Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to U Reinhardt.
One of the toughest and most important issues facing America today is healthcare reform. To examine this issue more closely, four industry observers were invited to share their thoughts with Healthcare Executive.
Who would have guessed that managed care would dominate the health care industry in the final two decades of the millennium? That physicians would be joining labor unions? Or that they would be going back to school to become Fellows of the American College of Physician Executives? To find out what may be in store for health care in America five to 10 years hence, The Physician Executive asked nine health care experts to participate in a two-part panel discussion. Here's what they see ahead in managed care, information technology, and biotechnology. Part 2 will appear in the July/August Issue of The Physician Executive.
What is the future of health care in America? This is Part 2 of The Physician Executive panel discussion that explores the future of health care in America. To narrow this ambitious focus somewhat, the future is defined as five to 10 years hence. In Part 1, which was published in the May/June issue, Russell C. Coile, Jr., Barbara LeTourneau, MD, MBA, FACPE, James Reinertsen, MD, Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, Marshall Ruffin, MD, MPH, MBA, FACPE, and David Vogel, MS, shared their opinions about what the future holds in managed care, information technology, and biotechnology. In Part 2, Susan Cejka, Barbara LeTourneau, MD, MBA, FACPE, John Henry Pfifferling, PhD, Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, and James Todd, MD, share their views on the future of medical education and physician executives.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In Part 1 of this second annual panel discussion, six experts examine the new health care consumer. The whole concept of the patient as consumer still makes people uneasy when it's applied to health care. Whether you prefer consumer, customer, purchaser, end-user, ultimate buyer, or beneficiary, one thing's for sure: Many of us are as different from the bygone patient as an HMO is from the general practitioner who made house calls. One of the reasons for many Americans' new interest, knowledge, attitudes, and expectations about health and health care is the Internet, the second topic in this discussion. In Part 2, physician executives from the three leading physician practice management companies (PPMCs) join Jeff Goldsmith, Barbara LeTourneau, and Uwe Reinhardt for a spirited exchange about this burgeoning new industry in the American health care sector. They will tackle questions such as: Are PPMCs delivering what they promise? What will separate successful PPMCs from the rest? Can PPMCs meet Wall Street's earnings expectations and also help physicians deliver better care? When PPMCs win, who loses? And, what roles will physician executives play in PPMCs?
In Part 2 of this second annual panel discussion, Jeff Goldsmith, Barbara LeTourneau, Uwe Reinhardt, and physician executives from three physician practice management companies (PPMCs) examine this burgeoning new industry. They grapple with questions (and occasionally with each other), such as: Are PPMCs delivering what they promise? What will separate successful PPMCs from the rest? When PPMCs win, who loses? What value do PPMCs add to health care? What lies ahead for this industry? Could Wall Street pressure cause PPMCs to put profit ahead of physicians and patients? And, what roles will physician executives play in PPMCs?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that there are wide variations in the way physicians manage similar patients. This suggests that an evidence-based approach could lead to better outcomes with less cost. But practicing evidence-based medicine requires new skills, such as using computerized databases and applying the rules of evidence to primary and integrative studies in the medical literature. The progress of evidence-based medicine will depend in large measure on how quickly these new skills can be developed and integrated into the practice environment. Here's how six experts see the promise and the perils of evidence-based medicine, now and in the new millennium. Part 2 of the panel discussion will explore the new provider team, which includes nurses and, more recently, pharmacists, who are collaborating with physicians to provide disease management and drugs therapy management services.
In Part 2 of this third annual panel discussion, six experts talk about the growing diversity of health care providers and what it means for consumers and physicians. Americans are getting their wellness and health care services from a wider variety of non-physician practitioners than ever before. The number of allied health and alternative providers with direct patient access is likely to continue growing. This trend is being driven by consumer demand, by the lobbying efforts of non-physician providers, and by federal, state, and private payers who see the potential for reduced health care spending, greater consumer satisfaction, and better outcomes. In practice, this means physicians and non-physician providers, some of whom may not be sanctioned by the medical establishment, are obligated to collaborate as a team. Members of this new provider team will have to communicate effectively (with each other, with consumers, and with payers) and make evidence-based clinical decisions. Physicians may have to share decision-making with other members of this new health care team.
The total non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-population between 1960 and 1985 treated by means of radiotherapy or combined radio-chemotherapy in the Medical Academy Dresden was analysed prognostically. 247 patients were classified according to previous scheme, 79 were subdivided on the basis of the recommendations of the Kiel-classification. The remission rates and survival curves achieved bear comparison with international literature (remission rates for the low-malignancy group = 85.3% and for the high-malignancy group = 80.0%; 5-year survival rates for the low-malignancy group = 61.9% and for the high-malignancy group = 41.7%). The influence of histology, clinical stage and involvement of organs is discussed according to our results and information from appropriate reference sources. Our analysis confirms the high importance of a common radiologic-internal outpatient department for coordination of the diagnostic and therapeutic programme. Principles of treatment are presented with special respect to polychemotherapy.