- Image by celikins via Flickr
Highlights of the important and the interesting from the world of health care:
Don’t blame immigrants for high U.S. health costs: While some lawmakers delight in blaming immigrants for contributing to rapidly rising U.S. health costs (and scoring cheap political points in the process), that conclusion is off base, according to a study in Health Affairs. Indeed, the study’s authors write, “Health care expenditures for the average immigrant have not been a growing problem relative to expenditures among U.S. natives.” In 2006, for example, total per-capita spending for noncitizens was $1,904, while that for U.S. natives was nearly double, at $3,723. Likewise, between 1999 and 2006, health spending for U.S. natives increased at twice the rate that it did for noncitizens. However, the study did note that noncitizen immigrants were more likely than U.S. natives to have a health care visit classified as uncompensated care.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
The study indicates that those who’d like such a neat and tidy explanation for rising health costs as “It’s the immigrants’ fault!” should seriously rethink that line of reasoning. According to the authors:
Given the findings from this and other studies, the balance of the evidence appears to suggest that providing health care to immigrants costs significantly less than providing it to the native-born. In fact, noncitizens, most of whom are recent immigrants, use fewer health care resources than even naturalized citizens.
Piling on Wellpoint (and with good reason): California residents aren’t the only ones who have reason to be angry at Wellpoint. After raising rates nearly 40 percent for some Californians, the Indianapolis-based company has jacked premiums up as much as 31 percent from some residents of its home state. First the Colts get upset in the Super Bowl, and now this. (At least the inimitable and wonderfully named E’Twaun Moore gave some Indiana residents something to cheer this week.) For health-reform advocates, Wellpoint’s rate hikes couldn’t have come at a better time, allowing the Obama administration to warn that such skyrocketing expenses are a sign of things to come if health reform dies. The insurer’s $2.7 billion fourth-quarter profits, coupled with the CEO’s $10 million salary, don’t exactly make it an object for public pity, either.
In fairness to the company, it is reasonable to at least partly buy Wellpoint’s explanation that it’s been hurt by younger, healthier customers dropping or being dropped from insurance during the recession. The older, less healthy people left behind are clearly more expensive to insure, thus driving up the company’s cost. That’s not to say we should let Wellpoint off the hook, by any means. In any case, as Jonathan Cohn explains, the whole mess merely provides a stronger argument for universal coverage.
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
Who has the “Courage” to follow comparative effectiveness research? Comparative effectiveness research–essentially studying what types of care give patients the biggest bang for the least buck–seems like a no-brainer. What’s not to like about figuring out how deliver the best results to patients for the cheapest price? But even if we can clear the political hurdles to doing such research, getting doctors, insurers, device companies and Big Pharma to follow the guidelines can be a near-impossible task. The Wall Street Journal takes an excellent look at a study called “Courage.”
The study “shook the world of cardiology. It found that the most common heart surgery—a $15,000 procedure that unclogs arteries using a small scaffold or stent—usually yields no additional benefit when used with a cocktail of generic drugs in patients suffering from chronic chest pain,” the Journal writes. So why have stentings persisted at such high levels? It’s a simple and all-too-common answer: Money, money, money, money. Our fee-for-service system never fails to offer perverse incentives for high-cost treatments. Until we solve that problem, health costs will continue to soar.
Interventional cardiologists … have a financial incentive to use stents—they receive about $900 per stenting procedure, roughly nine times the amount they get for an office visit. … And because insurers generally earn a profit by charging a premium on claims they pay, they don’t necessarily have an incentive to crack down on excess spending.
What’s your doctor’s salary? As Forbes notes, doctors are doing pretty well. Not as well as Wall Street bankers, mind you, but most people would still be quite happy with a pediatrician’s average salary of $190,000. And since primary care doctors are on the lower end of the spectrum, pediatricians’ salaries significantly lag those of cardiologists ($442,000) or general surgeons ($328,000). Something to ponder the next time you hear talk of cuts to Medicare reimbursements. Primary care docs may very well have legitimate gripes, but it’s tough to feel too bad for specialists.
Top 10 free iPhone medical apps: For those interested in a rundown of the most-downloaded free medical apps for the iPhone, mobihealthnews has you covered. Holding down the top spots are clinical-reference apps from Medscape and Epocrates.
