|
Making Progress |
|
|
|
Written by Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD, FAAFP, FASAM
|
|
Monday, 12 March 2012 15:28 |
Enclosed please find an interesting article published in the Sun Sentinel titled "Pill mill law sends 'pillbillies' packing." Indeed, we are making great progress: "In a state that had garnered the humiliating national reputation as the go-to state for Oxycontin, the number of oxycodone pills purchased last year by Florida doctors plunged an astonishing 97 percent. Overall oxycodone sales dropped 20 percent, according to figures from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Didn't hurt that the roster of the top 100 oxycodone-buying doctors shed its overwhelmingly Florida vibe. Two years ago, 90 of the top 100 doctors hailed from Florida; last year, only 13 made the list." But more work needs to be done!! We need to create awareness among our fellow colleagues to sign up for and to use the PDMP in their daily practice of medicine; we need to close loopholes that exempt doctors from using the PDMP which includes ALL physicians employed by the Veteran Administration resulting in a sharp increase of opioid use by VA patients. I also suspect that those patients represent a source for illegal prescription opioid street sales. Furthermore, we must identify those doctors in the community which still prescribe prescription opioids in large amounts contributing to overdose deaths of patients. Even though I believe in educating them about safe prescription practices, I also advocate for swift revocation of their licenses to protect the public from their actions. Looking forward to your comments. Dr. Wollschlaeger is a frequent contributor to FHIweekly and Specialty Focus. You can read more of his articles by visiting http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/. |
|
|
To Improve Health, Spend More on Social Services |
|
|
|
Written by Paul Gionfriddo
|
|
Friday, 09 March 2012 17:15 |
Our Health Policy Matters A column focusing on federal, state and local health policy To Improve Health, Spend More on Social Services click headline to view blog postDoes a stronger safety net mean a healthier community? Apparently so, according to recent research... |
|
Deep Cuts For Mental Health Programs |
|
|
|
Written by Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD, FAAFP, FASAM
|
|
Thursday, 08 March 2012 17:19 |
Attached a link to a recent Miami Herald article entitled State Senate proposes $87 million cut in mental health, substance-abuse programs reporting that a Florida Senate proposal would make deep cuts in funding for adult mental health and substance-abuse programs, and entirely eliminate support for some of them. The proposal would slash overall state spending on adult mental health and substance-abuse treatment by about 40 percent, or $87 million. The cuts would include eliminating state support for some programs - including, potentially, the Miami Behavioral Health Center and the Northside Mental Health Center in Tampa. Sen. Joe Negron, the Stuart Republican in charge of the Senate's healthcare budget, stated that "When it comes to funding, an 85-year-old woman in a nursing home matters more to me than a 45-year-old guy with a substance-abuse problem," he said. "It's all about priorities." Unfortunately, his statement reveals that most politicians have yet to understand that mental health and substance abuse treatment represents cost-effective care! The benefits of treatment far outweigh the costs. Even beyond the enormous physical and psychological costs, treatment can save money by diminishing the huge financial consequences imposed on employers and taxpayers. Comparing the direct cost of treatment to monetary benefits to society determined that on average, costs were $1,583 compared to a benefit of $11,487 (a benefit-cost ratio of 7:1)! In comparing cost offsets in Washington State of people in treatment to non-treated, the authors noted lower medical costs ($311/month); lower state hospital expenses ($48/month); lower community psychiatric hospital costs ($16/month); reduced likelihood of arrest by 16%; and reduced likelihood of felony convictions by 34%! It is a penny wise and pound foolish approach to CUT finding for mental health and substance abuse treatment because, in the long run, we as tax payers have to pay the higher price for short term political decisions. For more information see Cost Offset Substance Abuse. I urge you to e-mail, call or write Senator Negron! Dr. Wollschlaeger is a frequent contributor to FHIweekly and Specialty Focus. You can read more of his articles by visiting http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/. |
|
Last Updated on Friday, 09 March 2012 17:29 |
|
Mental Health Policy Faces Budget, Stigma Challenges |
|
|
|
Written by Paul Gionfriddo
|
|
Monday, 05 March 2012 10:52 |
|
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 05 March 2012 11:07 |
|
Healthcare Expenditures |
|
|
|
Written by Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD, FAAFP, FASAM
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2012 07:42 |
Attached a link to a very interesting federal study titled "The Concentration and Persistence in the Level of Health Expenditures over Time: Estimates for the U.S. Population, 2008-2009" published by the Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Using information from the Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) for 2008 and 2009, this report provides detailed estimates of the persistence in the level of health care expenditures over time. Studies that examine the persistence of high levels of expenditures over time are essential to help discern the factors most likely to drive health care spending and the characteristics of the individuals who incur them.
According to the study in 2008, 1 percent of the population accounted for 20.2 percent of total health care expenditures, and in 2009, the top 1 percent accounted for 21.8 percent of the total expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $90,061. The lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 3.1 percent and 2.9 percent of the total for 2008 and 2009 respectively. Of those individuals ranked at the top 1 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2008, 20 percent maintained this ranking with respect to their 2009 health care expenditures. In both 2008 and 2009, the top 5 percent of the population accounted for nearly 50 percent of health care expenditures. Individuals who were between the ages of 45 and 64 and the elderly (65 and older) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the top decile of spenders for both 2008 and 2009. While the elderly represented 13.2 percent of the overall population, they represented 42.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders.
Focusing on the under age 65 population, health insurance coverage status also distinguished individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders from their counterparts in the lower half of the distribution. Individuals who were uninsured for all of calendar year 2009 were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While 15.5 percent of the overall population under age 65 was uninsured for all of 2009, the full-year uninsured comprised 25.9 percent of all individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders (figure 6). Alternatively, only 3.6 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders were uninsured. What can we learn from the data and how should the data influence public policy?
· We are spending a disproportionally high percentage of precious healthcare dollars on a very small percentage of sick people. Most of them suffer from preventable chronic diseases which we still cannot manage properly within our existing healthcare system.
· The overwhelming majority of those "high" spenders were insured and their annual mean expenditure of $90,061 is not covered by the healthcare premiums they pay.
· The overwhelming majority of healthy "low" spender are uninsured and therefore do not contribute with their health insurance premium payment to cover for their eventuality of their own care needs.
Taking all of these facts into consideration we should support an Individual Mandate that requires health insurance coverage for each and every American to spread the insurance risk. Spreading the risk assures that as the number of people in a given group gets larger, a company or governmental agency can more easily spread the risk (that would be the risk of a payout) among the pool of participants. They can therefore better estimate the average cost (or payout) per person in the event that one or even several of the group are victims of a catastrophic event. In the absence of such a mandate insurance companies can simply not afford to continue paying 50% of health care expenditures on 5% of the population! Alternative proposals to create high-risk pools are doomed to fail because the risk of cover "sick" participants is so high that it results in unaffordable health insurance premiums by private insurance companies. If those companies choose to opt out of providing insurances for such a high-risk pool then the government remains the insurer of the last resort, i.e. the taxpayer. Dr. Wollschlaeger is a frequent contributor to FHIweekly and Specialty Focus. You can read more of his articles by visiting http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 05 March 2012 11:05 |
|
13,386 Lives Sacrificed? |
|
|
|
Written by Paul Gionfriddo
|
|
Monday, 27 February 2012 08:16 |
|
Our Health Policy Matters
A column focusing on federal, state and local health policy
13,386 Lives Sacrificed?
Public health is the basis of health promotion and disease prevention...It gets only 3% of our total health funding according to CMS data...Now it's getting even less... |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 05 March 2012 11:04 |
|
The Business of Medicine |
|
|
|
Written by Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD, FAAFP, FASAM
|
|
Friday, 17 February 2012 10:25 |
Attached a link to an interesting article written by John Dorschner titled "Hospitals hiring doctors to get ready for reform" highlighting the growing trend of hospitals purchasing physicians practices. It is of interest to note that executives at Baptist and Holy Cross say "the physicians' practices on their own do not break even after being purchased, but ancillary income from such measures as diagnostic tests boost the bottom line." But more diagnostic tests and procedures also mean more health care expenditures! At Jackson Health System, Miami-Dade's public hospitals, the unaudited financial statements for fiscal 2011 show that the doctors' practices lost $4.4 million! One employed physician argues that he likes this arrangement because he doesn't have to spend time dealing with all the business aspects of a private practice. But understanding the business of medicine is exactly what we need to prevail in the rapidly changing health care environment. We cannot pretend that we can practice medicine in splendid isolation and to leave the "dirty" business to others. That's a prescription for certain marginalization and disempowerment. We must acquire knowledge and skills to master the business of medicine in order to practice medicine more efficiently. What do you think? Dr. Wollschlaeger is a frequent contributor to FHIweekly and Specialty Focus. You can read more of his articles by visiting http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/. |
|
Last Updated on Friday, 17 February 2012 10:56 |
|
|