WUHC February Newsletter

WHARTON UNDERGRADUATE HEALTHCARE CLUB

NEWSLETTERFEBRUARY

2014

Welcome to this month’s issue of the WUHC newsletter! Along with the new blog on the rede-signed website (check it out at www.wuhcpenn.org), this newsletter is designed to keep you in-formed about relevant healthcare industry news at Penn, across the nation, and around the globe. This issue’s featured story (pages 4 and 5) is an analysis of insurance coverage of mental health services, both under Penn’s Student Insurance Plan and in general under the ACA. Other sto-ries include a recap of this month’s event with Dr. Paul Offit, Chief of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and an intro to healthcare consulting. We hope you find this a valuable resource, and as always, feel free to

contact us with concerns!

Lucy Chen, Communications [email protected]

Committee Members:Stanley Cai

Nirupa GalagederaAlex Hsu

Stephanie LuuPuja Upadhyay

Joseph Vick

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

On Tuesday, February 17, Dr. Paul Offit, a Professor of Vaccinology and Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medi-cine, the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, and the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, spoke about the most effective ways to com-municate science to the public, particularly regarding vac-cines. Having published more than 130 papers in scientific and medical journals, co-authored books, and even made TV appearances (i.e. The Colbert Report) regarding vaccines and vaccine safety, Dr. Offit discussed the stigmatization of vaccines in today’s society and methods to dispel any doubt of the importance of vaccines to public health.

Why do people still believe that vaccines cause autism while there is virtually no evidence that suggests so? Dr. Of-fit answered this question in part by explaining the media’s influence on the public’s perception of vaccines. “Anecdote triumphs research,” he explained, because “we’re human, and we are compelled far more by story and emotion than we are by reason.” He used the example of Jenny McCarthy, who as many know, claimed that the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine was the cause of autism in her son. When putting a “tearful, emotional mother of a child with autism”

Communicating Science to the Public: The Vaccine-Autism Story

By Puja Upadhyay

2 www.wuhcpenn.org www.wuhcpenn.org 3


against a “statement from a monolithic, distant Centers of Disease Control (CDC),” it’s clear who has the upper hand in influencing viewers of very popular talk shows and national news channels. Dr. Offit warned that the media’s job is the entertain, not to educate. The media portrays their stories as defending the weak against the powerful, which shines a negative light on scientists and epidemiologists because they disagree. In reality, the experts are the ones fighting for the children being denied vaccination because their parents de-cide to believe the media’s notion that vaccines are harmful.

Dr. Offit explains that it’s easier to scare the public than to unscare them: “Once the notion that vaccines cause au-tism is put into your head, it’s very hard to get it out.” One can educate about science, but the problem seems to be much deeper, something Dr. Offit refers to as “scientific de-nialism.” So what can be done to change these perceptions? Dr. Offit encourages people to “stand up for science” and that “no venue is too small” to do so. His advice to students looking to go into a science is to never let bad information go unchallenged and to take every opportunity to educate the public with the facts.

Consulting Across Industries: Healthcare PanelMonday, March 3 at 6 p.m. in JMHH F55

Join WUHC, Wharton Undergraduate Consulting Club, and the Penn Undergraduate Biotech Society for the opportunity to learn from our distinguished panel of consultants from a variety of firms, including Accen-ture, Deloitte, Mercer and ZS Associates. Chipotle will

be served!

CytoVas: Tuesday, March 4 at 7 p.m. in JMHH G50Meet Dr. Emile Mohler and Dr. Todd Johnson and hear about their entrepreneurial ventures as managers of CytoVas, an early stage in vitro diagnostics company that uses personalized cytomics and computation analysis to asses a patient’s cardiovascular health.

Greek Lady will be served!

Luncheon Tuesday March 18 at 12 p.m.Dr. Sankey Williams, Professor of Healthcare Man-agement and General Medicine, Associate of Center

for Epidemiology and Biostatistics.

Lucidity Health: Wed. March 26 7 p.m. JMHH F45Meet Jake Halpert, Founder and CEO of Lucidity Health, a health information technology startup that helps providers understand their patient populations in greater depth using insights from data. Lucidity Health was part of the inaugural class of DreamIt Health, a healthcare startup accelerator co-funded by Penn Medicine and Independence Blue Cross. Dinner

will be served!

Luncheon Wednesday, March 26 at 12 p.m.Dr. Carmen Guerra, Associate Chief of Staff, Abramson Cancer Center, Founding co-director of UPHS Colorec-tal Screening Patient Navigation Program, Founding

Director, Healthy Woman Program.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Communicating Science to the Public: The Vaccine-Autism Story

By Puja Upadhyay



At the national level, behavioral health services have ascended the ranks of those deemed crucial for overall human health. The Afford-able Care Act (ACA) lists mental health treatment as one of the ten essential benefits that insurance policies must cover. In line with the ACA’s theme of greater access for all, 32 million Americans are

Access to Mental Health Treatment at Penn• Students covered under the Penn Student Insurance Plan (PSIP)

have access to one depression screening per year.

• Student Health Services (SHS) offers the Peace of Mind in Stressful Times Program. The program offers students concrete steps for stress reduction, as wells as tips for time management, effective social interactions, and personal empowerment.

Penn students are entitled to one free session. The cost

thereafter is $40 per 50 minutes, but it is not covered by insurance.

• For PSIP outpatient treatment of mental disorders, a $30 co-pay applies, meaning patient expense is capped at $30. A student

is limited to 50 visits per year for any given condition.

• Task Force on Student Psychological Health and Welfare creat-ed and Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) hours of operation extended.

Mental Health Coverage Under the ACA

Interest in mental health at the University of Pennsylvania has surged in the past two months.

Many believe that adequate management of mental health, commonly referred to as

behavioral health in professional settings, may be able to prevent undesirable circumstances.

Penn and the nation as a whole have vocalized the need for greater access to mental health services.

But do barriers prevent the full utilization of avail-able behavioral health resources?

Does Increased Focus on Mental Health Translate to Greater Access? By Nirupa Galagedera



expected to receive coverage for behavioral health for the first time, while an additional 30 million are expected to receive greater ben-efits to their already existing be-havioral health coverage. Plus, the ACA’s requirement that insurers cannot deny health insurance due to a pre-existing condition ensures that all Americans with mental

health needs should be able to ob-tain mental health services.

Yet despite these promising pro-visions detailed by the ACA, some still question the extent to which Americans will be able to take ad-vantage of such opportunities. It is important to consider whether the medical industry can accom-modate the needs of an increased patient population. One concern is that the demand for mental health professionals may now ex-ceed the supply. In a report to the U.S. Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that more than half of the nation’s counties have no psychi-atrists, psychologists, or social workers. The ten essential benefits guaranteed by Obamacare are still subject to individual state stipula-tions. For instance, in Pennsylva-nia, the number of visits per year is limited. Some argue that the separation of primary care and behavioral health services caus-es unnecessary costs and reduces overall quality. For instance Dr. Ron Manderscheid, adjunct pro-fessor and researcher at Johns Hopkins' Department of Mental Health, and former Senior Policy Advisor on National Health Care Reform, believes that the integra-tion of primary care and behavior-al health services is necessary to

reduce billing costs and thus truly increase access.

The ACA was not the first at-tempt in achieving greater access for mental health treatment. The Mental Health Parity and Ad-diction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 endeavored to put men-tal health on equal footing with physical health. The law required plans that included both mental and physical health services to of-fer the same benefits for each in terms of out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles, and exceptions. How-ever the MHPAEA was limited in scope—uninsured Americans, small business employees, and those with health insurance that excluded mental health services were not aided in any way.

Although the Affordable Care Act may not be able to meet all of the mental health needs of Americans, it achieves this goal to a much greater degree than previous pol-icies and serves as a solid founda-tion for more encompassing poli-cies.

For more discussion surround-ing full incorporation of mental health services in America under the ACA, check out this link from LDI: http://ldihealtheconomist.com/he000082.shtml

Mental Health Coverage Under the ACA

Does Increased Focus on Mental Health Translate to Greater Access?

Graphic courtesy of www.clarealumni.com

By Nirupa Galagedera




A healthcare consultant “conducts organizational studies and evaluations, designs systems and procedures, and prepares informative manuals to assist healthcare organizations and hospitals in managing their healthcare system more efficiently and effectively,” according to CNN. A sample project would be helping a hospital navigate the Affordable Care Act and cut down on increasing costs. With the Affordable Care Act, healthcare consulting is one of the fastest-growing industries.

There are some specific firms that specialize solely on healthcare. However, most other general management consulting firms have a healthcare division. Make sure to ask whether you will work specifically in their healthcare practice or if you’ll be rotated among the other different industries. For example, Booz&Company and Oliver Wyman are two of the few top management consulting firms that allow you to specialize immediately.

In general, consulting takes a variety of different majors and backgrounds. For healthcare con-sulting, there is no specific major that they are looking for, but rather an expressed interest in healthcare. If you lack experience in healthcare, many recruiters advise to strongly explain why you want to work in healthcare in your cover letter.

Career Spotlight: Healthcare ConsultingBy Stephanie Luu


$96,000Median Pay

$174,000Top Pay

24%Growth Rate (2008-2018)

Specialized Healthcare Consulting Firms

CB PartnersAdvisory Board Company

ClearView Healthcare PartnersHuron Healthcare

Quorum Health ResourcesDecision Resources

American Healthcare SolutionsECG ManagementHealth Directions

DivurgentMarwood Group

CTG Healthcare SolutionsAbt Associates Inc.

IMS Consulting GroupL.E.K. Consulting

Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.Graphic courtesy of www.biobm.com.

On December 23, Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, devot-ing markedly increased funding toward cancer research. A highly effective public relations campaign in the years before Nixon’s decision had convinced the Amer-ican public that defeating cancer was a straightforward and accomplishable task. At the time, there was widespread expec-tation that given enough money and ener-gy, cancer would be cured within several years (Kolata).

Over 40 years and $105 billion after the war on cancer was inaugurated, the cure to cancer seems more elusive than ever. Cancer is already the number one killer worldwide, and is rapidly catching up to heart disease in the United States. Whereas death rates have markedly de-creased for heart disease and stroke, US cancer death rates have decreased by only 5% since 1950. While this number can be misleading because of different trends in different cancers, there is still clearly more work that needs to be done. A few cancers can be effectively treated through chemo-therapy and radiotherapy, but these make

up a very small percentage of the total. Age-specific cancer rates have declined, yet this decline is largely due to better pre-ventative measures, such as lower smok-ing rates and better screening, rather than better treatments (Spector).

This failure can be largely explained by a multitude of factors. What cancer pre-cisely is, and what causes it, are questions

that researchers to this day have still been unable to pinpoint. Research is demon-strating that seemingly cancerous cells, when placed into a different environment (e.g. less inflammatory), will behave nor-mally (Nahoum). Thus, cancer cannot be viewed only as a disease characterized by single cell mutations, but also as an in-ter-cellular disease. Few direct causes of cancer have been established, smoking being a notable exception. Meanwhile, few specific cell killing treatments have been discovered. To this date, only sur-gery can accurately target cancerous cells (Spector). Attempts to develop better can-cer drugs have been impeded by import-ant differences between lab animals and humans.

Works CitedKolata, Gina. "Hopeful Glimmers in Long War on Cancer." New York Times: n. pag. Print.

Nahoum, Seth Rakoff. "Why Cancer and Inflammation?" Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine: n. pag. Print.

Spector, Reynold. "The War on Cancer A Progress Report for Skeptics." Skeptical Inquir-er: n. pag. Print.

$75 billion.That is the annual profit made by the counterfeit drug

trafficking business that has now gone global. Counterfeit drugs never really made any headlines but was deemed to be one of 2014’s top ten healthcare concerns by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

Main concerns of drug trafficking are two-fold: econom-ics and safety. Economically speaking, the undermining of the healthcare system is evident in the estimated $35 billion annu-al profit in United States alone. Counterfeit drugs are defined as drugs that have either the wrong dosage, wrong expiration date, incorrect labeling, or counterfeit packaging. Obviously this should brings about the concern of many healthcare customers.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, Director of FDA’s Center for Drug Review and Evaluation explains, “Counterfeit drugs raise sig-nificant public health concerns, because their safety and effec-

tiveness are unknown. A counterfeit drug could contain a sub-stance that is toxic to patients. But even a counterfeit drug with no active ingredient could prove harmful to patients who take it, thinking that they are taking a lifesaving or life-sustaining med-ication, when they are not.”

America has actually been considered a country with one of the safer drug pipelines and yet still suffers 35-40 billion dollars to drug trafficking (FDA). The supply chain of drugs in-cludes manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers. Each step in the complex supply chain involves a number of en-tities that can easily be subjected to exploitation.

In the United States, it is often the disjointed level of reg-ulation in state laws that are exploited in the counterfeit drug market. Additionally, the virtual distribution model has also been exploited because it allows the drugs to change hands without actually physically being transferred.

Progress in the War on CancerBy Stanley Cai

Counterfeit Drug TraffickingBy Alex Hsu



Graphic courtesy of www.ihs.com.

WUHC February Newsletter

Documents

Transcript of WUHC February Newsletter