Pennsylvania, who is hosting one of the fiercest battles in the war on opioids, will not adopt a nationally recognized evidence-based medicine drug formulary. Is this the outcome of Pennsylvania politics, the right move to preserve the doctor to patient relationship?
State Workers’ Compensation Standards
The importance of the National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) cannot be validated by someone continuing the work. Its importance was established in 2008 by U.S. Congress. Without appropriate oversight in the development of this content, anything might be called “quality” imperiling the well-being of injured workers. Here is my take on why “WorkComp Needs Quality Measures for Clinical Practice Guidelines”.
Is there a correlation between America’s increased #Suicide rates and the #OpioidEpidemic? The negative effects of inappropriately prescribed #Opioids on public health are multiple. However, the data shows that there is a promising #PatientCentric solution that is highly effective in preventing the inappropriate first exposure to opioids for #Patients.
The national #WorkersCompensation community is at risk of losing the plot of the #OpioidEpidemic. The assault against opioid abuse may be relying too much on over-simplified medicine. It is essential to expand the conversation to emphasize the importance of the overall care of a patient and improve the tracking of health outcomes. The discussion can no longer be just about drugs and potential savings.
Regulating the use of evidence-based medicine standards by state jurisdictions tends to polarize workers’ compensation stakeholders – sometimes for good reason. However, an important attribute that is evident in a well-developed medically responsible EBM standard can be easily overlooked: EBM guidance may not always be unequivocal.
The data is clear. The impact that EBM has on improved health outcomes in workers’ compensation is overwhelmingly positive. Continue reading to get my take on why it is counter-productive to use the content out of context.
In the Workers’ Compensation system, variances from one state to another seem endless. The source of variability is often the disparity in resources available to state regulators across jurisdictions. Is it reasonable to suggest that the varying availability of resources from state-to-state present limitations for regulators in their pursuit to appropriately research prospective public policy that will improve system outcomes?
Would establishing national standards help level the playing field for states having to make due with less available resources?