- Image by Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton via Flickr
Highlights of the important and the interesting from the world of health care:
The Cadillac tax lives: It appears that the tax on so-called expensive “Cadillac” health plans (it’s a shame that phrase seems to have fallen out of favor since it provides an excuse to run photos of old cars) will be a part of the final health overhaul plan. Union leaders, Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration reached a deal that would lessen and delay the impact of the tax on workers and would reduce the amount of revenue collected, the New York Times reports.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
Read the article for details of the changes, but the bottom line is the changes would reduce the amount of revenue from the tax by about 40 percent, to $90 billion over 10 years, according to one union official. Don’t take that figure to the bank, though, as a White House official told the Times he didn’t know if that figure was accurate. In any case, the question now becomes how that “lost” revenue gets replaced. The Wall Street Journal has the potential answer and it’s one the health care industry won’t like:Â “Negotiators were considering increasing the financial hit on drug makers, nursing homes and medical-device makers, according to people familiar with the discussions.” Regardless of the tax’s merits, or lack thereof, it seems Democrats made a political calculation that it’s better to harm the industry than unions, who are typically reliable Democratic voters. From a purely political perspective, it’s tough to argue with that logic.
Don’t believe the hype: The World Health Organization finds itself backpedaling amid charges it overhyped the H1N1 threat, or that it was unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies that were looking to boost sales of vaccines, CBS News reports. A top WHO official strongly dismissed the charges, evidence that the group was perhaps feeling a little pressure. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is both wrong and irresponsible,” the official said. It seems Europeans may be more prone to conspiracy theories, or at least they have been in this case, as human rights group the Council of Europe has launch an investigation into the WHO’s actions.
The controversy comes as many countries are canceling orders for the vaccine, and questions are being raised about whether governments are obligated to pay for unshipped orders. While I’m never one to discount the influence of corporate money on the political process, from here it looks like we’ve been lucky (so far) with the H1N1 scare. The WHO reports that 13,000 people have died worldwide from the condition, and that number could’ve been (and still could be) much worse. Given all the criticism that the WHO and other public health groups would’ve been in for had there been too little vaccine, we should consider ourselves fortunate if the worst problem we’re facing is that there was too much of it.
Docs still slow to adopt electronic health records: Federal officials may have thought that awarding physicians grants of around $40,000 spread out over multiple years would be enough to significantly spur adoption of electronic health records. Now they’re learning it won’t be that easy. At first doctors could plausibly say that uncertainty about exactly what sorts of EHR systems the government would pay for kept them from making the jump, but as that uncertainty begins to melt away (a little) doctors are still hesitant, Physicians’ Practice reports. Now some doctors worry that after they buy EHRs, the government will effectively move the goalposts about what qualifies for incentive payments, and about how much productivity they’ll lose as they transition to the new software.
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
For any doctors out there looking to get a refresher on the federal EHR-incentive program, or anyone else hoping to better understand the details, the article is a good read. Also not to be missed, our friends at SoftwareAdvice have compiled a detailed and lengthy reference of all things related to the federal push to bring EHRs to the nation’s doctors.
Is “tax” the scariest word in the English language? A new study from Columbia University psychologists suggests that it might be, or maybe it’s at least near the top of the list. With higher taxes (for some Americans, at least) a near certainty in the near future in order to fund health reform, not to mention in the somewhat-distant future to pay for spiraling Medicare costs, the implications of the word and the apparent fear and/or hostility it causes are worth examining.
See Mother Jones for details of how the study was conducted, but the results show that Republicans and Independents would approve a “carbon offset” identical in every way to a “carbon tax” as long as it isn’t called a tax, while Democrats would vote for it either way. Obviously conservative politicians picked up on this sort of thing years ago, and still have every incentive to exploit the visceral reaction that the word causes in their constituency. The authors conclude, “What might seem like a trivial semantic difference to one person can have a large impact on someone else.” We’ve seen plenty of evidence of what that means for that one dirty little word over at least the last 30 years of American politics.
