docdano.com

Me and My Doctor: Congress Plays Political 'Chicken' With America's ...

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:07:00 +0000

Me and My Doctor: Congress Plays Political 'Chicken' With America's ...: Dan McCoy, MD Dermatologist, Dallas, TX Online Radio Host, DocDano.com Past Chair, TMA Council on Legislation Dr. McCoy speaks ou...

From our friends at Baylor Health: 3 things you need to know about diabetes

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:10:00 +0000

Check out this very nice video post from our friends at the Baylor Health Care System on the three things you need to know about diabetes. Baylor Health Care System is a network of 25 hospitals with more than 3,400 beds in the Dallas-Forth Worth area. And, its right across the street from our Dallas studio!

Nice msnbc Video: How patient satisfaction scores in the hospital will be tied to dollars

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So you know that survey you get in the mail after a hospital stay or an outpatient diagnostic test? The one that ask you questions like, "Were you treated politely?" and "Were snacks available without having to ask for them?" Due to requirements in the new Obamacare federal health regulations, Medicare money for hospitals will to some degree be tied to patient satisfaction scores -- most of which will come from those post-encounter surveys. Check out this nice video from msnbc.

blogtalkradio: We're moving our audio feeds!

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:00:00 +0000

As part of our new website upgrade we are migrating our audio feeds to blogtalkradio! Check out this new audio player and let us know what you think. We thought we would profile one of our favorite shows. This is the audio version of an interview with Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess as he talks about his book "Doctor in the House."

Listen to internet radio with docdano on Blog Talk Radio

Breasts and Hearts -- What's good for one, not necessarily good for the other

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:00:00 +0000

The sage advice that having a glass of wine every day might be good for you now may have a foot note attached.

A recent study by Catherine Berkey of Brigham and Woman's Hospital indicates that girls who have a history of breast cancer in the family and who have two glasses of red wine every day may increase their risk of benign breast disease.

Now, I didn't say cancer, but the leap has been suggested.

The study included 7000 girls and among the heaviest drinkers (that was about 1 drink a day in a 22 year old), the risk of benign breast disease was almost three times that of abstainers.

This comes on the heals of an article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medicine Association) earlier this month that alcohol may be linked to breast cancer. In their study, 3.5% of woman who had 13 drinks a week developed breast cancer compared to about 2.8% of those who didn't drink at all.

Many experts contend, though, based on the evidence to date, that stopping drinking would have very little impact on a woman's risk of breast malignancy.

Only time will tell.

And to make matters more confusing -- having a glass or two of wine may lower your risk of heart disease.

The take home message is that data obtained from retrospective studies is always useful, but many times it lacks the clarity of a prospective, randomized study.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Dallas, Texas

Do protocols and guidelines really offer safer and better medicine?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:30:00 +0000

The instruments were indicating to the two co-pilots at the controls of the Airbus that they needed to pull back on the stick.

They held back on the stick for 54 seconds.

This is the position they were in when the Air France jet plunged into the cold water of the Atlantic killing everyone on board.

The fix?

Recognizing that a protocol or guideline might be giving them wrong instructions, seeing that there might be a stall occurring and the airplane was falling out of the sky -- by applying basic airmanship learned during the early hours of learning to fly -- push forward on the stick, gain airspeed, and fly the airplane out of the stall.

So does this happen in medicine? Are we putting patients in the ground by following protocols and not practicing medicine?

Certainly, protocols have revolutionized patient safety in hospital settings. From central line infections, ICU ventilator management, antibiotic use in surgery, suicide prevention with ER counseling -- there are too many to list.

And these successes have lead to a plethora of committee created guidelines for care and protocols. A physician recently spoke at the American Medical Association meeting that one of the largest and most well respected hospitals in the country now has a protocol and guideline for a Whipple procedure!

This is a complex surgical procedure relating to bowel and pancreas resection and the protocol covers the entire hospital stay. Can a committee really dictate all of the ins and outs of a hospital stay of 10 to 14 days duration?

The protocol discussion has also become a huge issue in the mid-level provider debate. When individuals are attempting to practice medicine without the complete training of a physician, nothing is better than a set of rules to follow. And for visits like well child visits and hypertension management -- these work very well.

But can you really develop protocols and guidelines for complex medical procedures or illnesses?

Or more importantly, what parts of your own healthcare would you want managed with a protocol?

I know that if I'm really sick I want a pilot at the controls that can recognize that this time the protocol doesn't apply.

Because at some point in my life my body will be in the situation of flying out of La Guardia, hitting a flock of geese, and having to be hand flown without power into the Hudson River.

They don't make protocols for patients like me.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:At the AMA Interim Meeting in New Orleans

Patients feel "Medicare is my benefit!"

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:21:00 +0000

TMA President Dr. Bruce Malone tells a patient story describing that "Medicare is my benefit!" His testimony was before a reference committee at the interim meeting of the American Medical Association in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Malone was speaking in favor of direct contracting -- allowing patients a choice to see any physician they want regardless if that physician participates in the Medicare plan or not.

Can "Personalized Medicine" offer the cure for cancer we've all been looking for?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:35:00 +0000

You just never know when it will happen. Cancer can strike any time. But with the advent of the concept of "personalized medicine," there is a new weapon in the battle against this disease. Personalized medicine refers to tailoring or customizing a treatment to an individual patient. Check out this compelling video from Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center in Dallas, Texas about using a vaccine to treat a patient with metastatic melanoma. This disease is virtually incurable -- most patients don't survive more than 2 years...and many not more than 6 months.

The "Calendar of Doom": hear my presentation on fraud and abuse/RAC audits as part of a seminar at the Texas Medical Association Winter Conference in Austin, Texas

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:51:00 +0000

DocDano Promo Video

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:10:00 +0000

Using a laser to treat psoriasis: check Dr. Menter on Channel 8 News

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:57:00 +0000

Is there shortage of dermatologists? See our own Dr. Alan Menter on NBCDFW

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:15:00 +0000

View more videos at: http://www.nbcdfw.com.

The Dangers of Flying: skin cancer in the air

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:26:00 +0000

I got a Facebook question recently from one of my airline pilot friends about the amount of radiation that flight crews receive from being in the stratosphere during airplane flights.

As a dermatologist I can't tell you the number of skin cancers that I have removed from pilots over the years. I know I tend to attract pilots as patients given my own helicopter flying, but the number of individual tumors is huge.

And I'm not just talking about the typical basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma -- melanoma is not an infrequent finding.

So how much radiation do you receive in an airplane?

Well check out this cool website from the FAA: Called a Galactic Radiation Calculator, it will give you the amount of radiation your body will be exposed to while in the air.

Most of the information is self explanatory, but you will need the airport identifiers of your destination and arrival airport. For play you can use New York's JFK (KJFK) and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (KDFW). But if you want to use the ones from your own travel information there are resources on Google.

Next you will need the altitude of the flight. Now the pilot will usually tell you this during the flight briefing near the beginning of the flight (about the time he or she will tell you to keep your seat belt fastened if you're in your seat). If you want to play, then just use 39000 feet.

One thing that you might not have is the time of your descent... just use 25 minutes as a good guide.

Then you're good to go. Push calculate and you will get a result in a funky number of microsieverts. What's that? Well there's a cool table on Wikipedia that will allow you to compare how much radiation you received in comparison with common things like dental x-rays and being exposed to a nuclear reactor.

Cool tool. But the take home message is that pilots and those that spend a lot of time in airplanes are exposed to higher doses of radiation and therefore have a higher risk of skin cancer.

Wear that sunscreen! (oh...and fasten your seat belt)

What my children will never see? Things disappearing from the doctor's office

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:58:00 +0000

On a recent trip to Austin I flipped through the worn copy of Spirit magazine in the seat back of a Southwest Airlines 737 and saw this nice article about babies -- and specifically what they see and understand very early in life.

I love my two young kids, and although they both aren't as young as they used to be (neither am I), I love to share with them new experiences, sights, and the general joys of life.

I think all parents must feel the same way. There is just something about seeing the the glint of newness and understanding in the small eyes of a child.

But today I began to wonder about things our children will never see, particularly related to health care. We have on our own list from when we were growing up, but it's certainly different now.

From polio, mumps, and small pox: thankfully they are all distant memories. As a dermatologist I do get to see some of the unusual but still rather rare diseases (measles, for instant) that I heard about in my childhood.

But children today will miss out on many things that are common place in our day to day lives.

Here's my list (feel free to add or subtract in the comment box below):

1) Marcus Welby: hometown physicians in private practice that take care of families for decades will be a thing of the past. I've written about my good friend John Keller, MD, a family physician in the small rural town of Fairfield, Texas before here. Practicing for over 50 years in one place, he will probably be the last "Marcus Welby" doctor that I know. And my children will never see that. Only on re-runs.

2) Chicken Pox: childhood vaccination makes this common disorder now very rare. And, if we're lucky, shingles or herpes zoster will also be a painful encounter our kids will not have to endure.

3) Rectal thermometers: I'm sure someone will comment that these are still around. The last time my kids were sick it seemed like someone just shot their head with a laser thermometer -- nurses don't even have to touch the patient any more. Novel idea.

4) White hats: speaking of nurses -- what about those white hats? I mention them occasionally and finally someone in my office told me that she wasn't sure it was politically correct to talk about them anymore. I'm not sure I understand that, but I've changed my workplace banter after their expressed concern.

5) Prescription pads: Ok, I know this is maybe a tad progressive. But in our paperless office we don't write prescriptions by hand any more. We send everything electronically using an e-prescribing application. And, frankly, everyone loves it including my staff, patients, and finally me. I know there are some slow adopters out there, but Medicare and other insurance carriers will drive that train. Paper prescription pads? They'll be gone.

6) Drug company pens: Yes, the pharmaceutical company give aways (not just pens: but dummy plastic models of the skin, Post It notes, stethoscope labels, you name it) are all gone. No longer will kids see a Viagra pen or a Lipitor flashlight. New pharma rules prohibit these types of "inducements" because some bureaucrat thinks that supplying a pen will induce the doctor to use that pen to write an expensive prescription. Personally, I think this is stupid. Maybe doctors shouldn't be taken on golf junkets or expensive dinners...but a pen. Really.

7) Ties: Though not mainstream, health care workers are quickly adopting the casual Friday look in the medical office and the hospital room. Why? Well those ties were shown to carry germs. So scrubs and casual shirts are now considered appropriate dress code for health care workers.

8) The Co-Pay: Well, it's not gone yet, but more and more insurance products are "high deductible" health plans. It used to be that patients could pay $20 and get all the health care they could milk out of a 15 minute visit. Those days are disappearing as the most popular insurance product sold in our home state last year was one with a $3000 deductible. Patients and physicians are now more cautious in their health care decisions. That's a good thing. The bad news is that every care component falls directly to the bottom line.

Feel free to add or subtract from this list. Hopefully there will be exciting improvements in our health care delivery system, new drugs to treat disease, and exciting technologies to cure our ailments that replace the items on the list.

We can always hope.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Does Google give the wrong information on health care decisions?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:25:00 +0000

Clearly using the internet to research any topic is valuable.

Whether it's a new book you're thinking about buying on Amazon, researching the latest and greatest high definition television, or finding the value of your used car, the internet is a wealth of information.

We all know that websites track our activity, constantly downloading cookies that both help and hinder our web experience. They allow us to instantly be put into our "Recommendations" page on Amazon.com, but they also may contribute to mining our website activity and delivering us pop up ads.

But the latest use of complicated algorithms by search engines like Google resembles the ultimate over the shoulder look from big brother.

In an effort to better put you in touch with the information you are searching, search engines have started to place context "relevant" items high in the search list. That is, the search engine tracks both your searches and websites visited and then computes what search results would be the most relevant -- just for you.

This means that even though we might search the same topic, we might both be given a different set of results.

Now most of the time this is good.

If you are hungry for catfish, searching for this crusty fried fatty protein would probably lead to restaurants that are near your home. If you are a health fanatic (read: you aren't familiar with the word "fried") then you might find links to FoodNetwork.com recipes for grilled fish.

Now all of this sounds really helpful.

But instead of the results providing a broad spectrum of information, they are actually providing information that is more focused -- just for you.

Imagine for a moment that you are somewhat of a conspiracy theorist. If you search the word set "birth certificate," you might find yourself immersed in the world of the Birther's and President Obama's long guarded secret certificate. You could have very well been really searching for the office of your local county clerk where you could download a copy of your own vital record.

These types of results are especially concerning in health care.

Now think about this scenario: you are somewhat of a natural and alternative medicine follower. You just returned from visiting your primary care doctor and she gives you your mammogram results. It looks like you might have breast cancer.

You do what most patient's do: you search breast cancer on Google.

Given your past search patterns on health foods, alternative medicine, herbal products, and acupuncture, an article on "prune juice as a cure for breast cancer" pops up. Further search of this bizarre topical combination begins to reinforce your findings: there might be a link for a cure between this fruit juice and a breast malignancy.

So instead of providing a comprehensive analysis of breast cancer treatments, the algorithms have begun to reinforce your preconceived (pre-searched) thoughts on alternative medicine.

Now this isn't an attack on alternative medicine, rather it's meant to demonstrate how the internet can focus one's mind on a solution quickly rather than providing all of the necessary information to make the best decision.

And the scary part? There is very little you can do about it.

These algorithms are proprietary and aren't really subject to easy manipulation. They are meant to reflect who you are and what you generally search for; and they do a very good job.

Yes, you can log off and then log on with another name, try a different browser, search for other types of topics for awhile, or even replace the computer, but because many use the local ip address as the pointer for determining which results to deliver, this would all be done in vain.

Probably the best advice is to cognitively realize that this is happening when you perform a search. So don't stop with the first articles or links that are returned.

Dig deeper and go off the search engine directed path a little. Force Google to go deeper into other topics by continuing to search different but similar keywords.

And know that ultimately you are in charge of your search experience. Don't believe everything you see or hear; have a healthy respect that it's good to challenge the information you are given.

Doctor in the House: an interview with author Congressman Michael Burgess, M.D.

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Wed, 11 May 2011 02:52:00 +0000

When Dr. Michael Burgess gave up delivering babies in favor of kissing them, most physicians thought he was crazy.

After reliving the September 11th World Trade Center nightmare in his head for weeks, the successful obstetrician decided to run for Congress in his Republican district of North Texas against the well-funded and well-named son of then Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Not only did Burgess win, but he has quickly become the thought leader of American medicine in the United States Congress.

In his new best-selling book, Congressman Dr. Burgess retells the story of his first years in the House of Representatives where another nightmare unfolded: the Democratic creation of Obamacare.

His work is entitled Doctor In The House and it contains the prescription necessary to heal the ills of American health care.

In this blog we engage in a spirited discussion with Dr. Burgess. Let us know what you think.

AUDIO VERSION: Doctor in the House

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 01 May 2011 23:06:00 +0000

(This is the audio version of our previous video podcast. It will also be available as a download from DocDano on iTunes.)

When Dr. Michael Burgess gave up delivering babies in favor of kissing them, most physicians thought he was crazy.

After reliving the September 11th World Trade Center nightmare in his head for weeks, the successful obstetrician decided to run for Congress in his Republican district of North Texas against the well-funded and well-named son of then Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Not only did Burgess win, but he has quickly become the thought leader of American medicine in the United States Congress.

In his new best-selling book, Congressman Dr. Burgess retells the story of his first years in the House of Representatives where another nightmare unfolded: the Democratic creation of Obamacare.

His work is entitled "Doctor In The House"
and it contains the prescription necessary to heal the ills of American health care.

In this blog we engage in a spirited discussion with Dr. Burgess. Let us know what you think.

What should you do if you can't pay your medical bill?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:46:00 +0000

Dan McCoy, MD of DocDano.com visits with Judy Huggins, a specialist in insurance and medical billing. They discuss the scenario that happens all to often: what happens if you can't pay your doctor bill? What should you do if you have an unpaid medical bill, and what are the pitfalls of a high deductible health plan?

VIDEO: Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:04:00 +0000

Dan McCoy, MD visits with Marcy Crouch, a physical therapist that specializes in pelvic floor rehabilitation. This video follows an audio podcast previously available on iTunes on the same topic. Whether its incontinence, sexual dysfunction, or bowel or bladder prolapse, pelvic floor physical therapy offers patients an opportunity for improvement.

Peanut Allergy and Airplanes

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:47:00 +0000

DocDano.com explores the actions today by the Department of Transportation which will continue to allow peanuts to be served on airplanes. This follows concerns that peanuts may pose a significant risk to passengers that have a peanut allergy.
What should you do now if you have a peanut allergy and don't want to be caught at 30,000 feet in an emergency situation? This podcast provides you the answer.

Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy: rehab on the down low

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:57:00 +0000

Join docdano.com's Dan McCoy as he visits with Marcy Crouch, a physical therapist who specializes in pelvic floor rehabilitation. This new innovative program treats both men and women for a variety of pelvic medical problems including incontinence, painful intercourse, bladder prolapse, and sexual dysfunction.

Do physicians make good employees?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:00:00 +0000

There has been a clamor of legislation this past year in many states, including Texas, that would allow for the employment of physicians.

For some readers of this blog that may seem like an odd statement. Texas is one of the few states that still prohibit "corporate practice." This is where physicians work directly for a business entity rather than either working for another physician or physician group.

For Texas and the states that prohibit this practice, the reasoning has always been that this separation helps maintain the clinical autonomy of the doctor-patient relationship. And I would agree with this wholeheartedly.

Having a physician's judgement clouded in any way by the perceived need to make a bottom line is a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, most physicians understand this risk and are masters at handling the tense relationship they might have with their employers.

But the question here isn't whether physicians should be employed, but will they make good employees?

Most people would define a "good employee" as one that shows up for work on time, provides dedicated service, treats the business like their own and functions well in a team environment.

Most of the physician friends that I know all show up to work on time.

And most physicians I know treat the business like their own -- if they are the owner.

And as for team play? Well, let's just say that coed basket ball games in medical school were tense at times. Team play isn't something that is necessarily a reviewed credential in medical school applications.

As a former hospital based medical director, I've seen physician groups owned by health care systems have a turnover near 25%. And with the cost of recruiting a physician close to $250K including startup costs, first year salary guarantees and signing bonus -- that's absurd.

Physicians that are hired fall into two basic groups. They are right out of school, owe $200K in school loans and are uncomfortable in the current environment with starting a new practice from scratch. They have no experience with this model anyway -- most of their teachers are already working in an employed relationship at a medical school or hospital. Their exposure to business is only through these providers.

Or, the physicians are frustrated with private practice: the alarming increase in overhead, growth in liability risks, the long hours, lack of good call coverage and the continual decline in reimbursement. They are seeking employed relationships primarily so they can continue to do what they are called to do. They want to see patients and continue to practice medicine and let someone else worry about the business.

See the commonality here? Both groups don't want to worry about the business.

Hiring employees that "don't want to worry" about the business seems like a recipe for disaster for me.

For now hospitals and health care systems can pay a premium to hire doctors. They are funded under a payment scheme that allows them to have either profits (for profit hospitals) or margin (non profit hospitals) that can be redirected to hire doctors to refer to their hospital so they can make more profits and more margin.

But, for many systems, this doesn't work long term.

Here's an example: Dr. Welby has practiced for years in a community as a family practice doctor. He is well known, works 80 hours a week, has a nurse, two office staff, and a small office that is paid for and hasn't been updated since the 70's -- including the magazines.

Despite this frugal existence he is financially challenged because of the escalating benefit costs for his employees, higher malpractice premiums, and he can't remember the last time he received a rate increase from any payer. Most of his patients are Medicare; twice in the last year he wasn't paid at all because Congress didn't fund the health care for older Americans.

He's tired and looking for help.

In rolls Sister Daughter Felicia Hospital System -- they are a not-for-profit health care system (not-for-profit means they don't pay taxes and "System" is a word right from Modern Healthcare: makes you seem like a big health care team -- read on). They have a physician run medical group that they own, but don't directly control. Well, let's just say they do control the budget for the doctor group. And it always runs at a loss, so the hospital system is perpetually in a position of having to "bail out" the group and define budgetary goals and direction. So there is some control.

They meet with Dr. Welby, show him their electronic health record, how they achieve quality metrics in virtually every measure of health improvement, how U.S. News and World Report thinks they are a Top 100 hospital, and how they will take care of the front desk operations and provide staff. And, oh by the way, they have a new medical office building that has a gym, day care, and even a Starbuck's.

To make things better for Dr. Welby they'll even buy out his practice by purchasing his accounts receivable (there aren't that many), take all of his records, and give him a guaranteed salary for a year and a signing bonus. All he has to do is sign here and start to work.

Now Dr. Welby will have the agreement looked over by a lawyer -- the same guy who did his home refinance and his divorce. The hospital will say that "it's the same agreement that we all sign" and then will grin -- they have Fulbright and Jaworski on their side.

There is back slapping, and maybe even champagne if its a Catholic hospital system, and everyone enjoys the moment and the win.

All will be good for a few months. The staff will not like the move with all the new processes and procedures and uniformity. The patients will not like it because they have to pay to park, will get bills they may not be familiar with and there will like be some changes in health insurance coverage.

The doctor won't like it all either: certain drugs won't be on formulary, there will be an electronic medical record to learn that will "hurt my work flow," and there won't be the complete control of the practice that he's used too.

But there are benefits. It is likely that he will slow down his daily schedule by 25 to 30 percent, there will be less importance on admitting his patients to the hospital ("I'll let the hospitalist do that"), and when it comes to doing procedures it will just mean more work and more risk of weekend responsibilities.

The hospital system will overlay a whole new set of overhead for the physician ranging from new office space (read: more cost/foot), "indirect costs or overhead" that is difficult to explain (but includes many things the physician never purchased before like legal retainers, marketing, telecommunications infrastructure, bill boards, JCAHO, nurse managers, case managers, coding and compliance staff, float nurses, retreats and meetings, helicopters -- you get the picture), and staff whose benefit and salary structure is the same as that of the hospital and is richer and more expensive.

So fast forward one year later.

The hospital is not happy because the physician's practice is losing money -- actually bleeding money. Patient volume is lower and revenue is stark. They don't understand why the physician isn't working harder. They are now going to roll him into an income distribution formula where part of his compensation will be based on volume and the rest on "performance measures." The result will likely be lower pay.

He's not happy with the lower pay and pushes back. He claims its the hospital system's fault: all that higher overhead, not collecting his payments, not billing his claims right, and he can't read, understand, or have access to the right financials. "And what about that indirect costs -- what's that?!?"

So one of three things will happen. He will either leave, and the hospital will have to recruit a replacement. He will stay and conform somewhat but continue to publicly gripe about the system and be disruptive and not a team player. Or, he will conform to the hospital model and all will be well.

The hospital will be in little position to do anything about the overhead issue. But, most systems will work with the physician for awhile, supporting the practice, because they don't want to be seen as "running someone off."

What's the solution?

Certainly models that allow the physician to maintain some autonomy and responsibility for their own practice will help some. Convincing the physician of the long term benefits of some of the good things the hospital has to offer (such as quality improvement and infrastructure) and getting buy-in will be good for all involved. Convincing the hospital that the physician needs to be included under the tent and as a part of the team will also be part of the solution.

Congress could go a long way by aggressively creating gain sharing models that allow both sides of the health care team to be paid for improvement in health care value. This would promote team work and alignment.

But in the end, in the current model, do physicians really make good employees? And do hospitals really make good employers?

NAB Day 2: Roundtrip from Design, Production, and Post

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:40:00 +0000

This was day 3 of the National Association of Broadcasters meeting and today was all about exhibits. I thought it would be nice to give you a run down of the products we checked out today -- from pre-production, actual video capture and filming particularly with live set technology, and even post production software and equipment and streaming. This was really a great day, albeit a very busy one!

NAB Day #1: Healthcare Social Media Future is Bright

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:38:00 +0000

Today was our preview day at the National Association of Broadcaster's Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada. Where most of the day was for dealers, it offered the opportunity for our team to explore and network concerning future trends in health care information delivery.
This podcast also discusses the March study results from the National Research Corporation and the current state of patient opinion of social media in healthcare and particularly how it affects decision making. We make special mention of @melanoma_mama and provide congratulations on her 5000th tweet.
Please join us on this podcast that was recorded live onsite on the first day of the 2011 NAB.

docdano.com visits the National Association of Broadcasters

noreply@blogger.com (Dan) — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:08:00 +0000

docdano.com visits the National Association of Broadcasters Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 10, 2011. This short podcast describes what were after and what we hope to deliver with our new website which focuses on interactive delivery of health care information. Our goal is to give daily updates from the meeting and describe how video technology is going to revolutionize the delivery of health information.