Is Medicare’s System for Challenging Coverage Determinations Unintentionally Unfair?

On March 25, Susan Jaffe published a blog post in the New York Times about Medicare’s recent change to cover skilled therapy (e.g. physical therapy, nursing care) where it is “reasonable and necessary” maintain a patient’s condition and to prevent deterioration, even when it is not likely that the patient will improve. Jaffe notes that the revisions will likely have a substantial impact on thousands of Medicare beneficiaries even though the change has been largely unnoticed.

The revision highlights a potential problem with the system in place for challenging Medicare coverage. The revision itself is unremarkable, reflecting what national Medicare policies professed, but what local contractors sometimes ignored. What is remarkable is the time it took for Medicare to make the revision, from when the controversy appeared to when Medicare posted the change in its manuals. This delay is problematic because it reflects a dichotomy in how coverage decisions are challenged and changed under Medicare – due not to medical necessity but to political and financial circumstances beyond patient control.

Constituents can change Medicare coverage policies through two processes. One is through the litigation system. Judges can overturn Medicare coverage decisions after patients have exhausted Medicare’s internal adjudication process. Yet, litigation can take years and judges usually defer to Medicare’s judgment. National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) provide an alternative under which constituents can encourage Medicare to reconsider or overturn a prior coverage decision. NCDs supersede Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) – coverage decisions that affect a region of the United States. When Medicare determines that the LCDs for a specific technology or service are “inconsistent or conflict with each other to the detriment of Medicare beneficiaries,” Medicare can decide to issue an NCD to provide uniform coverage.

Continue reading

News from OMHA Appellants Forum: Statistical Sampling Coming, Backlog Growing

Yesterday the HHS Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) held a forum for appellants affected by its decision, which I blogged about last month, to hold off on assigning incoming appeals to ALJs while they work to clear a large backlog.  I was able to go, and enjoyed every minute.  This issue has received its share of attention in the news (Washington Post here, National Review online here), as well as controversy (see here and here), but I have not yet seen an article discussing some of the policy developments that came out of yesterday’s forum.  So I am going to play journalist for a minute, rather than academic, and share yesterday’s developments.  There were a lot of them: Continue reading

Treating Addiction in Pregnant Women and New Mothers: A Promising Application for Social Impact Financing?

By Kate Greenwood

Cross-Posted at Health Reform Watch 

Last week, vtdigger.org ran an interesting article by Laura Krantz on the difficulties pregnant women and new mothers who are addicted to drugs have accessing not just drug treatment but also all of the other services and supports they need. Krantz reported on a hearing before the Human Services Committee of the Vermont House of Representatives at which a new mother in recovery from addiction, “a neonatalogist, a substance abuse clinician, a Health Department employee and a representative from the Phoenix House, a residential treatment facility in Brattleboro … all said women need not only treatment, but housing, transportation and help finding jobs.”

Alice Larned, a substance abuse clinician at the Lund Family Center in Burlington, told Krantz that spaces in residential detoxification facilities are increasingly scarce. The demand for transitional housing for women who have completed inpatient detoxification also exceeds the supply. Add to this the sad fact that women can wait a year or more for an appointment with a physician who can treat them with methadone or buprenorphine. Larned told Krantz that many of the women who start treatment with her are taking buprenorphine they bought illegally, an “indication they want help ‘yet we don’t have the legitimate means for them to get this medication[.]’”

In another story that ran last week on NPR, Steve Zind spoke with Harry Chen, the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Health, who emphasized the complexities inherent in treating addiction in pregnant women and new mothers. To do so successfully, Commissioner Chen explained, “requires so many different systems working together well: the social service system, the health care system, the substance abuse system and even to some extent the correctional system.”

I confess that one reason that these two articles caught my attention is that Alice Larned is my sister.  Another reason, though, is that the problem described in the articles seems like a promising application for social impact financing, something that has been in the news here in New Jersey in recent weeks.

Continue reading

TOMORROW: Second Annual Health Law Year in P/Review

Please join us for our second annual Health Law Year in P/Review event, co-sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference will be held in Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East C at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 31, 2014, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.

This year we will welcome experts discussing major developments over the past year and what to watch out for in areas including the Affordable Care Act, medical malpractice, FDA regulatory policy, abortion, contraception, intellectual property in the life sciences industry, public health policy, and human subjects research.

The full agenda is available on our website. Speakers are:  Continue reading

1/31: Second Annual Health Law Year in P/Review

Please join us for our second annual Health Law Year in P/Review event, co-sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference will be held in Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East C at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 31, 2014, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.

This year we will welcome experts discussing major developments over the past year and what to watch out for in areas including the Affordable Care Act, medical malpractice, FDA regulatory policy, abortion, contraception, intellectual property in the life sciences industry, public health policy, and human subjects research.

The full agenda is available on our website. Speakers are:  Continue reading

Medicare Stops Hearing Provider Appeals in Hopes of Clearing Backlog

When Medicare refuses to cover a treatment (such as inpatient hospitalization) or device (like diabetes testing supplies), the statute gives the disappointed beneficiary the right to appeal.  Furthermore, there are mechanisms by which the provider–which may be a hospital, doctor, durable medical equipment manufacturer, etc.–that recommended the treatment (and often stands to profit if it is covered) can appeal on the beneficiary’s behalf (or on their own if the claim is assigned).

The statute sets deadlines for decisions on appeal, but in recent years a flood of new cases has led to a growing backlog and long delays.  (The backlog is caused in large part by the Recovery Audit Contractor program, through which Medicare has been revisiting and revising coverage determinations from the past several years.   That is a subject for another day.)

On Christmas Eve, the office in the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for hearing appeals (that is, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals), adopted a controversial mitigation measure: They’ve stopped hearing new appeals, while they work to clear the backlog.  Which will take at least two years.  (See recent coverage here.)

Yes, the law says that Medicare must hear appeals, so yes, this temporary measure is technically inconsistent with the law (which is not to say it is illegal, more below on that).  But in my view it is actually a good idea, and consistent with what I think is the best ultimate solution to the “backlog” problem.  Here’s why:

Continue reading

Managing All Care

By Nathaniel Counts

Health insurers are beginning to realize the importance of downstream cost-saving.  By paying to keep people healthy now, health insurers avoid major expenditures later when they must cover chronic conditions and hospitalizations.  For example, by paying for nutrition counseling and fitness programs for prediabetics, health insurers can reduce the rate of transition to diabetes for their clients, which both saves the insurer thousands of dollars and keeps their clients happier and healthier.   This type of innovation is possible because the law requires certain expenditures, i.e. doctors must treat individuals at the emergency room, and these expenditures tend to be quite large if incurred.

Social services in general could enjoy this type of innovation if funding were pooled between government services, and healthcare, housing, food, and direct welfare were all managed together.  Currently, each is conceived as a separate welfare program, so one can only recognize reduction within a program, not how the programs interact.  For example, it may be that the expansion of SNAP benefits would decrease emergency room visits and end up being cost-saving overall.  It may also be that certain types of subsidized housing reduce the need for other services and are more cost-saving than others, but this is hard to recognize when each program is segregated.  One could imagine that subsidized housing built in areas with better access to quality food and jobs would be more expensive upfront, but could save in money overall by reducing the need for other benefits.  Because social services currently have a system of mandatory spending in the form of entitlements, there is an incentive to ensure that individuals transition away from use of the more expensive services.

Continue reading

1/31: Second Annual Health Law Year in P/Review conference

Please join us for our second annual Health Law Year in P/Review event, co-sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference will be held in Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East C at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 31, 2014, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.

This year we will welcome experts discussing major developments over the past year and what to watch out for in areas including the Affordable Care Act, medical malpractice, FDA regulatory policy, abortion, contraception, intellectual property in the life sciences industry, public health policy, and human subjects research.

The full agenda is available on our website. Speakers are:  Continue reading

Petrie-Flom Intern’s Weekly Round-Up: 12/1-12/8

By Chloe Reichel

1) Following orders from FDA, 23andMe will no longer market genetic tests using health analyses. The company will, however, continue to sell genetic tests related to ancestry.

2) Families with children who have seizure disorders are flocking to Colorado. There, these children can legally receive medications containing extracts from marijuana, which are believed to reduce the occurrence of seizures.

3) A bill is being debated in the New York City Council that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public spaces. Supporters of the ban say that electronic cigarettes pose a public health risk, while opponents say that they are harmless.

4) Chemotherapy will not be forced on an Amish girl with lymphoblastic lymphoma. The family decided to stop treatment because of the side effects, and the court-appointed guardian of the girl has decided to drop the case against her parents because they are not locatable.

5) Error rates for those who filled out enrollment forms on the Healthcare.gov online insurance marketplace were at 25 percent for October, although representatives say that these error rates have since declined.

6) Legislators who are opposed to the Affordable Care Act are planning to utilize funds allocated by the federal government for Medicaid expansion to instead purchase private health insurance plans for people who are of low socioeconomic status. This Friday, Tom Corbett, governor of Pennsylvania announced this plan, and Arkansas legislators have already enacted an analogous plan.

Great piece on ER pricing

The New York Times has posted another installment of its excellent series, “Paying Till it Hurts,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, this time on the astonishingly high costs of emergency room visits.  The piece is worth a read in full for its infuriating detail—really, I think the whole series is—but the message is pretty clear.  I’d also be remiss in not noting that the basic message, with its own set of excruciating details, was laid out in Steven Brill’s piece in Time magazine back in March.  But it’s such a big issue that it deserves this kind of attention.

The basic point is that the costs charged by hospitals are incredibly high, highly variable, and invariably opaque.  Hospitals price procedures, products, and everything else based on the typically secret (but not in California!) “chargemaster,” which lists sticker prices for everything.  Hospital executives speaking about the chargemaster say no one pays sticker price.  That may be true, but the discounts from sticker are almost totally opaque, which hampers the market’s cost-checking role (the Times piece describes Sutter Health contracts as having “gag clauses” so that insurers who negotiate with Sutter can’t tell the employers who are paying for the insurance what rates have been negotiated).  In addition, lots of locales are dominated by one or two hospital systems, which consolidate then raise prices without worrying much about competition.  Finally, most people aren’t comparison shopping for an ER visit anyway – even if they could.

The effect of opacity and consolidation looks to be pretty regressive—even if no one plays the sticker price, the people paying closest to it are those without insurance, who have no prenegotiated discounts and no one to argue on their behalf.  Cal. Pacific’s CEO, Dr. Warren Browner, argues for opacity for pseudo-progressive goal of fleecing rich foreigners (“You don’t really want to change your charges if you have a Saudi sheikh come in with a suitcase full of cash who’s going to pay full charges.”), but that seems a lot rarer than near-poor coming in to ERs uninsured and getting billed full fare (especially if, a la a certain recent presidential candidate, ERs are our health care system for the uninsured).

As in the rest of the US health care system, higher costs appear to be totally divorced from quality of care or outcomes (national variation here (pdf), international comparison here).

It’s hard to see what effect PPACA/ACA/Obamacare might have on this problem.  The Independent Payment Advisory Board has lots of power (or will once it has members), but is still Medicare-focused.  Cost-savings in Medicaid or Medicare payments might spill over into the private insurance market, but if the opacity and market power mechanisms remain, it’s not obvious to me how and why that would really happen.  Medicare is already paying by care episode much more than private insurers, who are still usually fee-for-service.  More competition and transparency might help (More vigorous antitrust enforcement?  Required disclosure of billed/paid costs? (maybe, but maybe not)).  Maybe the fact that more people will be insured will make a difference; if the biggest burden is borne by the uninsured, who have little leverage, lowering that numbermight lower the burden.  But it could also just make it even more unfair for those who remain outside the system.

[UPDATE 12/5/13: I missed Section 9007 of the act, which requires charitable hospitals to publish their chargemasters and prohibits charging chargemaster rates to individuals who qualify for financial assistance (instead, they'd be charged insurer-negotiated rates).  Unfortunately, the implementing regulations haven't been promulgated by HHS or Treasury, so these provisions aren't yet applicable.  But eventually they may help, once they're implemented.  Steven Brill has a piece on this here, and Sarah Alder here.]

In any case, the Times piece is worth a read.  And so are the previous four entries (on colonoscopies, pregnancy, joint replacement (with a nice discussion of medical tourism), and prescription drugs).

A Little Choice About PPACA Risk Corridors That Could Have Big Consequences

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has made even the most technical questions of healthcare coverage regulation newsworthy. Policy questions that would be noticed only by experts and interested parties in the regulation of Medicare or Medicaid, even with billions of dollars in taxpayer or beneficiary money at stake (think DSH and the transition to MS-DRGs), are front-page news when they have a connection to the PPACA.  The best example may be the recent attention to the PPACA’s risk corridors, which was the subject of an op-ed by Senator Rubio last week that led to a lot of discussion in the press.  (For background on the risk corridors, as well as their cousins, the risk adjustment program and transitional reinsurance, see the helpful efforts of Seth Chandler, Mark Hall (also here), and Timothy Jost.)

In that spirit, I noticed in my research a tiny regulatory policy choice made by the HHS about the risk corridors that may wind up making news one of these days, in a lawsuit or otherwise.  It has to do with the way the risk corridor payments are calculated, and could have an impact on the extent of taxpayer liability for risk corridor payments.  Continue reading

Limits on the Physician as a Good Samaritan

As one partner at my firm puts it, “If it makes good business sense, in the health care business, it’s probably illegal.” As a practicing junior health care attorney it did not take long for me to learn this reality of the regulatory scheme I learned as a law student.   As snarky as the sentiment may seem, the restrictions on profit-sharing, referrals, and reduced-cost or free goods and services imposed by Stark and Anti-Kickback laws (while well-intended) can stifle some creative thinking in health care delivery.

What is not always as salient in the daily grind of my practice focusing on transactions and system-level compliance issues, are the ways in which the regulatory scheme can limit a physician’s acts of generosity and kindness.  Whether we think our regulations intended to align incentives with cost-effective and quality health care delivery are good, bad or otherwise, I found this article in the New York Times by Abigail Zuger to be a thought-provoking moment of pause to consider how the complex scheme plays out in the day-to-day delivery of primary care and the physician-patient relationship.

Action of Ohio Controlling Board on Medicaid Expansion

According to Professor Wilson R. Huhn of the University of Akron School of Law, the Ohio governor’s action expanding Medicaid in Ohio is valid. He writes:

On Monday, October 22, at the urging of Governor Kasich, the  Controlling Board of the Ohio Legislature voted 5-2 to accept $2.5  billion in federal funding to expand Medicaid in the State of Ohio.  Under the laws of Ohio this action was valid.

The Controlling Board is a state agency created by statute. The agency  has two principal powers: it can transfer funds and authorize purchases  by state agencies, and it can decide to accept federal funding on behalf of these agencies. Section 131.35(A)(5) of the Ohio Revised Code  states: “Controlling board authorization for a state agency to make an expenditure of  federal funds constitutes authority for the agency to participate in the federal program providing the funds ….”

Two advocacy organizations (the Buckeye Institute and the 1851 Center  for Constitutional Law) as well as several Ohio lawmakers have announced that they intend to challenge the legality of the action of the  Controlling Board. They contend that the action of the Board violates  Section 127.17 of the Ohio Revised Code, which provides that the Board  is bound by the intent of the Ohio General Assembly. The challengers  quite correctly point out that both houses of the General Assembly voted not to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid. Governor Kasich  vetoed this bill, but the challengers argue that despite the Governor’s  veto it’s clear that the General Assembly did not want the Controlling  Board to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid.

Continue reading

A year later, state powers remain vital after the ACA decision

By Theodore Ruger

Cross-posted from Constitution Daily.

Last summer, the Supreme Court put its money where its mouth was in terms of federalism doctrine in its landmark decision about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), inNFIB v. Sebelius.

512px-Obama_signs_health_care-20100323By upholding the ACA, with its myriad implementation choices delegated to the states, and by reconfiguring the Act to give states additional discretion over whether to expand their Medicaid programs, the Court did more in NFIB to advance the actual working realities of American federalism than did many of the leading federalism decisions of the prior two decades.

Continue reading

New Paper on Coercion and the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

I have a new paper on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act, just published in the European peer-reviewed philosophy journal Ethical Perspectives. It is available for free download here.  Here is the abstract:

While NFIB v. Sebelius largely upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did not do so as as to the proposed expansion of Medicaid. Seven of the nine U,S, Supreme Court Justices (all except Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) endorsed a ‘coercion’ argument that gave individual States a right of objection grounded in the Constitution’s Spending Clause, wherein individual states could refuse to expand Medicaid as demanded by the federal government without being directly penalized by a denial of federal funding. Two Justices in dissent focused on the lack of judicial administrability of such a standard, and suggested it would open up a Pandora’s box of future constitutional challenges without any clear rules.

In this article, part of a symposium on philosophical analysis of the Court’s decision published in the peer-reviewed journal Ethical Perspectives, I discuss what I see as a more fundamental question: by what theory is the Medicaid expansion coercive, and even if coercive, by what theory is it coercive in a problematic way that justifies constitutional redress?

The Court’s failure to address this issue stems, in part, from confusion over what it means for an offer to be coercive. In some sense, Justice Kagan seemed to recognize this issue in a question to Paul Clement, the lawyer for the challengers to the ACA, at oral argument: “Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?” Kagan asked. “It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care,” Kagan added. “It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.” The exchange is all the more curious because, despite her scepticism, Kagan signed on to the Court’s holding that the Medicaid expansion was coercive.

I will examine this issue by first discussing whether Medicaid itself and the ACA’s expansion are coercive (as stand-alone offers). I will then examine whether the offer to change from the existing Medicaid program to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion was problematic. I will analyze these questions under the assumption that the Court is not committing a category error by treating States as the kinds of entities subject to this kind of coercion inquiry. In my conclusion, however, I briefly consider whether that assumption is warranted.

Is Obama Winning or Losing on Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act?

By: Katie Booth

The Obama administration announced in February that it would allow Arkansas to use the federal money intended for Medicaid expansion to buy private health insurance plans for individuals with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. This week, Florida’s senate rejected the Medicaid expansion but left open the possibility that it would try to negotiate a similar deal with the Obama administration. Indiana and Ohio may follow suit.

At first glance, this seems like a political loss for Obama. Several states with Republican governors may now expand healthcare for the poor using a private payer model—the type of model Mitt Romney supported during the 2012 presidential race. Yet Obama’s compromise in Arkansas may ultimately be a win for the president. All of the 14 states that are not participating (as of now) in the Medicaid expansion have republican governors. The private insurer model would allow these governors to save face while ultimately expanding access to healthcare for the poor.

Continue reading

Time Magazine on Solving Health Care’s #1 Problem: “All the Prices Are Too Damn High”

By Patrick O’Leary

The cover story of the March 4, 2013 issue of Time Magazine is a piece by Steven Brill titled Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us. The article has apparently made a pretty big splash: in an interview (Part 2, Part 3) with Brill last week, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show told his audience that the article was so good that it “should be required reading for . . . not only every individual in this country, but lawmaker in this country.”

What most seems to fascinate Stewart, and what Brill emphasizes, is an insight that is old hat to health law types: the market for health care is just plain screwy. Brill explains that health care consumers “have no choice in what you’re buying, you have no idea what you’re buying, you have no idea what the price is, even when you get the bill you have no idea what it says.” The starting point for the article was Brill’s observation that in all the debate over the last few years about health care, “we seem to jump right to the issue of who should pay the bills, blowing right past what should be the first question: Why exactly are the bills so high?” Continue reading

Impact of the Sequester on Health Care: By the Numbers

By: Katie Booth 

The looming sequester will have a significant impact on health care, including cuts to Medicare, FDA, CDC, NIH, and Affordable Care Act programs. Budget cuts could slow down the drug approval process, impede the tracking of infectious diseases, and lead to layoffs for hundreds of thousands of workers in the health care sector. Read on for sequestration by the numbers…

Medicare:

  • Medicare cut by 2% ($11 billion) (not set to begin until April 1st, 2013, unlike other sequestration cuts, which are set to begin on March 1, 2013)
  • Physicians’ payments cut by 2%
  • Hospital Medicare reimbursement cut by $5.8 billion
  • Hospitals could end up with especially large cuts under the sequester because other parts of healthcare system run on longer term contracts
  • Loss of almost 500,000 health care sector jobs in the first year of the sequester according to an American Medical Association and American Hospital Association study, including job losses for 40,000 practitioners such as physicians and dentists

FDA:

  • FDA cut by 8% ($318 million)
  • FDA public funding cut by $206 million
  • FDA industry user fees cut by $112 million (for an interesting discussion of user fee cuts and the sequester, see Patrick O’Leary’s Bill of Health blog post)
  • Cuts by department (assuming 8% across-the-board cuts): $71 million to Foods, $39 million to Human Drugs, $17 million to Biologics, $11.3 million to Animal Drugs, and $26.5 million to Devices
  • Longer drug approval process is likely
  • Layoffs and furloughs likely
  • 2,100 fewer food safety inspections

Continue reading

The ACA’s Immigration Quirk

I was amused but not surprised to read that in announcing her support for expanding Arizona’s Medicaid program, Governor Jan Brewer pointed to the fact that without the expansion, only non-citizens with incomes under the poverty level would be eligible for insurance under the ACA. What Brewer didn’t say, was that the ACA’s apparent preference for non-citizens results from precisely the type of anti-immigrant laws with which Gov. Brewer is usually associated.

 In 1996, shortly after California passed the notorious Proposition 187 which denied state public benefits to undocumented immigrants, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, better known as the Welfare Reform Act.  Among other things, this law imposes a 5 year waiting period before most legal permanent residents can enroll in the federal Medicaid program. The law also barred many other immigrants who are lawfully residing within the U.S. from Medicaid altogether.

The ACA did not repeal the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act limiting immigrants’ access to Medicaid. Instead, Congress sought to provide coverage to lawfully residing immigrants by permitting those with incomes under 100% of the Federal Poverty Level to receive subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchanges. Those subsidies were not necessary for citizens with such low incomes because Congress assumed that they would be brought into the Medicaid program.

Continue reading

Twitter Round-Up (1/20-1/26)

By Casey Thomson

Though simply the consequence of bad translation, the story of the Harvard geneticist George Church looking for a woman to act as surrogate for a Neanderthal clone shocked the internet bioethics world. A look at the problems with this hypothetical situation is just one of the components of this week’s Twitter Round-Up.

  • Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) linked to an opinion piece discussing the reasoning behind the United States’ place in the world rankings of life expectancy at different stages of life. The news is a big hit to ideas of American exceptionalism: according to a report by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, Americans have a substantially higher death rate for those younger than 50 as compared to Western Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, and Australians, but once they reach the age of 80, they have some of the longest life expectancies globally. (1/20)
  • Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) shared his article on why Neanderthal cloning is a bad idea, both in terms of safety and in terms of avoiding cruelty. (1/22)
  • Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) posted a news story on the reopening of bird flu experimental procedures for vaccine creation. Caplan was quoted in the article as stating: “I have no issue with restarting the research but some issue with where they are going to publish it and where they present it because bad guys can use it too.” (1/23)
  • Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) included an evaluation as to the medical disparities occurring in Colorado, particularly between races. The article emphasized in its conclusion that the existence of the disparities themselves is quite clear, but discussion on how to erase such differences is noticeably absent. (1/23)
  • Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted a post that attempted to quantifiably compare the quality of care in Medicare options, namely whether Medicare Advantage plans 1) will eventually shortchange patients by skipping out on care quality because of profit motive or 2) have incentives to improve care quality because of the newly implemented systematic quality monitoring, where poor ratings impact them financially. The author found that most existing data makes the second theory more compelling, though the amount of data regarding the subject in general is largely lacking. (1/24)
  • Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) also shared a link to an explanation of the intricacies of “personalized regulation” in medicine, which aims to preserve patient choice in an era leaning more and more towards paternalistic medical oversight. Understanding that patients may choose to make rational decisions that diverge from the community or committee consensus is key towards improving medical care to better reflect patient wants, and rights. (1/24)
  • Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) included a story on the large imbalance in misconduct reports in research between the genders. Men overwhelmingly led the charge, with only nine women out of the 72 faculty members who committed research misconduct. (1/24)
  • Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) additionally shared a letter written by the Editor of The Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum on the reasoning behind publication of a controversial article on the social pressures leading to obesity. The letter calls for the importance of recognizing that publication means that an article contributes to the larger debate on an issue, though does not affirm that the publication medium agrees with the views espoused within; it also encouraged responses to the ideas of the article. (1/25)
  • Stephen Latham (@StephenLatham) posted a video link from Comedy Central on the perils of WebMD and vegetarianism. (1/25)

Note: As mentioned in previous posts, retweeting should not be considered as an endorsement of or agreement with the content of the original tweet.