CER, HIT, and Women’s Health Research

June 19, 2013 / Michael D. Miller MD / Access to Healthcare, Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Health Policy and Communications Blog, Information & Communications, Innovation, Public Health, Quality of Care & Safety / 5 Comments

Below is a video of my discussion with Phyllis Greenberger, President and CEO of the Society for Women’s Health Research, about the implications of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and information technology for women’s health and quality improvement.

What are your thoughts about CER and HIT? Will they lead to higher quality, lower cost, or more efficient/better healthcare? And if so, how soon?

FYI – The SWHR’s July 18-19 meeting mentioned in the video is “What a Difference an X Makes: The State of Women’s Health Research.”…

Historical Perspectives on Health Policy: Part 3

December 4, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Federal Healthcare Reform, Health Policy and Communications Blog, Health System Reform, Miscellaneous / 1 Comment

I just found my copy of the book “Improving Health Policy and Management” edited by Stephen Shortell and Uwe Reinhardt. The book’s eleven chapters address many of the hot-button issues in today’s health reform debate:

Creating and Executing Health Policy
Minimum Health Insurance Benefits
Caring for the Disabled Elderly
An Overview of Rural Health Care
Effectiveness Research and the Impact of Financial Incentives and Outcomes
Changing Provider Behavior: Applying Research on Outcomes and Effectiveness in Health Care
Health Care Cost Containment
Redesign of Delivery Systems to Enhance Productivity
Medical Malpractice
Prolongation of Life: The Issues and the Questions
Challenges for Health Services Research

The observant ready will notice one critical issue from today’s debate missing from this list… Information technology. …

Historical Perspective on Health Reform – Part 1, Medical Effectiveness

November 16, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Public Health / 1 Comment

Since the time-line for health reform legislation has continued to be stretched, I recently spent some time cleaning out old files. In my excavations I came across papers, articles, memos and briefing books which demonstrate that no matter how much things change, some aspects of health reform have stayed the same. For example, below are a couple of snippets from memos about a proposed Medical Effectiveness Initiative from circa 1989:

Establishing a Medical Effectiveness Initiative at the OASH [Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health] level. (FY90 request = $52 million) This initiative would assess which medical treatments are cost-effective, and identify inappropriate and unnecessary medical practices.

…

Encouraging Communications About Patients’ Goals

September 18, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Clinician-Patient Relationships, Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Economics & Financing, Information & Communications, Quality of Care & Safety / No Comments

I attended a great event yesterday where experts discussed how to improve healthcare quality and safety by increasing patients’ involvement in making healthcare decisions.

This seminar, “Patient-Centeredness and Patient Safety: How Are They Interconnected,” was organized by the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center and sponsored by the Massachusetts Medical Society and CRICO/RMF. Don Berwick (President & CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) was the main speaker followed by a panel consisting of two patient safety leaders from local hospitals and a patient involved with promoting patient engagement in quality improvement.

To start the event, Dr. Berwick discussed how his thinking about healthcare quality had evolved over several decades, and his increasing belief in the importance of patient involvement.…

Diabetes Updates – New Diagnostics, Increasing Rates, and Implications for Health Reform, CER, etc.

June 17, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Economics & Financing, Health System Reform, Information & Communications, Quality of Care & Safety / 1 Comment

Changes in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes is a great example for understanding how healthcare delivery constantly evolves based upon new discoveries. And the history of these changes may help illuminate some thinking about health reform and the development and use of comparative effectiveness research (CER).

First, a little background on diabetes.

Diabetes Background
Diabetes mellitus (or “sugar diabetes”) occurs when the body has problems regulating the level of sugar (specifically glucose) in the blood. This can be because the body’s pancreas doesn’t produce enough insulin, or for some reason the person’s organs become resistant to the actions of the insulin that is present – or sometimes both occur simultaneously. …

Savings from Comparative Effectiveness Research

May 28, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Economics & Financing, Health System Reform, Information & Communications / No Comments

The May 23rd issue of National Journal has two very interesting pieces about Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Scoring Savings from CER:
The first is in an interview with CBO Director Doug Elmendorf which includes this Q&A about scoring savings from CER:
“NJ: In the first five years after studying comparative effectiveness, are the savings that CBO can find relatively small?
Elmendorf: The estimates that we’ve done in the past suggest that by the 10th year, you are saving about as much as the cost of the research itself. By the fifth year, you are not. We would expect there to be savings in the private sector. …

Improving Cancer Care in Medicare

May 5, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Access to Healthcare, Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Innovation, Politics, Quality of Care & Safety, Therapeutic Substitution & Interchange / 1 Comment

This week’s AMA News includes an article about how cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries has improved because of a provision in last year’s Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA). The provision of interest clarified that Medicare Part D plans need to pay for off label uses of medicines to treat cancer when there is supportive evidence in the peer-review literature. This changes became effective January 1st, and for at least one patient, it has improved their care. (See the Medicare Rights Center’s press release about the coverage appeal they won for a client because of the new law.)

However, as I noted in an interview with the American Medical News ReachMD Radio-XM 160, (See MP3 audio file below), because the change only applies to cancer treatments, patients with other serious and life threatening illnesses may still find their treatment options limited. …

Business Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research

May 2, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Access to Healthcare, Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare / No Comments

Comparative effectiveness research continues to be a hot health policy issue for many companies and stakeholders, in part, because they’re concerned that CER information will be used to deny access to innovations because of cost.

I recently talked with Jeff Sandman, CEO of Hyde Park Communications, about how healthcare companies should productively approach CER issues, and how quickly CER would lead to dramatic changes in the healthcare system. (See part of our conversation below.)

There will certainly be more reports, seminars, meetings and Congressional hearings about CER as the $1.1 Billion in ARRA funding for CER is distributed, and the results of that research begins to roll in.…

Investment for Health Reform – Escaping the Valley of Death

April 30, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Health System Reform, Innovation, Quality of Care & Safety / 3 Comments

The debate about health reform has mostly focused on expanding insurance coverage and controlling costs. However, successfully improving the US healthcare system will require some long-term quality improving investments.

The stimulus bill (ARRA) included two such investments. The $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research has been widely discussed because it is important, and a very large percentage increase in the Federal Government’s spending in this area. But the ARRA bill also included $10 Billion to increase NIH’s funding.

The significance of the increased NIH funding is twofold: First, it will provide expansion of biomedical research related jobs. And second, it will help the NIH increase the work it does in translational research, which should help biomedical research build a better bridge over what the Parkinson’s Action Network and others have labelled the “Valley of Death.”…

Comparative Effectiveness, Efficacy, Evidence Based Medicine, P4P, etc…

April 6, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, Economics & Financing, Health System Reform / 1 Comment

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is being talked about more and more as a fulcrum for controlling healthcare costs. For example:

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report on CER in December 2007 and has highlighted it in more recent analyses and reports about health reform options
The ARRA legislation included $1.1 Billion for CER
ARRA included language for the IOM Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities to provide a report by June 30, 2009 about how to spend the $400 million allocated to HHS for CER.

All this discussion has kept me thinking about how CER will be done, how the results from this research will actually be used to improve quality and reduce costs, and what are the scope of healthcare issues that CER is, will, or should be applied to help improving.…

Improving Cancer Care and Medicare’s Cancer Coverage

January 28, 2009 / Michael D. Miller MD / Access to Healthcare, Comparative Effectiveness, Innovation, Medicare / 2 Comments

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both had articles yesterday about a new rule clarifying how Medicare would decide whether or not to pay for off-label uses of medicines to treat cancer. These articles describe controversies around Medicare relying on several compendia containing information about such off-label uses to make these coverage decisions, how some of the compendia may have industry connections, and how the new rule might increase Medicare spending.

I have a long history with this issue. As a Legislative Assistant working for Congressman Sander Levin in the early 1990s, I was very involved in writing the legislation that first changed Medicare law to require Medicare Part B to pay for off-label used of medicines to treat cancer. …

Personalized Medicine – Fulfilling the Promise of Genetic Research

November 17, 2008 / Michael D. Miller MD / Access to Healthcare, Comparative Effectiveness, Delivery of Healthcare, FDA, Information & Communications, Innovation, Quality of Care & Safety / No Comments

It has been 55 years since the discovery of the structure of DNA, and 40 years since James Watson published his account of that discovery in his book, “The Double Helix.” (A picture of my autographed copy is below.)

Ever since DNA was discovered to code for the structure of most living things, there has been the hope that understanding abnormal genetics would lead to the ability to treat or cure a vast array of illnesses. Unfortunately, that progress hasn’t been as rapid as originally hoped. But medical science is now beginning to put genomic research discoveries into actual medical practice, and start customizing medical treatments based upon each individual patient’s genetic makeup – the fundamental concept of “Personalized Medicine.”…

1 2