Healthcare leaders are all on different pages when it comes to blockchain. Nonetheless, tech companies continue to invest their efforts in blockchain.
Here are seven top blockchain companies to know in 2019, according to digital media website Coindoo.
2. Intellectsoft Blockchain Lab
5. MLG Blockchain
7. Empirica Software
To read the complete report, click here.
Healthcare is traditionally one of the top issues voters say they want Congress to address. This year, the sentiment has intensified. From presidential town hall meetings to congressional hearings to recent public opinion polling, an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democratic voters want Congress to address rising healthcare costs.
But employers and their employees have more at stake than just the cost of utilizing a drug or service, the narrative that is driving today’s healthcare discussion in Congress.
Indeed, employers are at a crossroads in addressing the critical issue of healthcare costs. The fact of the matter is that most employers have no idea how their benefit programs affect employee health outcomes. While it sounds logical that employers understand the link between the benefits they purchase and their employees’ long-term health status, they don’t. Most employers manage their benefits program in separate silos with a single-minded focus only on short-term costs.
When employers focus only on unit costs and transactions in healthcare, employees are undertreated and employers overpay.
Instead of a short-term cost approach, designing healthcare benefits that align the interests of employees and employers around health, and focus on connecting employee health status, care options and outcomes will help employers attain the ultimate goal of a healthy, productive workforce that drives business value for the company.
Employers are recognizing the urgency of this choice but aren’t yet doing enough to address it. If employers don’t start doing a better job of purchasing benefits that help keep employees healthy and productively at work, in part through effective treatment of manageable diseases, our future global competitiveness will be greatly challenged.
For example, better use of medicines can improve health and overall quality of life, which can lead to improved productivity from lower disability and fewer missed days of work. A study found adults with multiple sclerosis that improved medication adherence by 10 percentage points decreased the likelihood of an inpatient or emergency room visit by 9% to 19% and days of work lost by 3% to 8%. Another study found that for workers with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, better medication adherence resulted in less time out of work and more than $3,100 in savings on average per worker annually.
Yet, time and again when it comes time to decide on benefits coverage, the choice offered to employers by payers centers on the cost of therapy and not the value it delivers.
What should employers do to define the best path ahead? We believe that when it’s time to negotiate benefits packages with payers, employers must take a more holistic approach to foster key components of healthy, productive workers by addressing the following guiding principles:
As price and upfront cost continue to dominate the headlines, a substantive policy conversation among all different healthcare stakeholders about what constitutes value is needed. Without such inclusive dialogue, the value narrative will continue to revolve solely around “whether to pay or not to pay” for a particular intervention. For employers at the crossroads who know that determining value isn’t a binary exercise, the correct path forward is focusing on a definition of value that includes broader outcomes and recognizes the heterogeneity of covered lives.
Our employees depend upon it.
This article was first published March 18, 2019, by MedPage Today.
By Joyce Frieden, news editor, MedPage Today
PHILADELPHIA — The consumer will be where it’s at for population health in 2019, David Nash, MD, MBA, said here Monday at a Population Health Colloquium sponsored by Thomas Jefferson University.
“Whatever business model empowers the consumer, wherever she is,” including at home, will spell success, according to Nash, who is dean of Jefferson’s School of Population Health. “That’s where population health must go.”
Nash noted that back in 1990, Kodak, Sears, and General Electric were the most important companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average; all those companies have disappeared or almost disappeared today.
“If we ignore the consumer, it will be at our peril,” Nash said, citing home healthcare, telehealth, and the use of wearables among the trends to watch in the coming year.
Nash, who is a columnist for MedPage Today, also cited these other trends to watch:
Lawton Burns, PhD, MBA, director of the Wharton Center of Health Management and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania here, urged the audience to look critically at some of these possible trends.
“You need to look for evidence for everything you hear,” said Burns, who coauthored an article with his colleague Mark Pauly, PhD, about the need to question some of the commonly accepted principles of the healthcare business.
Some of the ideas that merit more critical thinking, said Burns and Pauly, are as follows:
“I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with those 10 things, but we ought to seriously consider” whether they’re real trends, Burns said. As for moving “from volume to value” in healthcare reimbursement, that idea “is more aspiration than reality” at this point, he said. “This is a slow-moving train.”
Burns also questioned the motives behind some recent healthcare consolidations. In reality, “most providers are positioning themselves to dominate local markets and stick it to the payers — let’s be honest,” he said. “You have to think when you hear about providers doing a merger, you have to think what’s the public rationale and what’s the private rationale? The private one is [often] more sinister than you realize.”