Category: Patients

Patient-centric payments: Interview with HealthiPASS CEO Rajesh Voddiraju

March 19th, 2018 by


HealthiPASS CEO Rajesh Voddiraju

Patient payments are a real friction point in the US healthcare system. Patients don’t understand what they owe, and doctors usually can’t help them figure it out. HealthiPASS is doing its best to solve these problems with a consumer-friendly approach that pays off financially for providers.

In this podcast interview, HealthiPASS CEO, Rajesh Voddiraju answers my questions about how it all works.


  • (0:17 )What are the problems with patient payments today?
  • (2:40) What have physician offices been doing about it about it? How successful are those efforts?
  • (6:30) How does HealthiPASS work?
  • (11:50) With the four steps it sounds like you are allowing the physician office to educate the patient about the extent of their financial obligations under high deductible plans. Is that right?
  • (13:09) How does the system interact with existing practice management systems? What is the impact on the office workflow?
  • (18:51)The value proposition for physician offices is pretty clear, but what about for patients? Is it in a patient’s interest to use this system?
  • (21:37) What are you doing to increase adoption?
  • (26:08) How do you expect the market to evolve?

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Amazon: Force the healthcare system to become patient-centric

February 6th, 2018 by

The announcement that Amazon will work with JP Morgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway to create a new healthcare organization for employees has health plans and providers running scared. Initial press coverage has focused on the impact of this group on the market value of CVS, United Healthcare and the like –but how many people really care about that?

CareCentrix CEO John Driscoll has the right idea when he suggests that Amazon should compel provider organizations to put the patient first –for real, not just rhetorically. His three specific suggestions are good ones: mandate self-service scheduling, introduce  a universal patient portal, and improve the quality of provider reviews. As simple and straightforward as those sound, they would require Amazon and its partners to overcome serious resistance. It will be fascinating to watch what happens.

Assuming Amazon can make those basic but challenging changes come to pass, I have two additional, ambitious suggestions to help patients:

  1. Ensure that patients receive clear, consistent, actionable follow-up information when they leave a doctor’s appointment or are discharged from the hospital.
  2. Use the full set of information available about a patient to anticipate their needs and help them navigate the system.

The first idea is a simple one, which should be happening anyway, and occasionally does. The challenge is to get the provider system to care enough about what happens upon discharge and provide the tools, training, information and support to enable more seamless and empowering transitions. I was shocked at how poor the discharge instructions were after my release from the emergency department a few months ago, after I was struck by a car. I received basically nothing and had to count on family and clients in the medical system to help me. I know I’m not the only one who’s had this experience.

The second idea is broader and vaguer, but starts to draw on the expertise of Amazon’s partners who are in the financial services and insurance industries and have a lot of information about their customers. The consortium could help patients chart their financial path through the healthcare system, helping them identify what insurance to select, how much to save in their HSA and FSA, and where and when to get their care. It could be a virtual concierge for patients, relying big data and machine learning to provide insights and continuous improvement.

If these suggestions were implemented they would have a high impact, even though they would not completely transform the system. It seems like about the right level for this group to shoot for. If they try to be bolder they will likely fail.


By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Ambulance bill rip-off: There’s always a public option

December 1st, 2017 by

A Kaiser Health News story on sky-high ambulance bills caught my attention; I have a long-standing interest in out-of-network billing and a more recent experience of taking a pricey ambulance trip myself.

Taken for a ride? Ambulances stick patients with surprise bills, is not a new story. To sum it up: it’s not unusual for a patient to get a bill for thousands of dollars and then to be stuck with a big part of the charge, even if that patient is insured. That’s because many ambulance companies can make more money by being out-of-network. Unlike physicians and hospitals, ambulance companies don’t lose patients by being out of network and refusing to offer discounts. After all, if you need an ambulance you wouldn’t have time to shop around, and it doesn’t affect repeat business either.

The article cites an example of a Fallon ambulance in Chestnut Hill, MA, one town away from where I live. A patient was transported to Brigham and Women’s hospital four miles away and charged $3,660, which the article points out is $915 per mile. The insurer paid about half and half was the responsibility of the patient.

In my own case I was crossing the street in a crosswalk and was struck by a car making a left turn. My bill from Fallon was $3,427.50 for a one-mile ride, so at least on a per mile basis it was much higher than the Chestnut Hill example.

But to be fair, the bill comprises a base fee of $3,350 for an advanced life support ambulance plus $77.50 per mile. That works out to exactly the same rate as what the suburbanite paid ($3,350+4x$77.50=$3,660) and demonstrates that Fallon is not mainly charging for mileage, it’s charging for the equipment and personnel being ready to show up on a moment’s notice.

Much of the ire is directed at the ambulance company for price gouging and the insurance company for leaving patients hanging. There are calls to regulate prices and otherwise tighten the rules, and I’m sympathetic.

But notice this point a little further down:

” If the injury had happened just a mile away inside Boston city limits, he could have ridden a city ambulance, which would have charged $1,490, according to Boston EMS, a sum that his insurer probably would have covered in full.”

When you call 911 to report a fire or a crime in Chestnut Hill and anywhere else near Boston, fire fighters and police officers are dispatched at no charge. It doesn’t matter what insurance you have –or whether you have insurance– it’s a service provided by the local government as part of its budget. Police and fire fighters responded to my crash, too, but they aren’t sending a bill.

Cities and towns could do the same with ambulances if they want. Some, like Boston, do. Public ambulances can still bill insurance and individual patients, but they’re less likely to antagonize patients and insurers with outrageous bills.

So while we think of policy solutions for ambulance bill rip-offs, let’s not forget that there are public options and lots of hybrid solutions, too.

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Hospice: Another sad sector of the opioid crisis

August 30th, 2017 by
Help yourself?

A person addicted to drugs might do anything to get their hands on the next dose. Whether that means ‘borrowing’ painkillers from a relative who had their wisdom teeth extracted, breaking into cars to grab small bills and coins, or stealing their mother’s jewelry –all things I’ve seen myself– there are no real limits. So I was saddened but not surprised to read Dying At Home In An Opioid Crisis: Hospices Grapple With Stolen Meds, which highlights the trouble dying patients face in keeping hold of their painkillers.

The Kaiser Health News examples are only anecdotal, but the combination of high quantities of opioids and homebound patients unable to fend for themselves is an ideal setting for diversion. The problem is two-fold: theft of drugs while the patient is alive, and diversion once the patient passes away. Since many patients die within days or weeks of beginning hospice, the second problem is a major one.

The examples offered in the article are heartbreaking:

  • In Mobile, Ala., a hospice nurse found a man at home in tears, holding his abdomen, complaining of pain at the top of a 10-point scale. The patient was dying of cancer, and his neighbors were stealing his opioid painkillers, day after day.

  • In Monroe, Mich., parents kept “losing” medications for a child dying at home of brain cancer, including a bottle of the painkiller methadone.

  • In Clinton, Mo., a woman at home on hospice began vomiting from anxiety from a tense family conflict: Her son had to physically fight off her daughter, who was stealing her medications. Her son implored the hospice to move his mom to a nursing home to escape the situation.

Some hospices are trying to do something about the problem, but it’s not easy. After all, their primary goal is to ease the pain of dying patients. It’s not really their job to keep track of and control everyone else. Some of the ideas being tried include:

  • Screening families for a history of drug addiction
  • Limiting the amount of meds delivered at any one time
  • Drafting agreements with families about consequences for drugs that disappear
  • Encouraging the destruction and disposal of drugs after the patient dies

None of these approaches is likely to succeed on its own. The country will have to address the broader opioid crisis in order to bring this part of it under control. However, there are a couple additional steps that could be taken now:

  • A few states let hospice employees destroy drugs once a patient dies. That should be expanded nationwide and made mandatory. There is no conflict here with the patient’s needs
  • Some patients, who would otherwise be eligible for home hospice, should be moved to facilities such as nursing homes, where controls can be tighter. (Much as I hate to argue against home care this needs to be part of the discussion)

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Advances in care management: podcast interview with AxisPoint CEO Dr. Ron Geraty

August 10th, 2017 by
Ron Geraty
Dr. Ron Geraty, CEO of AxisPoint Health

AxisPoint Health is part of the new breed of care management companies, leveraging new data sources and digital techniques that go beyond the traditional paradigm of nurse call centers focused on a handful of common chronic conditions. Industry veteran, Dr. Ron Geraty (former CEO of Alere) took the reins of the company a couple years back.

In this podcast interview, Ron and I discuss the evolution of care management, the role of digital, and what the future will bring.

  1. (0:11) What’s the current state of care management in the US?
  2. (2:27) How is care management being done differently across populations: commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, dual eligibles?
  3. (5:36) Care management traditionally focuses on 5 common chronic conditions. Has it made a significant difference in those areas?
  4. (8:26) What attracted you to AxisPoint? How is it different from other population health management companies?
  5. (13:08) Who are the customers? Who is drawn to your approach and why?
  6. (15:26) You work with the most vulnerable populations. Do you attempt to influence the social and behavioral determinants of health?
  7. (19:18) What’s at stake for AxisPoint in the debate about healthcare in Washington, DC, especially since you are serving populations that have been a major focus of the ACA?
  8. (22:33) How will digital tools be leveraged for vulnerable populations? Will you still have feet on the street?

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.