Why Not a Behavior Change Moonshot?

For forty years Americans have been convinced that cancer can be fixed. It fits with our quite impossible dream of living forever. We have constantly been told that all that we need is more of each of the following
  • highly specialized and costly research, 
  • highly specialized and costly tests, 
  • highly specialized and costly scans, 
  • highly specialized and costly physicians/staff/systems...
Can this be done without collapsing health care or the national economy? Is this a good expenditure of dollars? Can our bodies endure the treatments?

In more recent times we have a call for a cancer moonshot. Is this a fit with what can be done, what science dictates, and at reasonable value?

What is highest probability - is that we will not be able to afford it. President Kennedy understood this with his original moonshot claim and indicated that we could not do this, unless we focused on keeping costs reasonable. Science, innovation, and discovery costs in health care have no such restraints and have gone way out of control since the 1960s.

It is quite interesting that we hear talk of value in health care every day, but no one raises the question of value in the many areas where we are pouring billions into care with little return on investment.

The science required is daunting.

Spending more for fewer Americans is indeed the American way - but this is not value.

Not mentioned are areas with substantial impact upon Americans.

Behavior Change Is Where Complex Disease, Best Outcomes, and Value Coincide

Whatever happened to behavior change? The science studies have long demonstrated that the major impacts upon cancer are about behavior changes such as stopping smoking. This one behavior change was worth forty years of drug, scanning, and technical advances from 1960 to 2000 (NCI researchers). It has taken a massive infusion of dollars to finally tip the scales in favor of a technological solution. 

Patients who present with chest pain with mental health problems are more likely to die in the next year compared to those with cardiac reasons. 

Behavior Change Advantages
  • Behavior change is scientific. Patient factors are most important in health outcomes and behavior change is perhaps the most important
  • Preventing complex disease is the best approach for least cost and best outcomes
  • Completing a full course of treatment for best outcomes requires behavior change as many do not understand how to maximize benefit/minimize consequences
Since 1999 and To Err is Human we have been even more focused on the clinical area - the area least likely to influence outcomes with highest costs. The massive buildup due to technology and subspecialty focus has only been dwarfed by the administrative cost acceleration. 
We are even cutting and compromising the mental health, primary care, and community sources to address changes in behaviors, determinants, situations, and other patient factors that shape most of health and health outcomes.


Cancer Is Not the Only Moonshot Area

Cancer is just one area and a late comer at that. What about sanitation - failing fast? What about clean water, immunization, public health, primary care? What about community interventions, nutrition, housing, security, child development, early education, and other human infrastructure and physical infrastructure to make our society more efficient and more effective.
And then we wonder at all of the different destructive behaviors that dominate the headlines... And we cannot even get cab fare to address them.

 And by the way, the Mental Health Reform Bill, is no design to replicate for a moonshot. More funding for best practices, administration, demonstration, and distribution (dollars to agencies) is everything but rubber meets the road one on one behavioral impact.



Recent Posts and References 

Burying More Americans By Health Design

The Mystique of Medicaid Expansion

Rallying One Hundred for Health Access Not MACRA


The Ultimate Government Health Care Paradox - Government must facilitate better EHRs and better health access, not prevent them.
No Positive Spin for the Innovator Tailspin - more claims for innovation successes are apparently attempts to hide failure
Stop the Promotion To Restore Mental Health Access - claims of mental health care reforms or improvements are a stark contrast from the reality of lowest payment, highest complexity of care, unreliable payment, and poor support other than lots of rhetoric





Primary care can be recovered and should be recovered, 
but cannot be recovered when moving the wrong directions

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Robert.Bowman@DignityHealth.org

The blogs represent the opinion of the blogger alone.
Copyright 2016

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

Why not inside out empowerment rather than outside in abuse?

Just in from Annals of Family Medicine (Miller, Rubenstein, Howard, Crabtree) Shifting Implementation Science Theory to Empower Primary Care Practices Hope for primary care, generalists, rural health, and care where needed requires a very different perspective after decades of failed designs. Not surprisingly this will need to come from inside of these practices and places. Not surprisingly policies and practices dictated from outside have been not only a poor fit - but have been abusive to the populations most in need of care and the practices that serve them. There is hope from the primary care research community. The perspective must be inside of practice looking out - instead of outsiders forcing changes. Qualitative research explores and discovers and reflects as Ben, Will, and others taught me along with the various rural family physicians interviewed and researched in the 1990s in Nebraska. The current focus on quantitative research has demonstrated little to
Read more