- Meaningful use a call to arms. [Journal Article]
- ARAcad Radiol 2012; 19(2):221-8
- The benefits of an interactive online world have affected the way we purchase products and plan our vacations. It is only a matter of time before consumers start demanding health care with the same c…
The benefits of an interactive online world have affected the way we purchase products and plan our vacations. It is only a matter of time before consumers start demanding health care with the same convenience that comes with booking an airline flight or managing a bank account. The health care industry itself requires periodic and mandatory data analysis for outcome analysis, clinical benchmarking, quality improvement, forming guidelines, and making decisions. The federal government and health care community have been working together to come up with more robust and cost-effective health care informatics solutions. Meaningful use (MU) intends to establish a new standard for health care informatics in the United States. The term "meaningful use" implies that health care information and technology systems not just exist, but also serve as an integral part of physician and hospital workflow; leading to cost savings as well as improved outcomes. Under this concept, the federal government is offering maximum incentive payments of up to $44,000 per physician (including radiologists) if they can meet all the requirements as laid down in the MU measures. Unfortunately, penalties will kick in if physicians are not compliant with MU by 2015. This will be done in at least three stages, with Stage 1 already in effect (as of January 3, 2011). This will be the first in a series of articles outlining MU and what is in store for radiology. We will go in depth about who is eligible, and how the payment schedule is set up. We will break down the core and menu set measures to suggest what can be excluded by most radiologists. We will also go through some case studies and examine what lies in store for radiology.
- Is there empirical evidence for "Defensive Medicine"? A reassessment. [Journal Article]
- JHJ Health Econ 2009; 28(2):481-91
- Proponents of tort reform applied to medical malpractice argue for change partly on the premise that the threat of lawsuits has made medical care more costly. Using U.S. longitudinal data from the Na…
Proponents of tort reform applied to medical malpractice argue for change partly on the premise that the threat of lawsuits has made medical care more costly. Using U.S. longitudinal data from the National Long-Term Care Survey merged with Medicare claims and other data for 1985-2000, this study assesses whether tort reforms have reduced Medicare payments made on behalf of beneficiaries and the survival probability following an index event. Direct reforms (caps on damages, abolition of punitive damages, eliminating mandatory prejudgment interest, and collateral source offset) did not significantly reduce payments for Medicare-covered services in any specification. Indirect reforms (limitations on contingency fees, mandatory periodic payments, joint-and-several liability reform, and patient compensation funds) significantly reduced Medicare payments only in a specification based on any hospitalization, but not in analysis of hospitalization for each of four common chronic conditions. Neither direct nor indirect reforms had a significant effect on the health outcomes, with one exception. The overall conclusion is that tort reforms do not significantly affect medical decisions, nor do they have a systematic effect on patient outcomes.