In a survey conducted by Intel and Convergys Analytics, half of the participating professionals reported that widespread adoption of AI is imminent — predicting that it will be common practice within five years.
Nearly 20% believe that AI will be completely adopted in less than two years.
The poll found that 37% of respondents are already using artificial intelligence within their organizations in some capacity.
The three objectives include:
It is evident that most recent healthcare reform initiatives by the government regarding healthcare policy and funding, is fueled by the Triple Aim.
The three aims are not a new concept per se, but it wasn’t until government mandated healthcare reform, i.e Obamacare, that the Triple Aim became a sought-after goal for health organizations.
In our blog earlier this month, we discussed the “Triple Aim” — an initiative launched in 2007 by The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). It was created for healthcare organizations to enhance a patients’ experience (i.e. quality, access, and reliability) while reducing the per capita cost of care.
However, prior to the Triple Aim’s evolution, The Institute of Medicine (IoM) identified six “Aims of Improvement” in 2001.
The IoM defines Equitable as providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.
Following these three Triple Aim objectives enables healthcare organizations to recognize and solve problems such as poor coordination of care and excessive use of medical services. It also encourages organizations to focus attention on and redirect resources to action that produce the most considerable impact on health.
The United States healthcare system is the most costly in the world, accounting for 17% of the gross domestic product with estimates that percentage will grow to 19.9% of GDP by 2022.
Due to the passage of recent Stimulus Acts and Congressional Tax Bills, there are several notable updates to the Section 179 deduction. The specific impact that these Stimulus Acts have had on the Section 179 deduction is related to the dollar limits of the deduction and bonus depreciation increasing.
As the year-end is fast approaching, many healthcare businesses are considering purchases, including medical equipment. Understanding and utilizing available tax incentives should be a consideration for these purchasing decisions.
It is a safe assumption to make that medical equipment buyers want to save money. In 2018, now more than ever, hospitals, ASCs, and other healthcare institutions are under tremendous pressure to cut costs. But, many buyers do not necessarily think about Section 179 when shopping for equipment.
The Section 179 deduction is actually not a complicated tax code and is surprisingly a lot simpler than most realize. The IRS tax code, Section 179, permits businesses to subtract the full purchase price of qualifying equipment purchased or financed during the tax year. In other words, if you buy a piece of qualifying equipment, you can deduct the full purchase price from your gross income. It’s an incentive created by the U.S. government to encourage businesses to buy equipment and reinvest in growing their business.
Earlier this month, we looked into the topic of healthcare pricing transparency, and discussed why its relevant.
Today we dive into how pricing transparency affects our healthcare decisions and costs.
The average consumer, consciously or subconsciously, price shops on a daily basis — checking out which gas station has the cheapest price per gallon, which grocery store has the most affordable produce, and which Amazon wholesaler has the cheapest gadget.
But when it comes to our healthcare, that’s an entirely different ballgame.
The unfortunate truth is that consumers in the United States do not necessarily know the cost that they pay for healthcare because those financial implications by insurers and providers have historically been kept under wraps.
In this month’s newsletter, we are taking a closer look into value-based care’s pricing model and how transparency plays an important role for patients.
Value-based care (VBC) is a healthcare delivery model in which providers, including hospitals and physicians, are paid based on patient health outcomes.VBC differs from a fee-for-service approach, in which providers are paid based on the amount of healthcare services they deliver.
Value-based purchasing (VBP) incentivize providers to enhance the caliber of their care by offering financial rewards (or penalties) based on their outcomes. Price transparency initiatives entice patients to select “higher-value” providers by offering price information.
Price transparency is the ability for consumers to access provider-specific information on the price of healthcare services – including out-of-pocket costs − regardless of the setting in which they are delivered.
But healthcare does not operate like other industries – consumers do not necessarily have access to the price of services.
Costs for the same exact medical service can vary significantly from provider to provider; it is challenging for consumers to ascertain information in order to compare providers based on two important factors: price and quality.
Making insights on healthcare prices and quality obtainable will help consumers compare costs, choose physicians who truly have high value, as well as plan for the financial implications. This will also support policymakers to hold healthcare providers accountable for creating appropriate prices.
