Health IT Advocates Gear Up For Busy 2017 | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Health IT Advocates Gear Up For Busy 2017

September 15, 2016
by David Raths
| Reprints
Despite election’s uncertainty, plenty of policy issues are already in play

The autumn months before a presidential election are quiet periods for health IT policy advocates — the calm before the storm. Traditionally, few bills make it through Congress during election season. The presidential candidates provide scant detail about their approaches to payment reform and the regulations regarding the underlying technology infrastructure. Yet within a few months, it is likely that most of the major players will change and the policy landscape could be quite different. Dr. Karen DeSalvo’s recent departure from the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) is just the first of many significant personnel changes to come.

This year, the potential policy differences between a Trump presidency and a Clinton administration are so vast that it’s difficult to bring them into focus. “We have no policy platform on health IT from either candidate with any substance, so speculating would be like throwing darts at the wall,” says Mari Savickis, vice president for federal affairs for CHIME (College of Healthcare Information Management Executives). “We don’t have any sense of the direction they are going to take.”

Yet in some ways 2016 is different than previous election years. Although there are questions about who will lead the Department of Health & Human Services next year, there are major initiatives already in motion with the MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act) final rule scheduled for release before Nov. 1, and several other value-based payment reforms already in place involving bundled payments, the oncology care model and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus. As they look ahead to 2017, policy advocates already have full agendas following all the regulatory moving parts as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adjusts its rule making.

Legislation is difficult to alter once it has passed. House Republican attempts to overturn the Affordable Care Act provide a great example of that. “The MACRA law provided a booster shot to the delivery reform movement,” says Jeff Smith, vice president of public policy at the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA). “Because it is in legislation, it would be very difficult for any administration, if so inclined, to halt the direction of things. That train has left the station.”

Indeed, the policy advocates we spoke to for this article say they were laser-focused on the details and timeline surrounding the MACRA final rule and implementation of MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System) and APMs (Alternative Payment Models). In their written comments to CMS, most had expressed concern with the proposed rule, and they are anxiously awaiting CMS’ response. “Our overall assessment was that it was an incredibly complex set of policies,” Smith says. “CMS tried really hard to characterize MACRA and MIPS as a way to simplify by combining four programs into one. But in reality if you take four slices of pizza and put them together, you still have a pretty big pizza.”

Jeff Smith

Smith did point to the clinical practice improvement category in MIPS as evidence of a new and innovative line of thinking at CMS. “I don’t think that policy could have been put on the table 10 years ago, but there is a new culture at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and because Patrick Conway leads the innovation center and also serves in a primary function on the more traditional side of CMS, you do see stripes of innovation making their way into traditional CMS policy.”

One key issue is whether CMS will really stick with a Jan. 1, 2017, start date for the reporting period. “That would give 60 days for the vendors to change their systems and get them to market,” says CHIME’s Savickis. “That is a big lift, and clinicians have to adapt to a whole new way of doing things. If I were a betting woman, I don’t think I would bet on Jan. 1.” [Editor’s note: This feature was written before CMS’ Sept. 8 announcement that the start date for the MACRA program will remain Jan. 1, as intended].

Mari Savickis

Savickis adds that CHIME would like to make sure that whatever is required on the ambulatory side for eligible MIPS clinicians is as closely aligned as possible to the inpatient side. “We are looking at multiple sets of rules,” she explains. “The hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) proposed rule makes Meaningful Use changes to three different groups of providers, so trying to manage and navigate the different flavors of Meaningful Use is going to be a challenge for providers. We are looking to CMS to see how it can align them as much as possible.”

AMIA’s Smith says it is hugely problematic that one survey found that 50 percent of doctors don’t know what MACRA is or what it will require. Other big federal programs such as Meaningful Use and e-prescribing programs followed a similar trajectory — large numbers of physicians didn’t become aware until there were penalties. “If the same thing happens, 2017 and 2018 will be incredibly complicated and messy times,” he adds, “but you won’t hear a public outcry until 2019, when the penalties start to hit.”

The Role of ONC

With Stage 3 of Meaningful Use wrapped into MACRA and re-branded as “Advancing Care Information,” as well as the recent departure of Karen DeSalvo as National Coordinator, and a new administration beginning, some advocates are saying this is a good time to re-evaluate the role and mission of ONC.

Robert Horne, executive director of the Health IT Now coalition, says he believes a public discussion needs to happen with Congress and stakeholders about ONC’s role in its entirety. “As part of that, people should consider whether ONC has fulfilled its purpose. I am not suggesting it has. But there should be a re-evaluation of its role.” He says Health IT Now does not see ONC’s role as being a regulator. “Developers looking to bring products to market don’t need another regulator,” he says.

Savickis says CHIME has some concerns with the way ONC proposes to measure interoperability as required under MACRA. “We also don’t want to see a situation where ONC is only focused on the meaningful users,” she says. “There are a lot of providers in the healthcare ecosystem, such as in long-term care and mental health, that are critical components of patient care that need to be folded in, too. Hopefully, ONC will take those into account as they measure interoperability. As far as expanding certification, that is a real question mark, too.”

Robert Tennant, the director of HIT policy for the Medical Group Management Association, says his organization would like to see ONC focus more on administrative efficiency. “Their focus has been on the clinical, but I think health IT deployments in practices and hospitals, if done the right way, can not only improve care but make the care delivery process far more efficient. That efficiency angle has not been a focal point for ONC or for CMS,” he says. One such effort is work on a standard for e-mail attachments to move data between settings.

Tom Leary, vice president of government relations for HIMSS, says it is important not to underestimate ONC’s value. “The work they have done in the last two years on the interoperability roadmap and the standards advisory has made great leaps forward for the overall community,” he says. ONC has a very clear role in terms of helping the industry focus on which are the best standards for achieving interoperability, Leary adds. Regarding the other very important role it plays in terms of certification, the program has evolved well and they seem to have hit their stride with the certification bodies, he says. “Whether ONC should be expanding into other components of health IT is a public discussion worth having, but the overall role of the organization and its value to interoperability standards is absolutely clear.”

On the Legislative Front

There is still an outside chance that legislation with health IT components could pass this fall, and it is something HIMSS is watching very closely, says Samantha Burch, the organization’s senior director of congressional affairs.

“We were involved in advising the U.S. Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) as it drafted its innovation package, which has some components similar to the House’s 21st Century Cures Act,” she says. The Senate legislation would allow NIH to require researchers who use NIH funds to share their data. It would encourage interoperability of electronic medical records, reduction in excessive physician paperwork, clarify each patient’s right to own their own medical record, and discourage information blocking, according to the HELP Committee.

 “The closer we get to an election, the more difficult passing large pieces of legislation gets,” Burch says. We are hopeful, but the clock is ticking.”

Health IT Now’s Horne says that he hopes that health IT provisions that became part of the 21st Century Cures Act in the House will make it to President Obama’s desk this fall. “We encourage the House and Senate to finish their work and get it to the President’s desk. We think it would be a huge, huge mistake to let this opportunity pass.”

But overall Burch says HIMSS is pleased to see that Congress has taken more interest than ever in health IT and is listening to the community about both challenges and opportunities. “As members of Congress look at larger policy goals such as improving chronic care, when they start to peel back the onion, they realize that for those programs to be successful there has to be a strong health IT infrastructure.”

Other areas she expects to be active in 2017 are cybersecurity and telehealth. “In 2016 we had a bipartisan, bicameral comprehensive bill introduced, the Connect for Health Act, which we strongly support,” Burch says. “That bill has its challenges because it would likely cost a significant amount of money, but we are headed toward a tipping point on telehealth where you have a significant group of bipartisan members of the Senate and House saying we need to have 21st century policies and regulations that match where we are today and that aren’t 20 years behind.”


The Health IT Summits gather 250+ healthcare leaders in cities across the U.S. to present important new insights, collaborate on ideas, and to have a little fun - Find a Summit Near You!


/article/payment/health-it-advocates-gear-busy-2017
/news-item/payment/cms-93-clinicians-get-positive-payment-adjustments-mips-year-1

CMS: 93% of Clinicians Get Positive Payment Adjustments for MIPS Year 1

November 8, 2018
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints

Ninety-three percent of MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System)-eligible clinicians received a positive payment adjustment for their performance in 2017, and 95 percent overall avoided a negative payment adjustment, according to a CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) announcement today.

The first year of MIPS under MACRA’s Quality Payment Program (QPP) was dubbed by CMS as a “pick your pace year,” which essentially enabled clinicians to avoid payment penalties as long as they submitted at least the minimum amount of quality data. As such, in its announcement, CMS did admit that the overall performance threshold for MIPS was established at a relatively low level of three points, and the availability of “pick your pace” provided participation flexibility through three reporting options for clinicians: “test”, partial year, or full-year reporting.

CMS said that 93 percent of MIPS-eligible clinicians received a positive payment adjustment for their performance in 2017, and 95 percent overall avoided a negative payment adjustment. CMS specifically calculated that approximately 1.06 million MIPS-eligible clinicians in total will receive a MIPS payment adjustment, either positive, neutral, or negative. The payment adjustments for the 2017 program year get reflected in 2019.

Breaking down the 93 percent of participants that received a positive payment adjustment last year, 71 percent earned a positive payment adjustment and an adjustment for exceptional performance, while 22 percent earned a positive payment adjustment only. Meanwhile, just 5 percent of MIPS-eligible clinicians received a negative payment adjustment, and 2 percent received a neutral adjustment (no increase or decrease).

Of the total population, just over one million MIPS-eligible clinicians reported data as either an individual, as a part of a group, or through an Alternative Payment Model (APM), and received a neutral payment adjustment or better. Additionally, under the Advanced APM track, just more than 99,000 eligible clinicians earned Qualifying APM Participant (QP) status, according to the CMS data.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma noted on the first pick-your-pace year of the QPP, “This measured approach allowed more clinicians to successfully participate, which led to many clinicians exceeding the performance threshold and a wider distribution of positive payment adjustments. We expect that the gradual increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create an evolving distribution of payment adjustments for high performing clinicians who continue to invest in improving quality and outcomes for beneficiaries.”

For 2018, the second year of the QPP, CMS raised the stakes for those participating clinicians. And in the third year of the program, set to start in January 2019, a final rule was just published with year three requirements. Undoubtedly, as time passes, eligible clinicians will be asked for greater participation at higher levels. At the same time, CMS continues to exempt certain clinicians who don’t meet a low-volume Medicare threshold.

Earlier this year, CMS said that 91 percent of all MIPS-eligible clinicians participated in the first year of the QPP, exceeding the agency’s internal goal.

What’s more, from a scoring perspective in 2017, the overall national mean score for MIPS-eligible clinicians was 74.01 points, and the national median was 88.97 points, on a 0 to 100 scale. Further breaking down the mean and median:

  • Clinicians participating in MIPS as individuals or groups (and not through an APM) received a mean score of 65.71 points and a median score of 83.04 points
  • Clinicians participating in MIPS through an APM received a mean score of 87.64 points and a median score of 91.67 points

Additionally, clinicians in small and rural practices who were not in APMs and who chose to participate in MIPS also performed well, CMS noted. On average, MIPS eligible clinicians in rural practices earned a mean score of 63.08 points, while clinicians in small practices received a mean score of 43.46 points.

Said Verma, “While we understand that challenges remain for clinicians in small practices, these results suggest that these clinicians and those in rural practices can successfully participate in the program. With these mean scores, clinicians in small and rural practices would still receive a neutral or positive payment adjustment for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 performance years due to the relatively modest performance thresholds that we have established. We will also continue to directly support these clinicians now and in future years of the program.”

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/payment/hhs-secretary-azar-hhs-planning-new-mandatory-bundled-payment-models

HHS Secretary Azar: HHS Is Planning New Mandatory Bundled Payment Models

November 8, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is revisiting mandatory bundled payment models, possibly for radiation oncology and cardiac care, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, which signals a strong about-face in the Trump Administration’s policy about bundled payment initiatives.

HHS is reexamining the role that mandatory bundled payment models can play in the transition to value-based care, Azar said in a keynote speech at the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative Conference on Thursday. HHS published Azar’s comments.

In the published remarks, Azar said the Trump Administration is revisiting mandatory bundled payments and exploring new voluntary bundled payments as part of the Administration’s goal of paying for outcomes, rather than process.

“We need results, American patients need change, and when we need mandatory models to deliver it, mandatory models are going to see a comeback,” Azar said.

In his speech, Azar said, “Imagine a system where physicians and other providers only had to worry about the outcome, rather than worrying about their staffing ratios and the individual reimbursements for every procedure they do and every drug they prescribe. That kind of payment system would radically reorient power in our healthcare system—away from the federal government and back to those closest to the patient.”

He continued, “One way we can do that is through bundling payments, rather than paying for every individual service. This is an area where you have already seen testing from CMMI for several years now—and I want to let you know today that you are going to see a lot more such ideas in the future.”

Azar highlighted the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI), which, he said, has shown significant savings in several common inpatient episodes, including joint replacement and pneumonia.

During his speech on Thursday, Azar said, “I want to share with all of you for the first time today: We intend to revisit some of the episodic cardiac models that we pulled back, and are actively exploring new and improved episode-based models in other areas, including radiation oncology. We’re also actively looking at ways to build on the lessons and successes of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

“We’re not going to stop there: We will use all avenues available to us—including mandatory and voluntary episode-based payment models,” he said.

One industry group, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), already has voiced concerns about a mandatory payment model. In a statement issued Thursday afternoon, Laura Thevenot, CEO of ASTRO, made it clear that the organizaiton strongly supports a radiation oncology alternative payment model (RO-APM). "ASTRO has worked for many years to craft a viable payment model that would stabilize payments, drive adherence to nationally-recognized clinical guidelines and improve patient care. ASTRO believes its proposed RO-APM will allow radiation oncologists to participate fully in the transition to value-based care that both improves cancer outcomes and reduces costs."

Thevenot said ASTRO has aggressively pursued adoption of this proposed model with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). However, Thevenot said the group has concerns "about the possibility of launching a model that requires mandatory participation from all radiation oncology practices at the outset."

Further, Thevenot said any radiation oncology payment model will represent "a significant departure from the status quo." "Care must be taken to protect access to treatments for all radiation oncology patients and not disadvantage certain types of practices, particularly given the very high fixed costs of running a radiation oncology clinic," Thevenot stated.

Back in January, CMS announced the launch of the voluntary BPCI Advanced model, noting that it “builds on the earlier success of bundled payment models and is an important step in the move away from fee-for-service and towards paying for value.” The BPCI Advanced model includes more than 1,000 participants that are receiving episode-based payments for over 30 clinical areas, Azar said.

“BPCI Advanced is a voluntary model, where potential participants can select whether they want to join. But we’re not going to stick to voluntary models. Real experimentation with episodic bundles requires a willingness to try mandatory models. We know they are the most effective way to know whether these bundles can successfully save money and improve quality,” Azar said.

The Obama Administration introduced mandatory bundled payment for care for heart attacks and for cardiac bypass surgery in July 2016.

In the past, CMS Administrator Seema Verma has said that she does not support making bundled payments mandatory, and former HHS Secretary Tom Price, M.D. had strongly opposed mandatory bundles, going so far as to direct the end of two mandatory bundled payment programs—one existing and one previously announced. In November 2017, CMS finalized a rule, proposed in August 2017, that cancelled mandatory hip fracture and cardiac bundled payment models.

As per that final rule, CMS also scaled back the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR), specifically reducing the number of mandatory geographic areas participating in CJR from 67 areas to 34 areas. And, in an effort to address the unique needs of rural providers, the federal agency also made participation voluntary for all low-volume and rural hospitals participating in the model in all 67 geographic areas.

On Thursday, Azar acknowledged that his statements signaled HHS was reversing course on its previous stance, noting that last year the administration reduced the size of the CJR model and pulled back the other episode payment models, including those on cardiac care, before they could launch.

Azar, who was confirmed as HHS Secretary earlier this year, signaled early on that he diverged from Verma and Price on his views about mandatory bundled payments. During a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January on his nomination for HHS Secretary, he said, on the topic of CMMI [the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation] pilot programs, “I believe that we need to be able to test hypotheses, and if we have to test a hypothesis, I want to be a reliable partner, I want to be collaborative in doing this, I want to be transparent, and follow appropriate procedures; but if to test a hypothesis there around changing our healthcare system, it needs to be mandatory there as opposed to voluntary, then so be it.”

During his speech Thursday, Azar pointed to the Administration’s first mandatory model, which was unveiled two weeks ago, called the International Pricing Index (IPI) Model for payments for Part B drugs. Azar said the model is a “mandatory model that will help address the inequity between what the U.S. and other countries pay for many costly drugs.”

Further, Azar said CMMI also will launch new primary care payment models before the end of the year, with the aim of introducing a spectrum of risk for primary care providers, Azar said.

“Before the end of this year, you will see new payment models coming forth from CMMI that will give primary care physicians more flexibility in how they care for their patients, while offering them significant rewards for successfully keeping them healthy and out of the hospital,” he said.

“Different sizes and types of practices can take on different levels of risk. As many of you know, even smaller practices want to be, and can be, compensated based on their patients’ outcomes,” he said. “We want to incentivize that, with a spectrum of flexibility, too: The more risk you are willing to take on, the less we’re going to micromanage your work.”

Azar also noted HHS’ efforts to examine impediments to care coordination, such as examining the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, HIPAA, and 42 CFR Part 2. CMS has already launched and concluded a request for information on the Stark Law, and the Office of the Inspector General has done the same on the Anti-Kickback Statute, he noted.

Related Insights For: Payment

/blogs/rajiv-leventhal/payment/dr-sanjay-gupta-s-heartening-speech-chime18-should-inspire-us

Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s Heartening Speech at CHIME18 Should Inspire U.S. Healthcare Leaders

| Reprints
The story of an Amazonian tribe could serve as a motivational lesson for U.S. healthcare stakeholders

It was inspiring to hear Sanjay Gupta, M.D., the well-known neurosurgeon and medical reporter, give the closing keynote at the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) 2018 Fall CIO Forum in San Diego last week. Dr. Gupta, who serves as associate chief of the neurosurgery service at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, while also best known as CNN's multiple Emmy Award-winning chief medical correspondent, discussed the fascinating balance that he strikes between medicine and media.

“Oftentimes, I see people at their best, and sometimes at their worst. I get to travel the world, where I learn so much, but also teach others. Sometimes the dance between medicine and media can be awkward and emotionally challenging. But almost always, the stories we do have a significant impact,” Gupta told the Fall CIO Forum attendees.

What was perhaps most captivating about Gupta’s speech was when he spoke about visiting a primitive Amazonian tribe that appears to have the best heart health in the world. The Tsimane people of Bolivia do not speak a language, live a simple existence, and are disease-free, explained Gupta. So he went to visit the tribe with the goal to understand its lifestyle and what led to its members having such healthy hearts.  

Sanjay Gupta, M.D.

“I went spearfishing with one [tribe member], who thought he was 84-years-old, but he really didn’t know for sure. His shirt was off, and he was ripped, balancing himself on the canoe, just looking at the water, spearing fish. His eyesight was perfect. The entire indigenous tribe was just like this,” Gupta recalled.

After examining the Tsimane tribe’s diet, Gupta noted it was a hunter-gatherer society, meaning there was nothing technological. “The most mechanical thing I saw was a pulley for the well,” he said. Seventy percent of what they eat is carbohydrates—unrefined and unprocessed—while 15 percent of their diet is protein, and 15 percent fat, he added. “You need farmed food because oftentimes you don’t have successful hunting days, so the farmed food was the food in the bank. And they would do intermitting fasting, too. These are the people with the healthiest hearts in the world,” Gupta exclaimed.

When it comes to activity, when hunters are hunting, they’re never outrunning their prey, but rather outlasting it, noted Gupta. “We found that they walked about 17,000 steps per day. But they didn’t run; they only walked. They are active, but not intensively active. They also hardly every sit—they are either lying or standing all the time. And they would get nine hours of sleep per night, waking up to the rooster’s crow. There are no devices. Again, these are the people who have the healthiest hearts in world. They don’t have a healthcare system and don’t spend a dollar on healthcare,” Gupta stated.

What’s even more interesting about this tribe is that each of its members lives with some degree of a parasitic infection, which they usually get it early in life, have a few days of illness, and then just live with these parasites in their bodies for their entire lives. “The belief is that so much of the disease we talk about—that leads to this $3.3 trillion price tag [the total cost of U.S. healthcare spending in 2016]—is actually ignited or worsened by our immune systems. So the parasitic infections could be part of the reason they are protected from all types of diseases,” Gupta offered.

Essentially, it’s living this basic, undeveloped life that “inadvertently provides them extraordinary protection against heart disease,” noted a report in HealthDay last year. “Thanks to their unique lifestyle, most Tsimane [members] have arteries unclogged by the cholesterol plaques that drastically increase the risk of heart attack and stroke in modern Americans,” Gregory Thomas, M.D., medical director of the Memorial Care Heart & Vascular Institute at Long Beach Memorial, in California, said in that report.

Tsimane tribe (source: University of New Mexico)

You might be asking what the story of the Tsimane tribe has to do with U.S. healthcare since its lifestyle would obviously never be replicated in a developed country. And while that is true, it’s tough to ignore the $1 billion per day that our healthcare system spends on heart disease—compared to the Tsimane tribe that doesn’t spend a single dime, yet has the healthiest hearts in the world.

In this sense, perhaps we can use the Tsimane story to push ourselves to develop a greater understanding of why we spend so much money on healthcare and don’t have the results to show for it. Gupta asked this $3.3 trillion-dollar question in his speech—why does healthcare in the U.S. cost so much and what do we get in return?

“If you look at the statistics, it’s not impressive. More people die from preventable disease in the U.S. than in 12 other nations. People live longer in 30 other countries compared to the U.S.—including places like Chile and Costa Rica. We still have tens of millions of people who don’t have access, and we still spend all this money on healthcare. Why?” he asked.

Gupta explained that the nation’s high healthcare costs come down to the following: high administrative costs, technology, new drugs and development, and the cost of chronic disease—the last which is incredibly self-inflicted. About 70 to 80 percent of chronic disease is self-preventable, he said.

Indeed, as most of us know, about 5 percent of the U.S. population accounts for 50 percent of the healthcare costs. These are folks who are defined by illness, not by health, Gupta stated. This is why the modern-day healthcare system has proactively taken to targeting that 5 percent to improve their chances of preventing disease and staying healthy. “Data shows that home visits, nutritional counseling, one-on-one coaching, and diligent follow-up care can go a long way in preventing someone from getting sick in the first place, and from turning a disease into something more chronic. Some of these interventions can actually reverse disease. The die is not cast,” Gupta said.

For me, Gupta’s keynote highlighted the need for efforts around value-based care, care management, and population health to be intensified. A big part of that, as noted in the speech, is addressing patients’ social and environmental factors. It’s not at all surprising to see studies such as this one from earlier this year, conducted by researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) College of Public Health, Tampa, and WellCare Health Plans, and published in Population Health Management, which found that healthcare spending is substantially reduced when people are successfully connected to social services that address social barriers, or social determinants of health, such as secure housing, medical transportation, healthy food programs, and utility and financial assistance.

And with that, there is also an enormous opportunity for data and IT to play a role. Information sharing, so that providers have access to the right information at the point of care—no matter where the patient is—will be critical to reducing unnecessary costs. As will the robust use of data analytics, so that patient care organizations can be proactive in predicting which patients are at highest risk, when they might need services, and how to intervene at the appropriate time.

But to this point, Gupta, who noted that our society can get too caught up in high-tech, also suggested that “medicine seems to play by slightly different rules when it comes to innovation as opposed to other sectors. Sometimes, innovation moves painstakingly slow in respect to medicine.” At the end of the day, he said, it will be “the innovations that make us, [as a society], healthier, happier, and connect us in frictionless ways, that will be the biggest winners.”

So, will the U.S. population suddenly turn off their iPhone alarms, wake up to the rooster’s crow, and become a hunter-gatherer society? No, I would say that’s quite unlikely to happen. But hearing stories such as the one of the Tsimane tribe might just serve as good enough motivation to bring down the astronomical and unsustainable costs of U.S. healthcare.

See more on Payment

betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis