Kathy Bennett, our social work director at Community Health Services here at CtiySquare sent me the following information about a novella (soap opera) that our team produced with the help of our AmeriCorps team and an ExxonMobil intern. I think you'll find this creative piece most encouraging. We'll let you know when the finished product is set to air--complete with sub-titles!
We are using our ExxonMobil intern to direct this educational film in Spanish in the form of a Spanish novella (Soap opera.) We think this format is more interesting and appealing to the people we serve.
The completed video will have subtitles in English. I am happy with the response of our clinic family in all the help the patients and staff have given for this to be a success. Almost everyone in the video is a patient and everyone associated with it except for the interns are volunteers. We have a long list for the credits of people to thank. I would love to hear what you think of the trailer. Of course we are all hoping the video is as good as the trailer.
Showing posts with label chronic disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chronic disease. Show all posts
Friday, August 03, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
I know these people. . .
Homeless persons live all around us.
Unfortunately, they remain, for the most part, invisible people.
Spend just a few moments losing yourself in this gallery of photos.
Warning: be prepared for some emotions.
As you watch, do your very best to simply "see" them, as you imagine the outline of their lives.
Such power resides in simple attention to others.
Unfortunately, they remain, for the most part, invisible people.
Spend just a few moments losing yourself in this gallery of photos.
Warning: be prepared for some emotions.
As you watch, do your very best to simply "see" them, as you imagine the outline of their lives.
Such power resides in simple attention to others.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Food Stamps--SNAP: nutrition and poverty
Time changes things. That's certainly the case with the evolution of the federal food stamp program. Today, the strategy encompasses more than just hunger, as was the case when the effort began in the early 1960s.
These days the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) focuses on the nutritional needs of low-income Americans who battled obesity and other chronic illnesses born of their poverty.
The following report, appearing in the March 28, 2011 edition of The Nation is very important. Let me know what you think after your read it.
Food Stamps for Good Food
Melanie Mason
[This article was written with the support of a Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy fellowship.]
Coretta Dudley’s monthly grocery shopping strategy is as finely calibrated as a combat plan. Armed with $868 in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (the fancy new name for food stamps), she stops first at FoodMaxx, a discount supermarket in East Oakland, where she stocks up on four weeks’ worth of nonperishables: cases of noodles, cans of vegetables and boxes of the sugary cereals her kids like. She also buys fresh fruit—apples and pears and bananas and grapes—but those will be gone in a week. Then she swings by Wal-Mart for bread, eggs and milk. Later, she’ll hit the family-owned meat market, where she chooses hamburger and cube steaks. Other than $100 she sets aside to replenish the milk, eggs and cheese later in the month, that first multipronged attack will last her and her six children, ages 4 to 16, the whole month. That’s the idea, anyway.
Almost 500 miles away, in the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego, Tsehay Gebere has developed her own shopping plan at the Saturday farmers’ market. The lines are long, and the ten-pound sacks of oranges, plentiful at 9 am, will have disappeared by noon. But Gebere, a weekly fixture at the market, has the inside track. She persuades farmer Bernardino Loera to sock away four bags in his van. Forty-five minutes later, she gets back to Loera’s stall and collects her hoarded prize.
Like Dudley, Gebere receives food stamp benefits, for herself and her four children. Like Dudley, Gebere shops at discount supermarkets like Food 4 Less for most of her groceries. But while Dudley buys four bags of fruit every month, Gebere buys at least four bags every week—made possible by the free money she gets at the farmers’ market.
Yes, free money—though the technical name is “double voucher.” The market matches a certain amount of money from a customer’s federal food assistance benefits, essentially doubling the customer’s purchasing power. City Heights was one of the first double voucher markets in the country; there are now more than 160 participating farmers’ markets in twenty states. They reach just a tiny fraction of the more than 43 million Americans receiving food stamps. But their very existence raises questions about SNAP’s identity: is it a welfare program or, as its recent name change suggests, a nutrition program? These questions are the subject of lively debate in USDA offices and advocacy circles, where the idea of giving extra money for fruits and veggies, innocuous as it may seem, is exposing fault lines between traditional advocates for the poor and a new coalition of healthy-food activists.
The underlying premise of the modern food stamp program, shaped in the Kennedy/Johnson years, was that the American poor were starving and in need of calories, any calories at all. But there is now a well-documented overlap between the country’s staggering rate of “food insecurity” (the term used by the USDA in lieu of “hunger”) and its escalating obesity rates. In 2009, 43 percent of households below the federal poverty line experienced food insecurity. And if you’re poor, you’re more likely to be obese. Nine of the ten states with the highest poverty levels also rank in the top ten of obesity rates.
That one can be simultaneously food insecure and obese seems like a paradox. But consider that many low-income neighborhoods have few full-service supermarkets. Grocery shopping in the neighborhood likely means buying at corner stores with limited options for healthy choices. Even if those options do exist, they are not necessarily the rational economic choice for someone on a tight budget. The cost per calorie for foods containing fats and oils, sugars and refined grains are extremely low, but these are precisely the foods linked to high obesity rates. Healthy choices like fruits and vegetables are as much as several thousand times more expensive per calorie.
In a California Department of Public Health survey of eating habits, low-income people said they knew the importance of healthy eating. But they still eat fewer fruits and vegetables than the government recommends, less than the American population as a whole. “People said they couldn’t afford it,” says George Manalo-LeClair, legislation director with the California Food Policy Advocates. “It’s cost.”
At the heart of this whole mess—poverty, hunger and declining health—is the food stamp program. Nationwide, the average SNAP beneficiary received $125.31 per month in fiscal year 2009. If food stamps constitute a person’s entire food budget—as often happens, even though the program is intended to supplement recipients’ own money—that translates to just under $1.40 per meal. If you’re looking to buy something that will satiate you for $1.40, you probably won’t be buying broccoli.
Researchers have long studied whether food stamps contribute to obesity. Previously the conclusion was, probably not. But in an Ohio State University study released in the summer of 2009 the finding was, quite possibly yes. The study found that the body mass index (BMI) of program participants is more than one point higher than nonparticipants at the same income level. The longer one is on food stamps, the higher the BMI rises.
To read on click here.
These days the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) focuses on the nutritional needs of low-income Americans who battled obesity and other chronic illnesses born of their poverty.
The following report, appearing in the March 28, 2011 edition of The Nation is very important. Let me know what you think after your read it.
Food Stamps for Good Food
Melanie Mason
[This article was written with the support of a Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy fellowship.]
Coretta Dudley’s monthly grocery shopping strategy is as finely calibrated as a combat plan. Armed with $868 in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (the fancy new name for food stamps), she stops first at FoodMaxx, a discount supermarket in East Oakland, where she stocks up on four weeks’ worth of nonperishables: cases of noodles, cans of vegetables and boxes of the sugary cereals her kids like. She also buys fresh fruit—apples and pears and bananas and grapes—but those will be gone in a week. Then she swings by Wal-Mart for bread, eggs and milk. Later, she’ll hit the family-owned meat market, where she chooses hamburger and cube steaks. Other than $100 she sets aside to replenish the milk, eggs and cheese later in the month, that first multipronged attack will last her and her six children, ages 4 to 16, the whole month. That’s the idea, anyway.
Almost 500 miles away, in the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego, Tsehay Gebere has developed her own shopping plan at the Saturday farmers’ market. The lines are long, and the ten-pound sacks of oranges, plentiful at 9 am, will have disappeared by noon. But Gebere, a weekly fixture at the market, has the inside track. She persuades farmer Bernardino Loera to sock away four bags in his van. Forty-five minutes later, she gets back to Loera’s stall and collects her hoarded prize.
Like Dudley, Gebere receives food stamp benefits, for herself and her four children. Like Dudley, Gebere shops at discount supermarkets like Food 4 Less for most of her groceries. But while Dudley buys four bags of fruit every month, Gebere buys at least four bags every week—made possible by the free money she gets at the farmers’ market.
Yes, free money—though the technical name is “double voucher.” The market matches a certain amount of money from a customer’s federal food assistance benefits, essentially doubling the customer’s purchasing power. City Heights was one of the first double voucher markets in the country; there are now more than 160 participating farmers’ markets in twenty states. They reach just a tiny fraction of the more than 43 million Americans receiving food stamps. But their very existence raises questions about SNAP’s identity: is it a welfare program or, as its recent name change suggests, a nutrition program? These questions are the subject of lively debate in USDA offices and advocacy circles, where the idea of giving extra money for fruits and veggies, innocuous as it may seem, is exposing fault lines between traditional advocates for the poor and a new coalition of healthy-food activists.
The underlying premise of the modern food stamp program, shaped in the Kennedy/Johnson years, was that the American poor were starving and in need of calories, any calories at all. But there is now a well-documented overlap between the country’s staggering rate of “food insecurity” (the term used by the USDA in lieu of “hunger”) and its escalating obesity rates. In 2009, 43 percent of households below the federal poverty line experienced food insecurity. And if you’re poor, you’re more likely to be obese. Nine of the ten states with the highest poverty levels also rank in the top ten of obesity rates.
That one can be simultaneously food insecure and obese seems like a paradox. But consider that many low-income neighborhoods have few full-service supermarkets. Grocery shopping in the neighborhood likely means buying at corner stores with limited options for healthy choices. Even if those options do exist, they are not necessarily the rational economic choice for someone on a tight budget. The cost per calorie for foods containing fats and oils, sugars and refined grains are extremely low, but these are precisely the foods linked to high obesity rates. Healthy choices like fruits and vegetables are as much as several thousand times more expensive per calorie.
In a California Department of Public Health survey of eating habits, low-income people said they knew the importance of healthy eating. But they still eat fewer fruits and vegetables than the government recommends, less than the American population as a whole. “People said they couldn’t afford it,” says George Manalo-LeClair, legislation director with the California Food Policy Advocates. “It’s cost.”
At the heart of this whole mess—poverty, hunger and declining health—is the food stamp program. Nationwide, the average SNAP beneficiary received $125.31 per month in fiscal year 2009. If food stamps constitute a person’s entire food budget—as often happens, even though the program is intended to supplement recipients’ own money—that translates to just under $1.40 per meal. If you’re looking to buy something that will satiate you for $1.40, you probably won’t be buying broccoli.
Researchers have long studied whether food stamps contribute to obesity. Previously the conclusion was, probably not. But in an Ohio State University study released in the summer of 2009 the finding was, quite possibly yes. The study found that the body mass index (BMI) of program participants is more than one point higher than nonparticipants at the same income level. The longer one is on food stamps, the higher the BMI rises.
To read on click here.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Diabetes and depression--hand-in-hand?
Type-2 diabetes continues to ravage low-income, inner city communities. Many factors contribute to the escalating health challenge, including diet, obesity and the lack of safe places for exercise. Now comes a study indicating that diabetes and depression may be feeding each other.
As I read the report below from the "Health Day" section of Bloomberg News, I recalled a conversation I had with an elderly woman from South Dallas years ago.
"Brother Larry," she said, "around here we carry our grief in buckets." Her way of describing the many sources and forces behind her own depression. The work we do creating hope and friendship as a vital part of our daily response to diabetes is right on target.
Diabetes, Depression Can Be Two-Way Street
By Ellin Holohan
HealthDay Reporter
MONDAY, Nov. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Diabetes and depression are conditions that can fuel each other, a new study shows.
The research, conducted at Harvard University, found that study subjects who were depressed had a much higher risk of developing diabetes, and those with diabetes had a significantly higher risk of depression, compared to healthy study participants.
"This study indicates that these two conditions can influence each other and thus become a vicious cycle," said study co-author Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "Thus, primary prevention of diabetes is important for prevention of depression, and vice versa."
To read the entire report click here.
As I read the report below from the "Health Day" section of Bloomberg News, I recalled a conversation I had with an elderly woman from South Dallas years ago.
"Brother Larry," she said, "around here we carry our grief in buckets." Her way of describing the many sources and forces behind her own depression. The work we do creating hope and friendship as a vital part of our daily response to diabetes is right on target.
Diabetes, Depression Can Be Two-Way Street
By Ellin Holohan
HealthDay Reporter
MONDAY, Nov. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Diabetes and depression are conditions that can fuel each other, a new study shows.
The research, conducted at Harvard University, found that study subjects who were depressed had a much higher risk of developing diabetes, and those with diabetes had a significantly higher risk of depression, compared to healthy study participants.
"This study indicates that these two conditions can influence each other and thus become a vicious cycle," said study co-author Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "Thus, primary prevention of diabetes is important for prevention of depression, and vice versa."
To read the entire report click here.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Fear of extremely poor and brain function
A couple of weeks ago The Dallas Morning News published an essay written by Adam Brenner, M. D. and associate professor of psychiatry and director of adult psychiatry residency training at UT Southwestern Medical Center ("Why not in your back yard?"). The good professor believes there is more to the fear people express about being near the homeless than we may have realized. He also counsels that an important part of any progress we make as a community will depend on us all getting to know one another. Brenner's point of view and his arguments should be taken seriously. Here's how he begins:
Why not in your back yard?
Adam Brenner
After controversy surrounding two initiatives for the homeless in North Texas this summer — one for permanent supported housing met by angry neighbors in Oak Cliff , another for homeless families derailed by anxious residents in Plano — it’s fair to wonder whether any such project can avoid the “not in my back yard” response.
Opposition to housing for the homeless is nothing new; opponents cite an array of understandable concerns about the impact on their communities — fears of crime and violence, lowered property value, disruption of neighborhood life. These objections cannot be blithely dismissed. While research on the local impact of shelters and supportive housing programs suggests that the results are generally neutral or positive, especially large or dense concentrations may have adverse effects if poorly planned or managed.
And yet, attempting to understand the emotional intensity of the opposition through a rational calculation of risks and benefits seems to fall short of capturing the whole picture. Something else, something more basic and less rational, seems to be at work. When faced with the prospect of marginalized and alienated people entering our community, something very primal in our brain is triggered — a categorization into “us” and “them,” along with a heightened sense of the dangers of “them.”
So, even though the “not in my back yard” reaction may draw on realistic concerns, it can simultaneously be driven by a set of neurobiologic processes that lead us to automatically and unconsciously reject those who are outsiders.
To read the entire article click here.
Why not in your back yard?
Adam Brenner
After controversy surrounding two initiatives for the homeless in North Texas this summer — one for permanent supported housing met by angry neighbors in Oak Cliff , another for homeless families derailed by anxious residents in Plano — it’s fair to wonder whether any such project can avoid the “not in my back yard” response.
Opposition to housing for the homeless is nothing new; opponents cite an array of understandable concerns about the impact on their communities — fears of crime and violence, lowered property value, disruption of neighborhood life. These objections cannot be blithely dismissed. While research on the local impact of shelters and supportive housing programs suggests that the results are generally neutral or positive, especially large or dense concentrations may have adverse effects if poorly planned or managed.
And yet, attempting to understand the emotional intensity of the opposition through a rational calculation of risks and benefits seems to fall short of capturing the whole picture. Something else, something more basic and less rational, seems to be at work. When faced with the prospect of marginalized and alienated people entering our community, something very primal in our brain is triggered — a categorization into “us” and “them,” along with a heightened sense of the dangers of “them.”
So, even though the “not in my back yard” reaction may draw on realistic concerns, it can simultaneously be driven by a set of neurobiologic processes that lead us to automatically and unconsciously reject those who are outsiders.
To read the entire article click here.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Something of the Spirit: The reality of a home!
As good people find a home every day in our CityWalk@Akard building located at 511 N. Akard, I find myself full of gratitude for the entire effort, for the team that made it happen and for each new friend who moves in. Forgive me for revisiting a day several weeks ago, but it just seemed so right on this Sunday morning. My faith tells me that this is just what we should be doing with our time, talent and treasure, as they say in church! Listen carefully to the "testimony" of this new "home dweller." I think you'll hear her agreeing.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Diabetes and race
One of the realities that we have encountered in our work among our inner city neighbors is a rather obvious disparity in treatment, access and outcomes when it comes to health care options and delivery. Health care professionals have recognized these disparities that cut along class and racial lines. The Baylor Health Care System, one of our most important and committed partners in the city, has an entire department devoted to addressing disparities, the Office of Health Equity that is led by our friend and CDM Board member, Dr. Jim Walton.
The lead author of the study said in an interview that he attributed the differences less to overt racism than to a systemic failure to tailor treatments to patients’ cultural norms. The problem, said the author, Dr. Thomas D. Sequist, an assistant professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, may be that physicians do not discriminate in the way they counsel patients.
“It isn’t that providers are doing different things for different patients,” Dr. Sequist said. “It’s that we’re doing the same thing for every patient and not accounting for individual needs. Our one-size-fits-all approach may leave minority patients with needs that aren’t being met.”
For instance, he said, counseling black or Latino patients with diabetes to lower their carbohydrate intake by cutting rice from their diets may not be a realistic strategy if rice is a family staple.
“We may be listing fruits and vegetables that are part of one person’s culture but not another,” Dr. Sequist said. “We’re not really giving them information they can use.”
In the study, which was published Monday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. Sequist and his colleagues examined electronic medical records of 6,814 patients with diabetes. All were treated from 2005 to 2007 by at least one of 90 primary care physicians with Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, which has 14 walk-in health clinics in eastern Massachusetts. Each doctor treated at least five white patients and five black ones.
The researchers looked at three standard measures of effective diabetes control: blood pressure, LDL cholesterol levels and hemoglobin A1C, which reflects blood sugar. Though similar proportions of black and white patients took each test, fewer black patients adequately controlled their levels on all three measures. The glucose test found, for example, that 71 percent of white patients and 63 percent of black ones were adequately controlling their blood sugar levels.
Socioeconomic factors like income or insurance status explained 13 percent to 38 percent of the racial differences, the authors calculated. But they found much larger racial disparities — from 66 percent to 75 percent — in patients who were treated by the same doctor. Adjusting for clinical differences among patients did not change the findings.
“Racial differences in outcomes were not related to black patients differentially receiving care from physicians who provide a lower quality of care, but rather that black patients experienced less ideal or even adequate outcomes than white patients within the same physician panel,” the study concluded.
To attack such disparities, the authors recommended that doctors and other members of the health care system learn more about minority communities and that patients receive better education about diabetes and how and why it must be controlled.
“Our data suggest that the problem of racial disparities is not characterized by only a few physicians providing markedly unequal care,” the authors wrote, “but that such differences in care are spread across the entire system, requiring the implementation of systemwide solutions.”
I'd love to get your reactions.
.
The issue is a very serious concern. That's why Kevin Sack's recent report in The New York Times (June 10, 2008) caught my eye. What he reports is serious. Rather than summerize it, I'll just let you read the entire article, "Doctors Miss Cultural Needs, Study Says."
________________________________________
As researchers ponder growing evidence that blacks have worse outcomes than whites in the treatment of chronic disease, they often theorize that members of minorities suffer disproportionately from poor access to quality care. Now a new study of diabetes patients has found stark racial disparities even among patients treated by the same doctors.
The lead author of the study said in an interview that he attributed the differences less to overt racism than to a systemic failure to tailor treatments to patients’ cultural norms. The problem, said the author, Dr. Thomas D. Sequist, an assistant professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, may be that physicians do not discriminate in the way they counsel patients.
“It isn’t that providers are doing different things for different patients,” Dr. Sequist said. “It’s that we’re doing the same thing for every patient and not accounting for individual needs. Our one-size-fits-all approach may leave minority patients with needs that aren’t being met.”
For instance, he said, counseling black or Latino patients with diabetes to lower their carbohydrate intake by cutting rice from their diets may not be a realistic strategy if rice is a family staple.
“We may be listing fruits and vegetables that are part of one person’s culture but not another,” Dr. Sequist said. “We’re not really giving them information they can use.”
In the study, which was published Monday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. Sequist and his colleagues examined electronic medical records of 6,814 patients with diabetes. All were treated from 2005 to 2007 by at least one of 90 primary care physicians with Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, which has 14 walk-in health clinics in eastern Massachusetts. Each doctor treated at least five white patients and five black ones.
The researchers looked at three standard measures of effective diabetes control: blood pressure, LDL cholesterol levels and hemoglobin A1C, which reflects blood sugar. Though similar proportions of black and white patients took each test, fewer black patients adequately controlled their levels on all three measures. The glucose test found, for example, that 71 percent of white patients and 63 percent of black ones were adequately controlling their blood sugar levels.
Socioeconomic factors like income or insurance status explained 13 percent to 38 percent of the racial differences, the authors calculated. But they found much larger racial disparities — from 66 percent to 75 percent — in patients who were treated by the same doctor. Adjusting for clinical differences among patients did not change the findings.
“Racial differences in outcomes were not related to black patients differentially receiving care from physicians who provide a lower quality of care, but rather that black patients experienced less ideal or even adequate outcomes than white patients within the same physician panel,” the study concluded.
To attack such disparities, the authors recommended that doctors and other members of the health care system learn more about minority communities and that patients receive better education about diabetes and how and why it must be controlled.
“Our data suggest that the problem of racial disparities is not characterized by only a few physicians providing markedly unequal care,” the authors wrote, “but that such differences in care are spread across the entire system, requiring the implementation of systemwide solutions.”
_______________________________
.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Banned at last!
Best news I've heard in years!
Talk about medical and public health research and analysis that calls for three cheers!
British hospitals are banning neckties! Never mind that they also have prohibited long sleeves, jewelry, and white lab coats for physicians.
The ban is an attempt to reign in the spread of sometimes deadly hospital-borne infections.
The ties, along with the other banned items of apparel, almost never make it to the laundry and are worn again and again.
Makes sense to me. Where better for a despicable viral varmint to lodge than in and on a cursed necktie?!
I've always loved the British.
But this is more than I could have hoped for.
Gentlemen, burn your ties!
Talk about medical and public health research and analysis that calls for three cheers!
British hospitals are banning neckties! Never mind that they also have prohibited long sleeves, jewelry, and white lab coats for physicians.
The ban is an attempt to reign in the spread of sometimes deadly hospital-borne infections.
The ties, along with the other banned items of apparel, almost never make it to the laundry and are worn again and again.
Makes sense to me. Where better for a despicable viral varmint to lodge than in and on a cursed necktie?!
I've always loved the British.
But this is more than I could have hoped for.
Gentlemen, burn your ties!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A "Medical Home"
The Commonwealth Fund 2006 Health Care Quality Survey reports something we've known and seen for a number of years here at Central Dallas Ministries.
Patients who enjoy the services of a "medical home" do much better than those patients who rely upon other sorts of medical providers for their care. By "medical home" we mean a health care setting where patients receive "timely, well-organized care," including routine preventive screenings, and management of chronic conditions. You know, the kind of doctor's office most of us grew up with!
When patients have access to such a medical setting, guess what happens? They are cared for appropriately!
What is most encouraging is the fact that racial and ethnic disparities in access and quality are dramatically reduced and even eliminated in such settings. The report documents the fact that when minority patients have a "medical home," they get the care they need. In fact, the numbers are the same for white, black and Hispanic patients.
Here's another finding that will likely cause you to say or think, "Duh!" Patients who receive patient reminders for check ups report an increase in screenings for cholesterol, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. In the context of a "medical home," minority patients are just as likely as white patients to receive these reminders, which drive up the number of patients receiving routine, preventive screenings. Patients who lack health insurance, but who have a "medical home," receive preventive care reminders at the same rate as the fully insured.
Forty-three percent of Latino patients report that they have no regular doctor or setting for care. A little over one in five African Americans have no "medical home."
Patients who have a "medical home" are able to manage their chronic conditions better than those who do not have such a health care venue. Patients who use public health facilities are less likely to encounter a "medical home" environment in those settings--only 21% of these patients reported receiving care in such venues that would qualify them as a "medical home."
Only 27% of all Americans (ages 18 to 64) report having all four indicators of a "medical home"--a regular doctor or source of care; no difficulty contacting a provider by phone; no difficulty getting care or advice after office hours or on weekends; and doctor's visits that are well-organized and running on time.
Not surprisingly, the uninsured are the least likely to enjoy the benefits of a "medical home"--only 16%, while 45% do not have even a regular source of care.
The report makes it clear that all health care providers should take steps to turn existing points of care into legitimate "medical homes" for their patients.
Over the past ten years we have been taking steps to create a "medical home" for everyone who comes seeking care from our Community Health Services division of CDM. We are most grateful for the leadership of Dr. Jim Walton, Chief Health Equity Officer for the Baylor Health Care System and for the partnership we enjoy with Baylor and with Health Texas Provider Network, the physicians' group supporting the Baylor system.
Our efforts at CHS are designed to provide consistent, efficient, high-touch care for everyone who comes to our community practice. As a result, we have transitioned from a "walk-in," M.A.S.H.-type medical unit to a family practice, appointment clinic, complete with health screenings, a full-service pharmacy and doctors who know and care for their patients. On top of this, Dr. Walton even makes routine, weekly house calls!
Reading research that confirms our operating philosophy is encouraging.
Our patients are very "poor" in terms of their economic status. To our medical team they are cherished friends who deserve the very best of care.
Patients who enjoy the services of a "medical home" do much better than those patients who rely upon other sorts of medical providers for their care. By "medical home" we mean a health care setting where patients receive "timely, well-organized care," including routine preventive screenings, and management of chronic conditions. You know, the kind of doctor's office most of us grew up with!
When patients have access to such a medical setting, guess what happens? They are cared for appropriately!
What is most encouraging is the fact that racial and ethnic disparities in access and quality are dramatically reduced and even eliminated in such settings. The report documents the fact that when minority patients have a "medical home," they get the care they need. In fact, the numbers are the same for white, black and Hispanic patients.
Here's another finding that will likely cause you to say or think, "Duh!" Patients who receive patient reminders for check ups report an increase in screenings for cholesterol, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. In the context of a "medical home," minority patients are just as likely as white patients to receive these reminders, which drive up the number of patients receiving routine, preventive screenings. Patients who lack health insurance, but who have a "medical home," receive preventive care reminders at the same rate as the fully insured.
Forty-three percent of Latino patients report that they have no regular doctor or setting for care. A little over one in five African Americans have no "medical home."
Patients who have a "medical home" are able to manage their chronic conditions better than those who do not have such a health care venue. Patients who use public health facilities are less likely to encounter a "medical home" environment in those settings--only 21% of these patients reported receiving care in such venues that would qualify them as a "medical home."
Only 27% of all Americans (ages 18 to 64) report having all four indicators of a "medical home"--a regular doctor or source of care; no difficulty contacting a provider by phone; no difficulty getting care or advice after office hours or on weekends; and doctor's visits that are well-organized and running on time.
Not surprisingly, the uninsured are the least likely to enjoy the benefits of a "medical home"--only 16%, while 45% do not have even a regular source of care.
The report makes it clear that all health care providers should take steps to turn existing points of care into legitimate "medical homes" for their patients.
Over the past ten years we have been taking steps to create a "medical home" for everyone who comes seeking care from our Community Health Services division of CDM. We are most grateful for the leadership of Dr. Jim Walton, Chief Health Equity Officer for the Baylor Health Care System and for the partnership we enjoy with Baylor and with Health Texas Provider Network, the physicians' group supporting the Baylor system.
Our efforts at CHS are designed to provide consistent, efficient, high-touch care for everyone who comes to our community practice. As a result, we have transitioned from a "walk-in," M.A.S.H.-type medical unit to a family practice, appointment clinic, complete with health screenings, a full-service pharmacy and doctors who know and care for their patients. On top of this, Dr. Walton even makes routine, weekly house calls!
Reading research that confirms our operating philosophy is encouraging.
Our patients are very "poor" in terms of their economic status. To our medical team they are cherished friends who deserve the very best of care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)