Everything You Need to Know About Health Care Reform, Thanks to a 25 Minute Video, Courtesy of Managed Care Magazine

Thanks to Managed Care Magazine, the Disease Management Care Blog can post this interesting 25 minute interview with Princeton healthcare economist Uwe Reindardt.  Suitable for desk-bound meal-break viewing by overachieving DMCB readers, the modest and insightful Dr. Reindardt gets it mostly right:

No, the slowdown in the U.S. rate of health care costs cannot be ascribed to passage of the Affordable Care Act.  It started wayyyy before Obamacare was passed and is more likely due to the economic slowdown and increased consumer cost-sharing.

Accountable Care Organizations remain an "iffy" experimental proposition because they "don't go all the way like Kaiser."

Republican proposals to let health insurers sell their products across state lines are hardly a health reform panacea, because prices (and therefore premiums) are not a function of where the insurer is domiciled, but where the care is rendered.  Texas insurers would still have to pay New York prices.

Americans use fewer pills, occupy less bed-days and see fewer doctors, but we pay more because providers can charge more.  Despite being relatively small vs. the behemoths like Aetna and Cigna, regional hospitals have considerable market power that translates into take-it-or-leave it local single seller monopsonies.   Europeans, in contrast, have lower prices because their system is dominated by single purchaser monopolies.

We're headed toward a three-tier system comprised of 1) the indigent safety-net public programs, 2) the middle class "reference pricing" "networks" where consumers pay the difference if they want to buy up and 3) "boutique" health care for the 5%.

There's reason to be optimistic about the next five years thanks to a sluggish labor market (making it easier to impose networks and even more cost sharing) and innovation (computational capacity is putting meaningful quality measurement within reach, while techy gizmos are making self-care simultaneously cheap and fun). 

Plus, there's reason to be of good cheer.  Compared to the U.S. education and the legal systems, health care is far more efficient and consumer-friendly.  Stop beating up on yourselves.

(The DMCB didn't quite agree with Dr. Reinhardt's views on worksite wellness.  He finds the notion counterintuitive and intrusive, preferring that insurers own wellness.  He neglects to mention that the employers who invest heavily in wellness are typically self-insured and that employers have an arguable stake in improving the quality of their human capital.)

More on Penn State's Wellness Woes and The Evolving Science of Evaluating Health Promotion Program Outcomes: There Is No Gold Standard

Aside from keeping up to date with work buddies, the Disease Management Care Blog doesn't really use LinkedIn all that much. But when "Support our Penn State Colleagues in their Fight to Prevent Coercive Junk-Science Wellness Programs" postings began to appear in a Discussions board, the DMCB couldn't resist. It rose in support of its alma mater (College of Medicine, '77) faster than a med-mal attorney can calculate a contingency fee.

 As noted in this prior DMCB posting, Penn State University launched a rather routine health promotion program that prompted some nasty and very public teaching faculty resentment. Calls for "civil disobedience" and sinister references to "eugenics" made the DMCB wonder how much of the reported push-back was mainstream employee opinion vs. mainstream media's biased reporting. That distinction didn't stop the LinkedIn board from running a mostly one-sided dialogue on the matter.

So, undeterred by the unfairness of so many vs. just one, the contrarian DMCB naturally jumped right in.  Among the issues raised:

The RAND Study on wellness casts doubts on the merits of employer sponsored wellness programs:

Actually, RAND found employer-sponsored programs lead to statistically significant increases in exercise levels as well as reductions in tobacco abuse and body weight.  To the disappointment of wellness vendors everywhere, however, these programs did not lead to statistically significant reductions in health insurance claims expense.  The ever-optimistic DMCB points out that that means that these health improvements occurred without an increase in health care costs.

While cost neutrality alone is good news, the DMCB also believes that an emerging generation of wellness programs will do a far better job of identifying persons with 1) actionable risk and 2) who are willing to take action.  By husbanding wellness resources for subpopulations where it will have the greatest "bang," program costs will go down and claims savings will achieve statistical significance.

The author of the widely quoted Health Affairs paper on the merits of employer sponsored wellness programs has back-pedaled away ("too early to tell") from her study's original conclusions.

Actually, the original Health Affairs paper said that the finding of a $3.27 return on every dollar spent is subject to:

 "(f)urther study.... to elucidate the time path of return on investment.... The assumption of a linear trend in savings from the beginning to the end of program evaluation may not reflect the reality of behavior change within organizations."

The point is that nuanced and calibrated conservatism is typical of excellent peer-reviewed research and, taken in context, the authors are being quite consistent in-print and on-air.  Academics will always say more research is needed.  Skeptics will over read that.

There are powerful arguments against the common wisdom that "wellness saves money," suggesting that the health promotion industry has been intentionally ripping employers off.

Actually, when it comes to wellness outcomes, there is no agreement on "the" measurement "gold standard." Without any consensus on which assessment approach (for e.g., this vs. this) is truly "better," only one thing is certain: much like the Betamax vs. VHS wars, the future owner of "the" standard stands to reap a consultant's bonanza. Until we declare a winner, assessing the truth will be a messy mix of triangulating on means, medians, confidence intervals, imperfect reference controls, suspect generalizability, human judgment, moving targets and evolving interventions.

What about [insert name of wellness program here] that is an obvious sham?

There have been women who have had mammograms with missed cancer, victims of car crashes who have died despite seat belts and times when the DMCB did something really dumb despite the advice of the DMCB spouse.  That doesn't mean mammogram, seat belts or advice are worthless.  The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Coda: By the way, the statistically significant "value of  0.05" is more of a consensus than a gold standard.  Why is a 5% chance that an observed result is not the result of randomness wiser than a 6% chance or a 4% chance?

Penn State's Wellness Woes: Seven Lessons Learned About Launching a Worksite Employer-Based Health Promotion Program

Penn State's mascot goes on the
prowl for a good wellness program

Listen to this NPR report and it's easy to conclude that another employer-based health promotion program has gone amok. Reporter Jeff Brady implies rising health care costs have led Penn State University to force its employees into an intrusive wellness initiative, pitting David-like faculty members against the Goliath-Administration.

What can wellness architects and service providers learn from this imbroglio?

Here's the facts:

Penn State provides health benefits to over 45,000 employees and dependents. It's self-insured (administered by Highmark), which means the University, not some remote insurer, is on the hook for any unanticipated health care costs. 

Those costs have led to a whopping $217 million health care budget for 2015-2015 and a long term $3 billion pension liability. In response to the threat of budgetary "crowd out," the University made some important changes to the insurance benefit that included a high deductible option and value-based benefits.

It also hatched a health promotion initiative. It checked in with the Faculty Benefits Committee in the early spring of 2015 and then used the summer to unveil a "comprehensive wellness-focused strategy."  This included the "Take Care of Your Health" program that packaged biometric screening (some labs, weight blood pressure), an on-line WebMD wellness survey and preventive health exam. Failure to complete that screening, survey and exam will result in a $100 per month payroll deduction in 2015.

The plan didn't sit well with everyone. Faculty members Matthew Woessner fretted about privacy and penned a "call for action and civil resistance," Barry Ickes doubted the economics and Larry Backer invoked eugenics, human dignity and sinister profit-motives.  Brian Curran used the Change.Org website to post an anti-wellness petition for "employees, alumni and friends" that has reached 2000 signatories.  Naturally, wellness gadflies Vik Khanna and Al Lewis were unable to resist and used The Health Care Blog to pile on any wellness program with the temerity to not use their consulting services.

The Disease Management Care Blog speculates on lessons learned......

While worksite wellness programs have a reputation for increasing employee morale, it stands to reason for that any stressed organization (and here's why that may be true here), it runs both ways: low employee morale can hinder acceptance of a wellness program. The faculty backlash may be as much of a symptom as a problem.

Lesson: Health promotion programs should tread lightly in times of organization turmoil.  This is no time for "big bang" multidimensional interventions, especially if they involve a $100 per month penalty.

There is good evidence that employer-sponsored wellness programs save money, but it's unlikely that any health promotion will be enough to tame a $217 million budget.  To Penn State's credit, they simultaneously made some health insurance benefit changes, but that's been lost in this controversy.

Lesson: If you're fighting high health care cost trends, don't let the positive return on investment (ROI) from health promotion take the lead. It won't work that well, and employees will think this about reducing your costs, not about increasing their well-being.

Similar on-line WebMD wellness assessments for Pittsburgh city employees and the Mennonite Church have gone without any substantial privacy concerns.

Lesson: If there are two employee groups with a special talent for indignant paranoiac outrage over any employer-sponsored health initiative, it's medical providers and university faculty. There are plenty of reasons, but the DMCB suspects both are victims of the decades-long twin cultures of 1) autonomy and 2) abundance in health care and higher education.  Stopping by a Faculty Benefits Committee is not enough to secure buy-in.

Interestingly, Penn State's College of Medicine has a long standing agreement with Highmark that includes the joint development of evidence-based health, wellness and prevention programs.  Unless that's been cancelled, the medical science faculty's silence is deafening.

Lesson: Search for and engage employee subgroups that can be your allies in launching a health promotion initiative. Their advocacy may really help.

There are wellness service providers like this and this with established records of performance that can successfully reconcile employee and employer needs.

Lesson: There's nothing wrong with preferring to "build" over "buy," but only if both options are carefully considered at the outset.  External wellness providers are often subject to financial performance and recruitment standards. If the petition gains traction, the latter would sure come in handy here.

Critics of wellness programs in general and this one in particular say that they lead to unnecessary testing.

Lesson: The science is still evolving, but here is one answer to that criticism: it's not wellness per se but our society's love of technology.  Wellness programs can use initiatives like Choosing Wisely to develop even better programs.

As a self-insured entity, Penn State technically already has access to all the employees' insurance and claims information.  The WebMD privacy concern is silly.

Lesson: Now would not be a good time for Penn State's administration to point that out.

 

Image from Wikipedia

The Link Between Personalized Medicine and Worksite Wellness

Critics look at employee wellness

Only the Disease Management Care Blog can link population health, a JAMA "Viewpoint" article on personalized medicine and a Wall Street Journal editorial on the alleged futility of worksite wellness.

The DMCB explains.

The JAMA article, written by Drs. Goldberger and Buxton, illuminates the cognitive dissonance over guideline-based vs. personalized medicine. 

The former represents the best care advice for a condition based on a published body of evidence.  Makes sense, but that evidence is typically based on multiple research studies involving populations that are both broad (able to generate statistically significant data) and representative (similar to other patients with the same disease). 

The latter describes tailored medical treatment that is suited to the individual characteristics (and personal preferences) of each patient.  This suggests that within the flow of "populations" that form the basis of a generalized guideline, there are circumstances for some persons that might make a particular treatment of greater or lesser benefit.

While Goldberger and Buxton use a complicated example involving implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy to illustrate the conundrum, the DMCB has a simpler example.  Current guidelines support yearly mammography in every woman over the age of 50 years. Does that apply for the terminally ill woman in hospice or for a woman who, despite the advice from her physician, decides to forgo the test?

Intellectually reconciling competing policies of guidelines, such as "best practice," "reducing variation," "benchmarks" and "pay-for performance" on one side vs. personalized "informed consent," "patient empowerment" and "clinical judgment" involves subpopulations.  In other words, within any population-based study that shows an intervention is of benefit (mammograms save lives) there are subpopulations where the intervention is of little to no benefit (exceptions to every rule).

Which brings the DMCB to this provocative Wall Street Journal editorial condemning the entire worksite wellness industry. It recycles a number of tiresome criticisms, including outcomes tainted by regression to the mean, over-reliance on process-based outcomes, selection bias, employee discrimination, savings vs. program costs and overdiagnosis.  

Another criticism of the industry is the need for workforce-level (total) savings vs. per-participant savings. Since wellness programs typically focus on subpopulations of employees at greatest risk who are most likely to benefit and willing to participate, the observed savings can be limited to a few patients.  Unless those savings are culled from the large pool of total health insurance claims, they are otherwise invisible and critics will unfairly pounce.

Worksite wellness offers personalized care for limited numbers of patients.  That is its essential value proposition and its curse.  Until we can reconcile the total care via standardized guidelines vs. a more nuanced approach using personal care, it will continue to be criticized.

Do Employer-Based Wellness Programs Work?

Reuters tackles worksite wellness outcomes

Mrs. Smith (name changed) was overweight.  She knew it and her physician, the Disease Management Care Blog, knew that she knew it.  Since the DMCB was one of the two persons on the planet who knew her true weight, she could talk to it behind closed doors about diet, exercise, fads, over the counter meds, prescription appetite suppressants and even bariatric surgery. 

What the DMCB quickly discovered was that Mrs. Smith's weight-loss goals were not only unrealistic but, like many women struggling with weight, driven more by the prospect of how she'd look in a bathing suit than any real health benefit.

Mrs. Smith wasn't alone. This seminal study demonstrated just how unrealistic women's weight loss goals (in the range of 50 lbs.) can be.  Think of the popularity of The Biggest Loser and it's easy to see why persons think thinness is just a matter of a few months of dieting and exercise, and that being skinny leads to health and happiness, 

Easy, right?

DMCB readers know otherwise. That's why they're not going to be impressed by the tone of this May 24 Reuters article on worksite wellness.  RAND, in a not-quite released report to Congress, examined the impact of several employee based programs and found, in the words of the Reuters reporter, only a "modest effect."  Average weight loss was "only" three lbs., tobacco cessation rates were significant but "short term," average cholesterol levels were unchanged and reductions in health insurance claims expense failed to achieve statistical significance.

Researchers have known for years that conservative dietary and lifestyle therapy typically results in weight loss in the range described above. In addition, cholesterol reduction as a primary prevention intervention is low yield when it comes to health. On the other hand, even short term tobacco cessation is a good thing. When it comes to the ability of wellness to reduce health care costs, weight reduction is unlikely to drive claims expense for a health insurer within two to three years, the impact of obesity on overall mortality rates is not as large as you'd think and "prevention" rarely saves money.

What's more, these programs were able to achieve their "modest" outcomes without increasing claims expense.  Participants lost weight and stopped smoking at no additional cost to the system.  Now that is something.

Mrs. Smith and Reuters are very similar.  Both are struggling with nrealistic expectations thanks to dubious fashion trends, media misinformation and scientific ignorance.  Fortunately, Mrs. Smith had access to a resource that could help her better manage her weight.  The DMCB can only hope that Reuters has access to a resource that can help it manage its lack of background knowledge.

Does Worksite Wellness Work? A Critical Look at the "Wellness Incentives In the Workplace" Article

A waste of money and
a basis for discrimination?

The answer to the "Does Worksite Wellness Work?" question depends on your frame of reference.

If you read this 2010 review by Baicker, Cutler and Song, you'll see that there are 32 peer-reviewed published studies from work settings that a) transparently described the intervention and b) used a valid parallel control group - persons who did not receive the intervention - as a comparison. When interventions like these were deployed, impressive reductions in medical costs and absenteeism like these were achieved in the intervention groups, compared to the groups that did not receive the wellness programs.

If you read this just-published 2015 review by Jill Horwitz, Brenna Kelly and John DiNardo, you'll see that it's possible to use a "conceptual framework" to completely trash the notion that worksite wellness programs offer any benefit.  Oh, and by the way, they also result in discrimination.

How is that you ask?

This framework asks:

1) Do employees with chronic conditions or health risks spend more?  The authors' answer is that most studies for most conditions indicate the answer is yes.

2) Do financial incentives change behavior? The authors' answer, based on a review of the literature, is that obese persons tend to gain weight and many persons who quit tobacco relapse.  The impact on high blood pressure and lipids is less certain.

3) Do health improvements lead to employer savings? The authors' brief three paragraph answer, based on two references (here and here), is "uncertain," "depends" and "erroneously assuming."

The authors also

a) point to the abundant literature that questions the relationship between "process" and "intermediate" outcomes (blood glucose testing or control in persons with diabetes mellitus) versus long-term outcomes (like mortality - an example is here),

b) note that aggressive treatment can lead to unintended consequences (an example is here), and

c) suggest that wellness programs disproportionately benefit persons from higher socioeconomic classes who suffer from less disease. It's frankly difficult for the Disease Management Care Blog to follow the authors' logic, but as it understands it, anything that benefits one segment of a population is a zero-sum loss for the remaining segment.

The DMCB's two-fold take:

1) The 2010 review examines state-of-the-art clinical trial data, while the 2015 "conceptual framework" interprets the underlying published literature and finds it wanting.  According to the framework authors, the value of any counseling is ultimately unproven.

Big deal. The DMCB would like to point out that a similarly conducted review of primary care (where there are no randomized control clinical trials), Medicare (a social experiment if there ever was one) and parachutes (to combat "gravitational challenges") could also conclude that there's no proof.

Bottom line: Lack of proof for a benefit is not the same as proof that there is a lack of any benefit.  What's more, the business persons that run worksite wellness programs know that evidence based medicine is necessary, but not sufficient.  They don't demand proof, they use reasonable assurance.  The 58% of large employers that are offering worksite wellness are using seasoned logic in a world of conflicting data.  Good for them.

2) The Homer Simpson-inspired DMCB doesn't quite "get" the framework's socioeconomic argument.  If persons from lower socioeconomic classes have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol levels and poor fitness, anything that offers increased access to a higher level of care is not only good policy but a proportionately noble thing.

What's more, if worksite wellness results in no economic benefit and doesn't shift costs in any direction, how does that result in any discrimination?

While economic incentives in a zero sum game can be problematic, the DMCB believes that Horwitz, Kelly and DiNardo's logic is overlawyered worksite nihilism run amok. Their ultimate unspoken conclusion is that when it comes to employees, all should be treated to the same level of neglect.

Image from Wikipedia