Tuesday, July 17, 2012

A Dozen States Already Showing Leadership on Health Insurance Marketplaces

Because of the Supreme Court�s clear and final decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, middle class families and small businesses have greater security when it comes to health care � they can keep their current coverage or, if they need to or want to, search for new, affordable insurance options. In 2014, we can look forward to new state-based health insurance marketplaces, called Affordable Insurance Exchanges, where consumers can compare health care plans and choose a private health plan that meets their needs. Across the country, a dozen states have committed in recent weeks that they will lead efforts to create these Exchanges.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and each state has the opportunity to tailor its Exchange to meet its citizens� needs. States have the flexibility to decide whether to build a state Exchange, work with other states, or partner with the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is committed to flexibility in our support of the states� progress in whatever route they choose, as well as providing planning and implementation funds to help the states to establish the marketplace that suits their residents� needs.

We have already begun to hear from governors on their states� commitment to establishing these one-stop-shop marketplaces.

As Rhode Island Governor Lincoln D. Chafee noted in his letter, he signed an executive order in September 2011 to begin work on an Exchange, an effort he says �will provide Rhode Island families and small businesses with access to more affordable, high quality health insurance coverage.�

Maryland Governor Martin O�Malley wrote that Maryland�s state-based Exchange is �well underway and we continue to make significant progress with strong support from the state�s political leadership and broad-based stakeholder community.�

Even though the official deadline is November 16, I have already received letters from a dozen states representing nearly one-third of all Americans committing to establishing an exchange. Letters have come from:

California Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Colorado Gov. John W. HickenlooperConnecticut Gov. Dannel P. MalloyHawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.Maryland Gov. Martin O�MalleyMassachusetts Gov. Deval L. PatrickMinnesota Gov. Mark DaytonNew York Gov. Andrew M. CuomoOregon Gov. John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln D. ChafeeVermont Gov. Peter ShumlinWashington Gov. Christine O. Gregoire

I appreciate the hard work many states have engaged in over the past months to begin laying the foundations for the Exchanges, and HHS will be as flexible as possible to help them get over the finish line by 2014. Just late last month, I announced the availability of additional funds to help the states deliver these new health insurance marketplaces, and, as many governors had requested, they will now have until the end of 2014 to apply for the funds. And on January 1, 2014, consumers in every state will have access to an exchange.

As President Obama said after the Supreme Court ruling, it is time to move forward. Since the health care reform law was passed two years ago, we have worked closely with states to begin building these Exchanges where Americans will be able to choose private health insurance plans based on price and quality�and we will continue to work side-by-side with the states to provide the health care quality and security that our citizens need and deserve.

You can read and download the Governors' letters on Exchanges here.

Monday, July 16, 2012

As healthcare apps boom, privacy best practices come to the fore

WASHINGTON – A report published Wednesday by the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) takes stock of many popular mobile apps, documenting which of them provide consumers with a privacy policy describing their data collection and usage. FPF also released a guide to best practices for app developers.

With some 40,000 mHealth apps already available across various platforms, and the market set to skyrocket – pegged to grow 25 percent annually over the next five years, according to a study earlier this month from Kalorama – such practices will only grow in importance when it comes to protecting personal health information.

By providing a privacy policy, companies become legally accountable for their practices and provide consumers with an opportunity to make informed decisions about whether to download an app.

In an effort to provide application developers with the tools and resources needed to implement trustworthy data practices, including privacy policies, FPF and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) released a publication titled "Best Practices for Mobile Application Developers."

"Developers have access to tremendous amounts of very sensitive data about their customers," said Justin Brookman, CDT's director of consumer privacy. "We're offering these Best Practices guidelines to help well-meaning developers preserve user privacy without stifling the innovation and convenience offered by new platforms."

The report is generally-focused, but does touch on the special challenges faced by health-related apps and the data they traffic in – most importantly the importance of HIPAA compliance.

As part of its best practices guide, FPF and CDT list seven "Basic Steps Towards Building Privacy into your App":

Practice Privacy By Design. Be proactive. Ask important questions and embed privacy measures throughout the lifecycle of your product or service.Communicate Openly & Effectively. Have a comprehensive and transparent privacy policy covering all of your data collection, sharing, and use practices. Use clear and simple language.Make Your Privacy Policy Easily Accessible. Don’t make users search for your privacy policy – make it prominent and easy to find.Use Enhanced Notice. Don’t surprise users – have respect for context. Use enhanced notice in situations where users might not expect certain data to be collected.Provide Users with Choices & Controls. Empower users. Allow them to choose and control the way their data is collected and used.Secure Your Users’ Data! Always use appropriate and up-to-date security measures to protect user data.Ensure Accountability. Make sure someone is in charge! Designate a privacy guru, or make sure to explicitly assume the responsibility yourself.

"The first and most significant step toward respecting your users’ privacy is creating a privacy policy that explains what data you collect, how you use it and with whom you share it," according to the report. "Do not just cut and paste a privacy policy from another app or website. Start by understanding your app in your own terms, and then do your best to communicate the same to your users."

The study suggests developers should know the privacy rules and requirements for the various app platforms, whether Apple iOS, Android or Facebook. Also, they should "give users choice and control around the unexpected collection, storage or transfer of personal information where feasible. If you are collecting or using data outside the scope of what users would reasonably expect, you should at the very least make sure your users can opt-out of such uses of their data."

The FPF study shows that the percentage of free apps with a privacy policy doubled on the iOS App Store platform, from 40 percent to 84 percent; the percentage of paid apps with privacy policies on the same platform increased by 4 percent, from 60 percent to 64 percent.

On the Google Play platform, the percentage of free apps with a privacy policy started remarkably high at 70 percent, and increased to 76 percent.  The percentage of paid apps increased as well, from 30 percent to 48 percent.

The study reveals that almost all of the leading apps that collect precise location information do provide consumers with a privacy policy.

Other findings from FPF's new app privacy policy survey:

Overall, 61.3 percent of the 150 apps examined had a privacy policy when offered across three app store platforms: iOS App Store, Google Play and Kindle Fire Appstore.  The free apps analyzed were more likely to have a privacy policy than the paid apps.  69.3 percent of free apps and 53.3 percent of the paid apps had privacy policies.To determine whether consumers could review how an app would use their data before downloading the app, the study focused on whether an app provided access to privacy policy information in or from the app store. 22.7 percent of free apps and 20 percent of paid apps in Google Play and the iOS App Store have access to the privacy policy at the app store promotion page.Forty-eight percent of free apps and 32 percent of paid apps on all platforms have access to the privacy policy in the app itself or via a link from within the app. If apps don't provide access to a policy from the app, consumers are forced to search the Web to try to find the app's policy.Twelve out of the 50 apps surveyed on the iOS App Store platform requested precise location information and 10 of those 12 had privacy policies. 14 out of the 50 apps surveyed on the Google Play platform requested precise location information and 10 of the 14 had privacy policies.  

"Mobile apps are at the forefront of current consumer privacy concerns," write the authors of the best practices report. "High profile media attention and a series of class action lawsuits have prompted close scrutiny of app developer data practices from federal and state regulators. As a result, the U.S. the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)  is actively enforcing consumer privacy rights against application developers that surreptitiously access or misuse user data.

[See also: mHealth: Embraced by developing world, resisted by developed countries.]

The good news, said Jules Polonetsky, director and co-chair of the Future of Privacy Forum, "app developers are starting to get the message that access to consumer data is a privilege not a right."

Ensuring data collection and use practices are well-documented "is the first step to showing that you are a responsible company," he added. "Although providing a privacy policy is no silver bullet, the process of documenting data use and making oneself legally accountable is a critical first step to building consumer trust."

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Firefighters Prevail In Fight for Health Insurance

Courtesy of John Lauer/AP

Firefighter John Lauer, seen at the scene of a wildfire in Montana, led a campaign for health coverage of seasonal firefighters and their families.

It all started around a kitchen table in Custer, South Dakota. John Lauer, a 27-year-old seasonal firefighter for an elite U.S. Forest Service wildland fire team, sat down with some colleagues to write a petition.

Lauer is one of thousands of firefighters who spend their summers protecting homes, businesses and forests across the country. Lauer loves the work, but he hated seeing his talented and experienced colleagues leave because the job didn't offer health insurance.

"It's a very difficult thing to walk away from this line of work, because you simply can't afford it," he says. "You know, you can't have a family and do this. And, if you do, you're kinda rolling the dice and hoping nobody gets sick."

 

Lauer has seen two firefighters on his crew roll the dice and lose in recent years. Constance Van Kley is married to one of them. When she got pregnant five years ago, she skipped some of her prenatal care because she didn't want to rack up medical bills. But then their son was born seven weeks early. "By the time he got home, we were about $70,000 in debt," she says.

When another crew member got hit with huge bills related to his child's birth again this year, Lauer felt like he had to do something. He and some colleagues started a petition.

They posted it online and then went out to fight fires. Within a couple of months 125,000 people had signed it.

The response grabbed the attention of Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat from Denver. She drafted a bill that would give seasonal federal firefighters the same health insurance benefits full-timers at federal land management agencies receive. DeGette says it's pretty common for seasonal firefighters to put in a whole year's worth of work in a six-month fire season.

"Some of these firefighters have as many as 850 hours of overtime every fire season," she says. "And they have so many health risks, because they're out there on the front lines."

Just hours after the bill was introduced Tuesday, President Obama took action himself. He ordered federal agencies to start offering seasonal firefighters the same health benefits year-round federal employees get.

The president's move is "surreal," Lauer says.

"This has been an issue that's been out there so long and nothing's ever happened on it. I think a lot of folks just thought this is the way it's going to be forever. It's changing the game for them."

More than 10,000 seasonal firefighters are on the job this season. The president has not yet offered an estimate of how much it will cost to extend healthcare benefits to them.

This story is part of a partnership with NPR, Colorado Public Radio and Kaiser Health News.

Court Gives States Ammunition In Health Care Battle

Nothing breeds lawsuits like uncertainty. That being the case, the Supreme Court's landmark health care ruling is almost certain to open the door to lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority.

The court ruled the federal government can't force states to participate in a major expansion of Medicaid or else risk losing existing Medicaid funds from Washington. That threat amounted to unconstitutional coercion.

"In this case, the financial 'inducement' Congress has chosen is much more than 'relatively mild encouragement' � it is a gun to the head," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion.

Congress and federal agencies frequently put strings on the money they give to states. But the high court's health ruling didn't draw a clear line between the types of financial conditions that are OK and those that are unfair to states.

"The way Roberts wrote the opinion, it's a deliberate invitation to litigation," says Brian Galle, a law professor at Boston College.

Testing The Limits

This could become a very significant ruling if they're willing to be aggressive about elaborating on this.

It's possible that this ruling will have broad implications, because Congress uses the threat of financial penalties to get states to do all kinds of things, such as meeting clean air requirements and making elementary school children take annual standardized tests.

It's also possible that it won't mean much, because Medicaid is such an exceptionally large program. "This could be a sui generis situation," says Tim Conlan, a public policy professor at George Mason University. "No other federal-state program comes close to the size of Medicaid."

But Conlan says there appear to be a majority of justices willing to ask larger questions about the limits on congressional spending power than has been the case for decades.

"This could become a very significant ruling if they're willing to be aggressive about elaborating on this," he says.

The justices probably will get a chance to do so. States are likely to be emboldened to challenge other federal strictures. If courts find financial penalties that are much smaller than Medicaid to be unconstitutionally harmful to states, this could lead to a massive shift in relations between the states and the federal government � Congress would become much more limited in its ability to impose national standards over a vast amount of domestic policy.

New Ammunition For States

A spokeswoman for the National Association of Attorneys General says the group's members are still sorting out what the health care ruling means for other federal-state program. The offices of individual state attorneys general, including some who challenged the health care law, similarly say they haven't yet thought through all the implications.

We've had very little guidance about the point at which a condition becomes coercive. I'm not sure we really have any more guidance now.

State attorneys general and governors often challenge new rules out of Washington. Typically, they don't win. "I don't know that states have won anything since the New Deal," says Ray Scheppach, a former executive director of the National Governors Association.

But the Medicaid ruling gives them new impetus to try.

"States are not going to stand passively by and allow the federal government to pass detrimental legislation," says Susan Frederick, federal affairs counsel for the National Conference of State Legislatures. She added: "What we can take away from the Affordable Care Act litigation is that states are no longer afraid to challenge federal legislation."

Conlan agrees. "If there's ever been an open invitation for attorneys general to pursue cases, this was it," he notes. "The court did not do what it did in Bush v. Gore, which was to say there will never be another case with these characteristics, which they could have done easily."

Congress has been imposing requirements on states in exchange for money for at least a century, Conlan says. During the 19th century, Congress handed out land grant and college funds without any real provisos. Since then, however, Congress has used its spending authority to force states to change the way they do business in lots of areas, from highway administration to welfare policy.

"In a sense, Congress learned its lessons about just providing the funds and leaving it up to states' good judgment," Conlan says.

No Clear Guidance

But the Medicare decision upends that dynamic. If governors in states such as Louisiana, Florida and Texas make good on recent announcements that they won't participate in the Medicaid expansion, the federal government lacks leverage to do much about it.

"It is true that this is the first time that the court has invalidated an expansion based upon restraint on federal power," says James Blumstein, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who wrote an amicus brief in the Medicaid case that anticipated Roberts' ruling.

"But they've always said for years, decades, that this [limit] existed," Blumstein says. "If this [Medicaid rule] had not crossed the line, the line wouldn't have existed."

So where exactly is the line now? No one is certain.

In his health care opinion, Roberts cited a 1987 decision, South Dakota v. Dole, in which the court found that it wasn't "impermissively coercive," as the chief justice put it, to require states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 or lose 5 percent of their federal highway funds.

The sum at stake amounted to less than one-half of 1 percent of South Dakota's budget at the time � a lot less than the share of federal Medicaid money that makes up every state's budget, which is about 15 percent, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.

But because there's such a big gap between the amount of money the court has said is permissible and the amount it has ruled is unconstitutional, no one has a clear sense of how much leverage Congress can wield over the states.

"We've had very little guidance about the point at which a condition becomes coercive," says Richard Garnett, associate dean of Notre Dame Law School. "I'm not sure we really have any more guidance now."

Redefining The Lines

It's possible that the Medicaid ruling will remain an outlier. Medicaid is far and away the largest federal-state program, and it was an unusual move for Congress to put the entirety of existing Medicaid dollars at risk, as opposed to a small percentage of program funding.

Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s and 1980s suggested that justices were open to exploring limits on what Washington could force states to do, based on congressional spending power, but nothing much came of those cases. And the court said as far back as the 1930s that it didn't want to wade into the murky waters of defining what might constitute coercion because that would result in "endless difficulties."

On the other hand, nothing in the court's opinion suggested that it views Medicaid as unique because of its size.

Other federal rules also put lots of money at risk. The government places numerous strings on education dollars, for instance. Those may not make up a huge percentage of any state's spending, but federal grant money dominates the budgets of some school districts, which might be encouraged to sue when presented with strictures they don't like.

The Civil Rights Act, meanwhile, threatens to cut off all federal dollars from any entity that discriminates on the basis of race or gender.

It's also unclear whether the court's decision opens the door for states and localities to challenge existing rules, or only new ones.

"The Supreme Court knows that this decision is going to result in some federal rules being ruled unconstitutional by some judges and maybe even upheld by some circuit courts," says Galle, the Boston College law professor. "They know that."

Friday, July 13, 2012

RNs from Six States Rally for Single Payer Outside White House Healthcare Forum in Vermont

From Talking Points Memo–

The White House may have hoped for a carefully structured discussion with a predictable and prescribed outcome that would fit smoothly into its desired agenda, but during the second regional forum on healthcare reform, the White House heard once again that other options are not only available but are also strongly supported by many Americans.

Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire joined doctors, patients, faith and community-based leaders, healthcare reform activists and students to rally in support of single payer health reform outside the White House regional healthcare forum held in Burlington, VT, today.

As the invited speakers and guests entered the Davis Student Center of the University of Vermont, more than 400 people gathered on the lawn outside to call on President Obama and other national leaders to include single payer reform in the plans seriously considered as the options to rebuild the nation’s broken healthcare system.

The Maine State Nurses Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association and the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association all had RN leaders and members speaking to rally attendees and members of the press about what they see every day as they fight to advocate for patients struggling to get needed care while many either have no health coverage at all or are not adequately covered.

“We don’t need more insurance, we need healthcare for all,” said RN Tammy Farwell of Maine as protestors chanted, “Everybody in, nobody out,” over and over again to send a resounding message to the forum participants inside the building. Some of the nurses were able to go inside and listen to the forum as in began, but others were only able to sit in an overflow ballroom where the forum discussion was being shown on a large movie screen.

But outside the energy in support of a publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare system was punctuated with cheers and chants. Every time one of the speakers said, “healthcare is a basic human right,” the crowd erupted in support of the statement that also was made by then candidate Barack Obama during the fall Presidential debates.

Many of the protestors expressed their anger that President Obama has not given as much attention to the single payer plan, as crafted in HR676, “The National Health Care Act,” as they believe he has done with the hybrid plans that allow for-profit, private insurance plans to stay prominently in the picture.

Unless and until the Obama administration gives serious attention and consideration to single payer reform, many of the protestors said they expect similar or even larger actions as forums convene in Iowa, North Carolina and California. Many of the member groups of the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care had a presence at the rally, including Physicians for a National Health Program, Progressive Democrats of America, and HealthCare-Now.

From Talking Points Memo.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

AlliedHIE, ICA launch behavioral health HIE

HARRISBURG, PA – Looking to remedy organizational problems that hamper health information exchange, AlliedHIE and Nashville, Tenn.-based ICA have partnered to launch an HIE that officials say will target healthcare organizations' infrastructure and communications issues.

AlliedHIE develops health information exchange technology with a focus, company officials say, on connecting vulnerable and at-risk patients to better care. ICA was founded as a way to market technology developed by Vanderbilt University Medical Center to hospitals, IDNs, communities and states.

Together, the two will launch an exchange with a secure clinical messaging DIRECT/HISP pilot project and HIE infrastructure for Lafayette Hill, Pa.-based NHS Human Services, officials say.

“Our approach to HIE is very different than other vendors,” said Kelly Lewis, president and CEO of AlliedHIE. “Most companies take a top-down approach seeking to build a technology infrastructure that will enable either a full or partial HIE capability throughout an IDN, region or state."

Instead, said Lewis, AlliedHIE seeks to identify organizations' communications and exchange needs and deliver technologies targeted to solve them, rather than selling "generic HIE solutions to customers without first diagnosing problems." That approach, he said, can result in "rapid ramp up, fast ROI and cost savings that become apparent almost immediately upon implementation."

That strategy is borne out by two recent reports from the National eHealth Collaborative and IDC Health Insights, which find that too many HIEs have relied on the "build it and they will come" strategy, said Allied HIE officials. Both reports assert that HIEs must plan for sustainability from the very beginning, and that if an HIE is not sustainable after initial funding, then careful consideration should be given to the viability of launch.

“Our partnership with AlliedHIE represents an exciting departure for ICA,” said Gary Zegiestowsky, president and CEO of ICA. “Allied’s commercial HIE approach eliminates traditional sustainability concerns of the typical 501.C3 type HIE organization by addressing specific information exchange business needs. Their strategy fits well with our new volume solution deployment methodology that offers clients specific solutions for specific needs, while also enabling a complete, robust HIE infrastructure."

He added that ICA was specifically attracted to Allied’s interest in the behavioral health market, which he said has "been underserved, from an HIE perspective.”

AlliedHIE’s first pilot project is with NHS Human Services, which develops programs that provide care to children and adults dealing with addictive diseases, autism, intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental health issues, elder care, traumatic brain injury, and foster care. NHS is a multi-state organization with a significant presence in the state of Pennsylvania.

Based in Pennsylvania, AlliedHIE is actively working with the Pennsylvania eHealth Collaborative in order to provide DIRECT and HISP (Health Information Service Provider) services across Pennsylvania's 67 counties.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Health-care fight hits city streets

It had been a busy morning for Indiana health-care activists. Several folks associated with Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Care Plan had purchased WellPoint stock in order to gain the forum of the annual stockholders meeting, where they told the Indiana-based company leadership that for-profit health insurance companies are the biggest barrier to desperately needed reform.

Then, about 150 people carrying signs supporting H.R. 676, the bill that would expand Medicare to cover all, held a rally on the north steps of Monument Circle.

The rally closed with the group, many of whom were wearing t-shirts quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane”), noisily marching past WellPoint’s headquarters to the Indianapolis offices of Sen. Evan Bayh.

It had recently been reported that Bayh’s wife Susan received $327,000 in compensation in 2008 for her role as a director of WellPoint. “Senator Bayh says he’s agnostic about health-care reform,” rally coordinator Julia Vaughn told the crowd, quoting the senator’s recent vapid statement to Fox News. “Let’s help him get religion, folks!”

One of the Hoosiers chanting “People, Not Profits” on the sidewalk in front of Bayh’s office was 90-year-old Harold Taylor, an Episcopal priest from Bloomington. A young man approached Taylor, bent down slightly to the level of Taylor’s wheelchair, and asked him to sign a petition supporting health-care reform. As Taylor accepted the pen, one of his companions said, “Hey, wait a minute. That petition is not for single payer; it is for Obama’s plan.”

Taylor’s eyes flashed anger and he shoved the clipboard back at the young man, petition unsigned. “I am a supporter of Obama’s, but I am ashamed of that, and you should be, too,” he said.

The exchange was revealing. On the most pressing domestic issue of our time, the candidate who promised change has become a president who has not yet strayed far from the status quo.

At the rally, Bloomington emergency room physician Rob Stone had cited Obama’s historic November victory as proof of the power of grassroots activism. “But on health-care reform,” Stone told the crowd, “we can’t sit back and say, ‘President Obama is a good guy, and he will take care of it.’ We are going to have to find our voice and speak up.”

The good Dr. Stone has the right prescription. With health insurance premiums doubling in the past nine years, Americans now spend more on health care than we do on housing or food — in large part because of the cut taken by middlemen like WellPoint.

We all know dozens of people who feel the pain. Hoosier families declare bankruptcy due to medical bills their insurance won’t cover, small business owners struggle to afford health care for themselves, much less their employees, and our neighbors with disabilities suffer without needed medicine and care.

When those folks start joining the crowds at WellPoint’s and Sen. Bayh’s doorsteps, they will bring real change with them.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

FDA Gets Advice To Approve First Pill To Cut HIV Infections

Paul Sakuma/AP

Gilead Sciences' Truvada is a step closer to being approved as a way to prevent HIV infection.

In what could mark a watershed in the fight against HIV/AIDS, a panel of experts recommended that the Food and Drug Administration give a green light to a pill that can cut the risk of infections.

The daily pill, Truvada, made by Gilead Sciences, combines two medicines that inhibit the reproduction of HIV. It's already approved as a treatment for HIV, but its use could soon expand to include protection of uninfected people.

The advisory panel concluded Thursday that the benefits to healthy people vulnerable to HIV infection outweigh the risks, including such side effects as kidney damage and a dangerous increase in acid in the blood.

 

The people the panel has in mind are gay and bisexual men and heterosexual couples in which one partner is positive for HIV.

About 50,000 people in the U.S. become infected with HIV each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The majority of new infections are in gay or bisexual men.

There's no guarantee the FDA will heed the panel's advice, but the agency typically does so. A decision is expected by June 15.

Studies have shown that Truvada can reduce the risk of HIV infection by 63 percent or more over the course of a year. But the drug is expensive � about $11,000 a year in the U.S.

Some critics think money would be better spent on other means of prevention.

Now, it's already the case that doctors in the U.S. are free to prescribe an approved medicine for any use they see fit. And some do.

But even after data first showed Truvada's ability to protect against HIV infection, a doctor at a Boston clinic told Bloomberg News that people weren't beating the door to get it.

One worry, some doctors say, is that healthy people may not stick with the daily Truvada regimen, undercutting its effectiveness.

Giving Single-Payer a Second Look

As President Obama prepares to address the nation about his vision for health care reform, we should not overlook the last, best truly transformative change to our health care system: Medicare. We have been staring so intently at the lessons of 1993 that we may have forgotten the universal rule of successful lawmaking: “keep it simple.”

During the eleven town hall meetings I’ve held around my district, I’ve had some direct experience with the anxiety this debate has produced. Much of the fear comes from two groups: those who have Medicare and don’t want it changed and those who have never had a government-run reimbursement system like Medicare and are worried about the impact it will have on their quality of care.

In both cases, a calm, reasoned and vigorous defense of the American single-payer plan is just what the doctor ordered.

The truth is that the United States already uses single-payer systems to cover over 47% of all medical bills through Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Understanding that these single-payer health programs are already a major part of our overall health care system should help us visualize what an actual public plan would look like. These institutions also provide health care to millions of satisfied customers in every community who would heartily agree that the government can build and run programs that work quite well.

Medicare also provides us with a case study in the hypocrisy of our Republican friends who have built their party on a 44-year record of undermining this popular program. And now their Chairman sees no irony in ripping “government run” healthcare while publishing an op-ed opposing changes to Medicare.

If Medicare has been such a success, why not extend it? Why not have single-payer plans for 55 year olds? Why not have one for young citizens who just left their parents or college coverage?

So far, the answers we hear to these questions have simply not been very convincing.

At one town meeting the President responded that that he was worried about its “destructiveness.”

Really? Americans would still go to the same doctor and the same neighborhood hospital. Sure, they would be able to delete the 1-800 number of their insurance company from their cell phones. And doctors would have to get rid of all those file cabinets full of paperwork while their assistants who spend time fighting with insurance companies would be able to actually speak to patients.

But everyone would adjust, I’m sure.

The real reason we haven’t seen the Democratic Party embrace the obvious and simpler idea is that it boils down to pure beltway politics.

We’ve been reluctant to tackle the real inefficiency in the current system, namely, the very presence of the private insurance companies. Too many in Washington would rather stay friends with the insurance and drug companies when real reform probably can’t be achieved in a way that makes these powerful institutions happy.

That’s not to say we should vilify the industry. When they pocket up to 30% in profits and overhead (compared to 4% for Medicare) or when their executives take multimillion dollar salaries, insurance companies are doing what their shareholders want them to do.

But let’s leave it to the Republicans to defend those actions. I, and most Democrats, should not join the chorus that sounds like we care more about insurance companies than taxpayers.

The same is true for Big Pharma. If Wal-Mart can pool its customers to be able to offer the $4 prescriptions, why shouldn’t the federal government drive the same hard bargain on behalf of the tax payers so they too get the best prices under Medicare? I pose this exact question at every town hall meeting I attend and if my colleagues and the President did the same on Wednesday night, they would mix good policy with good politics. Instead we have watched a puzzling dance as policymakers have effectively limited the savings we would find in the enormous drug expenditures that are a fixture in our current system. Is it any wonder citizens are confused?

I have no delusions about the muscle needed to overcome resistance from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. But I believe that for every American we may lose to a slash-and-burn TV ad funded by these businesses, we will gain five among those who are looking for a clear rationale for what we are trying to accomplish and an example for what it may look like.

We also achieve something else: realignment of the political universe. Democrats understand the role of government and are proud of our signature achievement: Medicare. The Republicans care most about big business.

I’ll take that fight any day. And I’m hoping that the President will tell us on Wednesday that he is willing to do the same.

Anthony D. Weiner is a Democrat representing New York’s 9th Congressional District.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Mobile telehealth solution helps UK patients monitor chronic illness

In July 2011, NHS Bristol awarded a £1.4 million contract to Safe Patient Systems to provide telehealth monitoring to patients with chronic conditions. The contract has since enabled patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart disease to benefit from daily remote clinical monitoring using mobile phones, officials say.

The Safe Mobile Care system uses mobile phones programmed with personalized care plans created from the system’s Web-base application software. Patients receive daily prompts to complete clinically validated questionnaires and capture relevant vital signs using wirelessly connected monitoring devices.

Responses are automatically sent to Safe Mobile Care Triage Management software. If a response indicates that a patient’s condition may be worsening, an alert is generated automatically and sent to a nurse or doctor. They then advise the patient on the next course of action.

Safe Mobile requires no broadband installation or complex technical support, officials say. A nurse or clinician can also install the system’s devices and guide the patient through any of the processes in using the system.

“This technology will play a key part in delivering the self-care agenda in Bristol, supporting patients to understand the link between symptoms and related treatments and behaviors," said Sian Jones, program manager, long-term conditions at NHS Bristol. "Having started with COPD and congestive heart failure patients, there is an interest in rolling this out to include other long term conditions, to maximize the benefits for people in Bristol."

Why Obama’s Public Option Is Defective, and Why We Need Single-Payer

Once Congress finishes mandating that we all buy private health insurance, it can move on to requiring Americans to purchase other defective products.

A Ford Pinto in every garage?

Lead-painted toys for every child?

Melamine-laced chow for every puppy?

Private health insurance doesn�t work.

Even middle-class families with supposedly good coverage are just one serious illness away from financial ruin.

Illness and medical bills contribute to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies � a 50 percent increase since 2001. And three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had insurance, at least when they first got sick.

Coverage that families bought in good faith failed to protect them. Some were bankrupted by co-payments, deductibles, and loopholes. Others got too sick to work, leaving them unemployed and uninsured.

Now Congress plans to make it a federal offence not to purchase such faulty insurance.

On top of that, it�s threatening to tax workers� health benefits to meet the costs of simultaneously covering the poor and keeping private insurers in business.

President Obama’s plan would finance reform by draining funds from hospitals that serve the neediest patients. His other funding plans aren�t harmful, just illusory. He�s gotten unenforceable pledges from hospitals, insurers and the American Medical Association to rein in costs, a replay of promises they made (and broke) to Presidents Nixon and Carter. And Obama trumpets savings from computerized medical records and better care management, savings the Congressional Budget Office has dismissed as wishful thinking.

The president�s health plan can�t make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable.

Only single-payer health reform � Medicare for All � can achieve that goal.

Single-payer national health care could realize about $400 billion in savings annually � enough to cover the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for all Americans. But the vast majority of these savings aren�t available unless we go all the way to single payer.

A public plan option might cut into private insurers� profits. That�s why they hate it. But their profits � roughly $10 billion annually � are dwarfed by the money they waste in search of profit. They spend vast sums for marketing (to attract the healthy); demarketing (to avoid the sick); billing their ever-shifting roster of enrollees; fighting with providers over bills; and lobbying politicians. And doctors and hospitals spend billions more meeting insurers� demands for documentation.

A single-payer plan would eliminate most insurance overhead, as well as these other paperwork expenses. Hospitals could be paid like a fire department, receiving a single monthly check for their entire budget. Physicians� billing could be similarly simplified.

With a public insurance option, by contrast, hospitals and doctors would still need elaborate billing and cost-tracking systems. And overhead for even the most efficient competitive public option would be far higher than for traditional Medicare, which is efficient precisely because it doesn�t compete. It automatically enrolls seniors at 65 and deducts their premiums through the social security system, contracts with any willing provider, and does no marketing.

Health insurers compete by NOT paying for care: by seeking out the healthy and avoiding the sick; by denying payment and shifting costs onto patients; and by lobbying for unfair public subsidies (as under the Medicare HMO program). A kinder, gentler public plan that failed to emulate these behaviors would soon be saddled with the sickest, costliest patients and the highest payouts, driving premiums to uncompetitive levels. To compete successfully, a public plan would have to copy private plans.

Decades of experience teach that private insurers cannot control costs or provide families with the coverage they need. And a government-run clone of private insurers cannot fix these flaws.

Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein are associate professors at Harvard Medical School. They co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and education organization of 16,000 physicians, medical students, and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance. For more about the group, go to www.pnhp.org.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Massachusetts hospital to pay $750,000 to settle data breach case

WEYMOUTH, MA – South Shore Hospital has agreed to pay $750,000 to resolve allegations that it failed to protect the personal and confidential health information of more than 800,000 patients, The settlement is the result of a data breach reported to the Attorney General’s Office in July 2010.

Attorney General Martha Coakley announced the settlement May 24.

[See also: Mass. hospital investigating the potential loss of back-up data for 800,000 individuals]

The alleged breach included individual’s names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses.

“Hospitals and other entities that handle personal and protected health information have an obligation to properly protect this sensitive data, whether it is in paper or electronic form,” Coakley said in announcing the settlement. “It is their responsibility to understand and comply with the laws of our Commonwealth and to take the necessary actions to ensure that all affected consumers are aware of a data breach.”

The consent judgment approved in Suffolk Superior Court includes a $250,000 civil penalty and a payment of $225,000 for an education fund to be used by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to promote education concerning the protection of personal information and protected health information. In addition to these payments, the consent judgment credits South Shore Hospital for $275,000 to reflect security measures it has taken subsequent to the breach.

[See also: Expert weighs in on data loss at South Shore Hospital]

The lawsuit was filed under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

According to the AG’s findings, in February 2010, South Shore Hospital shipped three boxes containing 473 unencrypted back-up computer tapes, which contained 800,000 individuals' personal information and protected health information, off-site to be erased. The hospital contracted with Archive Data Solutions to erase the backup tapes and resell them.

The hospital did not inform Archive Data, however, that personal information and protected health information was on the backup computer tapes, nor did South Shore Hospital determine whether Archive Data had sufficient safeguards in place to protect this sensitive information. Multiple companies handled the shipping of the boxes containing the tapes.

In June 2010 South Shore Hospital learned that only one of the boxes arrived at its destination in Texas. The missing boxes have not been recovered although there have been no reports of unauthorized use of the personal information or protected health information of affected individuals to date.

The allegations against South Shore Hospital in the lawsuit are based on both federal and state law violations, including failing to implement appropriate safeguards, policies, and procedures to protect consumers’ information, failing to have a Business Associate Agreement in place with Archive Data, and failing to properly train its workforce with respect to health data privacy.

According to the consent judgment, South Shore Hospital has also agreed to take steps in order to ensure compliance with state and federal data security laws and regulations, including requirements regarding its contracts with business associates and third-party service providers engaged for data destruction purposes. The hospital also agreed to undergo a review and audit of certain security measures and to report the results and any corrective actions to the Attorney General.

South Shore, a 318-bed hospital, serves southeastern Massachusetts. The Boston Globe has reported thtat Boston-based Partners HealthCare System has been in talks to acquire the hospital.

[See also: South Shore deems missing files unrecoverable, but with little risk of misuse]

Monday, July 2, 2012

Passing on Single-Payer Health Care

The following article was printed in the October/November issue of Dollars and Sense magazine.

Passing On Single-Payer Health Care
Union leadership is out of touch with the rank and file�and the public�on health care.

By Jeffrey Muckensturm

A coalition of major labor unions and liberal organizations has recently created what it calls �a national grassroots campaign organizing millions of Americans to win a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all.�

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a project of three major unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), along with MoveOn and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Elizabeth Edwards is a spokesperson for the new coalition.

With its $40 million budget, HCAN could put a lot of muscle into the fight for a universal, single-payer system that would make the government the sole insurer (the �single payer� to doctors and hospitals). Unfortunately, instead HCAN favors a mixed public/private system that would allow Americans to �keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.�

While HCAN�s �health care for all� slogan will resonate with labor and the left, the group�s actual proposal has met with a skeptical response from, among others, the California Nurses Association and Physicians for a National Health Program. Both fault HCAN for failing to support the United States National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676), aka �Medicare for All,� introduced in February by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). The bill now has over 91 co-sponsors.

So why doesn�t HCAN support single-payer? According to Richard Kirsch, HCAN�s national campaign director, �One point of this approach [giving people the choice of private insurance or Medicare] was not to scare people away from reform or to make it easier for the opponents of reform to panic the public.� HCAN apparently thinks single-payer is not popular enough among labor, elected officials, or the public to be politically feasible�but they�re wrong.

H.R. 676 has significant labor support. To date, over 445 labor organizations, including 36 state AFL-CIO chapters, 110 Central Labor Councils, the United Steel Workers, the United Auto Workers, and at least 14 AFSCME and SEIU locals have passed resolutions supporting the bill. Interestingly, both SEIU and AFSCME have passed resolutions supporting H.R. 676 at national conventions, showing that there is strong rank-and-file support for single-payer.

Why? Because H.R. 676 takes health benefits off the bargaining table, allowing labor to focus on other key issues. A position paper from the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council explains: �H.R. 676 can create a real opportunity for white- and blue-collar workers. When negotiating a contract the final two issues always are wages and medical benefits. The benefits will always affect wages, and the employer will cry that their health insurance costs limit their ability to give raises.� With health care a non-issue, unions can concentrate on wages, safety, and organizing more workplaces.

And given the budget crisis states and municipalities across the country are facing, the support of AFSCME�s leadership for HCAN rather than single-payer is particularly questionable. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 30 states face deficits totaling a projected $40 billion this year. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing over 1,000 cities with populations over 30,000, unanimously adopted a resolution supporting H.R. 676, which, in their view, will save municipalities millions. According to Healthcare-NOW!, a national organization founded five years ago (not to be confused with HCAN), even a small city could save millions of dollars.

HCAN seems to be out of touch with the American public as well. People aren�t scared of a national health program�quite the opposite. USA Today reported the results of a December 2007 Associated Press/Yahoo! poll: �Sixty-five percent of those polled said the United States should adopt universal health insurance that covers everyone under a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.�

While mixed public/private plans like Massachusetts� are beset by problems and have left many uninsured and over-charged, single-payer has become increasingly popular. With HCAN�s full support, H.R. 676 could be even closer to becoming reality. It�s our only hope if we truly want quality �health care for all.�

Jeffrey Muckensturm is a freelance writer and activist living in Philadelphia. �He can be reached through www.CityInvincible.org.

Resources: Health Care for America Now, www.healthcareforamericanow.org; Jim Kuhnhenn and Trevor Tompson, �Poll: Economy, Health Care Top Issues,� USA Today, December 28, 2007; Richard Kirsch, �Why Not Single-Payer?,� the Now! Blog, blog.healthcareforamericanow.org, July 15, 2008; New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, �For HR 676 One Plan, One Nation Campaign And Regarding Health Care for America Now The Trojan Horse,� www.healthcare-now.org.

ONC takes on mobile device security

WASHINGTON – The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) will help small providers who use smart phones and other mobile devices learn how to easily secure them using simple steps explained in plain language.

Research shows that about 81 percent of physicians use smart phones or tablet devices. The small size of these devices make them easy to lose on subways and airplanes or stolen. Yet very few safeguard them, such as using encryption, making it easy for unauthorized users to access information.

[See also: ONC puts spotlight on mobile security]

ONC has conducted research on mobile endpoint security, where they take devices out of the box from the local electronics stores and apply manual configuration for better controls to support security, said Will Phelps, an IT security specialist in ONC’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer.

“You have to make sure that the devices are able to apply the appropriate security controls to make sure that the patient records are protected. We want to reach out to the provider community to make sure that they are able to do these things,” he said at the June 11 Government Health IT conference sponsored by HIMSS.

ONC studies of out-of-the-box security configuration found that most mobile phones did not meet more than 40 percent of security requirements, such as the ability to encrypt information, he said.

[See also: ONC puts spotlight on mobile security]

After manual configuration, test results improved significantly, especially for the iPhone and Blackberry models, which met 60 percent of the security requirements. Other phones did not fare as well after manual configuration.

Initially, ONC will focus on small and medium-sized providers. “They may not have an IT staff or third-party vendor to manage their devices for them. So we want to get them to a point where their devices are operating as securely as possible,” Phelps said, adding that the security configurations are available on the devices right out of the box but must be manually configured.

ONC will describe scenarios or use cases around which to offer practical information for mobile device security, said Kathryn Marchesini, an attorney in ONC’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer. 

These will include remote use from a coffee shop, sending email, or what to do if providers bring their own devices, which may not necessarily be credentialed in the organization, and whether they should be allowed to connect to the system’s network or not.

Some providers may not realize they need a policy around the use of mobile devices, or that they need to take an inventory of mobile devices. “It may seem basic, but we hear every day that practicing providers are struggling with these issues,” she said.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides security guidance around remote use. The proposed rule for meaningful use stage 2 also calls for encryption of data at rest.

In its next phase, ONC will test third-party vendor security tools applied to devices to see how well they score on information protection. Overall, ONC plans to design outreach for vendors, providers and patients for security awareness around mobile devices and training to follow.

ONC is also incorporating in its mobile security outreach the regional health IT extension centers, which offer technical assistance in providers’ offices “to make sure we identify real scenarios and practical solutions,” Marchesini said.

ONC plans to develop best practices for securing mobile devices to be available online in the fall.

[See also: Mobile health app market in growth mode]

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Survey aims to 'amplify the conversation' on aging

There's no cure for growing old, but your attitude about what's important and how you feel about aging can depend in part on how old you are, a new survey finds.

The survey of 1,017 people over 18 finds, for instance, that 24% admit they have lied about their age. But of those 50-64, it's just 21%, and for those over 65, it's 18%.

The survey, out today, was commissioned by the drug company Pfizer in conjunction with about a dozen health advocacy organizations to help encourage dialogue about aging in America. In addition to the survey, the group plans to launch a website, GetOld.com, which invites users to share perspectives on aging.

Asked how they feel about getting old, the top choice was "optimistic" (39%). But not far behind was "uneasy" (36%). About 42% of those 50 to 64 are optimistic, the highest percentage of any age group.

Experts say findings are not surprising. Many adults spend more years in good health, says Nancy Perry Graham, editor in chief of AARP The Magazine.

People also enjoy more freedom as they age and stop having to prove themselves at work or in relationships, Graham says.

The survey also aimed to shed light on people's fears. Only 7% over 65 said their biggest fear was dying; 64% said they were most afraid of losing independence or living in pain.

More than half (51%) of those 18 to 65 would accept having a parent live with them, but just 25% over 65 would want to live with a younger relative if unable to care for themselves.

Freda Lewis-Hall, Pfizer's chief medical officer, says the company and partners did the survey to "shake things up."

"We think a good way to do that is to start by listening and then amplifying the conversation and learning how Americans are really tackling aging � and that's Americans of all ages."

The findings suggest that adults' priorities shift as they age: presented with a list of lifetime achievements, 45% of 18- to 34-year-olds most aspire to have $1 million, but 48% of those over 65 say they would rather see their grandchild graduate.

Linda Fried of the International Longevity Center at Columbia University says it's crucial that people deal with the realities of aging, not just the downsides. "We have such a human aversion to getting old; it's associated with death, and death is scary. But as a society, we have not had the conversations we need to have. There's huge opportunities there."

64%

over age 65 say their biggest fear is losing independence or living in pain