Skip to main content.
Menu

Forward-thinking programs change our understanding of how to keep people healthy

Forward-thinking programs change our understanding of how to keep people healthy

Picture of Michael  Hochman
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Several years ago, while working at a specialized program for geriatric patients in Massachusetts, I encountered an older woman who was struggling to deal with a severe mid-summer heat wave. She lived in a small apartment without air conditioning, and told me the heat was “sucking the life” out of her. She wasn’t sure she was going to make it, and her exam findings had me worried: Her lips were dry and cracked, and her skin appeared mottled. It was clear she was suffering from dehydration.

My immediate thought was that this patient required hospitalization. Even if I were to treat her with intravenous fluids in our clinic, I did not feel comfortable sending her back home to face the stifling heat.

But our case manager had a more creative idea. Rather than admitting this patient to the hospital — where she would be exposed to risks such as infections, blood clots, and deconditioning, not to mention the personal discomfort associated with hospitalization —the case manager suggested that we purchase and install a window air conditioner in her apartment. This approach would be particularly practical since the summer was just beginning and there would likely be at least a couple more Massachusetts heat waves before fall arrived. Our team decided to give this idea a try. By the end of the afternoon, an air conditioner had been installed in my patient’s apartment, and she appeared much better after receiving two liters of intravenous fluids in the clinic. At that point, we all felt comfortable discharging her home.

Unfortunately, the vignette I just described is the exception, not the rule, in the U.S. health care system. Too often, we rely on hospitals, emergency rooms, and nursing facilities because we are unable to address the underlying socioeconomic factors that drive poor health outcomes. Indeed, suggests that social circumstances and environmental exposures are responsible for 20 percent of health, twice the proportion attributable to traditional medical care. And, generally speaking, health care providers — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and even community health workers — can do little to change these social and environmental factors because funding for medical and social services are kept separate.

So how was it that my clinic in Massachusetts was able to offer an air conditioner for my patient?

The reason is that I was practicing within a special geriatric program called the (PACE), which offers approved medical facilities considerable flexibility in caring for high risk older adults. To qualify for the program, patients must suffer from medical and functional problems — such as the inability to bathe or dress themselves— that would qualify them for placement in a nursing home. However, with the support of special resources offered through the PACE program — such as in-home support services, transportation to an adult day health center, social outings, meals, social work assistance, physical and occupational therapy, as well as traditional medical care — patients can remain in their home environment, living independently. Importantly, unlike traditional health plans, PACE programs may use their funding to pay for non-traditional services, like air-conditioners during summer heat waves. While there has yet to be a rigorous evaluation of the program, not only have better health outcomes and are happier compared to similar control patients, but their emergency room and hospital utilization rates, as well as overall health care costs, are lower. Because of these encouraging numbers, the PACE program has now spread to .

The PACE model is only available to a small subset of the U.S. population, however, and — such as younger, chronically ill patients who suffer from homelessness, substance abuse, and behavioral health issues— could undoubtedly benefit from this more integrated and flexible approach.

This is why I was intrigued by a New England Journal of Medicine published earlier this month, which describes a strategy used in England that breaks down the wall between medical and social service spending and promotes many of the same benefits PACE patients experience. In England, patients with complex health needs, such as those with diabetes, lung disease, Parkinson’s, or advanced mental illness, receive what’s called a “personal health budget” that allows patients, in collaboration with their medical team and the approval of the British National Health Service, to spend money on the health-related services that are most important to them.

According to the article, many patients “choose to spend the largest part on home-based support services, choosing whom to employ and for what functions. But the budgets also cover such services as transport, psychological and physical therapies, nursing, podiatry, and leisure and equipment that address a health goal.” For example, one man with dementia used his funds to purchase a garden shed where he could garden within sight of his caregiver.

Personal health budget programs must be closely monitored, of course. The British news media have identified in which these funds may have been used for potentially frivolous purposes. Nevertheless, the NEJM article reports that on the whole, evaluations of the program have shown it to be cost-effective and to improve quality of life for both patients and caregivers.

In our current political environment, it is not clear that a “personal health budget” program could withstand the partisan scrutiny in the U.S. While we are a doggedly individualistic society, we tend to oppose the expansion of programs that could be perceived as government “handouts.”   Encouragingly, however, 13 states have received approval for demonstration projects in which health plans with responsibility for the overall expenditures of dually eligible patients would have the flexibility to use their funds to cover not just traditional medical services but also “home modifications, appliances, and cell phones as part of a case-management approach for populations with complex needs,” as the journal perspective .

From my perspective as a primary care clinician, I hope we can continue experimenting with models like the PACE program that empower those on the front lines, including patients themselves, to set spending priorities. So often, there are simple and inexpensive solutions to our patients’ greatest health challenges that could substitute for unnecessary, costly, and potentially harmful medical care.

Comments

Picture of

These kinds of innovative ideas will be critical to building any sustainable healthcare system. Perhaps as important as financing programs like PACE, are programs for engaging patients in their own care. Taking care of those with limited resources is clearly important, but many excess health care costs arise from people with plenty of resources, but who don't use them wisely. A simple example is the diabetic who does not follow the right diet, or who does not exercise regularly.

One important reason that Paul Ehrlich's dire prediction for a Malthusian Collapse of the human species did not come true was the development and promotion of drought revisiting wheat by one man, Norman Borlaug. Ironically, his effort was funded largely by the Rockefeller foundation, which arose from the wealth of one of the most abusive industrialists in history.

These kinds of innovative changes in our healthcare financing will be critical to saving the system from collapse. What we may need are champions like Norman Borlaug, and perhaps some wise and well funded financial backers for them, to convince enough people to adopt the best ideas.

Leave A Comment

Announcements

Join us at 8:30 a.m. March 22 on Facebook for a life streaming of our daylong briefing on the U.S. Census. You'll learn about the challenges facing counters, efforts to delegitimize the U.S. Census, how the climate of fear in immigrant communities might impede a good count, and discuss reporting and census data analysis strategies.  

What’s the difference between Medicare-for-all and Medicare-for-some? Are these realistic policy proposals, or political blips on the screen? Sign up here for our next Health Matters webinar!

If you're a journalist with big ideas who wants your work to matter, the Center for Health Journalism invites you to apply for the all-expenses-paid-- five days of stimulating discussions in Los Angeles about social and health safety net issues, reporting and engagement grants of $2,000-$12,000 and six months of expert mentoring.

CONNECT WITH THE COMMUNITY

agroxy.com

agroxy.com/prodat/pshenica-109/zaporozhskaya-obl

аналоги виагры для мужчин