Smart bandages to help doctors keep a closer eye on patients

Smart bandages to help doctors keep a closer eye on patients

Smart bandages to help doctors keep a closer eye on patients

Trials of sensor-packed bandages that are capable of monitoring wounds could start happening within the next 12 months.

The innovative development is being led by Swansea University’s Institute of Life Science that is working on packing the tracking tech inside of 3D printed bandages. Those sensors will be able to monitor the state of a wound and relay that information back to a doctor to help customise the treatment. All without having to make an appointment to actually see your doc.

Trials of sensor-packed bandages that are capable of monitoring wounds could start happening within the next 12 months.

The innovative development is being led by Swansea University’s Institute of Life Science that is working on packing the tracking tech inside of 3D printed bandages. Those sensors will be able to monitor the state of a wound and relay that information back to a doctor to help customise the treatment. All without having to make an appointment to actually see your doc.

Read this: How wearables will shape the hospital of the future

5G wireless data will ensure that information about the patient wound is sent to the doctor in real-time. “5G is an opportunity to produce resilient, robust bandwidth that is always there for the purpose of healthcare,’ said Professor Marc Clement, chairman of the Institute of Life Science.” That 5G integration will also help to provide information on patient location and even keep tabs on how active the smart bandage wearer is being.

Clement also revealed that the Welsh Wound Innovation Centre are helping with the development of the smart bandages and that trials would go through the Arch wellness and innovation project. The development of a 5G test hub in the city is also going to prove crucial in getting everything up and running.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard about smart bandages of course. Last year, researchers at the University of Bath carried out trials on a dressing that changes colour to indicate whether a wound has been infected. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also been working on bandages that can provide medicine to a wound to speed up the healing process.

While it seems that there’s still a lot needs to happen to make these smart bandages a reality, wearable tech is proving once again that’s it going to play a major part in bringing doctors and patients closer together to make sure you get the treatment you really need at the time when you really need it most.

Source: BBC


How Behavioral Economics Can Produce Better Health Care

How Behavioral Economics Can Produce Better Health Care

How Behavioral Economics Can Produce Better Health Care

I’m a physician at the end of more than a decade of training. I’ve dissected cadavers in anatomy lab. I’ve pored over tomes on the physiology of disease. I’ve treated thousands of patients with ailments as varied as hemorrhoids and cancer.

Consider the following.

I’m a physician at the end of more than a decade of training. I’ve dissected cadavers in anatomy lab. I’ve pored over tomes on the physiology of disease. I’ve treated thousands of patients with ailments as varied as hemorrhoids and cancer.

And yet the way I care for patients often has less to do with the medical science I’ve spent my career absorbing than with habits, environmental cues and other subtle nudges that I think little about.

I’ll sometimes prescribe a particular brand of medication not because it has proved to be better, but because it happens to be the default option in my hospital’s electronic ordering system. I’m more likely to wash my hands — an activity so essential for safe medical care that it’s arguably malpractice not to do so — if a poster outside your room prompts me to think of your health instead of mine. I’ll more readily change my practice if I’m shown data that my colleagues do something differently than if I’m shown data that a treatment does or doesn’t work.

These confessions can be explained by the field of behavioral economics, which holds that human decision-making departs frequently, significantly and predictably from what would be expected if we acted in purely “rational” ways. People don’t always make decisions — even hugely important ones about physical or financial well-being — based on careful calculations of risks and benefits. Rather, our behavior is powerfully influenced by our emotions, identity and environment, as well as by how options are presented to us.

We in the medical community have only recently started to explore how behavioral economics can improve health. As with any hot field, there’s always the possibility of hype. But these insights might be particularly valuable in health care because medical decision-making is permeated with uncertainty, complexity and emotion — all of which make it hard to weigh our options.

A leader of this movement is Dr. Kevin Volpp, a physician at the University of Pennsylvania and founding director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics. He designs randomized trials around some of health care’s most important challenges: nudging doctors to provide evidence-based care; ensuring patients take their medications; and helping consumers choose better health plans.

“There’s starting to be a broad recognition that decision-making environments in health care could better reflect how doctors and patients actually make decisions,” he said.

Dr. Volpp, whose work is used by both the public and private sector, recently collaborated with CVS Caremark to test which financial incentives are most effective for getting employees to quit smoking. Employees were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first was “usual care,” in which they received educational materials and free smoking cessation aids. The second was a reward program: Employees could receive up to $800 over six months if they quit. The third was a deposit program, in which smokers initially forked over $150 of their money, but if they quit, they got their deposit back along with a $650 bonus.

Compared with the usual care group, employees in both incentive groups were substantially more likely to be smoke-free at six months. But the nature of the incentives mattered. Those offered the reward program were far more likely to accept the challenge than those offered the deposit program. But the deposit program was twice as effective at getting people to quit — and five times as effective as just pamphlets and Nicorette gum.

Getting the incentives right is important in helping people quit smoking.CreditKarsten Moran for The New York Times

Parting with your own money is painful. But it is effective.

That’s also a lesson in Volpp-led research on getting people to lose weight and exercise more. One recent study gave incentives to patients by entering them into lotteries or into deposit contracts for meeting weight loss goals. Those in the lottery group were eligible for a daily lottery prize with frequent small payouts and occasional large rewards — but only if they clocked in at or below their weight loss goal. People in the deposit group invested their own money (generally a few dollars a day), which was then matched by researchers. They’d get their money back — and then some — if they met their goal at the end of the month.

At four months, both incentive groups had lost more than three times as much weight as the control group (about 14 pounds versus four pounds), but the deposit group lost slightly more than the lottery group. A similar study found that patients were more likely to walk 7,000 steps a day if they were given an upfront payment — part of which had to be returned each day that they didn’t meet their exercise goal — compared with lotteries, rewards or old-fashioned encouragement

THE UPSHOT

Other work has highlighted the power of defaults — which in health care can have life-or-death consequences. And perhaps nowhere is doctors’ default tendency more apparent than in our bias toward aggressive end-of-life care that favors quantity over quality of life.

With this in mind, researchers studied whether the type of end-of-life care patients choose is influenced by how we present the options. Terminally ill patients were randomly assigned to complete one of three advance directives: The first group received a form with the comfort-oriented approach preselected; the second had the aggressive care box checked; the third had both options left blank. Patients were free to override the default and select any option they preferred.

Nearly 80 percent of patients in the comfort default group chose comfort, while only 43 percent in the aggressive care default group did. (Sixty-one percent of patients without an embedded default opted for comfort.) It seems, then, that even critically important decisions about how we want to live our final days are affected by what comes pre-ordered on the menu we’re given.

Health insurers are also betting that behavioral economics can improve quality and lower costs. Blue Cross Blue Shield (B.C.B.S.) of Massachusetts is using a variety of behavioral economics concepts to pay its doctors — including peer comparisons and bonus payments for continuous improvement instead of absolute thresholds. In Hawaii, B.C.B.S. is experimenting with joint incentives for doctors and patients to meet diabetes care goals.

Start-ups are jumping into the nudge game, too.

The Brooklyn-based start-up Wellth, for example, has developed an app to reward patients for taking their medications. Nearly a third of prescriptions in the United States are never filled, and about half of all patients don’t take their medications as prescribed — even after life-threatening illnesses like heart attacks. Every year, medication nonadherence causes 125,000 deaths and costs the health system up to $289 billion.

Wellth thinks it can help patients manage themselves.

“We want to give them immediate, tangible rewards for healthy behavior,” said Matthew Loper, the company’s C.E.O. and co-founder. “But ultimately, we’re in the business of habit formation. We want behaviors to stick.”

Say a patient is discharged from the hospital after a heart attack. She downloads the Wellth app, and the company deposits $150 into her account, which she gets to keep if she takes all her medications for three months. Every morning, Wellth sends her a reminder to take her pills. If she snaps a selfie while taking her medicine, she keeps the money.

If she forgets, she gets additional notifications over the course of the day, and maybe a text or two. If she misses the day’s assignment altogether, she loses $2. If she misses several days in a row, she loses $2 for each day and gets a phone call in addition.

A more complete view of human behavior seems necessary for more effective medicine. Health is fundamentally the product of myriad daily decisions made by doctors and patients, and by uncovering what truly motivates us, we may be able to nudge one another toward wiser decisions and healthier lives.

How Artificial Intelligence is Revolutionizing Healthcare

How Artificial Intelligence is Revolutionizing Healthcare

How artificial intelligence is revolutionizing healthcare

There’s currently a shortage of over seven million physicians, nurses and other health workers worldwide, and the gap is widening. Doctors are stretched thin — especially in underserved areas — to respond to the growing needs of the population.

Meanwhile, training physicians and health workers is historically an arduous process that requires years of education and experience.

 

There’s currently a shortage of over seven million physicians, nurses and other health workers worldwide, and the gap is widening. Doctors are stretched thin — especially in underserved areas — to respond to the growing needs of the population.

Meanwhile, training physicians and health workers is historically an arduous process that requires years of education and experience.

Fortunately, artificial intelligence can help the healthcare sector to overcome present and future challenges. Here’s how AI algorithms and software are improving the quality and availability of healthcare services.

AI health assistants

One of the most basic yet efficient use cases of artificial intelligence is to optimize the clinical process. Traditionally, when patients feel ill, they go to the doctor, who checks their vital signs, asks questions, and gives a prescription. Now, AI assistants can cover a large part of clinical and outpatient services, freeing up doctors’ time to attend to more critical cases.

Your.MD is an AI-powered mobile app that provides basic healthcare. The chatbot asks users about their symptoms and provides easy-to-understand information about their medical conditions. The platform has a vast network of information that links symptoms to causes.

The assistant uses natural language processing and generation to provide a rich and fluid experience, and machine learning algorithms to create a complex map of the user’s condition and provide a personalized experience.

Your.MD suggests steps and measures to remedy the illness, including warning users when they need to see a doctor.

UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has approved the information Your.MD provides. This means as opposed to self-diagnosis, users don’t have to worry about the authenticity and reliability of the guidance they get.

Other health assistants such as Ada integrate their technology with Amazon Alexa to improve the user experience. Ada becomes smarter as it gets familiar with the user’s medical history. Aside from generating a detailed symptom assessment report, Ada also provides the option to contact a real doctor.

Babylon Health, another intelligent health companion, complements its assistance by following up with users on past symptoms, and in case the need arises, setting up live video consultation with a general practitioner.

Health assistants save patients a trip to the doctor for more trivial diseases. Also, in areas where doctors and clinics are in short supply, it can save patients hours of waiting in line.

Early and precise diagnosis

The treatment and prevention of rare and dangerous diseases often depends on detecting the symptoms at the right time. In many cases, early diagnosis can result in complete cure. Conversely, a late or wrong diagnosis can have damaging or potentially fatal results. Human skills and experience are limited and hard-to-earn when it comes to examining images and samples and making reliable decisions.

AI algorithms can quickly ingest millions of samples in short order and glean useful patterns. And unlike humans, they don’t lose their edge when they grow old. Several institutions and firms are investing on this scheme in developing healthcare solutions.

Researchers at Stanford University have created an AI algorithm that can identify skin cancer. They trained their deep learning algorithm with 130,000 images of moles, rashes, and lesions. According to results its efficiency in diagnosing skin cancer rivals that of professional doctors. The researchers hope to make it available through a mobile app some time in the future. This can be an opportunity to provide inexpensive screening to anyone with smartphone.

DeepMind, a Google-owned AI company, is using machine learning to fight blindness in cooperation with NHS. Researchers at the firm are training a deep learning algorithm with a million anonymous eye scans. This will help spot eye conditions such as wet age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy at early stages. According to the experts, in some cases, they might eventually be able to prevent 98 percent of most severe visual loss.

Morpheo is an AI platform that helps in the diagnosis of sleep disorders. The traditional process of analyzing sleep patterns is complicated and time consuming. With the help of machine learning algorithms, Morpheo is assisting doctors by automating the identification of sleep patterns. The creators believe this will help in creating predictive and preventive treatments.

Dynamic care

For some diseases, identifying the right treatment path and adapting it to changes overcoming patient health is critical and challenging.

IBM is having its own foray at fighting cancer with AI, and its Watson for Oncology platform is getting ready for production. The platform will be used in a Florida community hospital to help treat cancer patients. Watson is especially adept at analyzing both structured and unstructured data.

It ingests reams of clinical trial data and medical journal entries, then finds patterns and presents cancer care teams with a list of effective therapies and treatment options.

Experts at University of North Carolina School of Medicine tested Watson with one thousand cancer cases. The platform gave the same recommendations as professional oncologists in 99 percent of the cases.

This can prove crucial to smaller hospitals and medical centers that are lacking in human expertise and technical resources.

Other firms are using artificial intelligence to take small yet crucial steps in the treatment of illnesses. One example is AiCure, a mobile app that uses AI and image analysis to control patient adherence to prescriptions. This includes making sure patients take their medication on time and perform other tasks ordained by their doctor. This can be useful for people with serious medical conditions and patients who might go against their doctor’s prescriptions.

What lies ahead

Artificial intelligence has challenges to overcome before it gains full traction in many fields. And healthcare is no exception, especially where privacy is concerned. Last year, DeepMind ran afoul of UK authorities and privacy groups over its data sharing deal with the NHS. Medical information is sensitive, and institutions that handle it need to mind their collection, storage and sharing policies.

Some firms are considering blockchain, the distributed ledger that supports Bitcoin and Ethereum, as a solution. Morpheo, for instance, uses blockchain to ensure transparency and privacy of patient data on its platform.

Another open-ended question is how artificial intelligence will affect jobs in the healthcare sector. At the current stage, it’s a given that caring for humans is the job of humans. For the moment, no algorithm is able to emulate both the social and professional functions of a doctor or nurse. In fact, robots are not replacing but enhancing human efforts to improve the overall quality and availability of health services.

Will the suggestion-making role of AI-based healthcare tools someday turn into decision-making? Only time can tell. But recent developments in artificial intelligence show that machines still have quite a few surprises up their sleeves.

Can Consumers Be Smart Health-Care Shoppers?

Can Consumers Be Smart Health-Care Shoppers?

Can Consumers Be Smart Health-Care Shoppers?

Patients are told they need to take greater control over their care. But are laypeople capable of sifting through all their choices to make the right decisions—particularly when it comes to costs?

Patients are told they need to take greater control over their care. But are laypeople capable of sifting through all their choices to make the right decisions—particularly when it comes to costs?

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-care research nonprofit, found deductibles for individual workers have soared in the past five years, rising 67% since 2010 without adjusting for inflation. That’s roughly seven times earnings growth over the same period.

A separate Kaiser analysis of tens of millions of insurance claims found that patient cost-sharing rose by 77% between 2004 and 2014, driven by a 256% jump in deductible payments.

A movement has been growing to give patients more information and choice.

Efforts are under way to improve price transparency and help patients navigate a confusing system where prices can vary based on a range of factors. In some cases, patients are consulted by caregivers as partners when deciding on care. And some programs are springing up that reimburse doctors based on the quality of care they provide rather than the quantity, making them more likely to encourage patients to monitor and help their conditions.

Devon M. Herrick, a health economist and senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says consumers can take simple steps to save a lot of money. Amanda Frost, a senior researcher at the Health Care Cost Institute, says the system is too complex for patients to grapple with in most cases.

 

YES: There Are Simple Steps That Could Save a Lot of Money

By Devon M. Herrick

Devon M. Herrick
Devon M. Herrick PHOTO: MARKIE PADDOCK

Conventional wisdom holds that it is impossible to compare prices for medical care as consumers do in other markets. But it’s not only possible, it’s easier than most of the naysayers realize.

For the critics, the argument comes down to one thing: There’s a lot of information out there, and it can be confusing for laypeople to sort out what kind of care is appropriate and how they can get the best deal on it.

But shopping for care and lowering costs don’t necessarily mean poring over websites to compare the benefits of medications and treatments, and then hunting for the best price that’s available for them. With just a small effort, anybody has the chance to drastically lower their health-care costs—without committing to undertake a daunting amount of research.

Here’s a look at some of the steps anyone can take, to show how easy the process of lowering costs can be.

Start with your doctor’s office. Physicians are very willing to discuss lower-cost treatment options with patients. Often, merely asking doctors questions about cost and financial concerns is enough to prompt the doctors to recommend less-expensive care or simply monitoring a condition to see if it gets better on its own.

Being smarter about prescription drugs represents another simple technique that can have a big impact on patients’ costs. And, again, it’s not a matter of comparing the efficacy of different treatments yourself—simply tell your doctor that the cost of medicine is a consideration.

The free drug samples doctors often hand out are for brand drugs, which typically come with high prices once you need a refill. Patients can start by asking their doctor if he or she can prescribe a less-expensive generic drug instead.

It’s also possible to compare prices for diagnostic services and lab work. Consider my wife’s experience in scheduling a CT scan. When she called a local hospital outpatient clinic, she was taken aback when told her share of the cost would be $2,700. I’m a former hospital accountant; hospitals charge higher prices than anywhere else. Avoid them if you can.

JOURNAL REPORT PODCAST

Subscribe to the Journal Report podcast at wsj.com, on iTunes or Google Play Music.

I used Google to check for CT scans using the billing code my wife’s doctor had ordered. In less than 10 minutes, I found a cash price for $403 that included the radiologist fee. Always ask about cash prices; they are often cheaper than your insurer’s negotiated price. (But remember: Paying cash for these kinds of procedures may not count toward your deductible.)

Critics argue that the public doesn’t seem to want to shop for health care. People want to get quality care and be confident about their choices, so they would rather make a choice based on personal recommendation, not price.

What’s more, these naysayers argue, patients lack a sufficient incentive to shop for care, because how much they save depends on how their benefit plans and deductibles are set up.

It’s certainly true that Americans want to know they are getting good care, and they are unlikely to switch doctors to save small amounts of money. If there were no consequences, of course they would choose convenience and peace of mind like they do in any other market.

But people are losing that luxury. The average employee deductible for self-coverage is soaring—to the point that many families are essentially paying all of their medical bills out of pocket. That means that people won’t be able to avoid the incentive to shop around for care.

As for the argument that many Americans can’t do simple shopping because they don’t have access to a lot of providers, they can still ask their doctor about less-expensive treatments for their condition. And they can still pay the cash price for their service out-of-pocket, which is often less than their health plan’s negotiated price. An hour’s drive to a neighboring town for an MRI or CT scan could save hundreds, maybe a thousand dollars or two.

Acting like a prudent health-care consumer is not that hard. And consumerism spurs providers to act more like competitors.

Dr. Herrick is a health economist and senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Email him at reports@wsj.com.

 

NO: The System Is Too Complex for People to Make Useful Choices

By Amanda Frost

Amanda Frost
Amanda Frost PHOTO:HEALTH CARE COST INSTITUTE

When it comes to making decisions about our health care, being a “smart shopper” takes more effort than most of us are willing to put in.

Advocates for price transparency would have us believe that we, as “consumers,” should consider our health care a product to be shopped for, like a pair of shoes. But mainly we are “patients,” with varied, often time-sensitive health-care needs. There is an important distinction between presenting the information—and choices—to patients and asking consumers to make complicated decisions about their health care based on that information.

The health-care system is complex: Less than 15% of Americans can correctly answer questions about basic components of traditional health insurance. Choosing health-care services and providers may be even more complicated, especially for the half of all American adults that have at least one chronic condition.

More important, the public seems to not want to shop for health care. In studies, fewer than 5% of respondents used health-care shopping tools when available. This lack of use has persisted over time, even as tools have improved.

When it comes to their health care, people generally don’t want more choices; rather, they want to know that they are getting good care and to feel confident in their range of choices. Most Americans prefer to choose their providers based on recommendations from their friends or their family, rather than on price.

People also lack a sufficient incentive to engage in price shopping. A single, well-informed and motivated consumer who needs an expensive elective procedure may be able to spend time researching and save money by shopping for the lowest price possible, but this scenario is the exception rather than the norm.

Available evidence is not cause for optimism about how much money can be saved with more choices and publicly available prices. While large health-care payers may save some money from consumer shopping, the average person will likely see little, if any, savings.

And what savings are possible will largely be determined by insurance-benefit design. No consumers could shop their way to a lower copayment, or out of making a deductible payment. Factor in the associated opportunity costs, and the average American won’t save money.

Finally, many Americans don’t live in places with lots of providers and health-care choices. Transparency efforts centered on consumer shopping rest on the assumption that people have multiple options to choose from.

Some say people can avoid complexity entirely and take simple steps to save a lot of money—such as asking a doctor for generic drugs and paying cash for procedures, which can carry a lower price.

But health-care prices are much more complex than those scenarios make them appear. Prices vary by procedure, provider, facility and negotiated insurance rate.

As for asking a doctor how to save on costs, we cannot expect doctors to be experts on everything. No health-care provider could memorize the price of every service or drug, nor do most have access to a tool that provides this information. For most patients, their insurance determines their costs, and providers don’t generally have access to all of the necessary information about a patient’s insurance to give the advice people need about costs.

Even the seemingly simple switch from a brand prescription to a generic version might be complex. Some drugs don’t have generic versions, some generics are as expensive as the brand versions, and some may not be covered—or be well-covered—by a specific insurance plan.

The estimated price and quality of a health-care service or provider should be available to anyone who wants it. But we should not expect people to make complex decisions about their health care using those abstract measures.

Smart shopping might work for some people. But for the vast majority of consumers, it isn’t even a choice.

Dr. Frost is a senior researcher at the Health Care Cost Institute. Email her at reports@wsj.com.

How U.S. Health Care Became Big Business

How U.S. Health Care Became Big Business

How U.S. Health Care Became Big Business

Health care is a trillion-dollar industry in America, but are we getting what we pay for? Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, a medical journalist who formerly worked as a medical doctor, warns that the existing system too often focuses on financial incentives over health or science.

“We’ve trusted a lot of our health care to for-profit businesses and it’s their job, frankly, to make profit,” Rosenthal says. “You can’t expect them to act like Mother Teresas.”

Health care is a trillion-dollar industry in America, but are we getting what we pay for? Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, a medical journalist who formerly worked as a medical doctor, warns that the existing system too often focuses on financial incentives over health or science.

“We’ve trusted a lot of our health care to for-profit businesses and it’s their job, frankly, to make profit,” Rosenthal says. “You can’t expect them to act like Mother Teresas.”

Rosenthal’s new book, An American Sickness, examines the deeply rooted problems of the existing health-care system and also offers suggestions for a way forward. She notes that under the current system, it’s far more lucrative to provide a lifetime of treatments than a cure.

“One expert in the book joked to me … that if we relied on the current medical market to deal with polio, we would never have a polio vaccine,” Rosenthal says. “Instead we would have iron lungs in seven colors with iPhone apps.”


Interview Highlights

On what consolidation of hospitals is doing to the price of care

In the beginning, this was a good idea: Hospitals came together to share efficiencies. You didn’t need every hospital ordering bed sheets. You didn’t need every hospital doing every procedure. You could share records of patients so the patient could go to the medical center that was most appropriate.

Now that consolidation trend has kind of snowballed and skyrocketed to a point … that in many parts of the country, major cities only have one, maybe two, hospital systems. And what you see with that level of consolidation is it’s kind of a mini-monopoly.

What happens, of course, when you have a mini-monopoly is you have an enormous sway over price. And so, what we see in research over and over again is that the cities that have the most hospital consolidation tend to have the highest prices for health care without any benefit for patient results. So consolidation, which started as a good idea in many places, has evolved to a point where it’s not benefiting patients anymore, it is benefiting profits.

On the ways the health-care industry stands to profit more from lifetime treatment than it does from curing disease

If you’re a pharmaceutical manufacturer and you have a problem like diabetes, for example, if I invented a pill tomorrow that would cure diabetes — that would kill a multi-billion dollar business market. It’s far better to have treatments, sometimes really great treatments … [that] go on for life. That’s much better than something that will make the disease go away overnight.

On how prices will rise to whatever the market will bear

Another concept that I think is unique to medicine is what economists call “sticky pricing,” which is a wonderful term. It basically means … once one drugmaker, one hospital, one doctor says “Hey we could charge $10,000 for that procedure or that medicine.” Maybe it was $5,000 two months ago, but once everyone sees that someone’s getting away with charging $10,000, the prices all go up to that sticky ceiling. …

What you see often now is when generic drugs come out … the price doesn’t go down to 20 percent of the branded price, it maybe goes down to 90 percent of the branded price. So we’re not getting what we should get from a really competitive market where we, the consumers, are making those choices.

On initiating conversations early on with doctors about fees and medical bills

You should start every conversation with a doctor’s office by asking “Is there a concierge fee? Are they affiliated with a hospital? Which hospital are they affiliated with? Is the office considered part of a hospital?” In which case you’re going to be facing hospital fees in addition to your doctor’s office fees. You ask your doctor always … “If I need a lab test, if I need an X-ray, will you send me to an in-network provider so I don’t get hit by out-of-network fees?” …

 

Often that will be a little hard for your doctor, because they may have to fill out a different requisition, but it’s worth asking. And any doctor who won’t help you in that way, I think, isn’t attuned to the financial cost that we’re bearing today.

On getting charged for “drive-by doctors” brought in by the hospital or primary doctor

You do have to say “Who are you? Who called you?” and “Am I going to be billed for this?” And it’s tragic that in recovery people have to think in this kind of keep-on-your-guard, somewhat adversarial way, but I think if we don’t push back against the system in the way it bills, we’re complicit in allowing it to continue.

On how to decipher coded medical bills

Don’t be alarmed by the “prompt payment discount.” Go back to the hospital and say, “I want a fully itemized bill. I want to know what I’m paying for.” Some of it will be in codes, some of it will be in medical abbreviations. I’ve discovered you can Google those codes and find out what you’re being charged for, often, and most importantly, you might find you’re being charged for stuff that obviously you know you didn’t have.

Elizabeth Rosenthal is editor-in-chief of Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and a partner of NPR’s. Neither KFF nor KHN is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Radio producer Sam Briger and web producers Bridget Bentz and Molly Seavy-Nesper contributed to this story.