Federal, private funders bet food-as-pharmacy programs will deliver healthcare cost savings
When low-income patients with high blood pressure fill their “produce prescriptions” at certain New York City pharmacies, they walk away with $30 in vouchers to spend on fresh fruits and vegetables at the city’s farmer’s markets.
The city’s “Pharmacy to Farm
Prescriptions Program” has reached more than 1,000 hypertensive SNAP
recipients since it launched in 2017, and has grown from 3 to 16 participating
pharmacies. It is set to report outcomes data next year.
The program is supported in part by
a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is poised to make
an even bigger impact on the food-as-pharmacy programs that have been growing
in popularity. The 2018 Farm Bill established a national Produce Prescription Program
that sets aside millions in grants each year.
With diet-related illnesses like
heart disease and obesity costing hundreds of billions of dollars each year in
the U.S., other funders are also expecting a healthy return-on-investment (ROI)
in these programs, which means more initiatives like New York City’s may find
the means to thrive.
Not Just for SNAP Recipients
USDA has been supporting projects to increase healthy food consumption among SNAP recipients since 2014, under the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP, formerly the Food Insecurity Nutrition Initiative). The bill now guarantees GusNIP can administer $25 million in produce prescription grants—not just for SNAP-based programs—for the fiscal year beginning in 2018, jumping to $45 million for the 2019 fiscal year and rising to its cap of $56 million in 2023. The first grants will be awarded in October.
Food Hub in Charlottesville, Virginia, currently receives funding
from local businesses and philanthropies, but has applied for a federal grant.
Its Fresh Farmacy program
provides low-income patients who have chronic disease with produce from local
farmers. Participants pick up their “shares” every other week during
the growing season.
“We have seen first-hand the
impact of incorporating healthy food to manage weight, maintain healthy blood
glucose levels, and reduce the risk of diabetes complications,” said
Patricia Polgar-Bailey, a nurse practitioner at the Charlottesville Free
Clinic, which participates in Fresh Farmacy.
Non-Profit and Private Sectors Pitch In
Federal dollars aren’t the only way to keep food-as-pharmacy programs afloat. Wholesome Wave, a non-profit that was co-founded by Gus Schumacher, has been supporting produce prescription projects since 2010.
Wholesome Wave gets money from
philanthropies and corporate partners – including Target, Chobani, and Humana,
to name a few – to foster such programs.
“There are non-profits and
private-sector supporters trying to prove the model in the interest of getting
insurers and the healthcare industry to really step up,” said Julie
Peters, director of programs at Wholesome Wave.
An example of the organization’s
support: it’s putting money into a produce prescriptions pilot for diabetes at
Community Health and Wellness Partners (CHWP) in Logan County, Ohio, which is
also supported by state and federal dollars.
Healthy Food = Healthier Lives
Once a month, participants attend nutrition classes taught by staff dietitians, and subsequently receive vouchers for up to $120, depending on family size, to purchase produce at local grocery stores or farmer’s markets.
Among those who have completed three
months of classes, HbA1c has already declined 0.6 percentage points on average,
said Jason Martinez, a clinical pharmacist at CHWP who has analyzed preliminary
data from the program.
Will these improvements translate to
reduced healthcare costs? That has been the case at Geisinger Health System’s Fresh Food Farmacy initiative. The program
focuses on patients with type 2 diabetes who experience food insecurity. In
addition to 15 hours of disease and nutrition counseling, participants get
enough healthy food for 5 days of the family’s weekly meals.
Over 18 months, participants’ HbA1c
levels fell 2.1 points on average, compared with declines of 0.5-1.2 points for
those taking two or three medications only. Along with improvements in weight,
cholesterol, and hypertension, that has translated to an 80% drop in healthcare spending for 37 of about
200 participants who were insured by Geisinger, according to early data.
“We know the cost of the program, all-in, for the food and the clinical care is around $2,500, so it’s reasonable to assume that there’s an ROI that we would experience with that,” said Allison Hess, vice president of health and wellness at Geisinger. She’s hopeful that ROI will convince insurance companies “to potentially fund this as part of a benefit package.”
Similarly—albeit hypothetically—a recent simulation study of
Medicare and Medicaid recipients predicted that providing a 30% subsidy on
fruits and vegetables would prevent nearly 2 million cardiovascular events and
save almost $40 billion in annual healthcare costs.
This story was originally posted on MedPage Today.
Job shadowing is a long-standing tradition. High schools often have dedicated shadowing days, during which students can come and spend time with people working in careers that the students find interesting. While a few hours isn’t really enough to know if you like, love, or hate a job, it’s a start.
In healthcare, it can be especially important to spend time shadowing. In fact, PA schools want applicants to have hundreds of hours of documented shadowing time. I’m certain medical schools now want the same. I don’t know about other healthcare fields, such as dentistry, physical therapy, or pharmacy, but I suspect they want to see it as well.
We have created a system where shadowing is expected for acceptance in professional schools even as some hospitals make it very difficult (or impossible) to shadow. In some instances, it’s about concerns over privacy. In others, it’s simply that the number of people who desire to shadow is so large that it’s very difficult to get a time slot. And in others, it’s that there are medical, PA, or nurse practitioner students and residents rotating through the hospitals as part of their graduation requirements. In other words, it’s just dang crowded. As such, high school or even college students, trying to shadow, are at the bottom of the list.
In many career fields, it’s easy enough to shadow. If mom is an attorney, her son or daughter can sit in the courtroom or come to the office. If dad is a plumber, it’s easy enough to tag along and watch (or practice on projects at home). Teachers encourage students to shadow, and assorted business people do as well. Law enforcement often allows ride-along sessions. Even moms or dads in military careers have days when family can come on base and see what life is like in their jobs. I could go on, but the fact remains that from what I’ve seen, it’s much easier to shadow in other fields than in medicine. (If I’m wrong and this is a new trend everywhere, please leave a comment and educate me!)
The problem with medical careers that require graduate degrees is that the path to those schools is long, arduous, and expensive. And they require careful planning, sacrifice, and intentionality to create a resume and application that is more likely to stand out from the others. In this case, it would make so much more sense for shadowing opportunities to be much more available and easy to access.
It’s extraordinarily hard for a student to know if he wants to commit to 14 years of education based on a couple of hours walking around in a clinic. Admittedly, I have had some shadowers who probably got the message pretty quickly. Once I had a university student who followed me in the ED for four hours. At the end, he said, in a fatigued voice, “Don’t you guys ever sit down?” Not the perfect attitude if you really want to go into medicine. (Although maybe he ended up a radiologist with a nice chair in a dark room.)
We need to offer more shadowing, not less. Especially in an era of growing physician shortages in both primary care and specialties. We need to encourage students to pursue careers that have made our lives so rich and meaningful. And we need to urge hospitals, clinics, and offices to make those opportunities available as well.
we want good healthcare; heck, if we want healthcare at all, we have to
have physicians, PAs, and all the rest. And in order to have those
essential persons, as it stands, they’ll have to shadow.
Every other job field seems to get it.
It’s time we do too.
Edwin Leap, MD,
is an emergency physician. He practices full-time in a rural community
hospital in South Carolina. He has spent many years practicing in rural
and critical access facilities, including work as a locums provider for
Weatherby Healthcare. He is a writer and blogger. He and his wife have
four children. See more at edwinleap.com.
This post appeared on KevinMD.
LAS VEGAS — There’s a lot more to
substance abuse disorder than physical dependence, which means that acute detox
treatment by itself isn’t an effective therapy, a researcher said here.
The real key, said Debra Gordon RN,
DNP, of the University of Washington in Seattle, in a talk here at the annual PAINWeek conference, is establishing a
relationship with patients so that behavioral changes can be implemented.
Withholding opioids from patients
with substance use disorder will not cure their addiction, she said. Moreover,
providing them with opioids will not necessarily worsen their addiction and may
help them accept behavioral therapies.
“There is no evidence that
detoxing someone in an acute situation or hospital setting is going to impact
that disease,” Gordon said in a presentation. “In fact, the evidence
seems to be they will be more at risk for using at their discharge and having
an overdose, some of that being in the prison system, but you see that in
Patients with substance use disorder
continue to use drugs despite recurrent problems in their social, workplace, or
familial spheres that occur because of their use. Many take multiple substances
and have underlying mental health disorders, both of which need to be screened
for, Gordon said.
These patients have a higher pain
threshold and the prevalence of chronic pain is also much higher in patients with drug
abuse disorder. As such, using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) to define their
pain will be insufficient, and providers should determine whether the source of
pain is acute, chronic, or related to the patient’s addiction.
Clinicians should also anticipate
that patients with substance abuse disorder may have had negative experiences
with the healthcare system previously, Gordon said, and asking open-ended
questions without judgment may mitigate feelings of shame or fear that prompt
them to withhold information.
Seemingly obvious physical comforts,
like turning off the lights or keeping a room quiet, also go a long way as
well, Gordon said. Cognitive behavioral therapy can also help patients change
their perception of pain and help with sleep, mood, and anxiety issues
co-occurring with substance use disorder.
Still, some patients may not be
willing to change, and others may try to use within the hospital. When
encountering patients who deny having a problem, or who recognize the disorder
but are unwilling to change, providers should focus on helping them transition
out of the hospital when the time comes and providing naloxone emergency
overdose kits to patients who may return to illicit drug use.
“Failure to engage in treatment
is not a failure,” Gordon said. “It’s part of the process and it’s
part of the disease.”
But despite the treatment options
available for patients with substance abuse, some providers may be unaware they
exist, or may be unsure of what they are authorized to provide, Gordon said.
“There are barriers in the
healthcare system in terms of the way we’ve traditionally been trained and
traditionally work in silos, and to care for this population we have to really
have a team approach,” Gordon told MedPage Today. “It’s one
thing to say stuff on paper and another to try and find out how it works in the
This story was originally posted on MedPage Today.
You are seeing a newly booked
patient in your jail medical clinic. He states that the last time he was in
jail, he was given a second mattress because he had surgery on his back many
years ago. You note that the patient has not seen a doctor on the outside for
many years, that the patient walks and moves normally, and that he has a normal
neurological examination. You tell the patient that medical does not give out
passes for extra mattresses. The patient angrily erupts in a blaze of
obscenities and threatens a lawsuit.
Manipulation happens when a patient
wants something that they should not have (like an extra mattress and pillow)
and will not accept “NO” for an answer. There are several strategies
patients may employ in an attempt to force practitioners to change a
“No” to a “Yes.” This patient started with the “other
doctors gave me what I want” strategy and when that didn’t work, he
employed the “threatening” strategy. (I covered this in more detail in a post last month.)
Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is what I call the
technique of deflecting and defusing such manipulative confrontations. The
first and most important rule of Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is to remember that this is
not a war or a contest! There should be no “battle of wills” between
you and your patient. There is no winner or loser. Instead, you and your
patient are having a conversation. The whole goal of Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is to
avoid any kind of verbal battle.
I know that it is tempting to think
of an unpleasant verbal exchange as a debate-style contest, with a winner and a
loser at the end. But even if you “win” a verbal battle, you’ve
actually really lost because you have not accomplished your goal of getting
your patient to understand and accept your treatment plan! Your patient is
still not happy and will simply renew the verbal battle at another time in
another way — and maybe more effectively next time.
The second rule of Verbal Jiu-Jitsu
is to have compassionate understanding of your patient. That person in front of
you is not an opponent to be defeated. He is your patient. Like everybody else,
inmates are just trying to get by as well as they can in a very tough
environment — they’re in jail! It’s just that many inmates (and people on the
outside, for that matter) have poor interpersonal skills and resort to
pathological social habits. This is what they know and what works for them. If
a patient has successfully gotten his way throughout his life by bullying and
threatening others, that is how he is going to interact with you, too.
You don’t have control over this —
but you do have control over your reaction. When patients confront you with
threats, they will expect you to respond the way that most other people would
— which is either to fight back or to give in. You should do neither.
Take, for example, the case of this
patient in your clinic who has angrily threatened to sue you plus has lobbed in
a few F-bombs for good measure. There he is, red faced, fists clenched, and
LOUD. Nurses, deputies, and other inmates are watching. How are you going to
handle this? How will you accomplish your goal of defusing the situation and
facilitating reasonable communication with your patient?
The single worst thing you could do
would be to respond to anger with anger: “You can’t talk to me like that!
Get the hell out! Who do you think you are?” First of all, the patient is
accustomed to this type of response and will be far more comfortable and
effective with a loud confrontation than you.
Second, the patient (and everyone
watching) have now learned that a verbal confrontation is an effective way of
getting under your skin — very useful information! Also, since you (hopefully)
are not practiced and adept at angry shouting, your heart will be jack-hammering
and you’ll develop a monster headache — at least that’s what would happen with
me. You will have ruined your own mood for the rest of the day. How effective
are you then going to be with the rest of your clinic schedule?
Finally, the fight is not over! The
patient can (and will) renew the attack at another time.
Another wrong response is to
compromise: “There is no reason to be angry! Calm down and we can work
something out.” This is a mistake! If you compromise, you have established
the precedent that becoming angry is an effective strategy with you. Other
inmates will learn this and you will inevitably have to endure many more
confrontations like this.
Instead, defuse and deflect. One way
would be to say: “I see that you are angry, so we are done for now.
Security will take you back to your dorm. We’ll talk again later after you’ve
calmed down.” It’s important to say this without raising your voice and,
if possible, to betray no emotion on your face or body language. The lack of
any reaction goes a long way to defusing such situations. No compromise, no
bargaining, no reaction.
The next day — or even in an hour
or two — you can call the patient back to medical and confidently expect a
more productive conversation. It is important at this second interaction not to
upbraid or belittle the patient. You should act as if the last incident is
It takes training, practice, and
time to master verbal defense skills. The best way to learn is through
role-playing scenarios. The response to angry outbursts happens to be one of
the easiest Verbal Jiu-Jitsu skills to learn. The principles are: betray no
reaction or emotion, end the session (if the patient will not calm down
immediately), but make sure that such patients know that they are welcome back
as soon as they calm down. Bring them back later and act as if the incident is
This story was originally posted on MedPage Today.
Low complication rates for procedures performed by advanced practice providers
Advanced practice providers (APPs) performed office-based neonatal circumcisions with results comparable to those of physicians, according to two studies reported here.
A circumcision clinic led by nurse practitioners (NPs) had a 5-year complication rate of 4.1% as compared with 3.4% for circumcisions performed by physicians. Neither the overall rate nor any of the rates for specific types of complications differed significantly between NPs and MDs, reported Jonathan A. Gerber, MD, of Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) in Houston, at the American Urological Association annual meeting.
The second study showed a 3-year complication rate of about 5% for circumcisions performed by a specially trained physician assistant (PA). That compared with complication rates of 4%-5% in published reviews of physician-performed circumcisions. The PA-performed circumcisions also generated substantial revenue for the urology practice, said Kaity Colon-Sanchez, PA-C, of Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando.
“We felt that utilization of advanced practice providers in our newborn services clinic has allowed pediatric urologists to focus their attention on the most complicated cases in the practice, while the more simple newborn circumcisions are being performed safely and effectively by advanced practice providers,” said Gerber. “Additionally, the results suggest that the longstanding age and weight cutoffs for newborn circumcisions need to be reconsidered, because our study shows similar outcomes in older and heavier children.”
About 70%-80% of newborn male infants undergo circumcision, making it the most common urologic procedure. An ongoing shortage of pediatric urologists has created a significant imbalance between the need for circumcision and the resources to provide the service. To address the problem, TCH established an APP-led newborn circumcision clinic, said Gerber.
One previous study documented results of a service wherein NPs performed minor urologic procedures, but the procedures all occurred in an operating room. The TCH service is provided in an outpatient setting.
Pediatric urologists trained APPs to perform Gomco clamp circumcisions. The training consisted of observing 10 newborn circumcisions, assisting in 10 procedures, and then performing 10 circumcisions under direct supervision of a pediatric urologist. Thereafter, a pediatric urologist was on call for all APP-performed circumcisions. APPs were limited to performing circumcisions for infants <30 days old and weighing <10 lbs.
Investigators retrospectively reviewed records for circumcisions performed over a 5-year period, which allowed for comparison of outcomes before and after implementation of the APP-led clinic.
Gerber reported data for 314 APP-performed circumcisions and 237 performed by pediatric urologists. The analysis focused primarily on complications. The study population had a mean age of 23.8 days and mean weight of 8.6 pounds. Physicians performed circumcisions on older (28.4 vs 20.3 days, P<0.0001) and heavier (8.9 vs 8.4 lb, P<0.0063) infants and used more lidocaine per procedure (0.96 vs 0.8 mL).
Overall, 21 complications occurred, with no significant differences between the APP and physician procedures:
- Total: 13 (4.1%) vs 8 (3.4%)
- Revision circumcision: 1 each
- 30-day return to emergency department (ED): 2 vs 0
- Other penile surgery: 2 vs 4
- Intraprocedure bleeding: 11 vs 4
The data showed no difference in outcomes for patients <30 vs ≥30 days or weight <10 vs ≥10 lbs, the traditional age and weight cutoffs for uncomplicated circumcision.
Colon-Sanchez reported her 3-year experience performing clinic-based circumcision in a pediatric urology service. She evaluated 371 infants for neonatal circumcision. They had a mean age of 7.8 weeks (range of 1 to 13 weeks) and weighed an average of 5.2 kg (11.4 lbs) and had a weight range of 3.2-7.5 kg. Subsequently, 95 infants did not undergo circumcision, 91 because of an abnormal genital exam. Colon-Sanchez performed 272 circumcisions with the Plastibell device and four with the Gomco device.
The clinic charged $366 for families that paid for the procedures themselves, and billed $722 when procedures were covered by insurance. Colon-Sanchez noted that the 95 patients excluded from the analysis did not represent lost revenue, as the office visit was considered billable and many of the patients required additional surgery.
Records revealed a complication rate of 6.43%, consisting of retained Plastibell device in 1.80% of cases, swelling in 1.40%, adhesions in 1.10%, cosmesis issues in 0.73%, and ED visits for bleeding in 1.40%.
The results compared favorably with those from studies of circumcisions performed by physicians, said Colon-Sanchez. A study of more than 1,000 circumcisions performed by pediatricians and ob/gyns showed an acute complication rate of 3.9%, all involving bleeding. A study of 9,000 surgeries at a pediatric urology service showed that 4.7% of the procedures involved late complications of circumcisions. Additionally, 7.4% of visits to the pediatric urology outpatient clinic during a 1-year period involved concerns related to newborn circumcisions.
“Well-trained physician urology physician assistants can perform neonatal circumcisions,” said Colon-Sanchez. “The data support low complication rates with well-trained PA providers. Urologist back-up is readily available. Office-based neonatal circumcisions provides an additional revenue stream.”
In response to a question, she described a training program similar to the one the APPs in Gerber’s study completed. She said she felt comfortable with her abilities after about 30 procedures.
Gerber and Colon-Sanchez disclosed no relevant relationships with industry.
This story was originally posted on MedPage Today.