Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Longer Looks: Nursing Home Safety; How The Court Could Impact Subsidies; Origin Of An SHPOS
The Sacramento Bee: Unmasked: How California’s Largest Nursing Home Chains Perform
One nursing home chain operating in California racked up abuse complaints last year at a pace seven times the statewide rate. A large competitor placed one in every 15 of its long-term residents in restraints. Still another corporate giant whose nursing homes dominate the Sacramento region experienced high nursing staff turnover at 90 percent of its facilities. ... As the population ages, and more families face the daunting task of choosing long-term care, consumers remain largely in the dark about the ownership of many California nursing homes – and their track records. While industry officials contend they are intensely regulated by both the state and federal government, no single agency routinely evaluates nursing-home chains to gauge the overall care provided by their facilities. Part one of a three-part series. (Marjie Lundstrom and Philip Reese, 11/8)
The New Republic: Here's What The Supreme Court Could Do To Insurance Premiums In Your State
The Department of Health and Human Services has published detailed, state-by-state information on what people are paying for their insurance this year—and what they would pay without the tax credits. From that, it’s possible to calculate the average increase these people would face instantly if the tax credits vanished. (Jonathan Cohn, 11/11)
Slate: How A SHPOS Is Born
A medical acronym, SHPOS, helps a doctor summarize a patient’s history in just five letters. But unlike emotionally neutral acronyms doctors use, such as LOL—little old lady—SHPOS is a derogatory term that describes a hospitalized patient who is felt by his doctor to be a “subhuman piece of shit.” The acronym has been around since at least 1980, when it was first mentioned in print, but must have existed long before it was memorialized in the journal Man and Medicine. (Anne Skomorowsky, 11/9)
The Atlantic: How The Poor Get Blamed For Disease
The start of the 1960s was characterized by an optimism about the conquest of infectious disease. New vaccines and new federal resources had led a growing number of experts to predict that vaccine-preventable infections would soon be wiped out for good. But in Sioux City and elsewhere, outbreaks of preventable disease persisted. (Elena Conis, 11/9)
The Washington Post: One Doctor’s Old-Fashioned Idea To Cut Health Care Spending: House Calls
In the 1930s, doctors saw patients at home about 40 percent of the time. In the 1980s, nearly all visits took place at the physician’s office or at a hospital. Less than 1 percent were house calls. Modern medicine was centralizing, trapping primary care physicians in their own webs of equipment and auxiliary staff. [Dr. Peter] Boling’s experiences, though, convinced him that there is still a role for medicine in the home, particularly for the frailest of the elderly. (Jeff Guo, 11/6)
The Atlantic: Why Don’t People Want To Donate Their Organs?
Though about 45 percent of American adults are registered organ donors, it varies widely by state. More than 80 percent of adults in Alaska were registered donors in 2012, compared to only 12.7 percent in New York, for example. In New York alone, there are more than 10,000 people currently waiting for organ transplants. According to data compiled by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, more than 500 people died in New York last year, waiting for an organ to become available. (Tiffanie Wen, 11/10)
