Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label NEJM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEJM. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Single Payer: State v Federal

Does the demise of the Vermont Single Payer system signal that change is on the horizon on a national level for a more sweeping program? The medical costs of state workers' compensation programs have become so profitable for cottage industries that are directly and ancillary connected to the delivery of work related medical care that the system is our of balance. One has to look seriously at the comments by John E. McDonough in the NEJM.

"At some point, perhaps 5 to 15 years from now, as the size and scope of Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA subsidy structure balloon far beyond today's larger-than-life levels, our political leaders may discover the inanity of running multiple complex systems to insure different classes of Americans. If advanced by the right leaders at the right time, the logic of consolidation may become glaringly evident and launch us on a new path. If such consolidation is to occur, like it or not, I believe it will happen federally and not in the states — and no time soon."

The Demise of Vermont's Single-Payer Plan
John E. McDonough, Dr.P.H., M.P.A.
N Engl J Med 2015; 372:1584-1585 April 23, 2015 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1501050

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Why Health Care Is Stuck — And How to Fix It

Medical costs approximate the largest majority of costs in workers' compensation claims. Today's post was shared by NEJM and comes from blogs.hbr.org


20130918_2

The pressures for fundamental change in health care have been building for decades, but meaningful change has been limited while the urgency of change only grows. The moment of discontinuity has arrived. Already unsustainable costs, an aging population, advances in medicine, and a growing proportion of patients in low reimbursement government programs have made the status quo unsustainable. Change is inevitable.

There is only one real solution, which is to dramatically increase the value of health care. Value is the outcomes achieved for patients relative to the money spent. Without major improvements in value, services will need to be restricted, the incomes of health care professionals will fall, and patients will be asked to pay even more.

In our October Harvard Business Review article “The Strategy That Will Fix Health Care”we describe the strategic agenda that is necessary to create a high value health care delivery system. We believe that there is no longer any doubt about how to increase the value of care. The question is whether providers can make the necessary changes.
Why has it been so hard for health care organizations to improve outcomes and efficiency, despite their best intentions? With so many good, smart people working so hard? With patients’ needs so obvious and so compelling? And with such deep societal concerns about health care spending? The...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Measuring the Global Burden of Disease

Today's post was shared by NEJM and comes from www.nejm.org

It is difficult to deliver effective and high-quality care to patients without knowing their diagnoses; likewise, for health systems to be effective, it is necessary to understand the key challenges in efforts to improve population health and how these challenges are changing. Before the early 1990s, there was no comprehensive and internally consistent source of information on the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. To close this gap, the World Bank and the World Health Organization launched the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study in 1991.

Although assessments of selected diseases, injuries, and risk factors in selected populations are published each year (e.g., the annual assessments of the human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] epidemic, the only comprehensive assessments of the state of health in the world have been the various revisions of the GBD Study for 1990, 1999–2002, and 2004.

The advantage of the GBD approach is that consistent methods are applied to critically appraise available information on each condition, make this information comparable and systematic, estimate results from countries with incomplete data, and report on the burden of disease with the use of standardized metrics.

The most recent assessment of the global burden...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]


Christopher J.L. Murray, M.D., D.Phil., and Alan D. Lopez, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2013; 369:448-457August 1, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1201534