2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee

Getting serious about the dirty little secrets of health care reform to guarantee true Universal Health Care for all Filipinos

Janet S Wright speaks to Caroline Telfer, Assistant Commissioning Editor. Janet S Wright is the Executive Director of Million Hearts™, a US Department of Health and Human Services initiative with the explicit goal of preventing a million heart attacks and strokes by 2017. From May 2008-September 2011, Dr Wright served as Senior Vice President for Science and Quality at the American College of Cardiology (ACC). The division she led at the ACC encompasses the clinical guidelines, performance measures, health policy statements and appropriate-use criteria; quality improvement projects such as Door-to-Balloon and Hospital-to-Home; and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, a suite of databases containing over 12 million patient records in both inpatient and outpatient care settings. Prior to joining the ACC, Dr Wright spent many years in practice in Chico, CA, USA. Dr Wright served on the ACC's Board of Trustees and chaired the Task Force on Performance Assessment, Recognition, Reinforcement, Reward and Reporting. She was a member of National Committee for Quality Assurance's Clinical Programs Committee and of the Quality Alliance Steering Committee. She served on the board of the Center for Information Therapy, a nonprofit organization committed to the provision of personalized health information during each healthcare encounter. From 2003 until moving to Washington (USA), Dr Wright served as a founding member of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, the 29-person board charged with administering the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Her primary interests are the design and implementation of systems of care to achieve optimal outcomes for patients and the full deployment of hooks, tricks and cues that help people get and stay healthy.

Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 1. Purpose of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 2. Document Development Process . . . . . . . . . .1291 3. Definitions, Terminology, and Regulations . . .1292 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1292 2. Generics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1293 3. Bioequivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1293 4. Biologics and Biosimilars. . . . . . . . . . .1294 2. Pharmacogenomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1295 3. Federal Regulations and State Laws . . . . . . . . . . .1296 4. Therapeutic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1296 1. Therapeutic Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1296 2. Therapeutic Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1297 3. Generic Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . …

The public health community’s voice needs to be heard as an advocate for sustained political will and for the stewardship role of governments. If neo-liberal thinking is gripping health care...

ACCF/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Health Policy Statement on Structured Reporting in Cardiovascular Imaging

The 1990s have witnessed intense activity at the state level with respect to health care financing. This chapter describes the debate over Medicaid, discusses the constraints on policymakers’ ability to control program expenditures, and highlights Medicaid’s role in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. It considers issues states face in reforming the private insurance market and in regulating the health services market. The primary focus of health care financing at the state level is Medicaid. In the absence of major legislation at the federal level affecting Medicaid, most of the important policy developments will be through the earlier-mentioned Section 1115 Research and Demonstration waivers. Although Medicaid is obviously central to state budgets and health policy for the poor and near poor, private health insurance is crucial to the vast majority of citizens’ lives. Medical savings accounts are used in conjunction with catastrophic policies to provide an alternative to comprehensive health insurance policies.

Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has the potential to increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Because consent and management of potential donors must occur before death, DCDD raises unique ethical and policy issues. To develop an ethics and health policy statement on adult and pediatric DCDD relevant to critical care and transplantation stakeholders. A multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders was convened to develop an ethics and health policy statement. The panel consisted of representatives from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network of Organ Sharing. The panel reviewed the literature, discussed important ethics and health policy considerations, and developed a guiding framework for decision making by stakeholders. A framework to guide ethics and health policy statement was established, which addressed the consent process, pre- and post mortem interventions, the determination of death, provisions of end-of-life care, and pediatric DCDD. The information presented in this Statement is based on the current evidence, experience, and clinical rationale. New clinical research and the development and dissemination of new technologies will eventually necessitate an update of this Statement.

2019 AATS/ACC/ASE/SCAI/STS expert consensus systems of care document: A proposal to optimize care for patients with valvular heart disease: A joint report of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Cardiology, American Society of Echocardiography, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

2019 AATS/ACC/ASE/SCAI/STS Expert Consensus Systems of Care Document: A Proposal to Optimize Care for Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Joint Report of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Cardiology, American Society of Echocardiography, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

This statement was commissioned as a Multisociety Expert Consensus Systems of Care Document by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Society of Echocardiography (ASE), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), and

Other| December 01 2013 Contributors J Health Polit Policy Law (2013) 38 (6): 1201–1204. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2373302 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. J Health Polit Policy Law 1 December 2013; 38 (6): 1201–1204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2373302 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsJournal of Health Politics, Policy and Law Search Advanced Search Mara Airoldi is research officer and LSE Fellow in the Department of Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She is a decision analyst and an economist by background. Her research focuses on developing methods for improving decisions around health care priority setting. She teaches a course on policy analysis, evaluation, and implementation.Heidi Allen is assistant professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work where she teaches courses on health policy and advanced policy practice. She is a former emergency department social worker and spent several years working on state health policy in Oregon. She is an investigator on the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, the first study to examine the causal impact of expanding Medicaid to uninsured low-income adults.Katherine Baicker is professor of health economics in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is a research... You do not currently have access to this content.

Physicians, allied health professionals and scientists, should act according to the highest professional standards in patient care, research and relations with others, including medical industry. Guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and management of disease are provided by professional organizations, such as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Furthermore, the ESC, as well as other medical organizations, provides a forum for presentation of the newest research findings at congresses and in scientific journals, and offers programmes for training and continuing medical education (CME). Many advances in patient care—diagnostic tests, medication, equipment, and devices—have been developed and were introduced by industrial companies, often in close collaboration with universities and hospitals. Therefore, the relations between industry and individual physicians, scientists, universities, and medical professional organizations are of particular interest. Promotion of new developments that may improve healthcare is in the interest of patients and physicians, provided that conferences, educational materials, and programmes organized by the ESC are unbiased by commercial interests. The Board of the ESC emphasized this in a policy statement, which included strict recommendations for transparency and disclosure of relations between representatives from the medical profession and industry, concerning scientific communication and education.1 Nevertheless, in recent years, some members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have been discharged or suspended by their universities because of scientific or financial misconduct. Furthermore, the relations between ESC and industry have been questioned.2 To address these issues it has been suggested that the ESC and similar professional organizations should appoint an ‘Ethical and Oversight Committee’ to oversee the conduct of its members and to take appropriate action if professional misconduct or biased relations with industry are suspected or apparent. To further this discussion and to assess the possible role of an ‘Ethical and Oversight Committee’, in this report we herewith review the ethical …

Brexit has created an opportunity to refashion the way in which we support agriculture, and in how we incentivise land managers to enhance farmland biodiversity and protect the environment. Reforms to farm policy post-Brexit are based on the idea that in future public money will only be paid for delivering “public goods”. But what are “public” goods in this context, and how should they be paid for? And how can improvements to ecosystems be delivered at a landscape scale? This chapter examines legal models for capturing the environmental objectives of future farm policy, and in particular the idea that farm policy should be based on payments to farmers for providing ecosystem services (hereinafter “PES”). It will also explore initiatives to develop landscape scale environmental management, including Landscape Enterprise Networks and other collaborative arrangements for delivering future policy for agriculture and the environment.The 2018 Health and Harmony policy statement signalled major changes in the way that public financial support for agriculture is delivered in England ([Withdrawn] Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit – policy statement, 2018). Similar discussions on future policy are ongoing in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. See “Agriculture (Wales) White Paper: Consultation Document”, WG 41711, December 16 2020 which posits the basis of future farm support in Wales on a new Sustainable Farming Scheme. The Scottish Government has established a taskforce to examine changes to the way the CAP is administered in Scotland up to 2024, see “Report of the Simplification taskforce”. Public financial support for agriculture post-Brexit will be based on the principle of “public money for public goods”. But what are “public goods” in this context, and how should environmental policy be restructured in its application to agriculture if it is to fit within this new policy framework? Agriculture will also need to play a central role in our response to climate change mitigation, and this will, similarly, require significant shifts in public policy (and public financial incentives) for future farming, see “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”.This chapter will examine legal models for capturing the environmental objectives of future farm policy, and in particular the idea that farm policy should be based on payments to farmers for PES. This can be done either through payments for land management actions that will produce identified ecosystem benefits (using an “input” payment method where the generation of ecosystem benefits is not guaranteed); or through payments for producing specific ecosystem benefits (using a results-based or “output” payment method). Key questions include the identification of those ecosystem services that farming can deliver for the future; how these should be measured and incentivised; how private funding for environmental land management might be encouraged and then captured in mixed public/private funding models for PES; and how PES arrangements can be given transactional effect and legal force? These are important issues that will need close examination if post-Brexit agri-environment policy is to be successfully restructured. To fully understand the scale of the challenge that this presents, we must first consider the manner in which agri-environment policy is implemented within current EU arrangements, before moving on to consider the options for reform following Brexit, and finally looking at the shape of the legal framework needed for the future governance of agri-environment policy in the UK.

As their responsibility for health policy making grows, states are pursuing a variety of strategies for getting the research and analytical assistance they need, including expanding their relationships with university-based health services research and policy analysis programs. These collaborations raise a number of questions about the fit between states' analytic needs and universities' interest and capacity, and about the appropriate role of the university research organization in the often highly politicized state environment. This paper discusses these questions in light of case studies of universities involved in state health policy in five states: Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin.

States shape the health system in many ways: as purchasers, regulators, and conveners. Despite these various roles, there is little systematic effort to monitor state choices, learn from the choices states make, and purposefully spread one state’s innovations to other states. Coordination between states and the federal government on approaches to improving the health care system is often lacking, limiting our nation’s ability to address critical problems. In an effort to improve health system performance and increase the spread of innovation, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), with support from the Commonwealth Fund, prepared this report on a broad array of state health policies and practices. This report describes a tremendous amount of activity at the state level and which has implications for how well the health care system performs.