The Blog

Brain Health: The Future of Cognitive Care

A final step toward improv­ing stan­dard med­ical prac­tice will be to bet­ter align finan­cial incen­tives for deliver­ing higher quality care.
|
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

According to Peter Orszag's New York Times OpEd, Mal­prac­tice Method­ol­ogy:

Right now, health care is more evidence-free than you might think. And even where evidence-based clin­i­cal guide­lines exist, research sug­gests that doc­tors fol­low them only about half of the time. One esti­mate sug­gests that it takes 17 years on aver­age to incor­po­rate new research findings into wide­spread prac­tice. As a result, any clin­i­cal guide­lines that exist often have lim­ited impact. How might we encour­age doc­tors to adopt new evi­dence more quickly?

If this is the case with health care over­all, despite much progress over the last 30 to 40 years, imag­ine how worse it may be when we talk about brain health, when neu­ro­science and cog­ni­tive neu­ro­science are rel­a­tively more recent disciplines.

This is a key insight to keep in mind as we debate the value and lim­i­ta­tions of inno­v­a­tive brain health solu­tions, espe­cially those that are noninvasive and have no neg­a­tive side effects: What mat­ters most to human beings liv­ing today is how those tools and solu­tions seem to per­form, based on the best evi­dence, com­pared to alter­na­tives avail­able today -- not com­pared to pla­tonic ideals about research and prac­tice which may exist in our minds but not in the real, empir­i­cal world. Of course we then need to guide research so that we have bet­ter evi­dence in the future, but progress in practice and in research must occur in par­al­lel and rein­force each other.

The OpEd author then pro­ceeds to defend mal­prac­tice reform as the pri­mary way to do so. This may well be so with health­ care as a whole, but when we are talk­ing about brain care I believe his next two pro­pos­als are more directly relevant:

Bet­ter tech­nol­ogy would help, too. Your doctor's com­puter should be able to not only pull up your health records (after you have approved such access) but also quickly sug­gest best-practice meth­ods of treat­ment. The doc­tor should then be able to click through to read the sup­port­ing research. Sub­si­dies in the stim­u­lus act help doc­tors pay for this kind of technology.

A final step toward improv­ing stan­dard med­ical prac­tice will be to bet­ter align finan­cial incen­tives for deliv­er­ing higher quality care. Hos­pi­tals now lose Medicare dol­lars, for exam­ple, if they suc­ceed in reduc­ing read­mis­sions. Med­ical pro­fes­sion­als should be given incen­tives for bet­ter care rather than more care.

A cou­ple of recent inter­views in our expert series elab­o­rate on these points, show­cas­ing how innova­tion is already tak­ing place:

Enabling and accel­er­at­ing such inno­va­tion is of course why we are launch­ing the Sharp­Brains Coun­cil for Brain Fit­ness Inno­va­tion as the first global cross-sector com­mu­nity and plat­form designed to sup­port inno­va­tors com­mit­ted to the cog­ni­tive health and brain fit­ness of their constituents / clients / patients / employ­ees. Want to bet that brain health care in the future will look significantly different than today?

Before You Go

Popular in the Community