Four Health Care Systems

Check out my latest on Medscape's the Differential!

Electing to Remain Patient-Centered

Check out my latest post on the Differential: Electing to Remain Patient-Centered

Escape Fire: Keep Optimism Burning

Check out my latest post on The Differential: Escape Fire

Health Care Reform: Upheld by the Supreme Court

On Thursday, June 28, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The law seeks to make health insurance more affordable for all and provide increased consumer protections (e.g. prevent discrimination by health insurance companies against individuals with pre-existing health conditions). But what are some of the actual act's directives?


Since 2010, the law has already:

• ended discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions.
• extended coverage to younger adults (up to age 26) by allowing them to stay on their parents health insurance plan
• prohibited health insurance companies from dropping people's coverage when they get sick.
• increased federal matching funds for Medicaid.
• set forth initiatives to strengthen the primary care workforce.
• sought to bring down the price of health care premiums by requiring that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies be spent on health care services and health care quality improvement (rather than for profit).
• encouraged the use of integrated health systems (i.e. Accountable Care Organizations).
• required federal agencies to record a wider range of demographic data in an effort to understand health disparities.

In 2013, the law will:

• provide new funding to state Medicaid programs that choose to cover preventive services for patients at little or no cost.
• establish a national pilot program to encourage hospitals, doctors, and other providers to work together to improve the coordination and quality of patient care.
• increase Medicaid payments for primary care doctors.
• provide additional funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

In 2014, the law will:

•  require individuals to purchase health insurance (this is the "individual mandate" that was the subject of debate). If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will be eligible for an exemption.
• prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual's pre-existing conditions.
• prohibit plans from imposing annual dollar limits on the amount of coverage an individual may receive.
• provide tax credits to make it easier for the middle class to afford insurance.
• ask States to open health insurance exchanges to enable all Americans to easily shop for more affordable private insurance.
• increase access to medicaid for Americans who earn less than 133 percent of poverty limit.

Finally, in 2015 the law will:

• compensate physicians for the quality of care they provide to their patients rather than the volume of services they provide.

While many of these provisions will not be well-received by everyone, and some of these provisions admittedly do not do enough to reform the health care system, this is a step in the right direction.

Primary Care Physician Shortage

By 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will expand the Medicaid health insurance program to over 15 million people. Among many things, this expansion will allow millions of people access to regular primary care. But is the field of primary care prepared to deal with such an expansion?

Primary care physicians (PCP's) serve as the initial contact person for a patient’s health issue. PCP's work with the patient over a long duration of time, treating routine conditions and providing preventive services like vaccinations. PCP's also refer the patient to specialists (e.g. cardiologists, endocrinologists) when necessary. Depending on the scope of the physician’s practice, primary care providers are internists and pediatricians, but can also be geriatricians or obstetricians and gynecologists. Nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants are increasingly providing primary care to patients as well.

For many years there has been talk about a physician shortage in the field of primary care. At one time, primary care physicians constituted the bulk of American physicians. However, advances in technology, increased medical educational debt, lower reimbursements and higher patient loads for primary care physicians have caused most doctors in training to enter a specialty field. The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts that in the decade that began in 2010, nearly one-third of all practicing physicians will retire. As a result, Americans will need an estimated 45,000 primary care physicians by 2020.

This trend has far-reaching consequences. Many ethnic minorities, people with low socioeconomic status or no health insurance may use primary care physicians and/or community health centers as their only source of health care; however, access to these providers is already limited for some patients because of factors like geography and a lack of transportation, or more complex issues like language barriers. The actual shortage of physicians and lack of funding for community health centers only exacerbates this problem.

Also, one statistic from the Kaiser Family Foundation says that 56% of patient visits in America require primary care, but only 37% of physicians practice primary care medicine, and only 8% of the nation’s medical school graduates go into family medicine. Furthermore, a higher ratio of specialists to patients has been correlated with higher mortality rates overall. This suggests that a higher ratio of primary care physicians will contribute to better health. With better access to primary care, patients can prevent disease and receive early treatment in the event of an illness.

The ACA has proposed several pieces of legislation to help solve the primary care physician shortage (the following was summarized from a Kaiser Family Foundation brief):

• Add 15,000 new primary care providers to the workforce by 2015
• Allocate $300 million for the National Health Service Corps which recruits the primary care workforce in underserved areas 
• $230 million in award grants will go to “teaching health centers” to start primary care residency programs 
• 10% bonuses for primary care providers under the Medicare fee schedule (started in 2011)
• Increase PCP reimbursements at the state level from Medicaid rates to Medicare rates by 2014 
• Increase the number of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO's) which thrive on the quality and not the quantity of patient care. ACO's encourage collaboration among physicians and allied health professionals rather than overuse of medical services
• Increase the number of community health centers 

Lastly, medical education institutions are charged to shape medicine’s leaders of tomorrow. This means medical schools should continue to educate students about issues related to primary care and the state of the health care system. Shadowing and networking with primary care physicians may increase interest in the field. Curricula should include such activities. Also, the number of residency programs must increase in order to accommodate the growing number of medical school graduates.

Race and Disease

What is the difference between health inequality and health disparities? Dr. Olivia Carter-Pokras, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the School of Public Health, said that health inequality is just a difference in health; health disparities are marked not only by a discernible difference in health, but also an injustice that can be changed. Dr. Carter-Pokras has over 25 years of health disparities research experience within the Federal government and academia, and was previously the Director of the Division of Policy and Data, Office of Minority Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Here at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), I attended a presentation Dr. Carter-Pokras gave about health disparities.

After the seminar, I began to think about race in general. When I first arrived at NIDA, research fellows were invited to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. The museum held an exhibit called “Race: Are we so different?” One idea the exhibit emphasized over and over is that race is a social rather than a biological construct. This means that we created the idea of race to distinguish one human from another. However, someone on the other side of the world is only 0.1% different from me at the genetic level. This may be hard to believe considering that humans come in many different shapes, sizes and colors. The exhibit had strong scientific and historical evidence to support the idea that race is purely a man-made idea.

If race cannot be defined by our genes, why do health care professionals use race to infer other characteristics about their patients? Why does the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) require the Federal government to collect racial data?

There are a few instances in which race (heritage, to be more accurate) may help physicians and allied health care professionals better treat their patients. However, this is a line that must be walked carefully. For example, some ethnic groups do have a higher prevalence of certain diseases (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews have a higher prevalence of Tay-Sachs disease and African-Americans have a higher prevalence of Sickle Cell Anemia). If a physician understands these links, a diagnosis may be made sooner. However, sometimes making assumptions about race and disease can hurt a patient. The Race exhibit at the Smithsonian featured a video of a father whose infant daughter was not quickly diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anemia. The parents were both white and Sickle Cell Anemia seemed like an unlikely cause of the baby's illness. However, the father was of Sicilian ancestry. A simple blood test confirmed the baby had Sickle Cell Anemia. This was an example in which generalizations about ethnicity and disease can be harmful. Though it may not be commonly known, Sickle Cell Anemia spread to places in southern Europe as well as throughout Africa.

The ACA is working to eliminate health disparities. In a 2011 report, the American Medical Association says the first step to eliminating disparities is to detect them. If this is true then the collection of racial is data is justified. However, a closer look at what we define as race may actually be an indicator of the greater disparities that exist among social determinants of health. For example, while it is true that many minorities endure numerous health disparities, this is often due to the environment in which minorities live and inequities in education, socioeconomic status, and other factors—not race. Poor whites have similar health outcomes to those of ethnic minorities. Similarly, ethnic minorities with higher socioeconomic status have better health outcomes than their poorer counterparts. Race should not define who we are nor how healthy we can be. We should focus on improving the conditions in which many disadvantaged people live which will result in an improvement in health.

Abstinence-only Sex Education and the ACA

I learn something new every day. There has been a lot of news recently about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the nation celebrated its two-year anniversary (or not, in the case of opposition). Also, today the Supreme Court concluded its review of the health care bill. I support many aspects of the ACA. Although many aspects of the ACAwill be enacted at different times, the Act: does not allow health insurance companies to deny someone coverage because of pre-existing health conditions; allows children to be covered under their parent's health insurance until they are 26; requires health insurance companies to cover, free of charge, preventable health services such as vaccines, mammograms and screening for conditions like obesity and Type II diabetes. Also, this March it became mandatory that federal health programs collect racial, ethnic and language data which will perhaps help us better understand health disparities. However, thanks to a CNN article I learned that the Act also renewed $50 million per year for five years, for abstinence-only sexual education.

Abstinence-only sex education was something I heard about long ago. Then I really began to pay attention to the issue while I was a Public Policy Fellow at Gay Men's Health Crsis in 2009. Abstinence-only sex education places a great emphasis on waiting to have sex until after marriage. Such education often minimizes the biological aspects of sex, and often speaks very little about the use of condoms and birth control, if at all. Such education has been linked to increased rates of teen pregnancy and contraction of sexually transmitted infections. One 2011 study at the University of Georgia examined the correlation between abstinence-only sex education and teen pregnancies, births and abortions.

For every state, the investigators examined education laws and other policies regarding sex and/or HIV/AIDS education. Actual education laws were retrieved from the Education Commission on the States, while other related policies were retrieved from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS). All but two states (Wyoming and North Dakota) had education laws and/or policies on record. Each state's laws and policies were assigned a number from 0-3 indicating the level of importance each state placed on abstinence from sex; level 0 laws indicated no specific mention of abstinence, while level 3 indicated that abstinence from sex until marriage was the fundamental teaching standard. The policy level for each state was correlated with data on teen pregnancy, and birth and abortion rates. The investigators also accounted for population factors like socioeconomic status, education level, ethnicity and access to Medicare waivers for family planning.

The results? States that were described as Level 3 (abstinence was their fundamental teaching standard) had the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births among teen moms. The investigators also found that richer states tended to have a higher proportion of white teens in their teen populations, and emphasized abstinence less. These richer states also tended to have lower teen pregnancy and birth rates than poorer states. These results support the notion that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective.

Politics often involves compromise between the concerned parties. In June 2009, when I was a Public Policy Fellow, the major source of funding for abstinence-only education expired. A new bill was signed in December 2009 that provided $114 million to more comprehensive and evidence-based sex education (hooray)! Therefore, I was surprised to learn that the ACA provided funding for abstinence-only education which yields questionable outcomes. But like I said-- compromise.

The debate about whether or not abstinence-only sex education works is important; however, it is the unwanted outcomes with which we should be very concerned. The University of Georgia study found that teenage pregnancy was strongly correlated with ethnicity and socioeconomic background. Public health campaigns that target high-risk populations to educate them about teen-pregnancy and provide better access to preventative services will be invaluable moving forward.