Memorial Day, Remembering our Veterans With Treatment

May 27, 2013 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Health Law 

It is Memorial Day, and like in past years I will ask that we take a moment here to consider the sacrifices at the heart  of this holiday—we remember our fallen, we memorialize our dead. At present, the Veterans Administration is having great difficulty in treating and compensating our war wounded.

Number of Veterans Affected, Multiple Deployments

Since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, about 2.5 million service members have been deployed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to Department of Defense data. Of those, more than 800,000 were deployed more than once; 400,000 have done three or more deployments, and nearly 37,000 were deployed more than five times.[1] Obviously, multiple deployments increase the likelihood of service related injuries.

Wounded & Injured

It is worth noting that although considered the longest wars in U.S. history, Iraq and Afghanistan have produced relatively few U.S. service member deaths: 6,648 (as of March, 2013), but have produced a large number of wounded in action (roughly 50,000). According to reports such as Modern Warfare, by Alec C. Beekley, MD, FACS, LTC, MC, US Army, Harold Bohman, MD, CAPT, MC, US Navy, and Danielle Schindler, MD,[2] compared to Vietnam, the mortality rate of combat wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq has decreased by nearly half. New medical procedures, protective gear such as body armor and faster medical evacuation are saving more than 90 percent of all those who fall in battle, many of whom would have died on the battlefield just a generation ago. They live, but they are compromised substantially.

Type of Injuries

Notably, according to Modern Warfare, prior wars “had a higher proportion of thoracic injuries and fewer head and neck injuries. There has been a decreased incidence of wounds to the abdomen since the Persian Gulf War. The percentage of blast-related injuries is now higher.”

The number of injured are estimated by many to be ten and twenty times the number wounded in action.[3]

As would be expected with the dominance of “blast related injuries,” hearing loss, traumatic brain injury (TBI), PTSD and clinical depression, are leading injuries, with hearing loss first.[4] A 2005 Department of Veterans Affairs research paper found that one third of returning soldiers were referred to audiologists due to exposure to blasts, and 72% of them were identified as having hearing loss;[5] a 2013 report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that 255,330 members of the military suffer from TBI;[6] a 2008 study by the Rand Corp found that 14% of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans screened positive for PTSD, 14% for major depression, and 19% had a probable traumatic brain injury.[7]

And notably, the VA reports that 37% of the claims it has backlogged at present are from Vietnam Veterans, a great influx of which (260,000) occurred after the VA finally expanded the number of illnesses presumed to be associated with Agent Orange.[8]

VA Backlog

The Center for Investigative Reporting recently released a report[9] (featured on NPR)[10] which found:

  • Despite assurances from the Obama Administration that the VA would be streamlined, “the internal documents show the VA expects the number of veterans waiting – currently about 900,000 – to continue to increase throughout 2013 and top a million by the end of this month [March, 2013].
  • The VA’s internal documents “show that the average wait time for veterans filing disability claims fell by more than a third under President George W. Bush, even as more than 320,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans filed disability claims.
  • The documents show delays escalated only after Obama took office and have more than doubled since, as 455,000 more returning veterans filed their claims.”
  • Pointedly, under President Obama “the ranks of veterans waiting more than a year for their benefits grew from 11,000 in 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, to 245,000 in December – an increase of more than 2,000 percent.”
  • Although the VA tracks and widely publishes the avg. number of days it takes to process a claim (273 days), that number pointedly does not refer to new claims. The average number of days to process a new claim in Newark is 371.6 days[11]

That amounts to roughly a year and a week for an initial claim in Newark, New Jersey– a very long time to live for a disabled veteran without much needed payments.

And importantly, if a veteran fails to characterize the claim correctly, the appeals process can literally take 2 and 3 years.

 



[1] Chris Adams, Millions went to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, leaving many with lifelong scars, McClatchy News (March 14, 2013), http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/14/185880/millions-went-to-war-in-iraq-afghanistan.html.

[2] Alec. C. Beckley, et al., Modern Warfare, in Lessons Learned from OEF and OIF: Combat Casualty Care (Office of the Surgeon General Department of the Army, 2012), available at http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/book/ccc/UCLAchp1.pdf .

[3]See Linda J. Bilmes, The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions will Cancel Out the Peace Dividend (2013) citing VBA Office of Performance, VA Benefits Activity, Veterans Deployed to the Global War on Terror (through September 2012) (noting that 56% of veterans deployed have received VA medical facility service and that one in two have filed disability claims— and that 2.5 million have served), http://costsofwar.org/sites/all/themes/costsofwar/images/Financial_leg.pdf;  Dan Froomkin, How many U.S. soldiers were wounded in Iraq? We have no idea, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University (Dec. 30, 2011), at http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=545.

[4] Froomkin, supra at note 5.

[5] Stephen A. Fausti, et al., Hearing health and care: The need for improved hearing loss prevention and hearing conservation practices, 42-4 J. of Rehab. Res. & Dev. 45 (July/Aug. 2005) at http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/05/42/4suppl2/fausti.html

[6] U.S. Congressional Research Service, U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, Feb.5, 2013; See also Spencer Ackerman, The Cost of War Includes at Least 253,330 Brain Injuries and 1,700 Amputations, Wired, Feb. 8, 2013, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/cost-of-war/.

[7] Rand Corp., Invisible Wounds of War, (2008), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG720.html.

[8] Allison Hickey, Balancing the Record on the Claims Backlog, Vantage Point: Dispatches from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Mar . 19, 2013), http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/8995/balancing-the-record-on-the-claims-backlog/.

[9] Aaron Glantz, VA’s ability to quickly provide benefits plummets under Obama, Center for Investigative Reporting (March 11, 2013), http://cironline.org/reports/va%E2%80%99s-ability-quickly-provide-benefits-plummets-under-obama-4241

[10] Fresh Air, Veterans Face Red Tape Accessing Disability, Other Benefits, Phila. Public Radio (March 18, 2014), http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174639343/veterans-face-red-tape-accessing-disability-other-benefits.

Share

Newtown’s Impact on Mental Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act

January 23, 2013 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Health Law, Mental Health 

Health Law, anti-fraudIn response to the jarring and horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14, Pres. Obama signed a number of executive orders last week, flanked by schoolchildren and Vice Pres. Biden.  The official investigation into the contributing factors and details surrounding the mass shooting continues, but much of the public discourse on the policy response has already begun in earnest.  Most solutions seem to be focused on addressing two identifiable “causes” of the shooting:  first, the availability of guns (and especially, semiautomatic weapons), and second, the lack of mental health care services available to Americans who struggle with mental disorder.

Although it is clear that a high-capacity gun was used to perpetrate the assault, there has been no clear evidence that the shooter had been diagnosed with any mental disorder.  In fact, assuming a link between mental disorder and the Newtown shooting continues to reinforce destructive stereotypes and stigma about mental illness, according to many experts.  As many who study the subject area know, mental disorder does not equal violence.  Instead, those with mental disorder are no more likely to be dangerous than those without a diagnosis.  Further, at this point, no one could say with confidence that mental illness was a contributing cause or even a factor that led to the magnitude or occurrence of the shooting – opposite, of course, from the individual’s ability to get a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon.

Ironically, however, given President Obama’s response last week, this may be a vital inflection point in the fight to extend healthcare coverage for those diagnosed with mental illness.  As I have noted in the past here, states are trimming back their mental health budgets – even while up to 20 percent of Americans are diagnosed with some form of mental illness each year.  In a confounding policy response, a handful of states have cut funding by more than 30 percent since 2009.

In such a climate, many advocates hailed the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) as an opportunity to improve mental health parity and coverage throughout the country.  Finally, many argued, individuals diagnosed with mental disorder would have their treatments covered by plans established within state-run exchange plans and the Medicaid expansion.  But, through last year, this seemed to be likely an unrealized hope, as the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) loosened the regulations governing the scope of essential health benefit coverage under the ACA.

Assumedly in an effort to increase the likelihood of state buy-in to the ACA, two recent publications by HHS gave states extremely wide latitude in determining what each state’s benchmark plans were required to cover for mental health services.  In addition to giving states the ability to substitute coverage for certain services each state saw fit, HHS did not explicitly tell the states which mental health services they must cover.  In other words, HHS guidance did not set a “federal floor” for the states’ plans.  Further, other guidance seemed to conflict with a liberal reading of mental health essential health benefits.  In defining an essential health benefit under the ACA, a 2011 Institute of Medicine report noted that states were required to only cover services that were “medically necessary,” without sufficient guidance.  Indeed, holistic mental health treatment does not always meet this limiting requirement.  Thus, it seemed – to the dismay of many mental health advocates – that insurance coverage may not be substantially changed or expanded under the celebrated ACA.

That is, until last week.  As part of President Obama’s response to the shootings, he said he would address that gap in the ACA.  He specifically noted that he would contact state officials to clarify both Medicaid requirements and new exchange plan requirements.  In effect, the President may be establishing a specific “federal floor” – a minimum of mental health services that states must cover.  Importantly, President Obama also mentioned that regulations that require equal coverage for mental health services (parity requirements) would be finalized.

Thus, even as advocates cringe to hear the public’s further stigmatizing and (at least to this point) unfounded linkage between mental disorder and the horror seen at Sandy Hook, mental health coverage under the ACA may actually be expanded after all.  This reversal in policy is undoubtedly stunning, but how much coverage for individuals diagnosed with mental disorder actually changes – and how and if this expansion actually prevents future incomprehensible massacres like Newtown – remains to be seen.

Share

Project Shows Substantial Decrease in Colorectal Surgery Infections

There was a time in medical science when doctors did not wash their hands prior to operating on their patients (some might say, that to a greater extent than seems possible, this is still the case among medical professionals and point to a number of recent studies as uncomfortable proof). This failure of doctors to wash hands in the medical forum led to the otherwise avoidable death of many of their patients. Up until the mid 1800s, medical science had simply not made the connection between bacteria, transference, infection and death.

Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who was Director of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria, made the connection after what is said to have been an extensive statistical analysis in the 1840s, and demonstrated that hand-washing could drastically reduce the number of women dying during childbirth. He introduced a rigorous hand scrubbing protocol and enough women stopped dying to earn him the honorific, “savior of our mothers.”

But as an article from the UK’s Science Museum, Exploring the History of Medicine, points out

Until the late 1800s surgeons did not scrub up before surgery or even wash their hands between patients, causing infections to be transferred from one patient to another. Doctors and medical students routinely moved from dissecting corpses to examining new mothers without first washing their hands, causing death by puerperal or ‘childbed’ fever as a consequence. As dissection became more important to medical practice in the 1800s, this only increased.

Semmelweis showing again that the common sense of one era is the uncommon brilliance of one bygone.

Which brings us to this latest study/project showing new solutions which decrease the risk of colorectal surgical site infection. According to the Associated Press in an article about the project,

“Almost 2 million health care-related infections occur each year nationwide; more than 90,000 of these are fatal.”

And:

“Infections linked with colorectal surgery are particularly common because intestinal tract bacteria are so abundant.”

 

According to the press release regarding the Project,

A project to reduce colorectal surgical site infections (SSIs) saved more than $3.7 million in costs for 135 avoided SSIs. The two-and-a-half year project included seven hospitals and was directed by the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare in collaboration with the American College of Surgeons.

The participating hospitals were able to reduce superficial incisional SSIs, which affect skin and underlying tissue, by 45 percent and all types of colorectal SSIs by 32 percent. The average length of stay for hospital patients with any type of colorectal SSI decreased from an average of 15 days to 13 days. In comparison, patients with no SSIs had an average length of stay of eight days.

The press release further notes that

Colorectal surgery was identified as the focus of the project because SSIs are disproportionately higher among patients following colorectal surgeries. Colorectal surgery is a common procedure across different types of hospitals, can have significant complications, presents significant opportunities for improvement, and has high variability in performance across hospitals. The project addressed preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative and post discharge follow-up processes for all surgical patients undergoing emergency and elective colorectal surgery, with the exception of trauma and transplant patients and patients under the age of 18. Project participants studied the potential factors that contribute to all three types of colorectal SSIs – superficial incisional, deep incisional and organ space SSIs, which affect organs and the space surrounding them.

 

The AP article:

Solutions included having patients shower with special germ-fighting soap before surgery, and having surgery teams change gowns, gloves and instruments during operations to prevent spreading germs picked up during the procedures.

Some hospitals used special wound-protecting devices on surgery openings to keep intestine germs from reaching the skin.

The average rate of infections linked with colorectal operations at the seven hospitals dropped from about 16% of patients during a 10-month phase when hospitals started adopting changes to almost 11% once all the changes had been made.

The AP article further notes the timely nature of the Project’s benefits:

Besides wanting to keep patients healthy, hospitals have a monetary incentive to prevent these infections. Medicare cuts payments to hospitals that have lots of certain health care-related infections, and those cuts are expected to increase under the new health care law.

Share

Reinhardt in the Times on Socialized Medicine

August 5, 2012 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Health Reform 

vaIn case you missed it, in the wake of the opening ceremony to the Olympics which featured a tribute to Great Britain’s National Health Services, Uwe E. Reinhardt, an Economics Professor at Princeton, had an interesting piece in The New York Times regarding  the negative attitudes of  Americans towards “socialized medicine” in general, G.B.’s NHS in particular,  and at least one American anomaly in practice. Reinhardt writes:

I have found that one effective way I can stop N.H.S.-bashing dead in its track is to ask bashers this simple question: “Why don’t you like my son?” I posed that question to a congressman who had berated “socialized medicine” during a hearing on health insurance reform at which I testified.

In response to the stunned look this question invariably elicits, I go on: “You see, our son is a retired captain of the U.S. Marine Corps. He is an American veteran. Remarkably, Americans of all political stripes have long reserved for our veterans the purest form of socialized medicine, the vast health system operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (generally known as the V.A. health system). If socialized medicine is as bad as so many on this side of the Atlantic claim, why have both political parties ruling this land deemed socialized medicine the best health system for military veterans? Or do they just not care about them?”

You can read the rest here, and it’s well worth it–even if only for the Steven Hawkins story.

Share

Medicaid Donut Hole – Update #2: Professor Tyler Cowen gets it wrong in NYT

July 15, 2012 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Health Law, Medicaid 

jacobi_john2I didn’t think I’d be blogging on this again.  I’ve posted twice, here and here, on the trap the Supreme Court’s Medicaid decision created for the poor.  Briefly, NFIB v. Sebelius makes the ACA’s Medicaid expansion (“Medicaid 2.0″) optional with the states, allowing them to choose or reject the federal support for Medicaid expansion without facing any reduction in federal funding for original Medicaid.  The trap is the following: while it might seem that the poor single adults who were the beneficiaries of this expansion would, in states rejecting Medicaid 2.0, at least be eligible for the subsidies the ACA makes available for low-income purchasers of insurance through the Exchanges.  But no.  Under  26 USC 36B(c)(1), only persons at or above the federal poverty level qualify for the subsidies (because Congress assumed that the states would adopt Medicaid 2.0, and subsidies for the very poor were unnecessary in private markets).

Professor Tyler Cowen, writing in the Sunday New York Times business section, gets this point exactly wrong.  In a piece discussing the “tug of war” between the federal and state government, Cowen argues that states may have an incentive to turn down Medicaid 2.0 in order to shift the insurance costs for the poor to the feds.  After all, even with the very high level of federal funding for Medicaid 2.0, states will have some financial exposure.  Cowen says:

State officials know that limiting Medicaid will place more individuals in the new, subsidized health care exchanges, and that those bills will be paid by the federal government. The basic dynamic is that state and federal governments have opposite incentives as to how many people should be kept in Medicaid.

Wrong.  The fact is that all residents below the poverty level who are frozen out of Medicaid coverage in states that refuse Medicaid 2.0 are also ineligible for Exchange subsidies.  This mistake is significant; Cowen, suggests that states may be convinced to refuse Medicaid 2.0 (or perhaps not feels so bad about doing so) because they see an alternative source of coverage.  That error, if picked up by the many governors and legislatures now weighing  their options under the ACA, could lead to disastrous results.

The ACA raises charged issues between the Obama administration and the states.  It would be a shame if misinformation about the effects of a state refusal of federal funding for Medicaid 2.0 were to influence state decisions on Medicaid.

Share

Next Page »