Last week, I had the distinct privilege of presenting the keynote at the first annual Northeast Regional Conference of the Association of Healthcare Value Analysis Professionals (AHVAP). With the ever-increasing push away from fee-for-service and toward value-based healthcare, I thought it pertinent to discuss the role of value analysis in the success of a health system’s bundled payment initiatives. Specifically, I wanted to highlight the role evidence can play in assisting value analysis professionals in their evidence-based decision making, as well as how it can help them define the part they play in the value-based purchasing environment.
In early March, Becker’s Hospital Review reported that MD Anderson Cancer Center placed their Oncology Expert Advisor project on hold. Announced in 2013, the joint effort between the hospital and the software giant was to be a revolutionary step forward in the use of “big data” to significantly improve clinical decision making and healthcare delivery. The article cites a number of reasons as to why the initiative was sidelined, not the least of which was cost. However, according to the article, a far more interesting complication arose involving MD Anderson’s electronic health record (EHR) system, which was changed after the program had begun. IBM Watson’s technology no longer communicated with the new EHR system and therefore had outdated information.
Traditional cancer treatments include procedures with which we’re all familiar: chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. But clinicians and scientists continue to work tirelessly to find a cure for the devastating disease. While immunotherapy has been in the news as of late as relates to the treatment of peanut allergies (see our blog, Peanut Allergy Drug Therapies Make National Headlines), there have been advances in its use for the treatment of cancer over the past few years. There are several biologic agents that are FDA approved for different cancers; these targeted therapies are aimed at destroying cancer cells without the troublesome side effects that accompany traditional cancer treatments.
But there’s something new on the horizon from the world of immunotherapy.
Hayes is a company of real people. We’d like you to get to know us and the ways we strive to provide personalized service to you, our clients. This month, let us introduce you to another valuable contributor to the Hayes mission of providing fiercely unbiased evidence, and a leader in the concept of delighting clients. Meet Dr. Mary McCabe Paine.
Dr. Paine joined Hayes in February 2017 as Director of Clinical Services. She is tasked with providing leadership and oversight of the Clinical Research Support (CRS) and Client Services teams who play a primary role in responding to the ad hoc research needs of all of our subscribers, as well as providing educational services and new-user orientation. Additionally, Mary oversees production of the Clinical Research Response (CRR) and Search & Summary product lines.
We’ve reached the final stretch of our physician engagement blog. Thanks for sticking with us! By now, we hope you’ve already applied some of our suggestions as to how to improve your physician buy-in. Don’t forget to share this blog with your supply chain and value analysis peers as well as the physicians in your hospital or health system. While you’re here, download our companion eBook for a lighthearted look at the challenges of physician engagement. Who couldn’t use a good laugh?
Let’s wrap up part 4 with our final piece of advice!
Not all genetic tests are created equal. It’s a fact that applies not only to quality, but also to the information that the test reveals. Therefore, it is important to ask: should all genetic tests be assessed the same way? The answer is not a simple “yes” or “no,” but rather the question demands a closer look at the types of variants (changes in the DNA or other biomarkers) the test is assessing. This week, we will highlight the key differences between germline and somatic variants and the implications for tests that examine each.
America has an opioid problem.
According to a 2016 report from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S., with 52,404 lethal drug overdoses in 2015. Of that number, 20,101 overdose deaths were related to prescription opioid pain relievers and 12,990 overdose deaths were related to heroin in 2015. In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for opioids; 80% of new heroin users began by misusing prescription painkillers.
Despite the possibility of impending changes to current healthcare regulations, it appears, at least for the moment, that value-based purchasing and bundled payment plans are here to stay. As a result, hospitals and health systems must scrutinize their decision-making processes around health technology acquisitions, product standardization, and utilization management. As part of that process, it is incumbent upon both supply chain/value analysis professionals and clinicians to consider three important questions:
By now, it’s probably safe to say that some, if not all, of you have experienced some level of “big data fatigue.” The phrase has become ubiquitous, no matter the industry, although it seems none more so than in healthcare. Indeed, almost every healthcare news source to which I subscribe these days seems to have weekly articles, essays, white papers and blogs about big data. But there’s a common thread often missing from these reports. While they all report on the inevitability of big data’s influence on the healthcare sphere, as well as the manner in which electronic health/medical records (EHR/EMR) will continue to impact the future of care delivery, there is little discussion of the role of evidence as it relates to big data.
It’s been quite a week for American healthcare.
The current administration unveiled the first phase of their proposal to “repeal and replace” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), currently titled the American Health Care Act (AHCA). The reveal has caused no end of concerns for patients, providers, and insurance carriers.