Healthcare

A new study published by Pioneer Institute recommends ten healthcare reforms allowed during COVID-19 that should remain in effect permanently, after the state's emergency declaration for COVID-19 ends on June 15. These reforms have enhanced flexibility in the healthcare system, highlighting barriers that make the system more expensive, harder to access and less patient-centered.

The Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) sells itself as an independent source of information on the value of pharmaceuticals. But earlier this month, their bias was again evident when they tried to kneecap a drug for a dreaded disease before there’s even enough data to determine how valuable the drug really is. ICER has adopted this same strategy in the past on innovative drugs for cancer, cystic fibrosis, and other devastating diseases. This time ICER’s target is aducanumab, Biogen’s drug for Alzheimer’s disease.

Over time, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services and Department of Public Health (DPH) have improved reporting about cases and deaths from COVID-19 in state-regulated eldercare facilities, but flaws and omissions remain and should be corrected, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Especially in the COVID era, many are looking to alleviate the increased burden on the healthcare system.  One solution is direct healthcare (DHC), which can provide more patient-centered care at affordable prices and is an effective model to increase access to care for the uninsured, underinsured and those on public programs like Medicaid. This paper aims to explain the possible benefits of DHCs, often using DPCs as an example, as they have built a successful record around the country and in Massachusetts.

Great strides have been made to increase healthcare price transparency through online cost estimator tools and a state law that requires providers to give out price information. Yet despite the eagerness of consumers to access prices and out-of-pocket costs, many are unaware that such information is available and don’t know how to access it, according to survey results published by Pioneer Institute.

In June 2019, Pioneer Institute, with support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, contracted with noted pollster David Paleologos, head of DAPA Research at Suffolk University’s Research Bureau, to conduct a valid and reliable survey of Massachusetts consumers with employer sponsored health insurance. The goals of the survey were to determine consumers’ awareness, attitudes, views, usage, and knowledge of healthcare prices. This white paper presents analysis of the results.

Pioneer Institute has long recognized that seniors deserve the best of care and that innovative policy solutions are necessary to ensure that this population enjoys a high quality of life in their later years. In the 1990s, early 2000s and most recently in 2017, the Institute dedicated Better Government Competition topics to policy issues related to aging in America. Our goal each time was to find solutions and to take advantage of new innovations that would improve the quality of life and care for the elderly.

Consumers in just one Massachusetts county could have saved nearly $22 million in a single year and $116.6 million adjusted for inflation over four years if they switched from using the most expensive providers for 16 shoppable healthcare services to those whose prices were closer to average, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

This report reveals that consumers in just one Massachusetts county could have saved nearly $22 million in a single year and $116.6 million adjusted for inflation over four years if they switched from using the most expensive providers for 16 shoppable healthcare services to those whose prices were closer to average.

At a time when the coronavirus pandemic has caused massive shifts in state policies on telehealth and scope of practice in healthcare, a new Pioneer Institute study underscores that most of the 50 states continue to suffer from weak laws regarding price transparency.  The study identified states that have laws that require carriers, providers or both to provide personalized cost information to consumers before obtaining healthcare services.  Fully 33 states placed in the lowest of the three broad analytic tiers on the strength of their state healthcare transparency laws.