Price Increases, Not Demand, Have Caused the Massive Hike in U.S. Health Spending

image via wikipedia.org
Life expectancy compared to healthcare spending from 1970 to 2008, in the US and the next 19 most wealthy countries by total GDP (wikipedia.org)

In the USA, we continue to pay more and get less for our healthcare expenditures than any developed country on Earth. What hasn’t been clear is why that is the case in the complex American healthcare system. A paper in the latest edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere asserts that price increases and not demand have caused the massive hike in U.S. health spending over the past few decades.

The researchers used publicly available data to identify trends in health care from 1980 to 2011. They examined and analyzed the source and use of funds, patients and providers, and finally the value created by the expenditures and health outcomes.

image via blogs.wsj.com

The researchers found that US health care expenditures have doubled since 1980 as a percentage of US gross domestic product (GDP), to well over 1/6 of the total economy. Growth in healthcare spending has far outpaced that of other OECD countries. Most of the OECD countries have either some form of single payer healthcare or public option health insurance along with government-imposed price controls on healthcare components. The U.S., of course, has none of these.

The article notes that annual growth in the rate of healthcare spending has decreased since 1970, and especially since 2002. That’s typical of large entities – Google and Microsoft experienced the same effect as they grew and aged. The average healthcare spending growth rate, however, stands at 3% per year. The 3% average annual growth in spending is more than overall GDP growth and is more than the average growth in any other industry. Moreover, the share of the healthcare system funded by government increased significantly, from 31.1% in 1980 to 42.3% in 2011.

Of course, as has been noted in this blog and elsewhere, all of this spending has resulted in lower life expectancies at birth as well as lower survival rates for many chronic diseases compared to other developed countries. The conventional wisdom has been that soaring demand for healthcare and the needs of the increasing elderly population have been responsible for the increases in spending, along with “inefficiencies” and the ever popular “defensive medicine”. Not so, according to this analysis:

The findings from this analysis contradict several common assumptions. Since 2000, price (especially of hospital charges [+4.2%/y], professional services [3.6%/y], drugs and devices [+4.0%/y], and administrative costs [+5.6%/y]), not demand for services or aging of the population, produced 91% of cost increases; (2) personal out-of-pocket spending on insurance premiums and co-payments have declined from 23% to 11%; and (3) chronic illnesses account for 84% of costs overall among the entire population, not only of the elderly.

So hospital charges, physicians’ fees, drugs, medical devices, and administrative costs (medical insurance) have all risen faster over the past ten or so years than the overall rate of increase in spending for healthcare. Also note that chronic diseases among the general population, not just the elderly, account for a whopping 84% of all healthcare costs. In fact, the study found that chronic conditions in people younger than 65 account for 2/3 of all health care costs. It’s clear to me what’s driving the increases, and it’s not in keeping with conventional wisdom.

Additionally, despite what most people perceive to be ever-increasing co-pays, premiums, and deductibles, out-of-pocket spending decreased more than 50% (as a portion of total spending) over the same period. That means most people are disconnected from the economic realities of healthcare spending. No wonder we can’t decide how to fix things – we can’t even figure out exactly what’s broken!

The article also points out that three broad trends are responsible for much of the changes over the time period in the study: consolidation of providers reducing competition, an emphasis on information technology that has yet to produce tangible benefits, and empowerment of the patient that has not always produced positive outcomes (think of direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals).

Takeaways: the authors summarized it very well: “a national conversation, guided by the best data and information, aimed at explicit understanding of choices, trade-offs, and expectations, using broader definitions of health and value, is needed.

The current controversies surrounding the Affordable Care Act are a good example. Something had to be done about health insurance reform. Obamacare is a place to start and more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Anything as massive as our healthcare system will always be highly politicized and change will be controversial. Whether we can hope to have a conversation informed by data and information remains to be seen.

Read more:

Soaring Prices, Not Demand, Behind Massive Hike in U.S. Health Spending – US News and World Report.

JAMA Network | JAMA | The Anatomy of Health Care in the United States.

In search of a better mousetrap…EHR system, that is

http://www.mddionline.com/sites/www.mddionline.com/files/image/01310/ehrdoc.jpg
image via mddionline.com

There has been enormous emphasis in the past few years on getting physicians to adopt electronic health records (EHRs). The HITECH Act (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act) part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008, established financial incentives for medical practices and hospitals to adopt EHRs that met specific “meaningful use” criteria. According to a recent survey, physicians are dissatisfied with their EHRs and are looking to switch.

The HITECH Act was an early effort of the Obama administration to use information technology to begin to rein in out of control healthcare costs by using data to make more informed decisions.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced recently it has exceeded its goal of 50% of doctor offices and 80% of eligible hospitals having electronic health records (EHRs) by the end of 2013.

There are thousands of EHR products from hundreds of vendors: 3721 EHR products for ambulatory care and 1282 EHR products for inpatient care listed on the HealthIT.gov website as certified EHR solutions. Many entered the field opportunistically when it became apparent that large numbers of physicians, medical practices, and hospitals would be purchasing EHRs in response to the HITECH Act incentives.

According to research conducted by EHR software reviewer Software Advice, it appears that many physicians are unhappy with their new EHR systems: 31.2%  of medical providers are replacing their EHRs today, compared to 21.0% in 2012. That’s a 48.6 percent increase. The main reason for replacement? More than 60% of physicians reported dissatisfaction with their current system. There are multiple reasons for their unhappiness: 26% said their EHR lacks key product features while 14% said it was too cumbersome to use and 12% said their current EHR was too costly.

Adopting a new EHR is a big investment in capital and resources. The switching costs are quite high because transitioning to a new system is complicated and time-consuming.

Takeaways: There remains a significant opportunity for an EHR developer to capture revenue and market share given the high levels of dissatisfaction with current solutions. Companies already in the market should reassess their offerings and work with customers to improve usability and user interfaces, to improve connectivity with other systems, and to provide the features that users need. Startups should try to differentiate their products in the same ways.

It all starts with understanding customer requirements.

Read more:

Why Physicians are Ditching Your EHR System | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

The Impact of the HITECH Act on EHR Implementations IndustryView | 2013.

HITECH Act – the Health Information Technology Act | Policy Researchers & Implementers | HealthIT.gov.

Medical Device Startup Fundraising: 5 keys for your pitch

Woman presentingIf you are leading a medical device startup, fundraising is your top priority. Here are five key points that you must address in every pitch that you make, no matter if it’s for a grant, seed investment from friends and family, angel investment, venture capital funding, or strategic partnerships with multinational medical device companies.

From the article:

  • Be clear on what your product is, right up front
  • Articulate the important problem you are solving
  • Define your customers
  • Spell out how you will create value with the $$ you are raising
  • Instill confidence in you and your team

Another way to look at the pitch is to think of it in terms of risk reduction. Most experienced investors talk about three main areas of risk in startup investing:

  • Technical Risk
  • Market Risk
  • Execution Risk

Investors will not move forward with an opportunity unless they believe that these key risks have been addressed and are below their personal threshold. Of course, you will never know that threshold so you must work to convince the investor that you have mitigated the three risks to the maximum extent possible.

Technical risk is all about the product or solution. Does your product solve the customer’s problem? Have you built a working prototype? Do you have an animal model? Have you performed animal testing? Are there important technical issues yet to be resolved? Do you have any intellectual property protection? Have you conducted a freedom to operate analysis? Does your product or solution depend on products or IP owned by other companies? Have you conducted beta testing? What’s your regulatory classification and plan? Are there more products in the pipeline?

Market risk is about the customer(s). Have you identified the problem? Is the problem a large one? Is the market opportunity big enough to justify the investment? Who are the customers? Why will they buy from you? What’s the competition (and don’t make the rookie mistake of saying that there is no competition)? Do you have evidence of demand? Do you have testimonials or at least interest from Key Opinion Leader customers? How do you plan to distribute and sell your product? How does your product or solution fit in today’s environment of managed care, healthcare reform, and evidence-based medicine? What’s your reimbursement strategy and plan?

Execution risk is about you and your team’s ability to convince investors that you can use their money to execute your plan. Does your team have the talent and experience to successfully commercialize your product? Do you have experienced and knowledgeable advisors, both business and clinical? Do you have a credible business model? What are your key milestones? What’s your exit strategy? Do you have a detailed pro forma income statement, especially for the period up to launch and for the two years after launch? Will you execute it exactly as conceived? Of course not, but you should be confident in your plan and your ability to execute. You should also have detailed contingency plans for the inevitable crisis when things go awry. 

Takeaways: Like many things, being successful at medical device fundraising requires being a great salesperson. Whether it’s a surgeon or an investor you’re selling to, put yourself in the place of that person. Be sure to address the five key points with details, evidence, and background information: product, problem, customer, milestones, team. Also keep in mind the risk tolerance of the investor. Your ability to communicate mitigation of technical risk, market risk, and execution risk will determine your success in fundraising.

Read more: Medical Device Startups: 5 essentials for your pitch deck | MassDevice.

Costliest 1 Percent Of Patients Account For 21 Percent Of U.S. Health Spending | Kaiser Health News

http://mhealthwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Infographic-Inside-Healthcare-Spending-in-America-300x231.jpgA recent U.S. government study revealed 1% of patients in the U.S. are responsible for a whopping 21% of healthcare spending. Wow, talk about a “target-rich environment.” We’re all familiar with the 80/20 rule where, in a given population, 20% of the group is typically responsible for 80% of costs, resources consumed or produced, etc. This news takes the 80/20 concept to a new level.

According to Kaiser Health News, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report also said that just 5% of patients are responsible for 50% of all healthcare costs. On the other side of the ledger, the healthiest 5% of the population accounts for just 2.8% of spending.

The story behind the horrifying numbers: people with progressive, sometimes multiple chronic diseases such as kidney failure, diabetes, and COPD account for huge costs to the healthcare system. The patients in these groups even have a name: “super utilizers.” A different, not so flattering name is used in ERs everywhere: “frequent fliers.” On average, each super utilizer cost the healthcare system $88,000 in 2010.

In addition to overusing hospital emergency departments for their care, Kaiser said super utilizers suffer from a phenomenon called “extreme uncoordinated care” whereby they go to multiple, unrelated hospitals, (and all too often to the hospitals’ expensive ERs) for their care rather than a single outpatient clinic. The hospitals have no easy way to access patient records from other institutions to determine coexistent conditions and treatments. So they take the most direct path. They treat the immediate symptoms and discharge the patient.

In the past, hospitals could get away with just treating the patients’ symptoms and sending them on their way. With the advent of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), however, the incentives to the hospital are changing. Instead of a flat fee for service, the ACA provides penalties for high readmission rates and incentives for lowering readmissions within 30 days of treatment. From the article: “Hospitals have traditionally made more money readmitting patients than trying to prevent them from bouncing back.”

The ACA creates accountable care organizations (ACOs), groups of doctors, hospitals and clinics. The ACOs pool resources to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients more effectively and share in the savings. The ACOs work by creating and using coordinated care plans. The plans and their case managers have broad authority to do whatever it takes to help patients. By helping patients under the new ACA rules, the case managers help the hospitals increase their profitability.

The extra assistance to patients enabled by the coordinated care plans can include accompanying them to doctors’ appointments, paying for cab fare, buying food or furniture, phone calls and home visits to follow-up on prescription medication compliance, and more. These often simple interventions can have a significant effect on super utilizers. It is to be hoped that there will be a beneficial effect to the U.S. healthcare system as a result.

Takeaways: Healthcare financing is being reformed. That means healthcare delivery reform is coming as well. Hospitals are businesses, whether for profit or nonprofit. If their business models are threatened, they will respond to incentives and penalties to change. For medical device companies trying to introduce new products into this rapidly changing environment, realize that the traditional sales methods may work for a while longer. Realize also that the changes will affect purchasing decisions and procurement methods.

 

Read more: Costliest 1 Percent Of Patients Account For 21 Percent Of U.S. Health Spending – Kaiser Health News.

Health care and health insurance reforms are happening…at Walmart!?

Walmart logoHere’s an refreshing departure from all of the federal government gloom and doom news. Four hospitals around the U.S. including Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle have negotiated deals with large retailers Walmart and Lowe’s to provide comprehensive surgical care for knee and hip replacements to 1.4 million of the companies’ employees.

The kicker? Zero out-of-pocket costs, co-payments, deductibles, etc. But wait, there’s more. The arrangement, completely voluntary for employees by the way, provides travel, lodging, and living expenses for the patient and a caregiver.

The announcement expands a deal struck by the hospitals with Walmart in 2012 for heart and spinal surgeries along with organ transplants. The world-renowned Cleveland Clinic has been conducting a similar program, offering fixed-price cardiac procedures for a number of major corporations including Boeing.

The programs are attractive to the hospitals and corporations for a number of reasons. The corporations are self-insured. Reducing variability and uncertainty in healthcare costs is vitally important to the businesses. The corporations are large enough to be able to offer large volumes of patients for the high volume procedures.

The hospitals, already leading in terms of low complications and readmission rates, can use the guaranteed volumes to standardize procedures and improve quality even further. In exchange, I’m sure the partners agreed on large discounts to standard prices for the expensive procedures. And the patients, although not required to participate, get the sweeteners of no out of pocket cost and free travel. Sounds like a win for everyone.

In a separate development, Walmart announced that it was converting 35,000 part-time employees back to full-time status. Although that is a tiny fraction of Walmart’s 1.4 million employees, the latest action will result in those workers qualifying for employee-provided healthcare. Late in 2012, Walmart moved many full-time employees to part-time status in an action that was criticized as offloading their healthcare expenses on to taxpayers. Critics complained the workers earned so little that they would qualify for Medicaid health insurance through the new provisions of Obamacare.

Takeaways: While hardly novel, the agreements between the corporations and the hospitals are important because they have the potential to rein in out of control and spiraling healthcare costs. The hospitals will also be able to show exactly how they achieved their cost controls and quality improvements, giving them a competitive advantage and setting a great example for the rest of the country.

If you are developing a new device or technology, this should be a wake-up call. A key to cost control will be standardization. These hospitals will be highly resistant to adopt new technologies or purchase new medical devices unless you can show proof of positive effects on procedure costs, outcomes, and quality.

If you are in the healthcare insurance business, this disintermediation may not be a significant threat in the short term but be assured that other large corporations are watching or perhaps even conducting their own negotiations with high quality, high volume providers. The trend may prove to be a disruptive innovation in the long term.

Read more:

Walmart, Lowe’s strike deal with Virginia Mason on hip, knee surgeries | Local News | The Seattle Times.

Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? – Forbes.

Disruptive Innovation Opportunities Created By Obamacare

Rather than debate endlessly about whether the Affordable Care Act is good or bad, staff at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation has analyzed Obamacare for entrepreneurial opportunities created by disruptive innovations in the law.

Clayton Christensen is a Harvard Business School Professor and author of The Innovator’s Dilemma (and a few more books about innovation since that business best-seller).

According to the authors, these new provisions of Obamacare are disruptive innovations:

  • Individual Mandate – adds tens of millions of new individuals to the primary care healthcare system.
  • Employer Mandate – will drive demand for new, less costly models of health insurance.
  • Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) – provides incentives to providers to keep patients healthy rather than just paying for treatment of illnesses.
  • Wellness Programs – requires health plans to offer new preventive and self-directed care options.
  • CMS Innovation Center – an entity created outside of Medicare and Medicaid with responsibility for developing novel payment and healthcare delivery models.

 The ACA is not perfect by any means. It is also not perfect in the estimation of the Christensen Institute. Here are a few provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are likely to inhibit disruptive innovation:

  • Essential Health Benefits – mandated levels of coverage that may exceed user needs and will make it difficult to introduce low-end disruptive plans.
  • Insurance Exchanges – online marketplaces that will enable comparison shopping, but only among qualified plans, excluding some new and potentially innovative options.
  • Cost-Sharing – government subsidies will drive consumers into Silver-level plans, limiting demand once again for Bronze-level or even lower (and less costly) plans.
  • Medical Loss Ratio – requiring insurers to justify all rate increases and to spend a minimum of 80% of premiums on healthcare creates barriers to entry for new and disruptive market entrants with low or no subscriber populations.
  • Medicaid Expansion – enrolling patients with minimal or zero previous healthcare coverage into Bronze or even Silver-level plans eliminates a market that could be served by disruptive new entrants with innovative healthcare models. Instead, these patients will be driven to traditional insurers.

As noted by many people, including President Obama, the ACA does not have the ability to transform healthcare on its own. Rather, it is intended to provide incentives and opportunities for innovation in order to make healthcare more efficient, more affordable, and more accessible. In the words of the President, “We want to bend the cost curve.” The opportunities to help in and profit from the bending are present for existing players and for new market entrants.

In the framework established by Prof. Christensen, it is the new entrant that is usually disruptive because the established competitors have little incentive to innovate or to change their business models. It is also impossible for the new entrants to gain market share using the existing business models so they are forced to develop and deploy disruptive innovations.

I don’t expect the full effects of Obamacare to be evident for years, although we should see small improvements (and to be sure, some startup problems) almost immediately. There will no doubt be modifications and delays to the regulations and to implementation. It is to be hoped that some of those changes will be favorable to more, rather than less, disruptive innovation.

Takeaways: With change comes opportunity. The ACA may not be hugely popular (especially among medical device companies paying the 2.3% excise tax). Obamacare is, however, somewhat disruptive and creates new opportunities for healthcare companies.

Read more: Seize the ACA:The Innovator’s Guide to the Affordable Care Act | Christensen Institute.

Give Us Our Damn Lab Results!! (etc.) | The Health Care Blog

Patients are empowering themselves. We are overwhelmingly using Internet sites like WebMD and social media to research and discuss symptoms, diseases, and treatments. We are purchasing and using digital health devices and software by the millions.

Now patients are starting to demand direct delivery of lab test results instead of waiting for that call from the doctor’s office that always seems to be delayed or worse, never made.

A little-known proposed regulation issued in 2011 by the Department of Health and Human Services would allow lab test providers to send test results directly to patients. While a final regulation has not been issued, perhaps due to the current political climate in Washington, the regulation is being welcomed by patient advocates and viewed with skepticism by some physicians.

As the article states,

Increasing the ability of patients to have direct access to all their medical information allows patients to more effectively manage their own health care and organize electronic copies of their own data – a major benefit of the health care system’s ongoing transition to digital records…Most broadly, this expanded access gives patients the ability to be as engaged as they choose in their own health and care.

Some unenlightened physicians are lamenting the perceived loss of control and cite the risks involved when patients have uninformed access to clinical data. Other doctors welcome the opportunity to stay in the loop while patients take more responsibility for their own healthcare and data.

Again, from the article:

… A 2009 study published in the Archive of Internal Medicine indicated that providers failed to notify patients (or document notification) of abnormal test results more than 7 percent of the time. The National Coordinator for Health IT recently put the figure at 20 percent.  This failure rate is dangerous, as it could lead to more medical errors and missed opportunities for valuable early treatment.

How can sending lab test results directly to patients be a bad thing if the doctor still receives a copy of the results and continues the practices of alerting patients to abnormal results while offering to interpret the data?

In another empowering development, some patients are now able to skip the dreaded visit image from geekwire.comto the primary care physician, the one where they wait, wait, and wait some more while being exposed to who knows what communicable diseases in the practice’s waiting room. People in the south Puget Sound region of Washington in the Franciscan Health System service area have the ability to have a virtual visit with a physician 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a reasonable $35 fee (not paid by insurance). The consultation may result in a referral to a physical facility or prescribing of medications. How convenient!

From the article:

“In some cases, patients just want to know if they need to go to the emergency room,” said Dr. Ben Green of Franciscan Virtual Urgent Care. “In fact, most of the time our providers are able to keep them out of the emergency room and patients are quite happy about that.”

The virtual visit with a real doctor is conducted via Skype video teleconferencing or by plain old-fashioned telephone.

The telemedicine service is actually offered by Carena, a Seattle-based company, in partnership with Franciscan. Carena started offering the service in 2010 to private companies and is now expanding to healthcare systems.

Takeaways: Empowered patients and consumers represent an enormous opportunity for medical device and digital health companies. The pharmaceutical industry proved the viability and profitability of direct-to-consumer marketing in the 1990s.

As more patients are comfortable managing their own electronic health records and in keeping their records “in the cloud,” there will be increasing demand for apps, software, and web services to facilitate and secure those transactions and records. The market niche of people who self-monitor their health, fitness, and vital signs with digital health devices and apps will steadily increase as the devices and software get more capable and easier to use.

Read more:

Give Us Our Damn Lab Results!! | The Health Care Blog.

Feeling sick? Washington health system now offers virtual doctor appointments for $35 – GeekWire.

Countries With Most (and least) Efficient Health Care: | Bloomberg

Care to guess how the USA ranks in healthcare against its peers?

The U.S. spends the most on health care as a percentage of GDP with the worst outcome compared with other developed countries.

We ranked 46th out of 48 countries in this study. The U.S. spends $8,608 per capita on healthcare while the top rated country, Hong Kong, spends just $1,409. Hong Kong also has the highest life expectancy at 83.4 years while the U.S. is in the middle of the pack at 78.6 years.

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost as a percentage of GDP. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

If you object to Hong Kong being classified as a country, the next five highest ranking countries are Singapore, Israel, Japan, Spain, and Italy. The highest per capita annual healthcare expense in this group is in Japan, at $3,958 – less than half that of the U.S. Average life expectancies in these countries range from 81.8 to 82.6.

We are spending more and getting less than just about any other country in the world. When I hear people like politicians and business leaders say, “We have the best healthcare system in the world,” I wonder if they don’t have access to these facts, if they are speaking about the excellent care available to the privileged few with excellent healthcare benefits, or if they are in denial about the reality of our situation.

Takeaways: There are lots of opportunities (i.e., problems that need solving) when it comes to healthcare economics in the U.S. The media should reports facts like this Bloomberg article and call out politicians who crow that “we have the best…” We need big solutions to solve this big problem. Perhaps we can learn by modeling best practices from other countries. If you (or whomever) doesn’t like Obamacare (a modest first step), what’s your proposed solution? It’s pretty clear that continuing the policies of the past 70 years will not result in positive change.

You can point fingers in lots of different places: defensive medicine, intervention-based reimbursement, poor diet and lifestyles of Americans, medical procedure pricing opacity, outrageous compensation for hospital and medical insurer CEOs, Medicare restrictions on drug price negotiating, direct-to-consumer drug marketing, overbuilding of hospitals, and on and on. Medical device overuse and misuse is part of the problem as well, although the entire industry is “only” 6% of total healthcare expenditures.

The Affordable Care Act, although flawed, is at least a first attempt to address some of these issues. Early reports indicate that it may be having positive effects already.

Read more: Most Efficient Health Care: Countries – Bloomberg Best (and Worst).

A Twenty-Year Snapshot of the Health of the American People | JAMA

Fascinating glimpse into the state of our health in the U.S. and how it changed over a period of twenty years from 1990-2010.

This is a “glass half-full/glass half-empty” story. If you are in the healthcare industry, it seems that there is going to be a limitless supply of patients with chronic medical conditions for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if you are a typical American or if you have some responsibility for public health, there is much to be concerned about. We’re spending more than ever and more than everyone else on healthcare. Although the overall health of our nation’s citizens is improving, it’s not improving as much as other wealthy countries (which are spending far, far less on healthcare).

A few examples from the abstract:

  • Ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and road injury were the most prevalent lethal conditions in terms of sheer numbers and were responsible for the most years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality.
  • Alzheimer’s disease, drug use disorders, chronic kidney disease, kidney cancer, and falls are increasing in incidence rates most rapidly on an age-adjusted basis.
  • Low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, and anxiety disorders represented the conditions with the largest number of years lived with disability (YLD) in 2010.
  • While we are living longer, we’re living with disabilities. As the US population has aged, years lived with disability are growing faster than years of life lost overall.
  • Our lifestyle choices are disabling and killing us. Poor diet, tobacco smoking, high body mass index, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose (pre-diabetes), physical inactivity, and alcohol use were the leading risk factors in disability and premature death combined.
  • Chronic disease and chronic disability now account for close to half of the US health burden.
  • We’re losing ground to our peer countries:

Among 34 OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries between 1990 and 2010, the US rank for the age-standardized death rate changed from 18th to 27th, for the age-standardized YLL rate from 23rd to 28th, for the age-standardized YLD rate from 5th to 6th, for life expectancy at birth from 20th to 27th, and for [healthy life expectancy] HALE from 14th to 26th.

No matter what you may think of Obamacare, single payer healthcare, or market-based solutions, these facts clearly show that we as a nation are not getting any “bang for our healthcare buck.” I don’t think that anyone believes we can spend our way out of this dilemma.

Takeaways: There is more data available than ever before to analyze health trends. There is an enormous interest in new technologies and methodologies that can improve a patient’s health without increasing costs. There are any number of clinical conditions upon which a startup could focus and have a significant effect on our healthcare system. Disease prevention and lifestyle modification look to be areas of focus and rapid growth. As you develop your latest medical device or as you plan your medtech startup, keep the big picture in mind. Show that your device or technology will not only work better than alternatives but that it will demonstrably improve patient health and save money.

Read more: JAMA Network | JAMA | The State of US Health, 1990-2010:  Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors.

Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

Access to the healthcare market is changing for medical device companies, particularly for startups with new technologies and no track record. It’s not clear to me if Obamacare is really the driver or if it’s the larger initiative of “healthcare reform” that’s causing providers and payers to make changes in the way they do business.

In any event, providers such as hospitals have become more demanding of new products and new companies. They want to see evidence of clinical efficacy as well as evidence of economic efficacy (outcomes) before they agree to purchase or in some cases, trial the products. Importantly, payers – private insurers and Medicare – are slowing, reducing, or even denying reimbursement for new products and procedures. The outcomes data is being called comparative effectiveness research. Most current data supplied by industry has been deemed insufficient. Evidence of the increased demand for data is the current emphasis on and support of healthcare IT applications by government entities as well as payers.

The authors of this article argue that responsibility for market access must be broadened to become an integral part of the commercialization process like regulatory clearance and that it should be applied to a broad cross-section of the organization and also throughout the product life cycle. This is a major change in the way that most companies conduct product development and commercialization. It will require executive management involvement and changes to strategic goals and plans to implement and sustain such a change.

For example, it is in the best interests of the organization to create and provide “strong evidence of clinical differentiation.” Not only will the evidence make it easier to get agreement from providers and payers, it also provides a degree of protection against premature commoditization. It’s equally important to lobby government officials, either directly or through a trade group. Finally the organization must be sure to protect itself by retroactively addressing products already in the market, as a demand for data could come at any time and cause significant disruptions to manufacturing, sales, materials management, etc.

Takeaways: Startup CEOs and medical device product managers, project managers, and program managers must incorporate comparative effectiveness research for both clinical efficacy and economic effectiveness into their strategic plans, product development plans, and go-to-market plans. Without outcomes data to demonstrate economic and clinical value (ECV), the risk of a failure at product launch because there are no willing buyers for your product is very high. This can kill a company or a career.

Read more: Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News