Action For Better Healthcare

A forum to identify, discuss, confront, and propose solutions to complex healthcare issues

Program improves health, one community at a time

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

By Ed Howe
Former President and CEO, Aurora Health Care

Aligning Forces for Quality is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's signature effort to lift the overall quality of healthcare in targeted communities. The goal is to reduce racial and ethnic disparities and to provide models for national reform.

Dr. John Lumpkin, M.D., M.P.H., the Senior Vice President and Director of the Health Care Group at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says improving healthcare quality really needs to start in each community. Collaboration is critical to the success of Aligning Forces for Quality. The program brings together patients, doctors, nurses and employers and teaches them to work together instead of competing against one another.

"This isn't just an issue of what happens in a single physician's office, or a nurse practitioner's office, or another care provider's office or in a hospital. What these collaborations have done is to bring all these interested parties together to have conversations that they haven't had before about how each of them can play a role," says Dr. Lumpkin.

Here are some of the initial results reported by the foundation:

  1. In Cleveland, 26,000 diabetics are getting better diabetes care and are seeing their blood sugar under better control.
  2. In Minnesota, at least 10,000 people with diabetes are getting better care.
  3. In Detroit, thousands of individuals, are getting much better care in terms of screening for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and asthma care.

A number of communities that are involved in the program are now displaying a public report that offers information about docotor's offices and hospitals.  This allows patients to see the quality of care being offered and allows physicians to see how they are performing compared to others.

Below, you can hear interviews with some of those involved with this program. Listen and then let us know what you think about the idea.


Post this article or add it to your favorite social networking site...
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit

Post a comment


Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Judge determines GPOs do not violate antitrust laws

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

By Mike Daly
Former CEO, Baystate Health System

For some time now, we have discussed the importance of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) on our blog. Critics out there often question the business model of GPOs. Some wonder if contracting with suppliers, to offer cost savings to healthcare systems, really works. They wonder if the GPO contracts are somehow unfair to hospitals. Well, a recent high court ruling finds the answer to these questions is NO.

The plaintiff in a recent case questioned contracts that a company called Bard had, with a GPO, for catheter products. The arguement was that Bard’s GPO contracts and discounted prices were so attractive that hospitals could not afford to forgo them, which the plaintiff argued was in violation of antitrust laws. But on August 17, 2010, in the case of Southeast Missouri Hospital v. Bard, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sole-source provisions, tiered pricing and bundled discounts in a supplier’s GPO contracts do not violate antitrust laws.

In making its ruling, the court made the following statements of fact:

  1. GPO membership is voluntary and the marketplace is highly competitive, which benefits hospitals, payers and patients alike.
  2. GPOs do not purchase supplies; member hospitals do under the terms of GPO-negotiated contracts.
  3. GPO-member hospitals are not required to purchase through their GPO contracts. GPO-member hospitals can purchase supplies “off-contract,” negotiating their own prices with suppliers. However, purchasing off-contract may increase prices, as they forgo the discounts in their GPO contracts.
  4. On average, hospitals pay 16 percent less by buying through GPO contracts.

This is a critical ruling that validates the GPO business model and helps illustrate that hospitals, GPOs and suppliers share the primary goals of improving patient care and safely reducing healthcare costs when establishing supply contracts.

I really hope others are able to gain a better understanding of GPOs given this ruling. The decision affirms that the GPO business model is in fact ethical and fair – something many of us have understood for a long, long time.


Post this article or add it to your favorite social networking site...
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit

One Response

  1. michael stephens Says:

    [+]

    At last, a judicial ruling that enumerates the advantages of group purchasing organizations with a clarity and preciseness that e... ...

Post a comment


Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Feeding tube death highlights need for change

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

By Kester Freeman
Former CEO, Palmetto Health

There was a case several years ago that involves a mistake involving a feeding tube being coupled with a tube that entered a pregnant woman’s vein, instead of with the tube that entered her stomach. It is such a sad story that not only led to the woman’s death but also to the death of her unborn child. This story and others like it, highlight the urgent need for stricter federal oversight.

For years patient safety experts have been pushing for changes, but the medical device industry has been resisting change and others have been dragging their feet. In some cases, manufacturers have turned to color-coded tubing, but some say that has just made the situation more confusing.

In a recent story by The New York Times, healthcare leaders talk about their concern:

“Nurses should not have to work in an environment where it is even possible to make that kind of mistake,” said Nancy Pratt, a senior vice president at Sharp HealthCare in San Diego who is a vocal advocate for changing the system. “The nuclear power and airline industries would never tolerate a situation where a simple misconnection could lead to a death.”

“This is a deadly design failure in health care,” said Debora Simmons, a registered nurse at the University of Texas Health Science Center who studies medical errors. “Everybody has put out alerts about this, but nothing has happened from a regulatory standpoint.”

Advocates in California got legislation passed in 2008 that would have mandated that feeding tubes no longer be compatible with tubes that go into the skin or veins by 2011. But in 2009, AdvaMed, the manufacturers’ trade association, successfully pushed legislation to delay the bill’s effects until 2013 and 2014 or until the international standards group reaches a decision.

AdvaMed should be pushing forward to make needed changes. It is of great concern that the association would drag its’ feet. Patients and healthcare industry leaders need to insist that changes be made. Be vocal and share your concerns in order to demand change.

Patient safety needs to come first. It is irresponsible to allow this safety flaw to continue after all these years.


Post this article or add it to your favorite social networking site...
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit

One Response

  1. michael stephens Says:

    [+]

    All you need to do is recall the same arguments being made when patient safety measures, that we accept today, were first introduc... ...

Post a comment


Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Drug and device makers under scrutiny

Friday, August 20th, 2010

By Jennifer Mithell
Editor, Action for Better Healthcare

At least a dozen U.S. drug and medical device companies are currently under investigation by federal prosecutors for alleged misconduct. Prosectors want to know if the companies made illegal payments to doctors and health officials abroad in order to encourage use of their own products.

There is also concern the alleged payments may have influenced the outcomes of certain clinical trials. A recent report in The New York Times explains:

In previous investigations, federal officials have charged that some companies made these kinds of payments to encourage doctors abroad to order or prescribe their products. In the United States, companies routinely hire doctors as consultants to market drugs and devices to their colleagues and other health professionals at medical conventions and small gatherings. Such consulting arrangements are legal in the United States as long as the companies do not pay doctors directly to write prescriptions for their products.

But in much of the rest of the world, doctors are government employees. And even consulting arrangements that would be considered routine in the United States might violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, particularly if the payments are outsize or the arrangements are not disclosed to the governments.

Of even greater concern to prosecutors in the United States are unusually large payments made to foreign doctors who oversee the growing number of clinical trials that drug and device makers conduct abroad.

Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson are among several companies that have disclosed that they are cooperating with federal authorities regarding business they do abroad. In fairness, this does not mean they are guilty of any crime.

A former federal prosecutor has a word of advice though – saying “drug company executives would do well to remind their foreign subsidiaries not to bribe local officials or doctors. They should set a tone at the top that makes it clear to a company’s international sales force that these types of payments are unacceptable.”


Post this article or add it to your favorite social networking site...
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit

Post a comment


Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Who will care for the mentally ill?

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

By Kester Freeman
Former CEO, Palmetto Health 

There is a problem in this country that few are willing to talk about and it centers around caring for the mentally ill. This is a major public health issue and it cannot be ignored as we move forward with healthcare reform.

At a recent meeting with Palmetto Health Foundation board members, they announced they will continue with fundraising efforts for the construction of a new psychiatric emergency room that will be built on the campus of Palmetto Health Richland in Columbia, SC. It is expected to be complete in 2011 and will be staffed with mental health professionals who can meet the needs of these patients.

The crisis in mental health in South Carolina grows more serious all the time. Public funding has been cut to almost nothing in many states, and other means of care are strained as a result. Prisons, public hospitals and homeless shelters are all full of seriously ill patients who do not get the care they need.

I wonder what proponents of “competition” in healthcare would do about the thousands of mentally ill who are not accepted by for-profit psych hospitals or private hospitals.

The free market has no relevance for these people, because no one wants to deal with the problem. The capitalist economic model has made this country the most prosperous on earth, but it does not work to serve the needs of the mentally ill.

The disconnect is that we have said as a society that we will not refuse to care for patients. In a free market that would never be possible. People who say we need more free market in healthcare ignore the illnesses of patients who don’t meet the free market model.    

The Accountable Care Act will help in terms of attempting to insure some of these patients. Even so, states continue to close their public beds and that is a problem.

State governments need to get involved and reassess their commitment to the mentally ill. These patients and this problem are not going away.


Post this article or add it to your favorite social networking site...
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit

Post a comment


Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.