Supreme Court allows healthcare law to largely stand

The Supreme Court on Thursday largely let stand President Obama's health care overhaul, in a mixed ruling that Court observers were rushing to analyze. 

The decision was a striking victory for the president and Congressional Democrats, with a majority, including the conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama's term. 

Many observers called the case the most significant before the court since at least the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, which decided a presidential election. In addition to the political reverberations, the case helps set the rules for one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the economy, one that affects nearly everyone from cradle to grave. 

Read the rest of the NYT article. 

Read the ruling on the official SCOTUS website www.supremecourt.gov - under recent decisions. 

Go to the NYT Health Care Reform and the Supreme Court (Affordable Care Act) special page, which includes updates and audio files of the original case arguments.

Go to the WSJ health page.

Will pay-for-performance work for infection prevention?

Dr. Cindi Crosby - Vice President, Global Medical Affairs, CareFusion ___________________________________________________________________

The pay-for-performance (P4P) movement in the U.S. healthcare system is not new, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has the potential to usher in the largest federal expansion of P4P to date. A provision of PPACA mandates pilot testing of P4P for certain Medicare providers, beginning no later than January 1, 2016. Even if legal and political challenges result in the repeal of PPACA, momentum for P4P continues as insurance companies and healthcare systems strive to improve health outcomes and reduce costs.

Pros and Cons
Proponents of P4P focus on the logic behind providing incentives to healthcare organizations and providers to meet measurable process improvements or clinical outcomes, such as better management of chronic diseases or reducing infection rates. At first glance, these P4P objectives seem reasonable and desirable in terms of improving clinical outcomes. But detractors of P4P cite a number of problems, including the assumption that financial incentives (or disincentives tied to poor performance) will affect important clinical outcomes associated with morbidity and mortality. (See “Effect Of Pay For Performance On The Management And Outcomes Of Hypertension In The United Kingdom: Interrupted Time Series Study.”) A study published online in New England Journal of Medicine (March 28, 2012) found that hospitals participating in the Medicare Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) had no decrease in 30-day mortality compared to control hospitals over a six-year period. The authors noted that P4P effects on mortality did not differ significantly among conditions for which outcomes were explicitly linked to incentives (i.e., acute myocardial infarction and CABG) and those not linked to incentives (i.e., congestive heart failure and pneumonia). (See “The Long-Term Effect of Premier Pay for Performance on Patient Outcomes.”) As expected, a quick scan of the medical literature shows an evolution from primarily positive articles in the early and mid-2000s, when P4P was a broad goal yet to be widely implemented, to more recent restrained views of actual P4P program outcomes.

Read the full story.
 ___________________________________________________________________

Crosby’s work in CareFusion’s Medical Affairs Department represents the perfect culmination of a career that has always focused on combining education with research to improve patient care. From her start working in a bone marrow transplant unit at a university medical center to her recent honorary appointment as a research associate in infectious disease in the Department of Microbiology at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the UK, Crosby’s primary focus has been the clinical application of infection control products to improve patient health outcomes. But Cindi has also always understood the importance of building networks to share information and solve problems. Her education and background as a microbiologist has helped her assemble effective global partnerships with key thought leaders in infection prevention, and she has built on this further by publishing and speaking to share information with those who care for patients.

If you wish to read more of Dr. Crosby’s blogs, then please visit: http://www.carefusion.com/safety-clinical-excellence/perspectives/infection_prevention.aspx.

SPD Professionals launch new blog: “Reprocess This!”

Three respected Sterile Processing managers today launched a new online forum for CS professionals, “Reprocess This!”  

The new blog (www.reprocessthis.com) was developed to create “a medium for sterile processing managers to network and discuss the hard-hitting issues that are facing the industry,” said Jennifer Burrell, BS, CRCST, CSPDM, one of the three SPD professionals writing regularly for the forum. 

Burrell, a microbiologist, is Director of Education and Clinical Compliance for IMS, the nationwide surgical instrument management and consulting provider that is hosting “Reprocess This!” IMS provides SPD management and clinical consulting in the OR, repair for surgical and endoscopic equipment, instrument and device inventory management; real-time online data and tools to track instruments, tissue, and implants.  

The other regular contributors are:

Tracy Humphreys, BS, MS, CRCST. Humphreys, CS Manager for Metro Health Hospital in Wyoming, MI, was selected as IAHCSMM’s CS Manager of the Year in 2011. With 13 years experience in SPD, she is active in national and state professional organizations. 

Kristina Pirollo-Ketchum, CRCST, CHL, ACE. Pirollo-Ketchum is Manager of SPD and Perioperative Surgical Services for MWHC Stafford Hospital in Stafford, VA. Her work has appeared in IAHCSMM Central Source, Healthcare Purchasing News, and IAHCSMM Communiqué.  

Although the three have different educational and professional backgrounds, they share a belief in Sterile Processing’s critical role in patient safety - and they are passionate about the need for continuing education in the SPD.   

“This blog is an an effort to raise the bar and help us all stay abreast of the latest and greatest technology,” Pirollo-Ketchum said. “Not only can we learn how others handle issues or concerns, but we can use the blog to keep up with changing standards. Knowledge is power.” 

Burrell said SPD professionals need an informal setting for the exchange of opinions and information. 

To visit this new online forum, go to www.reprocessthis.com

For more information about “Reprocess This!” write to info@reprocessthis.com

Is the FDA validation process for sterilizers, as established in AAMI ST8, current with today's steam sterilization practices?

HPN's most recent Blogline post comes from Thomas K. "Chip" Moore, consultant and owner of the Sterilization-Answer-Man.com. Retired from Getinge in 2007 after a 39-year career in sales and marketing, Moore has more than 20 years experience working on AAMI Committees and is active on selected Working Groups, was a member of the AAMI Sterilization Standards Committee, and is a member of IAHCSMM and the AORN Specialty Assembly for Sterile Processing. He also served as an Ex-Officio Board member for NYSACSP for three years. He was recipient of the 2003 IAHCSMM Award of Honor and was selected by Healthcare Purchasing News as one of the 30 most influential industry people. 

In his article, Moore examines the performance and validation standards set forth in Hospital Steam Sterilizer guidance document ANSI/AAMI ST8, and asks whether these test requirements are sufficiently robust, given today's mixed loads. 
___________________________________________________________________

“If you happened to manage a company that manufactures sterilizers for use in US healthcare, what steps would you take to sell a steam sterilizer in the United States? The first step is to recognize that sterilizers are used to process reusable medical devices for patient use, and sterilizers are considered as Class II medical devices. Therefore, they are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Before any Class II device can be placed into commercial distribution, the FDA must grant clearance of the labeling claims for the sterilizer. Many of those labeling claims are developed through a process called performance validation. Fortunately, a guidance document exists to help the sterilizer manufacturer develop performance data to base those labeling claims. Once the FDA clears the sterilizer for US commercial distribution, the product is considered safe and effective when the user follows the written instructions for use (IFU).

 
The guidance document for healthcare sterilizers is a nationally recognized standard, developed through the consensus method at the Association of the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). The document is ANSI/AAMI ST8, the Hospital Steam Sterilizer guidance document. The ST8 committee updates the document every five years. The current ST8 document was published in 2008. Yet, does the performance and validation testing contained in ST8 reflect current healthcare sterilization practices? This article will attempt to review those performance challenges and compare them to practices found today in US healthcare facilities, both large and small.”

To read the entire article, visit
http://www.hpnonline.com/dailyupdates/Moore-SterilizationValidation.pdf


What's your reaction? We want to hear from you. Let us know your thoughts below.

Keeping trains and interoperability on track

Dr. Dick Johannes, Vice President of Clinical Research at CareFusion, discusses trends in operating room procedures and management, at CareFusion’s Online Center for Safety. ___________________________________________________________________

“Recently, on our way to a morning meeting, Dr. Carlos Nunez and I got to talking about model railroads – a mutual interest and hobby. We recounted the history of Digital Command Control [DCC] – a system that utilizes digital computer technology to operate model railroad trains. DCC was first introduced in the 1990s and dramatically changed model railroad technology: For the first time, when running multiple locomotives on the same track, you could move each train in different directions and at different speeds.

Similar to most technological breakthroughs, numerous manufacturers began engineering their own early and highly proprietary versions of Command Control for model railroads. While this brought the technology to the marketplace, it introduced a new problem for users as these early approaches were incompatible with one another. We could now run trains independently on a model railroad, but couldn’t take a locomotive to a friend’s house with a different system and expect it to run.

Enter the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) who assembled a working group to develop a common standard in model train technology. German firm Lenz Electronics gave – yes gave – their previously proprietary protocol to the NMRA to be adopted as a standard¹. Suddenly, in order to obtain the NMRA imprimatur, all manufacturers had to conform to single technical standard. Not only did the technology succeed but it literally exploded. It now supports amazing lighting effects, an array of advanced automation capabilities and even digital sound. Best of all, the technology is fully interoperable. Some firms chose not to adopt the common standard and eventually disappeared. But most of those who embraced the NMRA DCC standard continue to thrive today.

It was at this point in our discussion that Carlos asked, ‘Where is the NMRA for healthcare?’ Great question! Today, CMS is creating incentives for hospitals to adopt enhanced healthcare information technology (HIT), introducing new concepts and standards like ‘meaningful use.’ But what is the future for widespread interoperability in healthcare and what will that journey require?”

Visit here to read the full article.