Jack Ebeler

One important way that we can improve care for people with chronic diseases is to have medical records that are online and accessible when needed.

Jack Ebeler

Nearly a decade after Americans' initial encounters with the Internet, and not long after President Bush called for every American to have an electronic medical record by 2012, policymakers are rallying en masse to bring the benefits of information technology to health care.

Bills pending in Congress would provide financial incentives for providers to adopt medical IT systems and promote interoperability between those systems. Since most people have had more than one health plan and have visited more than one provider — often in multiple states — establishing strong standards for IT system interoperability is essential to the broad expansion of medical IT and should be Congress's first priority.

Provider incentives and interoperability standards will increase the use of medical IT innovations and provide a strong foundation for quality improvement. However, health care quality and affordability cannot truly be transformed without making sure the health care system uses IT most effectively to benefit patients.

A recent Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) report synthesized current literature discussing variations in health care, and the findings are eye opening. Americans receive, on average, recommended care only about half the time. In addition, higher levels of spending do not always promote better outcomes and patient satisfaction.

If Congress and the health care industry succeed in expanding medical IT but fail to drive health care to use IT the most effectively, we risk creating a system that perpetuates — not reduces — the already significant variations in care and quality that ACHP, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and, most recently, Rand Corp. researchers have observed. As policymakers continue to examine ways to connect more of the nation to medical IT, they should challenge the entire health care system to improve along with those innovations.

The broad installation of IT systems will make it easier for providers and plans to report information about quality and cost. They should be required to do so to create an environment that encourages transparency and reliable information, that compares plans and providers on a level playing field.

It is also time for patients to become more involved in health care decision-making with their providers. This requires tools to help providers and patients make evidence-based decisions.

Proposals to encourage the broad development of medical IT should also adhere to the principle that patients — not health plans, providers, or the government — own their health care information.

Financial rewards

Government can play a role in quality improvement by offering financial incentives to providers who deliver outstanding quality. This encourages lesser-performing providers to improve.

Establishing a national health information network is a substantial task that will continue to challenge private and public sector budgets. Yet HHS projects that such a network could save about $140 billion per year, due in part to savings from improved care.

Although election year politics and strained budgets may diminish the political imperative for action on medical IT-related measures, strong bipartisan support and the potential for promoting broad quality improvement in American health care should give it a prominent place on the domestic agenda.

The author is president and CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans, whose members are not-for-profit or provider-sponsored health plans and provider organizations.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.