Home » Blog
autism sepsis obesity bariatric surgery intensive behavioral therapy mental health aca affordable care act access sympsoium obamacare narrow networks reference pricing contraceptive exchange health reform health insurance exchanges marketplace fqhc safety net decision making patient engagement electronic health records cms electronic medical records health care cost medicaid michigan small business oregon depression readmissions aco health care costs costs medicare health policy exchanges politics wellness programs rules election courts coverage dual-eligible funding cheboygan memorial communication scotus employers poverty variation cost use quality research policy health insurance acos hmos essential benefits reform sgr congress drugs class long term care va e-prescribing emrs patient safety states for-profit nonprofit block grant tanf welfare reform hospice end of life non-profit evidence-based care waste washtenaw county uninsured population health managed care cancer end-of-life care individual mandate ryan proposal pharmaceutical industry r & d comparative effectiveness research evidence based care quality improvement collaborative quality initiatives cqi pharmaceuticals regulations prematurity heath reform antibiotics overuse geographic variation medical appropriateness health websites imrt radiation therapy medical errors constitutionality translate health care economics rationing insurance regulation incentives cardiology pcmh health disparities british health care system guidelines radiology pain early childhood physician employment dartmouth atlas cover michigan health care coverage insurance preventive care public health
The Patient Centered Medical Home Model (PCMH) generates much discussion in health care circles. PCMH demonstration projects are widespread, accreditation organizations are developing and implementing certification programs for PCMH-based practices, and payers – including the federal government – are exploring new reimbursement policies to support medical home-based care.
In 2006, there were 4.3 million children born in the United States. Approximately 55,000 of those children were born prematurely. Premature births have been increasing consistently since 1990 (though there appears to have been a slight drop in the rate of prematurity in 2007). In 1990, 10.6 percent of children were born prematurely; in 2006, that percentage had increased to 12.8 (preliminary numbers show a 12.6 percent rate in 2007 – still considerably higher than the rate in 1990). Last week, our center released an issue brief on this topic because we think it is such an important issue.
In the midst of all the focus on election day in the U.S., there was a much overlooked article the same day on changes in the British health care system. The article is about what is called in Great Britain “NICE.” NICE is an acronym that stands for National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE was established in 1999 with a mission to help make evidence based decisions on the use of resources for health care in Britain. It publishes guidelines in three areas:
During the campaign, there was a great deal of talk about “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act if the Republicans won in Congress. Well, the Republicans won the House and made significant gains in the Senate. So, what now? Is a repeal of health care reform a likely outcome in the near future?
On October 29, CHRT sponsored a symposium to look at issues surrounding the safety net and the future of health care after the Affordable Care Act takes effect. While there are some who believe that getting to (or close to) universal coverage would mean the end of the safety net, our panelists came to the opposite conclusion. That is, we all believe that in the reform environment, the safety net will be at least as important as it is today – perhaps more so. But demands on safety net providers will change when health reform is fully implemented and the structure and organization of the safety net needs to be ready for those changes.