Hubei's Core Response Policies in the Early Stage of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This study is aimed at confirming the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak in Hubei, China. METHODS: The data are all from the epidemic information released by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China and the Health Commission of Hubei Province. We used the multivariable linear regression by the SPSS 19.0 software: the cumulative number of confirmed cases, the cumulative number of cured cases, and the number of daily severe cases were taken as dependent variables, and the six policies, including the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council, lockdown Wuhan city, the first-level response to public health emergencies, the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients, mobile cabin hospitals, and counterpart assistance in Hubei province, were gradually entered into multiple linear regression models as independent variables. RESULTS: The factors influencing the cumulative number of diagnosed cases ranged from large to small: mobile cabin hospitals and the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients. The factors influencing the cumulative number of cured cases ranged from large to small: counterpart support medical teams in Hubei province and mobile cabin hospitals. The factors influencing the number of daily severe cases ranged from large to small: mobile cabin hospitals and the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients. CONCLUSION: The mobile cabin hospital is a major reason for the successfully defeating COVID-19 in China. As COVID-19 pandemic spreads globally, the mobile cabin hospital is a successful experience in formulating policies to defeat COVID-19 for other countries in the outbreak phase.

Reduction in Comorbid Conditions Over 5 Years Following Bariatric Surgery in Medicaid and Commercially Insured Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine changes in the prevalence of comorbid disease following bariatric surgery in Medicaid patients compared with commercially insured patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery, an observational cohort study of adults undergoing bariatric surgery at one of six geographically diverse centers in the United States. A total of 1,201 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 5 years of follow-up were identified. Poisson mixed models were used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and compare changes in common comorbidities between insurance groups within 0-1 and 1-5 years post surgery. Propensity scores were used to achieve balance in the baseline comorbidity burden between Medicaid and commercial patients. RESULTS: In the first year, risk of all six comorbidities decreased substantially over time in both groups, ranging from a 32% to a 69% decrease from baseline. After 1 year post surgery, the risk of disease was stable in both groups (RRs ranged from 1.0 to 1.1). After propensity score weighting, the RRs in the first year were more similar in magnitude, while the RRs in the 1- to 5-year period were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that Medicaid patients experience a medium-term reduction in comorbid disease after bariatric surgery.

From the end of the world to the top of the world.

I've been on the road a bit this summer. Because of the kind generosity of my London broker, Lloyd and Partners, Ltd., I've been allowed the unique opportunity to have an insider's view of the London market. I observed an interesting renewal situation and sat with underwriters in their boxes amid the hallowed (at least to us insurance geeks) trappings of Lloyd's. I spent several lovely days in Hanover with my long-time lead reinsurer, Hanover Re, while trying desperately to keep up with my own work back home. It's been stimulating and thought-provoking, and I know I won't ever view the purchase of insurance in the same way.

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance.

The United States spends more than twice as much on health care as the average of other developed nations, all of which boast universal coverage. Yet more than 41 million Americans have no health insurance. Many more are underinsured. Confronted by the rising costs and capabilities of modern medicine, other nations have chosen national health insurance (NHI). The United States alone treats health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need. In this market-driven system, insurers and providers compete not so much by increasing quality or lowering costs, but by avoiding unprofitable patients and shifting costs back to patients or to other payers. This creates the paradox of a health care system based on avoiding the sick. It generates huge administrative costs that, along with profits, divert resources from clinical care to the demands of business. In addition, burgeoning satellite businesses, such as consulting firms and marketing companies, consume an increasing fraction of the health care dollar. We endorse a fundamental change in US health care--the creation of an NHI program. Such a program, which in essence would be an expanded and improved version of traditional Medicare, would cover every American for all necessary medical care. An NHI program would save at least 200 billion dollars annually (more than enough to cover all of the uninsured) by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services. Physicians and hospitals would be freed from the concomitant burdens and expenses of paperwork created by having to deal with multiple insurers with different rules, often designed to avoid payment. National health insurance would make it possible to set and enforce overall spending limits for the health care system, slowing cost growth over the long run. An NHI program is the only affordable option for universal, comprehensive coverage.

Personal choices of health plans by managed care experts.

BACKGROUND: Expert opinion has not been used as a basis for comparing different forms of health insurance, in part because this perspective may not be appropriately sensitive to aspects of care that consumers value. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using a case-control design, managed care experts were surveyed at 17 academic institutions in the United States to determine the type of health plan they chose (fee-for-service, HMO, POS, PPO, or catastrophic). Controls consisted of academicians from other disciplines at these institutions who ostensibly faced the same insurance options. We then compared the choices of physician experts, nonphysician experts and controls using a multinomial logit model that was sensitive to the choice set available at each institution. We also examined the choice behavior of respondents within moderate (< $150,000) and high (> or =$150,000) income levels. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven experts and 465 controls were surveyed and responses were received from 73.7% and 52.7%, respectively. Physician experts were approximately half as likely (14.9%) as controls (26.6%) or nonphysician experts (27.6%) to enroll in HMO plans. In moderate-income households, both physicians (Relative Risk [RR] = 0.42; P <0.01) and nonphysician experts (RR = 0.71; P <0.1) were less likely than controls to opt for an HMO. Experts' propensity to choose HMO coverage varied little with income, whereas controls' propensity changed dramatically between moderate (39.1% in HMOs) and high (14.0% in HMOs) income categories. CONCLUSIONS: The aversion of physician experts, and nonphysician experts with moderate income, to HMO plans may be caused by their stronger distaste for the constraints on choice and access that typically accompany HMO coverage. Alternatively, it may be explained by their superior ability to absorb, understand, and use information about available insurance options. Insights into quality in managed care may also play a role.

Normas de diagnóstico y tratamiento médico: para las entidades gestoras de los seguros de salud / Standards of diagnosis and medical treatment: for the managing entities of the health insurances

Las Normas de diagnóstico y tratamiento médico de los Seguros de Salud se las ha trabajado en base a las cuatro especialidades básicas, y es un instrumento importante en la atención médica de los asegurados y beneficiarios en las distintas entidades de salud que atienden el Régimen a corto plazo de la Seguridad Social en Bolivia, estas normas surgen de una necesidad de mejorar la calidad del tratamiento médico por medio de este instrumento normativo que permita la unificación de conductas terapeúticas y el seguimiento de los pacientes brindando un tratamiento adecuado y oportuno, y permitir a las entidades aseguradoras construir indicadores de rendimiento institucional

The need for single-payer catastrophic health insurance.

Both physicians and patients are becoming increasingly frustrated with the decreasing flexibility of our health-care system. Forty-one million citizens remain uninsured while ill patients in managed-care plans find themselves subject to bureaucratic hurdles in attempting to obtain necessary care. Rather than relying on the market place to provide affordable insurance to patients, physicians should embrace single-payer catastrophic coverage. A government insurance program should be enacted that covers all medical bills that exceed a $15,000 deductible annually for families and a $10,000 deductible annually for individuals. Patients could then purchase plans through the private sector to cover these deductibles. While such a plan would require a tax increase, premiums would decrease, health insurance would become more affordable to low wage earners, and more treatment decisions would be made by physicians and patients.

Consumer acceptance of prepaid and fee-for-service medical care: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Do consumers find the care provided by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and that provided in the fee-for-service (FFS) system equally acceptable? To address this question, we randomly assigned 1,537 people ages 17 to 61 either to FFS insurance plans that allowed choice of physicians or to a well-established HMO. We also studied 486 people who had already selected the HMO (control group). Those who had chosen the HMO were as satisfied overall with medical care providers and services as their FFS counterparts. The typical person assigned to the HMO, however, was significantly less satisfied overall relative to FFS participants. Attitudes toward specific features of care favored both FFS and HMO, depending on the feature rated. Four differences (length of appointment waits, parking arrangements, availability of hospitals, and continuity of care) favored FFS; two (length of office waits, costs of care) favored the HMO. HMO versus FFS differences in ratings of access to care and availability of resources mirror differences in the organizational features of these two systems that are generally considered responsible for the significantly lower medical expenditures at HMOs. Regardless of their origin, less favorable attitudes toward interpersonal and technical quality of care in the HMO have marked consequences: dissatisfaction and disenrollment.