Ignoring Evidence Basis in Health Policy Is Unhealthy

One year ago today we had all the evidence that we needed to move away from payment policies that punished practices and delivery team members with meaningless use and other abuse. A year ago today, a landmark comprehensive review indicated that outcomes were not improved by financial incentives.
 
“In summary, we found low-strength, contradictory evidence that P4P programs could improve processes of care, but we found no clear evidence to suggest that they improve patient outcomes.” from

The Effects of Pay-for-Performance Programs on Health,Health Care Use, and Processes of Care: A Systematic Review, Annals of Internal Medicine 1/10/17.  
 
Happy Anniversary to Aaron Mendelson, BA; Karli Kondo, PhD; Cheryl Damberg, PhD; Allison Low, BA; Makalapua Motúapuaka, BA; Michele Freeman, MPH; Maya O'Neil, PhD; Rose Relevo, MLIS, MS; Devan Kansagara, MD, MCR for a fine study - substantially ignored 
 
Not even primary care associations have moved away from financial incentives. In fact AAFP continues to promote its own confusing version rather than supporting the evidence basis - and working to stop policies that hurt family practice most of all.
 
The preoccupation with meaningless use has actually delayed progress on meaningful health reforms such as 
  • Better payment for cognitive, office, basic services
  • Payment equity for practices serving where needed - not 15% less.
  • An end to higher costs of digitalization, innovation, regulation, and certification instead of 50 - 100% more for each as measured per primary care physician 
  • An end to costly and cumbersome financial designs
Meaningful Health Reform Is Not Even on the Radar Scope
 
A year ago this blog called for an end to the disruption of financial incentives.
 
The financial design in areas such as primary care is so broken where most Americans most need care that recovery will take decades and no training design can overcome the power of the financial design to punish practices where needed. 

Health reform is constantly in the news - but sadly the health care news includes far too much fake news inserted by those doing well or hoping to do well by the new opportunities set up by a focus on pay for performance, financial incentives, value based, and other meaningless, costly abuses.



False health reform includes 
  • Micromanagement of cost that cost as much as saved (CBO) and 
  • Micromanagement of quality that is costly, adds to meaningless complexity, and does not significantly change outcomes (Annals IM comprehensive evidence based review exactly one year ago)
False claims include the promotion of new schools, programs, or other training interventions as solution for health access. They are incapable of overcoming the limitations of dollars specific to each of 
  • Primary Care
  • Women's Health
  • Mental Health
  • Small Practices
  • Small Hospitals
  • 75% of the rural population with lowest concentrations of health workforce
  • 32% of the population most behind in urban settings with lowest concentrations

Happy Anniversary to the study that should have halted meaningless use. 
 
Sullivan, Soumerai, Jha, and others have also called for the end of this crabgrass They have exposed the discrimination, the false attribution, the inability to assess risk, the costly complexity, and more. The financial incentives continue to spread like crabgrass despite the evidence basis, despite logical thinking, and despite common sense.

When health reform and the evidence basis from the literature both line up against the major direction of payment policy (financial incentives) and the nation does not pay attention - we have a failure to communicate or worse. We have the designers that have belief in false assumptions. At a time when science appears under attack, we need those who claim to be scientific and evidence based to comply.
 
With any reflection it is clear that too much health care news is fake news. And as such, this also defeats the value of journals, articles, the media, and social media

Comments

  1. pamelaMarch 19, 2018 at 12:07 AM

    There is an answer. Have the structure of our society reflect the things that most people actually value. Have a well-funded national health system or a well-regulated private one, that ensures quality of care for its clients and living wages for its workers. Kratom Abuse
    Kratom Addiction

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more