By leveraging the solution infrastructure across multiple communities, Memphis and Nashville should see a dramatic decrease in their health care costs. A landmark 2010 survey of organizations working on Health Information Exchange conducted by the eHealth Initiative found significant cost reductions for physicians, hospitals, payers, and patients. For example, 50 percent of respondents reported a reduction in cost of clerical administration time from 2009 to 2010; 30 percent saw a reduction in lab and radiology staff time; 75 percent reported a reduction in redundant tests; 78 percent realized a reduction in medical errors; and 133 percent reported a reduction in write-offs or accounts receivables for providers. In addition to greater efficiency and cost savings, this level of flexibility will create an infrastructure to fulfill provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that tie incentive payments to the meaningful use of EHRs.

Stimulism!

EricLykins's picture

Also

West Tennessee Healthcare has recently joined with AT&T to implement AT&T Healthcare Community Online, a service that will allow for more accurate and timely data sharing in the 17 counties the system serves, the release said.

HCO Benefits:

* Virtually anytime, anywhere access to patient information and eHealth applications.
* Integrates mobile health and telehealth applications for remote diagnosis and care.
* Supports compliance with HIPAA regulations* with strong security measures.
* Single sign-on, federated authentication with pre-integrated applications.

*Kennedy/Kassenbaum legislation, 1996

CitizenVote's picture

I think time will tell on

I think time will tell on what will or will not be on this alleged "reform" regarding the Health Care Act.

It does not address the fundamental issue of the "crisis" in the first place: actual patient costs.

Providing insurance does what, exactly? The sole reason that any person needs it is to what? Pay for patient costs of seeing the doctor.

Eliminating maximum limits does what, exactly, to address patient costs? If anything, it is an enabler to additional patient costs.

The current "crisis" as it is termed today is due to the medical and physical condition of the many of the citizens in this country. Considering that there is no way for a federal piece of legislation to "fix" such a crisis what should be done is to scrap the legislation and correct it so that an acceptable piece of quality federal policy is implemented.

What should be the centerpiece is Prevention, which is in the current law but not nearly enough of it. Prevention is how, for the most part, that the substantial amount of all of these patient costs will go away, to be honest about it.

Obesity may impact certain individuals because of their particular metabolism and physiology but for most with weight issues it is a matter of proper diet and routine to fix it. Everything from mandating in federal policy things like sidewalks to be built every time a road is built to restricting all "junk food" from entering a school, public or private, to medical screenings and physicals that PREVENT a condition should be the focus. Changing the USDA to outlaw many of the current "economy of scale" agro-practices while acknowledging that mass consumption is a part of modern America are just a tip of what could be done to end this crisis.

It developed over the last 20-25 years and will take at least a decade to solve, provided that real solutions are implemented.

Changing a culture that has developed for the last generation to accept obesity as a norm, fast food as "food," and conditioning children to plop in front of a screen of some kind instead of being physically active is just part of what needs to be done to fix the "health" crisis, which is what it really is more than a "health care" crisis anyhow.

rikki's picture

Obesity has certainly driven

Obesity has certainly driven up medical costs, but you are missing two far more important factors: aging and medical technology. The leading cause of increased medical costs is medical technology itself. There is simply much more a doctor can do for a patient now than there was when our health care system took shape in the middle of the last century.

Much of this technological advance has been aimed not at obesity but aging. We spend huge sums prolonging life and counteracting the effects of age.

Your remedy is not all that good because your diagnosis of the problem is flawed. You are solving a secondary problem and leaving primary problems unaddressed.

CitizenVote's picture

No I am not either as the

No I am not either as the actual cost of a trip to the doctor is the sole reason for any health insurance. Health insurance is the same as insurance for your auto, you get it to address the financial risk of the costs of health care.

Aging is not the issue either, what do you recommend? To cease improvements in age related health? Why wouldn't the human race seek to both improve longevity and the overall health of that longevity?

It is those "costs" that are issue and the development of technology for medical use has been used as the crutch to justify increasing health costs.

Obesity is the driver, age plays a major role but there is no crisis of costs without the mess that obesity and all of the related health issues that it now creates.

The other real culprit of health costs, NOT care is the role of insurance actuaries. Those actuarial models provide the foundation for the real cost of health insurance. When the federal government does 100% of zero to address the foundation of how all insurance premiums and costs are assessed it has failed miserably to deal with the cost issue.

When you talk of "age" or "technology" you are also missing the point altogether because it is actuaries that determine all costs of every insurance premium sold in the USA. Those models are derived from how obesity and yes, age, plays a role in costs but insurance premiums being under the hold of actuaries has to be changed or no health care costs will be manageable.

rikki's picture

In order to reply to this,

In order to reply to this, I'd have to find it relevant or meaningful. I find it muddled and aimless.

EricLykins's picture

Kaiser Family Foundation

has a boatload of things to read, such as The $174 Billion Question: How to Reduce Diabetes and Obesity

actuaries site search

CitizenVote's picture

You eliminate obesity and you

You eliminate obesity and you eliminate the basis for what actuaries use to justify the cost of premiums. The only other solutions are to eliminate the actuaries, which is not all that bad of an idea. Implement pay for service models but that is wholly dependent upon the Physicians allowing it. Cooperatives that spread the costs around but then you are right back to the role of actuaries.

Health care and costs are two completely different issues and the failure of all sides to distinguish the two and address them accordingly is precisely why there is the mess we now have and not from bashing insurance companies or other such activities.

When health insurance companies were allowed to develop anyhow that was the first salvo in the mess that has developed that we now call "health care crisis or reform."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

      Wire Reports

        Lost Medicaid Funding

        To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

        Search and Archives