In February 2009 the IOM and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions both held testimonies / forums on "Integrative Medicine". Integrative medicine is a health care delivery model that does not distinguish between or advocate for a particular modality, but rather recommends making use of all appropriate therapeutic approaches. It combines conventional medicine and Complementary and Alternative Medicine in a patient-centered, prevention-oriented approach, focused on healing the whole person as a unique individual and empowering individuals to actively participate in and take responsibility for their health and wellness. There are several medical schools that have programs in Integrative Medicine designed for doctors. The first one was Andrew Weil's program at the University of Arizona. This approach to health care delivery is incorporates the spirit of the Medical Home, but specifically and consciously includes a variety of therapeutic modalities.
When the blog mentioned that the Medical Home “makes less sense for young, healthy persons,” this need not be the case. Incorporating wellness programs and utilizing all available health benefiting therapies could be useful in defining the typical medical home. The medical home is such a useful concept and since people are having difficulty transitioning into a medical home, why not make it appealing and fruitful for everyone, mirroring the cradle to grave model of the UK.
I think Viji makes a great point in her suggestion that the use of a medical home which is coordinated and patient centered need not be limited to just the elderly or chronically ill. As this article mentions, one study examining the use of medical homes found that people's satisfaction actually decreased upon entering into the program which the authors attributed to a lack of understanding of this model. I think a great way to alleviate this issue would be, as Viji mentioned, to enroll an individual into a medical home from "cradle to grave." Not only would this make this type of care the norm, it would also enhance the patient-physician relationship and improve continuity of care throughout the lifespan.
The authors do mention that this approach may not be cost-effective for those that are young and healthy, but I think one could easily make the argument that health insurance in general does not make a lot of financial sense for the young and healthy. For the most part, young healthy people will pay more in insurance premiums than they will incur in medical costs. However, since we are trying to spread risk out amongst the population in order to make health insurance financially viable, having this low cost population is essential to making the whole thing work. Furthermore, I believe having everyone assigned to a coordinated primary care “home” will provide an excellent means for delivering preventative services throughout the various stages of a person’s life and overall health, creating the potential for future cost-savings.
In February 2009 the IOM and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions both held testimonies / forums on "Integrative Medicine". Integrative medicine is a health care delivery model that does not distinguish between or advocate for a particular modality, but rather recommends making use of all appropriate therapeutic approaches. It combines conventional medicine and Complementary and Alternative Medicine in a patient-centered, prevention-oriented approach, focused on healing the whole person as a unique individual and empowering individuals to actively participate in and take responsibility for their health and wellness. There are several medical schools that have programs in Integrative Medicine designed for doctors. The first one was Andrew Weil's program at the University of Arizona. This approach to health care delivery is incorporates the spirit of the Medical Home, but specifically and consciously includes a variety of therapeutic modalities.
ReplyDeleteWhen the blog mentioned that the Medical Home “makes less sense for young, healthy persons,” this need not be the case. Incorporating wellness programs and utilizing all available health benefiting therapies could be useful in defining the typical medical home. The medical home is such a useful concept and since people are having difficulty transitioning into a medical home, why not make it appealing and fruitful for everyone, mirroring the cradle to grave model of the UK.
I think Viji makes a great point in her suggestion that the use of a medical home which is coordinated and patient centered need not be limited to just the elderly or chronically ill. As this article mentions, one study examining the use of medical homes found that people's satisfaction actually decreased upon entering into the program which the authors attributed to a lack of understanding of this model. I think a great way to alleviate this issue would be, as Viji mentioned, to enroll an individual into a medical home from "cradle to grave." Not only would this make this type of care the norm, it would also enhance the patient-physician relationship and improve continuity of care throughout the lifespan.
ReplyDeleteThe authors do mention that this approach may not be cost-effective for those that are young and healthy, but I think one could easily make the argument that health insurance in general does not make a lot of financial sense for the young and healthy. For the most part, young healthy people will pay more in insurance premiums than they will incur in medical costs. However, since we are trying to spread risk out amongst the population in order to make health insurance financially viable, having this low cost population is essential to making the whole thing work. Furthermore, I believe having everyone assigned to a coordinated primary care “home” will provide an excellent means for delivering preventative services throughout the various stages of a person’s life and overall health, creating the potential for future cost-savings.