The recent flap over the recent Obama administration decision to not exempt religious organizations over rules requiring first dollar coverage of birth control leave me either bothered or bemused -- perhaps both. 

The controversy has very little to do with health policy and very much to do with the 2012 elections.  Moreover, it was entirely predictable, and it is amazing that the Administration walked right into what is becoming a big pie in its face.  However, the outrage that Catholic and some other religious leaders are expressing over being required to cover birth control in their health plans ignores one important fact.

It’s not their money.

Employers of all stripes see their health plans as a big expense and as something they have both a right and an obligation to try to manage prudently.  Acting as a prudent financial steward of the money, though, is not the same thing as imposing a particular religious belief.  In this case, the objection is, of course, that birth control is against their religious beliefs, and so should not be something they should pay for.  They’re not saying covering birth control is too expensive for their health plans or that it has adverse health consequences for people who use it.  They don’t even seem to care that the health consequences of not using it can be worse for some people.  They just don’t like it on moral grounds, and don’t want anyone using it.

The trouble is, the health plans are paid for by the employees’ money, not the employers’.  Employee benefits are part of employee compensation.  Employees have a decades-long implicit agreement with employers to receive a portion of their wages in benefits, mainly because they can receive that compensation on a tax-free basis.  But it is no more the employers’ money than, say, the money employees put into their 401k plans.

I wonder how people would be reacting if the religious organizations were saying that their employees couldn’t spend any portion of their own salaries on birth control.  I.e., they couldn’t take their wages and go off to buy birth control.  Not just that they shouldn’t, but that they couldn’t, presumably under threat of losing their job.  Would conservative politicians be rushing to support that kind of dictate?  I don’t think so, or at least I hope not.  People are pretty protective of their ability to spend their own money on the things they want.  So why should employee wages that have been retained by the employer on a pre-tax basis to finance a health plan for those employees not be able to buy medical services and supplies that employees want or need, as long as that spending was legal and medically appropriate – which birth control is.

Let’s try an equivalent thought experiment.  Let’s say the religion in question was Christian Science, and they decided that their “health plan” shouldn’t cover most hospital stays, physician visits, or prescription drugs.  Or a plan offered by an employer whose owner is a Jehovah’s Witness, and accordingly rules out covering blood transfusions in the health plan.  To make the experiment more equivalent, let’s be clear that their restrictions are not on plans offered by either church itself, but by organizations associated with those faiths and which employed many people who were of neither religion.  We probably would look askance at those faith-based exceptions, but would they actually be different in kind?

We could go a step further.  Maybe an employer isn’t satisfied just not covering abortion but also doesn’t want to include any health system or provider who provides birth control, and excludes them from their health plan network.  Maybe another employer doesn’t want any health care provider with any religious affiliation whatsoever, and excludes any such providers.  Or, to take an even more extreme example, maybe an employer doesn’t like the word “north” – for whatever reason -- and refuses to cover services by any provider with “north” in its name.   Where do we draw the line at where an employer’s idiosyncratic beliefs should be allowed to dictate its health plan rules?

One can oppose the birth control rule on other reasons more related to health policy.  You could argue, as I have and as John Cochrane did recently in the Wall Street Journal, that preventive services in general aren’t really insurance, and that covering them – particularly with no cost-sharing – is just dollar trading at best.  You could also argue – again, as I have previously done -- that the tax preference for employer-based coverage distorts the consumer market in health insurance, and inevitably invites the kind of employer tinkering with benefits that has led us to the current birth control mess.  You might also argue that birth control as preventive services stretches that term beyond its intended meaning – i.e., does it prevent disease or maintain health?  All of those are fair game for serious health policy discussions, but those are not what is driving this particular debate.

There are lots of reasons both to dislike the rule and lots of reasons to protest the protests about the rule, but it seems inevitable to me that politics will win the day and the Obama Administration will be forced to backtrack in some way.  And our crazy health system will be incrementally crazier as a result.

MCOL’s Healthcare Web Summit announces Managing and Increasing Trend of Elective Preterm Deliveries, scheduled for Friday, February 24, 2012 at 1PM Eastern.   In the past two decades the United States has witnessed a substantial increase in the rate of elective deliveries preterm birth. Employers, health plans and Medicaid programs have become increasingly concerned, and stakeholders have created multifaceted strategies to reduce the number of early deliveries that don't have a medical justification. Join us to hear an expert panel discuss the problems surrounding elective preterm deliveries, and strategic approaches that stakeholders can consider adopting.

More information:http://www.healthwebsummit.com/pp022412.htm

MCOL’s Healthcare Web Summit announces Charity Care & Community Benefits: The New Paradigm, scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 1PM Eastern. Join Providence Health’s Ronald Sorensen, Huntington Memorial's Jane Haderlein and Michael Bilton from the AHA's Association for Community Health Improvement to discuss the changing environment and its long-term implications for hospital operations and healthcare delivery.

More information: http://www.healthwebsummit.com/pp021612.htm

I’m told that one should not mix stories in a blog, but, as a serial disruptor, I’m about to do just that.  I’m inspired by Representative Giffords and see her story as a frame for some ideas that simply won’t rest in my tired brain.

You may remember that I wrote the E Pluribus Unum blog last year just after Ms. Giffords’ near-death shooting in Arizona.  Her story took the nation to a reality-check on guns and mental health, but it also broke my heart for the family of Christina, who went with her classmates to meet the local representative of the US Government (Ms. Giffords).  Christina was one of the victims that day—she died from her wounds.

Still, the sun rose the next day, and Gabby Giffords gave hope back to America.  She began her slow recovery with the amazing care she received from a health care system that was in sync to help her recover.  She was transferred, later, to a center for the intensive therapy needed to regain skills of walking, talking, and more.  She went to Cape Canaveral to watch her astronaut husband lift off on the last space shuttle trip.  She wrote a book about her journey, and we cried with joy.  

This is the promise of America:  all hands form a team that saves a life, all hands who can’t be part of the team cheer the success.  Add the glamour of space travel and romantic love, and the TV-movie industry wishes that it had dreamed up this story—yet who would have believed it, as it was so surreal?  

So where are those everyday heroes?  Because over the last 30 days, my encounters with the health system have been less than heroic, and the stop/start/stop/ halt/restart mess of interoperability-safety-communication has not only caused me anxiety and angst, but also revealed some less-than-lovely realities.

The US health system has surely been going through enormous change.  There are stellar stories of success in electronic medical records for hospitals and physicians, for empowering patients (with personal health records on my phone or iPad), for revealing transparent pricing and quality so I can choose appropriate treatments and know my out of pocket costs.   Or…?

In the last 30 days I’ve met with a new primary care physician so I could establish a medical relationship. My previous physician left her office with no notification of where she might next appear.  No problem, I have my health history, can begin anew. I sought a physician with an electronic health record that is hooked up to a health system and that will also deliver my health information to my personal health record.  I offer to pay for my initial visit because, as I tell the scheduler, I want to interview the doctor to see if our personalities and technology will jive.  When I arrive, they charge me my copay, I remind them I’d like to pay for the visit so I can discuss what I need, and they say, “No need, this is how we do it.”  Well, ok!

We meet, we greet, no ugly paper or cloth “gowns” (may I just insert that my idea of gowns are the kinds that look fabulous in public with brilliantly crafted shoes?).  He asks me some questions about my health (completely fine, thank you, here are my records).  I ask him if he can cope with a person who has a healthy scope on the health system, understands appropriate use of the system, and is the CEO of her health.  “Oh yes, “ says the kindly doctor with the white coat and stethoscope.  We schedule my physical for 6 weeks later.

I am now in the room with Mr. Hyde.  Dr. Jekyll has left the planet.  Charmingly, he begins ordering tests I don’t need (there are no guidelines suggesting the tests), “discovers” a potential “problem” in my EKG (as in “Houston we have a problem” level of problem) and immediately schedules a cardiology visit (folks, relax, there was no problem, there was a misread).  He informs me I need these new tests because just yesterday he discovered a breast cancer in a woman my age (lovely use of calming technique).  There is more, but I will spare you the rest.

Two weeks later I’m called by the nurse and told to immediately get another blood test, it absolutely can’t wait, and no we can’t tell you the lab values but they are “high.” I spend a sleepless night worried, I call back the next day and ask that the doctor please call me as I’m leaving town.  He calls mid-afternoon, says there is no urgency, but it must be done immediately upon return.  He then gives me the values, and I remind him that the numbers he is seeing, only 6 weeks after a perfectly normal blood screen and a record of good readings for 5 years, are not in crisis zone and, (I say, deferentially) that I believe the recommendation is to wait 6 months since I have no risk factors and then retest?  “No,” says the physician, “I want it done now.”

If you’ve been reading my blogs, if you know me at all, you know I tend to not react well to that order.  In fact, the Institute of Medicinejust released a white paper on the communication between patient and doctor, with principles that include supportive environment and respect.  But I do get the requisite 2^nd blood test, and once again I get a call to schedule an immediate appointment while no lab values are shared per doctor’s orders.  I respond, as kindly as my heartbeat will allow, that I don’t make appointments without doing my research so that I’m prepared, so I need the values. “Then have him call me.”  And, of course, a part of me prepares to die.

Breathe.  The labs are not life-threatening; but the doctor’s attitude was.  He told me he simply didn’t have the time to call me with lab values, I responded that I didn’t want his call, I just wanted the values and his nurse could have told me.  He told me he’d reveal the values during our face-to-face meeting, I told him I wanted to be prepared with questions so I didn’t waste his time or mine.  He told me that wasn’t how he worked.  I reminded him of our first conversation.  He said “in the office,” I said “empowered patient,” and told him I’d get back to him.  We ended the call.  Then I fired him in my mind.

But I didn’t drop my health.  Yesterday, I made an appointment with my husband’s cardiologist because of his excellent treatment of my husband.  The scheduler said, “Let’s get your records.”  “They are on your interoperable system through the nationally-recognized health information system that you have,” I say, subtly letting her know that I’m an informed patient and I speak electronicmedicalrecord-ese.  

Wait for it.  Get a cup of herbal tea.  Breathe deeply.

“But we can’t pull up records from another doctor, even if the doctor is part of our system.”

I’m speechless, no breath, no words.  This is the second time in 60 days I’ve heard this.

So we have the picture, now, of healthcare done impeccably well through a trusted relationship of patient/family and the team of clinicians, then wrapped in a love story (Gabby Giffords).  And we have a story of healthcare wanting desperately to do it well, putting systems in place that can do the job, but human rules making it so darn difficult that access and quality and that holy grail of “consumer-directed care” are unachievable.

Will reimbursement changes make this go away?  Not likely.  Will promoting primary care make this heal?  I’m skeptical of a health quarterback that can’t hear the plays because the sound is turned off.  

That wasn’t the healthcare reality that I envisioned with all the work that you and I do to improve it.  These are all good people.  In fact, WE are all good people.  We all want to do the right thing.  They are working hard to promote health.  I am working hard to promote health.  Gabby Giffords and her team are the epitome of “Hard work, well done.”  My experience, not quite.

I shared this story with good friend and VP of the Center for Health Value Innovation, Ray Zastrow MD, CMO of QuadMed. Ray paraphrased a statement from Atul Gawande MD:  Medical care should work like the pit crews of NASCAR.  The outcome is the focus—get the car and driver back on the track.  No lag time, no computer outages, or lack of transfer of knowledge.  Diagnose, triage, heal. Seamless engagement and outstanding accountability.

This is the healthcare vision of the US.  Obviously it exists, as Representative Giffords’ teams, and many other teams, including those in our Center for Health Value Innovation, show us day after day.  

So I close another chapter in the quest for US health, with a message to Representative Gabby Giffords:  Keep up the good work, Representative Giffords.  We will miss you in DC.  But you have a grander national duty now.  I know you didn’t campaign for it, but I surely hope you’ll accept it: Show us how this is done with your NASCAR team of clinicians.  Gather your pit crews around you for a stupendous recovery.  We are cheering your success!

MCOL’s Healthcare Web Summit announces the 11th Annual Consumerism Web Summit 2012, scheduled for Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 1PM Eastern.  This year's event addresses consumer empowerment from multiple perspectives, and will provide attendees the intelligence to position themselves for 2012 and beyond. The event includes a featured 90 minute live webinar, three additional faculty pre-recorded sessions plus supplemental features addressing consumerism in 2012 and beyond.

More information: http://www.healthwebsummit.com/consumerism.htm

MCOL’s Healthcare Web Summit announces ACO Capitation 101: Understanding Medicare ACOs’ real potential to influence patterns of care, scheduled for Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1PM Eastern.   As the pioneer ACOs gain experience with the various capitation models and if CMS incorporates capitation in the standard model, Medicare ACOs will gain a powerful tool to influence patterns of care through payment contracts and incentives. Hear from William A. MacBain, Senior Vice President of Gorman Health Group, on the steps CMS is taking to evaluate and potentially change capitation in Medicare ACOs.

More information: www.healthwebsummit.com/gorman021512.htm

We recently moved to a new city, so I set us up with docs at a Very Wired Hospital (we'll call it VWH) that boasts a fully integrated health system and enterprise EHR. My husband sees many specialists, so we've made several visits there already. I was excited that he would finally have a single record.

The yield to date on my attempt at integration: six paper vintage 1980's medical history forms and one woefully inadequate oral interview. One doc's explanation for the manilla madness was "It's for billing [so we can charge for appropriate complexity]." My contributions to these mostly took the form of "see attached" scribbles, referring to my own far superior pt summary sheet, tailored to each specialty...hm, why not specialty-specific intake forms? In the outcomes age, is that really so radical?

I did finally see a specialty-specific form from podiatry. It arrived via snail mail, barely in time-- "We can't use e-mail [to send the form] because it could be hacked." Somehow, though, sending us e-mails about billing detail is OK. It evidently hasn't occurred to VWH yet that PDF forms can be hosted on Web servers.

I could go on and on about VWH (the wall-to-wall paper at every elevator bank is staggering, the appointment and patient tracking process archaic, and yet its reputation allows stratospheric list pricing to plans), but let's focus on EMRs and payor initiatives. It's probably pretty evident that when its flagship providers lag in HIT, no network can realize optimal value from performance management.

BTW, the mail order debacle I wrote about a few months ago culminated in a pharmacy customer service e-mail asking my husband to reply to a general mailbox with his name, DOB, phone and all the incorrect rx he saw on his Web record. We politely declined, for obvious reasons. Somehow the duplication was resolved without this step.

Unfortunately, I very soon thereafter invested 2 weeks of calls in a routine refill that was repeatedly rejected [by the all-knowing, all-seeing adjudication app] for no reason that anyone at the plan, PBM, mail or retail pharmacy could pinpoint. Finally, I was put through to someone at the PBM who was able to determine that the latest PA had no refills appended instead of the 3 that it should have. Do you think that was put on anyone's future checklist? Let me know if the Easter Bunny stops by.

So how does a provider's EMR, however implemented, benefit payors? There could be lower processing costs secondary to more accessible documentation/claims denial support. The EMR should support health outcomes research, disease management, cost management, UR/QA, contracting...so many possibilities.

Many payor networks are building/upgrading their own data warehouses, and, increasingly, aggregating them with other networks.  Plans and providers are sharing via HIEs, pilot projects, academic research and more. In some geographies, public sector HIEs are being superseded by private efforts. Usability on the local level increasingly benefits from...wait for it...local oversight.

In any geography, though, we're drowning in a sea of input screens and datasets that don't reflect real people, workflow or medicine. Transaction and opportunity costs are soaring when you consider the dollars flying out the door due to long and no fixes for often undetected errors, like my husband's pharmacy döppelganger.

What can we control out of all this? Process! 2012 can be the year of common sense, when we give up tweaks to a patchwork, hands-off patient/member/customer flow in favor of [cliché alert] collaboration with those on the front lines (docs, nurses, physician extenders, call center reps, admitting reps, PBX operators and anyone with a finger on the flow) to image and set the break rather than cover it with a cast and good wishes.

Mystery-shop your PBM, clinics, DM vendors, hospitals, plans, call centers, anyone who touches those who pay your salary. Assign the same task to anyone who says, "There's just not that much we can do." If that doesn't work, a few uninterrupted call center hours just might do the trick. Rather than rearrange the deck chairs, as recent tragedy reminds us anew, some people just don't work out in their jobs.

Health Policy Publishing LLC this week launched its inaugural issue of Readmissions News, which is targeted at stakeholders interested in the management of hospital readmissions. One of the features of the new monthly newsletters is a Thought Leaders corner, and in this issue, experts were asked "Do you feel significant potential savings and improvements from further reductions in hospital readmissions can be achieved through the current set of public and private initiatives, or are expectations too high?"

Here are excerpts of what they had to say in response:

Randall Krakauer, MD, FACP, FACR; Aetna’s National Medical Director, Consumer Segment said in part “….The potential for impact has been demonstrated with several different programs under different conditions.  However, there is still a significant opportunity to broaden these efforts and create additional improvements in quality and savings.  Aetna has partnered with Dr. Mary Naylor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing in developing and implementing a transitional care model that has resulted in improved quality and reduced costs for our Medicare Advantage members.  The demonstrated potential creates an imperative that public and private organizations work together to continue to expand these initiatives.  We should expect these types of programs to be as much a part of health care delivery as any other public health measure with demonstrated and accepted value.”

 Jeff Lemieux, AHIP’s Senior Vice President, Research, gave a response that included:  “The 20 percent reduction in readmission rates proposed in the Partnership for Patients Initiative sets an initial target for all stakeholders.  However, preliminary studies of variation in readmission rates across regions and plan types – and the measured success of certain transitional care programs – suggest that larger reductions may be possible.  We should aim for across-the-board improvements in all hospitals and for all patients, whether coverage is through public programs or employer sponsored insurance.  We should track progress on readmissions in the context of overall hospitalization rates….”

William J DeMarco, MA, CMC, President & CEO, Pendulum Healthcare Development Corporation, included in his response:  “…Hospitals that dropped their home health agencies need to rethink how they can realign the existing home health system or expand their own to take the pressure off of doctors by having these agencies step in with skilled nursing and custodial care.  This may include cross training people to come to the aid of those with chronic conditions early instead of having these patients filling the ER.  Several HMOs and some hospitals are building ‘navigator’ programs to attract and train people who are not professional RNs or LPNs but can be trained to watch for signs of a chronic care patient losing their way on the path to improved health status….”

Brian Jack MD, Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Family Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine / Boston Medical Center;  concluded his remarks with:  “….A variety of implementation demonstrations for hospital based transition programs such as RED, BOOST, STARR, and H2H are gaining momentum and allowing researchers to study what works and what does not.  Across the country there is now a long list ‘early adopter’ hospitals that have demonstrated remarkable reductions in readmission rates.  All this effort is forcing hospitals and communities to work together as partners, a necessary ingredient for successful ACOs.  However, safe readmission reduction can only happen if hospitals have well developed community-based partners, particularly primary care partners, willing and able to care for patients in the community.  We need to ensure that this primary care safety net is available for patients.”

Alexander Domaszewicz, Principal, Mercer, concluded  “…. real, sustainable improvements that don't require constant oversight, monitoring, and effort will likely take a shift in marketplace practices driven by payment practices. HHS not paying for readmissions caused by ‘never events’ and guarantees like Geisinger's pledge to not charge for readmissions after heart surgery within ninety days are key examples of how to get every facility and practitioner keenly focused on eliminating readmissions.”

Benjamin Isgur, Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's Health Research Institute, continued his discussion, asking  “….How responsible should hospitals be when community doctors or patients fail to follow discharge instructions?  Can hospitals realistically cut readmissions when so much is out of their control?  However, it is possible to reduce preventable readmissions if hospitals address three major issues: discharge planning, length of stay, and closer alignment to physicians.  All of these issues relate to focusing on the total health of a patient instead of performing a procedure. ….”

Peter Kongstvedt, MD, FACP, Principal, P.R. Kongstvedt Co., LLC , opened his reply with “We’re going to see modest improvements at best until we address the lack of coordination and follow up in both the transition from inpatient to outpatient and coordinated outpatient management of patients with multiple chronic diseases. Many of the approaches to managing patients with multiple complex diseases are able to demonstrate improvements in quality, but few demonstrate improvements in overall costs.  The exception is nurse-led teams involving multiple clinical disciplines and access to physician support…..”

Finally, Martin S. Kohn, MD, MS, FACEP, FACPE, Chief Medical Scientist, Care Delivery Systems

IBM Research;   concluded his remarks by saying  “….Many organizations have substantially reduced re-admissions using current technology. The greater challenge will be reducing all admissions, over longer periods for more patients.  A patient will not view a re-admission on the 31st day differently from an admission on the 29th day.   Keeping more patients safely out of the hospital will require enhanced population and predictive analytics to personalize the prevention programs to make them economically efficient with improved outcomes.”

A complimentary copy of the inaugural issue of Readmissions News can be obtained by visiting http://www.readmissionsnews.com/sample_issue.php

The more I think about our health care system, the crazier it seems. 

Let’s do a thought experiment.  You’re in an accident, and have an orthopedic surgeon fix some broken bones.  You are fortunate enough to be employed and to have health insurance from your employer, so certainly your health insurance will pay the bills, right? 

Not so fast.  Maybe the accident was work-related, in which case your workers compensation would apply.  Maybe the accident was in your car, in which case your or another driver’s auto insurance might pay.  Or maybe you fell at your neighbor’s house, in which case their homeowner’s policy might come into play.  Which type of coverage pays, how much they pay to the providers, how much you’ll have to pay, even which orthopedic surgeon you can see -- all depend on the circumstances.  One has to wonder if your eventual outcome is subject to the same lottery.

Perhaps that’s too problematic an example.  Let’s take what should be an easier example.  You get all of the recommended preventive exams.  It should be clear that those are covered by your health insurance, especially now that PPACA has specified that health plans have to cover preventive services at 100%.  Except that it doesn’t, not quite.  E.g., your preventative dental exams or vision exams aren’t covered by your health insurance.  If you are lucky, you might have dental and vision insurance that covers those exams.  Otherwise, you’re out of pocket for following the guidelines.

Adding insult to injury, if you need, say, oral surgery, you’ll probably have to figure out whether your dental or your medical insurance covers it.  Again, how much it pays, how much you pay, and which physicians you can go to depend on the answer. 

What a mess.  Then throw in the inter-insurer squabbling and coordination between the different types of insurance in situations that are overlapping or borderline.  All that adds to the costs for both payers and providers, and the frustration from consumers, providers, and payors. 

The costs of these other types of health-related insurance are not trivial.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, costs for workers compensation is about 20% of health insurance costs, and about half of those workers compensation costs are for the medical component (as opposed to the disability).  The most recent National Health Expenditures (NHE) report showed “other third party payers” – which include workers compensation and a variety of other payers -- accounting for about $450 billion in 2011, almost 17% of total spending.  It’s significant.

It’s not that these other services are unimportant.  There’s a growing body of evidence linking oral health to other health conditions, highlighting the need for regular dental exams.  Vision exams are critical for spotting glaucoma or cataracts.  So why do we treat eyes and teeth differently than, say, feet or ears?  Why is periodontal disease somehow less important – often covered at only 50% in dental coverage – than diabetes, which is often correlated by gum problems?

A lot of this is due to historical accidents, if you will.  Employer-based health coverage got a big boost from the tax preference that avoided wage controls.  Medicare Parts A and B are structured to reflect then-typical Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in the 1960’s.  Medicare has struggled to evolve its design, growing ever-more complicated and adding Part D, but ending up with most recipients still adding a supplement to make coverage more comprehensive (unless the recipient chooses a more modern plan design via Medicare Advantage).  Both Medicare and employer coverage initially focused on a very medically-oriented, institutionally-based approach; both have broadened over the decades, but neither has truly revamped its approach, although the introduction of HMOs has helped force both types of coverage to include more preventive coverage. 

Medicaid does a better job than most other payers in covering a broad range of services, but actual benefits vary widely state to state and often coverage is more broad than deep (e.g., limits on hospital days or physician visits), and it requires an army of bureaucrats to determine who is eligible on any particular day.  Then we’ve got CHIP, VA, CHAMPUS, Indian Health Services and so on – each program no doubt well-intentioned but adding to the complexity of the system.  Our health system is a veritable zoo of different versions of health insurance.

The boldest thinkers at the federal level these days seem to be Senator Wyden and Representative Ryan, with their recent proposal to reform Medicare and small business coverage.  It certainly is a dramatic change from today’s programs, but I’d really like to see us take a step back and think more deeply about what “health” is, how “insurance” can support that health, and how we ensure that all Americans – regardless of age, income level, or health status have access to both health services and the redesigned health coverage. 

E.g., we certainly want employers to have safe workplace conditions, but is it necessary to have a separate medical component to incent that, or does the disability portion, along with some liability consequences, accomplish that?  I’m not talking about the so-called “24 hour” coverage that combines health coverage and workers compensation.  This has been attempted several times, none of which have, to my knowledge, been particularly successful – in no small part because each component still had to follow the specific laws and regulations that apply to the component.  That makes true integration difficult.  I’m talking about truly engineering what health insurance is, what it should cover, and how it should pay.  Rethinking what health insurance should include would be a hard task, fraught with the prospect of undue influence from various lobbying organizations, but it’s one I wish we had leaders bold enough to attempt.

I suspect few, if any, Americans fully understand the details of the various health programs they may be covered by, much less be able to have great confidence that they can truly compare choices in them.  I’m all for competition and variation, but not in the “fine print” – the definitions, exclusions, and covered benefits.  It would greatly enhance competition to truly have a uniform structure, and it would help us accomplish modern health goals if that structure was more broadly designed.  Doing so should force us to realize that some things should be paid for via insurance and others should not. 

Sadly, even the Obama Administration seems to be backing off of the PPACA requirement for common essential benefits, in their recent decision about plans offered through the forthcoming exchanges.  They are bending to calls for state flexibility by allowing state decisions on the essential benefits, within specified parameters, but the rules don’t bode well for someone who, say, lives in one state but works in another, or someone who moves between states.  They could see very different benefits based on through which exchange they get their coverage.

Some might read the above and misread me to be advocating an all-encompassing single payor system.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I’m hard pressed to think of any monolithic program, government or otherwise, that offers the kind of innovation and choice Americans value.  I am advocating drastically new product designs that break the existing artificial barriers to protecting and enhancing good health.  If this requires changing the applicable laws and regulations – and it would – then so be it.

Winston Churchill once famous said: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”  I just wish we didn’t have to go through so many other possibilities before we decide to fundamentally rearchitect not just who finances coverage but also what “coverage” should look like.

MCOL’s Healthcare Web Summit announces How Much is Too Much? Hospital C-Suite Compensation, scheduled for Friday, January 20 from 10:00AM – 11:00AM Pacific . The mission of a not-for-profit hospital or healthcare system is fairly clear: Heal the region’s patients and provide benefit to the community. Yet hospital boards find themselves under increasing pressure to offer generous compensation packages in order to attract and retain the executives who can keep their organizations out of financial distress and help them prosper in a challenging reimbursement environment. This webinar features persons knowledgeable on healthcare compensation trends.

More information: www.healthwebsummit.com/pp012012.htm