|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At Medicare is Simple, we look to educate and enable you to choose among Medicare plans to help find the policy that may best fit your needs. Get free quotes using our advanced quoting technology. HealthCare Reform is also a hot topic of interest to people of all ages, and we look to keep you updated on the issues relevant to learning more. Medicare Is Simple 800-442-4915
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Biweekly Enrollment Snapshot
30% of Heart Disease Deaths in 2014 Were Preventable
The
CDC recently analyzed national statistics to determine changes in potentially
preventable deaths. Here are some key findings from the report:
•
|
Potentially preventable cancer deaths
decreased 25% between 2010 and 2014.
|
•
|
Preventable stroke deaths decreased
11% from 16,973 to 15,175.
|
•
|
Preventable heart disease deaths
decreased 4% between 2010 and 2014.
|
•
|
Chronic lower respiratory disease
deaths increased 1% from 28,831 to 29,232.
|
•
|
Deaths from unintentional injuries
increased 23% (from 36,836 to 45,331).
|
•
|
30% of heart disease deaths in 2014
were potentially preventable.
|
Source:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 18,
2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Medication Adherence is 2.2% Higher In Medical Homes
The
Annals of Internal Medicine recently
published a retrospective study on medical homes and medication adherence. Here
are some key findings from the report:
•
|
5.9% of patients in the study
received care in patient-centered medical homes.
|
•
|
The average rate of adherence was 64%
among medical home patients.
|
•
|
The medication adherence rate was 59%
among patients in the control group.
|
•
|
Medication adherence was
significantly higher in medical homes overall (2.2%).
|
•
|
Adherence was 3% higher for diabetic
medical home patients vs control patients.
|
•
|
Hypertensive patients had 3.2% better
adherence than the control group.
|
Source:
Annals of Internal Medicine, November 15, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Working to Achieve Health Equity: The CMS Equity Plan for Medicare One Year Later
CMS BLOG
https://blog.cms.gov/2016/11/23/working-to-achieve-health-equity-the-cms-equity-plan-for-medicare-one-year-later/
November 23, 2016
By: Cara V. James, Ph.D., Director of the Office of Minority Health at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Working
to Achieve Health Equity: The CMS Equity Plan for Medicare One Year Later
One year ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched its first ever Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare at a conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid and the 30th anniversary of the Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health. The CMS Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare is an action-oriented plan that focuses on six priority areas and aims to reduce health disparities among vulnerable populations including, racial and ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities.
The foundation of the CMS Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare, is our 3-part ‘path to equity’ framework. The path involves: (1) increasing understanding and awareness of disparities, (2) developing and disseminating solutions, and (3) taking sustainable action and evaluating progress. Our path to equity enables us to take a comprehensive approach to addressing health disparities because it promotes progress regardless of where stakeholders are in their efforts to achieve health equity. In addition, the path to equity can be adopted by a wide range of stakeholders and organizations and applied from the individual level up to the community, state, and policy levels. The priorities and activities described in the Equity Plan for Medicare were developed during a rigorous year-long process, which included examining evidence, identifying opportunities, and gathering input from a broad array of stakeholders across the country. The plan includes six priority areas and an array of activities. They are:
Priority 1: Expand the Collection, Reporting, and Analysis of Standardized Data
Priority 2: Evaluate Disparities Impacts and Integrate Equity Solutions across CMS Programs
Priority 3: Develop and Disseminate Promising Approaches to Reduce Health Disparities
Priority 4: Increase the Ability of the Health Care Workforce to Meet the Needs of Vulnerable Populations
Priority 5: Improve Communication and Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency and Persons with Disabilities
Priority 6: Increase Physical Accessibility of Health Care Facilities
Since the launch of the CMS Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare, we have been actively working to increase our understanding of disparities among Medicare beneficiaries with limited English proficiency and disabilities, and our knowledge of how to better prepare our workforce to meet the needs of vulnerable populations. To assist stakeholders in identifying disparities at a local, state, or regional level, we launched our Mapping Medicare Disparities Tool earlier this year. The Mapping Medicare Disparities Tool is an interactive map, which can be used to identify areas of disparities between subgroups of Medicare beneficiaries in health outcomes, utilization, and spending. To assist in the identification of disparities within Medicare health plans, we released for the first time national and contract level quality data stratified by race and ethnicity.
We have been working to develop solutions to help spur sustainable action. As part of our Building an Organizational Response to Health Disparities portfolio, we released the Guide to Preventing Readmissions among Racially and Ethnically Diverse Medicare Beneficiaries. This guide gives an overview of key issues related to readmissions for racially and ethnically diverse Medicare beneficiaries, as well as useful resources for hospital leaders to take action to address readmission. Our guide offers case examples of strategies and initiatives. We also released a compendium of resources for standardized demographic and language data collection to help organizations collect and analyze their own data, so that they may begin to increase understanding and awareness of disparities that may exist within their own organization.
To ensure that actions around equity at CMS are sustainable, we have been working with our colleagues across the Agency to identify where equity can be embedded. To that end, reducing disparities, focusing on social determinants of health, and advancing health equity have been called out in a number of models and initiatives. Within the Merit‐Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), achieving health equity is one of the areas for clinical practice improvement activities. At the heart of the Accountable Health Communities Model is identifying and addressing the health-related social needs of beneficiaries.
While we have reached a number of milestones this year, we know that there is still much work to be done to achieve health equity. As we continue implementing the CMS Equity Plan for Medicare, we will focus on building on our accomplishments, strengthening our partnerships, and monitoring and evaluating our progress. We cannot do this work alone, so we encourage you to join us on the path to equity. By working together, we can truly achieve care and services that are high quality, effective, and equitable.
To learn more about our accomplishments regarding achieving health equity in Medicare and other activities underway at the CMS Office of Minority Health, visit: go.cms.gov/omh.
61% of Large Employers Now Offer a CDHP (up from 59% Last Year)
While 61% of large
employers now offer a CDHP (up from 59% last year), just 9% offer it as the
only plan available to employees. This suggests that most of the latest growth
in CDHP enrollment came from employees choosing to move from a traditional PPO
or HMO. For employees, the difference in the cost of coverage can be
substantial - on average, more than 30%. Among large employers, for
employee-only coverage in an HSA-based CDHP, employees contribute $84 per month
on average, compared to $132 for PPO coverage (see Figure 7). For family
coverage, the difference is $321 vs. $467. In addition, 75% of large employers
offering HSA-eligible CDHPs make a contribution to the employees' HSA;
typically $500 for an individual.
Source: Mercer
Source: Mercer
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
25% of Cardiologists Cite Cost as Important When Prescribing
Stat
News recently covered a survey by CMI/Compas on the top factors considered by
physicians when prescribing treatments. Here are some key findings on cost
considerations from the report:
•
|
47% of primary care physicians cite
cost as their most important factor.
|
•
|
1 in 4 cardiologists pointed to cost
as the most important factor.
|
•
|
Cost ranked as the fifth most
pressing concern among dermatologists.
|
•
|
33% of oncologists cited cost, making
it only the sixth most important issue
|
•
|
Neurologists named cost as the eighth
most pressing matter.
|
•
|
Pulmonologists ranked cost as the
least important factor when prescribing.
|
Source:
Stat News, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Pharma Companies Spent $148,047,760 on Lobbying in 2015
The
LA Times recently released an article on healthcare industry political
lobbying. Here are some key findings from the report:
•
|
Pharmaceutical manufacturing spent
$148,047,760 on lobbying in 2015.
|
•
|
Hospitals and nursing homes spent
$93,592,884 on lobbying in 2015.
|
•
|
Health professionals (including
physician groups) spent $89,928,202.
|
•
|
Health services/insurers/HMOs spent
$74,356,196 on lobbying in 2015.
|
•
|
In 2016 pharmaceutical companies
contributed over $17 million to campaigns.
|
•
|
The top recipient of industry money
was Paul Ryan who received $230,000+.
|
Source:
LA Times, November 15, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
10 reasons social selling is failing
Nov 17, 2016 | By Anthony Iannarino
Social selling
isn’t living up to its promise. Those promises have been exaggerated and
oversold. Social selling is failing.
Why?
1. Lack of
content Your social
selling program isn’t going to work without content. You may want to make
noise on the social channels, and you may want attention. You can’t have
attention without content. Salespeople without content are unarmed.
2. Link bait
content isn’t content You see
some social gurus and sales experts writing provocative content. If it’s not
link bait, it’s comment bait designed to drive engagement simply by being
provocative. If you want attention from your peer group, you’ll get it. You are
not, however, gaining engaged prospects.
Here's how NOT
to sell to someone using social media.
3. Content
doesn’t compel change Infographics
are really neat. So are inspirational images. And quotes. But they do
absolutely nothing to explain to your dream client what’s going on in their
world, why they are plagued with dissonance, and why they should change.
4. Too great a
reliance on content to drive leads Content marketing is not going to generate enough leads for you to
make your number unless you are the rare exception, a thought leader with
an earned following. Inbound marketing isn’t supposed to provide you with 100
percent of your leads, plus the amount you need to make your number.
5. Too much
faith that connecting is enough. You need to open relationships. You can do that on the social web.
The barrier for someone to accept your LinkedIn connection request might now be
lower than a friend request on Facebook. Prospecting means asking for a
meeting.
6. Too much
time spent on social channels It is a
complete and utter time suck. Perhaps the greatest time suck and distraction in
the history of mankind, approaching levels that exceed television. It is
critical that you use the tools. And then it is critical that you set the tools
down and do the work you really need to do. If you believe social is urgent and
important, you are making a mistake.
7. Belief that
social replaces traditional approaches Social fails when it is used as a replacement for
the traditional approaches. You InMail isn’t prospecting. It is
approaching spammy.
8. Activities
are not strategic Sharing other
people’s content is great. Liking and commenting is great, too. Posting status
updates can be a great way to share with people you are connected to on social.
It just isn’t strategic. If what you are doing doesn’t create value for your
prospects and clients, it’s not strategic.
9. Lack of an
integrated approach and campaigns What story are you telling with what you publish and share? What is
the end goal? How is it aligned with a campaign that is a tailored message
designed to move your dream clients to a place where they are willing and
interested in engaging in a conversation around change?
10. Shift in
platforms away from B2B Name all
the great social platforms for B2B? If you named SnapChat, you’re just being
funny. If you said Instagram, you’re teasing me. LinkedIn is the only platform
for professionals, and it looks more like Facebook every day.
If salespeople
and sales organization are going to use the social tools to generate sales,
we’re going to have to do a whole lot better.
http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2016/11/17/10-reasons-social-selling-is-failing?eNL=582b75f5150ba0233bee6367&utm_source=LHPro_TheLead&utm_medium=EMC-Email_editorial&utm_campaign=11172016&page_all=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)