Dental Visits May Prevent Pneumonia

Several sources are reporting on a paper presented at IDWeek that showed people with a regular dental checkup had half the incidence of bacterial pneumonia (1). Michelle Doll and colleagues used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data from 2013. The researchers were able to assess participants' access to dental care and used ICD-9 codes to look for bacterial pneumonia in the previous year. The survey had data on 26,687 people, including 441 who had an episode of bacterial pneumonia. Thirty-four percent of those who developed pneumonia reported having at least two dental checkups a year, compared with 46% of those who did not. It is important to point out that this is an observational study and there were significant differences between those who developed and did not develop bacterial pneumonia. Those who got pneumonia were: more likely to be white and older, with an average age of 47 versus 40; more likely to have comorbidities and cognitive limitations; and less likely to have dental insurance.

Nevertheless, the data is consistent with the hypothesis that microaspiration is a frequent cause of bacterial pneumonia. Previous data has shown oral chlorhexidine reduces ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU (2). Although a large randomized study is needed, the data suggests that dental care may be another community-acquired pneumonia preventative in addition to conjugated pneumococcal vaccine (3).

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Smith M. Regular checkups linked to protection against bacterial disease. Medscape. October 28, 2016. Available at: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IDWeek/61071 (accessed 10/28/16). 
2. Hua F, Xie H, Worthington HV, Furness S, Zhang Q, Li C. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 25;10:CD008367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bonten MJ, Huijts SM, Bolkenbaas M, et al. Polysaccharide conjugate vaccine against pneumococcal pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 19;372(12):1114-25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Dental visits may prevent penumonia. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(4):186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc105-16 PDF

Hospital Employment of Physicians Does Not Improve Quality

The Annals of Internal Medicine posted a manuscript on-line today reporting that the growing trend of physician employment by hospitals does not improve quality (1). In 2003, approximately 29% of hospitals employed members of their physician workforce, a number that rose to 42% by 2012. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of U.S. acute care hospitals between 2003 and 2012 and examined mortality rates, 30-day readmission rates, length of stay, and patient satisfaction scores for common medical conditions for 803 hospitals that switched to the employment model compared with 2085 control hospitals that did not switch. Switching hospitals were more likely to be large (11.6% vs. 7.1%) or major teaching hospitals (7.5% vs. 4.5%) and less likely to be for-profit institutions (8.8% vs. 19.9%) (all p values <0.001).

The authors used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File (MedPAR) from 2002 to 2013 to calculate hospital-level risk-adjusted performance on mortality, readmissions, and length of stay for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia. Hospital Compare data from 2007 to 2013 was used to assess overall patient satisfaction. After conversion to a physician employed model, no difference was found in any of 4 primary composite quality metrics with the single exception of readmission rates for pneumonia. That decline was modest (19.3% vs. 19.1% readmissions) and judged not likely to be clinically significant by the authors.

Recently, Baker and colleagues found that hospital employment of  physicians is associated with higher spending and prices (2). This data combined with the data from the present study suggest that the trend is for higher healthcare costs without an improvement in quality. Commenting in Medscape Richard Gunderman, a well-known healthcare delivery researcher from the University of Indiana, said that those who think quality comes from increasingly larger organizations with more advanced information technology and greater standardization across the system will see these results as surprising and disappointing (3). Pointing to high levels of burnout and widespread complaints of lack of time with patients, Gunderman said less physician control over individual patient care has taken a toll. "There's no doubt that a demoralized workforce will tend to drive quality down," he said. "Many hospitals and health systems around the country are grappling with poor and, in some cases, dismal engagement scores. I think that's an indication that a lot of physicians feel that the changes taking place across healthcare are problematic."

Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Limitations of the study was that the patients were primarily Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Therefore, the applicability of the findings to a younger population is unknown, however, the authors doubted that after switching to an employment model, hospitals would improve care for one group and not another.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Scott KW, Orav EJ, Cutler KM, Jha AK. Changes in hospital–physician affiliations in U.S. hospitals and their effect on quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2016. Available at: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2552987 (accessed 9/20/16). [CrossRef]
2. Baker LC, Bundorf MK, Kessler DP. Vertical integration: hospital ownership of physician practices is associated with higher prices and spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 May;33(5):756-63. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Frellick M. Physician employment by hospitals does not improve quality Medscape. September 19, 2016. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/868978?nlid=109338_2863&src=wnl_dne_160920_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=1200121&faf=1#vp_2 (accessed 9/20/16). 

Cite as: Robbins RA. Hospital employment of physicians does not improve quality. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(3):133-4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc099-16 PDF

Clinton's and Trump's Positions on Major Healthcare Issues

As the presidential election nears, the positions of the two major candidates on healthcare have received more attention. Both Clinton and Trump have their healthcare positions listed on their websites (1,2). Below is a table listing their positions from their websites and occasionally other sources followed by a brief discussion of each of the issues. 

Table 1. Presidential candidate positions on healthcare issues. A questions mark denotes an unclear position.

Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare)

This is a major difference between Clinton and Trump. Clinton favors its retention (1). Trump favors its repeal (2).

Access to reproductive health

Clinton supports reproductive preventive care, affordable contraception, and safe and legal abortion (1). Trump's position is unclear. He currently is pro-life but would not use Federal funds for abortion (2). Federal funding for abortions us is prohibited by law (3).

Allow importing drugs to reduce costs

Both candidates favor importation of prescription drugs to reduce prices (1,2).

Block-grant Medicaid to the states

Trump block-grants asserting that "the state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead" (2). This idea is not new with Congressional Republicans pushing for block-granting Medicaid at least since the 1990s (4) Clinton's position is unclear (1).

Coverage of poor

Both candidates favor universal healthcare including the poor (1,2).

Healthcare for illegal immigrants

Clinton favors extending healthcare to families regardless of immigration status by allowing families to buy health insurance on the health exchanges (1). Trump's website notes that providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually and he favors strict enforcement of the current immigration laws (2).

Healthcare savings accounts

Trump favors savings accounts which are permitted under the ACA but with restrictions (2,5). Clinton's position is unclear.

Increase access to healthcare

Both candidates favor increased access to healthcare (1,2).

Increase income tax deductions for healthcare costs

Both candidates favor increasing income tax deductions for healthcare costs but their plans are different (1,2). Trump favors full deduction of health insurance premium payments from tax returns. Clinton favors a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per family for excessive out-of-pocket costs.

Price transparency

Both candidates favor increased healthcare price transparency (1,2).

Public option

Clinton favors a public option (1). Trump's position is unclear.

Reduce copays and deductibles

Clinton favors reducing copays and deductibles (1). Trump's position is unclear.

Sell insurance across state lines

Trump favors insurance companies selling healthcare insurance across state lines (2). This has been a part of the platform of every Republican presidential nominee and is permitted in 5 states but insurance companies have been reluctant to sell these policies (6). Clinton's position is unclear.

References

1. Hillary Clinton for America. Available at: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/ (accessed 9/6/16).
2. Donald J. Trump for President. Available at: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform (accessed 9/6/16).
3. Salganicoff A, Beamesderfer A, Kurani N, Sobel L. Coverage for abortion services and the ACA. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 19, 2014. Available at: http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/coverage-for-abortion-services-and-the-aca/ (accessed 9/6/16).
4. Dickson V. GOP's Medicaid block-grant plan won't happen while Obama's in office. Medscape. March 19, 2015. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150319/NEWS/150319877 (accessed 9/6/16).
5. Norris L. Under the ACA, can I still have an individual HDHP and an HSA? Healthinsurance.org. May 16, 2016. Available at: https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/i-have-an-individual-hdhp-and-an-hsa-will-i-still-be-able-to-have-them-under-the-aca/ (accessed 9/6/16).
6. Cauchi R. Out-of-state health insurance - allowing purchases (state implementation report). National Conference of State Legislators. December, 2015. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx (accessed 9/6/16).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Clinton's and Trump's positions on major healthcare issues. Southwst J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(3):126-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc091-16 PDF

IDSA Releases Updated Coccidioidomycosis Guidelines

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released updated Guidelines for the Treatment of Coccidioidomycosis, also known as cocci or Valley Fever (1). Coccidioidomycosis is a fungal infection endemic to the southwestern United States and a common cause of pneumonia and pulmonary nodules in this area. However, the infection can disseminate systemically especially in immunocompromised hosts and certain ethnic populations resulting in a variety of pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications. In addition to recommendations for these complications, the new guidelines address management of special at-risk populations, preemptive management strategies in at-risk populations and after unintentional laboratory exposure. The guidelines also suggest shorter courses of antibiotics for hospitalized patients and more ambulatory treatment for most individuals who have contracted Valley Fever.

The panel was led by John N. Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona Health Sciences. Galgiani led a panel of 16 experts including faculty from the University of Arizona, Mayo Clinic Arizona, University of California San Diego, University of California Los Angeles, Utah, Barrows Neurological Institute and the University of Utah.  

A reference booklet, “Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis)—Tutorial for Primary Care Physicians,” from the UA Valley Fever Center for Excellence complements the guidelines and is available through the Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care (2) and also available at the Valley Fever Center for Excellence website.

The guidelines begin with a disclaimer that it is "important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients and ... not intended to supplant physician judgment". This is especially important because many of the guidelines are based on expert  opinion rather than strong scientific evidence.

References

1. Galgiani JN, Ampel NM, Blair JE, Catanzaro A, Geertsma F, Hoover SE, Johnson RH, Kusne S, Lisse J, MacDonald JD, Meyerson SL, Raksin PB, Siever J, Stevens DA, Sunenshine R, Theodore N. 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guideline for the treatment of coccidioidomycosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 15;63(6):e112-46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Galgiani JN. Valley fever (coccidioidomycosis): tutorial for primary care physicians. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(5):265-88. [CrossRef]

Cite as: Robbins RA. IDSA releases updated coccidioidomycosis guidelines. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(3):125. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc090-16 PDF

Withdraw of Insurers from ACA Markets Leaving Many Southwest Patients with Few or No Choices

Thirty-one percent of the nation’s counties are projected to have only one insurer offering health plans on the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) exchanges next year, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation (1). Another 31% are projected to have only be only two. Most of the likely one-insurer counties are predominantly rural (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Estimated number of insurers participating in Affordable Care Act exchanges by county, 2017.

Particularly hard hit is Arizona where most of the rural portions of the state will have only one insurer and Pinal County will have none. Rural Nevada is similarly affected along with Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma and much of the Southeast US.

That would give exchange customers in large areas of the U.S. far less choice than they had this year, when only 7% of counties had one insurer and 29% had two (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Net changes in number of insurers compared to 2016.

Many insurers are losing money on the health plans they sell through the exchanges. Insurance giants UnitedHealth, Humana, and Aetna have cited heavy losses as the reason for withdrawing from ACA marketplaces (2). The insurers that remain are in some cases seeking sharp premium increases for next year, trying to get back in the black amid higher-than-expected costs.

The marketplaces were supposed to hold down prices and expand choice by fostering competition among insurers. A concern when the exchanges were set up was that they might eventually reach the "tipping point". This is the point where too many sick patients with high health care costs are enrolled in the exchanges. Their high costs lead to higher insurance premiums driving the young and healthy enrollees out of the exchanges. According to the insurers the young and healthy enrollees low costs are necessary to balance out claims ledgers. President Obama has called for the creation of a public insurance option to compete alongside private plans in places where competition is limited.

References

1. Cox C, Semanskee A. Preliminary data on insurer exits and entrants in 2017 affordable care act marketplaces. Kaiser Health News. August 28, 2016. Avialble at: http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/preliminary-data-on-insurer-exits-and-entrants-in-2017-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/ (accessed 8/29/16).
2. Mathews AW, Armour S. Health insurers’ pullback threatens to create monopolies. Wall Street Journal. August 28, 2016. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-insurers-pullback-threatens-to-create-monopolies-1472408338 (accessed 8/29/16).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Withdraw of insurers from ACA markets leaving many southwest patients with few or no choices. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(2):97-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc085-16 PDF