You made thefolowing statement in the piece above:
>>No longer will you be asked to pay for the risk of a “Bunny” who sits on the sofa and eats bon bons and watches soap operas all day and weighs 600 pounds.
I'm sorry, but if your model relies to any great extent to such a notion you are already in trouble. Siuch a stereotype makes assumtions that are at best highly debatable at best.
The extent to which people are influenced by, at minimum, their genetic inheritance, and community conditions has been better documented yearr after year.
This makes the idea of cjhargomg an individual in poor health for their condition not only harmful but inefficient.
As long as a sick person is still in the group, the plan has exporsure, and the cost of dealing with their medical problems is extremely high if you don't get them until they're dying. It's actiually significantly cheaper to give them access to preventive care.
If you can slash administrative costs dramatically with your model, that's awesome. If you think you can count on reducing costs by only treating the healthier folks, that's a whole 'nother discussion. If you like I'll write up a detailed critique along these lines.
Your assertion that "genetic inheritance, and community conditions" influence outcomes is not the question. "Bunny" will know that consequences of her behavior and for the first time will be encouraged to get up and move around, lose some weight and generally be healthier. She will be offered discounts based on this behavior. Inherent in, and part of the EMR is a health and wellness application that measures progress over time and compares her previous test results with current. This gives us a window into what she is doing and what she needs to be doing to minimize the risk to her own health and the risk to the larger economy. The healthier she is, the better off we all are.
So no, you missed the point completely. Bunny will pay for the things she has control over. While her bad behavior won't be penalized, she will not enjoy the reward, the discounts of demonstrable progress toward a healthier lifestyle.
Glad to see that you aren't making a personal.judgement of Bunny. LOL
But seriously, I think you are giving the wellness supports you list too much credit.
From the research I've seen, which includes a bunch having read and written up a bunch of employers who offered such supports as well as studies driven by providers, I think it's fair to characterize wellness programs as somewhat experimental.
I don't remember the precise stats, but I do remember that the correlation between these rewards and their behavior was pretty weak.
I could explain further or write about this subject myself if you'd like.
the discounts will give the health and wellness 'teeth' if you don't do the right thing, you don't' get the discount. We can email you "Your doctor prescribed this reading for you, and you haven't read it. get a discount for reading it, get a BIG discount for following it.' Nobody else is doing this. We are literally bribing the patient to get more healthy and telling them EXACTLY how to do it. Your assumption that "it doesn't work' has zero basis in reality as it has never been tried this way.
Tried to tell the Cerner back in 95 when developing the EMR that EMR should be patient based, not Facility based. The major issue is that a person does not "Own" their medical records and that leads to medical complications. One option that was created was to Export the Patient Data onto a CD in Windows Help format so the Patient could take Their data with them.
This is a good point. Our EMR IS patient based and the patient always has access to his or her own medical record. The patient can also grant access to a medical professional with an NPI or to a legal guardian, making this a truly portable solution. Cutting out 40%+ of the cost should drive everyone to us as well, making this a true single payer system.
You made thefolowing statement in the piece above:
>>No longer will you be asked to pay for the risk of a “Bunny” who sits on the sofa and eats bon bons and watches soap operas all day and weighs 600 pounds.
I'm sorry, but if your model relies to any great extent to such a notion you are already in trouble. Siuch a stereotype makes assumtions that are at best highly debatable at best.
The extent to which people are influenced by, at minimum, their genetic inheritance, and community conditions has been better documented yearr after year.
This makes the idea of cjhargomg an individual in poor health for their condition not only harmful but inefficient.
As long as a sick person is still in the group, the plan has exporsure, and the cost of dealing with their medical problems is extremely high if you don't get them until they're dying. It's actiually significantly cheaper to give them access to preventive care.
If you can slash administrative costs dramatically with your model, that's awesome. If you think you can count on reducing costs by only treating the healthier folks, that's a whole 'nother discussion. If you like I'll write up a detailed critique along these lines.
Your assertion that "genetic inheritance, and community conditions" influence outcomes is not the question. "Bunny" will know that consequences of her behavior and for the first time will be encouraged to get up and move around, lose some weight and generally be healthier. She will be offered discounts based on this behavior. Inherent in, and part of the EMR is a health and wellness application that measures progress over time and compares her previous test results with current. This gives us a window into what she is doing and what she needs to be doing to minimize the risk to her own health and the risk to the larger economy. The healthier she is, the better off we all are.
So no, you missed the point completely. Bunny will pay for the things she has control over. While her bad behavior won't be penalized, she will not enjoy the reward, the discounts of demonstrable progress toward a healthier lifestyle.
Glad to see that you aren't making a personal.judgement of Bunny. LOL
But seriously, I think you are giving the wellness supports you list too much credit.
From the research I've seen, which includes a bunch having read and written up a bunch of employers who offered such supports as well as studies driven by providers, I think it's fair to characterize wellness programs as somewhat experimental.
I don't remember the precise stats, but I do remember that the correlation between these rewards and their behavior was pretty weak.
I could explain further or write about this subject myself if you'd like.
the discounts will give the health and wellness 'teeth' if you don't do the right thing, you don't' get the discount. We can email you "Your doctor prescribed this reading for you, and you haven't read it. get a discount for reading it, get a BIG discount for following it.' Nobody else is doing this. We are literally bribing the patient to get more healthy and telling them EXACTLY how to do it. Your assumption that "it doesn't work' has zero basis in reality as it has never been tried this way.
Unfortunately, Cerner has every reasons to work in ways that allow providers to keep as much control of medical records as possible.
That's one thing that will could offer a real market advantage for Sentia.
Tried to tell the Cerner back in 95 when developing the EMR that EMR should be patient based, not Facility based. The major issue is that a person does not "Own" their medical records and that leads to medical complications. One option that was created was to Export the Patient Data onto a CD in Windows Help format so the Patient could take Their data with them.
This is a good point. Our EMR IS patient based and the patient always has access to his or her own medical record. The patient can also grant access to a medical professional with an NPI or to a legal guardian, making this a truly portable solution. Cutting out 40%+ of the cost should drive everyone to us as well, making this a true single payer system.