As the original twitterer ( @NickGenes ) said, “…because there wasn’t enough bureaucracy & expense in healthcare yet”.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has begun the process of notifying covered entities that they are among the unlucky few who have been selected for the first Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy and security audits under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. …

While the first twenty covered entities have been selected, approximately another 130 remain in this audit round. HHS has indicated that it hopes to continue with proactive audits in the future and expects to become more aggressive in its enforcement of complaints.

via HHS Audits the 1% … and the Rest: First HIPAA Privacy and Security Audits Begin – Davis Wright Tremaine.

Yes, this is HITECH, the Son of HIPAA, but it all started with HIPAA.

Is it worth pointing out that HIPAA exempted itself from the unfunded mandate and paperwork reduction rules when it was enacted? I pointed out then that their assertion that it wouldn’t cause an increase in paperwork, nor was it an unfunded mandate was really unlikely.

How many Millions of dollars and man-hours are we pouring down these regulatory holes?

Well, this is good news. Remember that we were assured the information in the NPDB would be protected? Yeah, me too.

And, I don’t understand this move at all.

Law enforcement can access data bank without doctors’ knowledge

The rule, a response to the expansion of the National Practitioner Data Bank, is intended to help prevent evidence tampering.

By Carolyne Krupa, amednews staff. Posted Dec. 13, 2011.

Physicians and other health professionals no longer will be notified if someone accesses information about them through the National Practitioner Data Bank for an investigation, according to a federal rule that takes effect Dec. 23.

The rule, an exemption to the Privacy Act, is meant to prevent tampering with evidence and is limited to law enforcement agencies, said David Bowman, a spokesman for the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration, which administers the data bank.

Umm, prevent tampering with WHAT evidence? by the time something’s being put in the NPDB, it’s know about by a lot of folks, and there isn’t any realy opportunity to ‘tamper with evidence’. This sounds exceptionally fishy to me. I need a better explanation than this. (I know I won’t get it).

Oh, and spot the problem with this logic (which I’ll point out after the quote):

Law enforcement agencies are authorized to see information on adverse actions against physicians such as medical board disciplinary actions and peer review sanctions. Such queries make up less than 1% of NPDB queries, with an average of 20 by law enforcement annually, according to the rule (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-23/pdf/2011-30292.pdf).

via amednews: Law enforcement can access data bank without doctors’ knowledge :: Dec. 13, 2011 … American Medical News.

When Law Enforcement was required to notify people they’d had a look at their records, their query rate was less than 1%. Now that they can do it secretly, what will that rate be? We’ll never know.

I really like this idea, but …  well, see after the quote.

It’s easy to compare prices on cameras, vacations, and homes. But in the United States, patients fly blind when paying for health care. People typically don’t find out how much any given medical procedure costs until well after they receive treatment, be it a blood draw or major surgery.

This lack of transparency has contributed to huge disparities in the cost of procedures. According to Castlight Health, a startup based in San Francisco, a colonoscopy costs anywhere from $563 to $3,967 within a single zip code. EKGs can range from $27 to $143, while the price for a set of three spinal x-rays varies from as little as $38 to as high as $162.

When someone else is picking up the tab, mystery pricing is not much of a problem. But these days, even the 59.5 million Americans who get health benefits through large self-insured employers are increasingly expected to pay a percentage of the costs for their medical care.

Castlight aims to do as its name suggests: cast light on the actual costs of medical care, so that people can make informed decisions…

via Exposing the Cost of Health Care – Technology Review.

Finally! Some price transparency! Huzzah! I WANT people to recognize that spending money when there’s no clue to the charge (not cost, charge) is directly responsible for a ton of the runaway cost in medicine.

This is better then nothing. It is, and while I don’t begrudge people making money on their great idea, is this the best model?

The company sells its tool to self-insured employers, who pay a fee per covered member per month, and in turn offer employees access so they can become more responsible users of their benefits. It has raised $81 million in venture funding to date. Current customers include Safeway and Life Technologies, a leading maker of genomics tools.

“Castlight is further along than anybody else in helping big employers show their employees that the individual decisions they make on health care actually do have a cost that affects benefits and wages,” says Matthew Holt, co-chairman of Health 2.0, a health-care consultancy firm.

Okay, better than nothing, and a start in the right direction. Good for them.

Update: this happened 2 years ago. So, I wrote this thinking it was a new development, but it isn’t. Anyone know how this experiment has played out?

I’ve wondered for years if hospital organizations (and big organized clinics) had done the math on whether they could do without Medicare, and apparently Mayo has. More after the quote

President Obama last year praised the Mayo Clinic as a “classic example” of how a health-care provider can offer “better outcomes” at lower cost. Then what should Americans think about the famous Minnesota medical center’s decision to take fewer Medicare patients?

Specifically, Mayo said last week it will no longer accept Medicare patients at one of its primary care clinics in Arizona. Mayo said the decision is part of a two-year pilot program to determine if it should also drop Medicare patients at other facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota, which serve more than 500,000 seniors.

Mayo says it lost $840 million last year treating Medicare patients, the result of the program’s low reimbursement rates. Its hospital and four clinics in Arizona—including the Glendale facility—lost $120 million. Providers like Mayo swallow some of these Medicare losses, while also shifting the cost by charging more to private patients and insurers.

via Medicare and the Mayo Clinic – WSJ.com.

First thought: the docs at the Mayo Clinic must have gotten some amazing assurances from the clinic to drop Medicare for 2 years. (If a physician opts out of accepting medicare, and it’s an all or nothing proposition, and under current law they cannot get their medicare billing back for 2 years. No doubt this was done to keep docs from using their opt-out as political leverage, and then get it restored when payments went the way they wanted).

Second thought: Mayo just became a Concierge Clinic. Interesting.

Third: I’m very interested in knowing what administrative advantages would follow dropping Medicare. EMTALA would no longer apply, but this is a clinic, not a hospital/ED, so I’m not sure that would affect them much. (I may misunderstand the role and capabilities of this Arizona Mayo Clinic, so let me know if I’m wrong here).

There are always strings attached with taking Uncle’s money, and they don’t lessen over time, they compound. I think HIPAA is linked to Medicare, too, so that gigantic unfunded mandate could stop.

Interesting…

Wait, I was told this would Never Work.

Thanks to the passage of lawsuit reforms, medical care is now more readily available in many Texas communities. For many patients, this change has been life-altering; for some, life-saving.

via Guest Column: Better Care, Thanks to Tort Reform — Health Reform and Texas | The Texas Tribune.

Interesting think piece on pre-arranged medmal arrangements, and why they won’t currently work…

…
The one signal fact about the American court system is that, paternalistically, it generally refuses to enforce contractual arrangements of this sort. No matter how well spelled out in advance, courts will not enforce the disclaimer of liability or apply the agreed-on damage limit. You will instead get the malpractice coverage that courts and lawmakers deign to prescribe for you, not the coverage you and your medical provider might have chosen yourselves.
…

via Libertarians, Medical Malpractice and Contract | Cato @ Liberty.