<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:01:00 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/"><rss:title>The MCOL Blog</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/</rss:link><rss:description></rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2010-03-10T14:01:00Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/3/5/accenture-says-physician-laggards-are-poised-to-finally-adop.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/24/towerswatson-employer-survey-employees-and-vendors-arent-get.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/21/a-fresh-look-consumerism-web-summit-2010.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/8/membercentricity-defines-medicare-member-retention.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/4/women-rule-in-consumer-health-internet-use.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/28/results-from-the-future-care-2010-e-poll.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/25/2010-health-benefit-plan-compliance-update-navigating-the-ma.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/21/making-sense-of-whats-next-for-health-reform.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/18/mcols-healthquest-publishers.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/15/prowling-through-the-census-bureau-2010-statistical-abstract.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/3/5/accenture-says-physician-laggards-are-poised-to-finally-adop.html"><rss:title>Accenture Says Physician Laggards are Poised to Finally Adopt</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/3/5/accenture-says-physician-laggards-are-poised-to-finally-adop.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-03-05T17:30:50Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Riddle, Clive</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Clive Riddle, March 5, 2010<br /><br />Smaller physician offices, lacking infrastructure and capital and perhaps motivation, have been viewed as the stumbling blocks to widespread physician EMR adoption, And without adequate physician adoption, hospital and health plan adoption won&rsquo;t likely achieve the level of effectiveness required to justify their investments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.accenture.com/">Accenture</a> this week <a href="http://newsroom.accenture.com/news/wave+of+us+physicians+planning+to+adopt+electronic+medical+records+accenture+report+finds.htm">released results</a> from a study conducted by their <a href="http://www.accenture.com/Global/Research_and_Insights/Institute_For_Public_Service_Value/Innovation-Center-For-Health/default.htm">Innovation Center for Health</a> and <a href="http://www.accenture.com/Global/Research_and_Insights/Institute_For_Public_Service_Value/default.htm">Institute for Health &amp; Public Service Value</a> in conjunction with <a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/">Harris Interactive</a> in which they surveyed 1,000 U.S. physicians from smaller practices (fewer than 10 physicians) regarding EMR use, with 15% of respondents being current EMR users at various levels and 85% non-users.<br /><br />The good news? The majority of non-users say they now intend to purchase a system, and the percentage goes way up when you ask those who aren&rsquo;t so close to retirement. The bad news?&nbsp; (1) The majority if them are looking to hospitals for help and subsidies; (2) saying you intent to purchase a system doesn&rsquo;t necessarily translate into actually doing so; and (3) there&rsquo;s still a material number that won&rsquo;t even go so far as to make that verbal commitment, despite upcoming federal penalties and incentives.</p>
<p>Here&rsquo;s some of the key findings from Accenture:</p>
<ul>
<li>58% of non-users intend to purchase an EMR system within the next two years; </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>About 80% of physicians under age 55 plan to implement an EMR system within the next two years; </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>75% of non-users are potentially interested purchasing an EMR system from a local hospital - if at least subsidized for about half the cost; </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The key driver of EMR adoption is federal legislation - 61% cited federal penalties for non-adoption and 51% cited federal incentives; </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Non-users underestimate the cost and time requirements to implement an EMR system, but also have an exaggerated perception of difficulties in using EMR systems, compared to the actual experiences of EMR users; </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>90% of current EMR users &ndash; believe that their system has brought value to their practice- providing an effective overview of patients&rsquo; relevant history, records and information; and allowing quick and accurate data entry.</li>
</ul>
<p>Accenture credits federal legislation for stimulating interest. Dr. Kip Webb, who leads their clinical transformation practice, tells us &ldquo;our research indicates that, as intended, federal legislation is an important driver of EMR adoption among U.S. physicians. If U.S. health care providers properly implement and use EMRs more broadly, there is no doubt that EMRs can make an important contribution to improving quality of care and controlling costs.&rdquo;<br /><br />While a wider number have some level of EMR, Accenture notes that &ldquo;today, just six percent of U.S. office-based physicians use a fully functioning system.&rdquo;</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/24/towerswatson-employer-survey-employees-and-vendors-arent-get.html"><rss:title>TowersWatson Employer Survey: Employees and Vendors aren’t getting it done</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/24/towerswatson-employer-survey-employees-and-vendors-arent-get.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-02-24T22:13:17Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Riddle, Clive</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Clive Riddle, February 24, 2010</p>
<p>Employers hold employee health habits and lack of engagement largely to blame for cost increases, and feel vendors are ineffective at getting this behavior to change.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.towerswatson.com/">TowersWatson</a> just released results from their <a href="http://www.towerswatson.com/united-states/research/1258">15th Annual National Business Group on Health/Towers Watson Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care</a>. The study finds that employer health plan costs are projected to increase 6.5% for 2010, down from 7.0% in 2009, but still more than double the inflation rate. The study also found that in response, 83% of companies have already revamped or expect to revamp their health care strategy within the next two years, up from 59% in 2009.</p>
<p>Ron Fontanetta, a senior consultant at Towers Watson tells us, &ldquo;the downturn has amplified the pressure on companies to find ways to support effective health management programs under budget constraints. For employers, the current environment is a clarion call to adjust their health plan strategy, reassess vendor relationships and aggressively address the challenge to encourage workers to become better advocates for their own health.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Perhaps most interesting was employer listings of the top three challenges to maintaining affordable benefit coverage. Of eleven responses summarized in the survey report, the three responses listed the most were: Employees Poor Health Habits (67%); followed by a tie between High Cost Catastrophic Cases and End of Life Care (41%) and Underuse of Preventive Services (41%.)</p>
<p>So then Employers where asked, what were the top three obstacles to changing these poor employee health habits: of thirteen responses summarized in the survey report, the three responses listed the most were: lack of employee engagement (58%); lack of financial incentives to encourage participation in programs (31%); and lack of adequate budget to support health management programs (30%).</p>
<p>Other findings from the survey include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Regarding Consumer Driven Health Plan adoption: 44% said they had already done so with no further action needed; another 9% have adopted but plan to take additional action; 14% plan to adopt in the next two years; and 34% don&rsquo;t intend to adopt.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>23% have already consolidated health and productivity programs with a single vendor or health plan with no further action needed; another 8% have done so but plan to take additional action; 13% plan to do so in the next two years; and 57% have no plans to do so.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>93% had no intention of reducing or eliminating health promotion programs; and 78% had no intention of reducing staff dedicated to health benefit programs.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>57% had confidence in the future of employers as health benefit sponsors, compared to 62% in 2009 and 73% in 2010.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>69% are auditing or reviewing health plan eligibility; 66% are using incentives to encourage completion of health risk appraisals; 57% are using claims analysis of data in a warehouse; 56% offer health coaching; and only 19% are reducing pharmacy copays for those with chronic conditions (a value based purchasing initiative)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Employers feel vendors aren&rsquo;t that effective in changing member behavior: 67% said they were not at all or just slightly effective in driving more efficient member use of services; and 66% said they were not at all or just slightly effective in changing member behavior to make more health lifestyle decisions.</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/21/a-fresh-look-consumerism-web-summit-2010.html"><rss:title>A Fresh Look: Consumerism Web Summit 2010</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/21/a-fresh-look-consumerism-web-summit-2010.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-02-21T23:16:42Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Claire Thayer, February 18, 2010</p>
<p>MCOL&rsquo;s Healthcare Web Summit has announces it&rsquo;s Ninth Annual Consumerism Web Summit event, co-sponsored by CDHC Solutions. Mark you calendars to join us on Thursday, March 18, 2010 to learn more about the future direction of health care consumerism, Aetna HealthFund Plan Performance and Consumerism initiatives, Employer Trends, and more. Live webinar event starts at 1PM Eastern. Podcasts also available.</p>
<p>Detailed information at:﻿<span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.healthwebsummit.com/consumerism.htm"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.healthwebsummit.com/consumerism.htm">http://www.healthwebsummit.com/consumerism.htm</a> </span></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/8/membercentricity-defines-medicare-member-retention.html"><rss:title>Membercentricity Defines Medicare Member Retention</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/8/membercentricity-defines-medicare-member-retention.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-02-09T01:28:40Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Resnick, Lindsay</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Lindsay Resnick, February 8, 2010<br /><br />Member-centric Medicare Advantage plans have loyal, trusting customers. It&rsquo;s not easy to steal a loyal member. More importantly, loyalty equals customer LifeTime Value which translates into stable membership and sustained profitability. In the Medicare market, competitive rivalry is at an all-time high, with well-orchestrated &ldquo;switcher&rdquo; campaigns targeting YOUR members. And, at a time when beneficiaries are seeing big changes in benefits and rates, plans seeing even the slightest uptick in voluntary disenrollment are also feeling the threat to long-term profitability. <br /><br />Retaining members by creating loyal, satisfied customers has never been more important; particularly when acquiring new members is as much as 5-times the cost of keeping existing ones. Successful member retention takes proactive, personal customer service built on an attitude of MEMBERCENTRICITY. Improving customer loyalty is one of the least expensive, most impactful ways to protect membership and improve margins. Successful retention programs are based on three core principles: <br /><br /></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Data Driven</strong> The more you know about your customers, who&rsquo;s at risk and what&rsquo;s important to them, the more members you will retain. Understanding your customer demographic and psychographic indicators helps build loyalty.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Continuous Interaction</strong> Frequent, personalized member outreach has huge payoff by reinforcing plan value and reaffirming a consumer&rsquo;s purchase&mdash; from welcome calls to an array of &ldquo;after-sale sale&rdquo; communications.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Meaningful Messaging</strong> Create a dialogue with customers&hellip;not a monologue. Seniors are looking for guidance and interaction that&rsquo;s meaningful to their situation throughout their membership lifecycle&mdash;part customer service, part sales, and part senior advocacy.</li>
</ul>
<p><br />Across America, consumers have become much less forgiving of bad service. In a heartbeat, they will just take their wallet and loyalty somewhere else. A member-centric Medicare Advantage experience involves every interaction with a plan&rsquo;s members?every telephone call, every email exchange, and every written communication. Make sure your plan embraces a high-touch, high-results philosophy. Retention is the ultimate measure of success in Medicare Advantage.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/4/women-rule-in-consumer-health-internet-use.html"><rss:title>Women Rule in Consumer Health Internet use</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/2/4/women-rule-in-consumer-health-internet-use.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-02-04T23:40:56Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Clive Riddle, February 4, 2010</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/index.htm">CDC&rsquo;s National Center for Health Statistics</a> this week <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/healthinfo2009/healthinfo2009.htm">released preliminary results from their National Health Interview Survey</a>, a national household survey regarding consumer use of health information technology with data collected from January through June 2009.</p>
<p>Their report cites a previous study:&nbsp; <span style="color: black;" lang="EN"><a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx">The social life of health information [online]</a>. Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2009, which found </span>74% of adults in the U.S. use the Internet, 61% have used the Internet to search for health or medical information and, 49% of adults have accessed a website that provides information about a specific medical condition or problem.</p>
<ul>
<li>The new National Health Interview Survey examined use by adults age 18-64 and found that women&rsquo;s consumer use of health care internet exceeded men&rsquo;s in every category:</li>
<li>50.8% used the Internet to look up health information during the past 12 months (58.0% of women, 43.4% of men)</li>
<li>3.3% used an online chat group to learn about health topics in the past 12 months (4.1% of women, 2.5% of men)<br />4.9% communicated with a health care provider by e-mail in the past 12 months (5.6% of women, 4.2% of men)</li>
<li>6.0% requested a refill of a prescription on the Internet during the six month survey period ((6.6% of women, 5.3% of men)</li>
<li>2.7% had made an appointment with a health care provider in the past 12 months using the Internet (3.5% of women, 1.8% of men)</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/28/results-from-the-future-care-2010-e-poll.html"><rss:title>Results from the Future Care 2010 e-poll</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/28/results-from-the-future-care-2010-e-poll.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-01-28T17:55:56Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Riddle, Clive</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Clive Riddle, President, MCOL</p>
<p>MCOL has just released results from our eighth annual <a href="http://www.healthwebsummit.com/futurecare.htm">Future Care</a>* e-poll survey conducted this month of Future Care web summit attendees and MCOL members. Almost all responses were received after the Brown Massachusetts Senate election. Respondents represented the following perspectives:</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Payor - 30.5%</strong></li>
<li><strong>Provider - 33.6%</strong></li>
<li><strong>Vendor - 16.4%</strong></li>
<li><strong>Other - 19.5%</strong></li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We ask participants three questions each year. First, which of the following health care business trends do you think will have the greatest overall impact in the coming year? Respondents point to health reform and the recession as the big drivers. Its also interesting to see how cost sharing increases have significantly diminished in importance last year and this year. Here&rsquo;s this year&rsquo;s and historical responses:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Trend<span style="color: black;"> </span></strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2010</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2009</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2008</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2007</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2006</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2005</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2004</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2003</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Advances in technology</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>6%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>3%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>8%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>17%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>14%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>11%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Consumer</strong></p>
<p><strong>Driven plans</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>7%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>3%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>13%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>18%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>21%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>23%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>14%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>15%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Compliance</strong></p>
<p><strong>issues</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>7%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>3%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>6%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>18%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Effects of the Recession</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>26%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>57%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>NA</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Health Reform Initiatives   &nbsp;</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>37%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>21%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>24%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>11%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>28%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>14%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>4%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>N/A</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Increased cost sharing</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>5%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>9%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>34%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>40%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>26%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>38%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>36%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>39%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Disease Management</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>5%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>3%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>13%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>8%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>3%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>6%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>24%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>N/A</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="120" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Other</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="54" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>5%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>4%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>5%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>6%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>4%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="55" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>17%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Conversely, we asked what predicted trends do you feel is LEAST likely to occur or have an impact in the next two years? Respondents feel health plan premium increases won&rsquo;t keep cooling down, and there are plenty of health care reform skeptics:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="497">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Response</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Percent</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Premium Increases will   continue to slow down</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>24%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Significant National   Health Care Reform Legislation will be enacted</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>20%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Major growth of   Consumerism initiatives</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>19%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Health Plan cost sharing   activities will level off/slow down</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>13%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Further growth/adoption of   disease management and wellness</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Major advances in   patient/provider/plan electronic data transfer</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>11%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="433" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Other</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>&nbsp; 1%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Lastly, we asked respondents to rank stakeholders as winners or losers for the coming year.&nbsp; Respondents feel pharmaceutical plans will by far fare the best among stakeholders, with health plans finishing a distant second, and all other stakeholders ranked way back.&nbsp; Of course the great unknown is health reform, which could significantly alter the fortunes for health plans depending on the final structure.</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="367">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Sector</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Better Off</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Same</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Worse Off</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Pharmaceutical</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>39%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>40%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>21%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Health Plans</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>29%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>30%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>41%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Hospitals</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>16%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>34%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>50%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Physicians</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>33%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>55%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Consumers</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>8%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>26%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>66%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="125" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Employers</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>7%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>35%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>58%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>From a historical perspective, here&rsquo;s how respondents see health plans future prospects from year to year. Note that despite the potential of health reform, optimism for health plans returned a little this year, after pervasive pessimism from 2007 through 2009:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="349">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Health Plans:</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Better Off</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Same</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Worse Off</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2010</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>29%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>30%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>41%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2009</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>44%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>45%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2008</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>14%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>36%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>50%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2007</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>41%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>47%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2006</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>54%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>35%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>12%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2005</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>43%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>42%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>16%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2004</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>36%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>50%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>14%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2003</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>36%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="72" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>44%</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>21%</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>* The Future Care survey incorporates respondents from MCOL Future Care Web Summit attendees and MCOL members. n = 131 for 2010, 90 for 2009, 127 for 2008, 146 for 2007, 267 for 2006, 110 for 2005; 118 for 2004; 139 for 2003﻿</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/25/2010-health-benefit-plan-compliance-update-navigating-the-ma.html"><rss:title>2010 Health Benefit Plan Compliance Update: Navigating the Maze of New Laws</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/25/2010-health-benefit-plan-compliance-update-navigating-the-ma.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-01-25T17:07:21Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Thayer, Claire</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Claire Thayer, January 21, 2010</p>
<p>MCOL&rsquo;s Healthcare Web Summit has announced a new webinar event that will focus on health benefit plan compliance. Join Mr. Ashley Gillihan, Esq. of Alston &amp; Bird, LLP on Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 1PM&nbsp; for up-to-date information on the new Mental Health Parity and Addiction Act provisions effective in 2010; Michelle&rsquo;s Law; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; HIPAA HITECH Privacy Changes; key state health care reform laws, and more. <br />Detailed information at:﻿</p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.healthwebsummit.com/compliance022510.htm">http://www.healthwebsummit.com/compliance022510.htm</a> </span></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/21/making-sense-of-whats-next-for-health-reform.html"><rss:title>Making Sense of What’s Next for Health Reform</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/21/making-sense-of-whats-next-for-health-reform.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-01-21T18:12:35Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Riddle, Clive</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Clive Riddle, January 21, 2010</p>
<p>What a difference a week makes! Amidst the political chaos and confusion during the past few days on status and prospects of health care reform, some prominent pundits and lawmakers are either proclaiming health reform is absolutely dead, or that there is still a viable pathway for reform, and it will pass. Both sides of the spectrum voicing such certainty right now would seem to be &lsquo;spinning.&rsquo; Chaos and confusion should reign as we speak, because at this point either outcome is quite possible. Thus for now, one would be wise to position for a range of possibilities.</p>
<p>Here are some key points to consider in this &ldquo;anything&rsquo;s possible&rdquo; phase that will undoubtedly clear up with a little time:</p>
<ul>
<li>The public nationally is clearly not happy with reform as proposed. The latest <a href="http://ac3.msn.com/de.ashx?adunitid=1757&amp;v=pubm12&amp;w=571&amp;h=164&amp;url=http%3A//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703569004575009140238567912.html&amp;lmt=1264093437&amp;tz=480&amp;cc=100&amp;dt=1264093437391&amp;uh=768&amp;uw=1280&amp;uah=738&amp;uaw=1280&amp;cd=32&amp;ja=true&amp;app=Microsoft%20Internet%20Explorer&amp;his=14&amp;plf=Win32"><span>Wall Street Journal / NBC pol</span>l</a> released this week tracking this issue pegged approval ratings of Obama's handling of health care at 38% approval and 55% disapproval.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>But doing nothing, and opposing everything isn&rsquo;t necessarily popular either. The same WSJ/NMC poll gave Republicans an even lower approval rating for their handling of health care: 26% approval and 64% disapproval.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Lawmakers up for reelection this year are looking to the Massachusetts Senate election as the referendum on health reform, so some Democrats may reverse course next time around with any health reform votes. But the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012005042.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post today</a> makes an interesting point: &ldquo;the Republican candidate rode to victory on a message more nuanced than flat-out resistance to universal health coverage: Massachusetts residents, he said, already had insurance and should not have to pay for it elsewhere.&rdquo;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>President Obama has just signaled in an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-president-obama/story?id=9611223">ABC interview</a> that he would like Congress to revise the reform package to include core elements that would be more publicly acceptable and potentially gain support of a few Republicans: "We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up&hellip;And we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance for their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of this bill."</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The available options for the Senate and House to proceed leave no clear path, and plenty of disagreement. The President stated he doesn&rsquo;t want to Senate to &ldquo;jam&rdquo; something through before new Massachusetts Senator Brown arrives, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed this approach would not be taken. The option of the House adopting the Senate version of the reform bill as-is, has been floated, but <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/pelosi-votes-arent-there_n_431430.html">House Speaker Pelosi is signaling</a> the votes aren&rsquo;t there at this time. Instead, she is looking at getting the House to pass the Senate Bill in combination with a companion clean-up bill. &nbsp;The House has a year until the Senate Bill expires. The other options include a new watered down bill as the President now advocates, or an attempt to jam various components of the bill through budget reconciliation, which just requires a simple majority to pass, but also could trigger delays,&nbsp; messy procedural fights with Republicans and make Democrats up for re &ndash;election skittish about potential public wrath.</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/18/mcols-healthquest-publishers.html"><rss:title>MCOL’s HealthQuest Publishers</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/18/mcols-healthquest-publishers.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-01-18T23:09:12Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Thayer, Claire</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: black;">by Claire Thayer, January 19, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Looking for Mailing Lists or Key Industry Contact info? HealthQuest Publishers offers directories and reports that include contact information, mailing lists, profiles and tools for those involved with marketing, recruitment, business development and others involved with health management and managed care: Publications include:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: black;"></span><span style="color: black;">The National Managed Care Leadership 2009 Directory: $249/$595 CD</span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;"></span><span style="color: black;">Who's Who in Managed Health Care 2009 Directory: $178/$139 CD</span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;">B2B Health Mailing List: $95/M, $495 Minimum</span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;">Consumer Driven Care Resource Book 2009 Edition: $178 Book</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="color: black;">Prefer a searchable online database? HealthQuest subscription is a useful option that provides searchable on-line 24/7 access to three continually updated databases: </span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: black;">Health Care Executive Profiles</span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;">The National Managed Care Leadership Directory and </span></li>
<li><span style="color: black;">MCOL's Health Plan Directory&nbsp; </span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="color: black;">Find out more at: <a href="http://www.healthquestpublishers.com/">http://www.healthquestpublishers.com/</a> </span></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/15/prowling-through-the-census-bureau-2010-statistical-abstract.html"><rss:title>Prowling through the Census Bureau 2010 Statistical Abstract</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.mcolblog.com/kcblog/2010/1/15/prowling-through-the-census-bureau-2010-statistical-abstract.html</rss:link><dc:creator>MCOLBlog</dc:creator><dc:date>2010-01-15T19:25:03Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Riddle, Clive</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Clive Riddle, January 15, 2010</p>
<p>Okay, so sifting through <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab">The 2010 Statistical Abstract</a> may not rank up there with <a href="http://www.bungee.com/bzapp/index.html">bungee jumping</a> or <a href="http://gospain.about.com/od/pamplonabullrun/qt/dates_times.htm">running with the bulls</a> (book your trip to the Pamplona Spain San Fermin Festival this July 6<sup>th</sup> through the 14<sup>th</sup>) on the adrenaline rush meter, and might not be recommended to list as a favorite activity in your <a href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</a> profile, but just the same, there&rsquo;s some pretty cool, free and easy to access health care data tables available in the Abstract.</p>
<p>I grabbed a few of the excel files from the various categories of health care tables that I found interesting, and compiled summary information from three items I thought would be worth sharing:</p>
<p>From Table 160. Percent Distribution of Number of Visits to Health Care Professionals by Selected Characteristics: I wanted to see how the pie slices up by selected age group for frequency of annual visits to doctors and other health care professionals</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="473">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="241" valign="bottom">
<p>Annual   Visits by Selected Age Group</p>
</td>
<td width="40" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>Zero</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1-3</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>4-9</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>10+</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="241" valign="bottom">
<p>&nbsp; Under 18 years</p>
</td>
<td width="40" valign="bottom">
<p>10.3%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>57.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>25.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>7.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="241" valign="bottom">
<p>&nbsp; 45 to 64 years</p>
</td>
<td width="40" valign="bottom">
<p>14.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>45.3%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>23.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>15.9%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="241" valign="bottom">
<p>&nbsp; 65 to 74 years</p>
</td>
<td width="40" valign="bottom">
<p>8.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>35.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>36.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>20.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="241" valign="bottom">
<p>&nbsp; 75 years and over</p>
</td>
<td width="40" valign="bottom">
<p>5.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>30.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>36.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>27.5%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>[2007 data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, published 2009.]</p>
<p>From Table 158. Physicians by Sex and Specialty: I wanted to calculate the percentage that were primary care physicians (family practice, internal medicine and pediatrics- I left out Ob-Gyns), and I was surprised to see the percentage has gone up over time</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="352">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="144" valign="bottom">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="16" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1980</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1990</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2000</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2007</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="144" valign="bottom">
<p>% Primary   Care MDs</p>
</td>
<td width="16" valign="bottom">
<p>28.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>31.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>34.3%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>34.7%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>[Calculated from Source: American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S. annual]</p>
<p>From Table 153. Retail Prescription Drug Sales: I was interested in calculating the percentage mix of prescription sales by type of retail outlet. What you can see is the decline of independent pharmacies and the rise of mail order</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="389">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Retail   Outlet:</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>1995</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2000</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2005</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p><strong>2008</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Traditional   chain</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>38.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>40.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>39.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>41.0%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Independent</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>30.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>23.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>19.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>17.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Mass   merchant</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>10.7%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>9.3%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>9.7%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>9.8%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Supermarkets</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>10.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>12.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>11.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>10.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="133" valign="bottom">
<p>Mail   order</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>10.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>15.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>19.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
<p>21.7%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>[Calculated from Source: National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Alexandria, VA,NACDS Foundation Chain Pharmacy Industry Profile, 2008]</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>