Health Policy

At a New Year’s Eve party a few years back, I noticed a man sitting nearby clutching his left upper arm. He was ashen and obviously uncomfortable. Acute coronary insufficiency, I thought, and I asked him if I could call the life squad for him. “Oh no,” he said, “I have these spells several times a day, the nitro will kick in after a minute, and this will ease off.” I listened as he explained he had a “widow maker,” a 90% plus left main occlusion, but “I am Canadian, and my government is going to pay for my bypass,” he said. “I just have to wait 6 more weeks.” The irony? He was the son of our host, and we were sitting in his mothers’ multimillion dollar home in the Florida Keys. He could be in a Miami hospital’s operating room in an hour or 2.

Wow. Click. Got it.

Fast forward to a lobbying discussion on Capitol Hill: A sympathetic U.S. senator tossed me this softball: ‘What do you think about Medicare reimbursement?” I expect he thought I was going to complain about how bad Medicare is, about its failure to keep current with inflation (currently about 30% behind), and the obtuse quality metrics it now requires. Instead, I found myself saying, “Medicare is my most reliable payer, paying on time – in 2 weeks for clean claims – and the private insurers have beaten me up badly. Medicare is one of my best payers.”

Wrong answer, but true statement.

There is much talk these days about Medicare for all, single-payer, and universal health care. American physicians and patients are disgusted with the current system, particularly considering all the barriers to care. (See my recent column, “Produce and Promises.”) Physicians and patients endure a mutual misery inflicted by private insurance companies.

What to do about health care in America?

First, let’s deal with the extraordinary costs of health care in the United States – 19% of our gross domestic product. About 3%-4 % of this figure is an accounting gimmick, since it includes nursing home care, which is considered “domiciliary” care rather than health care in Europe. In addition, drug costs are higher in the U.S., largely to cover the development of new drugs that cost less in the rest of the world. Wait lists are largely unheard of in the United States, and if you have such ready capacity, that means you incur the costs of idle capacity. Also, rarely is a new miracle drug flatly denied for coverage in the United States. If you persist, you will usually get your drug.

We are a commodity-driven society, and that is the real reason that health care costs so much in this country. Hence, we come to the real debate, the “R” word. How do we ration access to care? (See my 2017 column, “Why the Affordable Care Act will be Greatly Modified.”)

There are a plethora of proposals to fund single payer out there, none of which address rationing. And while single payer affords free universal coverage, it does not assure better care. As health economist Devon Herrick, Ph.D., wrote in his health care blog in 2016: “A single payer is not some magical entity that rains down savings from Heaven by being unconcerned about profit. Rather, an efficient single payer operates more like a predatory HMO with no competition. It is currently in vogue for hipsters to matter-of-factly announce the simple solution to health reform is single payer. Be careful what you wish for; you may end up with Medicaid for All.”

In fact, if you try to ferret out how physician income will be affected by universal health care, there would be an estimated pay cut of 11%-40%, depending on how the numbers are manipulated.

Some single-payer proposals use the term “exchange rates,” which for the uninformed means Medicaid rates. In addition, payment is usually given to the local hospital system, or “authority” to dole out. I have a very bad feeling that any small practitioner in an office-based practice would be severely shortchanged in such a system. In fact, if you cut pay for office-based physicians at all, you may begin to see them disappear.

Policy wonks argue for pay cuts for American physicians because European physicians “make less money.” Those numbers are all wrong. U.S. physicians are paid for their work, and for their practice expense. That is, how much it costs to provide the service in their office, which is around 40%-50% of published income. In Europe, almost all procedures are performed in the hospital setting, and the hospital absorbs the practice expense, which is ignored in this current health care reform debate. (See my 2015 column, “Doctor, Why DO you get paid so much?”)

The big selling point of single payer for physicians is that they might have less paperwork and get paid more for seeing Medicaid patients. Yet the paperwork will persist to avoid lawsuits, electronic medical records are now ingrained into the system, and most Medicaid patients are currently seen in the federal or hospital outpatient clinic where higher rates or other subsidies are available. The comically low Medicaid rates paid to physician offices are largely evaded or not even filed for.

Single-payer advocates are basically saying, “Yes, you will be seeing patients at a loss but you will make it up in volume.” This ignores the reality that most physicians don’t need or want more volume.

Here is my plan for single-payer health care. Call it ColdironCare.

• Set payment rates for physicians at 130% of current Medicare, about where we were 30 years ago, considering inflation. Tie the reimbursement rate to the cost of living index, same as social security. If you cut physician pay 11%-40%, you will see mass retirement and the elimination of the most efficient care, office-based practice.
• Remove the practice expense payment from government-reported physician income since this is overhead spent to provide the care.
• Let all physicians participate, and don’t pay site-of-service differentials.
• Enact national tort reform, which would decrease the paperwork, overhead, and much useless defensive medicine.
• Press the generic drug manufacturers (but not the innovators) regarding drug costs. Bite the bullet, and set national coverage standards (ration care) to be revisited every 5 years, which will eliminate step therapy and prior authorizations. Allow individuals to pay out of pocket for additional treatments they want, including that questionable additional 90 days of life they may get from the $250,000 drug for the off-label indication.
• Press the hospitals, and don’t complain when many of them close, especially rural ones.
• Allow individuals, hospitals, and physicians to contract outside of the government plan (in contrast to Canada).
• Downsize the health insurance companies, and have them sell private supplemental insurance to whomever wants it.

Finally, make all of this a constitutional amendment. If not put out of reach, in 15 years we will have the same system we have today. The politicians simply will not be able to resist degrading (reforming, improving, refunding, defunding) the original plan. Or, you could simply increase Medicaid rates to Medicare rates and call it a day.

Oh, by the way, I saw that man from the New Year’s Eve party at the airport the following Christmas. He survived to get his government bypass and is doing well.

The health care system we have is miserable, except compared with all the others.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

At a New Year’s Eve party a few years back, I noticed a man sitting nearby clutching his left upper arm. He was ashen and obviously uncomfortable. Acute coronary insufficiency, I thought, and I asked him if I could call the life squad for him. “Oh no,” he said, “I have these spells several times a day, the nitro will kick in after a minute, and this will ease off.” I listened as he explained he had a “widow maker,” a 90% plus left main occlusion, but “I am Canadian, and my government is going to pay for my bypass,” he said. “I just have to wait 6 more weeks.” The irony? He was the son of our host, and we were sitting in his mothers’ multimillion dollar home in the Florida Keys. He could be in a Miami hospital’s operating room in an hour or 2.

Wow. Click. Got it.

Fast forward to a lobbying discussion on Capitol Hill: A sympathetic U.S. senator tossed me this softball: ‘What do you think about Medicare reimbursement?” I expect he thought I was going to complain about how bad Medicare is, about its failure to keep current with inflation (currently about 30% behind), and the obtuse quality metrics it now requires. Instead, I found myself saying, “Medicare is my most reliable payer, paying on time – in 2 weeks for clean claims – and the private insurers have beaten me up badly. Medicare is one of my best payers.”

Wrong answer, but true statement.

There is much talk these days about Medicare for all, single-payer, and universal health care. American physicians and patients are disgusted with the current system, particularly considering all the barriers to care. (See my recent column, “Produce and Promises.”) Physicians and patients endure a mutual misery inflicted by private insurance companies.

What to do about health care in America?

First, let’s deal with the extraordinary costs of health care in the United States – 19% of our gross domestic product. About 3%-4 % of this figure is an accounting gimmick, since it includes nursing home care, which is considered “domiciliary” care rather than health care in Europe. In addition, drug costs are higher in the U.S., largely to cover the development of new drugs that cost less in the rest of the world. Wait lists are largely unheard of in the United States, and if you have such ready capacity, that means you incur the costs of idle capacity. Also, rarely is a new miracle drug flatly denied for coverage in the United States. If you persist, you will usually get your drug.

We are a commodity-driven society, and that is the real reason that health care costs so much in this country. Hence, we come to the real debate, the “R” word. How do we ration access to care? (See my 2017 column, “Why the Affordable Care Act will be Greatly Modified.”)

There are a plethora of proposals to fund single payer out there, none of which address rationing. And while single payer affords free universal coverage, it does not assure better care. As health economist Devon Herrick, Ph.D., wrote in his health care blog in 2016: “A single payer is not some magical entity that rains down savings from Heaven by being unconcerned about profit. Rather, an efficient single payer operates more like a predatory HMO with no competition. It is currently in vogue for hipsters to matter-of-factly announce the simple solution to health reform is single payer. Be careful what you wish for; you may end up with Medicaid for All.”

In fact, if you try to ferret out how physician income will be affected by universal health care, there would be an estimated pay cut of 11%-40%, depending on how the numbers are manipulated.

Some single-payer proposals use the term “exchange rates,” which for the uninformed means Medicaid rates. In addition, payment is usually given to the local hospital system, or “authority” to dole out. I have a very bad feeling that any small practitioner in an office-based practice would be severely shortchanged in such a system. In fact, if you cut pay for office-based physicians at all, you may begin to see them disappear.

Policy wonks argue for pay cuts for American physicians because European physicians “make less money.” Those numbers are all wrong. U.S. physicians are paid for their work, and for their practice expense. That is, how much it costs to provide the service in their office, which is around 40%-50% of published income. In Europe, almost all procedures are performed in the hospital setting, and the hospital absorbs the practice expense, which is ignored in this current health care reform debate. (See my 2015 column, “Doctor, Why DO you get paid so much?”)

The big selling point of single payer for physicians is that they might have less paperwork and get paid more for seeing Medicaid patients. Yet the paperwork will persist to avoid lawsuits, electronic medical records are now ingrained into the system, and most Medicaid patients are currently seen in the federal or hospital outpatient clinic where higher rates or other subsidies are available. The comically low Medicaid rates paid to physician offices are largely evaded or not even filed for.

Single-payer advocates are basically saying, “Yes, you will be seeing patients at a loss but you will make it up in volume.” This ignores the reality that most physicians don’t need or want more volume.

Here is my plan for single-payer health care. Call it ColdironCare.

• Set payment rates for physicians at 130% of current Medicare, about where we were 30 years ago, considering inflation. Tie the reimbursement rate to the cost of living index, same as social security. If you cut physician pay 11%-40%, you will see mass retirement and the elimination of the most efficient care, office-based practice.
• Remove the practice expense payment from government-reported physician income since this is overhead spent to provide the care.
• Let all physicians participate, and don’t pay site-of-service differentials.
• Enact national tort reform, which would decrease the paperwork, overhead, and much useless defensive medicine.
• Press the generic drug manufacturers (but not the innovators) regarding drug costs. Bite the bullet, and set national coverage standards (ration care) to be revisited every 5 years, which will eliminate step therapy and prior authorizations. Allow individuals to pay out of pocket for additional treatments they want, including that questionable additional 90 days of life they may get from the $250,000 drug for the off-label indication.
• Press the hospitals, and don’t complain when many of them close, especially rural ones.
• Allow individuals, hospitals, and physicians to contract outside of the government plan (in contrast to Canada).
• Downsize the health insurance companies, and have them sell private supplemental insurance to whomever wants it.

Finally, make all of this a constitutional amendment. If not put out of reach, in 15 years we will have the same system we have today. The politicians simply will not be able to resist degrading (reforming, improving, refunding, defunding) the original plan. Or, you could simply increase Medicaid rates to Medicare rates and call it a day.

Oh, by the way, I saw that man from the New Year’s Eve party at the airport the following Christmas. He survived to get his government bypass and is doing well.

The health care system we have is miserable, except compared with all the others.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

At a New Year’s Eve party a few years back, I noticed a man sitting nearby clutching his left upper arm. He was ashen and obviously uncomfortable. Acute coronary insufficiency, I thought, and I asked him if I could call the life squad for him. “Oh no,” he said, “I have these spells several times a day, the nitro will kick in after a minute, and this will ease off.” I listened as he explained he had a “widow maker,” a 90% plus left main occlusion, but “I am Canadian, and my government is going to pay for my bypass,” he said. “I just have to wait 6 more weeks.” The irony? He was the son of our host, and we were sitting in his mothers’ multimillion dollar home in the Florida Keys. He could be in a Miami hospital’s operating room in an hour or 2.

Wow. Click. Got it.

Fast forward to a lobbying discussion on Capitol Hill: A sympathetic U.S. senator tossed me this softball: ‘What do you think about Medicare reimbursement?” I expect he thought I was going to complain about how bad Medicare is, about its failure to keep current with inflation (currently about 30% behind), and the obtuse quality metrics it now requires. Instead, I found myself saying, “Medicare is my most reliable payer, paying on time – in 2 weeks for clean claims – and the private insurers have beaten me up badly. Medicare is one of my best payers.”

Wrong answer, but true statement.

There is much talk these days about Medicare for all, single-payer, and universal health care. American physicians and patients are disgusted with the current system, particularly considering all the barriers to care. (See my recent column, “Produce and Promises.”) Physicians and patients endure a mutual misery inflicted by private insurance companies.

What to do about health care in America?

First, let’s deal with the extraordinary costs of health care in the United States – 19% of our gross domestic product. About 3%-4 % of this figure is an accounting gimmick, since it includes nursing home care, which is considered “domiciliary” care rather than health care in Europe. In addition, drug costs are higher in the U.S., largely to cover the development of new drugs that cost less in the rest of the world. Wait lists are largely unheard of in the United States, and if you have such ready capacity, that means you incur the costs of idle capacity. Also, rarely is a new miracle drug flatly denied for coverage in the United States. If you persist, you will usually get your drug.

We are a commodity-driven society, and that is the real reason that health care costs so much in this country. Hence, we come to the real debate, the “R” word. How do we ration access to care? (See my 2017 column, “Why the Affordable Care Act will be Greatly Modified.”)

There are a plethora of proposals to fund single payer out there, none of which address rationing. And while single payer affords free universal coverage, it does not assure better care. As health economist Devon Herrick, Ph.D., wrote in his health care blog in 2016: “A single payer is not some magical entity that rains down savings from Heaven by being unconcerned about profit. Rather, an efficient single payer operates more like a predatory HMO with no competition. It is currently in vogue for hipsters to matter-of-factly announce the simple solution to health reform is single payer. Be careful what you wish for; you may end up with Medicaid for All.”

In fact, if you try to ferret out how physician income will be affected by universal health care, there would be an estimated pay cut of 11%-40%, depending on how the numbers are manipulated.

Some single-payer proposals use the term “exchange rates,” which for the uninformed means Medicaid rates. In addition, payment is usually given to the local hospital system, or “authority” to dole out. I have a very bad feeling that any small practitioner in an office-based practice would be severely shortchanged in such a system. In fact, if you cut pay for office-based physicians at all, you may begin to see them disappear.

Policy wonks argue for pay cuts for American physicians because European physicians “make less money.” Those numbers are all wrong. U.S. physicians are paid for their work, and for their practice expense. That is, how much it costs to provide the service in their office, which is around 40%-50% of published income. In Europe, almost all procedures are performed in the hospital setting, and the hospital absorbs the practice expense, which is ignored in this current health care reform debate. (See my 2015 column, “Doctor, Why DO you get paid so much?”)

The big selling point of single payer for physicians is that they might have less paperwork and get paid more for seeing Medicaid patients. Yet the paperwork will persist to avoid lawsuits, electronic medical records are now ingrained into the system, and most Medicaid patients are currently seen in the federal or hospital outpatient clinic where higher rates or other subsidies are available. The comically low Medicaid rates paid to physician offices are largely evaded or not even filed for.

Single-payer advocates are basically saying, “Yes, you will be seeing patients at a loss but you will make it up in volume.” This ignores the reality that most physicians don’t need or want more volume.

Here is my plan for single-payer health care. Call it ColdironCare.

• Set payment rates for physicians at 130% of current Medicare, about where we were 30 years ago, considering inflation. Tie the reimbursement rate to the cost of living index, same as social security. If you cut physician pay 11%-40%, you will see mass retirement and the elimination of the most efficient care, office-based practice.
• Remove the practice expense payment from government-reported physician income since this is overhead spent to provide the care.
• Let all physicians participate, and don’t pay site-of-service differentials.
• Enact national tort reform, which would decrease the paperwork, overhead, and much useless defensive medicine.
• Press the generic drug manufacturers (but not the innovators) regarding drug costs. Bite the bullet, and set national coverage standards (ration care) to be revisited every 5 years, which will eliminate step therapy and prior authorizations. Allow individuals to pay out of pocket for additional treatments they want, including that questionable additional 90 days of life they may get from the $250,000 drug for the off-label indication.
• Press the hospitals, and don’t complain when many of them close, especially rural ones.
• Allow individuals, hospitals, and physicians to contract outside of the government plan (in contrast to Canada).
• Downsize the health insurance companies, and have them sell private supplemental insurance to whomever wants it.

Finally, make all of this a constitutional amendment. If not put out of reach, in 15 years we will have the same system we have today. The politicians simply will not be able to resist degrading (reforming, improving, refunding, defunding) the original plan. Or, you could simply increase Medicaid rates to Medicare rates and call it a day.

Oh, by the way, I saw that man from the New Year’s Eve party at the airport the following Christmas. He survived to get his government bypass and is doing well.

The health care system we have is miserable, except compared with all the others.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Activity at HealthCare.gov reached its highest level of the season during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2019 coverage year, but the weekly and cumulative totals for plans selected continued to run below last year’s levels, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Over 934,000 plans were selected from Dec. 2 to Dec. 8, which puts the total at 4.13 million plans for the 2019 coverage year in the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, the CMS reported. Consumers renewing their coverage make up the majority of plans selected during week 6 (640,000) and cumulatively for the season (3.03 million), with new applications running at 295,000 for week 6 and 1.1 million overall.

Those numbers are down from last year, when 1.07 million plans (685,000 renewals and 389,000 new applications) were selected during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2018 coverage year, which brought the total for the season at the time to 4.68 million (3.30 million/1.38 million), CMS data show.

The deadline to enroll in a plan for 2019 is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Activity at HealthCare.gov reached its highest level of the season during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2019 coverage year, but the weekly and cumulative totals for plans selected continued to run below last year’s levels, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Over 934,000 plans were selected from Dec. 2 to Dec. 8, which puts the total at 4.13 million plans for the 2019 coverage year in the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, the CMS reported. Consumers renewing their coverage make up the majority of plans selected during week 6 (640,000) and cumulatively for the season (3.03 million), with new applications running at 295,000 for week 6 and 1.1 million overall.

Those numbers are down from last year, when 1.07 million plans (685,000 renewals and 389,000 new applications) were selected during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2018 coverage year, which brought the total for the season at the time to 4.68 million (3.30 million/1.38 million), CMS data show.

The deadline to enroll in a plan for 2019 is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Activity at HealthCare.gov reached its highest level of the season during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2019 coverage year, but the weekly and cumulative totals for plans selected continued to run below last year’s levels, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Over 934,000 plans were selected from Dec. 2 to Dec. 8, which puts the total at 4.13 million plans for the 2019 coverage year in the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, the CMS reported. Consumers renewing their coverage make up the majority of plans selected during week 6 (640,000) and cumulatively for the season (3.03 million), with new applications running at 295,000 for week 6 and 1.1 million overall.

Those numbers are down from last year, when 1.07 million plans (685,000 renewals and 389,000 new applications) were selected during week 6 of open enrollment for the 2018 coverage year, which brought the total for the season at the time to 4.68 million (3.30 million/1.38 million), CMS data show.

The deadline to enroll in a plan for 2019 is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, often ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Also today, exercise is important for patients with sickle cell, COPD patients are experiencing a risk in non-TB mycobacteria infections, and how to be an influencer on social media.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, often ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Also today, exercise is important for patients with sickle cell, COPD patients are experiencing a risk in non-TB mycobacteria infections, and how to be an influencer on social media.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Leave policies for residents who become new parents are uneven, often ignored by training boards, and provide less time off than similar policies for faculty physicians. Also today, exercise is important for patients with sickle cell, COPD patients are experiencing a risk in non-TB mycobacteria infections, and how to be an influencer on social media.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Most of the 313 cosmetic and personal care products recalled from 2002 to 2016 had problems with bacterial contamination, according to data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration.

From November 2002 to December 2016, there were 14 class I, 266 class II, and 33 class III recalls involving cosmetic and personal care products, said Timothy M. Janetos, MD, and his associates at Northwestern University in Chicago. Bacterial contamination was by far the most common reason – 76% of the recalls over that period (11 class I, 217 class II, and 9 class II) – with unapproved ingredients and labeling problems well behind at 6%.

SOURCE: Janetos TM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Nov 22:1-5. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12824.

Most of the 313 cosmetic and personal care products recalled from 2002 to 2016 had problems with bacterial contamination, according to data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration.

From November 2002 to December 2016, there were 14 class I, 266 class II, and 33 class III recalls involving cosmetic and personal care products, said Timothy M. Janetos, MD, and his associates at Northwestern University in Chicago. Bacterial contamination was by far the most common reason – 76% of the recalls over that period (11 class I, 217 class II, and 9 class II) – with unapproved ingredients and labeling problems well behind at 6%.

SOURCE: Janetos TM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Nov 22:1-5. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12824.

Most of the 313 cosmetic and personal care products recalled from 2002 to 2016 had problems with bacterial contamination, according to data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration.

From November 2002 to December 2016, there were 14 class I, 266 class II, and 33 class III recalls involving cosmetic and personal care products, said Timothy M. Janetos, MD, and his associates at Northwestern University in Chicago. Bacterial contamination was by far the most common reason – 76% of the recalls over that period (11 class I, 217 class II, and 9 class II) – with unapproved ingredients and labeling problems well behind at 6%.

SOURCE: Janetos TM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Nov 22:1-5. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12824.

Health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product remained relatively stable in 2017, despite a slowdown in the growth of spending.

utah778/Thinkstock

Total health care spending in the United States was $3.5 trillion in 2017, an increase of 3.9% from 2016, according to data released Dec. 6 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The growth rate was down from that of 2016 (4.8%) but similar to growth rates experienced during 2008-2013, according to the research article in Health Affairs.

“The slower growth in health care spending in 2017 resulted primarily from slower growth in hospital care, physician and clinical services, and retail prescription drugs, with residual use and intensity of these goods and services contributing substantially to the trend,” Anne B. Martin, an economist in the CMS Office of the Actuary’s National Health Statistics Group, and her colleagues wrote.

The report notes that slower growth in the use and intensity of health care goods and services in 2017 “may have been affected by slower growth in overall health insurance enrollment, as the insured share of the population fell from 91.1% in 2016 to 90.9% in 2017.”

Spending on hospital care increased 4.6% to $1.1 trillion in 2017 and accounted for 33% of total health care spending; however, growth was slower than in the previous year (5.6%). Ms. Martin and her colleagues noted that growth in outpatient visits slowed while growth in inpatient days increased at about the same rate and prices in hospital care grew in 2017 to 1.7% from 1.2% in the previous year.

Spending on physician and clinical services grew 4.2% in 2017 to $694.3 billion and accounted for 20% of total health care spending. The growth rate is down from the previous year (5.6%) and a recent peak of 6% in 2015.

“Although spending growth for both physician services and clinical services slowed in 2017, the growth rate for the latter (5.0%) continued to out pace the rate for the former (3.9%), as spending for most types of outpatient care centers contributed to the stronger growth in spending for clinical services,” Ms. Martin and her colleagues reported.

They attributed the slowdown to non-price factors, such as slower growth in the use and intensity of physician and clinical services, although price growth for physician and clinical services increased 0.4% in 2017, up from 0.2% in 2016.

Spending on retail prescription drugs grew 0.4% in 2017 to $333.4 billion and accounted for 10% of total national health spending. It is the slowest growth rate increase since 2012, a year that saw a number of blockbuster drugs lose patent protection. This was down from a growth rate of 2.3% in 2016 and down from recent rates of 12.4% in 2014 and 8.9% in 2015.

“Slower growth in non-price factors, such as the use and mix of retail prescription drugs – and, to a lesser extent, in retail prescription drug prices – contributed to the slower overall growth in retail prescription drug spending in 2017,” according to the authors. Key factors included slower growth in the number of prescriptions dispensed, the continued shift to lower-cost generics, and slower growth in the volume of high-cost drugs, particularly those used to treat hepatitis C. Price decreases in generics and lower increases for existing brand-name drugs also contributed to the lower spending growth in 2017.

Ms. Martin and her colleagues highlighted the slower growth rate in the number of prescriptions (1.8% in 2017, down from 2.3% in 2016) “resulted in large part from a decline in the number of prescriptions dispensed for drugs used to treat pain.”

Medicare spending, which represents 20% of all national health care spending in 2017 ($705.9 billion), grew 4.2%, a slight decline from the 4.3% growth in 2016. Enrollment growth slowed slightly to 2.5% in 2017 from 2.7% in the previous year, while in the same time frame, per-enrollee expenditures increased slightly to 1.7% from 1.6%. Slower growth in fee-for-service Medicare spending was offset by faster growth in spending by Medicare private health plans.

Medicaid spending reached $581.9 billion (17% of national health care spending), and the growth rate slowed for the third straight year, increasing 2.9% in 2017 versus 4.2% in 2016. The slower growth “was influenced by a deceleration in enrollment growth and a reduction in the Medicaid net cost of health insurance as the federal government recovered payments from managed care organizations based on their favorable prior-period experience,” the authors stated. Enrollment growth has been decelerating following a peak of growth of 11.9% in 2014 because of states that elected to expand Medicaid eligibility, which was followed by 3 years of slower growth rates of 4.9%, 3.0% and 2.0% in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Per-enrollee spending also slowed to 0.9% growth in 2017 from a rate of 1.2% in 2016, attributed to “the decline in government administration and the net cost of insurance.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin A et al. Health Aff. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05085.

Health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product remained relatively stable in 2017, despite a slowdown in the growth of spending.

utah778/Thinkstock

Total health care spending in the United States was $3.5 trillion in 2017, an increase of 3.9% from 2016, according to data released Dec. 6 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The growth rate was down from that of 2016 (4.8%) but similar to growth rates experienced during 2008-2013, according to the research article in Health Affairs.

“The slower growth in health care spending in 2017 resulted primarily from slower growth in hospital care, physician and clinical services, and retail prescription drugs, with residual use and intensity of these goods and services contributing substantially to the trend,” Anne B. Martin, an economist in the CMS Office of the Actuary’s National Health Statistics Group, and her colleagues wrote.

The report notes that slower growth in the use and intensity of health care goods and services in 2017 “may have been affected by slower growth in overall health insurance enrollment, as the insured share of the population fell from 91.1% in 2016 to 90.9% in 2017.”

Spending on hospital care increased 4.6% to $1.1 trillion in 2017 and accounted for 33% of total health care spending; however, growth was slower than in the previous year (5.6%). Ms. Martin and her colleagues noted that growth in outpatient visits slowed while growth in inpatient days increased at about the same rate and prices in hospital care grew in 2017 to 1.7% from 1.2% in the previous year.

Spending on physician and clinical services grew 4.2% in 2017 to $694.3 billion and accounted for 20% of total health care spending. The growth rate is down from the previous year (5.6%) and a recent peak of 6% in 2015.

“Although spending growth for both physician services and clinical services slowed in 2017, the growth rate for the latter (5.0%) continued to out pace the rate for the former (3.9%), as spending for most types of outpatient care centers contributed to the stronger growth in spending for clinical services,” Ms. Martin and her colleagues reported.

They attributed the slowdown to non-price factors, such as slower growth in the use and intensity of physician and clinical services, although price growth for physician and clinical services increased 0.4% in 2017, up from 0.2% in 2016.

Spending on retail prescription drugs grew 0.4% in 2017 to $333.4 billion and accounted for 10% of total national health spending. It is the slowest growth rate increase since 2012, a year that saw a number of blockbuster drugs lose patent protection. This was down from a growth rate of 2.3% in 2016 and down from recent rates of 12.4% in 2014 and 8.9% in 2015.

“Slower growth in non-price factors, such as the use and mix of retail prescription drugs – and, to a lesser extent, in retail prescription drug prices – contributed to the slower overall growth in retail prescription drug spending in 2017,” according to the authors. Key factors included slower growth in the number of prescriptions dispensed, the continued shift to lower-cost generics, and slower growth in the volume of high-cost drugs, particularly those used to treat hepatitis C. Price decreases in generics and lower increases for existing brand-name drugs also contributed to the lower spending growth in 2017.

Ms. Martin and her colleagues highlighted the slower growth rate in the number of prescriptions (1.8% in 2017, down from 2.3% in 2016) “resulted in large part from a decline in the number of prescriptions dispensed for drugs used to treat pain.”

Medicare spending, which represents 20% of all national health care spending in 2017 ($705.9 billion), grew 4.2%, a slight decline from the 4.3% growth in 2016. Enrollment growth slowed slightly to 2.5% in 2017 from 2.7% in the previous year, while in the same time frame, per-enrollee expenditures increased slightly to 1.7% from 1.6%. Slower growth in fee-for-service Medicare spending was offset by faster growth in spending by Medicare private health plans.

Medicaid spending reached $581.9 billion (17% of national health care spending), and the growth rate slowed for the third straight year, increasing 2.9% in 2017 versus 4.2% in 2016. The slower growth “was influenced by a deceleration in enrollment growth and a reduction in the Medicaid net cost of health insurance as the federal government recovered payments from managed care organizations based on their favorable prior-period experience,” the authors stated. Enrollment growth has been decelerating following a peak of growth of 11.9% in 2014 because of states that elected to expand Medicaid eligibility, which was followed by 3 years of slower growth rates of 4.9%, 3.0% and 2.0% in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Per-enrollee spending also slowed to 0.9% growth in 2017 from a rate of 1.2% in 2016, attributed to “the decline in government administration and the net cost of insurance.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin A et al. Health Aff. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05085.

Health care spending as a percentage of gross domestic product remained relatively stable in 2017, despite a slowdown in the growth of spending.

utah778/Thinkstock

Total health care spending in the United States was $3.5 trillion in 2017, an increase of 3.9% from 2016, according to data released Dec. 6 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The growth rate was down from that of 2016 (4.8%) but similar to growth rates experienced during 2008-2013, according to the research article in Health Affairs.

“The slower growth in health care spending in 2017 resulted primarily from slower growth in hospital care, physician and clinical services, and retail prescription drugs, with residual use and intensity of these goods and services contributing substantially to the trend,” Anne B. Martin, an economist in the CMS Office of the Actuary’s National Health Statistics Group, and her colleagues wrote.

The report notes that slower growth in the use and intensity of health care goods and services in 2017 “may have been affected by slower growth in overall health insurance enrollment, as the insured share of the population fell from 91.1% in 2016 to 90.9% in 2017.”

Spending on hospital care increased 4.6% to $1.1 trillion in 2017 and accounted for 33% of total health care spending; however, growth was slower than in the previous year (5.6%). Ms. Martin and her colleagues noted that growth in outpatient visits slowed while growth in inpatient days increased at about the same rate and prices in hospital care grew in 2017 to 1.7% from 1.2% in the previous year.

Spending on physician and clinical services grew 4.2% in 2017 to $694.3 billion and accounted for 20% of total health care spending. The growth rate is down from the previous year (5.6%) and a recent peak of 6% in 2015.

“Although spending growth for both physician services and clinical services slowed in 2017, the growth rate for the latter (5.0%) continued to out pace the rate for the former (3.9%), as spending for most types of outpatient care centers contributed to the stronger growth in spending for clinical services,” Ms. Martin and her colleagues reported.

They attributed the slowdown to non-price factors, such as slower growth in the use and intensity of physician and clinical services, although price growth for physician and clinical services increased 0.4% in 2017, up from 0.2% in 2016.

Spending on retail prescription drugs grew 0.4% in 2017 to $333.4 billion and accounted for 10% of total national health spending. It is the slowest growth rate increase since 2012, a year that saw a number of blockbuster drugs lose patent protection. This was down from a growth rate of 2.3% in 2016 and down from recent rates of 12.4% in 2014 and 8.9% in 2015.

“Slower growth in non-price factors, such as the use and mix of retail prescription drugs – and, to a lesser extent, in retail prescription drug prices – contributed to the slower overall growth in retail prescription drug spending in 2017,” according to the authors. Key factors included slower growth in the number of prescriptions dispensed, the continued shift to lower-cost generics, and slower growth in the volume of high-cost drugs, particularly those used to treat hepatitis C. Price decreases in generics and lower increases for existing brand-name drugs also contributed to the lower spending growth in 2017.

Ms. Martin and her colleagues highlighted the slower growth rate in the number of prescriptions (1.8% in 2017, down from 2.3% in 2016) “resulted in large part from a decline in the number of prescriptions dispensed for drugs used to treat pain.”

Medicare spending, which represents 20% of all national health care spending in 2017 ($705.9 billion), grew 4.2%, a slight decline from the 4.3% growth in 2016. Enrollment growth slowed slightly to 2.5% in 2017 from 2.7% in the previous year, while in the same time frame, per-enrollee expenditures increased slightly to 1.7% from 1.6%. Slower growth in fee-for-service Medicare spending was offset by faster growth in spending by Medicare private health plans.

Medicaid spending reached $581.9 billion (17% of national health care spending), and the growth rate slowed for the third straight year, increasing 2.9% in 2017 versus 4.2% in 2016. The slower growth “was influenced by a deceleration in enrollment growth and a reduction in the Medicaid net cost of health insurance as the federal government recovered payments from managed care organizations based on their favorable prior-period experience,” the authors stated. Enrollment growth has been decelerating following a peak of growth of 11.9% in 2014 because of states that elected to expand Medicaid eligibility, which was followed by 3 years of slower growth rates of 4.9%, 3.0% and 2.0% in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Per-enrollee spending also slowed to 0.9% growth in 2017 from a rate of 1.2% in 2016, attributed to “the decline in government administration and the net cost of insurance.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin A et al. Health Aff. 2018. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05085.

Activity during week 5 of open enrollment on HealthCare.gov was up by more than 50% over the previous week, but the total number of plans selected for the 2019 coverage year remains lower than it was last year, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 773,000 plans selected during week 5 (Nov. 25 – Dec. 1) of the 2019 open enrollment season were an increase of 54% over week 4, CMS data show for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, with the cumulative total now at 3.2 million. By comparison, week-5 selections in last year’s open enrollment totaled 823,000, and the cumulative figure was 3.6 million.

The deadline for applying for 2019 coverage on HealthCare.gov is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Activity during week 5 of open enrollment on HealthCare.gov was up by more than 50% over the previous week, but the total number of plans selected for the 2019 coverage year remains lower than it was last year, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 773,000 plans selected during week 5 (Nov. 25 – Dec. 1) of the 2019 open enrollment season were an increase of 54% over week 4, CMS data show for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, with the cumulative total now at 3.2 million. By comparison, week-5 selections in last year’s open enrollment totaled 823,000, and the cumulative figure was 3.6 million.

The deadline for applying for 2019 coverage on HealthCare.gov is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Activity during week 5 of open enrollment on HealthCare.gov was up by more than 50% over the previous week, but the total number of plans selected for the 2019 coverage year remains lower than it was last year, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 773,000 plans selected during week 5 (Nov. 25 – Dec. 1) of the 2019 open enrollment season were an increase of 54% over week 4, CMS data show for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, with the cumulative total now at 3.2 million. By comparison, week-5 selections in last year’s open enrollment totaled 823,000, and the cumulative figure was 3.6 million.

The deadline for applying for 2019 coverage on HealthCare.gov is Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

It is that time of year when federal compliance officers, clinical ethicists, and staff counsels are flooded with queries about the legal and ethical acceptability of gifts. And no wonder, all the winter holidays often involve giving gifts. The simple and spontaneous acts of giving and receiving gifts become more complicated and deliberative in the federal health care system. Both legal rules and ethical values bear upon who can offer and accept what gift to whom upon what occasion and in what amount. The “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” devotes 2 entire subparts to the subject of gifts.¹ We will examine a small section of the document that can become a big issue for federal practitioners during that holiday—gifts from patients.

First, veterans (patients) are “prohibited sources” in section 5 CFR §2635.203 (d).¹ And since VA employees are subject to restrictions on accepting gifts from sources outside the government, unless an exception applies, federal employees may not accept a gift because of their official position (eg, Federal Practitioner, editor-in-chief) or a gift from a patient (prohibited source; [5 CFR §2635.201]).

It might seem like this is going to be a very short column this month, as gifts from patients are forbidden. Yet, a Christmas card or homemade fudge isn’t really a gift, is it?
5 CFR §2635.203 (b) defines what is and is not a gift: For example, minor items of food or items like a thank-you card are specifically excluded in section (b) 1-10.

Is Christmas an exception or are just types of gifts excluded?
There are exceptions to the general regulation about accepting gifts from prohibited sources. Many staff will recall hearing about the “$20 rule,” which is actually the “$20-50” rule stating that a federal employee may accept a gift from a patient (prohibited source) if the value of said gift is under $20 and the employee does not accept more than $50 from any single source in a calendar year. §2635.204 lists the exceptions. However, starting in 2017, the regulations changed to require that federal employees also consider not just whether they could accept a gift but—ethically—they should take the gift even if it was permitted under the law. The Office of Government Ethics made this change because it wanted to emphasize the importance of considering not just how things are but how things appear to be. The regulations contain detailed descriptions of what employees should think about and stipulates that the decisions will not be further scrutinized (5 CFR §2635.201[b]).¹

Based on this new emphasis on appearances, ethically, no doctor or nurse should accept the keys to a new BMW from a patient who owns a luxury car dealership. But what about more prosaic and probable presents: the holiday cookies a single father made with his children for the nurse practitioner who has been his primary care practitioner for years; the birdhouse a Vietnam veteran made in her crafts class for the surgeon who removed her gallbladder; or even the store-bought but no less heartfelt tin of popcorn from an elderly veteran for the hospitalist who saw him through a rough bought of pneumonia?

Related: Happy Federal New Year

The rules about practitioners accepting patient gifts are rational and unambiguous: It is the values conflict surrounding patient gifts that is often emotion driven and muddled; it may be easier and safer to adopt the “just say no” policy. And yet, while this might seem the most unassailable position to avoid a conflict of interest, could this possibly be a more practitioner- than patient-centered standard? Authoritative sources in the ethics literature are equally divided and ambivalent on the question.^2,3 The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual states: “In deciding whether to accept a gift from a patient, the physician should consider the nature of the gift and its value to the patient, the potential implications for the patient-physician relationship of accepting or refusing it, and the patient’s probable intention and expectations.”⁴ A small gift as a token of appreciation is not ethically problematic. Favored treatment as a result of acceptance of any gift is problematic, undermines professionalism, and may interfere with objectivity in the care of the patient.⁴

Related: Am I My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper?

Many an ethics commentator have cautioned, “beware of patients bearing gifts.”⁵ In making an ethical assessment of whether or not to accept the gift, a key question a practitioner needs to ask him or herself is about the patient’s motive. Even the patient may be unaware of the reasons behind their giving, and the wise practitioner will take a mindful moment to think about the context and timing of the gift and the nature of his or her relationship to the patient. Sadly, many of our patients are lonely especially at this family time of year and on some level may hope the gift will help slide the professional relationship toward a more personal one. Some patients may think a gift might earn them preferential treatment. Finally, a few patients may have a romantic or sexual attraction toward a clinician.

Often in the latter 2 cases, a pattern will develop that discloses the patient’s true intent. Very expensive gifts, monetary gifts, excessively personal gifts, or frequent gifts should alert the practitioner that more may be going on. A kind reminder to the patient that providing good care is the only reward needed may be sufficient. For practitioners whose ethical code does not permit them to accept gifts, then a genuine thank you and an explanation of the rules and/or values behind the refusal may be necessary. There are other times when the practitioner or a supervisor/advisor may need to reset the boundaries or even to transfer the patient to another practitioner. The norms in mental health care and psychotherapy are more stringent because of the intimacy of the relationship and the potential vulnerability of patients.⁶

For gifts that seem genuine and generous or cost a trivial amount, then there is an ethical argument to be made for accepting them with gratitude. In many cultures, hospitality is a tradition, and expressing appreciation a virtue, so when a practitioner refuses to graciously take a small gift, they risk offending the patient. Rejection of a gift can be seen as disrespectful and could cause a rupture in an otherwise sound practitioner-patient relationship. Other patients experience strong feelings of gratitude and admiration for their practitioners, stronger than most of us recognize. The ability for a patient to give their practitioner a holiday gift, particularly one they invested time and energy in creating or choosing, can enhance their sense of self-worth and individual agency. These gifts are not so much an attempt to diminish the professional power differential but to close the gap between 2 human beings in an unequal relationship that is yet one of shared decision making. All practitioners should be aware of the often underappreciated social power of a gift to influence decisions.

Related: Caring Under a Microscope

At the same time, clinicians can strive to be sensitively attuned to the reality that, sometimes the cookie is just a cookie so eat and enjoy, just remember to share with your group. External judgments are often cited as practical rules of thumb for determining the ethical acceptability of a gift: Would you want your mother, newspaper, or colleague to know you took the present? I prefer an internal moral compass that steers always to the true north of is accepting this gift really in the patient’s best interest?

It is that time of year when federal compliance officers, clinical ethicists, and staff counsels are flooded with queries about the legal and ethical acceptability of gifts. And no wonder, all the winter holidays often involve giving gifts. The simple and spontaneous acts of giving and receiving gifts become more complicated and deliberative in the federal health care system. Both legal rules and ethical values bear upon who can offer and accept what gift to whom upon what occasion and in what amount. The “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” devotes 2 entire subparts to the subject of gifts.¹ We will examine a small section of the document that can become a big issue for federal practitioners during that holiday—gifts from patients.

First, veterans (patients) are “prohibited sources” in section 5 CFR §2635.203 (d).¹ And since VA employees are subject to restrictions on accepting gifts from sources outside the government, unless an exception applies, federal employees may not accept a gift because of their official position (eg, Federal Practitioner, editor-in-chief) or a gift from a patient (prohibited source; [5 CFR §2635.201]).

It might seem like this is going to be a very short column this month, as gifts from patients are forbidden. Yet, a Christmas card or homemade fudge isn’t really a gift, is it?
5 CFR §2635.203 (b) defines what is and is not a gift: For example, minor items of food or items like a thank-you card are specifically excluded in section (b) 1-10.

Is Christmas an exception or are just types of gifts excluded?
There are exceptions to the general regulation about accepting gifts from prohibited sources. Many staff will recall hearing about the “$20 rule,” which is actually the “$20-50” rule stating that a federal employee may accept a gift from a patient (prohibited source) if the value of said gift is under $20 and the employee does not accept more than $50 from any single source in a calendar year. §2635.204 lists the exceptions. However, starting in 2017, the regulations changed to require that federal employees also consider not just whether they could accept a gift but—ethically—they should take the gift even if it was permitted under the law. The Office of Government Ethics made this change because it wanted to emphasize the importance of considering not just how things are but how things appear to be. The regulations contain detailed descriptions of what employees should think about and stipulates that the decisions will not be further scrutinized (5 CFR §2635.201[b]).¹

Based on this new emphasis on appearances, ethically, no doctor or nurse should accept the keys to a new BMW from a patient who owns a luxury car dealership. But what about more prosaic and probable presents: the holiday cookies a single father made with his children for the nurse practitioner who has been his primary care practitioner for years; the birdhouse a Vietnam veteran made in her crafts class for the surgeon who removed her gallbladder; or even the store-bought but no less heartfelt tin of popcorn from an elderly veteran for the hospitalist who saw him through a rough bought of pneumonia?

Related: Happy Federal New Year

The rules about practitioners accepting patient gifts are rational and unambiguous: It is the values conflict surrounding patient gifts that is often emotion driven and muddled; it may be easier and safer to adopt the “just say no” policy. And yet, while this might seem the most unassailable position to avoid a conflict of interest, could this possibly be a more practitioner- than patient-centered standard? Authoritative sources in the ethics literature are equally divided and ambivalent on the question.^2,3 The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual states: “In deciding whether to accept a gift from a patient, the physician should consider the nature of the gift and its value to the patient, the potential implications for the patient-physician relationship of accepting or refusing it, and the patient’s probable intention and expectations.”⁴ A small gift as a token of appreciation is not ethically problematic. Favored treatment as a result of acceptance of any gift is problematic, undermines professionalism, and may interfere with objectivity in the care of the patient.⁴

Related: Am I My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper?

Many an ethics commentator have cautioned, “beware of patients bearing gifts.”⁵ In making an ethical assessment of whether or not to accept the gift, a key question a practitioner needs to ask him or herself is about the patient’s motive. Even the patient may be unaware of the reasons behind their giving, and the wise practitioner will take a mindful moment to think about the context and timing of the gift and the nature of his or her relationship to the patient. Sadly, many of our patients are lonely especially at this family time of year and on some level may hope the gift will help slide the professional relationship toward a more personal one. Some patients may think a gift might earn them preferential treatment. Finally, a few patients may have a romantic or sexual attraction toward a clinician.

Often in the latter 2 cases, a pattern will develop that discloses the patient’s true intent. Very expensive gifts, monetary gifts, excessively personal gifts, or frequent gifts should alert the practitioner that more may be going on. A kind reminder to the patient that providing good care is the only reward needed may be sufficient. For practitioners whose ethical code does not permit them to accept gifts, then a genuine thank you and an explanation of the rules and/or values behind the refusal may be necessary. There are other times when the practitioner or a supervisor/advisor may need to reset the boundaries or even to transfer the patient to another practitioner. The norms in mental health care and psychotherapy are more stringent because of the intimacy of the relationship and the potential vulnerability of patients.⁶

For gifts that seem genuine and generous or cost a trivial amount, then there is an ethical argument to be made for accepting them with gratitude. In many cultures, hospitality is a tradition, and expressing appreciation a virtue, so when a practitioner refuses to graciously take a small gift, they risk offending the patient. Rejection of a gift can be seen as disrespectful and could cause a rupture in an otherwise sound practitioner-patient relationship. Other patients experience strong feelings of gratitude and admiration for their practitioners, stronger than most of us recognize. The ability for a patient to give their practitioner a holiday gift, particularly one they invested time and energy in creating or choosing, can enhance their sense of self-worth and individual agency. These gifts are not so much an attempt to diminish the professional power differential but to close the gap between 2 human beings in an unequal relationship that is yet one of shared decision making. All practitioners should be aware of the often underappreciated social power of a gift to influence decisions.

Related: Caring Under a Microscope

At the same time, clinicians can strive to be sensitively attuned to the reality that, sometimes the cookie is just a cookie so eat and enjoy, just remember to share with your group. External judgments are often cited as practical rules of thumb for determining the ethical acceptability of a gift: Would you want your mother, newspaper, or colleague to know you took the present? I prefer an internal moral compass that steers always to the true north of is accepting this gift really in the patient’s best interest?

It is that time of year when federal compliance officers, clinical ethicists, and staff counsels are flooded with queries about the legal and ethical acceptability of gifts. And no wonder, all the winter holidays often involve giving gifts. The simple and spontaneous acts of giving and receiving gifts become more complicated and deliberative in the federal health care system. Both legal rules and ethical values bear upon who can offer and accept what gift to whom upon what occasion and in what amount. The “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” devotes 2 entire subparts to the subject of gifts.¹ We will examine a small section of the document that can become a big issue for federal practitioners during that holiday—gifts from patients.

First, veterans (patients) are “prohibited sources” in section 5 CFR §2635.203 (d).¹ And since VA employees are subject to restrictions on accepting gifts from sources outside the government, unless an exception applies, federal employees may not accept a gift because of their official position (eg, Federal Practitioner, editor-in-chief) or a gift from a patient (prohibited source; [5 CFR §2635.201]).

It might seem like this is going to be a very short column this month, as gifts from patients are forbidden. Yet, a Christmas card or homemade fudge isn’t really a gift, is it?
5 CFR §2635.203 (b) defines what is and is not a gift: For example, minor items of food or items like a thank-you card are specifically excluded in section (b) 1-10.

Is Christmas an exception or are just types of gifts excluded?
There are exceptions to the general regulation about accepting gifts from prohibited sources. Many staff will recall hearing about the “$20 rule,” which is actually the “$20-50” rule stating that a federal employee may accept a gift from a patient (prohibited source) if the value of said gift is under $20 and the employee does not accept more than $50 from any single source in a calendar year. §2635.204 lists the exceptions. However, starting in 2017, the regulations changed to require that federal employees also consider not just whether they could accept a gift but—ethically—they should take the gift even if it was permitted under the law. The Office of Government Ethics made this change because it wanted to emphasize the importance of considering not just how things are but how things appear to be. The regulations contain detailed descriptions of what employees should think about and stipulates that the decisions will not be further scrutinized (5 CFR §2635.201[b]).¹

Based on this new emphasis on appearances, ethically, no doctor or nurse should accept the keys to a new BMW from a patient who owns a luxury car dealership. But what about more prosaic and probable presents: the holiday cookies a single father made with his children for the nurse practitioner who has been his primary care practitioner for years; the birdhouse a Vietnam veteran made in her crafts class for the surgeon who removed her gallbladder; or even the store-bought but no less heartfelt tin of popcorn from an elderly veteran for the hospitalist who saw him through a rough bought of pneumonia?

Related: Happy Federal New Year

The rules about practitioners accepting patient gifts are rational and unambiguous: It is the values conflict surrounding patient gifts that is often emotion driven and muddled; it may be easier and safer to adopt the “just say no” policy. And yet, while this might seem the most unassailable position to avoid a conflict of interest, could this possibly be a more practitioner- than patient-centered standard? Authoritative sources in the ethics literature are equally divided and ambivalent on the question.^2,3 The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual states: “In deciding whether to accept a gift from a patient, the physician should consider the nature of the gift and its value to the patient, the potential implications for the patient-physician relationship of accepting or refusing it, and the patient’s probable intention and expectations.”⁴ A small gift as a token of appreciation is not ethically problematic. Favored treatment as a result of acceptance of any gift is problematic, undermines professionalism, and may interfere with objectivity in the care of the patient.⁴

Related: Am I My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper?

Many an ethics commentator have cautioned, “beware of patients bearing gifts.”⁵ In making an ethical assessment of whether or not to accept the gift, a key question a practitioner needs to ask him or herself is about the patient’s motive. Even the patient may be unaware of the reasons behind their giving, and the wise practitioner will take a mindful moment to think about the context and timing of the gift and the nature of his or her relationship to the patient. Sadly, many of our patients are lonely especially at this family time of year and on some level may hope the gift will help slide the professional relationship toward a more personal one. Some patients may think a gift might earn them preferential treatment. Finally, a few patients may have a romantic or sexual attraction toward a clinician.

Often in the latter 2 cases, a pattern will develop that discloses the patient’s true intent. Very expensive gifts, monetary gifts, excessively personal gifts, or frequent gifts should alert the practitioner that more may be going on. A kind reminder to the patient that providing good care is the only reward needed may be sufficient. For practitioners whose ethical code does not permit them to accept gifts, then a genuine thank you and an explanation of the rules and/or values behind the refusal may be necessary. There are other times when the practitioner or a supervisor/advisor may need to reset the boundaries or even to transfer the patient to another practitioner. The norms in mental health care and psychotherapy are more stringent because of the intimacy of the relationship and the potential vulnerability of patients.⁶

For gifts that seem genuine and generous or cost a trivial amount, then there is an ethical argument to be made for accepting them with gratitude. In many cultures, hospitality is a tradition, and expressing appreciation a virtue, so when a practitioner refuses to graciously take a small gift, they risk offending the patient. Rejection of a gift can be seen as disrespectful and could cause a rupture in an otherwise sound practitioner-patient relationship. Other patients experience strong feelings of gratitude and admiration for their practitioners, stronger than most of us recognize. The ability for a patient to give their practitioner a holiday gift, particularly one they invested time and energy in creating or choosing, can enhance their sense of self-worth and individual agency. These gifts are not so much an attempt to diminish the professional power differential but to close the gap between 2 human beings in an unequal relationship that is yet one of shared decision making. All practitioners should be aware of the often underappreciated social power of a gift to influence decisions.

Related: Caring Under a Microscope

At the same time, clinicians can strive to be sensitively attuned to the reality that, sometimes the cookie is just a cookie so eat and enjoy, just remember to share with your group. External judgments are often cited as practical rules of thumb for determining the ethical acceptability of a gift: Would you want your mother, newspaper, or colleague to know you took the present? I prefer an internal moral compass that steers always to the true north of is accepting this gift really in the patient’s best interest?

Jack Drescher, MD, joins Lorenzo Norris, MD, to talk about issues surrounding conversion therapy. Dr. Drescher is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City. In this episode he explains issues with the therapy as well as how to treat patients who have undergone this “therapy.”

In 2016, Dr. Drescher and his colleagues authored a report that reviews the history of conversion therapy and offers guidelines for government regulations as well as for other regulatory bodies.

He and his colleagues wrote that “peer-reviewed literature from multiple professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, have found no evidence that conversion therapy treatments result in changes in sexual orientation.” They also noted that there is evidence suggesting that these treatments are harmful.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Jack Drescher, MD, joins Lorenzo Norris, MD, to talk about issues surrounding conversion therapy. Dr. Drescher is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City. In this episode he explains issues with the therapy as well as how to treat patients who have undergone this “therapy.”

In 2016, Dr. Drescher and his colleagues authored a report that reviews the history of conversion therapy and offers guidelines for government regulations as well as for other regulatory bodies.

He and his colleagues wrote that “peer-reviewed literature from multiple professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, have found no evidence that conversion therapy treatments result in changes in sexual orientation.” They also noted that there is evidence suggesting that these treatments are harmful.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Jack Drescher, MD, joins Lorenzo Norris, MD, to talk about issues surrounding conversion therapy. Dr. Drescher is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City. In this episode he explains issues with the therapy as well as how to treat patients who have undergone this “therapy.”

In 2016, Dr. Drescher and his colleagues authored a report that reviews the history of conversion therapy and offers guidelines for government regulations as well as for other regulatory bodies.

He and his colleagues wrote that “peer-reviewed literature from multiple professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, have found no evidence that conversion therapy treatments result in changes in sexual orientation.” They also noted that there is evidence suggesting that these treatments are harmful.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

In June 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued its National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide, 2018-2028. Its 14 goals—many highly innovative—are “to provide a framework for identifying priorities, organizing efforts, and contributing to a national focus on Veteran suicide prevention.”¹

The National Strategy recognizes that suicide prevention requires a 3-pronged approach that includes universal, selective, and targeted strategies because “suicide cannot be prevented by any single strategy.”¹ Even so, the National Strategy does not heed this core tenet. It focuses exclusively on universal, non-VA community-based priorities and efforts. That focus causes a problem because it neglects the other strategies. It also is precarious because in the current era of VA zero sum budgets, increases in 1 domain come from decreases in another. Thus, sole prioritizing of universal community components could divert funds from extant effective VA suicide prevention programs.

Community-based engagement is unquestionably necessary to prevent suicide among all veterans. Even so, a 10-year prospective strategy should build up, not compromise, VA initiatives. The plan would be improved by explicitly bolstering VA programs that are making a vital difference.

Undercutting VA Suicide Prevention

As my recent review in Federal Practitioner documented, VA’s multiple levels of evidenced-based suicide prevention practices are pre-eminent in the field.² The VA’s innovative use of predictive analytics to identify and intervene with at-risk individuals is more advanced than anything available in the community. For older veterans who constitute the majority of veterans and the majority of veteran suicides, the VA has more comprehensive and integrated mental health care services than those found in community-based care systems. The embedding of suicide prevention coordinators at every VA facility is unparalleled.

But one would never know about such quality from the National Strategy document: The VA is barely mentioned. The report never advocates for strengthening—or even maintaining—VA’s resources, programs, and efforts. It never recommends that eligible veterans be connected to VA mental health services.

The strategy observes that employment and housing are keys that protect against suicide risk. It does not, however, call for boosting and resourcing VA’s integrated approach that wraps in social services better than does any other program. Similarly, it acknowledges the role of family involvement in mitigating risk but does not propose expanding VA treatments to improve relationship well-being, leaving these services to the private sector.

The National Strategy expands on the recent suicide prevention executive order (EO) for supporting veterans during their transition from military to civilian life. Yet the EO has no funding allocated to this critical initiative. The National Strategy has the same shortcoming. In failing to advocate for more funds to pay for vastly enhanced outreach and intervention, the plan could drain the VA of existing resources needed to maintain its high-quality, suicide prevention services.

First Step: Define the Problem

The National Strategy wisely specifies that the initial step in any suicide prevention effort should be to “define the problem. This involves collecting data to determine the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of suicide deaths.” Then, “identify risk and protective factors.”

Yet the report doesn’t follow its own advice. Although little is known about the 14 of 20 veterans who die by suicide daily who are not recent users of VA health services, the National Strategy foregoes the necessity of first ascertaining crucial factors, including whether those veterans were (a) eligible for VA care; (b) receiving any mental health or substance use treatment; and (c) going through life crises, etc. What’s needed before reallocating funds to community-based programs is for Congress to finance a post-suicide, case-by-case study of these veteran decedents who did not use VA.

Proceeding in this manner has 2 benefits. First, it would allow initiatives to be targeted. Second, it could preserve funds for successful VA programs that otherwise might be cut to pay for private sector programs.

A Positive Starting Point

There are many positive components of the National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide that will make a difference. That said, they fall short of their potential. The following are suggestions that could strengthen the VA’s plan.

First, given the overwhelming use of firearms by veterans who die by suicide, the National Strategy acknowledges that an effective prevention policy must attend to this factor. It prudently calls for expansion of firearm safety/suicide prevention collaboration with firearm owners, firearm dealers, shooting clubs, and gun/hunting organizations. This will help ensure that lethal means safety counseling is culturally relevant, comes from a trusted source, and has no antifirearm bias.

Nothing would be more useful in diminishing suicide than correcting the false belief among many veterans that “the VA wants to take away our guns.” If that misperception were replaced with an accurate message, not only would more at-risk veterans seek out VA mental health care, more veterans/families/friends would adopt a new cultural norm akin to buddies talk to vets in crisis about safely storing guns. Establishing a workgroup with gun constituency collaborators could spearhead such a shift.

Second, although, the National Strategy emphasizes the benefits of using peer supports, peers currently express qualms that they have too little expertise intervening with this vulnerable population. Peers could be given extensive training and continued supervision in suicide prevention techniques.

Third, the National Strategy calls for expanded use of big data predictive analytics, whose initial implementation has shown great promise. However, it fails to mention that this approach depends on linked electronic health records and therefore best succeeds for at-risk veterans within VA but not in insulated community care. 

Fourth, the National Strategy recognizes that reshaping media and entertainment portrayals could help prevent veteran suicide. Yet it ignores the importance of correcting the sullied narrative about the VA. The disproportionate negative image contributes to veterans’ reticence to seek VA health care. One simple solution would be to require that service members readying to transition to civilian life be informed about the superior nature of VA mental health care. Another is to provide the media with positive VA stories more routinely.

Fifth, the National Strategy suggests that enhanced community care guidelines be developed, but it never recommends that community partners should equal VA’s standards. Those providers should be mandated to conduct the same root cause analyses and comprehensive documentation of suicide risk assessments that VA does.

Conclusion

With zero sum department budgets, the National Strategy’s exclusive priority on public health, community-based initiatives could undercut VA successes. An amended plan that explicitly supports and further strengthens successful VA suicide prevention programs is warranted.

In June 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued its National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide, 2018-2028. Its 14 goals—many highly innovative—are “to provide a framework for identifying priorities, organizing efforts, and contributing to a national focus on Veteran suicide prevention.”¹

The National Strategy recognizes that suicide prevention requires a 3-pronged approach that includes universal, selective, and targeted strategies because “suicide cannot be prevented by any single strategy.”¹ Even so, the National Strategy does not heed this core tenet. It focuses exclusively on universal, non-VA community-based priorities and efforts. That focus causes a problem because it neglects the other strategies. It also is precarious because in the current era of VA zero sum budgets, increases in 1 domain come from decreases in another. Thus, sole prioritizing of universal community components could divert funds from extant effective VA suicide prevention programs.

Community-based engagement is unquestionably necessary to prevent suicide among all veterans. Even so, a 10-year prospective strategy should build up, not compromise, VA initiatives. The plan would be improved by explicitly bolstering VA programs that are making a vital difference.

Undercutting VA Suicide Prevention

As my recent review in Federal Practitioner documented, VA’s multiple levels of evidenced-based suicide prevention practices are pre-eminent in the field.² The VA’s innovative use of predictive analytics to identify and intervene with at-risk individuals is more advanced than anything available in the community. For older veterans who constitute the majority of veterans and the majority of veteran suicides, the VA has more comprehensive and integrated mental health care services than those found in community-based care systems. The embedding of suicide prevention coordinators at every VA facility is unparalleled.

But one would never know about such quality from the National Strategy document: The VA is barely mentioned. The report never advocates for strengthening—or even maintaining—VA’s resources, programs, and efforts. It never recommends that eligible veterans be connected to VA mental health services.

The strategy observes that employment and housing are keys that protect against suicide risk. It does not, however, call for boosting and resourcing VA’s integrated approach that wraps in social services better than does any other program. Similarly, it acknowledges the role of family involvement in mitigating risk but does not propose expanding VA treatments to improve relationship well-being, leaving these services to the private sector.

The National Strategy expands on the recent suicide prevention executive order (EO) for supporting veterans during their transition from military to civilian life. Yet the EO has no funding allocated to this critical initiative. The National Strategy has the same shortcoming. In failing to advocate for more funds to pay for vastly enhanced outreach and intervention, the plan could drain the VA of existing resources needed to maintain its high-quality, suicide prevention services.

First Step: Define the Problem

The National Strategy wisely specifies that the initial step in any suicide prevention effort should be to “define the problem. This involves collecting data to determine the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of suicide deaths.” Then, “identify risk and protective factors.”

Yet the report doesn’t follow its own advice. Although little is known about the 14 of 20 veterans who die by suicide daily who are not recent users of VA health services, the National Strategy foregoes the necessity of first ascertaining crucial factors, including whether those veterans were (a) eligible for VA care; (b) receiving any mental health or substance use treatment; and (c) going through life crises, etc. What’s needed before reallocating funds to community-based programs is for Congress to finance a post-suicide, case-by-case study of these veteran decedents who did not use VA.

Proceeding in this manner has 2 benefits. First, it would allow initiatives to be targeted. Second, it could preserve funds for successful VA programs that otherwise might be cut to pay for private sector programs.

A Positive Starting Point

There are many positive components of the National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide that will make a difference. That said, they fall short of their potential. The following are suggestions that could strengthen the VA’s plan.

First, given the overwhelming use of firearms by veterans who die by suicide, the National Strategy acknowledges that an effective prevention policy must attend to this factor. It prudently calls for expansion of firearm safety/suicide prevention collaboration with firearm owners, firearm dealers, shooting clubs, and gun/hunting organizations. This will help ensure that lethal means safety counseling is culturally relevant, comes from a trusted source, and has no antifirearm bias.

Nothing would be more useful in diminishing suicide than correcting the false belief among many veterans that “the VA wants to take away our guns.” If that misperception were replaced with an accurate message, not only would more at-risk veterans seek out VA mental health care, more veterans/families/friends would adopt a new cultural norm akin to buddies talk to vets in crisis about safely storing guns. Establishing a workgroup with gun constituency collaborators could spearhead such a shift.

Second, although, the National Strategy emphasizes the benefits of using peer supports, peers currently express qualms that they have too little expertise intervening with this vulnerable population. Peers could be given extensive training and continued supervision in suicide prevention techniques.

Third, the National Strategy calls for expanded use of big data predictive analytics, whose initial implementation has shown great promise. However, it fails to mention that this approach depends on linked electronic health records and therefore best succeeds for at-risk veterans within VA but not in insulated community care. 

Fourth, the National Strategy recognizes that reshaping media and entertainment portrayals could help prevent veteran suicide. Yet it ignores the importance of correcting the sullied narrative about the VA. The disproportionate negative image contributes to veterans’ reticence to seek VA health care. One simple solution would be to require that service members readying to transition to civilian life be informed about the superior nature of VA mental health care. Another is to provide the media with positive VA stories more routinely.

Fifth, the National Strategy suggests that enhanced community care guidelines be developed, but it never recommends that community partners should equal VA’s standards. Those providers should be mandated to conduct the same root cause analyses and comprehensive documentation of suicide risk assessments that VA does.

Conclusion

With zero sum department budgets, the National Strategy’s exclusive priority on public health, community-based initiatives could undercut VA successes. An amended plan that explicitly supports and further strengthens successful VA suicide prevention programs is warranted.

In June 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued its National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide, 2018-2028. Its 14 goals—many highly innovative—are “to provide a framework for identifying priorities, organizing efforts, and contributing to a national focus on Veteran suicide prevention.”¹

The National Strategy recognizes that suicide prevention requires a 3-pronged approach that includes universal, selective, and targeted strategies because “suicide cannot be prevented by any single strategy.”¹ Even so, the National Strategy does not heed this core tenet. It focuses exclusively on universal, non-VA community-based priorities and efforts. That focus causes a problem because it neglects the other strategies. It also is precarious because in the current era of VA zero sum budgets, increases in 1 domain come from decreases in another. Thus, sole prioritizing of universal community components could divert funds from extant effective VA suicide prevention programs.

Community-based engagement is unquestionably necessary to prevent suicide among all veterans. Even so, a 10-year prospective strategy should build up, not compromise, VA initiatives. The plan would be improved by explicitly bolstering VA programs that are making a vital difference.

Undercutting VA Suicide Prevention

As my recent review in Federal Practitioner documented, VA’s multiple levels of evidenced-based suicide prevention practices are pre-eminent in the field.² The VA’s innovative use of predictive analytics to identify and intervene with at-risk individuals is more advanced than anything available in the community. For older veterans who constitute the majority of veterans and the majority of veteran suicides, the VA has more comprehensive and integrated mental health care services than those found in community-based care systems. The embedding of suicide prevention coordinators at every VA facility is unparalleled.

But one would never know about such quality from the National Strategy document: The VA is barely mentioned. The report never advocates for strengthening—or even maintaining—VA’s resources, programs, and efforts. It never recommends that eligible veterans be connected to VA mental health services.

The strategy observes that employment and housing are keys that protect against suicide risk. It does not, however, call for boosting and resourcing VA’s integrated approach that wraps in social services better than does any other program. Similarly, it acknowledges the role of family involvement in mitigating risk but does not propose expanding VA treatments to improve relationship well-being, leaving these services to the private sector.

The National Strategy expands on the recent suicide prevention executive order (EO) for supporting veterans during their transition from military to civilian life. Yet the EO has no funding allocated to this critical initiative. The National Strategy has the same shortcoming. In failing to advocate for more funds to pay for vastly enhanced outreach and intervention, the plan could drain the VA of existing resources needed to maintain its high-quality, suicide prevention services.

First Step: Define the Problem

The National Strategy wisely specifies that the initial step in any suicide prevention effort should be to “define the problem. This involves collecting data to determine the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of suicide deaths.” Then, “identify risk and protective factors.”

Yet the report doesn’t follow its own advice. Although little is known about the 14 of 20 veterans who die by suicide daily who are not recent users of VA health services, the National Strategy foregoes the necessity of first ascertaining crucial factors, including whether those veterans were (a) eligible for VA care; (b) receiving any mental health or substance use treatment; and (c) going through life crises, etc. What’s needed before reallocating funds to community-based programs is for Congress to finance a post-suicide, case-by-case study of these veteran decedents who did not use VA.

Proceeding in this manner has 2 benefits. First, it would allow initiatives to be targeted. Second, it could preserve funds for successful VA programs that otherwise might be cut to pay for private sector programs.

A Positive Starting Point

There are many positive components of the National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide that will make a difference. That said, they fall short of their potential. The following are suggestions that could strengthen the VA’s plan.

First, given the overwhelming use of firearms by veterans who die by suicide, the National Strategy acknowledges that an effective prevention policy must attend to this factor. It prudently calls for expansion of firearm safety/suicide prevention collaboration with firearm owners, firearm dealers, shooting clubs, and gun/hunting organizations. This will help ensure that lethal means safety counseling is culturally relevant, comes from a trusted source, and has no antifirearm bias.

Nothing would be more useful in diminishing suicide than correcting the false belief among many veterans that “the VA wants to take away our guns.” If that misperception were replaced with an accurate message, not only would more at-risk veterans seek out VA mental health care, more veterans/families/friends would adopt a new cultural norm akin to buddies talk to vets in crisis about safely storing guns. Establishing a workgroup with gun constituency collaborators could spearhead such a shift.

Second, although, the National Strategy emphasizes the benefits of using peer supports, peers currently express qualms that they have too little expertise intervening with this vulnerable population. Peers could be given extensive training and continued supervision in suicide prevention techniques.

Third, the National Strategy calls for expanded use of big data predictive analytics, whose initial implementation has shown great promise. However, it fails to mention that this approach depends on linked electronic health records and therefore best succeeds for at-risk veterans within VA but not in insulated community care. 

Fourth, the National Strategy recognizes that reshaping media and entertainment portrayals could help prevent veteran suicide. Yet it ignores the importance of correcting the sullied narrative about the VA. The disproportionate negative image contributes to veterans’ reticence to seek VA health care. One simple solution would be to require that service members readying to transition to civilian life be informed about the superior nature of VA mental health care. Another is to provide the media with positive VA stories more routinely.

Fifth, the National Strategy suggests that enhanced community care guidelines be developed, but it never recommends that community partners should equal VA’s standards. Those providers should be mandated to conduct the same root cause analyses and comprehensive documentation of suicide risk assessments that VA does.

Conclusion

With zero sum department budgets, the National Strategy’s exclusive priority on public health, community-based initiatives could undercut VA successes. An amended plan that explicitly supports and further strengthens successful VA suicide prevention programs is warranted.