Replacing Faulty Heart Devices Costs Medicare $1.5 Billion in 10 Years

On October 2nd, The New York Times posted an article titled, “Replacing Faulty Heart Devices Costs Medicare $1.5 Billion in 10 Years.” In the article, it discusses how about 73,000 people on Medicare had to have a heart device replaced because of recalls, failures, infections, or necessary upgrades. These replaces have cost Medicare $1.5 billion but also costs $140 million in out of pocket payments for patients. From 2003 to 2012 device recalls have nearly doubled, this is troubling for health officials. Not only are the patients receiving faulty devices but hospitals have to go back and collect detailed information identifying failed devices, this is an extra step officials must take in the care process.

While hospitals have no clue when they are implementing these devices, many times they are blamed for the failure of the equipment. When patients face complications they often go back to the hospital questioning what’s wrong. Like the rest of the world we live in there are constantly new technologies hoping to improve daily tasks but what is the cost? Technologies are working to cut production costs as low as they can to increase profitability but when the devices need to be replace it often costs more. This is where hospital officials need to make the decision to stick with the older and more reliable technology or to try the next best thing and hope for the best.


The New York Times Article 

Comments

  1. Mark BonicaOctober 14, 2017 at 3:22 PM

    There's something to be said for not being on the cutting edge of technology. These devices go through a lot of testing before they get FDA approval, so there's a reasonable expectation that they are safe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MelissaOctober 18, 2017 at 7:58 PM

    Many devices are not tested for 10 years for longevity, failure of the equipment, if we waited 10 years for a potential life saving device to be approved, more lives I believe would be lost than the ones we could have potentially saved. As stated by Dr. Bonica, the FDA goes through a lengthy process as do companies in their research and development to get devices approved. The intent of these companies is not to harm, but to save lives. Additionally, many implantable devices usually have a longevity/life time given to the patients, I.E. a heart valve replacement usually has a life time of 10 years; if it is covered the first time, does that mean the insurance has/should cover it a second time? This is an ethical conversation that we could have, it comes down to pre-existing conditions and we are not sure where the future in healthcare policy is taking us, but this can lead to many great discussions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Apple Poised to Enter EHR Market?

For this blog I chose to write about an article I found titled, “Is Apple poised to enter EHR market? New patents have the industry buzzing.” In the article, it discusses how apple has been working to receive patents that allow for patients to have access to medical results and lab test at the palm of their hand. With all the electronic devices that Apple has created like, MacBook, iPad, iPhone, and Apple watches all of which are already used in healthcare settings it would only be fitting for them to progress further into the medical device field. Apple has in heart rate monitors in the new watches that will call 911 or let the wearer know they are reaching dangerous levels. If they could use these monitoring systems where would the information be stored and tracked. We are currently in a society that values technology based programs more than we ever have. If apple was able to develop products such as an electronic health record there is a high likelihood that i
Read more

Forward Brings its Personalized Healthcare Service to Los Angeles

For this blog post I chose to write about Forward, a San-Francisco based startup looking to refashion health care services. Forward is the future of health where doctors meet Silicon Valley technology. The company aims to monitor health through wearable technology and an app to give enhanced medical data. Those who wish to enroll in forward pay a monthly cost of $149 that covers unlimited access to medical staff, baseline screening, wellness and nutrition counseling and constant monitoring. Forward doesn’t aim to lower health costs but works to increase the care and treatment members have. Forward is an innovative health model that relies heavily on technology, like most services do currently. While this startup may draw success early in its career it is not well enough established to be a fix for health insurance. Members of Forward are generally going to be the younger tech-savvy who use technology as part of everyday life. Forward is just the start of companies
Read more

Looking Beyond Utilization Management

For this blog post I chose to write about an article from the HFMA Magazine. The article was titled “Looking Beyond Utilization Management: Controlling Inpatient Cost in a Value-Based Environment.” Costs are a hot topic in the health care discussion, as the costs rise less people are able to afford insurance and receive care. The United States spends $3.2 trillion on health care, about 18% of GDP which is expected to rise to close to 20% by 2025. Many hospitals work to reduce the number of admissions and the inpatient length of stay as well as limiting the number of expensive outpatient interventions. Using this approach, it seems the healthcare system is working towards lowering the costs but when it is compared to the inpatient costs it shows the system has a unit-cost problem. In order for the costs to drop hospital officials need to consult with physicians and work to develop a new strategy. Instead of focusing on utilization the focus needs to change to addressing the unit-co
Read more