conflict of interest
Advocates, providers send Governor, legislators letter about cost cap impact and unintended consequences
Yesterday, twenty advocates and providers sent letters to the Governor and legislative leaders objecting to the rush to develop a cap on healthcare cost increases during a pandemic, and to use the time to incorporate input from diverse stakeholders and for thoughtful design with a broad group chosen democratically. “This controversial proposal, if rushed ahead…
Read MoreProtecting affordability in a pandemic — Experts find fair prices for remdesivir between $10 and $4,500
In a nation hungry for good news in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, remdesivir has emerged as a first ray of hope. The FDA has quickly approved the drug for emergency use with seriously ill patients. However there are concerns that the data supporting remdesivir’s effectiveness has not been published or peer reviewed by independent scientists…
Read MoreNew, confusing twist on state’s HIE plans to sell insurers access to personal medical records
In new information, the Office of Health Strategy says their Health Information Exchange (HIE) will not provide insurers or large health systems — Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) – access to individual patients’ data. Advocates and providers have raised concerns that access to personal medical records could allow insurers and ACOs to inappropriately limit care and…
Read MoreMore HIE concerns from advocates and others
Public comment to the Office of Health Strategy about the state’s planned Health Information Exchange raised concerns, including those regarding privacy and selling/monetizing the data shared in the advocates letter. Connecticut’s three legal services agencies sent a letter with similar concerns on Friday. Advocates’ concerns were raised by members at last week’s online Health IT…
Read MorePublic comment to OHS opposing selling/monetizing personal medical records
Download the comments PUBLIC COMMENT to the Connecticut Office of Health Strategy, HITO@ct.gov March 4, 2020 Re: Public comment on Draft Consent Design Guiding Principles Ellen Andrews, PhD, Board Chair Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the Office of Health Strategy’s (OHS) proposed guiding principles on the Final Report and Recommendations of the…
Read MoreLessons from SIM: Advice from Independent Advocates
Download the full responses here Connecticut’s latest attempt to reform our health system, SIM, ended last month. Despite $45 million in federal dollars, SIM didn’t accomplish much. It was mired in controversy and criticism from across the state’s healthcare landscape. SIM followed several past failed attempts to reform Connecticut’s health system. We asked independent consumer…
Read MoreCTNJ: Analysis — How industries influence healthcare spending, and it’s working
There are a thousand ways that healthcare is different than other economic sectors and those differences keep the market from working to keep care affordable. . . . An important way the healthcare market fails is that industries have powerful tools to drive the prices and use of their products that most consumers aren’t aware…
Read MoreState approves controversial New Haven primary care move
Friday, the state Office of Health Strategy gave final approval Yale-New Haven’s application to move primary care for over 25,000 low income consumers out of neighborhoods and shift them to the Cornell Scott and Fairhaven health centers for payment purposes. Under the final agreement patients would still be cared for by the same YNHH primary…
Read MorePCMH + risk scores suggest possible gaming or worse; Advocates call on DSS to delay expansion to protect members and taxpayers
A new analysis of PCMH + members’ risk scores finds unexplained increases compared to the control/comparison group that could signal ACO gaming of the system for financial gain and/or, far worse, a decline in the health of members in the program. PCMH Plus, a controversial new payment model, allows ACO (large health systems) to share…
Read MoreLarge study finds selection bias in Medicare shared savings erases savings and quality improvements – advocates saw this coming
Researchers from the University of Michigan found that the modest savings and quality improvements reported by Medicare’s extensive shared savings program (MSSP) are likely due to adverse selection. High cost clinicians and beneficiaries were far more likely than others to exit the program. When adjusted for the selective bias in MSSP exit, reported savings and…
Read More