The Tech Layer for Home-Based Care? Tomorrow Health Hopes To Network-ize Home Health

BY JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Home-based healthcare is the stuff of tomorrow – literally. Tomorrow Health just closed a $60M Series B to grow their tech infrastructure biz into what CEO Vijay Kedar hopes will ultimately streamline and optimize how home health is ordered, delivered and paid for. This is the software that *could* be the thing that not only gets patients into home-based set-ups faster (vastly improving upon the up-to-90-minutes it currently takes providers to set-up home care for patients) but also creates a system for all stakeholders to track and monitor patient outcomes with an aim at the much larger, long-term opportunity: to realign incentives on value instead of fee-for-service.

Vijay came out of Oscar Health, meaning there is definitely a payer slant to the way this software is designed and deployed. Payers are Tomorrow Health’s clients, and it offers them a way to organize (or completely create, in some cases) home care networks out of the hundreds of different small, local market suppliers and providers that get medical equipment, skilled and unskilled services, and other in-home care elements to the doorsteps of the patients who need them. For a Geisinger Health Plan or Aetna – two of Tomorrow Health’s marquee clients – the software alleviates the pain of scaling this concept in every market while also providing a way to track what’s happening with the patient and build a “bridge” back into the health system that’s leading the patient care team.

With so many other players working in the home-health space – everyone from retail players like Walgreens/CareCentrix and Best Buy/Current Health to upstarts like Signify Health, Honor, and more – how will this tech stack approach play out against others that are one-stop-shops with frontline care and coordination layered on top? Will these ultimately be Tomorrow’s next clients?? Tune in to find out.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/ya7kAhw

THCB Gang Episode 99, Thursday July 28, 9.15am PT 12.15pm ET

This is a special early in the day edition of #THCBGang. Starting at 9.15am PT/ 12.15 pm ET on Thursday July 28. It is part of the Primary Care Transformation Summit which has been running since Monday and continues to the end of Friday. It’s a who’s who of everyone in primary care. You can check out the wider agenda but we are on immediately before the day 3 keynote from head of CMS Innovation, Liz Fowler.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) to discuss primary care and more are are WTF Health host & Health IT girl Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa); futurist Jeff Goldsmith; & Dan O’Neill (@dp_oneill) who is now at primary care group Pine Park Health.

You can see the video below & if you’d rather listen than watch, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/UkHem7d

At the Core, Tuskegee Has Never Been Resolved

BY MIKE MAGEE

July 25, 1972 was fifty years ago this week and it is a day that all AP Science journalists know by heart. As Monday’s AP banner headline read: “On July 25, 1972, Jean Heller, a reporter on The Associated Press investigative team, then called the Special Assignment Team, broke news that rocked the nation. Based on documents leaked by Peter Buxtun, a whistleblower at the U.S. Public Health Service, the then 29-year-old journalist and the only woman on the team, reported that the federal government let hundreds of Black men in rural Alabama go untreated for syphilis for 40 years in order to study the impact of the disease on the human body. Most of the men were denied access to penicillin, even when it became widely available as a cure. A public outcry ensued, and nearly four months later, the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” came to an end.”

Eight years earlier, a young physician from Detroit, Irwin Schatz, came across a study in a medical journal titled “The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis: 30 Years of Observation.”Incredulous, he shot off a letter to the editor: “I am utterly astounded by the fact that physicians allow patients with a potentially fatal disease to remain untreated when effective therapy is available.” It was later revealed that Dr. Schatz’s message was read by Anne R. Yobs, one of the US Public Health Service employees who designed the Tuskegee Study, and who wrote to her superior, “This is the first letter of this type we have received. I do not plan to answer this letter.” 

On June 16, 1966, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article titled “Ethics and Clinical Research.” Written by a highly respected Harvard physician, Henry K. Beecher, the head of anesthesiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, the article referred to “troubling charges” that had grown out of “troubling practices” at “leading medical schools, university hospitals, private hospitals, governmental military departments (the Army, the Navy and the Air Force), governmental institutes (the National Institutes of Health), Veterans Administration hospitals and industry.”

“Since World War II,” Beecher continued, “the annual expenditure for research . . . in the Massachusetts General Hospital has increased a remarkable 17-fold. At the National Institutes of Health, the increase has been a gigantic 624-fold. This ‘national’ rate of increase is over 36 times that of the Massachusetts General Hospital. . . . Taking into account the sound and increasing emphasis of recent years that experimentation in man must precede general application of new procedures in therapy, plus the great sums of money available, there is reason to fear that these requirements and these resources may be greater than the supply of responsible investigators. All this heightens the problems under discussion. . . . Medical schools and university hospitals are increasingly dominated by investigators. Every young man knows that he will never be promoted to a tenure post, to a professorship in a major medical school, unless he has proved himself as an investigator. If the ready availability of money for conducting research is added to this fact, one can see how great the pressures are on ambitious young physicians.”

After Irwin Schatz first raised the issue, the AMA still endorsed continuation of the Tuskegee  study. Not until 1972, when the glare of publicity reached what was known as the “Tuskegee Experiment,” was the study finally shut down. It led to a $10 million out-of-court settlement to cover the lifetime health needs and burial expenses of participants. 

Tuskegee also led to the 1974 National Research Act, which finally incorporated some of the protections recommended at the Nuremberg Trials. Voluntary consent was now required for all participants in US medical research funded by federal dollars. A study’s design had to be reviewed and pre-approved on ethical grounds by an institutional review board, a body of local professionals who would critique each proposed study and attest that it met ethical standards. Finally, the act established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical Research, which was charged with identifying “the basic ethical principles which should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects.”

Even so, the official apology for the violations of the Nuremberg Code (also known as crimes against humanity) at Tuskegee would have to wait another quarter century, when President Bill Clinton at last acknowledged, “The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong.” 

And in the spirit of  “Gone, but not forgotten”, I recommend for tonight’s summer viewing “The Dropout” streaming on Hulu. It documents the felonious activities of Elizabeth Holmes and her disgraced biotechnology company Theranos

Why? Because Dr. Beecher had it right. While the various different patient protections provide some improvement at the margins, the core of the problem (as I lay out in CODE BLUE: Inside The Medical-Industrial Complex), is a profit seeking Medical-Industrial Complex built on an integrated career ladder (Academic Medicine to Industry to Government), and absent appropriate checks and balances. 

What can be done about it? See page 315-324 in CODE BLUE for my suggestions.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and author of  “CODE BLUE: Inside the Medical-Industrial Complex.”

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/uoyQbvA

I Was Wrong

BY KIM BELLARD

The New York Times had an interesting set of op-eds last week under the theme “I Was Wrong.”  For example, Paul Krugman says he was wrong about inflation, David Brooks laments being wrong about capitalism, and Bret Stevens now fears he was wrong about Trump voters.  Nobody fessed up about being wrong about healthcare, so I’ll volunteer.  

I’ve been writing regularly about healthcare for over a decade now, with some strong opinions and often with some pretty speculative ideas.  I’ve had a lot to be wrong about, and I hope I will be wrong about many of them (e.g., microplastics).  Some of my thoughts (such as on DNA storage or nanorobots) may just be still too soon, but there are definitely some things I’d thought, or at least hoped, would have happened by now.

I’ll highlight three:

I thought we’d care more about our health  

Twenty plus years ago I was an evangelist for what we’d now call digital health.  Give people more, better health information and some useful health tools, then certainly they’d  use them to improve their health. If I’d known about smartphones or wearables I’d have been even more sure.

But, it turns out, not so much. Yes, we’re all pretty good about googling health information, many of us have health apps on our phones, and wearables are cool, but we’d be hard pressed to pinpoint exactly how our health has improved, generally speaking.  Our epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions continue to grow, and our mortality rates were an embarrassment even before the pandemic’s effects. 

The pandemic exacerbated, but did not cause, health disparities that fall along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, ones that most countries would be embarrassed about but which the U.S. seems to tolerate without much political will around addressing them. ACA helped, but it was only a finger in the dike, and that dike is cracking.

Even worse, the pandemic proved that we care more about politics than our health, to the point many resist taking vaccines that have been proven safe and effective, or following simple public health measures like masking or social distancing. Even worse, many states are weakening public health departments’ powers generally.  How did taking care of our health become a political litmus test?

We’ve also shown that religion also trumps health, as evidenced by abortion restrictions. Some people’s religious views that a fetus is a person, even at conception, outweighs a woman’s rights to her own body, or even her own life. And those so-called “pro-life” believers only seem to care about the fetus during the pregnancy.  

I thought we’d care more about patients than profits

Silly me.

Twenty or even ten years ago seems like such a simpler time.  Hospitals hadn’t, for the most part, consolidated, franchised, or gone overseas.  Physician practices hadn’t been bought up in large numbers.  Private equity didn’t see specialists, air ambulances, nursing homes, or ER docs as huge profit opportunities.  Pharmaceutical companies hadn’t fully mastered how to extend their patents almost indefinitely in order to keep prices high.  Health insurers were happy if they could eke out margins in the low single digits.  

The healthcare system has gone all Martin Shkreli, finding profits anywhere and everywhere, the more the better.  There’s no evidence that hospital consolidation improves patient care and plenty of evidence that it raises prices. Medical school students see the income differentials and are increasingly opting to go into specialty fields.  Everyone has horror stories about prescription drug prices, yet Congress seems powerless to act, no doubt due to the pharmaceutical lobbying clout. No one thinks that private equity is looking to do anything but line their investors’ pockets. Health insurers have become so diversified that they have more revenue streams than we can count.

We’re closing in on health care at 20% of GDP. I remember people being alarmed when it hit 10%; how much more does it have to get before we recognize we’re chasing the wrong things?

I thought someone would figure out how to wreck healthcare 

Mark Zuckerberg’s famous motto was “move fast and break things,” and Facebook did both, somewhat to everyone’s chagrin (and, yet, we keep using Facebook…).  That attitude has never caught on in healthcare, ostensibly because it’s too dangerous for patients. But, I’ve come to suspect, it’s more that it is too dangerous for healthcare’s many vested interests.

I’ve been looking for several years for healthcare’s Uber, the entrant(s) that don’t care about how the industry has been structured (or regulated) and want to introduce a new, better consumer experience.  Big Tech was going to come in (especially Amazon). Walmart was going to come in.  Other retail companies, like Best Buy or video game companies, were going to come in. Well, they’re in, but I’m not seeing that much disruption.

We’ve got scores of digital health companies getting ridiculous amounts of money, and many of them are doing interesting things, but I don’t see many industry-wreckers among them.  They’re more in the “if we can just get 0.x% of healthcare spending, we’ll all be rich” mindset.

Again, Uber didn’t come along to improve the taxi industry’s technology or even its rider experience. It said, the taxi industry is a 1950’s model, with very restrictive regulations, so we’ll invent a new industry that replaces it. There’s a lot to criticize Uber for, but most of the “innovators” I see in healthcare are in the “improve taxi industry technology” category, not the blow-up-the-antiquated-healthcare-industry-model(s).

I’m convinced there is a healthcare system out there that is much cheaper, much more effective, much more convenient, and much more equitable.  But continuing to graft on to our healthcare system’s existing edifices isn’t going to get us to that.   

———

Barring some sort of miraculous life extension technology, I’m not going to live long enough to see what a 22nd century healthcare system looks like.  I have high hopes for it, and none of those hopes include it being similar to today’s system.  

I hope that is barely visible to us and that we don’t even necessarily think of it as a health care system (or, at least, a medical care system), because health is so woven into our lives.  I definitely hope that health is no longer a function of your income, race/ethnicity, gender, or location.  

I just hope I’m not wrong about all that too. 

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/sDJHiPy

THCB Gang Episode 98, Thursday July 21, 1pm PT 4pm ET

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday July 21 will futurist Ian Morrison (@seccurve); medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee); and fierce patient activist Casey Quinlan (@MightyCasey)

You can see the video below & if you’d rather listen than watch, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/CqIuJjb

Be Careful What You Wish For

BY KIM BELLARD

I read the Stat News investigative piece “Health care’s high rollers,” by Bob Herman and colleagues, with interest but not much surprise.  I mean, is anyone surprised anymore that healthcare CEOs often make a lot of money, and didn’t let a crisis like the pandemic dampen that?  As Kaiser Family Foundation’s CEO Drew Altman told them, “Health care has become big business. We have a lot of people making a lot of money in health care, and we still have an affordability crisis in health care.”

I periodically see Twitter threads lamenting how little of that healthcare spending actually goes to physicians, yet people often still blame them for that spending.  Physicians make a pretty decent living (an average of $322,000, according to the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation report), although that compensation depends on specialty, gender, race/ethnicity, and location.  But maybe, just maybe, the problem in healthcare is that we’re not paying physicians enough – not nearly enough.  

I think I know how to fix healthcare.

———–

There are about a million licensed physicians in the U.S., give or take.  I say, let’s pay each of them a million dollars a year.  No, wait: they’ll have to pay for their staff and other overhead out of that, so let’s say $1.5 million.  Heck, let’s just round it up to $2 million, and I could even see going to $2.5 million if really pushed.  And let’s index that annual amount to overall CPI.  

The caveat, though, is that they’d have to pay for all their patients’ care from that amount.  Order a test, the physician pays. Do a procedure, it comes out of the physician’s pocket.  Prescribe drugs or a medical device, it’s the physician’s responsibility to pay.  Send them to the hospital, same thing.

It’s capitation writ large. It’s global budgets at the physician level.  It’s the opposite of fee-for-service.  

Now, there’s lots of details that would need to be worked out. Many patients have multiple physicians, so deciding which physician has to pay for which care would not be trivial. Also, a physician might have an extraordinarily expensive patient, so some form of stop-loss insurance would be desirable. 

And, of course, there’d need to be lots of negotiating.  I don’t picture physicians tolerating the kind of mark-ups on drugs or hospital stays that insurers seem to tolerate, not when those “excess” prices come straight out of their bottom line.  I can see groups of physicians negotiating collectively to drive better deals, sort of like Blue Shield was originally intended to do. 

I can also see billing codes getting much simpler. All the current complexity helps maximize their revenue, but would be a cost burden in the new environment.  I would expect many other efforts at administrative simplification for that same reason.

Best of all for physicians and other critics of our current system, I’m not sure we’d need health insurance companies or programs, other than for the stop-loss protection I mentioned above.  No more prior authorizations, no more inexplicable denials, nor more contorted benefit designs, no more incomprehensible fee schedules. If you’re going to have to argue with someone about care you think you need, would you rather that argument be with your doctor than with an insurance company representative?

———–

Of course, we’d have to somehow ensure physicians continued to see patients at needed levels; they can’t take the money and decide they’re only going to see a couple patients a day, a couple days a week.   We’d need some sort of maintenance of effort or availability measures, so that patients’ access to care is at least as good as now, if not better. They’d have to see patients regardless of income, age, severity of condition, and so on; no discrimination against patients.

But, some will argue, specialists need to make more, in recognition of their skills/training. Yes, we should have that argument. We’ve been undervaluing and underpaying primary care doctors for decades now, and this would be the time to make more rational any differences that might be appropriate. The current income differences are not defensible.

But, others will argue, how does this reward physicians over time? Currently, the longer they practice, the more patients they can see/the more procedures they can do. That’s an asset in a FFS environment, but in this environment we want physicians to learn how to be more judicious, more cost-effective, thus bettering their bottom line while improving patient care.

There’s a danger, of course, that physicians might undertreat patients, would “ration” care, to the point that it has adverse impacts on their health. That is a concern, but if we’re not at least as worried about the current incentives to overtreat, then we’re not being realistic. In both cases, we need to do a better job of measures quality and outcomes of care.

Do the math: 2.5 million dollars for a million physicians is $2.5 trillion, versus our current $4 trillion spending. Throw in perhaps another half a trillion (!) for things like public health and oversight, and we’d still shave 25% of our current spending. 

If that’s not worth thinking about, I don’t know what would be.

Physicians decry the diminution of their role, their loss of status, the amount of time spent on paperwork and administrative tasks. Fair enough; let’s put them in charge and see how they do. It’s hard to see that they could do much worse.

———–

Yeah, I know it’s never going to happen. There are hugely vested interests in our current mess of a system, and they’re not going to give up their incomes without a big fight. It’d be easy to assert (although not correct) that this would be a socialist structure, since presumably the federal government would be the one issuing those big paychecks. And maybe it gives too much power to too few people, even if those people are the ones we ostensibly trust most with our health.

I put this out there not because I think it could happen, or even should happen, but to make the point that if we don’t at least consider “outrageous” ideas like this, we’re not really thinking hard enough about healthcare reform.

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/IloK4rN

Dr. Topol’s comment on LongCOVID and the heart is misleading/lacking context

By ANISH KOKA

It’s been a while but Anish Koka, a one time regular writer on THCB and occasional THCB Gang member, is back publishing up a storm on his Substack channel. You may recall that his political and clinical views don’t always mesh with some of the wooly liberals we feature on THCB (cough, cough, me), but we are delighted to be back publishing some of his pieces–starting with a look at a tweet from one of America’s most prominent cardiologists.–Matthew Holt

Given Twitter’s commitment to the truth in Medicine, I thought I would try to give them a hand by analyzing a semi-viral tweet about COVID and the heart.

Earlier this year (April 2022), the most influential cardiologist in the world tweeted about a study on the long term cardiac effects of COVID (LongCOVID).

Medical trainees who trained in the early 2000s like I did know Dr. Topol as an absolute legend in the field of Cardiology. He was responsible for seminal work in Cardiology in the 1980’s on the use of clot busting drugs for patients having heart attacks, and became head of cardiology for the famed Cleveland Clinic at the age of 36! (I vaguely recall feeling like I was starting to understand Cardiology at the age of 36.) He’s since moved on to do many other things, and is a potent voice that may have been instrumental in the FDA delaying approval of the mrna vaccines until after the 2020 election.

Nonetheless, this paper that he is giving his significant stamp of approval to has significant issues. As far as I can tell individuals with LongCOVID were recruited by advertising in LongCOVID support groups. No independent assessment carried out as far as I can tell clinically. If you say you have it—> you’re in.

People who said they didn’t have LongCOVID were recruited as healthy controls and everyone had a cardiac MRI at baseline. Interestingly, almost half did not have COVID antibodies or a COVID +ve test. COVID was confirmed clinically in 245 patients. Since there’s data to suggest long COVID symptoms correlate better with a belief in having had COVID rather than actually having had COVID, this raises some serious questions about the diagnosis being made here. When doing a study where you want to compare those with a disease and without a disease, you have to be meticulous about who falls into each bucket. That isn’t what’s happening over here.

The meat of Dr. Topol’s assertion is that 1 out of 5 individuals with Long COVID have some COVID abnormality and half of those continue to be abnormal at 12 months. This is really scary until you look at what the abnormality they are talking about is.

The definition of abnormal was based on heart function (Ejection Fraction or EF), cardiac volumes (chamber size), and TI signals (typically used to see inflammation). Abnormal was also defined relative to people who were scanned that didn’t have Long COVID. The authors find that the major abnormality for Long COVID is lower heart function (EF). A few things about how the authors found this. Normally comparing two groups involves comparing averages between the 2 groups. In this particular case, the authors chose to separate out those patients with persistently depressed ejection fractions at 12 months, with those who’s ejection fraction at 12 months had recovered. They then make a comparison between healthy controls and this new group of “lower ejection fractions at 12 months”. This is a brilliant strategy to demonstrate a difference between 2 groups when really one doesn’t exist.

Imagine an experiment where you’re comparing a new method of packaging and delivering oranges to the boring old way of package and delivery. At the end of the experiment, split the oranges packaged the new way into 2 groups, one group that has the oranges spoiled, and the other group with the beautiful unspoiled oranges. Now compare the old way of packaging to the group you created without the oranges that were spoiled, and voila we can show the new way is better!

That’s basically what the authors did here. Why the heck would you slice off the worst looking ejection fractions in the longCOVID group at 12 months and compare it to the healthy controls? But even with this sleight-of-hand, the worst performing hearts have an average ejection fraction of 55%. I regret to inform those who firmly believe in the COVID-exploding heart theory that 55% is considered normal in the real world

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It is true the healthy controls had an EF of 59%, but even with the bogus comparator here finding the EFs to be statistically significantly different, it is assuredly not clinically significant to any practicing cardiologist. (PSA: If you get an MRI and are found to have an EF of 55%, run away from any cardiologist that tries to tell you that’s bad. )

There are other major issues. We, of course, also don’t have a baseline MRI scan for the long COVID group to know if there actually was any change before and after COVID (why they needed a healthy control group, but that’s a big limitation). The only other statistically significant difference is circumferential strain, and it’s also by an amount that doesn’t appear clinically relevant.

Given the chronic inflammation that is posited to play a role in the syndrome of LongCOVID, the marker to look at ongoing inflammation – T1 times, overlapped nicely with healthy controls.

So the paper that purports to show COVID may have long term adverse effects on the heart is actually reassuring to this non-famous Cardiologist! Dr. Topol’s tweet doesn’t do justice to the preprint he cites, and should not in isolation be interpreted by the general public as evidence that mild COVID may result in long term cardiac dysfunction.

Anish Koka is a Cardiologist. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on Twitter at @anish_Koka

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/DIcaUN6