Healthcare and Technology news
45.0K views | +5 today
Follow
Healthcare and Technology news
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!

5 Big Questions About Health Insurance

5 Big Questions About Health Insurance | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

In theory, most of the U.S. health care delivery system and most of the health care finance system could work about the same way in 2018 as they’ve worked in 2017.

 

Medicare and group health plans look as if they’ll continue on something like the same path.

 

Even the 2018 individual major medical market could go through some bumps and then settle down into looking like a creakier version of the 2017 market.

 

At press time, however, the future of the U.S. health care delivery and finance systems was up in the air.

 

Most of the Affordable Care Act was still in place. The Trump administration was administering the ACA system, including HealthCare.gov, about as well as possible, in some ways, but appeared to be working to block it in other ways.

 

The administration appeared to be close to working out a settlement with health insurers on billions of dollars in ACA cost-sharing reduction subsidy payments, but, whatever happens to the subsidy payments, the administration has made the point that it could change health insurance system administration procedures quickly, without much apparent concern for how the changes might affect health insurers.

 

Many nonprofit health insurers seem to be hunkering down and trying to stand up to the administration: they have elected chief executives from two of the most enthusiastic insurance company players in the ACA system to lead both America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

 

But some of the biggest, publicly traded health insurers seem to be coping by doing when they can to retreat from the individual major medical insurance market, and avoid talking too much about their role in the fully insured employer-sponsored health plan market.

UnitedHealth Group Inc., for example, is calling itself a health care company.

 

Aetna Inc. is trying to become a division of a drug store chain.

 

If the individual major medical market stays as unpredictable in 2018 as it’s been in 2017, and some of that upheaval spills over into other health insurance sectors, what then?

 

Trying to make anything as firm as a “prediction” for the health insurance system seems foolhardy, but here are some questions that might shape our coverage of health insurance in the coming year.

1. Will more companies could try to disguise more major medical insurance products as something else?

 

One symptom of a regulatory-driven market breakdown is participants’ efforts to escape from the official market, into black market or gray market alternatives.

 

Many insurers, agents and consumers have already been trying to sidestep the challenges plaguing the individual major medical market by focusing more on partial individual major medical substitutes, such as short-term health insurance or hospital indemnity insurance.

 

Up till now, fear of patients’ facing serious gaps in coverage, and lawsuits, have held down many agents’ sales of major medical substitutes.

 

The more the individual major medical market deteriorates, the less squeamish market players may be about trying to work around it. 

 

2. Will everyone get religion?

 

The Affordable Care Act includes a provision officially allowing the sale of a kind of arrangement that could, in theory, provide something like true individual major medical insurance: health care cost-sharing ministry memberships.

 

Ministries in effect when the ACA came along can continue to sell memberships without facing ACA mandates, or any other federal regulations or oversights whatsoever.

 

Rapid expansion of health care cost-sharing ministries could be another symptom of individual major medical market breakdown.

 

3. Will hospitals collapse?

 

Health insurers see hospitals as the biggest components in large sophisticated health care systems that tend to have much higher profit margins than health insurers.

 

S&P Global Ratings are predicting, in a look at top industry trends for 2018, that the big hospitals S&P rates should do reasonably well in 2018.

 

“We expect hospitals to see very low single-digit organic growth (consisting of near-zero volume growth and low-single-digit blended reimbursement rate increases), while companies providing outsourced services to hospitals and outpatient providers should grow slightly faster,” the S&P analysts write. “We expect industry participants to see modestly higher bad debt expense in 2018 (reflecting slightly lower insurance coverage levels and the increasing prevalence of high-deductible health plans, given difficulty in collecting amounts owed by consumers).”

 

But many small hospitals, especially those that treat many uninsured patients, and many patients who have Medicaid coverage, operate on thin margins.

 

If the individual major medical market goes through severe problems, or the Congress or the administration somehow impose sharp reductions in Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates, that could push some hospitals over the edge.

 

A wave of hospital failures could affect patients with group health coverage or Medicare coverage as well as those with individual major medical coverage and Medicaid.

 

4. Will doctors go fishing?

Consumers in many communities already see that psychologists have, in effect, dropped out of the market for insurance-paid behavioral health services.

 

Mental health care providers in those communities often refuse to provide care for the rates health plans are willing to pay them.

 

The S&P analysts say they expect to payers to continue to focus on containing costs.

 

If health plans try to cut costs too much, it’s possible that large numbers of medical doctors could follow mental health care providers out of the health plan provider network door. 


5. Will health savings accounts shine?

 

President Donald Trump promoted health savings accounts (HSAs) while he was on the campaign trail.

 

Most Republicans in Congress, and Trump’s nominees at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, like HSAs.

 

The tax bill would leave the HSA intact.

 

If the Trump administration and Congress start to move past major budget reconciliation bill battles, efforts to promote and expand the HSA program could heat up.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details :

inquiry@technicaldr.com or 877-910-0004
www.technicaldr.com

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Reimbursements red herring, trust, and key infrastructure needs for Telemedicine success  

Reimbursements red herring, trust, and key infrastructure needs for Telemedicine success   | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Telemedicine is a growing part of modern healthcare and could play a pivotal role in the U.S.’s efforts to streamline and expand preventative services. Virtual, video-based doctor’s appointments can help alleviate the general practitioner shortage and encourage preventative care. They also offer a cheaper, more convenient alternative to in-person appointments for many patients. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of hype and misinformation being reported so I was pleased to see that TechnologyAdvice (TA) surveyed 504 U.S. adults about telemedicine and their willingness to use such services. I think the results shed important light on where healthcare providers and telemedicine vendors still need to gain acceptance with patients so I reached out to Cameron Graham, Managing Editor at TA to see if he can give us the facts on the ground. Cameron heads market research for healthcare IT, business intelligence, and other emerging technologies and is uniquely qualified to help shed some light on the subject. Here’s what Cameron said:

 

1. It’s not just about reimbursements

Despite the promise of telemedicine, the vast majority of Americans still aren’t using such services. One oft-cited reason for this is the lack of insurance reimbursement for many telemedicine procedures. While some private insurers will cover telemedicine, many only cover select types of visits or specific applications. Medicare, for instance, covers face-to-face interactions, but only when the originating site (point of care, not the patient’s home) is in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA). Although coverage is slowly improving in many states, the American Telemedicine Association gives just five states (plus DC) an A grade in coverage and reimbursement.

 

However, the current hodgepodge of reimbursement rules is not the only thing holding back telemedicine from widespread use. An equally important factor is likely Americans general comfort with video-based platforms and their trust in remote appointments. According to our study, less than half of adults (44.9%) said they would be comfortable conducting a doctor’s appointment over video. Only 35.3% of respondents said they would choose a video appointment over an in-person one. Until patients are more comfortable with the notion of remote care, it is unlikely that telemedicine will gain significant traction.

 

In order to facilitate acceptance of telemedicine among Americans, providers and vendors need to work on educating patients about the benefits of such systems. Telemedicine vendors, in particular, should help patients navigate the complex reimbursement rules currently in place, and promote the cost-savings of remote appointments. By doing so they will not only gain brand awareness among patients but will be able to recruit patients as advocates for more comprehensive insurance reimbursement policies.

 

2. Trust is a key component of effective telemedicine

Americans are not only hesitant about scheduling telemedicine appointment, they are also sceptical about diagnoses made through video platforms. Forty-five per cent of respondents said they would trust a virtual diagnosis less than one made in person. An additional 29.3% said they simply would not trust a virtual diagnosis. This suggests there is a distinct lack of trust among Americans in the quality of medical services that telemedicine platforms can provide.

 

Much of this scepticism is likely due to a lack of familiarity with the services. It also reinforces the fact that telemedicine providers must earn patients trust before they can effectively increase adoption rates. Once that trust is established, it appears people are far more likely to consider using remote appointments. While initially, only 35.3% of respondents said they would choose a virtual appointment over an in-person visit, 65% of respondents said they would be more likely to conduct a virtual appointment if they have first seen the doctor in-person.

 

It’s unlikely that providers or vendors will be able to dramatically change such preferences given the personal nature of many medical visits. However, increased awareness about the qualifications of physicians could make potential patients more comfortable about conducting preventative care via video. Incorporating a rating system, or minimum quality threshold for participating physicians is one potential solution.

 

3. Personal and professional infrastructure is key

The personal infrastructure for telemedicine is already in place across much of the United States, in the form of video-enabled smartphones. According to the latest PEW research, 64% of Americans own a smartphone. In theory, this provides them with the basic means to access remote, video-based health care. Smartphones will likely serve as first means of exposure to such services for many people.

 

More advanced, capable systems (such as dedicated telemedicine kiosks) however are far from established. Aside from a few test programs in select areas, there is no nationwide, professional infrastructure or technology for telemedicine. This hinders adoption and limits the use of telemedicine to basic, preventative care that can be conducted entirely remotely. Dedicated kiosks can greatly expand the use-case for telemedicine, by incorporating sensors, multiple cameras, and other advanced technology. Further investment from telemedicine vendors and insurance companies could help to boost the nationwide profile of telemedical services and expand access for many Americans.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details :

inquiry@technicaldr.com or 877-910-0004
www.technicaldr.com

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

The Hidden Side of Health Care: How Rural Pennsylvania Is Facing and Overcoming Obstacles

The Hidden Side of Health Care: How Rural Pennsylvania Is Facing and Overcoming Obstacles | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Although Pennsylvania is the sixth most populous and ninth most densely populated state in the Union, based on information from the United States Census Bureau from 2010 and 2013, it also is home to a significant amount of rural areas. According to the Pennsylvania Rural Health Association, 48 of the 67 counties in the state are classified as rural, and all but two counties have rural areas. Approximately 27 percent of Pennsylvanians lived in rural counties in 2010, The Center for Rural Pennsylvania reports.


Although rural living offers many advantages, according to the National Rural Health Association (NRHA), rural healthcare in America faces challenges not seen in urban areas. Population loss, poverty and access to healthcare have been problematic in recent years. Here are just a few of the initiatives that have been launched to improve the health needs and overall well-being of rural Pennsylvanians.


Healthcare Issues in Rural Pennsylvania


In general, rural residents in the U.S. are less healthy than those in urban environments. According to Unite for Sight, “rural residents smoke more, exercise less, have less nutritional diets, and are more likely to be obese than suburban residents.” Already against the odds, residents in rural Pennsylvania face several specific problems that jeopardize the state of healthcare in the area.


Population Loss


Between 2000 and 2010, Gary Rotstein of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettereports, rural Pennsylvania counties grew by 2.2 percent while urban counties grew by 3.9 percent. However, the small increase in rural counties was only due to eastern counties. Western rural counties decreased by 0.9 percent, and by another 0.5 percent from 2010 to 2012.


In some places, the situation is bleak. Rotstein highlights the population loss in Taylor Township, a part of Lawrence County that experienced a 13.6 percent population loss from 2000 to 2010. “Of its 1,052 residents, more than twice as many are over age 65 as under 18,” Rotstein adds. “That ratio is practically unheard of among municipalities and doesn’t bode well for the township’s future.”


For rural areas where population is declining or (slowly) rising, healthcare faces challenges. Economic opportunity is threatened when workers and students pursue a better future. And when healthcare professionals depart, accessibility is undermined. In addition, communities with a disproportionately older population can require more healthcare resources, at the same time as access is dwindling.


Economic Challenges


According to the Rural Assistance Center (RAC), rural Pennsylvania lagged behind urban areas in poverty, unemployment and income for 2013:


14.3 percent poverty rate; 13.6 percent in urban areas

7.9 percent unemployment rate; 7.3 percent in urban areas

$36,099 per-capita income; $46,202 for the state

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania adds that from 2007 to 2011, 39 percent of rural households had incomes below $35,000.


Access to Healthcare


Rural Pennsylvania also has less access to healthcare than is available in urban areas. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania reports that in 2008, rural counties had just one primary care physician for every 1,507 residents, while urban counties had one physician for every 981 residents. In 2009, rural counties had one practicing dentist for every 2,665 residents, while urban areas had one for every 1,845 residents.


Solutions and Initiatives


In response to some of the healthcare challenges facing residents in rural Pennsylvania, the following solutions and initiatives have been developed.


Telehealth


Based on a 2014 research report from The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, telehealth can promote strong health to reduce chronic conditions and diseases, educate the public and healthcare workers, enable senior citizens to remain in their homes and much more. Using videoconferencing, online remote monitoring and diagnostic scans, electronic health records and other tools, telehealth can help providers give high-quality, affordable and accessible healthcare even in remote locations.


The study estimated that telehealth’s universal implementation would result in a 22 percent savings for the first year, increasing to 66 percent for the 20th year. Instead of a healthcare cost of $25,500 per person each year, the cost would be just $8,500; Pennsylvania would save $194 billion in the 20th year of implementation. Not only would the healthcare be less expensive, it would also be higher quality.


Currently, telehealth in rural Pennsylvania is not widely used and quality is poor. However, investing in the infrastructure and getting more healthcare providers on board can help improve the quality and access to this care, giving rural residents the chance to experience affordable, quality healthcare.


Rural Healthcare Funding


Federal programs are available to help rural areas across the country improve healthcare delivery. One example is the Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership Program, which supports organizations that are trying to improve the outcomes chronic diseases, specifically chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and Type 2 diabetes. It awards up to $200,000 per year for three years to qualified rural health networks.

These types of programs can help overcome the economic disparity that most rural communities faced, compared to urban areas.


The Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP), part of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), offers other grant programs and initiatives to help support healthcare in rural areas across the country.


Expanding the Scope of Healthcare Workers


The need for more accessible healthcare is not just an issue in rural areas. According to the HRSA, there is a projected shortage of 20,400 primary care physicians across the U.S. for 2020, if the current system remains unchanged. To counter this trend, the HRSA projects the number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to increase.


Nurses are expected to play an integral role in meeting the need for increased healthcare practitioners. In 2010, the Institute of Medicineannounced that nurses would need to respond to the changes taking place in the healthcare system, which gives nurses more opportunities to provide quality care. It called for higher education standards, including 80 percent of all nurses to hold bachelor’s degrees. To meet these needs, nursing is growing quickly; the Bureau of Labor Statistics already expects the profession to grow by more 19 percent through 2022, making it one of the fastest growing professions in the country.


In rural Pennsylvania, a higher concentration of educated nurses could help make up for this shortage of physicians and the changes taking place in the healthcare system.

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

When My Resident Struggled with 10-Minute Patient Visits

When My Resident Struggled with 10-Minute Patient Visits | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it
I teach residents in a community-based family medicine residency, a job both rewarding and eye-opening. Recently, one of my residents sat in my office just after completing a morning patient session. The nurses had already been in to see me earlier because this resident was again behind schedule and patients were complaining about the wait. This day the resident had finished just over an hour late, a common occurrence for him. He looked at me, almost pleading, for an answer on what he should be doing differently.

The nurses are frustrated with this resident because they receive the brunt of the patients’ frustrations. The preceptors know they will be waiting long past the session for him to review his caseload. Of course, the resident feels this pressure. He had been struggling with this since his intern year, and although he had made marked improvement with his efficiency and pre-visit planning, he still lagged behind.

Over the past few months, everyone from the clerical staff to the program director has asked this resident to hurry up, yet everyone knows that he is one of our best residents. His patients know that he listens to them and cares for them. Once he gets into the room, all the time they had to wait seems to be forgotten because they have his undivided attention. He takes the time to read the chart and goes beyond the chief complaint, looking for ways to improve their overall health and overcoming barriers to compliance. He actively searches out resources in a demographic that struggles for even basic necessities. This is the doctor you want your grandmother to have.

My meeting with the resident makes me ponder difficult questions. I wonder, have we created this problem ourselves? Have we scheduled too many patients to be manageable? How many is too many? Recently, on a social media group of healthcare providers I belong to, the discussion of how long we are allotted for patient visits came up. One provider, a pediatrician, indicated she had 10 minutes allotted for sick visits and this appalled most of the group. How do you even take an appropriate history or examine a patient in that period of time? This 10-minute visit might work for a straightforward ear infection in a well-known patient with no comorbidities, but that is rarely what walks through the door.

We are robbing our patients of the resource of our time and I truly believe their health is suffering for it.

For my resident going the extra mile for all of his patients, the system does not allow for the hand-on-the-doorknob confession of suicidal thoughts or the unanticipated positive pregnancy test. Patients are scheduled for slots designed for simple, single problems and when they diverge from this the schedule suffers and other patients wait. I sympathize with the patients that are sitting in the waiting room not understanding why their 10 o’clock appointment time has come and gone; but I also know that the most important patient is the one in the exam room and each patient will get that opportunity. In an ideal world there would be enough doctors such that all the patients could see their doctor when they had the need without long wait times, but this is not an ideal world that we live in.

I struggle on how to counsel my resident. I am often running behind myself, trying to explain why a specific medication is necessary or why the medical test on the commercial is not actually all it claims to be, trying to be the resource my patients need and deserve.

I do not want the resident to be less thorough. I do not want him to cut corners or skimp on the care he provides. I tell him we all struggle with unreasonable time expectations, all of us have had the patient with urgent health needs that throws off our morning and ultimately, we are the ones responsible for the quality of the care we provide our patients. But, I am not sure that provided any sort of solution to his problem.
more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Robust Technology Platforms and Medicare Home Health Providers

Robust Technology Platforms and Medicare Home Health Providers | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

The home care industry, in its various forms, represents an $82 billion market with a population of potential customers that is growing by the minute. In fact, within the next five years, 20 percent of Americans will be eligible for Medicare services and many of them will avail themselves of home health services that will be funded by Medicare. Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2015 Home Health Final Rule (Final Rule), which sets forth the details of the second year of payment rebasing under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) together with other new rules, clarifications of previous rules and discussions of things to come. CMS makes it clear that its goal is to more closely align payment for services with the cost of providing them.

Interestingly, while physicians and hospitals were included in CMS’ meaningful use EHR Incentive Programs that began in 2011, home care providers were excluded from incentive opportunities. However, even in the absence of financial incentives for technology adoption, implementation of robust technology platforms capable of gathering, organizing, processing and protecting patient health and financial information is still crucial. Consider the following top five reasons for why technology adoption is not optional for Medicare certified home health providers.

  • First, there are 1,836 potential Health Insurance Prospective Payment System (HIPPS) Codes that form the basis for Medicare home health reimbursement. There are 3,273 counties represented for which an applicable wage index has been established for purposes of calculating reimbursement. That yields a potential universe of payment values in excess of $6 million.
  • Second, even the most straightforward of the episode payment calculations has at least three steps and the most cumbersome, outlier calculations, has over a dozen. Imagine trying to manually arrive at accurate calculations for each episode.
  • Third, newly proposed Medicare Conditions of Participation place increasing emphasis on the quality and coordination of patient care supported by detailed clinical records. Significant survey emphasis for home health providers is now being placed on reconciliation of medications as well as the adequacy of other clinical documentation. Technology greatly assists in creating efficient ways of achieving the desired end result of coordinated, cohesive and locatable clinical documentation.
  • Fourth, in order to justify payment, home health agencies must be able to schedule visits based on physician ordered care plans, record when visits are made or missed, and aggregate visit notes that are responsive, in the main, to ordered interventions. And, not incidentally, visit times must be translated into unit-based increments for claim submission purposes.
  • Finally, as the 2015 Final Rule demonstrates, the calculation rules and values change every year.

The operational needs and payment changes put into place for home health agencies are significant and have far reaching implications not only for agencies, but also for the whole industry. As the importance of post-acute care modalities grows in a countrywide effort to regulate costs and improve health outcomes, strong home health providers will play a key role in our general success in this area whether or not they are incentivized to adopt technology through meaningful use programs.

In order for home health agencies to continue building business momentum while ensuring top-quality care and health outcomes, they will need to be able to fully and quickly implement new regulations that change each year and adapt operational procedures correspondingly. Calculations, functions, decision support tools, up-to-the minute informational dashboards and reports will be a must for any home health provider that expects to thrive in what will be a very challenging and intricate operating environment. Fortunately, just as intricacy in processes will increase, there is also an increasing amount of cost-efficient and cloud-based technology alternatives available to providers to enable them to manage effectively the required details of providing home health services.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

U.S. needs to raise investment, shift medical research priorities

U.S. needs to raise investment, shift medical research priorities | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

The U.S. is losing its lead in global medical research, and many of the projects that do get funded overlook common diseases that afflict millions of people, according to a new analysis.

Experts point to falling public and private spending on the kind of basic research that leads to new discoveries, and a lack of innovation in delivering healthcare, in a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association that’s part of a series on the future of medicine,

"With respect to U.S. public financing there has not been the political will to make biomedical research a priority in the same way that it was in the 1970s with the war on cancer or in the 1980s with the war on AIDS," said lead study author Dr. Hamilton Moses, of the Alerion Institute and Alerion Advisors LLC in North Garden, Virginia.

At the same time, private U.S. companies have concentrated investment in advanced clinical trials rather than on the basic research that’s needed to tackle some of the chronic conditions like diabetes that afflict the greatest number of people, Moses told Reuters Health in an interview.

Overall U.S. investment in biomedical and health services research grew just 0.8 percent a year from 2004 to 2012, down from a 6-percent annual growth rate between 1994 and 2004, Moses and his colleagues found.

Government funding in the U.S. fell to 49 percent of the world's public research investment by 2011, down from 57 percent in 2004.

U.S. industry, which accounted for nearly half of corporate investment worldwide in 2004, slipped to 41 percent of private funding in 2011.

Asia, aided largely by China, tripled investment to $9.7 billion in 2012 from $2.6 billion in 2004.

In the U.S., public funding concentrated on cancer and rare diseases, with less than half of government investment targeting 27 common diseases – including chronic obstructive lung disease, injuries, stroke, dementia and pneumonia - that account for 84 percent of deaths in the U.S. and significant disability.

Cancer alone accounted for 16 percent of total funding from the National Institutes of Health and was the target of one in four medicines in clinical trials, the study found.

"With cardiovascular disease, the number one killer, some of the large pharmaceutical companies have really pulled back in this area," said Dr. Kenneth Kaitin, director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development in Boston, Massachusetts.

"The industry has changed over the last few years and there has been tremendous pressure to reduce research and development costs that has resulted in a tremendous shift away from high-volume, low-cost medicines toward seeking a billion- dollar drug that treats a very, very small population," said Kaitin, who wasn't involved in the study.

Health services research, which looks at issues around access to care as well as quality and costs, has accounted for less than 0.33 percent of national health expenditures between 2003 and 2011, the study found.

Private insurers ranked last (0.04 percent of revenue) and health systems 19th (0.1 percent of revenue) among 22 industries in their investment in innovation in this area, the authors note.

"This is concerning in terms of trying to tackle improved quality of care and improved access to care, and in terms of bending the cost curve," said Glen Giovannetti, a global life sciences expert at Ernst & Young in Boston.

"There's lots and lots of research done on drug development and much less done on whether one course of treatment is better than another," said Giovannetti, who wasn't involved in the study.

With respect to both biotech and health services research, there is an acute need to increase research investment and to create more reliable funding mechanisms, said Dr. Victor Dzau, president of the Institute of Medicine, a division of the U.S. National Academies of Science.

Dzau, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the study in JAMA, said the danger of disparate, unreliable funding streams is that it forces scientists to work in fits and starts, often abandoning promising basic research.

"If you think about all of the major advances in health care services, biomedical research, and diagnostics, there is no question that it's based on innovation and relied at the start on basic research," Dzau told Reuters Health.

"When we decided to put a man on the moon that was an aspirational goal, and we as a nation should be able to recognize that this is now an important moment in medical research," Dzau said. "We aren't saying give money for money's sake. We are saying set priorities, and give researchers at least five years of stable funding to pursue specific goals."



more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Doing More for Patients Often Does No Good

Doing More for Patients Often Does No Good | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Given the remarkable advances that have been made in the last 50 or so years in pharmaceuticals, medical devices and surgical procedures, it’s not a surprise that people want more, and more invasive, care than they have had in the past. Just as it’s hard to do nothing when you’re ill, it’s sometimes hard to do less than the maximum when there are different treatments to choose from.

Unfortunately, doing more often does no good. Sometimes, it even leads to harm.

In the United States, when it appears that someone might be in trouble, emergency medical services are dispatched. Many patients die from an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but steps taken out in the field can make a difference. Basic life support, the kind you might be taught in a CPR class — involving the use of bag valve masks, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillators — can absolutely save a life.

Advanced life support, usually requiring a trained paramedic, involves much more. Trained providers may put in endotracheal breathing tubes; start intravenous lines; deliver sophisticated cardiac drugs; and defibrillate patients manually.

We’ve assumed, for the most part, that advanced life support is better than basic life support — so much so that in most areas where both options are available, advanced life support is almost always used. But a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine brings this assumption into question. Researchers examined Medicare patients who were billed for either advanced life support or basic life support before admission to the hospital from 2009 through most of 2011. They looked at how often patients survived to hospital discharge, and then months later.

What they found was that about 13 percent of patients who received basic life support survived and were discharged versus 9 percent of patients who received advanced life support. More patients who received basic life support lived for 90 days after discharge, too (8 percent versus 5 percent). Basic life support patients also had better neurological outcomes.

Now, of course, this is not a randomized controlled trial. It’s possible that sicker patients received advanced life support and that people who didn’t appear as sick received basic life support. But the authors called all of the state agencies, and they reported that this can’t really happen. After all, a 911 dispatcher can’t tell if it’s a “mild” or “severe” heart attack from a third party on the phone with no medical training. Dispatchers send out advanced life support if it’s available, and basic life support if it’s not.

It’s also possible that there could be differences in bystander CPR administration until help arrives. But the authors attempted to control for that, too. They conducted a number of sensitivity analyses, and in none of them did advanced life support outperform basic life support.

It would also be easier to dismiss this finding if it weren’t corroborated in many other studies. In 2004, results from the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support Study were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was a multicenter controlled trial in 17 cities in Canada comparing advanced life support with basic life support. They found that if an instance of cardiac arrest were witnessed by a bystander, the chance of survival significantly improved. They also found that CPR administered by bystanders improved survival, and so did rapid defibrillation. These are all components of basic life support. The addition of advanced life support, however, made no difference in survival.


A 2007 study conducted in Taipei also found that advanced life support did not improve survival to discharge. Even the main components of advanced life support have failed to show results in studies. A 2008 systematic review showed no efficacy for emergency intubation. A 2010 cohort study found advanced airway methods — basically, putting in an airway tube rather than using a bag mask — to be associated with decreased survival compared with basic life support methods, as did a 2013 study in Japan.

A 2012 JAMA study found that the use of epinephrine was associated with worse outcomes, and a 2008 New England Journal of Medicine study found that adding vasopressin (another drug that, like epinephrine, constricts blood vessels to raise blood pressure) didn’t improve things. A randomized controlled trial of these drugs, published in 2009 in JAMA, found that their use didn’t improve survival either.

The evidence is compelling. Advanced life support does not seem to provide any benefits in the randomized controlled trials, and it’s often associated with worse outcomes in the cohort studies. How can this be so? Some theorize that the things that work have already been incorporated into basic life support. All that the advanced life support may be doing is slowing things down in the field, distracting people from the useful basic life support measures, and delaying the time until a patient can get to the hospital.

It’s hard not to do more if we can, though. We see this in all sorts of areas of care. A few months ago, a study was published in JAMA that examined the outcomes of women with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer who underwent breast conserving surgery with radiation compared with those who had a unilateral mastectomy and those who had a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. The 10-year survival differences between the groups were negligible. Breast conservation therapy is more tolerable, is much less invasive and costs less.




In fact, breast conservation therapy has become a “standard of excellence” in breast cancer care. But a study published even more recently showed that from 1998 through 2011, the odds of a woman eligible for breast conservation therapy receiving a mastectomy increased. Rates of bilateral mastectomy went up over this time period as well, from 2 percent in 1998 to 11 percent in 2011.

And based on the data from many randomized controlled trials, we know that women who have radiation therapy for early breast cancer do well with less of it. The use of “hypofractionated” whole breast irradiation, which consists of fewer treatments with higher levels of radiation, has been shown to be equally effective for women without any excess side effects. It’s cheaper, easier and just as good. Hypofractionated whole breast radiation has been endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology for women who satisfy certain criteria since 2011.

But a study published a month ago that looked at the use of radiation in women with early stage breast cancer found that in 2013, only about a third of women who qualified for hypofractionated radiation therapy were getting it. The rest got more, but not better, care.

The reasons for this are varied. With respect to the radiation therapy, it’s hard not to lay some of the blame on economics. After all, in a fee-for-service system, more visits and more treatments mean more money. Research shows that twice as many women want hypofractionated radiation therapy as want conventional therapy, but only half of radiation oncologists offer it.

But it’s not all money. It’s also probably fear. Many radiation oncologists are concerned that doing fewer treatments will lead to worse outcomes. That’s most likely the concern of women who choose much more invasive surgery than necessary as well.

It’s certainly the rationale for why advanced life support is so prevalent. The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support Trial was supposed to be a randomized controlled trial, but the paramedics evidently refused to do it because they felt that holding back advanced life support was unethical. This was in spite of the lack of evidence that it was effective.

More is expensive. More sometimes does no good. Sometimes, more is even harmful. When our policies and care ignore these facts, we all suffer.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

The Latest Trends in Nursing Technology

The Latest Trends in Nursing Technology | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

If trying to make sense of the stock market is enough to have you ready for a straitjacket. It is much easier to let your 401(k) do its thing and not think about it too often. The same can’t be said for those of us in the healthcare industry even though it feels like things are changing as rapidly as they do on Wall Street. Between the legislative changes, corporate mergers, innovative technologies, and everything else that is happening in our industry, it is enough to make your head spin. Let’s look at trends and technologies that will become more commonplace in 2018 and beyond.

 

Patient Engagement. As with most industry trends, nurses are on the front lines of patient engagement efforts. If you haven’t already been exposed to the concept, patient engagement is the practice of a patient taking more responsibility for their own health and well-being. When providers and patients work together, health outcomes are improved. New technologies are being developed to support patient engagement, and nurses are finding themselves more involved in helping evolve engagement efforts for their patients.

 

Precision Medicine. Another newer concept that will ultimately involve nurses providing direct care to patients, Precision Medicine, refers to the advancement of medical research that targets how certain diseases impact people differently based on their genetic makeup. It may include different treatments for certain types of cancers based on the genetics of the tumor. Precision medicine is an acknowledgment that healthcare is never one-size-fits-all and treatments are being adapted to the individual rather than the disease.

 

Centralized Command Centers. Inspired by NASA, many hospitals are implementing command centers that serve as a “mission control” for all of the services and functions related to patient care. Today’s nurses are finding themselves able to interact with the second set of eyes and also have help in managing daily bottlenecks. These command centers are also being utilized for central monitoring of patients to overcome alarm fatigue from the 90% of hospital alarms that aren’t actionable. The centers utilize complex algorithms and analytics to assist nurses in making real-time decisions to improve quality of care and reduce costs.

 

Smarter Smartphones? All of us are already using our smartphones for just about everything we track, post, and read lately, so nurses using them for their work is not surprising. One example of ways that nurses are able to use their smartphone is called Steth IO, which turns your phone into a modernized stethoscope. A special case is attached to your iPhone (not yet available for Android) and channels the sounds of a patient’s heart and breathing into the microphone. The Steth IO app then digitizes the heartbeat into a graph on the phone screen to record and enable easier detection of abnormal heart sounds.

 

Overcoming Language Barriers. As our nation’s population becomes more diverse, nurses are finding themselves in more frequent situations where patients speak a language other than English. This often leads to another nurse who speaks the language being brought in to translate. By September of this year, a hand-held, two-way voice translator, The Pocketalk, will be available to translate up to 63 languages in real time. Working via Wi-Fi, mobile data, or a personal hotspot, the translator transfers speech to text on the screen and relays responses verbally. Nurses will also be able to save up to 20 exchanges to assist with post-visit notes and charting.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details :

inquiry@technicaldr.com or 877-910-0004
www.technicaldr.com

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Could Apple Store-like digital health retail stores be popular? 

Could Apple Store-like digital health retail stores be popular?  | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Here’s why I think the time is right. Rumour has it that CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, and many other pharmacies carrying digital health and wearables product draw in-store customers. If that’s the case, could we drive more sales of telemedicine, remote monitoring, chronic care apps, and other digital health products by creating specialty stores in which we had trained sales people that knew how to combine products, services, and solutions from a variety of companies and educate consumers, caregivers, and patients about their use? What if some smart pharmacies, smart health insurers, and smart health systems got together and put together healthcare management retail stores in malls, similar to an Apple Store or a Microsoft Store?

 

In a fee for services (volume-driven) world, selling healthcare products and services to individual institutions is certainly time-consuming but reasonably straightforward. In an outcomes-driven (fees for value) world driven by shared risks and shared rewards, selling healthcare solutions across multiple disciplines, multiple stakeholders, and multiple institutions is much harder and even more time-consuming. That’s because there’s no easy buyer to identify. Population health is all the rage but our current 3+ trillion dollar healthcare industry was never devised nor incentivized to work together as a team for a long-term patient or population benefits (it’s reimbursed mainly for episodic care).

 

Our country’s healthcare industry is more about sick care and episodic transactions rather than longitudinal care. But, since we are moving to population and outcomes-driven care where the patient is more responsible for their own care management and payment, it would seem patient education and digital health tools are more important than ever. So, perhaps we need to get together and innovate around how we’re going to present next-generation solutions from across multiple innovators and showcase them to patients and their caregivers.

 

Using the Apple Store as a model, let’s imagine a Digital Health Store where we can have computers, wearables, tablets, phones, medical devices, remote monitoring, care quality, and other cool devices sitting in one place where shoppers can see how things work together and salespeople are trained to talk about chronic care. Even Amazon, who basically killed the large bookstore retail model, is giving retail bookstores a shot.

 

If the Digital Health retail store idea is reasonable, we could even think about allowing people to shop for insurance — on existing insurance exchanges — through a guided expert in store. There are tons of way of monetizing these stores.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details :

inquiry@technicaldr.com or 877-910-0004
www.technicaldr.com

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Demand for Advanced Practitioners Will Continue to Grow

Demand for Advanced Practitioners Will Continue to Grow | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Like the rest of Americans and people around the world, I eagerly awaited the Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell. The decision, which shifts the direction of the healthcare reform debate, also affirms the demand for physicians, especially family-practice-trained physicians, and other advanced practitioners, such as PAs, NPs, and CRNAs, will continue to skyrocket.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) studies the supply and demand of physicians, and indirectly, other providers who perform services in the healthcare system. The most recent report discusses research and findings within the lens of Affordable Care Act (ACA) initiatives and programs having been underway for several years.


The summary essentially reinforces the need to train more physicians, and clinicians such as PAs, NPs, and CRNAs. The ACA has increased the demand for providers at all levels, over previous predictions, and that demand will only continue to grow as more patients continue to enter the healthcare system.


Key findings in the report were as follows:


• The AAMC predicts a projected shortfall between 12,500 to 31,100 primary-care physicians by 2025, while demand for non-primary care (specialty) physicians will exceed supply by 28,200 to 63,700 physicians. This has significant impact especially on PAs, in that we practice in teams with physicians.


• Expanded medical coverage achieved under ACA, once fully implemented, will likely increase demand for healthcare providers, especially those in primary care, by about 2 percent over the current increased demand resulting from changing demographics.


• Due to new data and the dynamic nature of projected assumptions, the projected shortfalls of physicians in 2025 are smaller than shortfalls projected in the earlier study. The lower ranges of the projected shortfalls reflect the rapid growth in supply of clinical providers such as PAs, which have helped to close the gap between physician supply and demand.


• The critical role PAs play in patient care delivery has implications for all providers on the healthcare team. Right now, we cannot train physicians, PAs, and NPs fast enough to meet the demands of the healthcare system.


The AAMC concluded that additional study is needed to determine the impact that providers like PAs have on the supply and demand of physicians. As always, hindsight is 20/20, and the AMCC recognized the limitations and caveats of making predictions about the supply and demand of all members of the healthcare delivery team. Areas of future recommended study included physician retirement patterns, changing wants, needs, and preferences of young physicians, the evolution of clinician staffing patterns, and the effect of payment models.


Speaking for PAs, all of the above areas of future research are important to my profession, especially in the area of retirement. As a growing profession, we are experiencing the first major cohort of PAs approaching retirement. However, as the demand for providers increases, demand for PAs is also skyrocketing due to our rigorous education in the medical model — similar to physicians — and our training in team-based care (on which many new models of care delivery depend).


As PAs practice medicine in nearly every setting and every specialty and subspecialty, our future continues to be tied to the present and future supply and demand challenges confronting our health system. To meet the ever-expanding demand and reflect the realities of today's U.S. healthcare system, it is more important than ever to modernize laws and regulations to allow PAs to practice to the fullest extent of their education and abilities.

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Most Patients Willing To Have Online Video Doctor Visits, Survey Finds

Most Patients Willing To Have Online Video Doctor Visits, Survey Finds | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

A majority of U.S. residents are willing to use an online video for a physician visit, according to a Harris Poll survey, MobiHealthNews reports.

The survey, which was commissioned by telehealth company American Well, collected responses from 2,019 U.S. adults ages 18 and older in December 2014.

Survey Findings

Overall, the survey found about 64% respondents were willing see a doctor via an online video consult.

Of those, 61% listed convenience as a factor.

The survey found respondents' willingness to switch to an online physician visit varied by age and the number of years they had seen their doctors (Pai, MobiHealthNews, 1/21). The survey showed:

  • 6% of respondents who had seen their physician for at least 10 years said they would switch;
  • 8% of respondents who had seen their physician for five to nine years said they would switch;
  • 10% of respondents who had seen their physician for two to four years said they would switch;
  • 7% of respondents who had seen their physician for less than one year said they would switch (Harris Poll survey, December 2014);
  • 11% of patients ages 18 to 34 said they would switch;
  • 8% of patients ages 35 to 44 said would switch (MobiHealthNews, 1/21);
  • 5% of patient ages 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 said they would switch; and
  • 4% of patients age 65 and older said they would switch (Harris Poll survey, December 2014).

However, about 88% of respondents said they would like to select the physician for a video visit rather than be randomly assigned one (Gold, "Morning eHealth," Politico, 1/22).

When asked how they would prefer to respond if a loved one needed medical attention in the middle of the night:

  • 44% of respondents said they would go to the emergency department;
  • 21% said they would use a video visit;
  • 17% said they would call a 24-hour nurse line; and
  • 5% said they would consult an online symptom checker.

The survey also asked consumers about their willingness to receive a prescription through a video visit. The survey showed:

  • 70% of respondents said receiving a prescription via an online video visit was preferable to receiving a prescription via an in-person visit;
  • 60% said they would be comfortable using an online video visit to get a prescription for a refill;
  • 42% of women ages 18 to 32 would be comfortable getting a prescription for birth control through an online video visit; and
  • 41% reported interest in getting antibiotics through an online video visit.

When asked about the costs of an online physician visit:

  • 62% said online video visits should cost less than an in-person visit;
  • 22% said both types of visits should cost the same amount; and
  • 5% said video visits should cost more (MobiHealthNews, 1/21).
more...
Scoop.it!

Ingredients for streamlining care management | Healthcare IT News

Ingredients for streamlining care management | Healthcare IT News | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

In an era where medicine is highly specialized and different specialties are involved in the care of a patient, intelligent use of information technology is essential to help providers, payers and patients achieve better care management outcomes while simultaneously improving cost and quality of care.

While some entities, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, have implemented solutions where patients have the ability to view their personal health records online and offline, the majority of the healthcare industry continues to face multiple challenges while implementing care management processes. Care management for large, diverse populations is highly complex and subjective, largely because needs vary for each patient and encounters may span across multiple care settings and plans.

Although a large proportion of health information today is captured electronically, integrated data around patients and their underlying disorders is often not available to providers at the point of care. However, efforts to code clinical content with standard terminology has, to some extent, helped streamline information across applications. There is also a lack of alignment between payers and providers in regards to cost of care management services and shared risk arrangements, leading to sub-optimal care quality.

How organizations manage their healthcare data, and what they use this data for, therefore becomes extremely critical to the success of these programs. While technology plays a very important role in areas like decision support, care coordination and population health management, providers and payers are still faced with the challenge of managing both complex people and process challenges.

Effective use of patient data

Patient data adds value across multiple areas such as decision support, planned interventions and medical reconciliation. Such examples include:

  • Using CPOE Based Order Sets: Effective clinical decision support tools contained within an order set can help enforce the use of quality measures or meaningful use criteria by providers. An example would be the use of a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment and subsequent prophylaxis for high risk patients embedded within an order set. Monitoring the prophylaxis regimen based on the VTE risk score can help reduce incidence of venous thrombosis.
  • Clinical Information Exchange: Effective care coordination requires healthcare data to flow seamlessly across all parts of the healthcare ecosystem, including providers, payers and consumers. By aligning incentives, all parties can reduce costs and improve quality of care. By leveraging health information exchanges across radiology, laboratory, perioperative, inpatient and outpatient applications, healthcare organizations have the ability to access patient data in a timely and secure fashion.
  • Medical Reconciliation: This feature is commonly available in electronic health records (EHRs) and can play a very important role in preventing adverse drug reactions. For example, the use of over-the-counter (OTC) medications like acetaminophen may not get recorded in an EHR, but can be retrieved from the pharmacy or the medication management application. This is extremely critical information for a physician, given the hepatotoxic profile of the drug.
  • Patient Registries: A patient registry fed with data from EHR applications can show the treatment prescribed to patients and identify care gaps, based on evidence-based guidelines. Care management programs can use this kind of analysis to highlight areas of improvement, thus positively impacting cost and quality of care.

Promoting patient engagement

Patient education plays a very important role in effective care management. Patients who are actively focused on learning more about their conditions are more likely to participate in initiatives that promote preventive steps and healthy behaviour. The use of patient portals, for instance, allow patients to have anytime, anywhere access to their medical records, and the ability to schedule appointments, request medication reconciliation, etc.

Processes such as discharge management and preventive care can also provide strong opportunities to increase patient participation. Such processes play a crucial role in keeping readmissions and acute care costs to a minimum. Automated alerts informing patients to make appointments or follow up on lab visits can help prevent potential acute and chronic conditions.

Patients today are increasingly using consumer devices and mobile apps to store and monitor their health parameters. Wearable devices have the ability to change the way health data is collected and managed, and care management processes will soon need to incorporate consumer technology to enhance patient engagement and self management.

Managing Stakeholder Expectations

To drive a sustainable care management program, it is important to demonstrate value to key stakeholders including providers, payers and patients. However, the definition of value differs from one entity to another. For instance, providers and payers often do not see eye to eye on issues such as risk sharing and care management goals. It is essential to build consensus on many of these issues and agree on clearly defined goals around care objectives, processes and costs.

Addressing issues around provider and payer expectations could lead to significant advantages for the healthcare industry as a whole. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the government spends nearly three-fourths of its total healthcare expenditure on chronic disease, an area where care management programs can make a large impact. A concerted effort from all major stakeholders to streamline care management objectives and processes would have a very large impact on healthcare cost and quality.

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

68% of New Doctors Prefer to be Employed Physicians

68% of New Doctors Prefer to be Employed Physicians | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

Newly-minted physicians have between fifty and one hundred job offers to sift through before the starch even wears out of their lab coats, according to a new survey by Merritt Hawkins, and the majority will choose employment with a larger practice, hospital, or health system over entering a solo private practice.  As an ongoing shortage of physicians, driven in part by the burden of mandates such as meaningful use and the expense of EHR adoption, begins to put the squeeze on care availability, new trends in physician employment are changing the way healthcare is delivered in the United States.

“Unlike virtually any other type of professional in today’s economy, newly trained doctors are being recruited like blue chip athletes,” said Mark Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins. “There are simply not enough physicians coming out of training to fill all the available openings.”

The organization asked more than 1200 medical residents about to graduate into the job market, about recruitment opportunities and their future plans.  More than 60 percent of the residents had received more than fifty solicitations from recruiters in the last year of residency, while 46 percent were flooded with more than one hundred job offers.

The overwhelming number of offers may have something to do with the extraordinarily low percentages of new recruits choosing what have become challenging career paths: solo practice or employment in a rural area.  Just two percent of respondents were interested in opening up their own practice, while a mere three percent would consider seeking a position in a community with less than 25,000 people.  More than two-thirds of new physicians headed straight for larger medical practices in more urban areas.

These decisions are contributing to the growing shortage of care in rural areas, which is compounded by an increasing number of elderly patients, more patients becoming eligible for care under the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansions, and the prevalence of chronic diseases.  In Colorado, for example, some rural counties would need to increase their physician population by more than 100% to meet basic state benchmarks for the ratio of providers to patients.

But that might not happen if the urban employment trend continues.  “The days of new doctors hanging out a shingle in an independent solo practice are over,” Smith said. “Most new doctors prefer to be employed and let a hospital or medical group handle the business end of medical practice.”

Yet even physicians who secure a place in a hospital or group setting are not entirely happy with their choice.  A quarter of residents indicated that if they had the option to start over again, they wouldn’t even choose the medical field at all.  Physician dissatisfaction is at an all-time high, driven by everything from an overwhelming number of EHR alerts that interrupt patient care and frustrate technology users to the coming of ICD-10, which is placing a considerable strain on hearts and wallets alike.

Employed physicians might not have to worry about cooking their own books, but they complain instead about being treated as cogs in a machine, losing autonomy, and being mismanaged by executive staff.  A March survey by the former American College of Physician Executives, now the American Association for Physician Leadership, found that many employed physicians gripe at corporate culture clashes, a lack of financial incentives, and disinterest in their opinions from organizational leaders.

“With declining reimbursement, increasing paperwork, and the uncertainty of health reform, many physicians are under duress today,” added Smith. “It is not surprising that many newly trained doctors are concerned about what awaits them.”


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

The key to medicine is to love our patients

The key to medicine is to love our patients | Healthcare and Technology news | Scoop.it

I have issues with the customer satisfaction paradigm, but it’s not generally hard to make patients happy. Sometimes, though, it can be nearly impossible. It all depends on our own inner life as physicians and human beings. The key to medicine, to being a beloved physician, is to love our patients.


This can be a tall order. Human beings are remarkably difficult to love. They are often angry, uncommunicative, cruel, manipulative, and dishonest. (And that’s just the doctors!) Humans resist love almost as fiercely as they desire it. They push one another away with profanity. They anger each other with attitude. They pick until someone lashes out. They remind us of our own human frailty.

So how do we do it? How do we love these people, especially when they come to us in the chaos of our work in the ED? How do we love them when we are weary and they have strange complaints at 2 a.m.? How do we love them when, despite our suggestions on all of their previous visits, they continue to ignore our advice, not take their prescriptions, and not change their lifestyles? Can we love them at all?

It depends. Do you think that loving them means having warm emotions for them? Do you think it means feeling good about them? Or is it having a satisfying relationship with them? If so, loving will be difficult. Because we in the modern West have excised and biopsied, reconstructed and deconstructed the word love until it is nearly unrecognizable.

We want love to be a feeling we have, when in fact, love must be an action we show. When our children are loud and disobedient, when they scream and throw tantrums, it’s often difficult to feel good about them. But we still feed them, bathe them, sing to them, and put them to bed with kisses in hope of a better day or after the terrible twos or threatening threes or whichever phase has passed. (Lately it’s the sarcastic seventeens, but I digress.)

Whatever we feel about the angry drunk, the manipulative attorney, the entitled college student, the addicted gang-banger, when we behave with competence, when we do what is right, and seek their best, we show love for them. A love borne of action, not emotion. A love that is in some ways more steady and true.

I’ve learned that a cycle is born. When I act toward them with competence, I show them love. And when I do that, I learn in time to see them less as numbers (or annoyances) and more as people. A crazy thing then happens; they love me back. And then the magic happens.

I talk to them, and they talk to me. And we come together. I ask about their family, and they ask about mine. I inquire about why they are sad, and they tell me things that shake me to the core and remind me of how I have nothing to complain about when held up to their life story of abuse and addiction, neglect and loss. And because I listen (and sometimes hug them or pray for them), they know I’m human, too. And they come to love me.

In time, you’ll find new, wonderful ways to love. Over the years, I’ve learned that everyone wants to hear how beautiful her baby is. I tell her. Because every baby is, if only to her own parents. And they say thank you, and I tell them how blessed they are. And we joke about children. The children then look at me, smile, and reach for me to hold them, and I am the recipient of the blessing.

I’m less and less bothered by little things. I like to get warm blankets, and I like to get cups of water. Yes, I still get annoyed when I’m busy, but I’m a work in progress, you see. If I can order a snack for them, I will. We have a wonderful time when it’s slow and I can sit and hear a life story or tell a joke. And the love grows. By acting in love, love increases.

Love isn’t taught in the classroom, and the boards certainly don’t measure it. It is nigh impossible to apply evidence-based evaluations to love. But once you allow it to start and carry you forward, your heart will thaw like the Winter Warlock and grow like the Grinch.

And your satisfaction scores will probably go up, too.



more...
No comment yet.