Archive for January, 2012

Guest Blog: Super Bowl Sanitation: “Washed Up” Giants Outpoint Docs

Michael Millenson
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

Michael L. Millenson, president of Health Quality Advisors LLC, is a nationally recognized expert on improving the quality of the American health care. He is the author of the book “Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age,” and he holds an adjunct appointment as the Mervin Shalowitz, M.D. Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Is the New York Giants bathroom more sanitary than your hospital room? Could be. And that player cleanliness may even have helped send the team to the Super Bowl.

Freakonomics co-author and self-confessed germophobe Stephen Dubner, working on a Football Freakonomics segment for the National Football League, noticed that every urinal in the football Giants’ bathroom had a plastic pump bottle of hand sanitizer perched on top – a phenomenon he promptly documented photographically.

Health care-associated infections cause more than 98,000 patient deaths every year. Yet as I’ve noted previously, the guy who just used the toilet at the train station is way more likely to have clean hands than the guy walking up to your bed – or into the operating room – at the local hospital. That’s based on my comparing hospital sanitation with the results of a surreptitious survey by researchers from Harris Interactive of more than 6,000 adults using restrooms at six high-volume sites across the country.

At New York City’s Grand Central Station and Penn Station, only 80 percent of men and women washed up. However, even Atlanta’s Turner Field, where just 65 percent of men washed their hands, looked positively sterile compared to hospitals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that baseline compliance for hand hygiene was just 26 percent in intensive care units and 36 percent in non-ICUs.

This past November, suburban New York’s North Shore University Hospital reported it had raised the hand hygiene rate in its medical ICU from a truly dismal 6.5 percent to more than 80 percent by using a video monitoring system originally developed to ensure hygienic practices at meatpacking plants. Adam Aaronson, founder of Arrowsight, the company that made the system, expanded into health care after his mother and sister were both victims of serious infections while hospitalized.

Noted a New York Times blog: “What makes the system function is not the videotaping alone – it’s the feedback.  The nurse manager gets an e-mail message three hours into the shift with detailed information about hand hygiene rates, and again at the end.” There are also electronic signs that “are a constant presence in both the surgical and medical ICUs,” providing feedback to doctors and nurses what the handwashing rate was for that shift and setting up a “positive competition” between teams.

On a similar psychological theme, behavioral psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania posted different signs next to a hospital’s soap and hand-sanitizing gel dispensers to see what wording would have the greatest impact. As journalist Wray Herbert relates, one sign read: “Hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases.” Another read: “Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.” The third, a control sign, read: “Gel in, wash out.” After two weeks, doctors and nurses used significantly more soap and gel when the signs emphasized patient consequences, but not when the signs emphasized personal risk and benefit. Writes Herbert: “This would suggest that although doctors and nurses may believe that they themselves are invulnerable, they don’t make the same assumption about their patients.”

Kind of like the thinking behind those “Loose lips sink ships” admonitions to soldiers and civilians during World War II.

For Dubner, it’s clear that a strategy of simply “educating” doctors about better sanitation has failed, as he laid out in a Freakonomics podcast called, “What Do Hand-Washing and Financial Illiteracy Have in Common?”

And while there appear to be no video cameras trained on the Giants’ urinals – or at least none noticed by Dubner – the players did have a professional motivation to make liberal use of the germ-fighting gel. That’s because “washed up” players may have been a factor in helping catapult the Giants to the Super Bowl in the first place.

When hand sanitizers were placed in dorms at the University of Colorado, a study on infection control found that overall illness rate dropped by 20 percent and missed school days by 43 percent. Presumably, trying to keep healthy bodies on the field was why Giants management gave the hand sanitizers such a prominent position.

Note: this post first appeared on Forbes.com on January 30, 2012.

Related links:

Cash Rewards from Your Health Plan

Trudy Lieberman
Monday, January 30th, 2012

Trudy Lieberman, a journalist for more than 40 years, is an adjunct associate professor of public health at Hunter College in New York City. She had a long career at Consumer Reports specializing in insurance, health care, health care financing and long-term care. She is a longtime contributor to the Columbia Journalism Review and blogs for its website, CJR.org, about media coverage of health care, Social Security and retirement. As a William Ziff  fellow at the Center for Advancing Health, she contributes regularly to the Prepared Patient Forum blog. More

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has moved deeper into the business of transforming health care into a commodity governed by the rules of the marketplace.  Plan members can get cash rewards—yes, like those you get for buying ink at Staples—if they use facilities for outpatient medical procedures and diagnostic testing recommended by the health plan, not their doctors.  Harvard Pilgrim wants to steer patients to cheaper providers, hoping to save money for the company and ultimately the patient who will pay lower insurance premiums.  With the cost of a MRI of the spine ranging from $492 to $2083 in Massachusetts, you can see why the health plan might want to step in and save money by influencing patient choices.

If Harvard Pilgrim members choose the SaveOn program, they will simply call the plan’s “clinical concierge” service, which will direct them to providers who will charge less for mammograms, colonoscopies, MRIs, and other scans and tests.  If they go to one of the recommended low-cost providers, Harvard Pilgrim will send them a check, which the plan’s CEO hopes “becomes a conversation at the watering hole” when members say hey I just got a check for $75.  Rebates range from $10 to $75 depending on the service and the amount of the savings.  Presumably patients would get more cash for obtaining an MRI from a cheaper provider than they would for a thyroid-function test.

Hmmm—going against doctor’s orders in a land where we implicitly trust our doctors to steer us to other providers they in turn trust?   How do you know if the cheaper provider gives good or bad service?  Do they read a scan as well as the doc recommended by your own physician?  Is a rather small rebate worth the risk of going to someone you know little or nothing about?   I called officials at Harvard Pilgrim seeking answers.

The program, now available to some 5000 Harvard Pilgrim customers, is voluntary, and the plan doesn’t know how many have signed up yet because it’s too new.  Will it become mandatory?  Rick Weisblatt, the health plan’s senior VP, didn’t think so, although he did say that the “transparency approach—putting information out there isn’t enough.”  Something more like cash rebates are necessary to change medical behavior on the part of patients.

Then we got to the core issue—how do you know the cheaper providers are better?  Weisblatt explained that Harvard Pilgrim relies on some of the usual indicators like accreditation, credentialing, malpractice history, loss of license, and measures that tell how well a doctor is caring for diabetic patients or if patients have had timely mammograms.  But how do you measure a radiologist’s ability to interpret a scan. I pressed.  “This information doesn’t exist,” Weisblatt admitted.  “For specialists there are not a lot of good quality measures.  There hasn’t been as much push for that (kind) of measurement.”  He did say that’s changing.  

But until that happens, what’s a patient to do?  I rang up Dr. David Himmelstein, a Harvard Pilgrim member, single-payer advocate, and a professor of public health at City University of New York.  When his Massachusetts doctor gave him a choice of providers for a CT scan—either the one he recommended or a cheaper one suggested by the health plan—Himmelstein took his doctor’s recommendation explaining that he chose “medical advantage over the cost advantage.”  “It’s not just an image, it’s a professional relationship,” he said.  “We know there’s huge variability in reading mammograms.  Interpreting an X-ray is a subtle thing.  You want to go to people who are good.” 

How do programs like SaveOn square with the drive for more coordinated care?  “We say we want coordinated care and at the same time insurers are saying ‘go somewhere else,’” Himmelstein says.    The real issue here is who’s in charge of medical care—the doctor who believes he’s coordinating a patients’ needs by sending them to a radiologist he trusts or the insurance company, which believes it doesn’t matter who performs a service that seems like an interchangeable commodity as long as it costs less? 

So far, patients still determine the answer.

Related Links:

Guest Blog: Old Public Health Guy’s Plea: Don’t Wear Your Headphones All the Time

Douglas Kamerow
Friday, January 27th, 2012

Douglas Kamerow, MD, MPH, is a family physician, a former Assistant Surgeon General and the author of “Dissecting American Health Care.”  He works as chief scientist for Health Services and Policy Research at the research institute RTI International and as a Professor of Clinical Family Medicine at Georgetown University. Dr. Kamerow is also an associate editor of the global medical journal BMJ, for which he writes a regular column on health policy, and he is a frequent health commentator on NPR’s All Things Considered. He is the former chair of CFAH’s Board of Trustees.

This is going to sound like just another old guy rant, I’m afraid. But it’s not. Or at least that’s not all it is: I propose that people stop wearing headphones when they are out in public.

Now I realize that I’m already showing my age and lack of hipness by calling them headphones. The correct term of art is at least ear buds, if not some name I don’t even know. But you get the idea: those little speakers on a cord, usually white, that are crammed into everyone’s ears as they walk around, sit on the subway or ride in an elevator. They drive me crazy.

First, they’re intrusive. I can’t sit on a bus anymore without hearing the thumping bass or sizzling cymbals from my seatmate’s mixtapes that are leaking out of his headphones.

Second, they can hurt your hearing, especially when you wear them for hours at a time. Young people in my office wear headphones not only when out and about but also while working at their desks. Accumulating evidence suggests that this longer exposure correlates with increased risk of hearing loss. If someone can hear your earphone leakage from several feet away, it’s too loud.

More serious than harming your hearing, though, it appears that earphone use in public can actually endanger your life.  Read the rest at the Huffington Post where it first appeared on January 26, 2012.

Related Links:

The Price of Paperwork

Inside Health Care
Thursday, January 26th, 2012

Inside Health Care posts feature recent news and blog posts from the health care community and are part of the Center for Advancing Health’s portfolio of free, evidence-based coverage of what it takes to find good care and make the most of it.  By Monica Kriete, CFAH Communications Associate.

Administrative costs for U.S. health care, whether measured in dollars and cents or time, are an ongoing hot topic in health care spending discussions.  Recently, on the New York Times Economix blog, Uwe Reinhardt asks, “What price do we pay for pluralism in health insurance?”  He notes that choosing between health insurance plans in countries like Switzerland is relatively easy because each plan is required to offer a federally specified benefits package.  The diversity of American health insurance plans makes choosing between them more complicated.  Comparatively, the time that prospective enrollees spend comparing options is astronomical.  “Choice in the United States is expensive, because it requires prospective enrollees to do near-Talmudic studies of the fine print of each insurer’s offerings — many times multiple distinct offerings per insurer.”

Dr. Patricia Salber asks a similar question at The Doctor Weighs In: “How much are we paying for ‘choice’ of insurers?, ” citing a recent study that compared the administrative costs of practicing medicine in Canada, a single payer system, with the U.S.  The researchers found that if U.S. physicians had administrative costs similar to Ontario physicians the total savings would be $27.6 billion per year.  Why?  Due to the extra time spent interacting with insurance companies.  However, Dr. Salber writes, “The authors are careful to point out that we really don’t know the value of the benefits that may be reaped by these insurance company interactions.  For example, how much inappropriate care is avoided by prior authorizations and how much innovation is stimulated by competition between the various payers?”

At least some of these administrative burdens may decrease starting in 2014, thanks to a new rule proposed by the Obama administration, Julie Rovner reports for NPR’s Shots blog.  This rule could save doctors and hospitals between $3 and $4.5 billion dollars a year by standardizing how insurance companies pay electronic claims and encouraging the use of electronic claims rather than paper ones.  While the rules may be costly initially for insurance companies to implement, those costs will be more than made up in savings over the next ten years, according to administration officials.

 

 

Related Links: