American Medical Student Association

Planned Parenthood Federation of America today said that the revised accommodation to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit will ensure that women can access no co-pay birth control as part of basic health care. Following is a statement issued by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

“This policy delivers on the promise of women having access to birth control without co-pays no matter where they work. Of course, we are reviewing the technical aspects of this proposal, but the principle is clear and consistent. This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control.

“Birth control is a basic and essential component of women’s preventive health care. Women have been fighting for access to birth control for decades, and this is a historic advance for both health care and equality. As one of the nation’s leading providers of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood has led the charge for access to contraception for nearly a century, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that women have access to birth control without hurdles or co-pays.”

For more information, click here. 

Check out C-SPAN's coverage of the Supreme Court Hearings.

http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?src=cspan1&msg=You+are+watching+the+C-SPAN+Networks&start=1.835&end=-1 

Today, the Court will hear testimony regarding the individual mandate portion of the law, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2014. The Court will consider whether the individual mandate is in fact constitutional.

What do you think? Does Congress have the power to enact a law requiring everyone in the United States to buy health insurance?

The Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing oral arguments to determine whether Congress can require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. AMSA leaders went to the Supreme Court today to support comprehensive health care reform that works for patients and physicians: expanding coverage, lowering costs and upholding quality.

Monday’s testimony focused on whether the court has jurisdiction in the case or if they must wait until the law is enacted in 2014. Tuesday's hearing will focus on the individual mandate, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance, either through their employers or under individual plans, or pay a penalty. Wednesday’s hearing will focus on whether the law can stand if the individual mandate is eliminated. Wednesday will also include arguments over the expansion of Medicaid to subsidize an estimated 17 million more lower income Americans.

Read more at MedPage Today: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/31853. 

Pictured below: AMSA President-Elect Elizabeth Wiley, Health Policy Chair Kristin Huntoon and Education and Advocacy Fellow Colin McCluney.

AMSA members recently attended an event cosponsored by AMSA, CIR, Doctors for America and the Massachusetts Chapter of the ACP.

Featured speakers included:

Nancy Wagman of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, who gave an overview of the Massachusetts budget, perception vs. reality on how Massachusetts compares to other states on taxes, and the hard, practical choices for the state budget caused by a historic drop in revenue relating to the economic recession.

Suzanne Curry of Health Care for All talked about the impetus for implementation of national health reform at the state level, and how the combination of these factors were guiding Massachusetts’ choices in regards to Commonwealth Care, MassHealth and other safety net programs.

Brian Rosman of Health Care for All explained how Massachusetts successful coverage expansion through their health care reform now made tackling the out of control costs and inequities of the delivery system more imperative. He gave an overview of the Governor’s proposed bill on payment reform.

Is the United States on the path to "socialized medicine"?
Are waiting times really that long in Canada?
Will the healthcare reform bill be repealed?
Do Canadians really drive down to the U.S. for "better" care?

These questions and many more will be answered and discussed on AMSA's Seacouver Study Tour. A five-day tour taking place in both Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from April 6-10, 2011.

Healthcare reform is one of the biggest issues in politics today as it affects all citizens, whether they are in the medical field or patients themselves. It is now more important than ever for healthcare professionals to understand our healthcare system so that we may become informed advocates for our patients. It is also equally important to study the systems of other countries as there may be certain aspects that we may borrow to improve issues like affordability and access to medicine in our own country. No one system is perfect, but it is necessary to learn the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The SeaCouver Study Tour aims to educate students on the intricacies of the U.S. and Canadian healthcare systems going beyond basic facts to delve into the core of the systems and their impact on patients, families and communities. Students will participate in discussions with some of the leaders in the field of medicine and healthcare policy in the U.S. and Canada. Speakers include prominent physicians active in improving our healthcare system, congressional advisors, and also informed patients with their own personal experiences to share. While in Vancouver, students will also tour clinics, hospitals and a homeless shelter to see firsthand how healthcare differs in Canada. Finally, they will have the opportunity to discuss how medicine, healthcare, school, and life differ between the U.S. and Canada with a group of University of British Columbia medical students. In addition to these interactive sessions, students will also have the opportunity to interview people on the street in both Seattle and Vancouver to learn about the various citizens' experiences and thoughts on not only their own healthcare system but also on the system across the border. Many students cite these interviews as the highlight of the trip as many of the interviewees are surprisingly candid and share some very personal stories. These various interviews will then be edited into a video that can be used to demonstrate the personal side of healthcare. In addition to all the facts and knowledge one gains on the trip, participants in the past have taken away lasting friendships and also a better understanding of AMSA and all its opportunities.

There are only 16 slots available for SeaCouver Study Tour! Applicants will be selected on a first come, first serve basis. The Final Application deadline is February 15. For more information, click here.

Jim Curry
AMSA Premed Trustee

On November 14th, 2010 the health policy wielding program called Health Policy and a Pint returned with a much anticipated, cheese-filled flourish. That isn’t just a lavish declaration- it’s the truth! One week shy of a year since its last installment, Health Policy and a Pint returned to AMSA, its chapters, and thirsty listeners around the country. The first revival issue detailed conflicts among the dairy industry, industry regulation, nutrition, and yes- cheese.

Originally intended to be a monthly discussion piece for topical health policy, Health Policy and a Pint (HPP for short) was meant to give AMSA members an easy bridge to a meaningful conversation in whatever familiar setting they chose. Hence, the ‘Pint’ in the title alludes to a happy hour or other casual drinking venue. This monthly installment met its height amidst the heated health care reform debate leading to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

While you might not hear phrases such as “death panels,” “You lie!” or “kill the bill” nearly as often as before - a helpful understanding of current health policy and news is no less valuable today. That is why, every other week from now on, you can look to the Health Care for All Campaign as your guide through the latest wonk-filled articles. Each installment, a pre-made Primer will be available to help guide you through a chosen article, making the latest bit of policy accessible and fun. We’ll also help set you up for further research and questions, along with ways to take action!

Our latest installments are must reads:
In Vermont, single-payer health care in a single state
Coupons for Patients, but Higher Bills for Insurers

Download them from Inspiration Exchange – in the Health Policy and a Pint Community.

So take them to your weekly happy hour; stash them in your book bag for lunch time; or, enjoy them with your chapter. All you need is the Health Policy and a Pint Primer for the week, and you’re all set.

Please discuss responsibly.

by Ken Williams
Graduate Special Student
The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

Lately, I have had a lot of people ask me about the difference (if there is one) between comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), so I thought that I would take this opportunity to provide a very brief introduction to the subject.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Federal Council), which is charged with coordinating the research and guiding the allocation of the money invested in CER by ARRA. In all, $1.1 billion USD has been earmarked for CER with $300 million going to the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, $400 million for the National Institutes of Health, and $400 million for the Secretary of HHS. With this amount of money on the line, CER has become a very hot topic here inside the beltway.

While there are many definitions of CER out there, the Federal Council, in a report to the President and Congress, provides the following, which serves as an overall guiding definition for the entire federal government:

Comparative effectiveness research is the conduct and synthesis of research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in “real world” settings. The purpose of this research is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information to patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.

• To provide this information, comparative effectiveness research must assess a comprehensive array of health-related outcomes for diverse patient populations and sub­ groups.
• Defined interventions compared may include medications, procedures, medical and assistive devices and technologies, diagnostic testing, behavioral change, and delivery system strategies.
• This research necessitates the development, expansion, and use of a variety of data sources and methods to assess comparative effectiveness and actively disseminate the results.

That is, CER takes evidence-based data about different interventions and seeks to determine the benefits and harms of each as compared to each other.

One of the most important things to notice about the list is that it does not ever mention cost. This is where most of the confusion sets in. In the US, the official CER guidelines, as presented by the Federal Council, do not take cost into consideration as a factor. This is not the case universally, however, as other countries, sub-national governments, and organizations do list CEA as an important component to CER.

As compared to CER, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is entirely focused on the costs of medical and public health interventions. Specifically, CEA will calculate the cost per some measurable improvement (or decline) such as quality-adjusted life years or disability-adjusted life years or the like. While CEA is not included as part of the official US CER guidelines, it is still important to note that CEA can provide valuable supplemental information for decision makers.

by Ken Williams
Graduate Special Student
The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
-Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25

On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every year on the anniversary of this date, I am reminded just how important it is that we continue our work towards improving the health of our nation and the world. The more than sixty thousand physicians-in-training that make up the membership of AMSA have committed ourselves to the task of ensuring a future where every person in this country has access to health care without regard to age, sex, gender, social class, nationality, ethnicity, sexual identity, or any other artificial barrier to the health and well-being to which every human being has a right.

AMSA has dedicated itself to the strategic priority of ensuring quality, affordable, health care for all. We see our mission as being actively engaged in the social, moral and ethical obligations of the profession of medicine. With the work we did helping to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), we have worked to move our nation one step closer to this goal. We still have many more miles to go, though.

In the post-ACA world, we now must redouble our efforts to ensure that not only are coverage gaps reduced and that every citizen has access to quality, affordable, innovative health care, but also that the system itself is sustainable well into the future. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims, everyone has the right to health and medical care; our task is to ensure that we can provide it.