable technology – with a potential patient group of 80m, there should be a lot more going on to turn our physiological data in the treasure trove it could be. Forget supermarket reward points and website hits, the really big data only just arrived.

Flu Predictor

Pretty cool… lots of good imagery for a presentation.

One day, it’ll find itself on the weather report.

Put another way, the weather report is one of the most popular, early uses of big data available in the community.

 

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3025365/find-out-when-youll-be-sick-with-the-first-online-flu-predictor

Find Out When You’ll Be Sick With The First Online Flu Predictor

Want to know when exactly to start avoiding everyone around you who so much as sneezes? This online tool can tell you when the flu will strike in your city–more than two months in advance.

I should have seen it coming. First it felled my boyfriend’s roommates, then my boyfriend, and then my roommate. Then, two weeks into the viral sensation sweeping the nation, I fell asleep with a sore throat, and woke up with a head full of mucus.

Luckily, it wasn’t the flu. But if it was, last week was also the first time I could have predicted when such a flu might strike my part of town, as it does during the peak flu months between October and April. That’s because, earlier this month, scientists at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health uploaded a first-of-its-kind flu prediction model online.

In December, assistant professor of environmental health sciences Jeffrey Shaman told Co.Exist about the tool he and his colleagues had developed to predict the flu up to nine weeks in advance. Using data from Google Flu Trends and weekly CDC infection rates, the Columbia model was able to predict the exact timing of flu arrival accurately in 63% of the American cities it analyzed.

One day, Shaman suggested, the predictions might become so accurate that they’re eventually broadcast next to the weather on TV.

In the meantime, that model now exists on the good ‘ole Internet. It predicts some relief for Lincoln, Nebraska, which appears to be coming down from quite an illness, as does Wichita. Boston, on the other hand, looks like it’ll be experiencing an increase in flu cases over the next couple of weeks, as will New York City.

On the map above the predictor, you can check out CDC data for flu patient visits to the doctor’s office from the week prior. Next to the predictor, click on your state in the tree map to find out which cities will be most afflicted.

[Image: Blowing nose via Flickr user Anna Gutermuth]

Ornish at TED

http://deanornish.com/

  • Wellness vs Illness – We vs I
  • 95% of NCD is preventable
  • NCDs are also reversible
  • Prostate Cancer, Breast Cancer susceptible to diet change
  • Obesity Trends in the US – new categories on the US map
  • Has worked with McDonalds and Pepsi to advise on products – didn’t go anywhere

Ornish Healthways Spectrum Program
http://deanornish.com/ornish-spectrum/

16 min: Healing Through Diet
http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_ornish_on_healing.html

3 min: Your Genes Are Not Your Fate

3 min: Killer Diet

Fear + Clear Action = Effective Behaviour Change

  • people indulge in unhealthy behaviours to relieve stress and anxiety
  • ads that cause stress and anxiety can drive unhealthy behaviours
  • one solution is to couple compelling threats with clear and specific paths to behaviour change
  • another approach is to apply the adicitive rewards that video games create for real life challenges
  • SUPERBETTERLABS.COM build video games which build resilience and maintain motivation while working to overcome injuries, anxiety and depression

 

http://www.iodine.com/blog/anti-smoking-ads/

Why Graphic Anti-Smoking Ads Make Some People Smoke More Cigarettes

Jessica Goldband

If these images make you squirm or want to click away, you’re not alone.

get-unhooked-man-1anti_smoking130328_anti_smoking_ad_thumb

How, then, can this type of message change the choices you make? Can we really be motivated by something that turns us off, rather than on?

You’d think, perhaps intuitively, that the scarier the ad, the more powerfully it affects our behavior. And the research supports that argument. Indeed, since the classic 1964 Surgeon General report on “Smoking and Health” came out 50 years ago this month, that’s been the basic strategy for health communication around the issue. But there’s a catch. A BIG one.

While we’ve seen a significant drop in global smoking rates (down 25% for men and 42% for women) since those landmark reports in the 1960s demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer, many people continue to smoke: 31% of men and 6% of women. In the U.S., 18% of adults (down by half since 1964) continue to do something they know might kill them.

Public health agencies have spent years communicating the dangers of smoking. Their anti-smoking ads have grown increasingly disturbing, threatening us with graphic images of bulging tumors and holes in our throats — possibly to try to reach that last stubborn segment of the population that hasn’t kicked the habit.

Why aren’t these ads working?

Turns out, the most recent and comprehensive research on so-called “fear appeals” and attitude change says that this kind of messaging does work, but only if the person watching the ad is confident that they are capable of making a change, such as quitting smoking. Public health gurus call this confidence in one’s ability to make a change “self-efficacy” — and threats only seem to work when efficacy is high. (The reverse is also true.)

If someone lacks efficacy, ads with fear appeals don’t help. In fact, they make the behaviorworse. How? Many people engage in unhealthy behavior because it makes them feel better and relieves their anxiety.

If you threaten someone who has little to no confidence they can change their behavior, their anxiety goes through the roof. What do they do? Perhaps turn off the threatening ad, walk away, and light up a cigarette — the very behavior you were trying to prevent. This same principle applies to other coping behaviors, such as eating unhealthy types of food or just too much of it.

Unfortunately, anxiety is quite common in this country. According to arecent Atlantic article, 1 in 4 Americans is likely to suffer from anxiety at some point in life. Making big life changes is tough, and it seems as though fear and anxiety don’t energize people, they just paralyze them.

So what’s the solution?

A step in the right direction would be for ad campaigns to couple compelling threats with equally clear and specific paths to behavior change. Or why not apply the rewards built into reaching a new level in addictive video games to apps that people can use for real-life challenges? One great example of this is Superbetter, a social online game to help people build resilience and stay motivated while working to overcome injuries, anxiety, and depression.

Stand-alone threats implicitly assume that people don’t already know how bad their choices are, and can drive them to the very behaviors they wish they could change. Truly effective ad campaigns might still appeal to our fears, but they should also let us wash it all down with a confidence chaser that empowers the more anxious among us to act on our fears.

Health Care Value

There’s a lot of good buried in this post, but it’s all starting to sounds like the development of a perfect map… not that inspiring.

The data is already there. At a national level, it can be used to inform a national increase in health funding… functioning like a CPI.

——-

Michael Porter defines value as “health outcomes achieved per dollar spent.” … An efficient business gets the most output possible, given current technology, from every dollar spent.

Porter and colleagues adapt microeconomics to health care through their definition of output: patient-centered health outcomes. These are results that individual patients desire: survival, speedy and uncomplicated recovery, and maintenance of well-being over the long term. These are also things that clinicians, payers, and purchasers should seek for their patients, employees, and customers.

The value movement’s definition of outcomes treats the patient as a whole person, insists that measures of outcome transcend disease-specific indicators to account for all of the patient’s conditions, and include data collected over time and space to produce comprehensive measures of patient well-being. Value proponents further insist that inputs be measured comprehensively to include all the costs of producing desired outcomes.

Widely adopted, the concept of value would provide a north star toward which health care providers could navigate.  Its emphasis on the whole patient and comprehensively measured costs would encourage teamwork among clinicians and coordination of care across specialties, clinical units, and health care organizations. The focus on patient-centered outcomes would support increased effort to measure patient-reported outcomes of care, such as their level of function and perceived health status over time.

[…] the lack of data systems to support outcome measurement.  Producing the holistic assessments needed requires the aggregation over time and space of data from multiple clinicians and health care organizations, as well as patients themselves. The health care system’s electronic data systems are just now entering the modern age.

To turn the promise of value measurement into the reality of better care at lower cost, a few short-term actions seem prudent. First, the nation needs a plan to turn the concept of value into practical indicators. Since government, the private sector, consumers and voters all have a vital stake in health system improvement, they should all participate in a process of perfecting and implementing value measures, preferably under the leadership of a respected, disinterested institution. The Institute of Medicine comes to mind, but others could be imagined.  This process should produce an evolving set of measures that will be imperfect initially but improve over time.

Second, both government and the private sector need to invest in the science and electronic data systems that support value measurement. Investments in systems should focus on speeding the refinement of standards for defining and transporting critical data elements that must be shared by patients, providers, and insurers to create patient-centered outcome measures.

 

 

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/09/getting-real-about-health-care-value/

via

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/2013/Sep/Should-Value-Be-the-New-Mantra-in-Health-Care.aspx?omnicid=20

Getting Real About Health Care Value

by David Blumenthal and Kristof Stremikis  |   12:15 PM September 17, 2013

Words can spearhead social transformation.  Let’s hope that’s true for “value” in health care. Where other mantras – such as quality or managed care – have failed to galvanize the system’s diverse stakeholders, value may have a chance.

What seems special about the term is that, seemingly simple, it is actually complex and subtle. Under its umbrella, a wide range of interested parties can find the things they hold most dear, from improved patient outcomes to coordination of care to efficiency to patient-centeredness. And it is intuitively appealing. As Thomas Lee noted in the New England Journal of Medicine, “no one can oppose this goal and expect long-term success.”

The question, of course, is whether the term will help spur the fundamental changes that our health care sector so desperately needs. In this regard, a closer examination of the value concept confirms its appeal but also exposes the daunting challenges facing health system reformers.

Michael Porter has defined value as “health outcomes achieved per dollar spent.” Any survivor of introductory microeconomics will hear echoes in this phrase of one basic measure of economic efficiency: output per unit of input. An efficient business gets the most output possible, given current technology, from every dollar spent.

Porter and colleagues adapt microeconomics to health care through their definition of output: patient-centered health outcomes. These are results that individual patients desire: survival, speedy and uncomplicated recovery, and maintenance of well-being over the long term. These are also things that clinicians, payers, and purchasers should seek for their patients, employees, and customers. The value movement’s definition of outcomes treats the patient as a whole person, insists that measures of outcome transcend disease-specific indicators to account for all of the patient’s conditions, and include data collected over time and space to produce comprehensive measures of patient well-being. Value proponents further insist that inputs be measured comprehensively to include all the costs of producing desired outcomes.

Widely adopted, the concept of value would provide a north star toward which health care providers could navigate.  Its emphasis on the whole patient and comprehensively measured costs would encourage teamwork among clinicians and coordination of care across specialties, clinical units, and health care organizations. The focus on patient-centered outcomes would support increased effort to measure patient-reported outcomes of care, such as their level of function and perceived health status over time.

Promising as it is, the emphasis on value also raises illuminating and challenging questions. The first is: why all the fuss with defining it? In most markets consumers define value by purchasing and using things. In the 1990s, personal computers had considerable value. We know that because consumers bought lots of them. Now, with the arrival of tablets, personal computers seem to be losing value.  And so it goes for untold numbers of goods and services in our market-oriented economy. Eminent professors don’t wrack their brains defining the intrinsic value of electric shavers, overcoats, or roast beef.

We need to define the value of health care, however, for a simple but profound reason explained in 1963 by Nobel-prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow. Arrow showed that health care markets don’t work as others do, because consumers lack the information to make good purchasing decisions. Health care is simply too complex for most people to understand. And health care decisions can be enormously consequential, with irreversible effects that make them qualitatively different from bad purchases in other markets. Americans are therefore reluctant to let the principle of caveat emptor prevail. One reason to define value carefully and systematically is to enable consumers to understand what they are getting, an essential condition for functioning health care markets.

The compelling need for a good definition of health care value highlights another fundamental challenge. We have not yet developed scientifically sound or accepted approaches to defining or measuring either patient-centered outcomes of care, or – surprisingly – the costs of producing those outcomes. The scientific hurdles to defining patient-centered outcomes are numerous. Outcomes can be subtle and multidimensional, involving not only physiological and functional results, but also patients’ perceptions and valuations of their care and health status.  The ability of health care organizations to measure costs is primitive at best and doesn’t meet the standards used in many other advanced industries. Equally challenging is the lack of data systems to support outcome measurement.  Producing the holistic assessments needed requires the aggregation over time and space of data from multiple clinicians and health care organizations, as well as patients themselves. The health care system’s electronic data systems are just now entering the modern age.

Given the value of measuring value, and the current obstacles to doing so, still another urgent question arises: what should we do now? Despite recent moderation in health care costs, our health care system is burning through the nation’s cash at an extraordinary rate and producing results that, by almost every currently available measure, are disappointing.

To turn the promise of value measurement into the reality of better care at lower cost, a few short-term actions seem prudent. First, the nation needs a plan to turn the concept of value into practical indicators. Since government, the private sector, consumers and voters all have a vital stake in health system improvement, they should all participate in a process of perfecting and implementing value measures, preferably under the leadership of a respected, disinterested institution. The Institute of Medicine comes to mind, but others could be imagined.  This process should produce an evolving set of measures that will be imperfect initially but improve over time.

Second, both government and the private sector need to invest in the science and electronic data systems that support value measurement. Investments in systems should focus on speeding the refinement of standards for defining and transporting critical data elements that must be shared by patients, providers, and insurers to create patient-centered outcome measures.

Third, in consultation with consumers and providers, governments need to develop privacy and security policies that will assure consumers that their health care data will be protected when shared for the purpose of value measurement.

Last, and perhaps most important, the trend toward paying providers on the basis of the best available value measurements needs to continue. These payment policies motivate providers to use value measures to their fullest extent for the purpose of improving processes of care and meeting patients’ needs and expectation.

To some observers putting value at the forefront of health care reform may seem obvious and non-controversial.  As Lee notes, who can be against it?  To use an American cliché, it seems a little like motherhood and apple pie: comfortable and widely endorsed. But the value movement could be much more than that.  When value does become a well-accepted principle, we’ll be much closer to making health care better for everyone.

Follow the Leading Health Care Innovation insight center on Twitter @HBRhealth. E-mail us athealtheditors@hbr.org, and sign up to receive updates here.

Katz smashes it again… it’s the culture, stupid.

“Bariatric surgery is effective and should be available to those who need it. I have referred patients for such surgery over the years. But our culture will be defined by what we learn and share. We could learn and share the skill set for losing weight and finding health, and make that our cultural norm.”

…but how do we operationalise culture change…. it is massive task, but it needs to happen. Purpose perhaps?

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140121144506-23027997-obesity-and-oblivion-or-what-i-ve-learned-under-general-anesthesia

Director, Yale University Prevention Research Center

Obesity and Oblivion- or- What I’ve Learned Under General Anesthesia

David L. Katz, MD, MPH

January 21, 2014  

I am going to tell you what I’ve learned under general anesthesia, but I ask you to bear with me kindly and wait a few paragraphs for that revelation.

I am a rambunctious guy, pretty much always have been. I have always loved active recreation and was one of those kids who had to be reeled in for dinner from outside play with a winch and a cable. As an adult, I placate the restlessness of my native animal vitality with about 90 minutes of exercise every day. In addition, I hike whenever I can, and pretty much share my dogs’ attitude about it: the more miles, the better. I studied the martial arts for years. I am a lifelong, avid alpine skier, and an ardent equestrian– privileged to share that latter brand of rambunctiousness with my beautiful horse, Troubadour, who seems to enjoy running and jumping as much as I do, and is far better at it.

This is all part of family tradition. Women in the family are generally quite active, and some have their share of perennial restlessness. But the guys are a case apart. My son’s rambunctiousness is, quite literally, famous of songstory, and program. The ABC for Fitness™ program Gabriel directly inspired is now reaching hundreds of thousands of kids around the country and world, and paying forward the benefits of daily exercise in schools. Gabe helped me appreciate the importance of asserting that the proper remedy for rambunctiousness in our kids is recess, not Ritalin.

And then there’s my father, whose restlessness is the granddaddy of all, and the stuff of legend, or at least family lore. We celebrated his 74 birthday last summer with a hilly, 56-mile bike ride.

By and large, the effects of this rambunctiousness are extremely positive. My animal vitality is spared the constraints of leash or cage, and rewards me reciprocally with energy, stamina, and productivity. But everything has a price. My particular brand of rambunctiousness has involved pushing limits, and limits have a tendency of pushing back. The result is several concussions (I am now a consistent helmet wearer), too many stitches to count, roughly 20 broken bones, and general anesthesia to restore the mangled anatomy of some joint or other not fewer than a half dozen times.

Which leads, at last, to what I’ve learned under general anesthesia: Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Nobody learns anything under general anesthesia. General anesthesia involves unconsciousness; oblivion.

And on that basis, I consider it a societal travesty that hyperendemic obesity and the metabolic mayhem that often follows in its wake are treated ever more frequently, in ever younger people, under general anesthesia. Our answer to obesity is, it seems, oblivion.

True, bariatric surgery is effective. But it is also expensive, and subject to all of the potential complications of surgery. We don’t really know how long the benefits last, particularly for the children and adolescents who are candidates in growing multitudes. We do know that lasting benefit requires ancillary lifestyle change, and that there is often some, and sometimes a lot, of weight regain despite the rewiring of the gastrointestinal tract.

And we know as well that we are relying on scalpels in the hands of others to do what forks in our own hands (and feet in our own shoes) could do better, at dramatically lower cost and risk, if our society committed to empowering their more salutary useWe have evidence to suggest that schools and aptitudes acquired there could do for weight what scalpels applied under anesthesia do. But in my experience, they could do so much more. As a medical advisor at Mindstream Academy, a boarding school producing weight loss to rival bariatric surgery, I have been far more impressed with what the kids find than what they lose, impressive though the latter may be. They find pride and proficiency; confidence and competence; skillpower and self-esteem. They learn, in other words- as nobody ever does under general anesthesia.

Our society’s tendency to “over-medicalize” has been chronicled by others. The consequences extend to expecting from our clinics what only our culture can deliver. Among the most vivid illustrations of this is the lifelong work of my friend, Dean Ornish. Dr. Ornish was involved in groundbreaking work that showed the capacity for a lifestyle overhaul to rival the effects of coronary bypass surgery. With evidence in hand that feet and forks (and a short list of other priorities attended to) could do for coronaries what scalpels could do, Dr. Ornish set out to make his lifestyle program a reimbursable alternative to surgery. He succeeded, earning Medicare reimbursement after – wait for it- 17 years! I don’t know that Dean has the patience of a saint, but he apparently does have the patience of a cicada.

It took 17 years to gain reimbursement for lifestyle as a cost-effective treatment of coronary artery disease, whereas surgery was reimbursed from the get-go. That’s how we roll, and then wring our hands about the high costs of health care.

With that in mind, I ask my fellow parents reading this column; I ask the grandparents, godparents, aunts and uncles to contemplate this: How many of our sons and daughters, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren will have passed through the O.R. doors if it takes us two decades to establish lifestyle intervention as a culturally sanctioned alternative to bariatric surgery? However many that is, I can tell you exactly what they will all learn while under general anesthesia: Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Knowledge and experience are the foundational elements of culture itself. Culture derives from the capacity of our species to learn, and pay forward our learnings to our contemporaries and our children. Among the impressive manifestations of effective school-based approaches to adolescent obesity is the capacity, and proclivity of the kids to pay their newly acquired skillpower forward. When last I visited Mindstream Academy, one of the young girls there, who had lost some 80 lbs, was most proud to tell me about her father back at home who, courtesy of her long-distance coaching, had lost about 40. There is nothing to pay forward following the oblivion of general anesthesia.

Bariatric surgery is effective and should be available to those who need it. I have referred patients for such surgery over the years. But our culture will be defined by what we learn and share. We could learn and share the skill set for losing weight and finding health, and make that our cultural norm. That remains unlikely so long as we put our money preferentially where our medicalizations are. The AMA has proclaimed obesity a disease, but that’s just symptomatic of our culture tendencies. It is more a disease of the body politic than of the often healthy bodies that succumb to it in a culture that propagates its causes.

The healthiest, happiest, leanest, longest-lived populations on the planet do not attribute such blessings to the proficiency of their surgeons or the frequency of their clinical encounters. They attribute them to the priorities and prevailing norms of their culture.

Nobody learns anything under general anesthesia. General anesthesia is oblivion. If we keep prioritizing the medical over the cultural, oblivion over enlightenment, my friend Dean Ornish will remain a lonely pioneer. And the cicadas, when next they emerge, will see nothing new. They will have cause to roll their protuberant eyes at us and trill out: same as it ever was.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We could choose oblivion a bit less often, and stay conscious instead. Conscious, we would have a chance to think outside the box of surgical gloves- and perhaps thereby perceive a new world of opportunity.

-fin

Dr. Katz was recently named one of the most influential people in Health and Fitness (#13) byGreatist.com. His new book, DISEASE PROOF, is available in bookstores nationwide and at:

Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-David-L-Katz/114690721876253
http://twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-l-katz-md-mph/7/866/479/

Notes: Antifragile (from flight)

Commerce and small business (though not large markets and corporations) are activities and places that bring out the best in people, making most forgiving, honest, loving, trusting and open minded… Like antifragile tinkering, mistakes are small and rapidly forgotten [17].
On errors. In the fragile category, the mistakes are rare and large when they occur, hence irreversible; antifragile mistakes are small and benign, even reversible and quickly overcome. They are also rich in information. So a certain system of tinkering and trial and error would have the attributes of antifragility. If you want to become antifragile, put yourself in the situation of “loves mistakes” [21].

RAND: Top 5 Obesity Myths

  •  Obesity is not genetic
  • Obesity is not due to lack of self-control
  • Lack of fresh fruit and veg is not responsible
  • We are not too sedentary – we simply eat too much
  • Education about diet and nutrition will not conquer obesity
  • What’s really needed is regulation – for example, limits on marketing that caters to our addiction to sugar and fat — OH DEAR

The top five obesity myths

Published: December 29, 2013 – 1:01PM

The obesity epidemic is among the most critical health issues facing countries like the US and Australia. Although it has generated a lot of attention and calls for solutions, it also has served up a super-sized portion of myths and misunderstandings.

1. If you’re obese, you can blame your genes

As obesity rates have soared, some researchers have focused on individuals’ genetic predisposition for gaining weight. Yet, between 1980 and 2000, the number of Americans who are obese has doubled – too quickly for genetic factors to be responsible.

So why do we eat more than we need? The simple answer: Because we can. At home and at restaurants, a dollar puts more calories on our plates than ever before. Before World War II, the average US family spent as much as 25 per centof its total income on food – in 2011, it was 9.8 per cent. And people eat out now more than in the past. In 1966, the average US family spent 31 per cent of its food budget dining from home – in 2011, it was 49 percent. Because restaurant meals usually have more calories than what we prepare at home, people who eat out more frequently have higher rates of obesity than those who eat out less. Meanwhile, the food industry has developed tens of thousands of products with more calories per bite, as well as new, effective marketing strategies to encourage us to buy and consume more than necessary. We should blame these business practices, which are modifiable, for obesity rather than our genes, which are not.

2. If you’re obese, you lack self-control

According to a 2006 study, “research on restrained eating has proven that in most circumstances dieting is not a feasible strategy”. In other words: People won’t lose weight by trying to eat less because they can’t easily control themselves. Unfortunately, this puritanical view of personal resolve plays down how our surroundings and mental state determine what we eat.

Research shows that if we are overwhelmed with too much information or preoccupied, we have a tendency to surrender to poor dietary choices. In one study, for example, people asked to choose a snack after memorising a seven-digit number were 50 per cent more likely to choose chocolate cake over fruit salad than those who had to memorise a two-digit number. When adults in another study were asked to sample a variety of foods after watching a television show with junk-food commercials, they ate more and spent a longer time eating than a similar group watching the same show without the junk-food ads. In the same study, children ate more goldfish crackers when watching junk-food commercials than those who saw non-food commercials.

Our world has become so rich in temptation that we can be led to consume too much in ways we can’t understand. Even the most vigilant may not be up to the task of controlling their impulses.

3. Lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables is responsible for the obesity epidemic

The US Department of Agriculture estimates that fewer than 5 per cent of Americans live in low-income communities without access to fresh food, but about 65 percent of the nation’s population is overweight or obese. For most of us, obesity is not related to access to more nutritious foods, but rather to the choices we make in convenience stores and supermarkets where junk-food marketing dominates. Since we are buying more calories than we need, eating healthily could be made more affordable by eliminating unnecessary cheaper low nutrient foods and substituting higher quality foods that may be slightly more expensive.

Obesity is usually the consequence of eating too much junk food and consuming portions that are too large. People may head to the produce section of their grocery store with the best intentions, only to be confronted by candy at the cash register and chips and soda at the end of aisles. Approximately 30 per cent of all supermarket sales are from such end-of-aisle locations. Food retailers’ impulse-marketing strategies contribute significantly to obesity across the population, not just for those who do not live near a green grocer or can’t afford sometimes pricier healthful choices.

4. The problem is not that we eat too much, but that we are too sedentary

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there was no significant decrease in physical activity levels as obesity rates climbed in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, although a drop in work-related physical activity may account for up to 100 fewer calories burned, leisure physical activity appears to have increased, and Americans keep tipping the scales.

There is compelling evidence that the increase in calories consumed explains the rise in obesity. The National Health and Nutrition Examination found that people consume, on average, more than 500 more calories per day now than they did in the late 1970s, before obesity rates accelerated. That’s like having a Christmas dinner twice a week or more. It wouldn’t be a problem if we stuffed ourselves only once a year, but all-you-can-eat feasts are now available all the time. It’s nearly impossible for most of us to exercise enough to burn off these excess calories.

5. We can conquer obesity through better education about diet and nutrition

According to a physicians’ health study, 44 per cent of male doctors in the US are overweight. A study by the University of Maryland School of Nursing found that 55 per cent of nurses surveyed were overweight or obese. If people who provide health care cannot control their weight, why would nutrition education alone make a difference for others?

Even with more information about food, extra-large portions and sophisticated marketing messages undermine our ability to limit how much we consume. Consider Americans’ alcohol consumption: Only licensed establishments can sell spirits to people older than 21, and no alcohol can be sold in vending machines. Yet there are very few standards or regulations to protect Americans from overeating.

In the 19th century, when there were no controls on the quality of drinking water, infectious disease was a major cause of death. Once standards were established, the number of these fatalities plummeted. Similarly, if Americans did not live in a world filled with buffets, cheap fast food, soft drinks with corn syrup, and too many foods with excess fat, salt and sugar, the incidence of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes probably would plummet. Education can help, but what’s really needed is regulation – for example, limits on marketing that caters to our addiction to sugar and fat.

The Washington Post

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/the-top-five-obesity-myths-20131229-301ch.html