Another review of a Health Affairs issue, this time July. Gives you a glimpse into current health policy research. The annual article on the federal projections of national health spending is included. I covered the actual report by the Medicare Office of the Actuary when it was released.
There is a lot of concern about the number of health care providers, including hospitals, in rural areas and the implications for access to health care. A study reported in this issue examined whether a Pennsylvania model designed to provide more stable funding for rural hospitals had a positive impact. The hospitals were paid a global budget as opposed to fee-for-service payments per patient. While there was some financial improvement, it was not significant. A second article finds that some rural hospitals chose not to participate to avoid having to comply with some of the program’s requirements.
Access to pregnancy care has been a substantial issue, particularly in rural areas and largely due to malpractice suits. The threat of lawsuits even for unavoidable pregnancy and delivery issues has led many hospitals to close their obstetrics departments. Almost every state has lost such services during the period from 2010 and some states are experiencing large areas with no access to pregnancy care. This lack of access threatens both the mothers and babies. The obvious remedy is to restrict lawsuits and awards, but guess what, the trial lawyers are huge political contributors and they don’t give a damn about access to health care.
There is justified concern about the adequacy of reports of adverse events for new drugs, including uncertainty about whether a specific adverse event might result from the drug. A study finds that the FDA communicates less than half of these uncertainties, or potential adverse events, to prescribing clinicians via the approved label for the drug, which is the main channel for such communication. (HA Issue)https://www.healthaffairs.org/toc/hlthaff/44/7
