Health | Fenway News Online

Archive | Health

RSS feed for this section

West Nile Virus visuals

Posted on 04 September 2010. Tags: West Nile Virus

Here are some visuals of the West Nile Virus carriers and what the virus looked like on one person’s infected arm.

Read about it in the Boston/Fenway areas here and read in more detail about the virus here

[View with PicLens]

Posted in Health, MiscellaneousComments (0)

Bed bugs are increasingly becoming a problem…

Posted on 31 August 2010.

Bed bugs are increasingly becoming a problem within residences of all kinds, including homes, apartments, hotels, cruise ships, dormitories and shelters. We have drafted this document to provide basic information about the biology and health significance of these pests, and to offer guidance on how to safely and effectively manage an infested residence. Read more here

Posted in Health, MiscellaneousComments (0)

Massive egg recall: How to check your carton for recalled eggs

Posted on 20 August 2010.

Dan Shapley Dan Shapley – Thu Aug 19, 7:14 pm ET (Photo: FDA) A massive egg recall by Write County Egg has sickened hundreds of people, and affected 13 retail brands that the egg factory packages. The culprit: Salmonella on egg shells. The egg brands affected by the recall include: Lucerne, Albertson, Mountain Dairy, Ralph’s, Boomsma’s, Sunshine, Hillandale, Trafficanda, Farm Fresh, Shoreland, Lund, Dutch Farms, and Kemps. Eggs are packed in 6- 12- or 18-egg cartons with Julian dates ranging from 136 to 225 and plant numbers 1026, 1413, and 1946. Dates and codes can be found stamped on the end of the egg carton. The plant number begins with the letter P and then the number. The Julian date follows the plant number, for example: P-1946 223. Consumers should not eat the eggs and should return recalled eggs to the store where they were purchased for a full refund. Bacterial contamination on modern industrial-scale chicken farms (factories, really) is a growing problem. Cramped conditions are breeding grounds for disease. Widespread use of antibiotics is creating drug-resistant strains of bacteria. One antidote to the problem is to choose locally sourced eggs from farms that allow their chickens to run free. Though be aware that the label “free range” doesn’t mean what you might think. Salmonella poisoning symptoms Within 6-to-72 hours of eating an egg, you may experience lower abdominal cramps, diarrhea (sometimes bloody), vomiting, fever, chills, malaise, nausea or headache. Symptoms may persist for as long as a week. While most people recover without treatment, some patients require hospitalization. Among the 21,244 cases of foodborne illness reported from tainted food-related outbreaks in the United States in 2007 (the last year for which data is available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), salmonella was the No. 2 cause of illness, causing 27% of foodborne illness outbreaks, including 55% of multi-state outbreaks, and 81 illnesses attributed to salmonella in eggs; five deaths resulted from salmonella-contaminated food. The two biggest foodborne illness outbreaks that year were caused by salmonella, in hummus and frozen pot pies. More from Daily Green >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20100819/sc_ygreen/massiveeggrecallhowtocheckyourcartonforrecalledeggs

Posted in HealthComments (0)

Changes that will expand health insurance coverage.

Posted on 20 August 2010.


　Provided by:
Geiger Gibson Leighton Ku, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Patrick Richard, Ph.D.

Avi Dor, Ph.D.
Ellen Tan, M.Sc.
Peter Shin, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Sara Rosenbaum, J.D.
RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative
Policy Research Brief No. 19
Strengthening Primary Care to Bend the Cost Curve:
The Expansion of Community Health Centers Through Health Reform
June 30, 2010
About the Geiger Gibson / RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative

The Geiger Gibson Program in Community Health Policy, established in 2003 and named after human rights and health center pioneers Drs. H. Jack Geiger and Count Gibson, is part of the School of Public Health and Health Services at The George Washington University. It focuses on the history and contributions of health centers and the major policy issues that affect health centers, their communities, and the patients that they serve.
The RCHN Community Health Foundation, founded in October 2005, is a not-for-profit foundation whose mission is to support community health centers through strategic investment, outreach, education, and cutting-edge health policy research. The only foundation in the country dedicated to community health centers, the Foundation builds on health centers’ 40-year commitment to the provision of accessible, high quality, community-based healthcare services for underserved and medically vulnerable populations. The Foundation’s gift to the Geiger Gibson program supports health center research and scholarship.
Additional information about the Research Collaborative can be found online at gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/ggprogram or at rchnfoundation.org.
Executive Summary
The recent enactment of health reform sets into motion important changes that will expand health insurance coverage, increase funding for community health centers and alter the way that health centers are paid. These reforms will have a major impact on two major challenges of health reform: bolstering the capacity of the nation’s primary care system and reducing the long term growth in health care costs.

Our analyses examine the impact of the new health reform law on the number of patients who will receive primary care services at community health centers and the effect of the service expansions on overall health care costs, including federal and state Medicaid expenditures. Research indicates that patients who receive care at community health centers have lower medical costs because providing quality primary care services can reduce the need for other ambulatory and hospital-based medical care, thereby lowering overall medical costs. We examine the effects of health center expansions based on two funding scenarios that are possible under the new law: (1) a minimum level of funding based on mandatory increases of $11 billion in additional health center grants from 2011 to 2015, and (2) higher funding levels that could be appropriated in future years, based on levels authorized under the new law.
 At the minimum mandatory funding levels, the number of patients served by community health centers could rise from 18.8 million in 2009 to 33.8 million by 2015 and could roughly double to 36.3 million by 2019. Under this scenario, total nationwide medical costs could be reduced by $181 billion between 2010 and 2019. Included in these overall savings are $52 billion in federal Medicaid and $33 billion in state Medicaid savings.
 If funding reaches the higher authorized levels, the number of patients could reach 44.1 million by 2015 and 50 million by 2019, almost three times as high as current levels. Overall national medical savings could total $316 billion over the decade. This includes $90 billion in federal Medicaid savings and $58 billion in state Medicaid savings.
 These estimates do not include about $24 billion in medical expenses per year
With leadership from the Health Resources and Services Administration, health centers have demonstrated their capacity to grow to meet increasing demand: between 2000 and 2009 the number of patients served doubled. The Administration has been adept at rapidly allocating $2 billion from last year’s economic recovery law to help spur further growth by health centers. There is a proven track record for the expansion of services by health centers.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 32 million fewer people will be uninsured by 2019. These analyses indicate that community health centers will be able to provide primary care to a significant share of the newly insured, as well as continuing to serve a large number of those who remain without coverage. As a result, the efficient and effective primary care that will be received by millions more patients at community health centers should help bend the curve of rising health care costs. 2
already being saved because of the existing levels of patient care at community health centers. Introduction

One of the central issues that arose during the health reform debate was whether the nation can respond to the need for a major expansion of health care capacity – in particular, primary health care – as part of health reform. In an earlier report, the Geiger Gibson Program estimated that 96 million persons, 28 percent of whom are uninsured, reside in communities identified as medically underserved for primary health care.
1 A possible result is that these communities – whose residents stand to benefit the most from reform – will be unable to respond to a surge in health care seeking or will be able to do so only in the costliest health care settings. 
1
Rosenbaum, S., Jones, E., Shin, P., Ku, L. ―ational Health Reform: How Will Medically Underserved Communities Fare?‖George Washington Univ., July 9, 2009. http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_5046C2DE-5056-9D20-3D2A570F2CF3F8B0.pdf 
2
Ku, L, Shin, P., Rosenbaum, S. ―stimating the Effects of Health Reform on Health Centers’ Capacity to Expand to New Medically Underserved Communities and Populations.‖George Washington University, July 23, 2009. http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_9889E996-5056-9D20-3D1F89027D3F9406.pdf 
3
http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_61D685D5-5056-9D20-3DDB6CDE10382393.pdf
Ku, L., Richard, P., Dor, A., et al. ―sing Primary Care to Bend the Curve: Estimating the Impact of a Health Center Expansion on Health Care Costs.‖George Washington University, Sept. 1, 2009. 
4
Ku, L., Shin, P., Rosenbaum, S. ―sing Primary Care to Bend the Cost Curve: The Potential Impact of Health Center Expansion in Senate Reforms,‖George Washington University, Oct. 14, 2009. http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_538E3192-5056-9D20-3D816A92453FBC7E.pdf 
In 2008, 1,080 community health centers — independent nonprofit clinics with locations in more than 7,000 medically underserved urban and rural communities — provided comprehensive primary health care to 17 million patients, mostly low-income. At the same time, health centers’ current capacity falls substantially short of need. Because of this concern, Congress made a considerable investment in the expansion of community health centers, increasing funding by at least $11 billion over the next five years in order to increase the number of patients and communities served by health centers and widen the range of services offered.
The health centers expansion brings a special focus on two of the foremost challenges in health reform: how to reduce the rate of growth in health care expenditures in order to ―end the curve‖of health care costs while simultaneously improving access to primary health care. With health care spending expected to grow significantly over the coming decade, improving access while containing costs becomes essential to the success of reform. Given health centers’ ability to furnish comprehensive primary care efficiently through the use of a team-based approach to care, we sought to measure the impact of a health center expansion on health care costs. Specifically, we sought to determine whether Congress’ investment in the planned growth in health care capacity ultimately might reduce the rate of health care cost increases even as access is improved.
This analysis examines the impact of the final legislation. It builds on earlier analyses of House
2, 3 and Senate legislative proposals4 and focuses on the final legislation and the estimated federal Medicaid savings that can be attributed to health center growth. 3 
How the Final Law Affects Health Centers

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA, P.L. 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA, P.L. 111-152), makes a number of changes affecting health centers. Most importantly for this analysis, the final law establishes two potential funding pathways for federal health center grant funding: (1) a minimum ―andatory‖level of funding, which adds $11 billion in new federal grants from 2011 to 2015; and (2) a higher ―uthorized‖level of funding that may be appropriated in future years. In effect, the first is the minimum funding level, while the second is the maximum. Total funding in coming years thus may exceed the initial $11 billion investment.
Some of the key changes specific to community health centers include:
 Making $11 billion in mandatory funding available between FY 2011 and FY 2015 to expand health center grantees, sites and operations (ranging from $1 billion more than FY 2008 levels in 2011 to $3.6 billion more in 2015).
5 This amount includes $1.5 billion in funding for construction and renovation of community health centers.6 

 Requiring that insurance plans operating under health insurance exchanges contract with essential community providers, including community health centers.
Permanently authorizing the community health centers program (Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act) and providing authorization for appropriations for health center grants from FY 2010 through FY 2015 and escalating the authorization levels in subsequent years under Section 330 based on changes in medical costs per patient plus 1 percentage point and changes in the number of patients served plus 1 percentage point.7 Table 1 shows the differences between the mandatory and authorized funding levels. 8 

Requiring that insurance plans operating under the health insurance exchanges pay federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) (including ―ook-alike‖health centers that 
5 HCERA, §2303
6 PPACA, §10503
7 PPACA, §5601
8 PPACA, §1311(c)(1)(C)
meet all Section 330 requirements but do not receive Sec. 330 grants) the same amount that would be paid under Medicaid, which requires that states pay enhanced reimbursements determined under a prospective payment rate system or alternative methodology.9
 Requiring Medicare to develop and adopt a revised payment system for FQHCs based on a prospective payment rate system, which takes into account the type, duration and intensity of services provided.
How the Final Law Affects Health Centers 4 10 
9 PPACA, §10104(a)
10 PPACA, §10501
11 In addition, there is a standard 5 percentage point deduction, so the effective income cutoff is 138 percent of the poverty line.
12 Elmendorf, D. Congressional Budget Office estimate sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the combined effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the reconciliation act, Mar. 20, 2010.
Health Insurance Expansions

As the expansion of health centers is under way, the two critical insurance expansions will take effect in 2014. The first is the expansion of Medicaid to reach all non-elderly people (except certain immigrants) with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line.
11 The second is the creation of health insurance exchanges coupled with the availability of ―ffordability‖tax credits whose value is adjusted for family income. These credits will help low- to moderate-income families pay for health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the new law will reduce the number of uninsured people by about 32 million by 2019.12 
Methods

This report builds on the methodology that we developed in developing estimates for the House and Senate legislative proposals. Because the methods have been fully described in recent reports, we refer readers to those reports for more detail. The methodology has three basic components:
1. We use data about projected funding levels, based on the legislation, and the actual patterns of FQHC revenues, costs and patients served to estimate the number of patients who will be served nationwide in future years. Unlike our prior reports, in this report we estimate two funding scenarios, based on the Sec. 330 grants: one at the minimum mandatory levels and one at the higher authorized funding levels. Since the numeric funding targets under PPACA and HCERA end in 2015, we assume that under the mandatory funding, Sec. 330 grants will rise 5 percent per year from 2016 to 2019 and that under the authorized levels, funding rises 7 percent per year from 2016 to 2019. (Note: To be conservative, we only include the $9.5 billion in mandatory funding provided for health center operations. We do not include the $1.5 billion in funding for construction and renovation of health centers in these estimates. While these funds could further expand health center capacity, they would not directly contribute to the operational costs of patient care.)
5
We base health center financial estimates on actual revenue, cost and patient data from the Uniform Data System reports filed by FQHCs for 2008 (in our prior reports we used 2007 data). We assume 4.2 percentage point annual increases in future costs per patient, which is the average rate experienced over the prior five years. To account for the policy changes under PPACA, we elevate payment rates made by Medicare and private insurers under the health insurance exchanges, beyond those made in 2008.
2. We conducted analyses of the nationally representative 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), comparing annual medical expenditures of people who had received care at community health centers and those who had not. After adjusting for an array of factors, including age, gender, income, insurance coverage and health status, an average person who received care at a community health center had annual medical expenditures of $3,500, while the same person who did not receive care at a health center would have annual expenditures of $4,594. This indicated that there were annual savings of $1,093 per person in 2006, associated with receiving care at a community health center. This included both ambulatory and hospital-related savings. These results were consistent with other studies showing savings and reductions in utilization related to the use of community health centers.
13 We project these annual per person savings forward, using the CMS implicit price deflator estimates for medical expenses. 
13
Streeter, S. et al. ―he Effect of Community Health Centers on Healthcare Spending and Utilization.‖Washington, DC: Avalere Health. Sept. 2010. 
14
Ku, L, Jones, E., Finnegan, B., et al. ―ow is the Primary Care Safety Net Faring in Massachusetts? Community Health Centers in the Midst of Health Reform.‖Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured and Geiger Gibson/RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative. Mar. 2009. 
3. We use CBO estimates of future insurance coverage patterns to adjust the percent of health center patients who are covered by Medicaid, health insurance exchanges, uninsured, etc. Based on the experience in Massachusetts, we assume that post-reform, health centers still continue to attract disproportionate numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients.14
Like any projections, these estimates are based on a variety of assumptions. If future economic trends vary from our assumptions, if our interpolations of CBO estimates are off, if implementation runs quite differently than planned, if medical practices or costs vary considerably from recent experiences, or if future policies change in unexpected ways, then our estimates would be subject to error.
Like all other health expenditures, health centers’ expenditure levels are affected by a number of cost drivers, such as changes in the salaries of health center staff, costs for maintenance and improvement of facilities, changes in technology (including both new medical innovations and health information technology), increases in utilization of services and changes in the cost of medications or lab tests.
In this paper, we refer primarily to FQHCs. We do not include estimates for about one hundred ―QHC-lookalikes‖or for self-designated community health centers that meet neither FQHC nor look-alike criteria, although health reform may affect these other centers as well. 6
Findings

Since health centers are required to operate as non-profit organizations under strong accountability standards, our approach assumes that health centers will serve as many patients as their revenues permit. As a result, the number of patients served at health centers depends on the revenue available to health centers and the distribution of insurance coverage among health center patients. PPACA and HCERA increase health center revenues in four key ways: (1) by increasing federal health center grants; (2) by increasing Medicaid revenues as a result of expanded Medicaid coverage; (3) by expanding coverage for low- and middle-income people through the insurance exchanges and setting standards for qualified health plans regarding payments to FQHCs; and (4) by raising payment rates from Medicare. In addition, by reducing the percentage of their caseload that is uninsured, health centers will ―ose‖less money caring for the uninsured, so they can serve more total patients.
It is important to note that federal health center grants and payments under Medicaid and private health insurance represent only a portion of total health center revenue. Other important sources include other federal, state, local and private grants or contracts. As in our prior report, we conservatively assume that these other funding sources will grow by only 5 percent annually. Historically, the other funding sources have grown at a faster pace. While Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare payment rates are ultimately linked to the historical costs of care at health centers, these payment rates have not generally been able to keep pace with total health center costs, so other revenues, such as Sec. 330 grants, help make up the difference.
Table 2 presents our projections of the number of patients that would be served by health centers in 2009, 2015 and 2019 under mandatory and authorized funding levels. At the mandatory funding levels, health center caseloads would rise from about 18.8 million in 2009 to 33.8 million in 2015 and would almost double to 36.3 million by 2019.
15 16 The share of patients covered by Medicaid or by health insurance exchanges would rise, while the share that is uninsured would fall sharply. The pattern would be similar if funding reached the authorized levels, except that the number of patient served would be much higher, reaching 44.1 million by 2015 and 50 million by 2019. 
15 If we assume that future Sec. 330 funding levels are based on FY 2009 levels and are $125 million more in each year from 2011 to 2015, then caseloads would reach 34.3 million by 2015 and 36.8 million by 2019.
16
Our projections of caseload growth are somewhat lower than the 20 million estimated by the National Association of Community Health Centers, ―ealth Centers and Health Care Reform: Health Center Funding Growth,‖April 2010. 
These projected increases in health center caseloads are fairly consistent with past growth levels. FQHCs served 9.6 million patients in 2000 and the number of patients roughly doubled by 2009. If we assume that Sec. 330 grants rise at the mandatory funding levels, FQHC caseloads would roughly double again by 2019. Health centers have demonstrated the capability to expand in order to serve more needy patients in medically underserved areas, provided that resources are available.
Health center capacity would increase considerably, helping to meet the new demands for primary health care that are expected once more people have health insurance coverage. A major 7
concern that has been expressed about health insurance expansion is whether there would be enough primary care providers to meet the new demands. These results suggest that health centers can go a long way toward meeting that demand. CBO has estimated there will be 32 million fewer uninsured people by 2019; this analysis shows that health center capacity can grow by about 18 million by then and ought to be able to handle a substantial portion of those newly insured, while continuing to serve many who remain uninsured.
concern that has been expressed about health insurance expansion is whether there would be enough primary care providers to meet the new demands. These results suggest that health centers can go a long way toward meeting that demand. CBO has estimated there will be 32 million fewer uninsured people by 2019; this analysis shows that health center capacity can grow by about 18 million by then and ought to be able to handle a substantial portion of those newly insured, while continuing to serve many who remain uninsured. 
In order to expand to serve so many more patients, we assume that the number of health center grantees and the number of health center delivery sites (i.e., clinics) would grow substantially, permitting a major expansion of health centers and clinics into more medically underserved rural, suburban and urban communities. As we noted in our earlier report,
17 the analyses have limits. While we controlled for a number of factors, such as age, health status and insurance coverage in our analyses of MEPS data, there may be other unmeasured factors that lead to differences in medical expenditures of health center users and non-users; this was not a randomized study. Some health centers users receive care intermittently and might not attain the level of health center use assumed by the models above. In addition, the new patients who enroll in health centers may differ in risks or characteristics from the average population, so the average savings estimated under the models may not correspond perfectly to those for the newly enrolled. 
17
Ku, et al. Sept. 2009, o
p cit. To estimate the total medical savings associated with the expansion of services at health centers over the next ten years, we used the projections of growth in the number of health center 8
patients above 2009 levels and applied inflation-adjusted per person savings associated with the use of community health centers. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Our estimates indicate that if funding is set at mandatory levels and caseloads rise to 36.3 million by 2019, then total medical savings will reach $181 billion over the ten-year 2010-2019 period.
18 On the other hand, if funding reaches the higher authorized levels and health center caseloads grow to 50 million by 2019, then overall medical savings will reach $316 billion over ten years. 
18 If future Sec. 330 funding levels are based on FY 2009 appropriations and are $125 million higher in each year from 2011 to 2015, then the savings would be about 2 percent higher: $185 billion total savings from 2010-19, $53 billion in federal Medicaid savings and $34 billion in state Medicaid savings.
patients above 2009 levels and applied inflation-adjusted per person savings associated with the use of community health centers. The results are summarized in Table 3. 
These estimates are for the
The total medical savings shown in Table 3 includes savings that could be realized by governments, insurers, and consumers. To help illustrate the impact on governments, we also estimate the federal and state Medicaid expenditure savings. We estimate these savings based on the estimated proportion of health center revenues deriving from Medicaid and from adjusted estimates of the federal and state fractions of total Medicaid cost. Since health reform increases the federal matching rate for adults whose eligibility is expanded (and for childless adults in states that had already expanded coverage), the overall federal portion of total Medicaid costs will rise, while the states’ share will fall. We computed the adjusted federal and state shares of Medicaid costs based on the CBO estimates.
incremental savings associated with growth in the number of health center patients beyond the 2009 levels. (This estimate of additional savings is akin the approach used by the CBO when they estimate the cost or savings associated with legislation; they estimate only the marginal or additional costs or savings, not the current costs or savings.) These do not include the estimated $23.7 billion in medical expenditures per year that are already saved by the 18.8 million patients served in 2009. After adjusting for inflation, the estimated medical savings associated with the 18.8 million patients already served is about $282 billion over the 2010-19 period. 9 19 19
Elmendorf, 

op cit. As seen in Table 2, if Sec. 330 funding is at the mandatory levels, then federal Medicaid expenditures are estimated to fall by $52 billion over the 2010 to 2019 period, while states’ Medicaid expenditures will decline by $33 billion. If Sec. 330 funding reaches the authorized levels, then Medicaid savings would be larger: $90 billion in federal savings over the decade and $58 billion in state Medicaid savings. To the best of our knowledge, CBO did not consider these savings when deriving its projected budget effects of health reform. Thus, these savings would be in addition to CBO’s assumptions of federal and state Medicaid expenditures.
The discussion above has primarily focused on savings over the next 10 years. In the nearer term, we can examine savings over the six year period 2010 to 2015. At the

current levels of service –18.8 million patients per year – we estimate $158 billion in overall medical savings from 2010 to 2015, including $42 billion in federal Medicaid savings and $29 billion in state Medicaid savings. With the additional funding at mandatory levels provided under PPACA, there would be additional medical savings of $70 billion, including $19 billion in federal Medicaid savings and $13 billion in state savings; these are the incremental savings associated with increased numbers of patients served. All told, combining the savings due to current number of patients and the additional patients possible due to increased funding, the medical savings from health centers will total more than $200 billion from 2010 to 2015, including more than $60 billion federal Medicaid savings and more than $40 billion in state Medicaid savings. Discussion

Two challenges loom large after the passage of health reform: (1) Will the nation be able to hold down health care costs in the long run? (2) Will there be enough primary care providers to serve those who are newly insured? Our findings indicate that the expansion of community health centers will play an essential role in addressing two of the long-term challenges of health reform: curbing the growth of overall health care expenditures and bolstering the capacity of the primary care system to meet the needs of the millions of newly insured Americans.
Our research indicates that the expansion of health centers can reduce both federal and state Medicaid expenditures. To the best of our knowledge, CBO did not consider these potential effects of health center expansion when estimating that the federal government would spend about $434 billion more on Medicaid and CHIP over the next decade and that states would spend about $20 billion more.
CBO and that states could reduce their overall Medicaid expenditures, not increase them. For example, the $20 billion in additional state expenditures estimated by CBO minus $33 billion in FQHC-related state Medicaid savings estimated here assuming mandatory funding levels suggests that states might actually save about $13 billion over the next decade, compared to the amounts they would otherwise spend. This also suggests that if states provide further funding for health centers, the additional funds will fuel additional health center growth and generate even greater medical savings.
The expansion of community health centers should also help lessen concerns about a potential provider shortage. By law, health centers are located in medical underserved areas or serve medically underserved populations. Thus, they are designed to serve the areas and populations most likely to be affected by provider shortages. After Massachusetts implemented its health reform, health centers were able to increase their caseloads to help serve the newly insured populations, as well as continue to serve those who remained uninsured.
4 Our analyses suggest that the effective federal cost of the combination of health center and Medicaid expansions ought to be much lower than projected by 10 6 Of course, the growth of health centers also depends on the availability of primary care clinicians and sometimes health centers have difficulty recruiting physicians. The increase in funding for the National Health Service Corps provided by the health reform law should help bolster the supply of clinicians able to serve at FQHCs and other areas with a shortage of health professionals. Moreover, more than most private physician practices, FQHCs usually rely on a team-based approach to care and make fuller use of nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, regular nurses and other allied health staff to provide patient care.20, 21 For example, almost 90 percent of health centers employ nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants, compared to less than half of regular private physicians’ offices, and almost a third of health center patients receive care from such clinicians.22 By diversifying staffing, health centers are better able to cope with shortages of any specific type of clinician. In the long run, however, the supply of primary care clinicians, whether they are to serve patients in community health centers or in private practices, will need to be expanded and the nation and states will need to consider how to address this problem. The health reform law creates new federal and state organizations to help monitor the health care workforce and to recommend future solutions. 
20
National Association of Community Health Centers, Robert Graham Center, George Washington University. 
Access Transformed: Building a Primary Care Workforce for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Authors. Aug. 2008. 21
Adashi, E., Geiger, H.J., Fine, M. ―ealth Care Reform and Primary Care — The Growing Importance of the Community Health Center,‖

NEJM, published online on April 28, 2010. 22
Hing, E., Hooker, R. and Ashman, J. ―rimary Care Delivery in Community Health Centers,‖presentation at American Association of Medical Colleges Physician Workforce Conference, May 2010. 

Two key considerations arise in assuring that these savings are realized. The first is the extent to which the health center growth funds are invested quickly — as a readiness matter — in advance of the expansion of health insurance coverage in 2014. The second is the ability to sustain this initial health center investment over time through continuing support for the initial growth in health centers and through public and private health insurance payments.
With respect to the rapid investment of health center funds, the federal government, particularly the Health Resources and Services Administration, has an admirable record in promoting the growth of health centers, with strong bipartisan support. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of patients receiving care at health centers roughly doubled. More recently, the 11
Administration proved adept at rapidly allocating $2 billion in new funding, provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, into grants to help health centers expand operations and improve capital facilities. It has been projected that these funds will help health centers serve about 2 million more patients by 2011.23
23 Shin, P., et al. ―he Economic Stimulus: Gauging the Early Effects of ARRA Funding on Health Centers and Medically Underserved Populations and Communities.‖George Washington Univ., Feb. 16, 2010.

With respect to the second issue, the implementation of the health insurance expansions, along with the modifications of health center reimbursement provisions in health reform, will be central to achieving growth in the number of people receiving care at community health centers and realizing savings through improved primary care. The Department of Health and Human Services will need to carefully plan and work with states and health insurers to ensure that the coverage expansions and reimbursement reforms are implemented on a timely basis. Taken together, the health insurance expansions and investments in primary care capacity can create an economic engine to spur a high quality and sustainable system of primary health care for the nation.

Posted in Health, MiscellaneousComments (0)

PHEN: Sixth Annual Summit Sept. 16-17, 2010

Posted on 11 August 2010.

About: Thomas A. Farrington – PHEN Founder

When diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2000, Thomas A. Farrington describes himself as being completely uninformed about every aspect of the disease, especially his extremely high risk level.

During his treatment period, Mr. Farrington continued to study prostate cancer and decided that his unsettling experience facing the disease, along with the experiences of other men in treatment with him could help others that would follow them along their journey of hope to beat prostate cancer. In 2001 he released “Battling The Killer Within.” The book provided an insightful look at men facing prostate cancer and the prostate care system in the United States. It highlighted the harsh impact of this system on Black men contributing to the disparity they experience.

”Battling The Killer Within” became a nationally acclaimed book. In 2003, Mr. Farrington founded the Prostate Health Education Network, a Boston, Massachusetts based non-profit organization to focus on the urgent and unmet prostate education and awareness needs of African American men. In 2005, Mr. Farrington released his second book; “Battling The Killer Within and Winning.”

Professionally, Mr. Farrington is an entrepreneur and business executive with more than 30 years experience in the Information Technology industry. In 1969, he founded Input Output Computer Services, Inc. where he served as president and chairman. This company was a pioneer in the evolution of IT professional services.

Throughout his business career, Mr. Farrington has been involved extensively in industry, civic, and community activities. He was selected one of “Ten Outstanding Young Leaders of Greater Boston”, appointed to the Export/Import Bank Advisory Board by President George H. Bush, and appointed by President Clinton to the Historically Black College Advisory Board. Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift appointed Mr. Farrington to the board of the Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, and he serves as a board member of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Farrington is a member of St. John’s Baptist Church in Woburn, MA, the Sigma Pi Phi fraternity and a NAACP life member. He received his B.S. degree from North Carolina A&T State University in electrical engineering and attended the Northeastern University Graduate School of Engineering.

Thomas A. Farrington is a noted speaker on the issue of “Men’s Health,” where he motivates men with straight talk to take charge of their health.

Sixth Annual African American Prostate Cancer Disparity Summit Washington, DC September 16 – 17, 2010

The two-day summit, which is open and free to the public, will be held in the Rayburn House Office Building on Thursday, September 16th (9am – 4pm), and at the Washington Convention Center on Friday, September 17th (8:30am – 12 noon). The Friday session is hosted by Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY) as a part of the Congressional Black Caucus “Annual Legislative Conference.”The Thursday session will focus on new prostate cancer treatments along with clinical trials and research efforts which are underway toward future treatments. The session will examine how these new developments can reduce or eliminate the 150% African American death rate disparity. The importance, and the process, of patients making informed decisions about their treatments selections, and participating in clinical trials, will be an important part of the Thursday session.

The Friday program will highlight PHEN’s “Rally Against Prostate Cancer” (RAP Cancer) national education and awareness initiatives. Presentations by survivors and church leaders will focus on the highly successful 2010 “Father’s Day Rally” held within churches across the country. They will outline their experiences reaching men and women through this inaugural PHEN / church partnership effort. Plans and strategies for expanding church participation in the 2011 Father’s Day Rally will be presented and discussed. A major emphasis will be on goals and plans to utilize the PHEN / Church partnerships to broaden and accelerate prostate health education and awareness outreach throughout Black America with the highest levels of visibility, priority and effectiveness ever achieved.

National leaders and key decision makers will be active participants in the 2010 summit as has been the tradition for the PHEN summits since they were started in 2005.

Summit registration is now available:

Summit Registration

Posted in Announcement, HealthComments (0)