Cooperating for better care.

medical-device

Tag Archives

The Cures Act and hospitals

 

Paul Keckley, the healthcare-sector analyst, looks at the implications of the  21st Century Cures Act for hospitals.

Among his recommendations for hospital executes for living in the Cures Act world:

  • “Formulary design and medication management policies and procedures need constant review so that competing compounds can find their way readily into a hospital’s prescribing patterns. And the hospital’s interaction with retail pharmacies should enable shared knowledge about new and emerging classes and compounds that offer the same efficacy and effectiveness at a lower rate.”
  • “Medical device utilization, purchasing, and measures of effectiveness and safety need closer scrutiny. Of particular note are two areas where compliance risk is quite strong: the financial relationships between physicians and hospitals and manufacturers, and the safety associated with devices.”
  • “Medical directors must be proactive. Pharmacists should be included in care coordination teams across the organization.”
  • ”Mental health professionals should be recruited to the clinical community.”
  • The diagnostic tests inclusive of mental and physical health signs, symptoms, risk factors, and co-morbidities should be updated and hardwired into clinical decision support systems that prompt, alert and remind clinicians to make definitive diagnoses.”

To read his article, please hit this link.

 


Healing the medical-device ‘eco-system’

 

Stephen Ubi and David Nexon present their case for boosting the American medical-technology industry. Some respond that the writers are, in effect, pushing for more  corporate welfare and that the  vast cost of, and, for some products, exaggerated claims of medical efficacy, require pushback in what is by far the world’s most expensive healthcare system.

Anyway, Messrs. Ubi and Nexon  assert in HealthAffairs that the medical- innovation ”eco-system” is “severely stressed” and they say that policy improvements are essential.

They  write  that the biggest problems include: reduced investment; reduced revenue growth;  flight of clinical trials and first-product introduction out of the United States; increasing difficulty in getting  public and private insurers to cover patient costs to use new medical devices and diagnostics, and disincentives for providers to adopt  new technology.

Their solutions:

*”The FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should adopt a seamless, accelerated process for approval of breakthrough products that offer the promise of significant improvements in treatment or diagnosis of serious illnesses.”

*”The FDA needs to continue to progress toward the goal articulated in the device center’s recent vision statement that patients in the U.S. will have first in the world access to new medical devices.”

*”CMS needs to view encouraging medical innovation as part of its mission and review all its policies with this goal in mind.”

* “U.S. tax policy needs to be reformed to put knowledge-based, high- value-added industries on a level playing field with competitor countries. Prior to the enactment of the medical-device tax, medical technology companies paid an effective federal tax rate of 31 percent on activities …taxed in the U.S., but an average effective rate of 14 percent on activities located and taxed abroad.”

 

 

 

 


Contact Info

info@cmg625.com

(617) 230-4965

Wellesley, Mass