Technology and quality and cost of care

D. Patt
{"title":"Technology and quality and cost of care","authors":"D. Patt","doi":"10.12788/j.cmonc.0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As I write this editorial, we who practice medicine face many challenges. Our internal and external environments are changing, and we are asked to do more with less, but we have better tools to perform that work. We have health care reform, which has been met with such opposition that our government temporarily shutdown in October and faced potential default on the national debt. Although it is uncertain to what degree health care reform will succeed at its primary objectives – the provision of services to the underserved and cost control – it is clear that there are changes ahead that will have an impact on our care delivery. Because many states did not embrace Medicaid, it remains unclear how meaningful care will be provided. The technical challenges in registering for the health care exchanges partnered with the very small penalty for not enrolling are likely to precipitate lower-than-anticipated use of the exchanges, which could result in adverse selection of a sicker patient population, and increase proportional costs for patients enrolled in the health care exchanges. How will we manage this change better? As a country, we spend 18% of our gross domestic product on health care, which is far more than any other country. Although we strive to improve patient access to care and cost containment, we aspire to these outcomes being born out of value-based care delivery, but lack meaningful supply-side controls that could foster value-based decisions. The boundary aversion in cost containment is pervasive from the way in which the Food and Drug Administration considers drug approvals – focusing on the drug’s efficacy and toxicity, but not its cost – to the way in which we approach patient-centered outcomes research with specific prohibitions from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to evaluate costs of care. Despite being in a time of change, challenges, and a great deal of disagreement, we have our sights focused on a better future. We talk about our goals of care delivery – high-quality, patient-centered, collaborative, cost-effective, value-based, efficient – and we are optimistic. Given our tremendous technologic advances, it is easy to see how we can use health technology to meet these goals more efficiently and effectively. We see that in this month’s issue of COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY, and it can offer us hope. There are many examples of ways in which we can leverage technology to foster collaboration, improve communication, and efficiently improve patient care in a cost-effective manner. On page 316, Schenken et al evaluate inexpensive solutions to enhance remote care in hospitals that deal with the critical issue of using technology to improve care in areas that do not have easy access to care. Ricci et al discuss planning evaluation programs for assessing telecommunications applications in community radiation oncology programs (p. 325), and Bold et al demonstrate an effective model for collaborative virtual tumor boards incorporating community-university collaboration (p. 310). These articles offer optimism that we can do more with less and use our health IT tools to enhance quality, value-based, patientcentered, and collaborative care.","PeriodicalId":72649,"journal":{"name":"Community oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"309-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/j.cmonc.0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As I write this editorial, we who practice medicine face many challenges. Our internal and external environments are changing, and we are asked to do more with less, but we have better tools to perform that work. We have health care reform, which has been met with such opposition that our government temporarily shutdown in October and faced potential default on the national debt. Although it is uncertain to what degree health care reform will succeed at its primary objectives – the provision of services to the underserved and cost control – it is clear that there are changes ahead that will have an impact on our care delivery. Because many states did not embrace Medicaid, it remains unclear how meaningful care will be provided. The technical challenges in registering for the health care exchanges partnered with the very small penalty for not enrolling are likely to precipitate lower-than-anticipated use of the exchanges, which could result in adverse selection of a sicker patient population, and increase proportional costs for patients enrolled in the health care exchanges. How will we manage this change better? As a country, we spend 18% of our gross domestic product on health care, which is far more than any other country. Although we strive to improve patient access to care and cost containment, we aspire to these outcomes being born out of value-based care delivery, but lack meaningful supply-side controls that could foster value-based decisions. The boundary aversion in cost containment is pervasive from the way in which the Food and Drug Administration considers drug approvals – focusing on the drug’s efficacy and toxicity, but not its cost – to the way in which we approach patient-centered outcomes research with specific prohibitions from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to evaluate costs of care. Despite being in a time of change, challenges, and a great deal of disagreement, we have our sights focused on a better future. We talk about our goals of care delivery – high-quality, patient-centered, collaborative, cost-effective, value-based, efficient – and we are optimistic. Given our tremendous technologic advances, it is easy to see how we can use health technology to meet these goals more efficiently and effectively. We see that in this month’s issue of COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY, and it can offer us hope. There are many examples of ways in which we can leverage technology to foster collaboration, improve communication, and efficiently improve patient care in a cost-effective manner. On page 316, Schenken et al evaluate inexpensive solutions to enhance remote care in hospitals that deal with the critical issue of using technology to improve care in areas that do not have easy access to care. Ricci et al discuss planning evaluation programs for assessing telecommunications applications in community radiation oncology programs (p. 325), and Bold et al demonstrate an effective model for collaborative virtual tumor boards incorporating community-university collaboration (p. 310). These articles offer optimism that we can do more with less and use our health IT tools to enhance quality, value-based, patientcentered, and collaborative care.
技术,质量和护理成本
在我写这篇社论的时候,我们行医的人面临着许多挑战。我们的内部和外部环境都在变化,我们被要求用更少的资源做更多的事情,但我们有更好的工具来完成这项工作。我们还有医疗改革,这项改革遭到了如此强烈的反对,以至于我们的政府在10月份暂时关闭,面临着国家债务违约的可能。虽然不确定医疗改革在多大程度上能成功实现其主要目标——向服务不足的人提供服务和控制成本——但很明显,未来的变化将对我们的医疗服务产生影响。由于许多州没有接受医疗补助计划,目前尚不清楚将提供多少有意义的医疗服务。注册医疗保健交易所的技术挑战,加上不注册的罚款很小,可能会导致交易所的使用率低于预期,这可能导致病情较重的患者群体出现逆向选择,并增加注册医疗保健交易所的患者的比例成本。我们将如何更好地管理这种变化?作为一个国家,我们将国内生产总值的18%用于医疗保健,这远远超过其他任何国家。虽然我们努力改善患者获得护理和成本控制的机会,但我们渴望这些成果产生于基于价值的护理提供,但缺乏有意义的供应方控制,可以促进基于价值的决策。成本控制的边界厌恶是普遍存在的,从食品和药物管理局考虑药物批准的方式——关注药物的功效和毒性,而不是它的成本——到我们以患者为中心的结果研究的方式,以患者为中心的结果研究所的具体禁止来评估护理成本。尽管我们处在一个充满变革、挑战和大量分歧的时代,但我们的目光集中在一个更美好的未来上。我们谈论我们的医疗服务目标——高质量、以病人为中心、合作、成本效益、价值为基础、高效——我们是乐观的。鉴于我们巨大的技术进步,很容易看出我们如何能够利用卫生技术更有效地实现这些目标。我们在本月的《社区肿瘤学》杂志上看到了这一点,它可以给我们带来希望。有很多例子表明,我们可以利用技术来促进协作,改善沟通,并以经济有效的方式有效地改善患者护理。在第316页,Schenken等人评估了加强医院远程护理的廉价解决方案,这些解决方案处理了利用技术改善不易获得护理的地区的护理这一关键问题。Ricci等人讨论了评估社区放射肿瘤学项目中电信应用的规划评估方案(第325页),Bold等人展示了一种有效的协作虚拟肿瘤委员会模型,该模型结合了社区-大学合作(第310页)。这些文章乐观地认为,我们可以用更少的资源做更多的事情,并使用我们的健康IT工具来提高质量、以价值为基础、以患者为中心和协作式护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信