An anticancer program to increase screening and counseling fell short of some of its objectives, according to a study in the government journal Preventing Chronic Disease. The Healthy People (HP) program, launched by the Department of Health and Human Services in 1979, tracks 10-year objectives for improving health based on guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which tracks cancer care, the HP program’s current objectives are for 2020.

So far, we’re behind schedule.

“From 2008 to 2010, rates of breast and cervical cancer screening declined slightly while colorectal cancer screening increased by 7 percentage points,” says the study “Challenges in Meeting Healthy People 2020 Objectives for Cancer-Related Preventive Services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010.”

The target for 2020 for cervical cancer screening is 93%. In 2008, 84.4% of women who should have been screened based on guidelines were screened. In 2010, the number was 82.9%.

The 2020 target for breast cancer screening is 81.1%. In 2008, 73.7% of women who should have been screened were screened. In 2010, the number was 72.4%.

Cancer counseling by providers also did not hit targets.

The 2020 HP goal for cervical cancer counseling is 66.2%. In 2008, 60.2% of women who should have had counseling received it. In 2010, the number slipped to 53.9%.

The 2020 HP goal for breast cancer counseling is 76.8%. In 2008, the number was 69.8%. In 2010, the number dropped to 59.5%.

Colorectal cancer screening did better, but still fell short of the 70.5% 2020 goal. In 2008, 52.1% of those who should have been screened for colorectal cancer were screened. In 2010, the number climbed to 59.1%.

Researchers allow that “the gaps we observed for some HP measures may reflect the adverse state of the U.S. economy during 2008 through 2010. However, neither Pap test nor mammography use increased during the past decade, suggesting that factors influencing cancer screening trends predate the most recent economic downturn and that meeting HP 2020 targets for cervical and breast cancer screening may be challenging.”

The study also focused on subgroups, finding that Hispanics and people below 200% of the federal poverty level were furthest off target.

It suggests that “attaining HP cancer-related targets by 2020 may be challenging in the absence of new approaches to expand health insurance coverage, improve access to cancer screening and treatment services, better integrate clinical and community preventive services, and improve health literacy.”

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.