Trump, Archimedes Hold Lessons For CMS Hospital, Safety Rules
As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mulls new payment rules for hospitals, its leaders should consult a crucial concept from the book that made Donald Trump famous, then apply it to quality and safety regulations. Also, Archimedes.
The concept they have in common is leverage.
In The Art of the Deal, then-real-estate-magnate-and-now-president Trump writes, 'Leverage is having something the other guy wants.' It is, he emphasizes, 'the biggest strength you can have.' Since CMS spends over $1 trillion on health care each year, it has the unique leverage of something everyone wants.
The agency should apply that leverage in two ways as it finalizes the inpatient prospective payment system draft regulations, whose comment period closed June 10. First, CMS should strengthen requirements that can make care better, safer and more cost-effective. Second, it should move decisively to give patients themselves more direct leverage in the form of actionable information.
Approximately one in four hospitalized adults suffers a patient safety problem of some sort, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Assessing the human impact, the Leapfrog Group has estimated that 160,000 Americans died avoidable deaths in 2018 from only the types of medical errors addressed in its voluntary standards. While there's a wide range of estimates of the financial impact of error, hospital-acquired infections alone are estimated to cost up to $45 billion.
CMS has already established a timetable for implementing Patient Safety Structural Measures, but those measures' use could be amended or even eliminated due to objections to its impact on payment that some organizations are still surfacing even in this current rule-making cycle. At first glance, the requirements seem rudimentary. For instance, hospitals must merely 'attest' to elementary actions such as addressing safety topics at governing board meetings and showing a 'leadership commitment to eliminating preventable harm.' Reporting begins this year, though results won't be public until next fall. Hospitals that don't submit data can have their Medicare pay reduced, albeit not until Oct. 1, 2027.
Do the feds really need leverage to prompt such basic actions? Unfortunately, a survey by the hospitals' own trade group, the American Hospital Association, found that only 50 percent of hospital boards had quality as one of their priorities. Even more worrisome, 52% of respondent to the 2022 AHRQ Survey of Patient Safety Culture survey said 'hospital management seems interested in patient safety only after an adverse event happens.'
CMS should also demand more, and more useful, hospital transparency. The agency is proposing a couple of steps. It wants inpatient quality data on its Compare website to include data on Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, once a small slice of Medicare but now 54% of all those enrolled. The agency also wants to require cancer hospitals, previously exempt from reporting, to now publicly report quality measures. Comments submitted by Patients for Patient Safety US praised that proposal as a way to 'better support patient and family decision-making about where to seek intensive cancer care.' (Disclosure: I'm a PFPS US member.)
But CMS can get patients an even better deal. The Leapfrog Group's comments to CMS called out meaningless transparency (my adjective, not theirs) in which the Compare website data is statistically adjusted so that 90% of hospitals seem no different than the national average. This, the group wrote, 'sends a dangerous message to consumers [that]
all hospitals are the same,' even though 'the difference can mean life or death.'
In my own comments, I urged CMS to stop displaying data in a complex manner that confuses consumers. I advocated switching instead to a 'radical' transparency based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a framing that resonates emotionally. An actionable framework I developed with Johns Hopkins associate professor Matt Austin mapped common hospital quality measures into three Maslow categories, with a 'drill down' possible via the web for more detail. Those categories were: 'Will I be safe?' (for Maslow, that correlates with the basic need for survival and safety from harm); 'Will I be heard?' (in Maslow's hierarchy, the need for esteem and respect from others); and 'Will I be able to lead my best life?' (self-actualization).
Meanwhile, Leapfrog urged CMS to improve data usefulness by reporting results from federal programs using the actual name of the brick-and-mortar hospital, not its CMS Certification Number. I've urged something similar in regard to Medicare Advantage star ratings,, which aren't part of the current regulatory draft. Right now, star ratings of health plan quality aren't based on what a local plan does, which most consumers would assume, but on the CMS plan contract number, which at times applies to plans located across the entire country.
Leapfrog also advocated eliminating the exemption from public reporting that, in addition to cancer hospitals, applies to critical access hospitals, pediatric hospitals, hospitals in U.S. territories and other facilities. Every patient, Leapfrog wrote, deserves 'the same safety, quality and resource use information.'
Separately, Patients for Patient Safety urged CMS to fix a 'foundational flaw' undermining accurate patient safety data by providing patients with what amounts to a powerful lever. Current error reporting relies on hospitals self-reproting; that has resulted in only about 5% of harm being reported, according to research cited by Patients for Patient Safety . Patients 'notice things others miss,' Patients for Patient Safety pointed out, yet 'we are systematically excluded from harm reporting systems.' The group called for CMS to empower patients and families to directly report harm.
As I noted in a previous Forbes column, two goals CMS administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz immediately set out when he took office were 'empowering the American people' to better manage their health and holding providers 'accountable for health outcomes.' The quality and safety rules supported by activists represent a golden opportunity to take giant steps in that direction.
Finally, there's Archimdes. The ancient Greek mathematician famously said of leverage, 'Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.' By comparison, CMS has only to use the powerful leverage of its quality and safety regulations to move the American health care system.
As President Trump described leverage in his book, 'Don't do deals without it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research
Showing that his loyalty to his own anti-vax mentality is greater than his loyalty to President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the dangerous quack atop the Department of Health and Human Services, has announced that he will be rescinding a half billion dollars in grants and contracts for the development of mRNA technology and vaccines. It was mRNA that was key to both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID vaccines that were created under Trump in his first term, but RFK does not like life-saving vaccines and so he's pulling the plug. Part of the problem with policymaking at the level of the federal government is that the impacts are often too large, too long-winded, too abstract to really be able to nearly encompass their full breadth, particularly for busy people who have their own immediate concerns to worry about. In this case, though, we can point to very clear, very grim and almost unavoidable repercussions directly caused by this decision: many people worldwide — including in the United States — will die deaths that could have been prevented. Setting aside all of the jargon, at its most basic level a vaccine is about allowing the body to ward off or survive pathogens that would otherwise be extremely dangerous and debilitating or kill a person outright. The model itself is far from new; inoculations in some form of another, including the basic utilization of a dead virus to create antibodies that can attack a live one, date back centuries. What's mainly changed since then is that we have only advanced our understanding and technology to keep infectious diseases from running rampant in our society. One such technological leap was the mRNA process, an innovation so significant that its pioneers won the Nobel prize. The effectiveness and the safety of this process has been well-documented in research settings, but we don't even have to parse the studies to know this because we all collectively lived it. As Trump's Operation Warp Speed produced, the first and most widespread COVID inoculations were mRNA-based vaccines, which enabled us to blunt the rampaging pandemic and much more quickly return our society to a semblance of normalcy. Those COVID vaccines have already been synthesized, but the real issue here are the ones that haven't, or even the inoculations for viruses that we have not even identified or think to be a threat today. Whether we like it or not, our relationship to infectious diseases is something akin to an arms race, in which we are constantly trying to counteract pathogens that, by dint of evolution, are constantly finding ways to elude our defenses and sicken us. We've stayed largely on top of this arms race over the last six decades or so in particular because of constant efforts that have developed sophisticated tools to fight back, including mRNA. A disarmament here for no other reason than ideologically-driven conspiracy that drives Bobby Kennedy is going to mean that we give the diseases an opening, which they will no doubt exploit to sicken and kill us. There are quite simply no two ways about it, and any pause in the research could have dire consequences, even if it is reversed later. Ongoing and sometimes multimonth or even multiyear projects will lose funding and might have to be shut down, with all their efforts wasted. There's no way to really put the genie back in the bottle so we have to stop it in the first place, which means RFK must be fired immediately or impeached and removed by Congress. Many lives hang in the balance. _____
Fast Company
24 minutes ago
- Fast Company
How tech pinpoints urban heat islands and makes cooling projects easier
It's summer, and it's been hot, even in northern cities such as Boston. But not everyone is hit with the heat in the same way, even within the same neighborhood. Take two streets in Boston at 4:30 p.m. on a recent day, as an example. Standing in the sun on Lewis Place, the temperature was 94 degrees Fahrenheit (34.6 degrees Celsius). On Dudley Common, it was 103 F. Both streets were hot, but the temperature on one was much more dangerous for people's health and well-being. The kicker is that those two streets are only a few blocks apart. The difference epitomizes the urban heat island effect, created as pavement and buildings absorb and trap heat, making some parts of the city hotter. A closer look at the two streets shows some key differences: Dudley Common is public open space sandwiched between two thoroughfares that create a wide expanse of pavement lined with storefronts. There aren't many trees to be found. Lewis Place is a residential cul-de-sac with two-story homes accompanied by lots of trees. This comparison of two places within a few minutes' walk of each other puts the urban heat island effect under a microscope. It also shows the limits of today's strategies for managing and responding to heat and its effects on public health, which are generally attuned to neighborhood or citywide conditions. Even within the same neighborhood, some places are much hotter than others owing to their design and infrastructure. You could think of these as urban heat islets in the broader landscape of a community. Sensing urban heat islets Emerging technologies are making it easier to find urban heat islets, opening the door to new strategies for improving health in our communities. While the idea of reducing heat across an entire city or neighborhood is daunting, targeting specific blocks that need assistance the most can be faster and a much more efficient use of resources. Doing that starts with making urban heat islets visible. In Boston, I'm part of a team that has installed more than three dozen sensors across the Roxbury neighborhood to measure temperature every minute for a better picture of the community's heat risks, and we're in the process of installing 25 more. The Common SENSES project is a collaboration of community-based organizations, including the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative and Project Right Inc.; university researchers like me who are affiliated with Northeastern University's Boston Area Research Initiative; and Boston city officials. It was created to pursue data-driven, community-led solutions for improving the local environment. Data from those sensors generate a real-time map of the conditions in the neighborhood, from urban heat islets like Dudley Common to cooler urban oases, such as Lewis Place. These technologies are becoming increasingly affordable and are being deployed in communities around the world to pinpoint heat risks, including Miami, Baltimore, Singapore, and Barcelona. There are also alternatives when long-term installations prove too expensive, such as the U.S.'s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration volunteer science campaign, which has used mobile sensors to generate onetime heat maps for more than 50 cities. Making cooler communities, block by block Although detailed knowledge of urban heat islets is becoming more available, we have barely scratched the surface of how they can be used to enhance people's health and well-being. The sources of urban heat islets are rooted in development—more buildings, more pavement, and fewer trees result in hotter spaces. Many projects using community-based sensors aspire to use the data to counteract these effects by identifying places where it would be most helpful to plant trees for shade or install cool roofs or cool pavement that reflect the heat. However, these current efforts do not fully capitalize on the precision of sensors. For example, Los Angeles's massive investment in cool pavement has focused on the city broadly rather than overheated neighborhoods. New York City's tree planting efforts in some areas failed to anticipate where trees could be successfully planted. Most other efforts compare neighborhood to neighborhood, as if every street within a neighborhood experiences the same temperature. London, for example, uses satellite data to locate heat islands, but the resolution isn't precise enough to see differences block by block. In contrast, data pinpointing the highest-risk areas enables urban planners to strategically place small pocket parks, cool roofs, and street trees to help cool the hottest spaces. Cities could incentivize or require developers to incorporate greenery into their plans to mitigate existing urban heat islets or prevent new ones. These targeted interventions are cost-effective and have the greatest potential to help the most people. But this could go further by using the data to create more sophisticated alert systems. For example, the National Weather Service's Boston office released a heat advisory for July 25, 2025, the day I measured the heat in Dudley Common and Lewis Place, but the advisory showed nearly the entirety of the state of Massachusetts at the same warning level. What if warnings were more locally precise? On certain days, some streets cross a crucial threshold—say, 90 F—whereas others do not. Sensor data capturing these hyperlocal variations could be communicated directly to residents or through local organizations. Advisories could share maps of the hottest streets or suggest cool paths through neighborhoods. There is increasing evidence of urban heat islets in many urban communities and even suburban ones. With data showing these hyperlocal risks, policymakers and project coordinators can collaborate with communities to help address areas that many community members know from experience tend to be much hotter than surrounding areas in summer. As one of my colleagues, Nicole Flynt of Project Right Inc., likes to say, 'Data + Stories = Truth.' If communities act upon both the temperature data and the stories their residents share, they can help their residents keep cool—because it's hot out there.
Medscape
24 minutes ago
- Medscape
Pediatric Sleep Screener Boosts Diagnoses, Referrals
Children's poor sleep is associated with obesity, academic problems, suicide attempts, and other mental health concerns, but the issue is not consistently addressed in pediatric primary care. A new well-child-visit screening tool for primary care clinicians (PCCs) appears to help boost diagnosis and referrals, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Network Open . Ariel A. Williamson, PhD, with The Ballmer Institute for Children's Behavioral Health, University of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues tested an electronic, age-based sleep screener that evaluated infant bed sharing, snoring three nights a week, short sleep time, perceived sleep problems, and adolescent daytime sleepiness. The researchers conducted a retrospective, observational case-control study in the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania primary care network of 31 practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 27 in suburban/rural settings and four in metropolitan settings. During implementation, 204,872 patients completed the screening, with adoption in 89.5% of all well-child visits. The screening indicated that 9.7% of patients had frequent snoring, 12.2% had sleep problems, and 34.4% had insufficient sleep. Bed sharing was reported for 6.5% of infants and 14.7% of adolescents reported daytime sleepiness. The identification of sleep problems was followed by provision of family education resources. Sleep Disorder Diagnosis 64% More Likely With Screener Compared with the pre-implementation period, at well-child visits with a completed sleep screener, PCCs were significantly more likely to make a sleep disorder diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.56-1.73), order a polysomnogram (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.32-3.20), and refer to sleep clinics (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 5.03-8.34) or otolaryngology (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 3.95-5.02). Rupali Drewek, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and co-medical director of the Sleep Medicine Program at Phoenix Children's in Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News the screener is promising and its proactive approach — even in children with no obvious symptoms — allows for earlier intervention and improved quality of life. 'Sleep problems affect up to half of children at some point,' she said, 'yet they are rarely addressed unless parents bring them up. Implementing a standardized screening tool during routine pediatric visits ensures systematic identification of issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. Taking action early can lead to better health, better school performance, and less stress for families and the healthcare system.' Adding a new screening tool should fit easily into a regular checkup without slowing workflow substantially, she said. 'It offers a scalable, low‑cost solution to reach millions of children.' Educating the medical team will be important to successful implementation, she said. 'Everyone on the care team needs to know how to read the results and what to do next if a child's answers show there might be a sleep problem.' Lessening Healthcare Inequities In an accompanying editorial, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, with the Department of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Stephen M. Downs, MD, MS, with the Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, North Carolina, said the screener, 'offers a refreshing departure from this pattern of asking PCCs to know more and do more. [T]his is an opportune time to study the implementation of systems that will support PCCs in providing evidence-based care.' The editorialists wrote that the broad screening at well-child visits could help lessen healthcare inequities. They noted that children from minoritized backgrounds with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely, for instance, to have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and are less likely to receive timely, evidence-based care. 'For example, Black children are two to four times more likely to have OSA and less likely to receive a [polysomnogram] referral,' they wrote. One of the main unanswered questions, Honaker and Downs wrote, is how much the educational components help once the problems have been identified and whether guidance about sleep duration results in actual improvements in sleep duration. A key strength of the work is replicability in other health systems, with individual adaptations, the editorialists noted. '[T]he system designed by Williamson and colleagues offers an excellent starting point for other healthcare systems seeking to support PCCs in prevention, identification, and management of pediatric sleep disruption,' they wrote. Williamson reported receiving honoraria from the National Sleep Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Wesleyan University and an honorarium and travel support from The Pennsylvania State University, outside the submitted work. This study was supported by the Possibilities Project at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Honaker reported receiving consulting fees from Covington LLC; grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; equity ownership of For Dreamers LLC; and grants from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation outside the submitted work. Downs reported that he is the co-creator of the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) software and cofounder of Digital Health Solutions LLC, which licenses CHICA. Drewek reported no relevant financial relationships.
