Get to Know the Trump Administration VA Secretary Nominee

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/23/2017 - 10:04
With the Trump inauguration this week, David Shulkin, MD, current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to fill the VA Secretary cabinet position.
 

A little over a year ago David J. Shulkin, MD, was approved by Senate to take over the position of under secretary for health at the VA, after being nominated by President Obama in March 2015. Since his appointment, Shulkin has strongly voiced the importance of improving VA wait times, providing veterans with the utmost quality of care, and championing the VA health care system for its ability to provide services that the private sector cannot.

Here is a collection of articles published by Federal Practitioner featuring David Shulkin, MD, including exclusive interviews and an editorial written by the VA Secretary Nominee himself.  

Publications
Topics
Sections
With the Trump inauguration this week, David Shulkin, MD, current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to fill the VA Secretary cabinet position.
With the Trump inauguration this week, David Shulkin, MD, current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to fill the VA Secretary cabinet position.
 

A little over a year ago David J. Shulkin, MD, was approved by Senate to take over the position of under secretary for health at the VA, after being nominated by President Obama in March 2015. Since his appointment, Shulkin has strongly voiced the importance of improving VA wait times, providing veterans with the utmost quality of care, and championing the VA health care system for its ability to provide services that the private sector cannot.

Here is a collection of articles published by Federal Practitioner featuring David Shulkin, MD, including exclusive interviews and an editorial written by the VA Secretary Nominee himself.  

 

A little over a year ago David J. Shulkin, MD, was approved by Senate to take over the position of under secretary for health at the VA, after being nominated by President Obama in March 2015. Since his appointment, Shulkin has strongly voiced the importance of improving VA wait times, providing veterans with the utmost quality of care, and championing the VA health care system for its ability to provide services that the private sector cannot.

Here is a collection of articles published by Federal Practitioner featuring David Shulkin, MD, including exclusive interviews and an editorial written by the VA Secretary Nominee himself.  

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Shulkin Nominated to Replace McDonald at VA

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58
In a surprise move, Donald Trump nominates David Shulkin, MD, to head the VA.

In a surprise move, David Shulkin, MD, the current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to take over as the VA Secretary to replace Robert McDonald. If confirmed, Dr. Shulkin would be the first nonveteran to head the agency.

Amid conversation about privatizing the VA, Dr. Shulkin had been a vocal proponent on Capital Hill and in medical journals for why the VA had a special responsibility to care for veterans. He has argued that the VA is especially qualified to handle the unique medical needs of veterans. Dr. Shulkin has also offered a number of strategies for reducing wait times, including expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses, streamlining the adoption of innovative programs, and improving ageing information technology systems.

“As someone who spent more than 25 years managing private sector health care organizations and recently joined VA as its under secretary for health, I’ve had the unique opportunity to compare the health care systems,” Dr. Shulkin wrote in a Federal Practitioner editorial. “Over the past several months, I’ve met with veterans and their families, veterans service organizations, VA clinicians, facility staff, and veteran employees at all levels. Through these meetings and travel to dozens of facilities, I’ve come to realize that many of the essential services provided by the VA cannot be found in or even replicated in the private sector.”

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

With just days to go before the inauguration of Donald Trump, only 2 cabinet-level positions had remained open. The delay caused worry on a number of fronts. “We cannot afford any lapse in leadership at the VA, especially at the Secretary level,” said AMVETS National Executive Director Joe Chenelly in a statement. “The transition between administrations naturally brings uncertainty, but that must be minimized with a timely decision by the incoming president regarding the VA Secretary.”

Members of Congress share similar concerns. “I am very concerned that the President-elect has yet to nominate a VA Secretary,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said in a press release. “If he needs more counsel before making this important decision, he should start by personally sitting down with our nation's veterans service organizations. Every day he continues to delay his decision, he jeopardizes the seamless transition that is needed to ensure this nation fulfills its commitment to the brave men and women who served.”

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

Who Else Was Under Consideration for the Job?

According to multiple reports, a number of people have been offered the position but have turned it down or were deemed unqualified for the position.

  • Leo MacKay Jr.: A deputy VA secretary under President George W. Bush and currently a senior vice president at Lockheed Martin.
  • Toby Cosgrove: Cleveland Clinic CEO; he also turned down a previous offer from President Obama.
  • ADM Michelle Howard, USN
  • Luis Quinonez, a businessman from Florida
  • Jeff Miller, former U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman (R-Fla.): critics raised concerns that Miller was not a veteran.
  • Pete Hegseth: Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who leads Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative VSO, has been criticized for his advocacy for full privatization of VA health care. However, he  is still considered to be a potential candidate.
  • Scott Brown: veteran and former republican Senator from Massachusetts was criticized for not having any management experience.
  • Sarah Palin: Former republican vice presidential candidate and Alasksa governor was criticized for not being a veteran or having experience running a large institution.
  • Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen: while his name has been mentioned in connection with the position, there is little information on his interest or criticism of him.

    Veteran service organizations had been pushing the Trump transition team to consider retaining current VA secretary Robert McDonald, who is a republican. 

    Related: A New View for the VA

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
In a surprise move, Donald Trump nominates David Shulkin, MD, to head the VA.
In a surprise move, Donald Trump nominates David Shulkin, MD, to head the VA.

In a surprise move, David Shulkin, MD, the current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to take over as the VA Secretary to replace Robert McDonald. If confirmed, Dr. Shulkin would be the first nonveteran to head the agency.

Amid conversation about privatizing the VA, Dr. Shulkin had been a vocal proponent on Capital Hill and in medical journals for why the VA had a special responsibility to care for veterans. He has argued that the VA is especially qualified to handle the unique medical needs of veterans. Dr. Shulkin has also offered a number of strategies for reducing wait times, including expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses, streamlining the adoption of innovative programs, and improving ageing information technology systems.

“As someone who spent more than 25 years managing private sector health care organizations and recently joined VA as its under secretary for health, I’ve had the unique opportunity to compare the health care systems,” Dr. Shulkin wrote in a Federal Practitioner editorial. “Over the past several months, I’ve met with veterans and their families, veterans service organizations, VA clinicians, facility staff, and veteran employees at all levels. Through these meetings and travel to dozens of facilities, I’ve come to realize that many of the essential services provided by the VA cannot be found in or even replicated in the private sector.”

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

With just days to go before the inauguration of Donald Trump, only 2 cabinet-level positions had remained open. The delay caused worry on a number of fronts. “We cannot afford any lapse in leadership at the VA, especially at the Secretary level,” said AMVETS National Executive Director Joe Chenelly in a statement. “The transition between administrations naturally brings uncertainty, but that must be minimized with a timely decision by the incoming president regarding the VA Secretary.”

Members of Congress share similar concerns. “I am very concerned that the President-elect has yet to nominate a VA Secretary,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said in a press release. “If he needs more counsel before making this important decision, he should start by personally sitting down with our nation's veterans service organizations. Every day he continues to delay his decision, he jeopardizes the seamless transition that is needed to ensure this nation fulfills its commitment to the brave men and women who served.”

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

Who Else Was Under Consideration for the Job?

According to multiple reports, a number of people have been offered the position but have turned it down or were deemed unqualified for the position.

  • Leo MacKay Jr.: A deputy VA secretary under President George W. Bush and currently a senior vice president at Lockheed Martin.
  • Toby Cosgrove: Cleveland Clinic CEO; he also turned down a previous offer from President Obama.
  • ADM Michelle Howard, USN
  • Luis Quinonez, a businessman from Florida
  • Jeff Miller, former U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman (R-Fla.): critics raised concerns that Miller was not a veteran.
  • Pete Hegseth: Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who leads Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative VSO, has been criticized for his advocacy for full privatization of VA health care. However, he  is still considered to be a potential candidate.
  • Scott Brown: veteran and former republican Senator from Massachusetts was criticized for not having any management experience.
  • Sarah Palin: Former republican vice presidential candidate and Alasksa governor was criticized for not being a veteran or having experience running a large institution.
  • Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen: while his name has been mentioned in connection with the position, there is little information on his interest or criticism of him.

    Veteran service organizations had been pushing the Trump transition team to consider retaining current VA secretary Robert McDonald, who is a republican. 

    Related: A New View for the VA

In a surprise move, David Shulkin, MD, the current under secretary for health at the VA, has been nominated to take over as the VA Secretary to replace Robert McDonald. If confirmed, Dr. Shulkin would be the first nonveteran to head the agency.

Amid conversation about privatizing the VA, Dr. Shulkin had been a vocal proponent on Capital Hill and in medical journals for why the VA had a special responsibility to care for veterans. He has argued that the VA is especially qualified to handle the unique medical needs of veterans. Dr. Shulkin has also offered a number of strategies for reducing wait times, including expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses, streamlining the adoption of innovative programs, and improving ageing information technology systems.

“As someone who spent more than 25 years managing private sector health care organizations and recently joined VA as its under secretary for health, I’ve had the unique opportunity to compare the health care systems,” Dr. Shulkin wrote in a Federal Practitioner editorial. “Over the past several months, I’ve met with veterans and their families, veterans service organizations, VA clinicians, facility staff, and veteran employees at all levels. Through these meetings and travel to dozens of facilities, I’ve come to realize that many of the essential services provided by the VA cannot be found in or even replicated in the private sector.”

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

With just days to go before the inauguration of Donald Trump, only 2 cabinet-level positions had remained open. The delay caused worry on a number of fronts. “We cannot afford any lapse in leadership at the VA, especially at the Secretary level,” said AMVETS National Executive Director Joe Chenelly in a statement. “The transition between administrations naturally brings uncertainty, but that must be minimized with a timely decision by the incoming president regarding the VA Secretary.”

Members of Congress share similar concerns. “I am very concerned that the President-elect has yet to nominate a VA Secretary,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said in a press release. “If he needs more counsel before making this important decision, he should start by personally sitting down with our nation's veterans service organizations. Every day he continues to delay his decision, he jeopardizes the seamless transition that is needed to ensure this nation fulfills its commitment to the brave men and women who served.”

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

Who Else Was Under Consideration for the Job?

According to multiple reports, a number of people have been offered the position but have turned it down or were deemed unqualified for the position.

  • Leo MacKay Jr.: A deputy VA secretary under President George W. Bush and currently a senior vice president at Lockheed Martin.
  • Toby Cosgrove: Cleveland Clinic CEO; he also turned down a previous offer from President Obama.
  • ADM Michelle Howard, USN
  • Luis Quinonez, a businessman from Florida
  • Jeff Miller, former U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman (R-Fla.): critics raised concerns that Miller was not a veteran.
  • Pete Hegseth: Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who leads Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative VSO, has been criticized for his advocacy for full privatization of VA health care. However, he  is still considered to be a potential candidate.
  • Scott Brown: veteran and former republican Senator from Massachusetts was criticized for not having any management experience.
  • Sarah Palin: Former republican vice presidential candidate and Alasksa governor was criticized for not being a veteran or having experience running a large institution.
  • Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen: while his name has been mentioned in connection with the position, there is little information on his interest or criticism of him.

    Veteran service organizations had been pushing the Trump transition team to consider retaining current VA secretary Robert McDonald, who is a republican. 

    Related: A New View for the VA

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

DoD Starts Flu Season Without FluMist

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58
Due to CDC recommendations against the intranasal vaccine, the DoD will be offering injectable vaccinations only during the 2016-2017 influenza season.
 

This flu season is seeing some changes in preventive care. The DoD will not be using FluMist, an intranasal flu vaccine, following CDC recommendations against it.  Several studies have shown it is not effective against H1N1, the strain that caused the 2009 pandemic. It also was deemed ineffective during the 2013-2014 and 2015-16 seasons in children aged 2 to 17.

Related: DoD and VA Enhance Complex Care Initiatives

“Because the CDC didn’t recommend it this year, FluMist will not be available in MTFs and will not count toward our military member’s readiness requirements, and it won’t be covered by TRICARE,” said COL  Margaret Yacovone, Chief DHA Immunization Healthcare Branch, in an interview with Health.mil News, “If CDC changes its recommendation in the future, it may again be available in the DoD.” She adds that, although it isn’t known why the vaccine wasn’t effective, its safety was not in question.

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Instead, this season, all flu vaccines will be injectables. The DoD expects to have enough supply of injectable vaccine at military treatment facilities for all age groups, according to the article. The Army is expecting to give approximately 1.6 million flu shots—more than half the total number of doses ordered by the DoD annually. Although the DoD goal is to have at least 90% immunized by year’s end, LTC Charlene Warren-Davis, USAMMA’s Pharmacy Consultant and Distribution Operations Center director, says if people haven’t had their flu shots by then, “we still encourage them to get immunized. The flu vaccine is usually viable until June 30.”

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
Due to CDC recommendations against the intranasal vaccine, the DoD will be offering injectable vaccinations only during the 2016-2017 influenza season.
Due to CDC recommendations against the intranasal vaccine, the DoD will be offering injectable vaccinations only during the 2016-2017 influenza season.
 

This flu season is seeing some changes in preventive care. The DoD will not be using FluMist, an intranasal flu vaccine, following CDC recommendations against it.  Several studies have shown it is not effective against H1N1, the strain that caused the 2009 pandemic. It also was deemed ineffective during the 2013-2014 and 2015-16 seasons in children aged 2 to 17.

Related: DoD and VA Enhance Complex Care Initiatives

“Because the CDC didn’t recommend it this year, FluMist will not be available in MTFs and will not count toward our military member’s readiness requirements, and it won’t be covered by TRICARE,” said COL  Margaret Yacovone, Chief DHA Immunization Healthcare Branch, in an interview with Health.mil News, “If CDC changes its recommendation in the future, it may again be available in the DoD.” She adds that, although it isn’t known why the vaccine wasn’t effective, its safety was not in question.

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Instead, this season, all flu vaccines will be injectables. The DoD expects to have enough supply of injectable vaccine at military treatment facilities for all age groups, according to the article. The Army is expecting to give approximately 1.6 million flu shots—more than half the total number of doses ordered by the DoD annually. Although the DoD goal is to have at least 90% immunized by year’s end, LTC Charlene Warren-Davis, USAMMA’s Pharmacy Consultant and Distribution Operations Center director, says if people haven’t had their flu shots by then, “we still encourage them to get immunized. The flu vaccine is usually viable until June 30.”

 

This flu season is seeing some changes in preventive care. The DoD will not be using FluMist, an intranasal flu vaccine, following CDC recommendations against it.  Several studies have shown it is not effective against H1N1, the strain that caused the 2009 pandemic. It also was deemed ineffective during the 2013-2014 and 2015-16 seasons in children aged 2 to 17.

Related: DoD and VA Enhance Complex Care Initiatives

“Because the CDC didn’t recommend it this year, FluMist will not be available in MTFs and will not count toward our military member’s readiness requirements, and it won’t be covered by TRICARE,” said COL  Margaret Yacovone, Chief DHA Immunization Healthcare Branch, in an interview with Health.mil News, “If CDC changes its recommendation in the future, it may again be available in the DoD.” She adds that, although it isn’t known why the vaccine wasn’t effective, its safety was not in question.

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Instead, this season, all flu vaccines will be injectables. The DoD expects to have enough supply of injectable vaccine at military treatment facilities for all age groups, according to the article. The Army is expecting to give approximately 1.6 million flu shots—more than half the total number of doses ordered by the DoD annually. Although the DoD goal is to have at least 90% immunized by year’s end, LTC Charlene Warren-Davis, USAMMA’s Pharmacy Consultant and Distribution Operations Center director, says if people haven’t had their flu shots by then, “we still encourage them to get immunized. The flu vaccine is usually viable until June 30.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/20/2016 - 09:55
The VA Under Secretary of Health sits down with Federal Practitioner to discuss the VA’s efforts to fill its 46,000 job openings and provide care to veterans.
 

At the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016, Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD.  The below video that discusses ongoing efforts to improve coordination of care with community providers, the VA’s commitment to expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and the recruitment challenges for filling more than 46,000 health care vacancies. Dr. Shulkin also discussed VA progress over the past 18 months.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
The VA Under Secretary of Health sits down with Federal Practitioner to discuss the VA’s efforts to fill its 46,000 job openings and provide care to veterans.
The VA Under Secretary of Health sits down with Federal Practitioner to discuss the VA’s efforts to fill its 46,000 job openings and provide care to veterans.
 

At the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016, Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD.  The below video that discusses ongoing efforts to improve coordination of care with community providers, the VA’s commitment to expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and the recruitment challenges for filling more than 46,000 health care vacancies. Dr. Shulkin also discussed VA progress over the past 18 months.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
 

At the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016, Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD.  The below video that discusses ongoing efforts to improve coordination of care with community providers, the VA’s commitment to expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and the recruitment challenges for filling more than 46,000 health care vacancies. Dr. Shulkin also discussed VA progress over the past 18 months.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Dr. Jennifer Lee on VA Cancer Care

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:55
Federal Practitioner sat down with the VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services to discuss access to clinical trials, research, and the Million Veteran Program.

Federal Practitioner recently sat down with VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services Jennifer Lee, MD, at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation summit, November 29, 2016. In the interview, Dr. Lee discussed access to clinical trials for veterans, research, and the importance of partnering with other agencies, industry, and nonprofits to further veteran cancer care.

 

In the year since taking over for Madhulika Agarwal, MD, MPH, in the position, Dr. Lee has provided guidance to the Under Secretary for Health on matters related to health care policy, strategic objectives, and policy requirements for legislatively mandated health care delivery programs. She also directs research and other health policy and services programs within the VHA.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
Federal Practitioner sat down with the VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services to discuss access to clinical trials, research, and the Million Veteran Program.
Federal Practitioner sat down with the VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services to discuss access to clinical trials, research, and the Million Veteran Program.

Federal Practitioner recently sat down with VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services Jennifer Lee, MD, at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation summit, November 29, 2016. In the interview, Dr. Lee discussed access to clinical trials for veterans, research, and the importance of partnering with other agencies, industry, and nonprofits to further veteran cancer care.

 

In the year since taking over for Madhulika Agarwal, MD, MPH, in the position, Dr. Lee has provided guidance to the Under Secretary for Health on matters related to health care policy, strategic objectives, and policy requirements for legislatively mandated health care delivery programs. She also directs research and other health policy and services programs within the VHA.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Federal Practitioner recently sat down with VA Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services Jennifer Lee, MD, at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation summit, November 29, 2016. In the interview, Dr. Lee discussed access to clinical trials for veterans, research, and the importance of partnering with other agencies, industry, and nonprofits to further veteran cancer care.

 

In the year since taking over for Madhulika Agarwal, MD, MPH, in the position, Dr. Lee has provided guidance to the Under Secretary for Health on matters related to health care policy, strategic objectives, and policy requirements for legislatively mandated health care delivery programs. She also directs research and other health policy and services programs within the VHA.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Republicans Envision Their Healthcare Plan for the Future

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 11:50
Display Headline
Republicans Envision Their Healthcare Plan for the Future

On November 8, 2016, the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was all but sealed.

 

In a sweep of the legislative branch, Republicans maintained majorities in the House and Senate, and Donald Trump became the 45th president, running on the popular Republican refrain to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

 

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM

 

“Now, the real onus is going to be on them if they do move to repeal it in its entirety,” says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital in Florida and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “It’s going to be a real burden to replace it with something meaningful and not something that’s recycled from six or eight years ago when the conversation first started.”

 

In the days following the election, President-elect Trump appeared to be backing off his campaign promises to repeal President Barack Obama’s landmark health reform law, acknowledging that at least some of its provisions should remain intact, including maintaining the ban on insurance companies denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and allowing dependent children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

 

These ideas are also part of House Majority Leader Paul Ryan’s healthcare plan, called A Better Way. However, at least on the campaign trail, Trump and GOP leaders like Rep. Ryan did not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of health reform, including how to deal with Medicare and on issues of pharmaceutical regulation, leaving uncertainty over which platforms will be adopted.

 

What Comes Next?

“There is a lot of rhetoric out there and a lot of promises to replace the Affordable Care Act, which clearly is an important objective for Republicans, but as sort of a consolation, as [health economist] Stuart Altman used to say before the Affordable Care Act was passed, ‘Everybody’s number-one choice is universal health reform the way they want it, and the second is the status quo,’” says Sherry Glied, MA, PhD, health policy expert and dean of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

 

But the status quo is no longer an option. Passage of the ACA was driven by high healthcare costs in the U.S. and, in part, around access to coverage. Healthcare spending slowed after passage of the ACA, and while it cannot be fully attributed to the law, cost remains an issue.

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repeal of the ACA would increase the federal deficit by $137 billion to $353 billion between 2016 and 2025, growing even more after 2025.1 And without a mechanism to cover the 20 million people who have gained coverage through Medicaid expansion and private insurance coverage on state exchanges, scores of people could rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.

 

A Series of Small Cuts

“Whatever system replaces it, don’t expect in Trump’s first week in office Congress will hand him a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. They’ve tried to do that a number of times in the past, and what they’ve come up with has been a little lackluster. And that’s being generous,” says Dr. Lenchus, who overall supports President-elect Trump’s economic plans and is optimistic about what they could mean for health reform.

 

Most likely, the ACA will not be repealed in “one fell swoop,” says Glied, who also served under President Obama in the Department of Health and Human Services from 2010 to 2012 and was a senior economist for health care and labor market policy under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Rather, lawmakers are likely faced with having to “demolish it through a series of small cuts.”

 

 

 

What that will look like remains unknown. To fully repeal the ACA, Republicans would need 60 filibuster-proof votes in the Senate. However, Republicans have just 51 seats to the Democrats’ 45 after the GOP lost two seats in the November election.

 

House Republicans can push through a bill using a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, but it requires a majority vote in both chambers and would be restricted to changes that have an impact on the federal budget. At a minimum, Republicans would need a budget before they could attempt this strategy.

 

They achieved this in late 2015, drafting a bill (H.R. 3762) that would have eliminated Medicaid expansion and the subsidies that currently help 83% of enrollees on the ACA exchange afford their premiums. President Obama vetoed the bill; President-elect Trump is unlikely to do the same.

 

However, he and Republican party leaders must first come to agreement over what their version of health reform should look like. In general, Republicans have called for a healthcare system rooted in the free market, with more individual responsibility, less regulation, and more flexibility.

 

For instance, Rep. Ryan’s planwould restrict insurers from denying patients with preexisting conditions but only if individuals maintain continuous coverage, with a one-time open-enrollment opportunity.

 

Campaign Promises Versus President-Elect Promises

While campaigning, President-elect Trump proposed a seven-point plan that included lifting restrictions on tax-free health savings accounts, providing tax deductions for health insurance premiums, allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, requiring physicians and hospitals to be transparent about pricing, and eliminating the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. He also proposed converting Medicaid into block grants to states and vowed not to change Medicare.

 

As president-elect, he has pledged, with few details, to challenge abortion access, further research and development, provide “flexibility” to Medicaid, “modernize” Medicare, and reestablish high-risk pools for sick patients with traditionally high premiums. 1 The ACA does not currently allow insurers to charge sick patients higher rates than healthy ones.

 

While block grants are one option for attempting to control costs in Medicaid by providing states a fixed sum to administer the entitlement program, Rep. Ryan’s plan calls for another option: per-capita limits on enrollees on Medicaid. He has not detailed what those limits would be. What will happen in states that expanded Medicaid through the ACA relative to those that did not is also unknown.

 

“Frankly, I think that what this election showed is a complete disdain for the general establishment,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If they do give money to state legislatures, I don’t know if I trust them any more to manage that money than the feds, where they could be robbing that block grant for general revenue.”

 

While President-elect Trump has not yet provided more information about his plans for Medicare, Republicans in the past, including Rep. Ryan, have proposed offering premium support to beneficiaries (sometimes called a voucher or defined contribution), a fixed sum given to Medicare participants to use toward premiums under traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage plans.

 

While this could reduce beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs, according to the CBO, spending could also increase and beneficiaries may pay variable out-of-pocket costs. Direct spending, meanwhile, would increase by $879 billion over the next decade if all the ACA and its changes to Medicare are eliminated, hastening depletion of the Medicare trust fund.2

 

“Frankly, I would not be opposed to seeing a sort of sliding scale for Medicare,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If you’re Warren Buffet taking $150 a month for Medicare, do you need to do that? That $150 spread to three other people who are barely making ends meet could make the difference for them taking a lifesaving medication that month.”

 

 

 

Day-to-Day Medicine

What should and will likely be maintained, both Glied and Dr. Lenchus say, are changes to the delivery of and payment models for healthcare. Medicine has been moving toward higher-quality care and away from fee-for-service for years, and “everybody would agree that’s probably not the correct incentive in medicine,” Dr. Lenchus adds.

 

With a shift toward more state-level responsibility, Glied says the GOP may also encourage states to innovate around healthcare so long as costs are well-managed. Incidentally, under the ACA, 2017 marks the start of Section 1332 waivers, which provide structure for states to develop their own approaches to healthcare.

 

However, “changes in the practice of medicine are not going to come out of government,” Glied says. “They’re going to come out of improvements in health IT technology, through changes in the use of midlevel professionals who eventually slide into practice as new residents come out of training.”

 

Though the election all but guaranteed continued uncertainty moving forward, Dr. Lenchus does not believe it will mean much change in his day-to-day practice of medicine. His safety-net hospital, however, may see an uptick in uncompensated care once more while also trying to survive with cuts to reimbursement made through the ACA.

 

““I don’t think anyone’s getting the hospitals back that money,” Glied says.

 

The experts say Congress has its work cut out, particularly as it shapes the future of healthcare in the U.S. based on conservative principles while also taking into account the potential number of newly uninsured patients upon repeal of the ACA.

 

“The problem is people don’t have coverage because they don’t have money. … Healthcare is expensive, and people are poor,” says Glied. “There is a lots of space to move left in healthcare. It’s hard to see where it can move right.”

 

 


 

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 

References

 

 

 

 

  1. President Elect Donald J. Trump. https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html

    Accessed November 22, 2016

  2. Budgetary and economic effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Congressional Budget Office website. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(12)
Publications
Topics
Sections

On November 8, 2016, the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was all but sealed.

 

In a sweep of the legislative branch, Republicans maintained majorities in the House and Senate, and Donald Trump became the 45th president, running on the popular Republican refrain to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

 

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM

 

“Now, the real onus is going to be on them if they do move to repeal it in its entirety,” says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital in Florida and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “It’s going to be a real burden to replace it with something meaningful and not something that’s recycled from six or eight years ago when the conversation first started.”

 

In the days following the election, President-elect Trump appeared to be backing off his campaign promises to repeal President Barack Obama’s landmark health reform law, acknowledging that at least some of its provisions should remain intact, including maintaining the ban on insurance companies denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and allowing dependent children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

 

These ideas are also part of House Majority Leader Paul Ryan’s healthcare plan, called A Better Way. However, at least on the campaign trail, Trump and GOP leaders like Rep. Ryan did not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of health reform, including how to deal with Medicare and on issues of pharmaceutical regulation, leaving uncertainty over which platforms will be adopted.

 

What Comes Next?

“There is a lot of rhetoric out there and a lot of promises to replace the Affordable Care Act, which clearly is an important objective for Republicans, but as sort of a consolation, as [health economist] Stuart Altman used to say before the Affordable Care Act was passed, ‘Everybody’s number-one choice is universal health reform the way they want it, and the second is the status quo,’” says Sherry Glied, MA, PhD, health policy expert and dean of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

 

But the status quo is no longer an option. Passage of the ACA was driven by high healthcare costs in the U.S. and, in part, around access to coverage. Healthcare spending slowed after passage of the ACA, and while it cannot be fully attributed to the law, cost remains an issue.

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repeal of the ACA would increase the federal deficit by $137 billion to $353 billion between 2016 and 2025, growing even more after 2025.1 And without a mechanism to cover the 20 million people who have gained coverage through Medicaid expansion and private insurance coverage on state exchanges, scores of people could rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.

 

A Series of Small Cuts

“Whatever system replaces it, don’t expect in Trump’s first week in office Congress will hand him a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. They’ve tried to do that a number of times in the past, and what they’ve come up with has been a little lackluster. And that’s being generous,” says Dr. Lenchus, who overall supports President-elect Trump’s economic plans and is optimistic about what they could mean for health reform.

 

Most likely, the ACA will not be repealed in “one fell swoop,” says Glied, who also served under President Obama in the Department of Health and Human Services from 2010 to 2012 and was a senior economist for health care and labor market policy under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Rather, lawmakers are likely faced with having to “demolish it through a series of small cuts.”

 

 

 

What that will look like remains unknown. To fully repeal the ACA, Republicans would need 60 filibuster-proof votes in the Senate. However, Republicans have just 51 seats to the Democrats’ 45 after the GOP lost two seats in the November election.

 

House Republicans can push through a bill using a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, but it requires a majority vote in both chambers and would be restricted to changes that have an impact on the federal budget. At a minimum, Republicans would need a budget before they could attempt this strategy.

 

They achieved this in late 2015, drafting a bill (H.R. 3762) that would have eliminated Medicaid expansion and the subsidies that currently help 83% of enrollees on the ACA exchange afford their premiums. President Obama vetoed the bill; President-elect Trump is unlikely to do the same.

 

However, he and Republican party leaders must first come to agreement over what their version of health reform should look like. In general, Republicans have called for a healthcare system rooted in the free market, with more individual responsibility, less regulation, and more flexibility.

 

For instance, Rep. Ryan’s planwould restrict insurers from denying patients with preexisting conditions but only if individuals maintain continuous coverage, with a one-time open-enrollment opportunity.

 

Campaign Promises Versus President-Elect Promises

While campaigning, President-elect Trump proposed a seven-point plan that included lifting restrictions on tax-free health savings accounts, providing tax deductions for health insurance premiums, allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, requiring physicians and hospitals to be transparent about pricing, and eliminating the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. He also proposed converting Medicaid into block grants to states and vowed not to change Medicare.

 

As president-elect, he has pledged, with few details, to challenge abortion access, further research and development, provide “flexibility” to Medicaid, “modernize” Medicare, and reestablish high-risk pools for sick patients with traditionally high premiums. 1 The ACA does not currently allow insurers to charge sick patients higher rates than healthy ones.

 

While block grants are one option for attempting to control costs in Medicaid by providing states a fixed sum to administer the entitlement program, Rep. Ryan’s plan calls for another option: per-capita limits on enrollees on Medicaid. He has not detailed what those limits would be. What will happen in states that expanded Medicaid through the ACA relative to those that did not is also unknown.

 

“Frankly, I think that what this election showed is a complete disdain for the general establishment,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If they do give money to state legislatures, I don’t know if I trust them any more to manage that money than the feds, where they could be robbing that block grant for general revenue.”

 

While President-elect Trump has not yet provided more information about his plans for Medicare, Republicans in the past, including Rep. Ryan, have proposed offering premium support to beneficiaries (sometimes called a voucher or defined contribution), a fixed sum given to Medicare participants to use toward premiums under traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage plans.

 

While this could reduce beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs, according to the CBO, spending could also increase and beneficiaries may pay variable out-of-pocket costs. Direct spending, meanwhile, would increase by $879 billion over the next decade if all the ACA and its changes to Medicare are eliminated, hastening depletion of the Medicare trust fund.2

 

“Frankly, I would not be opposed to seeing a sort of sliding scale for Medicare,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If you’re Warren Buffet taking $150 a month for Medicare, do you need to do that? That $150 spread to three other people who are barely making ends meet could make the difference for them taking a lifesaving medication that month.”

 

 

 

Day-to-Day Medicine

What should and will likely be maintained, both Glied and Dr. Lenchus say, are changes to the delivery of and payment models for healthcare. Medicine has been moving toward higher-quality care and away from fee-for-service for years, and “everybody would agree that’s probably not the correct incentive in medicine,” Dr. Lenchus adds.

 

With a shift toward more state-level responsibility, Glied says the GOP may also encourage states to innovate around healthcare so long as costs are well-managed. Incidentally, under the ACA, 2017 marks the start of Section 1332 waivers, which provide structure for states to develop their own approaches to healthcare.

 

However, “changes in the practice of medicine are not going to come out of government,” Glied says. “They’re going to come out of improvements in health IT technology, through changes in the use of midlevel professionals who eventually slide into practice as new residents come out of training.”

 

Though the election all but guaranteed continued uncertainty moving forward, Dr. Lenchus does not believe it will mean much change in his day-to-day practice of medicine. His safety-net hospital, however, may see an uptick in uncompensated care once more while also trying to survive with cuts to reimbursement made through the ACA.

 

““I don’t think anyone’s getting the hospitals back that money,” Glied says.

 

The experts say Congress has its work cut out, particularly as it shapes the future of healthcare in the U.S. based on conservative principles while also taking into account the potential number of newly uninsured patients upon repeal of the ACA.

 

“The problem is people don’t have coverage because they don’t have money. … Healthcare is expensive, and people are poor,” says Glied. “There is a lots of space to move left in healthcare. It’s hard to see where it can move right.”

 

 


 

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 

References

 

 

 

 

  1. President Elect Donald J. Trump. https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html

    Accessed November 22, 2016

  2. Budgetary and economic effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Congressional Budget Office website. Accessed November 15, 2016.

On November 8, 2016, the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was all but sealed.

 

In a sweep of the legislative branch, Republicans maintained majorities in the House and Senate, and Donald Trump became the 45th president, running on the popular Republican refrain to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

 

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM

 

“Now, the real onus is going to be on them if they do move to repeal it in its entirety,” says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital in Florida and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “It’s going to be a real burden to replace it with something meaningful and not something that’s recycled from six or eight years ago when the conversation first started.”

 

In the days following the election, President-elect Trump appeared to be backing off his campaign promises to repeal President Barack Obama’s landmark health reform law, acknowledging that at least some of its provisions should remain intact, including maintaining the ban on insurance companies denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and allowing dependent children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

 

These ideas are also part of House Majority Leader Paul Ryan’s healthcare plan, called A Better Way. However, at least on the campaign trail, Trump and GOP leaders like Rep. Ryan did not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of health reform, including how to deal with Medicare and on issues of pharmaceutical regulation, leaving uncertainty over which platforms will be adopted.

 

What Comes Next?

“There is a lot of rhetoric out there and a lot of promises to replace the Affordable Care Act, which clearly is an important objective for Republicans, but as sort of a consolation, as [health economist] Stuart Altman used to say before the Affordable Care Act was passed, ‘Everybody’s number-one choice is universal health reform the way they want it, and the second is the status quo,’” says Sherry Glied, MA, PhD, health policy expert and dean of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

 

But the status quo is no longer an option. Passage of the ACA was driven by high healthcare costs in the U.S. and, in part, around access to coverage. Healthcare spending slowed after passage of the ACA, and while it cannot be fully attributed to the law, cost remains an issue.

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repeal of the ACA would increase the federal deficit by $137 billion to $353 billion between 2016 and 2025, growing even more after 2025.1 And without a mechanism to cover the 20 million people who have gained coverage through Medicaid expansion and private insurance coverage on state exchanges, scores of people could rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.

 

A Series of Small Cuts

“Whatever system replaces it, don’t expect in Trump’s first week in office Congress will hand him a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. They’ve tried to do that a number of times in the past, and what they’ve come up with has been a little lackluster. And that’s being generous,” says Dr. Lenchus, who overall supports President-elect Trump’s economic plans and is optimistic about what they could mean for health reform.

 

Most likely, the ACA will not be repealed in “one fell swoop,” says Glied, who also served under President Obama in the Department of Health and Human Services from 2010 to 2012 and was a senior economist for health care and labor market policy under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Rather, lawmakers are likely faced with having to “demolish it through a series of small cuts.”

 

 

 

What that will look like remains unknown. To fully repeal the ACA, Republicans would need 60 filibuster-proof votes in the Senate. However, Republicans have just 51 seats to the Democrats’ 45 after the GOP lost two seats in the November election.

 

House Republicans can push through a bill using a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, but it requires a majority vote in both chambers and would be restricted to changes that have an impact on the federal budget. At a minimum, Republicans would need a budget before they could attempt this strategy.

 

They achieved this in late 2015, drafting a bill (H.R. 3762) that would have eliminated Medicaid expansion and the subsidies that currently help 83% of enrollees on the ACA exchange afford their premiums. President Obama vetoed the bill; President-elect Trump is unlikely to do the same.

 

However, he and Republican party leaders must first come to agreement over what their version of health reform should look like. In general, Republicans have called for a healthcare system rooted in the free market, with more individual responsibility, less regulation, and more flexibility.

 

For instance, Rep. Ryan’s planwould restrict insurers from denying patients with preexisting conditions but only if individuals maintain continuous coverage, with a one-time open-enrollment opportunity.

 

Campaign Promises Versus President-Elect Promises

While campaigning, President-elect Trump proposed a seven-point plan that included lifting restrictions on tax-free health savings accounts, providing tax deductions for health insurance premiums, allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, requiring physicians and hospitals to be transparent about pricing, and eliminating the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. He also proposed converting Medicaid into block grants to states and vowed not to change Medicare.

 

As president-elect, he has pledged, with few details, to challenge abortion access, further research and development, provide “flexibility” to Medicaid, “modernize” Medicare, and reestablish high-risk pools for sick patients with traditionally high premiums. 1 The ACA does not currently allow insurers to charge sick patients higher rates than healthy ones.

 

While block grants are one option for attempting to control costs in Medicaid by providing states a fixed sum to administer the entitlement program, Rep. Ryan’s plan calls for another option: per-capita limits on enrollees on Medicaid. He has not detailed what those limits would be. What will happen in states that expanded Medicaid through the ACA relative to those that did not is also unknown.

 

“Frankly, I think that what this election showed is a complete disdain for the general establishment,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If they do give money to state legislatures, I don’t know if I trust them any more to manage that money than the feds, where they could be robbing that block grant for general revenue.”

 

While President-elect Trump has not yet provided more information about his plans for Medicare, Republicans in the past, including Rep. Ryan, have proposed offering premium support to beneficiaries (sometimes called a voucher or defined contribution), a fixed sum given to Medicare participants to use toward premiums under traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage plans.

 

While this could reduce beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs, according to the CBO, spending could also increase and beneficiaries may pay variable out-of-pocket costs. Direct spending, meanwhile, would increase by $879 billion over the next decade if all the ACA and its changes to Medicare are eliminated, hastening depletion of the Medicare trust fund.2

 

“Frankly, I would not be opposed to seeing a sort of sliding scale for Medicare,” says Dr. Lenchus. “If you’re Warren Buffet taking $150 a month for Medicare, do you need to do that? That $150 spread to three other people who are barely making ends meet could make the difference for them taking a lifesaving medication that month.”

 

 

 

Day-to-Day Medicine

What should and will likely be maintained, both Glied and Dr. Lenchus say, are changes to the delivery of and payment models for healthcare. Medicine has been moving toward higher-quality care and away from fee-for-service for years, and “everybody would agree that’s probably not the correct incentive in medicine,” Dr. Lenchus adds.

 

With a shift toward more state-level responsibility, Glied says the GOP may also encourage states to innovate around healthcare so long as costs are well-managed. Incidentally, under the ACA, 2017 marks the start of Section 1332 waivers, which provide structure for states to develop their own approaches to healthcare.

 

However, “changes in the practice of medicine are not going to come out of government,” Glied says. “They’re going to come out of improvements in health IT technology, through changes in the use of midlevel professionals who eventually slide into practice as new residents come out of training.”

 

Though the election all but guaranteed continued uncertainty moving forward, Dr. Lenchus does not believe it will mean much change in his day-to-day practice of medicine. His safety-net hospital, however, may see an uptick in uncompensated care once more while also trying to survive with cuts to reimbursement made through the ACA.

 

““I don’t think anyone’s getting the hospitals back that money,” Glied says.

 

The experts say Congress has its work cut out, particularly as it shapes the future of healthcare in the U.S. based on conservative principles while also taking into account the potential number of newly uninsured patients upon repeal of the ACA.

 

“The problem is people don’t have coverage because they don’t have money. … Healthcare is expensive, and people are poor,” says Glied. “There is a lots of space to move left in healthcare. It’s hard to see where it can move right.”

 

 


 

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 

References

 

 

 

 

  1. President Elect Donald J. Trump. https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html

    Accessed November 22, 2016

  2. Budgetary and economic effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Congressional Budget Office website. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(12)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(12)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Republicans Envision Their Healthcare Plan for the Future
Display Headline
Republicans Envision Their Healthcare Plan for the Future
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

VA Confronts Fallout of SAIL Facility Ratings

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 11:50
While some facilities tout their 5-star status, others emphasize that the measure does not provide a complete measure of the quality of care.

VA Secretary Robert McDonald minced few words in his reaction to the USA Today story that published VA’s 5-star ratings for VAMCs based on its Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data. “What concerns all of us at VA is that USA Today has a consistent narrative of negativity in their news of VA,” McDonald charged. Specifically, use of the word secret in the headline was an “egregious hyperbole,” he insisted.

Still, within days, a number of VA facilities were using the story as an opportunity to tout their success. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System in Worcester, for example, used the opportunity to tell local media that it was “in the top 10% of the 152 VA medical centers in the nation for quality of care,” and 1 of 3 5-star facilities in Massachusetts.

Other facilities, however, were forced to explain the relative nature of the 5-star scale. Keith Sullivan, director of the Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, which received a 3-star rating, responded to reporters by noting that, “Although SAIL is a tool that helps look at areas in need of improvements, we have many other ways to ensure quality care is in place,” he said.

Many VA officials point out that the comparison to other VA facilities may be unfair, especially in underserved locations. The VA Health Care Center at Harlingen in Texas recently improved from 1 to 2 stars. It received this score, in part, because of its difficulty filling open vacancies. “Compared to the nurse retention rates in our local communities we are doing very well, [but] not so much as compared to other VA health care systems in the nation,” a Harlingen customer service manager told a local newspaper.

To allay veterans’ fears, the VA Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center and Clinics (VA SORCC) sent out a news release to explain the ratings and reassure the public that progress was being made even as it struggles with a shortage of providers. Insisting it had made “absolute performance improvements in wait times for both mental health and specialty care appointments” while acknowledging that the rating also shows “continued frustrations with difficulty in navigating the system and with coordination of care." These frustrations impact Veterans’ experience at the facility, leading to lower scores.” The release pledged that “VA SORCC is currently a 1-star facility but fully expects to move to a 2-star facility in the next quarter.”

The worry for many at the VA is that the veterans might avoid 1- and 2-star facilities. “My concern is that veterans are going to see that their hospital is a ‘one’ in our star system, assume that’s bad quality and veterans that need care are not going to get care,” VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD, told USA Today. “And they’re going to stay away from hospitals and that’s going to hurt people.”

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
While some facilities tout their 5-star status, others emphasize that the measure does not provide a complete measure of the quality of care.
While some facilities tout their 5-star status, others emphasize that the measure does not provide a complete measure of the quality of care.

VA Secretary Robert McDonald minced few words in his reaction to the USA Today story that published VA’s 5-star ratings for VAMCs based on its Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data. “What concerns all of us at VA is that USA Today has a consistent narrative of negativity in their news of VA,” McDonald charged. Specifically, use of the word secret in the headline was an “egregious hyperbole,” he insisted.

Still, within days, a number of VA facilities were using the story as an opportunity to tout their success. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System in Worcester, for example, used the opportunity to tell local media that it was “in the top 10% of the 152 VA medical centers in the nation for quality of care,” and 1 of 3 5-star facilities in Massachusetts.

Other facilities, however, were forced to explain the relative nature of the 5-star scale. Keith Sullivan, director of the Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, which received a 3-star rating, responded to reporters by noting that, “Although SAIL is a tool that helps look at areas in need of improvements, we have many other ways to ensure quality care is in place,” he said.

Many VA officials point out that the comparison to other VA facilities may be unfair, especially in underserved locations. The VA Health Care Center at Harlingen in Texas recently improved from 1 to 2 stars. It received this score, in part, because of its difficulty filling open vacancies. “Compared to the nurse retention rates in our local communities we are doing very well, [but] not so much as compared to other VA health care systems in the nation,” a Harlingen customer service manager told a local newspaper.

To allay veterans’ fears, the VA Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center and Clinics (VA SORCC) sent out a news release to explain the ratings and reassure the public that progress was being made even as it struggles with a shortage of providers. Insisting it had made “absolute performance improvements in wait times for both mental health and specialty care appointments” while acknowledging that the rating also shows “continued frustrations with difficulty in navigating the system and with coordination of care." These frustrations impact Veterans’ experience at the facility, leading to lower scores.” The release pledged that “VA SORCC is currently a 1-star facility but fully expects to move to a 2-star facility in the next quarter.”

The worry for many at the VA is that the veterans might avoid 1- and 2-star facilities. “My concern is that veterans are going to see that their hospital is a ‘one’ in our star system, assume that’s bad quality and veterans that need care are not going to get care,” VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD, told USA Today. “And they’re going to stay away from hospitals and that’s going to hurt people.”

VA Secretary Robert McDonald minced few words in his reaction to the USA Today story that published VA’s 5-star ratings for VAMCs based on its Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data. “What concerns all of us at VA is that USA Today has a consistent narrative of negativity in their news of VA,” McDonald charged. Specifically, use of the word secret in the headline was an “egregious hyperbole,” he insisted.

Still, within days, a number of VA facilities were using the story as an opportunity to tout their success. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System in Worcester, for example, used the opportunity to tell local media that it was “in the top 10% of the 152 VA medical centers in the nation for quality of care,” and 1 of 3 5-star facilities in Massachusetts.

Other facilities, however, were forced to explain the relative nature of the 5-star scale. Keith Sullivan, director of the Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, which received a 3-star rating, responded to reporters by noting that, “Although SAIL is a tool that helps look at areas in need of improvements, we have many other ways to ensure quality care is in place,” he said.

Many VA officials point out that the comparison to other VA facilities may be unfair, especially in underserved locations. The VA Health Care Center at Harlingen in Texas recently improved from 1 to 2 stars. It received this score, in part, because of its difficulty filling open vacancies. “Compared to the nurse retention rates in our local communities we are doing very well, [but] not so much as compared to other VA health care systems in the nation,” a Harlingen customer service manager told a local newspaper.

To allay veterans’ fears, the VA Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center and Clinics (VA SORCC) sent out a news release to explain the ratings and reassure the public that progress was being made even as it struggles with a shortage of providers. Insisting it had made “absolute performance improvements in wait times for both mental health and specialty care appointments” while acknowledging that the rating also shows “continued frustrations with difficulty in navigating the system and with coordination of care." These frustrations impact Veterans’ experience at the facility, leading to lower scores.” The release pledged that “VA SORCC is currently a 1-star facility but fully expects to move to a 2-star facility in the next quarter.”

The worry for many at the VA is that the veterans might avoid 1- and 2-star facilities. “My concern is that veterans are going to see that their hospital is a ‘one’ in our star system, assume that’s bad quality and veterans that need care are not going to get care,” VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD, told USA Today. “And they’re going to stay away from hospitals and that’s going to hurt people.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME

Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 10:27
VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD discusses what makes the VA an unparalleled health care system and its continuing mission to care for veterans in the new administration.
 

Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016. As the clock winds down on the current administration, the interview covered a wide range of topic. The below video that discusses VA progress over the past 18 months since Shulkin was confirmed and the prospects for change in the new administration. Future videos will cover the Veterans Choice Program, employee morale and recruitment challenges, improving rural care, transparency, and the unique nature of VA’s mission and care.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics
Sections
VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD discusses what makes the VA an unparalleled health care system and its continuing mission to care for veterans in the new administration.
VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD discusses what makes the VA an unparalleled health care system and its continuing mission to care for veterans in the new administration.
 

Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016. As the clock winds down on the current administration, the interview covered a wide range of topic. The below video that discusses VA progress over the past 18 months since Shulkin was confirmed and the prospects for change in the new administration. Future videos will cover the Veterans Choice Program, employee morale and recruitment challenges, improving rural care, transparency, and the unique nature of VA’s mission and care.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
 

Federal Practitioner sat down for an exclusive interview with VA Under Secretary of Health David J. Shulkin, MD at the recent Launch Pad: Pathways to Cancer Innovation, November 29, 2016. As the clock winds down on the current administration, the interview covered a wide range of topic. The below video that discusses VA progress over the past 18 months since Shulkin was confirmed and the prospects for change in the new administration. Future videos will cover the Veterans Choice Program, employee morale and recruitment challenges, improving rural care, transparency, and the unique nature of VA’s mission and care.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Who Will Win the Veteran and Military Vote?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 11:50
As voting begins, the role that active-duty and veteran voters will play remains unclear even as their issues get little attention.

As the presidential election campaign enters its final week, the role of VA reform efforts and military and veteran voting patterns remains unclear. Despite its initial efforts to focus on active-duty service members and veterans, the Trump campaign has not made reforming the VA a central part of its campaign, whereas the Clinton campaign has focused more on the issues surrounding military and foreign relations.

In previous elections, veterans and active-duty service members tended to strongly back Republican candidates. In 2008, John McCain, a veteran himself, received 65% of the military vote, while Mitt Romney in 2012 and Congressional Republicans in 2014 outpolled their Democratic opponents by about 20 points, according to polls dating to August. According to Chris Wilson, director of research and analytics for Ted Cruz’s campaign, of the 21.8 veterans in the U.S., about 15 million are registered, and of the 1.3 million active-duty service members, 1 million are registered and about 60% of them are expected to vote. “Any Republican needs to be between 60 and 70 percent of the military vote,” Wilson told Bloomberg. In a September NBC News/Surveymonkey poll that charted the military vote in early September, Trump was leading Clinton 55% to 36%, a difference of 19 points. A more recent Fox News poll reported that Trump's lead was 17 points (51% to 34%)

                                       

Less clear is how much support the other parties have from military and veteran voters. The campaigns of Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein, MD (Green), and Evan McMullin (independent) have all outlined policy positions on VA reform and the military.

VA Reform

Of course, there is more to the campaign than just the horse race. There are issues that separate the candidates, many of which are important to veterans, active-duty service members, and the people who care for them. All the candidates have outlined plans for reforms at the VA, although the differences are more a matter of which issues to prioritize first. Hillary Clinton’s focus for the VA is to “fundamentally reform veterans’ health care to ensure access to timely and high quality care and block efforts to privatize the VA,” and to “build a 21st-century Department of Veterans Affairs to deliver world-class care.” Secondary to that, Clinton promises to “overhaul VA governance.”

By contrast, Donald Trump offered a 10-point plan for VA reform with a focus on rooting out bad actors. Trump devoted 3 points in his plan to firing VA employees. Point 2 pledged to “use the powers of the presidency to remove and discipline the federal employees and managers who have violated the public’s trust and failed to carry out the duties on behalf of our veterans.” Point 3 tasked Congress to enact legislation that “empowers the Secretary of the VA to discipline or terminate any employee who has jeopardized the health, safety or well-being of a veteran,” and point 4 promised to “create a commission to investigate all the fraud, cover-ups, and wrong-doing that has taken place in the VA.”

Similarly, Libertarian Gary Johnson recognizes that, “for some, the VA medical system is the best or only option,” but suggests that greater “competition and the marketplace,” could help improve health care for veterans. The Green Party’s Dr. Stein insists that she “would never support the privatization of the Veterans Administration, and I support not only fully funding the Veterans Administration, but increasing its budget.” Evan McMullin “favors a premium support program that would allow veterans to choose from a wide range of policies, including traditional VA coverage.”

Many other issues concern veterans and active-duty service members. Still, it can be difficult to parse the positions of the 4 candidates, given the sometimes contradictory positions they have taken over the past 18 months of campaigning. To help understand the positions Task&Purpose.com interviewed a number of experts, including Ryan Gallucci of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Clinton and Trump campaign officials on sequestration, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, education, health care issues, family support, and employment. Similarly, Military Times compared the positions of the 2 campaigns on the future of the military, nuclear weapons, defense budgets, and defeating ISIS.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
As voting begins, the role that active-duty and veteran voters will play remains unclear even as their issues get little attention.
As voting begins, the role that active-duty and veteran voters will play remains unclear even as their issues get little attention.

As the presidential election campaign enters its final week, the role of VA reform efforts and military and veteran voting patterns remains unclear. Despite its initial efforts to focus on active-duty service members and veterans, the Trump campaign has not made reforming the VA a central part of its campaign, whereas the Clinton campaign has focused more on the issues surrounding military and foreign relations.

In previous elections, veterans and active-duty service members tended to strongly back Republican candidates. In 2008, John McCain, a veteran himself, received 65% of the military vote, while Mitt Romney in 2012 and Congressional Republicans in 2014 outpolled their Democratic opponents by about 20 points, according to polls dating to August. According to Chris Wilson, director of research and analytics for Ted Cruz’s campaign, of the 21.8 veterans in the U.S., about 15 million are registered, and of the 1.3 million active-duty service members, 1 million are registered and about 60% of them are expected to vote. “Any Republican needs to be between 60 and 70 percent of the military vote,” Wilson told Bloomberg. In a September NBC News/Surveymonkey poll that charted the military vote in early September, Trump was leading Clinton 55% to 36%, a difference of 19 points. A more recent Fox News poll reported that Trump's lead was 17 points (51% to 34%)

                                       

Less clear is how much support the other parties have from military and veteran voters. The campaigns of Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein, MD (Green), and Evan McMullin (independent) have all outlined policy positions on VA reform and the military.

VA Reform

Of course, there is more to the campaign than just the horse race. There are issues that separate the candidates, many of which are important to veterans, active-duty service members, and the people who care for them. All the candidates have outlined plans for reforms at the VA, although the differences are more a matter of which issues to prioritize first. Hillary Clinton’s focus for the VA is to “fundamentally reform veterans’ health care to ensure access to timely and high quality care and block efforts to privatize the VA,” and to “build a 21st-century Department of Veterans Affairs to deliver world-class care.” Secondary to that, Clinton promises to “overhaul VA governance.”

By contrast, Donald Trump offered a 10-point plan for VA reform with a focus on rooting out bad actors. Trump devoted 3 points in his plan to firing VA employees. Point 2 pledged to “use the powers of the presidency to remove and discipline the federal employees and managers who have violated the public’s trust and failed to carry out the duties on behalf of our veterans.” Point 3 tasked Congress to enact legislation that “empowers the Secretary of the VA to discipline or terminate any employee who has jeopardized the health, safety or well-being of a veteran,” and point 4 promised to “create a commission to investigate all the fraud, cover-ups, and wrong-doing that has taken place in the VA.”

Similarly, Libertarian Gary Johnson recognizes that, “for some, the VA medical system is the best or only option,” but suggests that greater “competition and the marketplace,” could help improve health care for veterans. The Green Party’s Dr. Stein insists that she “would never support the privatization of the Veterans Administration, and I support not only fully funding the Veterans Administration, but increasing its budget.” Evan McMullin “favors a premium support program that would allow veterans to choose from a wide range of policies, including traditional VA coverage.”

Many other issues concern veterans and active-duty service members. Still, it can be difficult to parse the positions of the 4 candidates, given the sometimes contradictory positions they have taken over the past 18 months of campaigning. To help understand the positions Task&Purpose.com interviewed a number of experts, including Ryan Gallucci of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Clinton and Trump campaign officials on sequestration, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, education, health care issues, family support, and employment. Similarly, Military Times compared the positions of the 2 campaigns on the future of the military, nuclear weapons, defense budgets, and defeating ISIS.

As the presidential election campaign enters its final week, the role of VA reform efforts and military and veteran voting patterns remains unclear. Despite its initial efforts to focus on active-duty service members and veterans, the Trump campaign has not made reforming the VA a central part of its campaign, whereas the Clinton campaign has focused more on the issues surrounding military and foreign relations.

In previous elections, veterans and active-duty service members tended to strongly back Republican candidates. In 2008, John McCain, a veteran himself, received 65% of the military vote, while Mitt Romney in 2012 and Congressional Republicans in 2014 outpolled their Democratic opponents by about 20 points, according to polls dating to August. According to Chris Wilson, director of research and analytics for Ted Cruz’s campaign, of the 21.8 veterans in the U.S., about 15 million are registered, and of the 1.3 million active-duty service members, 1 million are registered and about 60% of them are expected to vote. “Any Republican needs to be between 60 and 70 percent of the military vote,” Wilson told Bloomberg. In a September NBC News/Surveymonkey poll that charted the military vote in early September, Trump was leading Clinton 55% to 36%, a difference of 19 points. A more recent Fox News poll reported that Trump's lead was 17 points (51% to 34%)

                                       

Less clear is how much support the other parties have from military and veteran voters. The campaigns of Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein, MD (Green), and Evan McMullin (independent) have all outlined policy positions on VA reform and the military.

VA Reform

Of course, there is more to the campaign than just the horse race. There are issues that separate the candidates, many of which are important to veterans, active-duty service members, and the people who care for them. All the candidates have outlined plans for reforms at the VA, although the differences are more a matter of which issues to prioritize first. Hillary Clinton’s focus for the VA is to “fundamentally reform veterans’ health care to ensure access to timely and high quality care and block efforts to privatize the VA,” and to “build a 21st-century Department of Veterans Affairs to deliver world-class care.” Secondary to that, Clinton promises to “overhaul VA governance.”

By contrast, Donald Trump offered a 10-point plan for VA reform with a focus on rooting out bad actors. Trump devoted 3 points in his plan to firing VA employees. Point 2 pledged to “use the powers of the presidency to remove and discipline the federal employees and managers who have violated the public’s trust and failed to carry out the duties on behalf of our veterans.” Point 3 tasked Congress to enact legislation that “empowers the Secretary of the VA to discipline or terminate any employee who has jeopardized the health, safety or well-being of a veteran,” and point 4 promised to “create a commission to investigate all the fraud, cover-ups, and wrong-doing that has taken place in the VA.”

Similarly, Libertarian Gary Johnson recognizes that, “for some, the VA medical system is the best or only option,” but suggests that greater “competition and the marketplace,” could help improve health care for veterans. The Green Party’s Dr. Stein insists that she “would never support the privatization of the Veterans Administration, and I support not only fully funding the Veterans Administration, but increasing its budget.” Evan McMullin “favors a premium support program that would allow veterans to choose from a wide range of policies, including traditional VA coverage.”

Many other issues concern veterans and active-duty service members. Still, it can be difficult to parse the positions of the 4 candidates, given the sometimes contradictory positions they have taken over the past 18 months of campaigning. To help understand the positions Task&Purpose.com interviewed a number of experts, including Ryan Gallucci of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Clinton and Trump campaign officials on sequestration, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, education, health care issues, family support, and employment. Similarly, Military Times compared the positions of the 2 campaigns on the future of the military, nuclear weapons, defense budgets, and defeating ISIS.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME

DoD Offers ‘Drug Take Back’ Program

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 12:23
To reduce the amount of abuse resulting from unused, unwanted, and expired prescription drugs, the DoD launches a program to dispose them properly.

Unwanted, unused, and expired prescription drugs are a major contributor to prescription drug abuse, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And nearly one third of suicide attempts among veterans involve prescription medicines. But a change in the rules at the Drug Enforcement Administration now allows military treatment facilities to accept and dispose of those unused medications. The Department of Defense was the first federal agency to put the “Drug Take Back” program into effect nationwide for its beneficiaries.

Military treatment facility pharmacies can accept legal prescription and over-the-counter bottled pills, tablets and capsules, ointments, creams, lotions, powders, and liquid medicines that are no more than 4 ounces. (Pet medicines are included.)

Patients can take the drugs to their faculty or send them by mail in a special envelope available at some military treatment facility pharmacies.

Bringing back the drugs not only helps the environment by reducing the amount of drugs that can filter through water supplies and landfills, but it also cuts down on the risk of accidental or intentional drug misuse. “DoD and the [Military Health System] are committed to reducing the risk of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse in the military community, supporting the nation’s efforts to reduce opioid abuse,” said Dr. George Jones, chief of the Defense Health Agency’s Pharmacy Operations Division, in a news report on health.mil.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles
To reduce the amount of abuse resulting from unused, unwanted, and expired prescription drugs, the DoD launches a program to dispose them properly.
To reduce the amount of abuse resulting from unused, unwanted, and expired prescription drugs, the DoD launches a program to dispose them properly.

Unwanted, unused, and expired prescription drugs are a major contributor to prescription drug abuse, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And nearly one third of suicide attempts among veterans involve prescription medicines. But a change in the rules at the Drug Enforcement Administration now allows military treatment facilities to accept and dispose of those unused medications. The Department of Defense was the first federal agency to put the “Drug Take Back” program into effect nationwide for its beneficiaries.

Military treatment facility pharmacies can accept legal prescription and over-the-counter bottled pills, tablets and capsules, ointments, creams, lotions, powders, and liquid medicines that are no more than 4 ounces. (Pet medicines are included.)

Patients can take the drugs to their faculty or send them by mail in a special envelope available at some military treatment facility pharmacies.

Bringing back the drugs not only helps the environment by reducing the amount of drugs that can filter through water supplies and landfills, but it also cuts down on the risk of accidental or intentional drug misuse. “DoD and the [Military Health System] are committed to reducing the risk of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse in the military community, supporting the nation’s efforts to reduce opioid abuse,” said Dr. George Jones, chief of the Defense Health Agency’s Pharmacy Operations Division, in a news report on health.mil.

Unwanted, unused, and expired prescription drugs are a major contributor to prescription drug abuse, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And nearly one third of suicide attempts among veterans involve prescription medicines. But a change in the rules at the Drug Enforcement Administration now allows military treatment facilities to accept and dispose of those unused medications. The Department of Defense was the first federal agency to put the “Drug Take Back” program into effect nationwide for its beneficiaries.

Military treatment facility pharmacies can accept legal prescription and over-the-counter bottled pills, tablets and capsules, ointments, creams, lotions, powders, and liquid medicines that are no more than 4 ounces. (Pet medicines are included.)

Patients can take the drugs to their faculty or send them by mail in a special envelope available at some military treatment facility pharmacies.

Bringing back the drugs not only helps the environment by reducing the amount of drugs that can filter through water supplies and landfills, but it also cuts down on the risk of accidental or intentional drug misuse. “DoD and the [Military Health System] are committed to reducing the risk of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse in the military community, supporting the nation’s efforts to reduce opioid abuse,” said Dr. George Jones, chief of the Defense Health Agency’s Pharmacy Operations Division, in a news report on health.mil.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME