Home » Blog
05/14/2012 Poverty and Health: A Connection We Can't Ignore
04/30/2012 Cardiac Care - A Case Study in Practice Variation
04/16/2012 One Courageous Woman
costs poverty aca variation cost use quality health policy research politics health reform policy health insurance acos hmos communication essential benefits reform coverage sgr congress drugs class long term care va employers e-prescribing emrs patient safety medicaid states medicare 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 cms access cancer end-of-life care individual mandate ryan proposal obesity pharmaceutical industry r & d comparative effectiveness research evidence based care quality improvement collaborative quality initiatives cqi pharmaceuticals regulations prematurity exchanges heath reform antibiotics overuse geographic variation medical appropriateness health websites imrt radiation therapy medical errors constitutionality courts translate health care economics rationing insurance regulation incentives cardiology pcmh health disparities election british health care system safety net fqhc guidelines radiology pain early childhood electronic medical records physician employment aco dartmouth atlas cover michigan health care coverage insurance preventive care public health

On April 13, 2012, CHRT is sponsoring a symposium geared to health policy-makers, funders and researchers, to ask this question: can individuals from these three worlds do a better job of working together?

The Feb. 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine had an excellent commentary by Peter Newman about how difficult it is to talk to the public about health care costs.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported on some research that would make anyone who is trying to inform public policy lose sleep. The story described just how impervious to the facts people often are in their assessments of data relevant to public policy.

Well, the federal government has spoken about its intent with regard to defining essential benefits, and the answer is: leave it to the states. As Tim Jost notes in his latest blog post, there are some (probably, most) who assumed the Affordable Care Act would result in more uniformity in essential benefits across the country. But instead (no doubt bowing to a perceived political backlash at this time of difficult discourse in Washington, DC) the Obama administration decided to publish guidelines and establish broad parameters for essential benefits without going into the details.

Health care policy happens at many levels, but health care delivery: just one. Policy is made at the federal, state and local levels—but delivery is at the local level: in organized systems of care or with individual or teams of practitioners working with patients and families.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York made headlines when he decided to take on the soda industry (ok, I know, my New York roots are showing – pop for those of you from the Midwest!). Specifically, Mr. Bloomberg is seeking a federal waiver in the food stamp program (now called SNAP – supplemental nutrition assistance program) to ban the purchase of sugary beverages because of their contribution to diabetes and obesity.
Lately I’ve noticed a resurgence of the term “population health” in the health policy literature. It seems to me that the term is being used differently today than in the past, and I wonder how that might affect our ability to actually affect and improve population health.