• The Six Billion Pound Challenge -- How a Focus on Driving Outcomes can Improve Health Faster and Better than Legislation

    I commend the administration for shining the light on the need to improve health in America!  While I want to be optimistic about change, I’m skeptical about how much real improvement we will really see under the guise of healthcare reform.  Like I’ve noted before, the national conversation we are having -- which bill will pass, a public option or not, an abortion amendment or not, which party is winning -- is just the wrong conversation.  Imagine if we were to take all the TV time, print space, blogs, and so on, consumed by the political debate and use it to advance an audacious goal like improving the state of our health!  Imagine what we could accomplish with a big sustainable campaign across schools, employers, state governments and the media -- just imagine!

    Today’s reality is that more than 75 percent of America’s healthcare costs stem from six chronic diseases. About 133 million Americans -- nearly one in two adults -- live with at least one chronic illness -- and the numbers are forecasted to grow unless we do something differently.  Realistically, the only way to maintain some fiscal responsibility under any reform scheme is to address the controllable elements of chronic diseases.

    What if we were to focus on a couple of conditions like obesity and diabetes?  Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, leading to chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and other conditions.  Currently, obesity alone costs the health system $147 billion a year! What’s more, obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for developing the six chronic diseases that drive the majority of direct and indirect costs to our system, including diabetes ($218 billion), cardiovascular disease and stroke ($437.5 billion).  Not to mention childhood obesity with equally alarming statistics (one in six children are obese), the most alarming of which is that children who are obese have a 70% chance of being obese as adults.  Yet, obesity is completely within our control to manage/prevent. 

    According to CDC, the average American adult (age 20 and 74) is 5’6 ¾”, weighs 177.65 pounds and has a BMI of 28 (Note: an adult who has a BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight and an adult who has a BMI of 30 or higher is considered obese).  To achieve a BMI of 24, America needs to lose 29 pounds per person.  With the U.S. adult population at 205,639,360, that means 5,963,541,440 pounds…almost six billion pounds. 

    If we were to collectively lose this weight, we would have a direct impact on obesity and as a result, diabetes and other conditions.  Healthier diet and exercise are things we can immediately start doing -- without legislation.  Not to sound trite, but losing weight can be the “quick fix” for our health problems and rising costs.  Obese individuals incur an 42% more in medical expenditures -- about $4,800 for per person per year -- compared with normal weight individuals, who incur an average of about $3,400 in such expenses.  And little things matter -- for example, walking half an hour a day, five days a week cuts the incidence of diabetes by 40%.  Think of the impact we could have on costs and the economy!

    I know losing weight is hard work, but letting the growing waistlines of America continue unchecked will only doom us to continue the cycle of out-of-control healthcare spending.  While I’m not sure I agree with Japan’s approach to legalizing waistlines, it does seem to have an impact.  If we can send a man to the moon, create 200 different versions of yellow sticky notes and other wonders of the modern world, we can figure out how to lose a few billion pounds!

    And it should all start with a public education campaign.  Even though this is fundamentally marketing, it does belong in the domain of government action.  It doesn’t take much to create a great ad campaign, viral marketing and so on.  Look at the popularity of shows like the Biggest Loser -- now there’s a whole line of products and services.  There have been a lot of one-off “celebrities” championing the cause of weight loss -- Mike Huckabee, Valerie Bertinelli, and others.  But these have been isolated.  Imagine if the government organized a group of great marketing companies -- Nike, Apple, Proctor and Gamble -- and got them together to create a campaign about obesity and health -- and involve popular sports heros or celebrities -- in a sustained way over a period of time.  I’d bet there’d be some impact.  Another great example of something that could easily and inexpensively be rolled out to schools nationally is the preventative childhood obesity program driven by the Columbus Research Foundation.  These folks thought deeply about how to influence middle school students, and developed a program focused on education around diet/nutrition and exercise -- including a virtual cross-country competitive walk (students used pedometers connected to the Internet via HealthVault to track their progress).  Ten middle schools were involved with nearly 1000 participants.   

    Real reform in healthcare isn’t solely the responsibility of government.  It’s about individual responsibility and how we, as consumers, embrace our part of the current situation.  I hope that reform will include changes to the payment system to enable and reinforce changes in behavior and stimulate innovation, but we don’t need to rely only on legislation to make things better.   We can all individually start making better choices. 

    I understand that neither 'health reform' nor legislation are easy.  As many have noted, whatever legislation passes will not include a 'silver bullet solution' to either goal 'bending the cost curve' or improving the value we get for our healthcare spend.  Simple things can make a difference.  By taking more responsibility for our own actions, we can impact the healthcare costs of our nation. 

  • Individuals and Personal Responsibility May Be the Tipping Point in Health Reform

    The latest turn in the healthcare debate is the increasingly sensational coverage of town halls happening across the country.  While they’re described as rancorous and sometimes violent, I’m pleased to see my fellow Americans so passionate and involved in one of our country’s biggest long-term challenges.  For most of us, we think of health care personally -- it’s about my relationship with my doctor or my insurance company -- versus considering the system as a whole. 

    But this dynamic seems to be changing.  There are a number of forces -- the media and current political agenda, technology trends, the economy -- converging on Main Street that are pushing people to get educated and more engaged in Congress’ proposed changes than they ever have before.  Our sensational media machine is in full swing highlighting healthcare across every communications vehicle available 24/7.  Technology’s influence over other industries has created consumer expectations for more convenience and value from healthcare.  And the downturn in the economy has forced many to face the stark realities of healthcare tied to employment.  So perhaps out of all this turmoil will come something good -- people coming together around the cause of improving the healthcare for today and tomorrow.  

    What many fail to understand is that the personal connection people have with their own healthcare is the very core we need address in order to make some of the greatest changes to the system.  People make choices every day that impact their health – and the system as a whole.  The diabetic who decides to not follow the course of action prescribed by his doctor costs the system.  This is evidenced by two studies I read this week.  The first is from the CDC, which states something we all know – that by losing weight, not smoking, getting exercise and sticking to a good diet, we will dramatically lower the risk of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.  Imagine the impact we could have on the system given that 70% of current costs stem from six chronic disease states.

    The second from PricewaterhouseCoopers highlights some stark realities:

    • About half of surveyed individuals indicate their current lifestyle was less than healthy
    • 90 percent said they would become active in improving their health if they were diagnosed with a chronic illness, which is obviously too late
    • Disease management programs are rarely used -- employers report than less than 15 percent of eligible patients participate in the programs
    • 25 percent of surveyed individuals are not more involved in their healthcare because they don't know where to go for good information
    • 15 percent aren't more involved because they aren't interested
    • 25 percent of people in poor health are not involved in their healthcare and treatment choices

    The juxtaposition of these two studies really brings to light for me how much our reform efforts need to focus on our citizens -- educating them and involving them in the health system in very different ways than they have been in the past.  For the health system to work for all, economic incentives and costs need to be aligned with consumer behaviors and choices.  We can’t continue to support the diabetic’s decision to make poor choices and drain the system for all of us. There have to be some consequences for actions.  If something’s free, I think we all know that there is a strong possibility that people will not appreciate its value.  We can look to many examples of this over time.

     

    While we can argue that patients absolutely need to step up and do more for themselves (and their children), we also have to acknowledge that our system hasn’t been designed to support them.  We have a provider-centric system, not a patient-centric one.  Today, the average time a physician spends with a patient is 18.7 minutes.  There isn’t a lot of room in 18.7 minutes for much “education.”  In Maggie Mahar’s new documentary, one physician describes how he’d love to spend time with the diabetic educating him on how he needs to get involved, but he gets paid more to do procedures.

    “We are paid to do things to patients,” said one doctor. “We are not paid to talk to them.”

    In addition to patients needing to take more responsibility for their own health, our government needs to set up (or get out of the way) a new framework that will enable "healthy" markets to develop new value chains to deliver services like education, motivation, etc. at lower costs than high-cost professionals.  We need highly educated physicians focused on the right things -- like diagnoses, solving major health crises, etc.  If we look at chronic care today, much of it is about helping patients stick to a particular course of action prescribed their physician.  But today’s chronic care "business model" is based on physician and hospital care -- acute care.  A totally different type of "business model" or offering is required to keep people well.  We’ve already seen innovation like this in other health related-areas like veterinary medicine, dentistry, and cosmetic surgery where consumers have taken more control of their on-going care.

    The decisions we make today will impact generations to come -- financially, socially, and medically.  We have an opportunity to come together, influence our elected officials and shift the debate in Washington to drive real change.

  • The Ups and Downs of Managing my Own Health

    I learned about the importance of diet and health very early in life as my Dad had his first heart attack when I was 12, and subsequently, my Mom made dramatic changes to our 1960’s diet at home.  Since my college years, I’ve always been a bit of a health nut -- careful with my diet and disciplined about working out.   During my 30’s and 40’s, I relied on my supposedly high degree of exercise/fitness to manage my cholesterol levels…while my older brothers started on statins in their late 30’s.  One of my brothers warned me that everything gets harder after 50, so I focused on continuing to make a combination of subtle shifts in diet, stress and exercise, which have led to my chart below -- from the Mayo Clinic Health Manager

     

    Just about Christmas time last year, the trend wasn’t looking good, so my doctor strongly suggested starting on statins (he’d been suggesting it regularly in the past but had left it up to me).  I’d heard a lot about taking them versus not -- but I thought the pros and cons were especially well summarized at a panel on which I spoke at the Partners’ Connected Health Conference in Boston.  John Halamka, John Glaser, and I were on the panel, and an audience member posed a question about tools to do research and manage one’s health -- I can’t quite remember it specifically -- but I do remember the specifics of the answers from the two John’s -- two distinctly different answers.  John Halamka talked about how his doc had suggested statins, but after doing some research, he decided to pursue a difficult personal course of action -- to shift his behaviors, change his eating habits, lose weight, and exercise more.  He actually became a vegan -- quite a dramatic shift!  John Glaser, on the other hand, didn’t want to give up his burger, so he chose the med route.  And BOTH are doing well! 

     

    For me, I decided to try the Halamka route.  For the past three months, I’ve aggressively modified my diet -- cutting out eggs and red meat, eating oatmeal every morning, eating lots of green vegetables, salads and chicken for dinner.  My doctor and I had agreed on a three month retest, and I just got my results back, which are reflected in the chart below.  While I have reversed the trend and have bent the curves in the right direction, I still need to work on improving my LDL levels, which are not yet where they need to be to lower my risk levels.  However, I am still not yet prepared to start a statin regimen.  It seems clear that my DNA and biology create higher than ‘recommended’ cholesterol levels -- the question though -- is this fact creating a potential health problem or not?  I wish the genetic understanding and testing had reached a point where it could definitively answer this question!

     

    Peters cholesterol tracker

     

  • Healthy Debate

    I love the fresh debate about standards and the evolution of Health IT raised by the three Health Affairs articles.    I agree wholeheartedly with the perspectives of Carol and Clay - and frequently reinforce these comments to customers, policy makers and audiences alike. 

    1. It's about the patient - not about the standards. Value in the form of patient care and business results can be improved by moving/reusing the data already in the system! There is no need to wait for 'standards'.  Ultimately we need to be focused on solutions that provide value to patients….better quality of care.
       
    2. If it's about the patient, we need to empower consumers to be active and engaged participants in the system and they will demand 'connected' care and more health and wellness choices.  They will increasingly make physician choices based on the ability and willingness of physicians to leverage communications/connected care to improve patient convenience and outcomes.  In order to have more choice, consumers need to be able to access and leverage health IT solutions: the same ones that are being used by their physicians and other stakeholders across the spectrum of care.
       
    3. Health IT is a great enabler for many things (outcomes, safety, results, employee productivity, employee satisfaction) but not an end in itself. System design matters a lot - metadata is the answer to enabling exchange of info today to evolve to standard exchange tomorrow.  Health IT is only one piece of the puzzle, but we can't wait for all the pieces to be in place; We need to start improving outcomes today. These beliefs have informed the design principles of the software products we introduced in the marketplace - both HealthVault and Amalga.


    In addition to consumers as a change agent, I remain hopeful that the buyers of large health IT systems will wake up and demand more from their vendors; Not in terms of custom features, but in terms of a real commitment to interoperability and to unlocking the data that exists in systems already.   Health IT buyers are critical stakeholders/components of the ecosystem and need to demonstrate leadership in getting us to real solutions that extract the value from HIT - and not let themselves be positioned as victims controlled by the vendors. Unlocking the data that providers and patients need to make the right decisions should be the priority, with the goal of improving patient outcomes.

  • Before you finalize your Health IT shopping list

    The mad dash for health reform continues in earnest as stakeholders from all parts of the health ecosystem work to inform, engage and encourage the incoming Administration.   The need for reform is obvious and the dialog is positive -- I continue to worry that 'soundbite solutions' will get in the way of a serious discussion of principles, desired outcomes and alternatives to achieve a good return on investment on 'change.'

    As a business guy -- one that has worked on startup initiatives over most of my life -- I tried to put into context what it means to invest an 'incremental $50B' in health IT.    It sounds like a lot of money -- something on the order of $83k per practicing physician -- we ought to be able to do something spectacular for that kind of money.

    There is a new study out by the National Research Council of the National Academies that takes a look at what types of computational technology and investments are best for improving health outcomes.   I recommend folks read it (full disclosure I was both interviewed and a reviewer).   Many folks I talk with in the computer science industry recognize the huge benefits that will be gained in medicine and health outcomes with thoughtful investments in information technology.   Many (myself included) are technology optimists and believe that information technology will ultimately disrupt and transform health delivery.

    But to achieve this transformation -- we have to acknowledge the reality of the institutions and systems currently in place; we have to invest in the new kinds of architectures and IT systems that will deliver real value over time.   This report is bi-partisan and a timely reminder of key principles by experts -- one that I hope informs the health reform spending debate before folks finish their HIT shopping list and count too much on electronic health records as a simplistic cure-all. 

    The study acknowledges the need for comprehensive patient data, empowerment of consumers/families with personal health information and for flexibility in systems design to enable new advances in biology to be integrated effectively -- among many other principles.

    Here are a few of the topline recommendations (pages S-9 and S-10) from the report I chose to highlight because they are so important and often get lost in the 'soundbite solutions' debate:

    • incentivize clinical performance gains rather than the acquisition of IT, per se
    • encourage initiatives to empower iterative process improvement and small-scale optimization
    • develop the necessary data infrastructure for health care improvement by aggregating data regarding people, processes, and outcomes from all sources.
    • insists that vendors supply IT that permits the separation of data from applications and facilitates data transfers to and from other non-vendor applications in sharable and generally useful formats

    If the country is going to invest $50B in incremental health IT -- we all want it to be invested wisely.   The question is; what will generate the most benefit and how can we accomplish it?  We should be building an asset with this investment - and the asset is not an application per se -- but a health data asset that can be used to improve both individual outcomes and the performance of the institutions and the system overall.    Individuals should be encouraged to create and manage their health data asset and to learn how to share it to achieve better outcomes and interactions with the health delivery system.   Similarly - health enterprises should invest in building and sharing health data assets that enable them to have a culture of process improvement over time.