Category Archives: healthcare

BUPA thinks about the future…

  • Dr Paul Zollinger-Read is Chief Medical Officer at Bupa
  • He’s tried to think about the future
  • ubiquitous, embedded sensors will be important
  • gamification will help change behaviours
  • In November 2013, Bupa signed a partnership agreement with the United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to work together on a global ‘m-Health’ initiative called ‘Be Healthy, Be Mobile’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10634366/Healthcare-in-2024-clothes-that-detect-blood-sugar-levels-and-a-toilet-that-monitors-hydration.html

Healthcare in 2024: clothes that detect blood sugar levels and a toilet that monitors hydration

Smart technology will transform healthcare over the next ten years, according to Bupa

Google unveiled a revolutionary smart contact lens which detects glucose levels in diabetes sufferers’ tears earlier this year

By 2024, mobile technology will have completely transformed medical provision across the world, according to global healthcare company Bupa. Clothes, household appliances and furniture will all play a vital role behind the scenes of our daily routines, helping keep track of health and alerting people at the first sign of illness.

Meanwhile, ‘gamification’ of healthcare could reward everyday positive choices and healthy behaviour in the same way gamers unlock badges in mobile apps such as Angry Birds or Foursquare, aiding disease prevention and dramatically reducing the onset of diseases such as diabetes.

“This glimpse into the future has allowed us to imagine a time where sophisticated mobile technology and advancements in the connected home mean that people can become guardians of their own health,” said Dr Paul Zollinger-Read, Chief Medical Officer at Bupa.

“Being aware of their likelihood of disease and possible risk factors, coupled with constant monitoring through intelligent technology means that they will be able to spot the symptoms of illness from a very early stage, or simply prevent them altogether.”

Some of the innovative healthcare solutions suggested by Bupa include ‘smart’ nappies that allow parents to check their child’s hydration levels or monitor for kidney infections, intelligent fibres in clothing that canl detect movement of the chest and pulse, monitoring breathing and heart rate and detecting irregularities, and contact lenses featuring microscopic cameras that will monitor changes in the back of the eye, spotting early signs of diabetes.

Shoes featuring pressure sensors could detect when the wearer is sedentary, and alert them with updates on fitness goals, and the household fridge will monitor liquid, nutrition and calorie consumption, while ‘tattoo’ skin patches will monitor body temperature and hydration.

Bupa said that wearable technology and the connected home will transform prevention of diseases in the next decade by gathering data from a number of devices about our bodies and presenting it back to us in simple, visual, practical terms.

The news comes after Google unveiled a revolutionary smart contact lens which detects glucose levels in diabetes sufferers’ tears earlier this year. Human trials of a miniature artificial pancreas are also set to begin in 2016.

In November 2013, Bupa signed a partnership agreement with the United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to work together on a global ‘m-Health’ initiative called ‘Be Healthy, Be Mobile’.

Bupa and ITU will provide multidisciplinary expertise, health information and mobile technology to fight chronic diseases including diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, in low- and middle-income countries.

Doctors detecting depression

Filling out forms is very much the v1.0 use of IT in the detection of mental health issues.

http://depressionscreening.org/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703471904576003520708615998

THE INFORMED PATIENT

How Doctors Try to Spot Depression

By

LAURA LANDRO
Updated Dec. 7, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
Appearing anxious and overwhelmed on a routine visit with her primary-care provider, Lucy Cressey was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication and referred for talk therapy with a social worker.The treatment recommendations came after Ms. Cressey agreed to fill out two questionnaires during the medical visit at the John Andrews Family Care Center in Boothbay Harbor, Maine, last year. Ms. Cressey scored high on both questionnaires, designed to help depression and anxiety.

Following the recent death of her best friend, a tough spinal surgery and some family financial woes, “a lot of stressors just snowballed for me,” says Ms. Cressey, a 52-year-old veterinary technician. “But in rural Maine it’s not so cool to talk about being depressed or anxious, and those questionnaires really open some doors for them to help you.”

A growing number of primary-care providers are using screening tools to assess depression and other mental-health conditions during routine-care visits. They are also coordinating care of depressed patients with behavioral-health specialists. Such so-called mental-health-integration programs have been shown to reduce emergency-room visits and psychiatric-hospital admissions, and to increase employees’ productivity at work.

One in four American adults who visit their primary-care doctors for a routine checkup or physical complaint also suffer from a mental-health problem, federal data show. But patients often don’t raise the issue and doctors are too busy to ask. As a result, many never get treatment: Less than 38% of adults in the U.S. with mental illness received care for it last year, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

A number of health-care groups work in tandem with behavioral-health providers. And some insurers, including AetnaAET +5.23% are promoting integrated care. About 5,000 physicians participate in Aetna’s Depression in Primary Care program, which reimburses them for administering a Patient Health Questionnaire, or PHQ-9, to patients. Aetna is also training behavioral-health specialists, and stationing them in primary-care offices.

Health groups increasingly recognize that physical and emotional health are intertwined. Many patients with mental-health problems have two or more other issues such as heart disease, obesity or diabetes. As many as 70% of primary-care visits are triggered by underlying mental-health issues, according to behavioral-health researchers.

Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah, uses the PHQ-9 depression-screening tool in about 70 of its 130 medical practices. “The aim is to see if we stabilize patients and get them well in primary care, or whether we need to transition them to a behavioral-health expert,” says Brenda Reiss-Brennan, director of the Intermountain Mental Health Integration program.

Wayne Cannon, an Intermountain physician helping lead the effort, says that patients who are asked to fill out the PHQ-9 form might be classified as mildly, moderately or severely depressed. Scoring programs on the questionnaires include guidelines to help doctors determine whether patients need just watchful waiting, medication or a course of psychotherapy. Patients can be immediately seen by a behavioral-health specialist in what’s known as a “warm hand-off,” Dr. Cannon says, making them more comfortable and likely to follow through with treatment.

 

Amy Young, a 32-year-old patient at Intermountain who has multiple sclerosis and takes antidepressants, says her primary-care doctor last year referred her to a psychologist who works in the same office and knew about some struggles faced by MS patients. “Your primary-care doctor can’t talk to you for an hour at a time like a therapist can,” says Ms. Young. “They can talk to each other if they have questions about anything going on with me and I feel much more relaxed because I’m used to going to the same office.”

Intermountain says its own studies show that adult patients treated in its mental-health integration clinics have a lower rate of growth in charges for all services than those treated in clinics without the service. It also found that depressed patients treated in the clinics are 54% less likely to have emergency-room visits than are depressed patients in usual care clinics.

Patients being treated for depression should have the PHQ-9 test regularly administered, says John Bartlett, senior adviser in the mental-health-care program at the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta, which promotes mental-health treatment in primary care. If doctors don’t offer it or don’t repeat it, patients should take the test on their own and alert their doctor to any worrisome score, he says. The test is available free online atdepressionscreening.org.

MaineHealth, a network of providers in the state that includes the John Andrews Center where Ms. Cressey is treated, recruited behavioral-health specialists to work in doctors’ offices in different communities. Cynthia Cartwright, program director, says MaineHealth created an Adult Wellbeing Screener combining questions from the PHQ-9 for depression, and other tests for anxiety, bipolar disorder and substance abuse. “It’s hard sometimes to reduce depression symptoms to the questions on a form, but you have to start somewhere, and I think they help doctors notice, ask about and treat mood disorders,” says Debra Rothenberg, one of the physicians participating in the program.

Because behavioral-health services are typically covered separately under most insurance plans, doctors often have to advise patients to seek out additional mental-health care by calling their insurer for a referral. But many patients don’t follow through to make the appointments, and there are often limits to their mental-health coverage. That is changing as new federal rules take effect prohibiting insurers from setting stricter limits on mental-health benefits than they do for other illnesses. And mental-health-integration programs are expected to get a boost from the new federal health law, which includes funding for programs creating “medical homes” that coordinate physical- and mental-health care for patients.

In the Aetna program, the insurer’s case managers help track patients’ progress and alert physicians if they are not improving. Case managers also assist with referrals to additional mental-health services.

Primary-care physicians increasingly are using screening tools to assess depression during routine-care visits. Getty Images

Aetna’s studies show that on average, patients completing the case-management program experienced a 4.7% increase in productivity at work, based on a questionnaire measuring the impact on productivity of employee health problems. Hyong Un, Aetna’s chief psychiatric officer, says the insurer uses its own records to identify patients who may be candidates for depression screenings, including those who have stopped filling their antidepressant prescriptions.

Richard Wender, chair of the department of family medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, says participation in the Aetna program has helped motivate its doctors to administer the screens and follow up with patients. Having a behavioral-health specialist in the same office “has helped us assess behavioral-health issues more frequently and have a plan in place to deal with them,” he says.

Corrections & Amplifications

The Trustees of Dartmouth College hold the copyright on diagrams used by some doctors to screen patients for mental-health problems. Reproductions of the diagrams that accompanied an earlier version of the Informed Patient column were incorrectly attributed to MaineHealth.

Lung cancer detecting smart phones…

zero-stage disease prevention… why not!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mckinsey/2013/10/22/four-steps-to-turn-big-data-into-action/

Partnership tests smartphone sensor for detecting lung cancer

February 11, 2014 | By 

Vantage Health, an mHealth company developing a proprietary breathalyzer attached to a smartphone for non-invasive lung cancer screening, announced that they have formed a strategic partnership with Scripps Translational Science Institute (STSI), the NIH-sponsored consortium led by San Diego-based Scripps Health.

Redwood City, Calif.-based Vantage Health is developing mobile apps for personalized screening which leverage chemical sensing capabilities inside a small smartphone device.

Through this partnership with Vantage, STSI will provide assistance in the testing, evaluation and detection of certain basic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to calibrate the results.

STSI will assist in the testing, evaluation and detection of specific VOCs commonly associated with lung cancer. VOCs in breath provide a noninvasive and quick approach to diagnosing lung cancer in its early stages. STSI and Vantage Health will collaborate in the planning and execution of clinical trials which are expected to be carried out at STSI in San Diego, as well as a second location in the Midwest and a third location in New England.

Last month, Vantage Health announced that it had entered into an exclusive license agreement with NASA to commercialize mobile healthcare products derived from the space agency’s patented technology. The agreement with NASA licenses the use of multiple patents relating to inventions in, among other fields, chemical sensing.

The sensor technology, which won the 2012 NASA Government Invention of the Year, has been deployed by the space agency to detect trace gases in the crew cabin on the International Space Station. The sensors have also been tested and used for such applications as trace chemical detection in planetary exploration, air monitoring, leak detection and hazardous agent detection using cell phones.

“This is arguably one of the most vital and exciting steps in our effort to transfer the technology out of the labs at NASA and into the marketplace, as part of our commercialization process,” said Jeremy Barbera, chairman and CEO of Vantage Health, in a written statement.

Economist: Why health care hasn’t globalised…

Bumrungrad and CCAD get a mention.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21596563-why-health-care-has-failed-globalise-m-decine-avec-fronti-res?zid=318&ah=ac379c09c1c3fb67e0e8fd1964d5247f

Medical tourism

Médecine avec frontières

Why health care has failed to globalise

CLARE MORRIS hardly noticed when she tore the meniscus in her knee while dancing. The pain started only when she heard that repairing the damage at a hospital in South Carolina, where she lives, would cost $15,000. With limited insurance, she would have had to pay much of that herself. But after shopping around she found that she could have her knee repaired at a good hospital in Costa Rica for $7,400—and take a holiday, too.

Just a decade ago, stories like hers seemed to point to the future of health care. If a person could save thousands by shopping in the global health market, the reasoning went, insurers and governments could save billions. A knee replacement costs $34,000 in America, but just $19,200 in Singapore, $11,500 in Thailand and $9,500 in Costa Rica, according to Patients Beyond Borders, a consultancy. Even within Europe savings are to be found: a hip replacement is $4,000 cheaper in Spain than in Britain.

In the mid-2000s American insurers set out to find these savings by touring foreign private hospitals. They found that many were as good as their rich-world counterparts, and far cheaper. A big shake-up seemed likely. In 2008 Deloitte predicted an “explosive” boom in medical tourism, saying that the number of Americans going abroad for health care would grow more than tenfold by 2012.

It did not happen. Poor data were part of the problem: whereas Deloitte counted 750,000 American medical tourists in 2007, McKinsey, another consultancy, found at most 10,000 a year later. It is generally agreed that the number of medical tourists has grown since then—Thailand’s Bumrungrad hospital, which is popular with foreign patients, reports “steady growth”. But the data are still fuzzy. Patients Beyond Borders estimates that as many as 12m people globally now travel for care, perhaps 1m of them Americans. Industry insiders admit that growth has not matched the initial heady expectations.

Patient interest also turned out to be lower than predicted. Though some patients in the rich world seek out deals, most receive adequate health care at a manageable price and would prefer to stay at home. Potential savings are often insufficient to trump concerns about quality and the lack of recourse if something goes wrong. In 2008 Hannaford, an American supermarket chain, offered to pay the full cost of hip and knee replacements for its employees, including travel and patients’ usual share—provided they would go to Singapore. None took up the offer.

The predicted growth depended on medical tourism evolving from an individual pursuit to a cost-saving measure embraced by insurers and governments. But without reliable projections, insurers were reluctant to invest in the idea, says Ruben Toral, a health-care consultant. And cooler measures of the size of the opportunity dimmed their ardour. In 2009 Arnold Milstein of Stanford University estimated that less than 2% of spending by American insurers went on the kind of non-urgent procedures that might be moved abroad.

The legwork required also turned out to be formidable. Insurers had to choose foreign hospitals, negotiate contracts and malpractice insurance, and arrange follow-up care with American providers. They also risked upsetting the locals who would continue to take most of their custom. By the time the battle over Obamacare distracted them from contemplating transnational forays, most seemed to have concluded that they would not be worthwhile anyway. Companion Global Health Care, a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield, is the only big medical-tourism offshoot of an American insurer.

Governments have shown a similar lack of enthusiasm, perhaps because state promotion of medical tourism is usually seen as an admission of policy failure. In 2002 Britain allowed patients facing long waits to seek treatment elsewhere in Europe. Liam Fox, the shadow health secretary at the time, called the decision “humiliating” and criticised the government for not spending more at home. In Germany patient advocates blame government stinginess for the fact that some retired people choose, for reasons of cost, to live in eastern European care homes. Overall, only 1% of public health-care spending in Europe now crosses borders.

But the mere possibility of medical tourism is starting to change health care in unexpected ways. The biggest gains have gone not to patients, insurers or governments, but to hospitals, which have calculated that they could win more business by reversing the trend and going abroad to find patients. America’s Cleveland Clinic will open a branch in Abu Dhabi next year. (It already manages Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, a 750-bed hospital in Abu Dhabi.) Singapore’s Parkway Health has set up hospitals across Asia. India’s Apollo Hospitals, a chain of private hospitals, has a branch in Mauritius.

And though American firms and insurers have mostly stopped scouring the globe for bargains, some have negotiated bulk rates with top-notch hospitals at home. Lowes, a home-improvement firm, offers workers all around the country in need of cardiac care the option of going to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. PepsiCo, a food giant, made a deal with Johns Hopkins in Maryland. Other firms are said to be working on similar schemes. The future of medical tourism may be domestic rather than long-haul.

Could this be Jane Hall be arguing against prevention..?

Haven’t seen this before – a rational argument against prevention based on its difficult to quantify, long-term, positive impacts impacts on life extension. OMG. And while she’s at it, also suggesting that personal responsibility is the issue. Top work. Go Jane.

But systems research from the 1970s shows while that may well be the case, prevention often increases costs because it must be directed toward large groups, if not the whole population, while treatment is targeted at relatively few.

What’s more, not all preventive strategies are cheap, and their success will be reflected in a growing elderly population.

 

http://theconversation.com/commission-of-audit-should-know-costs-but-appreciate-value-21534

Commission of Audit should know costs but appreciate value
Four of the five members of the Commission of Audit during a Senate hearing at Parliament House in January. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

The Senate Select Committee into the Commission of Audit is holding its third Hearing in Canberra today. Witnesses include the Consumers Health Forum and Australian Health and Hospitals Association, so health is clearly the order of the day.

Instituted by the Abbott government soon after it came to power, the Commission is charged with finding savings by eliminating waste and duplication of functions, and the consolidation of Commonwealth agencies. And the Australian National Preventive Health Agency(ANPHA) is widely held to be an easy target for it.

The agency was established as part of the raft of reforms under the 2011 National Health Reform Agreement, to lead in preventive health through surveillance and monitoring, policy advice, national social media campaigns, and by sponsoring research.

Eliminating the ANPHA would, of course, look like a positive contribution to the savings and agency reductions needed to justify the Commission of Audit. But the 40 or so ANPHA staff will not contribute significantly to the Commission’s targeted reduction of 12,000 public servants.

But let’s assume the Commission is less concerned with justifying its own existence and more focussed on the wise investment of government resources (that’s our taxes). In that case, there are a number of issues it should bear in mind.

Neither easy nor quick

The goal for the ANPHA is to reduce the prevalence of preventable disease. According to the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW), 32% of the current national burden of disease is due to preventable risk factors. And that’s set to grow with rising national levels of obesity and falling fitness.

One could say preventable disease is a big target, so it shouldn’t be that hard to make an impact. Unfortunately, what’s preventable in theory is not so preventable in practice.

Take one of the top risk factors of preventable disease according to the AIHW – intimate partner violence. It’s one thing to say there’s a significant national burden of injury and disease due to violence in relationships; it’s quite another to actually stop the dominant partner acting violently.

Much the same applies to obesity, lack of physical activity and poor diets. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Brutus from Julius Caesar (I,ii, 140-141):

the fault lies not in our health system. But in ourselves…

In many areas, Australia has done well in reducing the prevalence of preventable disease and, to some extent, that’s now reflected in our improving life expectancy and expected life years without disease or disability.

Clearly, action on prevention didn’t start in 2011 with the establishment of ANPHA; the 2008 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health committed A$872m over six years, which is a pretty serious investment.

The problem is the payoff period for such action is long – it takes a lifetime of good habits to enjoy their health consequences. Investment and performance in one period will influence performance in later periods.

The issue for the Commission, then, is what value has been added by the existence of a national agency, and how can that be judged when it’s barely three years old.

Better than cure?

Recent inquiries and reviews, such as the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the Preventative Health Taskforce have made the case for stronger investment in prevention, as they have in other developed countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. And in much policy development, there’s an implicit view that “prevention is better and cheaper than cure”.

But systems research from the 1970s shows while that may well be the case, prevention often increases costs because it must be directed toward large groups, if not the whole population, while treatment is targeted at relatively few.

What’s more, not all preventive strategies are cheap, and their success will be reflected in a growing elderly population.

The policy issue then isn’t whether there should be more investment in reducing preventable disease, but which programs are “good buys” when considering both effectiveness and cost. And effectiveness must reflect the very human goals of adding years to life and life to years.

Both the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the Preventative Health Taskforce recommended that preventive strategies be subject to economic evaluation in much the same way that new medical procedures and pharmaceuticals are.

But the evaluation of broad-scale prevention is more challenging than therapeutic interventions. There are significant issues around which benefits to select for evaluation and what value to assign them, and modelling risk factors with multiple effects (on several diseases), as well as modelling the multiple risk factors for many chronic diseases.

So it’s not clear that the guidelines that have served so well for appraising immediate treatment effects will work as well for long-term preventative programs.

Things to keep in mind

The Commission’s terms of reference stress that its role is to find efficiencies and savings that will reduce duplication and improve the budget position. For this, it’s important to remember that Commonwealth doesn’t equal national; this country has six state and two territory governments, as well as the Commonwealth government.

Successful public health campaigns require political agreement, sufficient funding and national campaigns backed by local initiatives and action. The Commission must distinguish complementary efforts from duplication.

The Commission’s terms of reference also mention the need to improve value for money – it would do well to remember that while knowing the cost of agencies and programs is simple, appreciating their value is considerably more complex.

Nudging for better health conference

Lissanthea Taylor put me onto this conference that she was at:

PDF: Nudging-for-Better-Health-Conference-Flyer

Nudging for Better Health Conference

Nudging for Better Health decorate image

There is growing enthusiasm in government policy circles for promoting strategies designed to encourage and enable individuals to lead healthier lives. Such strategies draw on behavioural research showing individuals do not always act rationally and are susceptible to a range of influences which impact on the decisions they make. The research suggests that people can be nudged towards making decisions which are better for their health but in such a way that it does not unduly restrict their liberty or freedom to act.

This one-day conference will bring together an interdisciplinary group of scholars and commentators to explore the use of nudge strategies to incentivise better health. Recent developments in relation to the use of such strategies in Australia, NZ, the UK and Europe will be examined, as will case studies in specific areas impacting upon individual and collective health and wellbeing. The conference will be of interest to those working or researching in areas involving health and well being, and public health more generally.

Presenters

  • Dr Rory Gallagher & Mr Simon Raadsma, Behavioural Insights Team, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet
  • Professor Christine Parker, Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies
  • Assoc. Professor Anne-Maree Farrell, Faculty of Law, Monash University
  • Assoc. Professor Duncan Mortimer, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University
  • Professor Michael Selgelid, Director, Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University
  • Dr Liam Smith, Director, BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainability Institute
  • Ms Jane Martin, Cancer Council Victoria
  • Ms Sondra Davoren, McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer
  • Dr Muireann Quigley, Bristol University, UK
  • Dr Elen Stokes, Cardiff University, UK
  • Dr John Kennelly, University of Auckland, NZ
  • Ms Paula O’Brien, Melbourne Law School

Event details

Date: Monday, 17 February 2014

Time: 9am – 5pm

Venue: Monash University Law Chambers, 555 Lonsdale St Melbourne

Cost: Free

RSVP: Limited places are available. Please rsvp by Monday, 10 February, 2014 via e-mail toMeli.Voursoukis@monash.edu

To improve health care, governments need to use the right data

Terrific Economist snippet…

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21595474-improve-health-care-governments-need-use-right-data-need-know

Measuring health care

Need to know

To improve health care, governments need to use the right data

DECIDING where to seek treatment might seem simple for a German diagnosed with prostate cancer. The five-year survival rate hardly varies from one clinic to the next: all bunch around the national average of 94%. Health-care providers in Germany, and elsewhere, have usually been judged only by broad outcomes such as mortality.

But to patients, good health means more than life or death. Thanks to a study in 2011 by Germany’s biggest insurer, a sufferer now knows that the national average rate of severe erectile dysfunction a year after removal of a cancerous prostate gland is 76%—but at the best clinic, just 17%. For incontinence, the average is 43%; the best, 9%. But such information is the exception in Germany and elsewhere, not the rule.

Doctors and administrators have long argued that tracking patients after treatment would be too difficult and costly, and unfair to providers lumbered with particularly unhealthy patients. But better sharing of medical records and a switch to holding them electronically mean that such arguments are now moot. Risk-adjustment tools cut the chances that providers are judged on the quality of their patients, not their care.

In theory, national health-care systems should find measuring outcomes easier. Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) compiles masses of data. But it stores most data by region or clinic, and rarely tracks individual patients as they progress through treatment. Sweden’s quality registries do better. They analyse long-term outcomes for patients with similar conditions, or who have undergone the same treatment. Some go back to the 1970s and one of the oldest keeps records of hip replacements, letting medics compare the long-term performance of procedures and implants. Sweden now has the world’s lowest failure rate for artificial hips.

Elsewhere, individual hospitals are blazing a trail. Germany’s Martini-Klinik uses records going back a decade to fine-tune its treatment for prostate problems. The Cleveland Clinic, a non-profit outfit specialising in cardiac surgery, publishes a wide range of outcome statistics; it now has America’s lowest mortality rate for cardiac patients. And though American politicians flinch at the phrase “cost-effectiveness”, some of the country’s private health firms have become statistical whizzes. Kaiser Permanente, which operates in nine states and Washington, DC, pools the medical records for all its centres and, according to McKinsey, a consultancy, has improved care and saved $1 billion as a result.

Such approaches are easiest in fields such as prostate care and cardiac surgery, where measures for quality-of-life are clear. But some clinics have started to track less obvious variables too, such as how soon after surgery patients get back to work. This is new ground for doctors, who have long focused on clinical outcomes such as infection and re-admission rates. But by thinking about what matters to patients, providers can improve care and lower costs at the same time.

Leeder on outcomes…

 

The 1 February edition of The Economist, in an article entitled Need to Know (about health outcomes), took up the theme. The article observed that in Germany, its biggest insurer made available data in 2011 about outcomes for all to see.

Among the outcomes, the data showed five-year survival after treatment for prostate cancer was uniform across the nation – 94 per cent. But the data collected by the insurer went further: while the national average for subsequent erectile dysfunction was 76 per cent, at the best-performing clinic it was just 17 per cent. “For incontinence, the average was 43 per cent: the best 9 per cent,” The Economist wrote.

Armed with data such as these, prospective patients can choose where to be treated. The same data form the basis for discussion between those who provide and those who pay for health care.

 

https://ama.com.au/ausmed/case-measuring-outcomes-what-we-do

The case for measuring the outcomes of what we do

18/02/2014

Archie Cochrane, the Scottish medical epidemiologist after whom the Cochrane Collaboration that develops the evidence base for clinical medicine is named, came out of the Spanish Civil War and World War Two sceptical about the outcomes of his medical care.

Cochrane said, “I knew that there was no real evidence that anything we had to offer had any effect on tuberculosis, and I was afraid that I shortened the lives of some of my friends by unnecessary intervention.”

He changed career, moving into public health and conducting epidemiological research into TB and occupational lung diseases. He became especially sceptical about screening and, as Wikipedia puts it, “his ground-breaking paper on validation of medical screening procedures, published jointly with fellow epidemiologist Walter Holland in 1971, became a classic in the field”.

Cochrane recalled in his 1972 book Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services being puzzled by a crematorium attendant he met who was permanently serenely happy. Cochrane asked why: the attendant said that each day he marvelled at seeing “so much go in and so little come out”.  Cochrane suggested that he consider working in the National Health Service.
In Australia we assess how much work we do in hospitals through activity-based funding.  Money flows in direct proportion – so many coronary grafts, so many strokes treated. But little attention, at least in routine care, is paid to what we achieve. There are examples that contradict this general assertion, but mainly it is true.
Recently, the Bureau of Health Information in the NSW Ministry of Health made available statewide mortality data for five conditions treated in NSW public hospitals, taking account of variations in severity. Such data begin to fill the blanks in our knowledge about outcomes, and prompt discussion about why these variations occur.

The 1 February edition of The Economist, in an article entitled Need to Know (about health outcomes), took up the theme. The article observed that in Germany, its biggest insurer made available data in 2011 about outcomes for all to see.

Among the outcomes, the data showed five-year survival after treatment for prostate cancer was uniform across the nation – 94 per cent. But the data collected by the insurer went further: while the national average for subsequent erectile dysfunction was 76 per cent, at the best-performing clinic it was just 17 per cent. “For incontinence, the average was 43 per cent: the best 9 per cent,” The Economist wrote.

Armed with data such as these, prospective patients can choose where to be treated. The same data form the basis for discussion between those who provide and those who pay for health care.

Once, clinical trials of new cancer drugs were concerned principally with the survival of patients treated versus those not treated with new medications. But they now measure more than life expectancy.

For over 25 years mortality data have been supplemented by quality of life assessments.

But the excellence in clinical trial outcome measurement has not spread to routine care.

So much goes in, but what comes out?
In the US, health care expenditure is a huge worry for individual citizens, for Government (which spends as much as a proportion of GDP/GNP as ours does on health), and for industry, which pays for a lot of health insurance for employees. In response, comparative effectiveness research – CER – has recently evolved.

Wikipedia advises that “The Institute of Medicine committee has defined CER as ‘the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels’.”

There are many agencies and individuals now in the US committed to CER, including Dr John Wennberg at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

He and his colleagues have studied variations in medical practice across the US with a view to ironing out the wrinkles caused by inferior care.

They claim that 30 per cent of health care costs could be saved by correcting care that falls below expected outcomes.

Australia has not been entirely idle, and we have led the world in aspects of outcome measurement in relation to drugs.

Since 1953, Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) has constructed the formulary of publicly funded medicines. Since 1990, the PBAC has made cost and effectiveness (outcome) assessment a mandatory prelude to listing. Pricing and other political decisions follow, but the solid outcome data are necessary. Others are now following our example.

When we have a health care system that is fully connected electronically, the task of measuring outcomes and using them to good effect in managing the system will be far easier. Outcome data are critical to achieving real financial efficiency. They can be used to help us stop doing things that achieve nothing, or cause harm, and instead use the resources saved for clinical care with good outcomes.

But assessing outcomes, as the prostate surgery example demonstrates, extends well beyond financial efficiency and, indeed, beyond life expectancy. When we confidently explain what we achieve with what we do – quantity and quality of life gained –  patients are empowered to make choices.

Leeder on Policy and Politics

Brian Head, program leader in policy analysis at the University of Queensland, wrote “Policy decisions emerge from politics, judgement and debate, rather than being deduced from empirical analysis. Policy debate and analysis involves an interplay between facts, norms and desired actions, in which ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable.”

Policy that works distils evidence from several sources. It includes the kind that supports evidence-based medicine, but there is also the evidence that comes from an assessment of political feasibility and evidence that comes from what we might call experience.

Doctors are often frustrated when the evidence they present, from both basic and clinical science and from professional experience, is trumped by politics. But the nature of a democracy is such that this is to be expected.

In all of these examples, policy served as a vehicle for organising thought and care. It is critical to achieving the best clinical outcomes.

The challenge to our nation is to ensure that our state and federal policies are as sound as we can help make them.

We doctors do not make the policies, but we contribute positively and importantly to them.

https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2014/5/stephen-leeder-policy-pointers

Stephen Leeder: Policy pointers

Stephen Leeder
Monday, 17 February, 2014

Stephen Leeder

THE federal government, less than 6 months old, faces many challenges in health care.

Establishing priorities will be useful if they guide attention and resources towards where they are likely to offer the best yield in promoting health and providing care for sick and injured people, while honouring the principles of efficiency and equity in the way that we do things and to whom we attend.

The MJA has asked six health leaders to suggest policy pointers — matters that, in their opinion, warrant the attention of the new government and about which policy might be developed for effective action.

The first response is by eminent Melbourne health economist and academic Stephen Duckett. Duckett sets out his call for policy under three headings — keeping the Medicare promise, going beyond the provision of services and ensuring good governance. He splits his proposals into what a first-term and second-term government might aspire to do.

His wide experience in health service management makes his recommendations especially pertinent.

Brian Head, program leader in policy analysis at the University of Queensland, wrote “Policy decisions emerge from politics, judgement and debate, rather than being deduced from empirical analysis. Policy debate and analysis involves an interplay between facts, norms and desired actions, in which ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable.”

Policy that works distils evidence from several sources. It includes the kind that supports evidence-based medicine, but there is also the evidence that comes from an assessment of political feasibility and evidence that comes from what we might call experience.

Doctors are often frustrated when the evidence they present, from both basic and clinical science and from professional experience, is trumped by politics. But the nature of a democracy is such that this is to be expected.

Policy on initial screening for acute life-threatening disease benefits greatly from medical input.

Although, strictly, it is case finding, researchers have evaluated the use of a more sensitive troponin test for more quickly determining the presence of myocardial damage in line with an “accelerated biomarker” strategy for assessing and managing suspected ischaemia and infarction. Their findings validate the use of this strategy, formulated by the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand.

Here, medical evidence informs the policy that governs the interaction between patients and health care provision.

Because enthusiasm frequently runs ahead of utility when it comes to screening, the authors of a Perspectives article advocate for a national framework for newborn bloodspot screening. Such frameworks have proved their worth in other countries, and one is needed here.

In another Perspectives article, the authors welcome progress in the use of cell-free fetal DNA tests of maternal serum for aneuploidy screening (and the extension of related tests to pregnancy outcome prediction) in the first trimester even though these tests have some distance to travel before sensitivity, specificity and predictive value will be clear.

Ah, the delight of reading an article that describes success in closing a gap — any gap! Gaps so often cause lamentation with no design for a bridge.

Researchers and a linked editorial describe a splendid cardiology network in South Australia that supports patients who have had acute myocardial infarction and who live in places remote from major hospitals in receiving appropriate timely and evidence-based care.

The network involves providing advice from metropolitan hospital specialists to rural health practitioners, carefully stratifying patients into three risk categories to determine who needs reperfusion angiography most urgently, and then organising it. The mortality gap between city and rural dwellers was consequently abolished.

Here, policy built the bridge to bring rural outcomes closer to city ones.

In all of these examples, policy served as a vehicle for organising thought and care. It is critical to achieving the best clinical outcomes.

The challenge to our nation is to ensure that our state and federal policies are as sound as we can help make them.

We doctors do not make the policies, but we contribute positively and importantly to them.

 

Professor Stephen Leeder is the editor-in-chief of the MJA and professor of public health and community medicine at the University of Sydney.

This article is reproduced from the MJA.

the world’s most potent, booming unnatural resource: data

 

Predictive analytics is “powered by the world’s most potent, booming unnatural resource: data.”

You have been predicted — by companies, governments, law enforcement, hospitals, and universities. Their computers say, “I knew you were going to do that!”

Great quotes from Eric Siegel.

http://bigthink.com/big-think-edge/you-can-predict-the-future

You CAN Predict the Future, and Influence It Too

FEBRUARY 13, 2014, 12:00 AM
Shutterstock_64061473

We are better than ever at making predictions – whether you’re going to click, lie, buy or die, as Eric Siegel puts it.

In a lesson on Big Think Edge, the only forum on YouTube designed to help you get the skills you need to be successful in a rapidly changing world, Siegel, a former professor at Columbia University, shows how predictive analytics is “powered by the world’s most potent, booming unnatural resource: data.”

You have been predicted — by companies, governments, law enforcement, hospitals, and universities. Their computers say, “I knew you were going to do that!”

Advertising

Netflix and Pandora predict the movies and music you will like. Online dating sites select possible matches for you based on your interests. Companies can predict whether you’re going to default on your credit card statements and whether you’re going to commit an act of fraud.

So what do governments and companies do with this gold mine? In the video below, Siegel tells Big Think that these entities not only have the power to predict the future “but also to influence the future.”  And so can you.

Sign up for a free trial subscription on Big Think Edge and watch Siegel’s lesson here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kriiamz9KqQ

Reflection Questions 
— Describe how your company is using predictive analytics to influence any operational decisions? Do you analyze who is likely to respond before initiating a marketing campaign? If not, how could this help streamline operations in your department?– How are predictive analytics at work in your life? Do you use Netflix or Pandora to predict movies or music you will like? Have you used an online dating site that selects possible matches for you based on your interests? How has this worked out for you?

— Is the use of predictive analysis exposing people to other people, entertainment, or services that more accurately match their interests or is it pigeonholing people by suggesting things they may like based only on a limited amount of information on previous decisions they’ve made?

For expert video content to inspire, engage and motivate your employees, visit Big Think Edge

Watch the video below and sign up for your free trial to Big Think Edge today.