Category Archives: politics

NPR on health care price transparency

  • Very cool, very powerful
  • I+PLUS can do it already (excluding PHIs that aren’t on board)
  • Think we should go for it
  • Could potentially take it to the US

Audio: 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/12/276001379/elusive-goal-a-transparent-price-list-for-health-care

Elusive Goal: A Transparent Price List For Health Care

by ERIC WHITNEY  3:36 AM

Some states are trying to make health care prices available to the public by collecting receipts from those who pay the bills: Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers. Some states’ efforts to make these prices available are in jeopardy.

Coffee is important to many of us, but let’s say your coffee maker breaks. Finding a new one is as easy as typing “shop coffee maker” into your browser. Voila — you’ve got models, prices and customer reviews at your fingertips. But say you need something less fun than a coffee maker — like a colonoscopy. Shopping for one of those is a lot harder. Actual prices for the procedure are almost impossible to find, and Bob Kershner says there’s huge variation in cost from one clinic to the next. “You see the range is from $2,800 down to just about $400,” he says, pointing to a computer screen displaying some colonoscopy prices in Denver. Kershner works for a nonprofit called CIVHC, which is starting to make health care prices publicly available in Colorado. His boss, Edie Sonn, says knowing prices can change the whole health care ball game. “Knowledge is power,” she says. “None of us have had much information about how much health care services actually cost, and how much we’re getting for our money.” A database that includes all health claims in a particular state, she says, “gives you that information, so you can become an empowered consumer.” Colorado is one of eleven states that are starting to make public a lot of health care prices. It’s taken years. An “all payer claims database” is the first step in Colorado. It’s basically a giant shoebox that aims to collect a copy of every receipt for a health care service in a given state. Since doctors and hospitals generally don’t tell people how much services cost beforehand, the best way to figure out the price is to get receipts from the parties that pay the bills: insurance companies, Medicaid and Medicare, mostly. The more such information is made public, Sonn says, the more people will “vote with their feet” and migrate away from high-cost providers. However, turning this information about price from eye-crossing rows in a spreadsheet into consumer-friendly formats is hard. Colorado’s effort has taken years. Laws had to be passed to get insurance companies to send in their claims data (the receipts for what they’re paying), and sorting through all the information is a lot tougher than organizing a pile of paper receipts in a shoebox. “Claims data is dirty,” says Sonn. “It’s really dirty. It takes a lot of scrubbing to make sense of it. It’s complicated, time consuming and expensive.” Colorado has had funding to do that from private grants, but those are drying up. In order to keep on making basic price information accessible to the public for free, the state wants to sell more complicated, custom data reports to businesses within the health industry. There is a growing market for those sorts of reports, says Dr. David Ehrenberger, the chief medical officer for Avista Adventist hospital, outside Denver. He would like to see reports that show not just how much his competitors are charging, but also whether their patients have more or fewer complications. That would give him better negotiating power with big insurance companies. “The insurance industry still has a dramatic advantage over, particularly, smaller physician groups and smaller health care organizations. There’s not a level playing field there,” Ehrenberger says. That’s because big insurance companies pay bills at hospitals all over the state, so they have a big picture view of how much everybody charges for procedures, and of details such as complication rates. Individual hospitals only know their own prices. It’s as if only customers could get a list of prices for different coffee makers, but Cuisinart and Mr. Coffee couldn’t, so they wouldn’t know if they were asking too much or too little for their coffee makers. The better view Ehrenberger can get of the entire marketplace for health care services, the better he can set prices. “What we want to do is be able to have the data that shows, unequivocally, that we can provide a better quality product — and [at] a cost they can afford,” he says. But there’s a glitch. In order to get the kinds of reports Ehrenberger and other health care providers want, they have to include price information from all payers, and one of the biggest is Medicare — it pays about a fifth of all health care bills in Colorado. At the moment, Edie Sonn explains, they cannot use that Medicare data in any of the custom reports they want to sell. “Current federal law restricts what we can do with that Medicare data,” she says. “The only thing you can use their data for is public reporting.” Sonn’s organization and others like it have found support on Capitol Hill to let them sell Medicare data. It turns out that Democrats and Republicans agree that price transparency is key to controlling costs. A measure that would make that change is now part of a bigger Medicare bill (find it in section 107) working its way through Congress. If it passes, Colorado will be one step closer to making shopping for health care as easy as shopping for a coffee maker. This story is part of a partnership between NPR and Kaiser Health News.

“There is no freedom in addiction”

Michael Bloomberg was laughed at for suggesting that New York City businesses limit soda serving sizes. It was never a perfect plan, but his public shaming shows how closely we equate food with ‘freedom.’ The problem is, there is no freedom in addiction. As the Nature Neurosciencestudy showed above, rats and humans alike will overeat (or eat less healthy food options) even if they know better.

Hence the magic bullet at the center of McDonald’s letter: a precise combination of fat, sugar and salt that keeps us craving more. As NY Timesreporter and author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked UsMichael Moss said in an interview

These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry’s financial success, they are very inexpensive.

PN: The fallacy in the rump of this discussion is that cigarettes are not that more harmful than a big mac. I’m just as likely to die from smoking a single cigarette in front of you, as I am if I were to eat a big mac in front of you. The problems arise when you smoke/eat these products every day of your life.

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-big-food-pay-for-our-rising-obesity-costs

Should Big Food Pay For Our Rising Obesity Costs?

FEBRUARY 25, 2014, 4:29 PM
Bt-big-food

Paul McDonald didn’t expect his letter to go public. The Valorem Law Group partner had queried sixteen states, asking leaders to consider investigating Big Food’s potential role in paying for a percentage of the health system’s skyrocketing obesity costs. The Chamber of Commerce got wind of this letter and made it public, setting off a national debate over food marketing, ingredient manipulation and personal responsibility.

McDonald’s premise is simple enough: if large food companies are purposefully creating addictive foods to ensure consumer loyalty, adding to the rising obesity levels in this country, they should be responsible for covering costs associated with treatment. The backlash was immediate and biting.

Comparisons to the Big Tobacco companies came first to mind. In the 1998 Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement, major players in the tobacco industry agreed to pay $246 billion to offset health risks and diseases associated with its product. Critics of McDonald’s idea believe there is no link between tobacco and food.

Advertising

On the face of it, this would appear true: you don’t need to smoke, but eating is a necessity. Smoking is a choice, and therefore if you choose to smoke, you pay the consequences. Eating falls into an entirely different category.

Yet the neural mechanisms might be similar. A 2010 study in Nature Neuroscience found that rats consumed well past their limits when offered high-calorie foods such as bacon, sausage and cake, speculating that humans, when faced with an equivalent scenario, also choose to overeat.

Harvard University Professor of Medicine, Emeritus David Blumenthal’s study, Neurobiology of Food Addiction, found a similar link between food and drug abuse. In the summary he writes

Work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon…although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits.

The argument against food addiction is a tough one, waged by industry insiders who want to keep 60,000 products on American shelves. The real question, however, is: are food companies purposefully producing addictive foods that change our neurobiology? If so, should they be held economically accountable?

American obesity costs are currently $147 billion per year. The CDC estimates that 35.7% of adults and 17% of children ages 2-19 are obese—a number that has risen dramatically over the last two decades. A joint report between Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that 44% of American adults will be obese by 2030. The report predicts that will add between $48-66 billion to our costs, some of which is paid for by taxpayers.

Yet food is such an emotional topic. For example, when informing someone that I’m vegan, they immediately let me know why they could never do such a thing (I didn’t ask) or that it’s ‘wrong’ for them, and sometimes by extension, me (last week’s annual blood work shows me in perfect shape).

Michael Bloomberg was laughed at for suggesting that New York City businesses limit soda serving sizes. It was never a perfect plan, but his public shaming shows how closely we equate food with ‘freedom.’ The problem is, there is no freedom in addiction. As the Nature Neurosciencestudy showed above, rats and humans alike will overeat (or eat less healthy food options) even if they know better.

Hence the magic bullet at the center of McDonald’s letter: a precise combination of fat, sugar and salt that keeps us craving more. As NY Timesreporter and author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked UsMichael Moss said in an interview

These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry’s financial success, they are very inexpensive.

Inexpensive to companies, not to consumers. Paul McDonald is striking an important nerve in how we manufacture, distribute and consume food in our country. There will be a lot of resistance and debate from both industry and citizens. But if we don’t begin this conversation now, our national and mental health is only going to continue to decline.

Image: Aliwak/shutterstock.com

Wellthcare

Lissanthea put me on to this project.

Sounds highly aligned to my own ambitions, similarly requiring more focus…

http://www.wellthcare.com/

Wellthcare is an exploration

It’s an attempt to find new ways to value and create health

Health care contributes only 20% to our health and yet it dominates the health discourse;
80% of our health comes from our genes, behaviours, social factors and the environment

Wellthcare is about the 80% 
It’s about finding new sources of health-related value
It’s about creating health

At Wellthcare we believe that much of this value resides in our networks and communities

We call this value Wellth

Recent Log posts 

Pernicious moralising: when public health fails
22 Feb 2014
Wellthcare receives its first grant 
6 Feb 2014
It’s time to prioritise health creation – not just care and prevention 
30 Jan 2014
How a talking pet can keep us healthy
15 Jan 2014
Angelina Jolie, the end of standard, confused value, and not enough failure: why 2013 mattered
30 Dec 2013

Despatches from the Wellthcare Explorers 

Despatches are detailed descriptions of the debates being had between the Wellthcare Explorers as they further discuss health creation. 

Is there a role for an ‘event’? (PDF)
Published February 28th 2014

Building Resilience: Understanding People’s Context and Assets (PDF)
Published December 11th 2013

Fragmenting Communities and the Wantified Self (PDF)
Published October 22nd 2013

Discovering Wellth (PDF)
Published September 26th 2013

Exploration timeline 

Wellthcare is being explored by its Pioneer, Pritpal S Tamber, and an eclectic group of thinkers and doers called the Wellthcare Explorers.

February 2014

  • The fourth debate between the Wellthcare Explorers on the aims of an international meeting on health creation (Despatch pending)

January 2014 

  • Grant from Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity received to ascertain whether it is possible to hold an international meeting on health creation (see announcement)
  • Wellthcare Manifesto drafted (publication pending)

December 2013

  • Wellth definition changed to: ‘new, health-related value, defined by what people want to do, supported by their nano-networks and communities’

November 2013 

  • Third debate between Explorers followed by Despatch

October 2013

  • The idea of the ‘Wantified Self’ described
  • Second debate between Explorers followed by Despatch
  • Wellth definition changed to: ‘new, health-related value, defined by what people want to do, supported by their nano-networks’

September 2013 

  • First debate between Explorers followed by Despatch

June 2013

  • Website launched
  • Wellth defined as ‘reclaimed currencies of health, delivered through new technologies, nurtured and protected by intimate communities’

May 2013

Feb 2013

  • Work starts on Wellthcare

The business case for value-based care

  •  value-based payments will come into the US in the next 5-10 years
  • payments will be based on conditions, not treatments
  • e.g. current c-section rates are highly variable, due to the way fees are paid, not their actual value

 

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/print/COM-301451/Building-the-Business-Case-for-ValueBased-Care

Building the Business Case for Value-Based Care

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media , February 26, 2014

 

Harold D. Miller, president and CEO of the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, discusses a fundamental barrier to shifting payment models in healthcare: Some providers mistakenly think all they have to do is tweak existing fee-for-service billing structures without understanding what drives costs in the underlying payment system.

Harold D. MillerHarold D. Miller, President and CEO
Center for Healthcare Quality
and Payment Reform

The shift away from volume-based, fee-for-service billing towards value-based reimbursements is gaining momentum and will be largely in place over the next few years. And yet a surprising number of healthcare providers really don’t grasp the details of how value-based reimbursements work.

Harold D. Miller, president and CEO of the non-profit Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, says many providers mistakenly believe that all they have to do is tweak existing fee-for-service billing structures without identifying potential savings or understanding what drives costs in the underlying payment system.

Miller, the author of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded report called Making the Business Care for Payment and Delivery Reform, spoke with me this week about what providers must do to build an effective business case for value-based care. The following is an edited transcript.

HLM: Where are we on the fee-for-service/value-based care timeline?

Miller: It could be the dominant model within the next five to 10 years, but it is a matter of how quickly physicians and in particular physicians in hospitals meet with the purchasers of care— the employers— to work that out. It’s about how soon both side come together and create the win, win, win that is good for patients, providers, and purchasers.

HLM: What are the stumbling blocks on the road to value-based care?

Miller: Most health plans and Medicare are trying to change the way care is delivered and reduce costs by piling on pay for performance and shared savings on top of fee-for-service. The problem is that if you don’t change the underlying payment system, you don’t change the incentives and the barriers that it creates.

For example, one of the best ways to keep people with chronic disease healthier and out of the hospital is for a physician practice to hire a nurse to educate and encourage patients to call when they have a problem. The problem is that doctors don’t get paid for nurses and they don’t get paid for answering phone calls. So practices are forced to lose money under fee-for-service to deliver better care, even though it would actually save money by keeping the patients out of the hospital.

 

HLM: Is value-based healthcare a particularly challenging sector?

Miller: Every patient is different, but on the other hand, how do health insurance companies operate? The law of large numbers says that on average, patients are fairly similar. You don’t have to deliver the exact same treatment to everybody to estimate on average what it is going to be like.

If you get the unusually expensive case—the patient who is an outlier with unique health problems— that is what insurance is for.

On the other hand, saying ‘We shouldn’t be giving an MRI to everyone who comes in with lower back pain. Most of them should probably go to physical therapy first.’ That is something you can do across a broad number of patients. That is going to save money on average and probably be better for the patients.

HLM: Is there common ground for fee-for-service and value-based models that providers can build on?

Miller: A lot of the payment reforms that are being done actually build on fee-for-service. The idea is you don’t just leave it in place and try to pile something on top. The problem with fee-for-service now is that it says you get paid the exact same amount to do something whether you do it well or poorly and whether or not [or whether] there are complications or infections that occur. And in fact you may get paid more.

But you don’t fix fee-for-service by sticking little penalties or bonuses on top. You have to change the fundamental way it is delivered.

For example, for patients who have health problems, we are looking at payments based on the patient’s condition and not based on exactly the procedure you used. A good example is delivering a baby. You get paid more to do a caesarian section than you get paid than a vaginal delivery. Yet the vaginal delivery takes longer, and is better for the mother and the baby.

So why do we now have a 33% C-section rate in the country? Because the fees we pay are not based on the actual value.

 

HLM: Why does value-based care create so much unease among many providers?

Miller: A lot of the anxiety comes because people don’t have the data. You have to have access to good data and in most cases healthcare providers can’t do that. Medicare has only just recently started to release data, so that someone could actually do the kind of analysis that I recommend in my report.

Most health plans treat their data as a proprietary secret, but there are a number of communities around the country that have multi-payer claims databases where people can do these kinds of analyses.

HLM: Why should providers welcome the switch to value-based care?

Miller: You could actually do better in a value-based payment model. People have the perception that somehow it is going to be worse, but the sooner you get into it the better you may be able to do because you are able to capture a lot of the value out there now that isn’t being captured.

Rather than staying in fee-for-service and hoping you may get a small increase in fees or that you don’t get a cut in fees, it’s better to ask ‘Can I redesign care in a way that would allow me to be paid significantly more?’

Medicare has done a demonstration that has been operational now for several years called theAcute Care Episode Demonstration that bundled together hospital and physician payments for orthopedic and cardiac procedures and the physicians were able to earn up to 25% more than their standard fee-for-service payments by being able to redesign care and reduce the costs. That is far more of an increase in pay quickly than you could ever get by simply staying in the existing fee-for-service model.

HLM: Who should be at the table when providers build the business case for value-based care?

Miller: Step No. 1 is changing the way care is delivered. It is the physicians on the front lines who have to say ‘Where do we think we are actually doing too much of something we shouldn’t do or that we are not providing good care to the patients?’

 

Then you have to get the COO or the CFO to say ‘Let’s work the numbers.’ Typically, you don’t find those two parts of organizations working together. Doing spreadsheets is not the physicians’ skill and providing care is not the CFO’s skill. But if you can get them to come together, that is where the magic happens.

Payment Reform

You say to physicians ‘Where do you think you could redesign care if somebody gave you the flexibility to be paid differently, to be paid for things that you aren’t being paid for today?’ When I talk to physicians, they all have ideas but nobody asks them.

The typical approach is that physicians say ‘Pay me for these things that you don’t pay me for today.’ The health plan, Medicare, employers or whomever says, ‘Wait a minute. That will increase costs if you are going to be paid for something new.’ If you think it is going to be better, run the numbers to see if it actually will save money. What will you do less of and what will that save?

Get everybody in the room. Get their ideas. Figure out which subset appears to be the most promising. Do the detail work and go to payers to put it in place. If you can show success then that encourages people to do more. Not every case will it be a savings proposition.

Which of those things is there really a business case for, and if there seems to be a business case then let’s do a finer analysis to show that and take it to the payers to say ‘how about a deal here?’ Even if you can’t get the perfect data, using approximate data to at least see if it looks like a business case then tells you which things to focus on.

HLM: How soon could a value-based model see a return on investment?

Miller: For many of these things, the savings can happen very quickly. A lot of what has been done in healthcare has been desirable, but has a long-term payoff. There is a lot of focus on better management of diabetes and hypertension; all very desirable but it doesn’t save a lot of money this year.

 

On the other hand, if you focus on people going unnecessarily to the emergency room and getting unnecessary tests and [you] figure out how to redesign that care, you save money immediately because you are avoiding the unnecessary care. Thirty day re-admissions are a perfect example.

HLM: Who do providers speak with on the payer side?

Miller: The focus will differ. Medicare doesn’t have a whole lot of interest in maternity care, whereas for businesses and Medicaid maternity care is in many cases their biggest expenditures. Everyone is interested in chronic disease. The distinction I make is between the purchaser and the payer. The purchaser in commercial insurance is the employer.

In fact, 60% of commercially insured employees in the country are in self-insured employer plans. The deal you are working out is actually with the employer and not the health plan. All the health plan is doing is processing claims. One of the challenges for commercial health plans is that value-based isn’t necessarily a good business proposition for them. They may have to incur costs to change the payment system, but the savings don’t go to them, they go back to their self-insured accounts.

HLM: What influences will insurance exchanges and consumer-driven healthcare play in the business case for value-based care?

Miller: It could be a potential advantage if different provider organizations get beyond this fairly narrow shared-savings model to the point where they are actually able to take accountability for populations of patients and can price that.

They could go on the exchange and allow people to sign up for this ACO and pick a primary care physician there and work with the coordinated set of docs at a lower cost and higher quality than simply picking a generic health plan. It’s kind of halfway between the traditional HMO/PPO models. You are picking who you want to lead your care. You don’t necessarily have to be limited to once set of docs or have a gatekeeper for everything.


John Commins is a senior editor with HealthLeaders Media. 

 

CIA on FitBit – wearable data security

Awesome quote from th CIA re. gait identification:

If there’s one entity that knows the value of the health data uploaded to these devices, it’s the CIA. Last year, at a data conference in New York, the CIA’s chief technology officer, Ira Hunt, gave a talk on big data. During the discussion, he told the crowd that he carries a Fitbit. “We like these things,” he said. “What’s really most intriguing is that you can be 100% guaranteed to be identified by simply your gait—how you walk.”

 

Are Fitbit, Nike, and Garmin Planning to Sell Your Personal Fitness Data?

Are Fitbit, Nike, and Garmin Planning to Sell Your Personal Fitness Data?

These popular fitness companies say they aren’t selling your info, but privacy advocates and the FTC worry that might change.

—By  | Fri Jan. 31, 2014 3:00 AM GMT

 

Lately, fitness-minded Americans have started wearing sporty wrist-band devices that track tons of data: Weight, mile splits, steps taken per day, sleep quality, sexual activity, calories burned—sometimes, even GPS location. People use this data to keep track of their health, and are able send the information to various websites and apps. But this sensitive, personal data could end up in the hands of corporations looking to target these users with advertising, get credit ratings, or determine insurance rates. In other words, that device could start spying on you—and the Federal Trade Commission is worried. 

“Health data from [a woman’s] connected device, may be collected and then sold to data brokers and other companies she does not know exist,” Jessica Rich, director of the Bureau for Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, said in a speech on Tuesday for Data Privacy Day. “These companies could use her information to market other products and services to her; make decisions about her eligibility for credit, employment, or insurance; and share with yet other companies. And many of these companies may not maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the data they maintain about her.”

Several major US-based fitness device companies contacted by Mother Jones—Fitbit, Garmin, and Nike—say they don’t sell personally identifiable information collected from fitness devices. But privacy advocates warn that the policies of these firms could allow them to sell data, if they ever choose to do so.

Let’s start with the popular Fitbit. When you buy one of these bracelets or clip-on devices, you have the option of automatically sending fitness data to the Fitbit website. And the site encourages you to also submit other medical information, such as blood pressure and glucose levels. According to Fitbit’s privacy policy, “At times Fitbit may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Fitbit to provide services to you.” Stephna May, a Fitbit spokesperson, says that the company “does not sell information collected from the device that can identify individual users, period.” However, she says that the company would consider marketing “aggregate information” that cannot be linked back to an individual user—which is outlined in the privacy policy as aggregated gender, age, height, weight, and usage data. (This is similar to whatFacebook does.)

Nike, which makes the Nike + Fuel Band, says in its privacy policy that the company may collect a host of personal information, but doesn’t say that it can be shared with advertising companies. Joy Davis Fair, a Nike spokesperson, says that the company, “does not share consumer data” with outside advertisers, but selectively shares it with other companies under the Nike’s corporate umbrella, including Converse and Hurley. Garmin’s policy says that users have to consent in order for the company to sell personal information. A Garmin spokesman says the company doesn’t sell personal or aggregated information to advertisers, and doing so isn’t part of the company’s business model. (Polar Flow, which makes the Polar Loop band, is the only company with a privacy policy that explicitly says it won’t sell personally identifiable data for advertising. It is based in Finland and subject to stringent European Union privacy laws.)

Jeffrey Chester, executive director for the Center for Digital Democracy, says that these privacy policies are so broad that they could allow the companies to sell health data—even if they aren’t doing so now. “When companies promise that they aren’t selling your data, that’s because they haven’t developed a business model to do so yet,” Chester says.

Scott Peppet, a University of Colorado law school professor, agrees that companies like Fitbit will eventually move toward sharing this data. “I can paint an incredibly detailed and rich picture of who you are based on your Fitbit data,” he said at a FTC conference last year.“That data is so high quality that I can do things like price insurance premiums or I could probably evaluate your credit score incredibly accurately.”

Even if the companies that make these devices aren’t selling the data, there is another potential privacy concern. Users can send their data to dozens of third-party fitness apps on their phone. Once users do that, the data becomes subject to the privacy policies of the app companies, and these policies do not afford much protection, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The group examined 43 popular health and fitness apps last year, and found that, “there are considerable privacy risks for users.” A spokesperson for the FTC told Mother Jones that “fitness devices often work by having apps associated, and [Privacy Rights Clearinghouse’s] analysis here may be relevant.”

If there’s one entity that knows the value of the health data uploaded to these devices, it’s the CIA. Last year, at a data conference in New York, the CIA’s chief technology officer, Ira Hunt, gave a talk on big data. During the discussion, he told the crowd that he carries a Fitbit. “We like these things,” he said. “What’s really most intriguing is that you can be 100% guaranteed to be identified by simply your gait—how you walk.”

 

Middle Eastern chronic disease

  • Bad, but not much worse than Australia… according to the report, 66-75% of the adult population (over 18) and 25-40% of children and adolescents (under 18) in the Middle East are estimated to be overweight or obese

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Regions/Middle-East/Overweight-Middle-East-struggles-with-heart-disease-and-diabetes/

Overweight Middle East struggles with heart disease and diabetes

Post a commentBy Ankush Chibber , 11-Feb-2014

The Middle East is grappling with a rise in non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, the roots of which are in a rise in obesity among its populace, a new study has found. 

According to report, ischemic heart disease is now the leading cause of death in middle and high-income Arab nations – and it comes in at number 4 even in the lowest-income countries in the region.

Stroke is also a leading cause of death, and Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE are now among the 10 nations with the highest global prevalence of type 2 diabetes, it said.

The study’s authors put most of the blame for this on the change in dietary habits among the region’s population.

Fat of the land

The report added that the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased in both young and adult populations of GCC countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.

According to the report, 66-75% of the adult population (over 18) and 25-40% of children and adolescents (under 18) in the Middle East are estimated to be overweight or obese.

“The traditional Arab diet has changed from high-fibre and low-fat food with increased integration of the Arab world into the global market over the past four decades,” the study’s authors said.

“Unhealthy dietary habits are prevalent in children, adolescents, and adults, especially in the wealthy GCC countries where a wide variety of global fast-food chains are near ubiquitous,” they added.

According to the report, people in the Arab countries have a high intake of fast food and carbonated beverages and a low intake of milk, fruits, and vegetables, and frequently consume snacks rich in calories, salt, and fat between meals.

Pricing policies?

According to the report, national policies, programmes, and action plans to improve diet and increase physical activity are undeniably important for non-communicable disease prevention.

“But the realities of implementation are likely to be very different from the written policies,” the authors said.

According to the results of a review of diet and physical activity policies in low-income and middle-income countries, only Jordan had a policy that addressed all four risk factors: salt, fat, fruits and vegetables, and physical activity.

“In particular, the review reported that diet and physical activity policies tended not to be associated with specific action plans, timelines, and budgets, and they were also mostly focused on individual behavioural changes,” they said.

“Policies that link to specific budgets and priority actions, and involve a broader range of stakeholders, are needed. Importantly, pricing regulations are needed to ensure that fruits and vegetables are more affordable than processed foods, thus targeting both obesity and micronutrient deficiencies.”

Salt and trans fats need attention

According to the authors, even slight reductions in salt intake will result in substantial reductions in medical costs and cardiovascular events.

“Reduction in salt intake can be achieved with behaviour modification efforts (through advertising and health education campaigns) and reformulation of food products by industry. In the Arab world, bread is a big source of salt in the diet, and should be the first target for reformulation by gradual reduction,” they said.

The authors pointed out that in high-income and middle-income countries, reduction of trans-fat consumption has been addressed through mandatory labelling of the trans-fat content in foods and voluntary agreements.

“But little information about trans-fat intake in the Arab world is available. A recent study in Jordan showed a high and variable content of trans fat in both locally produced and imported foods,” they said.

“The WHO has proposed various policies to reduce trans-fat intake, including further studies on trans fat with respect to labelling, pricing regulations, and import restrictions. Health education campaigns are needed to educate consumers about trans fats,” they recommended.

Source: The Lancet

Non-communicable diseases in the Arab world

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62383-1

Authors: Dr. Hanan F Abdul Rahim. Prof Abla Sibai, Yoused Khader, Prof Nahla Hwalla, Ibtihal Fadhil, Huda Alsiyabi, Awad Mataria, Shanthi mendis, Prof Ali H Mokdad, Abdullatid Husseini

Ban on junk food advertising to chindren

 

http://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Policy/Academics-call-for-ban-on-child-facing-junk-food-advertising/

Academics call for ban on child-facing junk food advertising

Post a commentBy RJ Whitehead , 10-Feb-2014

A ban on manipulative junk food advertising to children is urgently needed to help fight increasing rates of childhood obesity, say University of Otago Wellington researchers.

Free toys, gifts, discounts and competitions, promotional characters and celebrities, and appeals to taste and fun, are just some of the techniques used by marketers to promote junk food to kids, according to a recent systematic literature review.

The university’s Department of Public Health has for some time been on a drive to research the causes of obesity in a country where the obesity rate among children aged between five and 11 jumped from 8% to 11% in just six years. At least 20% of New Zealand’s children are considered overweight.

From Happy Meals to ‘open happiness’

Lead researcher Gabrielle Jenkin says most children and parents will be familiar with the offer of free toys at McDonalds, slogans such as “open happiness” with Coke, and the use of licensed characters such as Spiderman or Spongebob Squarepants to promote junk food to children.

Persuasive food marketing is manipulative, especially for children, Jenkin said, adding: “Such marketing has been proven to increase children’s requests for the advertised foods, their food preferences and ultimately their diets. For example, free toys, discounts and competitions promote brand loyalty and repeat purchases.

Meanwhile, Jenkin’s colleague at UOW’s Department of Public Health, Louise Signal, has been researching the extent of junk food advertising on kids by equipping 200 schoolchildren with wearable cameras and recording the instances they come in contact with advertising from billboards, shops and the back of buses.

Children tell us that they do see a lot of advertising, but we’ve never quantified it across the entire range of media,” said Signal. 

As a parent myself, I’m very interested because parents aren’t with their older children all of the time, they don’t necessarily know where they go, and a lot of it slides under the radar anyway.”

Bringing legislation in line with other countries

Jenkin and her review team are now calling for an outright ban on junk food advertising to children under 16, as has been done in Norway.

In the absence of a ban, new rules would need to be added to the advertising codes around the use of persuasive techniques, as has been done in the UK, Australian and Ireland, they say.

The study claims to be the first of its kind to focus on common techniques used to promote food to children on television. The research has been published in the latest edition of the international journal, Obesity Reviews.

Overweight or obese now normal

Heart Foundation lays it all down… we need to lose a combined 120million KGs to return to normal healthy weight range… not as easy as it sounds.

http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/being-overweight-or-obese-now-the-norm

Being overweight or obese now the norm

AUSTRALIANS need to lose a combined 120 million kilograms to return to a healthy weight range.

The average Australian man now weighs 85.9kg – that’s 6.5kg heavier than he was in 1989 – according to a National Heart Foundation analysis on the severity of the nation’s weight problem.

A breakdown of Heart Foundation national health surveys and government data also revealed that the average woman has gained 5.7kg in the past 25 years and now tips the scales at 71.1kg.

The Heart Foundation’s national director of cardiovascular health, Dr Rob Grenfell, said two-thirds of Australians now fall outside the healthy weight range, with nearly half a million people morbidly obese (BMI > 40).

“To return to a healthy weight range, an average man would need to lose 8.9kg and a woman would need to lose 5.7kg,” Dr Grenfell said.

“The combined weight loss required is just short of 120 million kilograms across the nation.”

The analysis highlights that the average BMI for men is up from 25.3 to 27.9 since 1989, and the average for women is up from 24.3 to 27.2.

Obesity has increased from 8.4% of the population in 1980, to 28.3% in 2011–12.

“It’s scary that two in three Australians are now above the healthy weight range, making overweight and obese weight ranges more ‘normal’ than healthy,” he said.

“The healthiest BMI is relatively lean, at around 22.5–24.9, which is equivalent to a weight of 70–77kg for an Australian man of average height and 59–65kg for an Australian woman of average height.”

In comparison to 1980, the proportion of obese adult Australians has tripled, while the number of people in the healthy weight range has almost halved.

WA and Queensland now have the highest average male BMIs at 28.2, according to the Australian Health Survey of 2011/12, with the highest average female BMIs, 27.7, occurring in SA and Tasmania.

Victoria has the lowest average BMIs at 27.6 for men and 26.9 for women.

WSJ Transparent Pricing

  •  One of the most widespread initiatives comes from insurers themselves—who say they are eager to help plan members and employers cut their health-care bills. Some 98% of health plans now offer their members some online tool that lets them calculate their out-of-pocket costs, according to a survey by Catalyst for Payment Reform. A few let users compare different providers in the same network.
  • UnitedHealth Group Inc. has one of the most extensive tools. More than 21 million members can log into myHealthcare Cost Estimator and compare the negotiated rates for more than 500 individual services at in-network providers across the country, as well as their individual out-of-pocket costs for each one. Hundreds of thousands of plan members have used the tool since it launched in 2012, the company says.
  • In one pilot project, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, found prices for hip and knee replacements ranging from $15,000 to $110,000 in the San Francisco area. It agreed to pay up to $30,000, and some 40 hospitals cut their prices to match. Such initiatives have helped Calpers save nearly $3 million in the past two years, one study found.
  • A growing body of research has found that there is no clear connection between price and outcomes such as mortality rates, blood clots, bed sores and hospital readmission. “Until you break that connection in peoples’ minds, there is a perverse incentive for hospitals and health systems to continue to raise prices,” Ms. Dentzer says.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579375242842086688

How to Bring the Price of Health Care Into the Open

There’s a Big Push to Tell Patients What They’ll Pay—Before They Decide on Treatment

It’s a simple idea, but a radical one. Let people know in advance how much health care will cost them—and whether they can find a better deal somewhere else.

With outrage growing over incomprehensible medical bills and patients facing a higher share of the costs, momentum is building for efforts to do just that. Price transparency, as it is known, is common in most industries but rare in health care, where “charges,” “prices,” “rates” and “payments” all have different meanings and bear little relation to actual costs.

Unlike other industries, prices for health care can vary dramatically depending on who’s paying. The list prices for hospital stays and doctor visits are often just opening bids that insurers negotiate down. The deals insurers and providers strike are often proprietary, making comparisons difficult. Even doctors are generally clueless about what the tests, drugs and specialists they recommend will cost patients.

Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt likens using the U.S. health-care system to shopping in a department store blindfolded and months later being handed a statement that says, “Pay this amount.”

The price-transparency movement aims to lift that veil of secrecy and empower patients and other payers to be smarter health-care consumers. Federal and state agencies are gathering reams of price information from doctors and hospitals and posting them for the public. Health plans are offering online tools that let members calculate their out-of-pocket costs. Startup companies are ferreting out and publishing the long-secret rates that providers negotiate with insurers.

When consumers can compare prices for doctor visits, hospital stays and other services, the theory goes, market competition will help keep them down.

An Incentive to Change

This is new territory for health care. Doctors and hospitals have rarely competed on cost. Third-party payers still foot the bulk of the bills, and many players in the health-care industry benefit from keeping their costs and profit margins murky.

“The time for transparency has clearly arrived—but is everybody ready to have real pricing power brought to bear in a way that could destabilize the health-care sector?” asks Susan Dentzer, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “It means upsetting a lot of apple carts.”

The pressure to change is rising, however. Experts expect consumers to be much more price-sensitive as they shoulder a growing proportion of health costs themselves. Last year, 38% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance had a deductible of $1,000 or more—up from 10% in 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Silver and bronze plans created by the Affordable Care Act carry average family deductibles of $6,000 and $10,386, respectively. More than half of bronze plans also require patients to pay 30% of doctors’ fees, according to health-information site HealthPocket.com. “Most of us still don’t have much financial incentive to shop around for cheaper care,” says Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of Catalyst for Payment Reform, a nonprofit that works on behalf of employers. “That’s changing rapidly.”

 

Efforts to raise transparency are coming from a number of corners, including the Obama administration. But some have mainly shown how confusing health-care pricing is.

Hoping to shine a light on the variations in hospital charges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, grabbed headlines last May when it released a list of the average prices 3,300 U.S. hospitals charged Medicare for the 100 most common inpatient services during 2011.

Huge Differences

The variations were stunning. The average charge for joint-replacement surgery, for example, ranged from $5,300 in Ada, Okla., to $223,000 in Monterey Park, Calif. Even in the same city, there were huge swings. The charge for treating an episode of heart failure was $9,000 in one hospital in Jackson, Miss., and $51,000 in another.

A month later, CMS released a second database comparing average hospital charges for 30 common outpatient procedures, and the variations were just as great. A hospital in Pennington, N.J., charged $3,036 for a diagnostic and screening ultrasound, while one in Bronx, N.Y., billed just $88.

Many hospital executives dismiss those list prices—also known as chargemaster prices—as meaningless and misleading, since few patients ever pay them. Commercial insurers often use them as a starting point for negotiating big discounts. Medicare itself pays hospitals predetermined rates based on diagnoses, regardless of what they charge.

Industry experts say list prices vary so much in part because hospitals use different accounting methods and have different patient populations. List prices also reflect all the costs of running a hospital, including keeping ERs, burn units and other costly services running 24 hours a day. What’s more, many hospital executives say they have to mark up charges for privately insured patients because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements don’t cover those patients’ cost—a shortfall the American Hospital Association puts at $46 billion nationwide last year.

Hospitals “are absolutely in favor of price transparency,” says AHA president Rich Umbdenstock, and they support a bill in Congress that would let individual states determine price-disclosure rules. He also says hospitals would like to end the confusing chargemaster and cost-shifting practices, but they can’t do it without big changes in payment practices by both the government and the insurance industry.

“If this were in our power to solve, we would have done it a long time ago,” Mr. Umbdenstock says. “But it’s not something we can do on our own.”

Shining a Light

Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator of the CMS, counters that chargemaster prices do matter, particularly to uninsured patients who sometimes get stuck with those inflated bills. He says the administration’s goal was to spark discussion about price variations, and that “a tremendous number” of visitors had downloaded the data.

“We’ve discovered that oftentimes, even health-care providers don’t fully realize the extent of those variations,” he says. “Our hypothesis is that a lot of the variations aren’t warranted.”

The prices insurers negotiate with hospitals and doctors are more important to consumers, experts say. Traditionally, those rates have been proprietary. Neither insurers nor providers want competitors and other business partners to know what they’re willing to settle for. Some contracts include gag clauses barring disclosure.

But states are increasingly requiring payers and providers to reveal that information. A few states specifically outlaw gag clauses in health-care contracts. Sixteen states have “all-payer claims databases” designed to collect insurance claims data and use it to monitor trends and identify high- and low-price providers. And some 38 states now require hospitals to report at least some pricing information, although only two—Massachusetts and New Hampshire—rated an “A” in Catalyst for Payment Reform’s annual report card for making the information accessible and usable by patients.

Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are sleuthing out negotiated rates from claims data and making them available to consumers and employers in various forms. Healthcare Bluebook aims to do for health care what the Kelley Blue Book does for used cars: It analyzes negotiated rates paid for thousands of medical services in every ZIP Code—supplied by employers and other clients—and posts what it considers a “fair” price for each so consumers can evaluate what they’re being charged.

Bluebook’s founder and CEO, Jeffrey Rice, says the rates insurers pay for, say, an MRI or knee surgery can vary as much as chargemaster prices do, particularly if a local hospital is dominant or prestigious.

“The difference may not be much between Nashville and Chicago—the big difference may be just down the block,” he says.

Mr. Rice says the employers Healthcare Bluebook works with have saved as much as 12% on their health-care costs by making price information available to their employees, with most savings coming on imaging studies, endoscopies, cardiac testing and other outpatient procedures.

Another service, PricingHealthcare.com, asks users to anonymously supply information from their own medical bills to help it amass the list prices, cash prices and negotiated rates for common procedures. It currently shows rates for some 500 procedures in 11 states. Founder Randy Cox says some providers are furious when asked what their rates are, while others are eager to have their entire price list posted. “I get calls from hospital CEOs who know people are concerned about price and think this is an opportunity for their business,” he says.

A Hand From Insurers

One of the most widespread initiatives comes from insurers themselves—who say they are eager to help plan members and employers cut their health-care bills. Some 98% of health plans now offer their members some online tool that lets them calculate their out-of-pocket costs, according to a survey by Catalyst for Payment Reform. A few let users compare different providers in the same network.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. has one of the most extensive tools. More than 21 million members can log into myHealthcare Cost Estimator and compare the negotiated rates for more than 500 individual services at in-network providers across the country, as well as their individual out-of-pocket costs for each one. Hundreds of thousands of plan members have used the tool since it launched in 2012, the company says.

Nationwide, only about 2% of health-plan members who have access to such tools have used them, according to Catalyst for Payment Reform. But Ms. Delbanco expects that number to rise as more patients become aware of the tools and see their out-of-pocket costs growing.

Proponents say it is too early to tell how much impact transparency efforts will have on costs overall. California has required hospitals to make their chargemaster prices public since 2003, with little effect on prices.

But one approach called “reference pricing” has yielded some savings. Where local prices differ substantially for a service like a colonoscopy, an insurer publishes a list of providers’ rates and agrees to pay a set amount. If patients choose a provider that charges more, they must pay the difference themselves.

In one pilot project, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, found prices for hip and knee replacements ranging from $15,000 to $110,000 in the San Francisco area. It agreed to pay up to $30,000, and some 40 hospitals cut their prices to match. Such initiatives have helped Calpers save nearly $3 million in the past two years, one study found.

What Comes Next?

Experts say that as consumers increasingly compare prices, it’s critical to provide them with information about quality of care as well—otherwise, they might assume high cost equates with high quality.

A growing body of research has found that there is no clear connection between price and outcomes such as mortality rates, blood clots, bed sores and hospital readmission. “Until you break that connection in peoples’ minds, there is a perverse incentive for hospitals and health systems to continue to raise prices,” Ms. Dentzer says.

Indeed, critics fear that some price-transparency efforts could backfire and spur higher prices: If providers see that insurers are paying competitors more, they might hold out for higher rates, and insurers might be less inclined to give some providers favorable deals.

Some skeptics think that without fundamental changes in how health care is priced and paid for, transparency may confuse consumers more than it empowers them.

But there’s a growing consensus that while price transparency alone cannot transform the health-care system, it is necessary to help reveal which costs are excessive and let consumers make better-informed choices.

“At the end of the day, it’s our money,” Ms. Delbanco says. “We have a right to know what our health care is going to cost.”

Ms. Beck covers health care and writes The Wall Street Journal’s Health Journal column. She can be reached at melinda.beck@wsj.com.

Partnership for a Healthier America Innovation Challenge

Nicholas Gruen put me on to this effort… so impressed to see these efforts emerge in such a can do endeavour and with the first lady giving the welcoming address.

http://govfresh.com/event/partnership-healthier-america-innovation-challenge/

Partnership for a Healthier America Innovation Challenge

Event Navigation

A gathering of business, government and non-profit visionaries, the Building a Healthier Future Summit focuses on action over talk. The PHA Innovation Challenge offers a unique opportunity to realize the event’s mission of creating bold, tangible and actionable solutions using the most powerful tool available – technology. This year, Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) is working with The Feast to engage the most talented innovators and makers in technology and design to help solve the childhood obesity epidemic.

PHA is hosting a hackathon in the lead-up to the conference, when participants will prototype and build working solutions focused on the theme of Childhood Obesity. The hackathon will explore two opportunities within the challenge of Childhood Obesity:

  1. To help teachers empower students to make healthy choices about the food they consume, whether at home or at school.
  2. To create an information avenue that shows families the healthy food options and physical activity opportunities available locally.

PHA and The Feast are recruiting a group of the best designers, developers, stakeholders and entrepreneurs to create solutions that will help make the healthy choice the easy choice. Over two dedicated workdays the weekend prior to the Summit, participants will form teams to work on one of the two opportunities. Participants will receive support from subject matter experts and mentors in crafting their solutions while partaking in exciting activities and enjoying healthy meals. The following week, all the participating hackers will receive free admission and full access to PHA’s Building a Healthier Future Summit, with the opportunity to engage with innovators in the health sector. Two winning teams will then take the stage at Summit to present their work to an audience of 1,000 industry leaders, with one team winning an audience choice award.

PHA believes that change happens when anyone is empowered to re-imagine how something might be better and seizes the opportunity to realize that vision.

Details

Start:
End:
March 9, 2014 5:00 pm
Event Category:
Event Tags:
Website:
http://ahealthieramerica.org/summit/innovation/

Organizer

Partnership for a Healthier America
Website:
http://ahealthieramerica.org

Venue

Partnership for a Healthier America
2001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 900,Washington, DC, 20006 United States

+ Google Map

Website:
http://http://ahealthieramerica.org/