THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

A Place to Call Home

By KIM BELLARD

Congratulations, America. We have another new record, albeit a dismal one. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there are now 653,000 homeless people, up 12% from the prior year. As one can imagine, compiling such a number is problematic at best, and no doubt misses a non-trivial number of such unfortunate people.

“Homelessness is solvable and should not exist in the United States,” said HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge. Well, yeah, like kids without enough food, pregnant women without access to adequate prenatal care, or people without health insurance, yet here we are.

HUD says that the increase was driven by people who became for the first time, up some 25%. It attributes this to “a combination of factors, including but not limited to, the recent changes in the rental housing market and the winding down of pandemic protections and programs focused on preventing evictions and housing loss.” As with the recent increase in child poverty, the lessons that we should have learn from our COVID response didn’t survive our willingness to put the pandemic behind us.

Jeff Olivet, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, told AP: “The most significant causes are the shortage of affordable homes and the high cost of housing that have left many Americans living paycheck to paycheck and one crisis away from homelessness.” The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates we’re missing some 7 million affordable housing units, so I suppose we should be relived there are “only” 653,000 homeless people.

“For those on the frontlines of this crisis, it’s not surprising,” Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, also told AP. Indeed, we’ve all seen news accounts of homeless encampments spreading seemingly out of control, many of us have spotted homeless people as we go about our daily lives, and yet most of us don’t want either homeless people or low income housing units in our neighborhoods.

Continue reading…

The Courage of Corporate America is Needed to End America’s Opioid Crisis

By RYAN HAMPTON

A Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll published in July found that three in ten U.S. adults (29%) said they had someone in their family who struggled with opioid dependence. Also surprising, and encouraging, was the statistic that 90% support increasing access to opioid use disorder treatment programs in their communities.

As a person in recovery from opioid use disorder and advocate, my read on this data set is that the public support is there. Now more than ever, we need leaders in healthcare, public policy, and corporate America to have the courage to advance effective treatment options. The most inspiring example of the kind of courage we need was the recent news that one of the nation’s largest retail grocery and pharmacy chains, Albertsons, made the financial investment to train their pharmacy staff to administer buprenorphine injections (known as Sublocade) on site.

To someone who is not in the weeds on the issue of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment programs, this may just sound like a solid business decision. But go a layer deeper and the courage is evident: Albertsons decided to invest in an underutilized treatment option (despite buprenorphine being the gold-standard in OUD treatment) that serves a highly stigmatized patient population who is often shunned at pharmacy counters nationwide. Albertsons chose to put treatment centers for an underserved and highly stigmatized patient population in the middle of their family-friendly, neighborhood grocery pharmacy chain. 

The company rightly recognized that OUD impacts every family and community in this country—including the lives of its patrons. Albertsons pushed through stigma, not leaving the overdose crisis for someone else to address, because it had the ability to provide widespread access through its pharmacies and locations across the nation.

Continue reading…

Lead Pipe Cinch

By KIM BELLARD

The term “lead pipe cinch” means something that is very easy or certain. Here’s two things that are lead pipe cinches: first, that ingesting lead, such as from the water or the air, is bad for us. It’s especially bad for children, whose cognitive abilities can be impaired. Second, that the Biden Administration’s latest proposal to reduce the lead in our drinking water is not going to accomplish that.

The new proposed rules would require that lead service lines be replaced within ten years; there are estimated to still be some 9.2 million such lines in the U.S. The trouble is, no one really knows how many there are or where exactly they are, making replacement difficult. So step two of the rules is for an initial inventory by next October. The “acceptable” parts per billion would drop from 15 to 10. Utilities would also have to improve tap sampling and consumer outreach.

“This is the strongest lead rule that the nation has ever seen,” Radhika Fox, the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for water, told The New York Times. “This is historic progress.”

Erik Olson, an expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council is also hopeful, telling NPR: “We now know that having literally tens of millions of people being exposed to low levels of lead from things like their drinking water has a big impact on the population. We’re hoping this new rule will have a big impact.”

The EPA estimates the replacement will cost $20b to $30b over the next decade; the 2021 Infrastructure Act allocated $15b, along with $11.7b available from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Of course, the cost will be much higher.

Chicago alone claims it will cost $10b to replace its estimated 400,000 lead pipes. The Wall Street Journal reports: “David LaFrance, CEO of the American Water Works Association, a trade group, said the total cost could “easily exceed” $90 billion. He said the average cost to replace a single lead service line is more than $10,000, nearly double the EPA’s estimate.”

If the federal funds aren’t enough, Ms. Fox says: “We strongly, strongly encourage water utilities to pay for it,” but you should probably expect customers will end up paying – or that some of those pipes won’t be getting replaced.

It’s not like any of this is catching us by surprise. You probably remember the 2014 scandal with the Flint (MI) water crisis, with all those people lining up for bottled water. You may not remember similar crises in Washington D.C., Newark (NJ), or Benton Harbor (MI). “The Washington, D.C., lead-in-water crisis was far more severe than Flint in every respect,” Yanna Lambrinidou, a medical anthropologist at Virginia Tech and co-founder of the Campaign for Lead Free Water, told AP.

The EPA issued a set of rules around lead pipes in 1991, but those rules were watered down, and little progress has been made since. Ronnie Levin, an EPA researcher at the times, also told AP: “But, you know, we’ve been diddling around for 30 years.”

Because, you know, that’s what we do, especially when fixing a problem costs too much money.

Continue reading…

How Patient Activation Made It Possible to Thrive with Kidney Disease

By DAVE WHITE

It had been 10 years since I’d seen a doctor when I arrived at the Emergency Room at George Washington University Hospital in October 2009. I was able to climb the first flight of stairs, but after I froze on the second, they brought me in on a wheelchair.

That was the first time I heard the dreaded words, “Your kidneys aren’t working.” I was put on dialysis immediately, and my life transformed into a series of tests and procedures. But even after three weeks at the hospital, it didn’t sink in that there was no cure.

I checked most risk factors for kidney disease: I ate the wrong foods, smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day, drank too much beer, and didn’t exercise much. But the biggest risk to my health was not getting regular check-ups. I didn’t think I needed them, or that I had a part to play in my own health.

I hated going to dialysis three times a week. Since I could no longer work, the $20 cab fare each way was an expense my wife and I struggled to afford, so I skipped often. When a nurse warned me that if I missed three sessions in a row I would have to be dialyzed at the hospital, I decided this meant I could get away with one session a week.

The care plan I received from my providers called me “non-compliant” seven times. I felt they had written me off as a lost cause and saw no point in working with them either.

Finally, I was called into a meeting with six nurses, social workers, and clinic staff. When I said I skipped dialysis because money was tight, the charge nurse said, “We’re going to get you resources for transit and help you plan good meals.”

I was shocked – I didn’t know how support services worked. The nurse continued “But you have to do your part or you’re not going to be around much longer.”

No one had said this in such blunt terms before. I left the room, went home, looked at myself in the bathroom mirror, and said, “They’re right. You can do better. You have to do better.”

Fourteen years later, I am lucky to be alive to see the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) include measures that place the patient’s voice at the center of clinical care. CMS has recognized that supporting patient activation, building a person’s knowledge, skills, and confidence around managing their health, and addressing social needs is critical to helping people like me get the support we need to get and stay healthy.

Continue reading…

(We Don’t) Trust The Science

By KIM BELLARD

I know the A.I. community is eagerly waiting for me to weigh in on the Sam Altman/OpenAI dramedy (🙄), but I’m not convinced this isn’t all a ploy by ChatGPT, so I’m staying away from it.  A.I. may, indeed, be an existential issue for our age, but it’s one of many such issues that I fear we’re not, as a society, going to be equipped to handle.

Last week the Pew Research Center issued an alarming report Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline. Now, a glass half-full kind of person might look at it and say – no, it’s good news!  Fifty-seven percent of Americans agree science has a mostly positive impact on society, and 73% have a great deal or a fair amount in confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.  For medical scientists it was 77%. Only the military (74%) also scored above 70%. That’s good news, right?

The glass half-empty person would point to the downward trend in just the past few years: at the beginning of the pandemic (April 2020) the respective percentages were 87% (scientists), 89% (Medical scientists), and 83% military.  The faith in them has continued to drop since.  Things are trending in the wrong direction, quickly.

If the glass was half full, it’s spilling now.

About a third (34%) of the public thinks that the impact of science on society has had an equally positive and negative impact, while 8% think science has had a mostly negative impact. Again, the trend has been negative since the pandemic; the 57% who think science has a positive impact was 73% in January 2019. That’s alarming.

The skepticism about scientists and the value of science has increased generally but is more pronounced among Republicans and those without a college degree.  E.g., only 61% of Republicans have a fair/great amount of confidence in scientists, versus 85% in April 2020 and versus 86% of Democrats now.  Fewer than half (47%) of Republicans think science has had a mostly positive impact on society, versus 70% on January 2019.

In the supposed most developed country in the world, 39% of Americans think the U.S. is losing ground in science achievement versus the rest of the world, and only 52% even agree it is important for the U.S. to be a world leader in scientific achievements.  10% didn’t think it was important at all. Young people, surprisingly, were most skeptical.

I wonder what they do think it is important for us to be the world leader in.

The problem may be that a third thought developments in science were changing society too quickly (43% among Republicans).  They want their new iPhones, they like fast internet speeds, they demand the latest treatments when they get sick, but somehow they don’t connect those to science.

I think about this when I read about the Texas board of education fighting about how science is taught in Texas schools.

Continue reading…

Orange, Green, and Red – The Colors of Tribalism

BY MIKE MAGEE

As Thanksgiving Day approaches, let’s give thanks for the study of history, in part because it reminds us that Trumpian words like “vermin” have been used before and serve to alert the human race that we have entered danger zone

One President who understood the power of words more than many others was FDR. When he structured up “a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations…to provide support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly”, he memorably packaged the plan under the label, “The New Deal.”

Seizing alliteration in 1933, he further defined his new policies as the “3 R’s – Relief, Recovery, Reform”, promising “…action, and action now.”

When his enemies began to coalesce against him in 1936, he chose his words carefully in the public defense. Seizing the largest venue he could find at the time –Madison Square Garden – he stood tall and erect, supported by heavy leg braces, and declared defiantly, “They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.”

With a heavy dose of humility and learned wisdom, he rose again eight years later, on January 11, 1944, fifteen months before his death, and delivered the State of the Union Address as a Fireside Chat from the Oval Office in the White House. 

Continue reading…

TikTok on the Gender Gap

By MIKE MAGEE

The juxta-positioning of Tuesday’s New York Times headlines was disturbing. The first “Why Does This Bride Look So Mad?”, was followed by “An ‘Unsettling’ Drop in Life Expectancy in Men.”

The “reluctant bride” referred to in the first article is (by now) an estimated 175 years old intended bride was 18 in the painting. The painting itself was the work of artist, Auguste Toulmouche, in 1866. The original title was “The Hesitant Fiancee”. Its current fame has a much shorter timeline – 2 weeks to be exact. That’s when it began to appear on TikTok, hosted as a statement of disgust an outrage by mostly young females in opposition to “sexist scolding.”

The painting displays a soon-to-be bride, attended by three friends, all well appointed in opulent dress, with obvious emotional distress. The bride’s face is frozen somewhere between disgust and outrage. Two supplicants are attempting to calm her, with limited success, by hand-holding and kisses on the forehead. The third is distracted, examine her own image in a mirror.

Temple University Art Professor, Theresa Dolan, offered this description to The New York Times Style and Pop Culture reporter Callie Holtermann: “You don’t often get this in 19th-century painting — this kind of independent streak. She’s actually showing the emotion of not wanting to get married to the person that her obviously wealthy family has picked out. What Toulmouche does so successfully is get into the psyche of the woman.”

Since its recent appearance on social media, modern women have been setting the image to music (“a dramatic section of Giuseppe Verdi’s Requiem”) and adding their own captions, including: “Literally me when I’m right,” “You’re overreacting,” “You should smile more,” “Ugh, do I really have to go through with this,” “Don’t be mean,” and “Mean wasn’t even in the room with us but I can go get him and bring him in.”

Turning the page, the second article feels somehow connected to the first, and not in a good way. It’s written by the Times Sex, Gender, and Science reporter Azeen Ghorayshi, and begins with, “The gap in life expectancy between men and women in the United States grew to its widest in nearly 30 years, driven mainly by more men dying of Covid and drug overdoses, according to a new study in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.”

The facts are clear: Life expectancy of men at birth is now approximately six years less than women.

Continue reading…

Turnarounds are Talent Magnets: University of Chicago Medical Center

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Like birds of a feather, talent in healthcare management often gathers in flocks. The University of Minnesota, University of Michigan and University of Iowa healthcare management programs are all justly famous for graduating, over many decades, an exceptional number of future transformative healthcare leaders. But sometimes, talent comes from the “street”- challenging healthcare turnarounds that attract risk-taking leaders who, in turn, gather young talent around them. The University of Chicago’s urban academic health center has been one of these places.

The U of C was (and remains) the largest care provider on Chicago’s troubled South Side, a vast urban landscape that struggled economically and socially for more than seventy years with intractable poverty and violence. Like other major teaching hospitals in challenging neighborhoods–the Bronx’s Montefiore and Harlem’s Columbia-Presbyterian come to mind–all the management challenges of running complex academic health center are magnified by coping with huge flows of Medicaid and uninsured urban poor. 

In 1973, President Edward Levi appointed Daniel Tosteson, who was then Chair of Pharmacology and Physiological Sciences at Duke University, to be Dean of the Pritzker School of Medicine and Vice President for the University of Chicago’s troubled Medical Center. Tosteson was a charismatic basic scientist with no prior experience running a 700-bed urban teaching hospital.  He arrived in the middle of a severe Illinois’ fiscal crisis, and a horrendous Medicaid funding challenge (31% of the Chicago’s patients were Medicaid recipients). Chicago’s clinical chairs who led the recruitment of Tosteson also played a crucial role in the subsequent turnaround–notably Dr David Skinner, Chair of Surgery and Dr. Al Tarlov, Chair of Medicine, and Dr. Daniel X Freedman, Chair of Psychiatry. 

To renew the Medical Center, Tosteson recruited an experienced clinical manager, Dr. Henry Russe from competitor Rush Presbyterian St-Lukes, as his Chief Clinician. But Tosteson went off the reservation and hired a 34 year old economist named David Bray, who was Executive Associate Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (responsible for the national security and intelligence agencies) as his Chief Financial Officer. He also named John Piva, formerly of Johns Hopkins,  his Chief Development Officer. To revitalize Chicago’s principal affiliate, Michael Reese Hospital, he recruited as its President, Dr. J. Robert Buchanan, then Dean of Cornell Medical College.  And he recruited me, at age 27, from the Illinois Governor’s Office, as his government affairs lead and special assistant.   

Continue reading…

The Voice of Democracy is Young and Female

By MIKE MAGEE

“Don’t call me a saint,” said founder of the early 1930’s Catholic Workers Movement, Dorothy Day. “I don’t want to be dismissed that easily.” Oddly enough, says Jesuit writer, James Martin, “That quote is probably the biggest obstacle to her canonization…Given that quote, would Dorothy really want to be canonized?”

This week’s election results were a sliver of bright light in what has been a rather dark period. But it is at times like this that quiet heroes emerge. If courage has a face, this morning, as results across the land show a sweeping victory for Democrats, and specifically those advancing the cause of women’s autonomy in managing their own health decisions with their doctors, it belongs to a young woman from Kentucky named Hadley.

In the final weeks of the Kentucky governor’s race, as Politico reported, Andy Beshear gave voice to the woman who directly addressed his opponent on camera.  “Anyone who believes there should be no exceptions for rape and incest could never understand what it’s like to stand in my shoes. This is to you, Daniel Cameron. To tell a 12-year-old girl she must have the baby of her stepfather who raped her is unthinkable.”

Absorbing the results of the elections with the rest of us are Governor Chris Christie, Governor Ron DeSantis, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Senator Tim Scott who took the stage last Wednesday evening in Miami at the 3rd Republican Primary Debate. No doubt they are surrounded by consultants trying to figure out how best to spin this issue. As Dobbs has played out in states like Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, Wisconsin and beyond, political scientists are likely reminding that in politics, “Sometimes when you win, you lose.”

Court packing on a federal level, and even more importantly by Republican leaders on the state level, has tipped the power of our nation toward minority rule, allowing repugnant leaders to seize control of our legal system. That power has been used over the past decade to allow passage of laws that attack existing rights such as women’s power and autonomy over their own bodies, or construct barriers that obstruct the popular will of the people.  Examples include promoting  extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression, dead ending the Dream Act, or allowing citizen access to weapons of war and a permitless gun-carry law in Florida.

Understandably, citizens have wondered, “Will our Democracy die.” Hadley’s courageous decision reflects a stubborn and determined stance, by she and many others throughout this land, to assure the answer is, “No. Not on my watch!”

Her image and words will be lasting for three major reasons. They prove that:

  1. A healthy democracy requires participation and engagement of citizens.
  2. Freedom and autonomy, including access to health professionals, is sacred and personal.
  3. Women will not accept second class citizenship.

Trump no doubt remains unaware that he has lost everything. Many of his most ardent supporters, including Leonard Leo, the mastermind behind the court packing scheme that brought us the Dobbs decision, remain firmly in a state of denial. But even they must admit this morning, as they stare into Hadley’s eyes, and listen to her steady voice, they have met their match. And she is a young woman who’s message is clear, “Enough is enough!”

Likely channeling another woman’s spirit from a century ago, Hadley’s courage (listen here) was more human than super-human. As Dorothy Day quietly proclaimed, “Don’t call me a saint. I don’t want to be dismissed that easily.”

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and regular contributor to THCB. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex.

Will the AMA Support A Move Toward Single Payer Health Care?

By MIKE MAGEE

The Politico headline in 2019 declared dramatically, “The Most Powerful Activist in America is Dying.” This week, 4 1/2 years later, their prophecy came true, as activist Ady Barkan succumbed at age 39 to ALS leaving behind his vibrant wife, English professor, Rachael King, and two small children, Carl,7, and Willow,3.

His journey, as one of the nation’s leading activists for a single-payer health care system began, not coincidentally, began with his diagnosis of A.L.S. in 2016, 4 months after the birth of his first child. His speech at the Democratic National Convention fully exposed his condition to a national audience.

His mechanized words that day were direct, “Hello, America. My name is Ady Barkan, and I am speaking to you through this computer voice because I have been paralyzed by a mysterious illness called A.L.S. Like so many of you, I have experienced the ways our health care system is fundamentally broken: enormous costs, denied claims, dehumanizing treatment when we are most in need.”

Three years later, with remarkable self-awareness, he told New York Times reporter, Tim Arango,  “That’s the paradox of my situation. As my voice has gotten weaker, more people have heard my message. As I lost the ability to walk, more people have followed in my footsteps.”

His was a shared sacrifice, laced with stubborn and very public persistence, under the banner, “Be A Hero.” His passage on November 1, 2023, was bracketed that day by a piece by veteran Healthy Policy guru, and columnist for KFF Health News, Julie Rovner, that certainly would have made Ady smile. In the Washington Post newsletter, Health 202, it read, “The AMA flirts with a big change: Embracing single payer health care.” 

The commentary that follows includes this, “That leftward shift in political outlook is showing up not just in the AMA, but in medicine as a whole. As the physician population has become younger, more female and less White, doctors (and other college graduates in medicine) have moved from being a reliable Republican constituency to a more reliable Democratic one.”

Ironically, the AMA’s lead journal JAMA last week reinforced the need for simplification with an article by luminary KFF health policy pros, Larry Levitt and Drew Altman, titled “Complexity in the US Health Care System Is the Enemy of Access and Affordability.” They write, “Health care simplification does not necessarily resonate in the same way as rallying cries for universal coverage or lower health care prices, but simplifying the system would address a problem that is frustrating for patients and is a barrier to accessible and affordable care.”

My friend and colleague at THCB, Kim Bellard took off on the article, writing, “Health insurance is the target in this case, and it is a fair target, but I’d argue that you could pick almost any part of the healthcare system with similar results. Our healthcare system is perfect example of a Rube Goldberg machine, which Merriam Webster defines as ‘accomplishing by complex means what seemingly could be done simply.’ Boy howdy.”

A bit further on, Kim comments, “If we had a magic wand, we could remake our healthcare system into something much simpler, much more effective, and much less expensive. Unfortunately, we not only don’t have such a magic wand, we don’t even agree on what that system should look like. We’ve gotten so used to the complex that we can no longer see the simple.”

As Kim suggests, status quo is hard to crack. But change has been in the air for some time. A KFF supported 2017 survey of 1,033 US physicians by Merritt Hawkins revealed a plurality of physicians favored moving on to a single payer system. Why? The survey suggested four factors:

Continue reading…