To Be SMART or Not to Have Health Access

Many new proposals attempt to be seen as solutions for basic health access. Even more fail to be solutions. Few will remain objective in the next 20 years of desperation in primary care workforce. Those eager to meet their own agendas will continue to wave the primary care banner even with less than one-third of graduates delivering primary care workforce. Readers should understand  that what is being promoted as a primary care solution is typically generic, not specific.

This blog will focus on solutions that have worked and that will work. This blog will help eliminate solutions that will not work or cannot work.

What works in primary care is SMART focus upon primary care - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. What does not work is less spending upon primary care, less spending in locations in need of primary care, flexible sources of primary care that fail to remain in primary care, and claims of primary care that are not measurable or achievable or common sense.

Designs that work:
  • spend more upon primary care, 
  • spend more in locations in need of primary care, 
  • spend most specifically on primary care service delivery, and 
  • spend training funds on types of workforce that are most likely to serve in health access for 100% of their career delivering the most primary care per graduate. 
These are designs that work for an entire nation when applied to an entire nation. When these designs are not compromised by spending elsewhere not primary care, nations can count on primary care staff, nurses, and professionals that remain in primary care, that continue to gain primary care experience, and that deliver the best primary care for the least spending.

SMART works when the focus is specific for primary care. SMART principles also work for rural health with specific rural focus.


Comments

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