With the arrival of March, the country’s sports-watching public made its annual pivot from the Super Bowl to the student athletes across the nation vying to win the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. “March Madness”, as it is known colloquially, is a beloved sporting event – marked by students’ passion for their team in pursuit of its “one shining moment”.
The students’ excitement we see on vivid display at the tournament games belies the hardship many of them endure as they struggle with untreated or under-treated mental illnesses.
The room was packed at the Primary Care Development Corporation’s (PCDC)* Primary Care Innovation Circle.
More than 200 health care executives, providers, community-based agency leaders and practitioners assembled to listen to panelists address the most audacious of tasks: the fate of health care in the United States.
While most people are slowly emerging from the holiday haze, the healthcare investment community kicks off January with the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference.
Originally an investors’ meeting for select public and private healthcare companies, the event – and the ecosystem of smaller conferences that surround it – now bring an estimated 30,000 people to San Francisco.
Emergency Department (ED) “boarding” – when patients get stuck in the ED for hours, sometimes days, because there is no placement option readily available – is an issue across the country and has received much attention in Massachusetts recently.
Earlier this month, The Boston Globe published an article highlighting the fact that many of these individuals have behavioral health conditions.
As a professional observer of healthcare for the last 20 years, the relationship between Adam Smith economics and healthcare research and developments has always fascinated me.
In brief, does the dynamic of competition that drives profit-making innovation propel, or hinder, medical breakthroughs?
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiative around “precision medicine” – treatment that focuses on the unique genetic code of the individual and not a one-size-fits-all treatment – begs that question.
So often when we speak about mental illness and substance use disorders, we talk about numbers: the number of people who have died from overdoses; the number of people who take antidepressants; the cost of mental health to society at large.
However, at the Kennedy Forum Illinois in December, keynote speakers put a face and soul to addiction.
MassHealth is just weeks away from accepting applications from provider and insurance organizations to form Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).
But what does that mean in terms of tangible impact to Beacon Health Options and companies like it, the Commonwealth, and most importantly, the member? Should we feel excited? Skeptical? Indifferent?
The results of the 2016 election portend significant changes to the health care sector.
Its implications open a Pandora’s Box of questions, and it’s fair to ask, “What does this election mean for behavioral health?” With the last decade’s reforms of mental health parity and Medicaid expansion, it’s this question that bubbles to the surface as the most pressing – and arguably the most interesting.
When I started teaching at a high school for students with learning differences, my first goal was to make my communication as clear as possible.
I streamlined my presentations, tried to wipe out any sarcasm that could be taken literally, and crafted obnoxiously clear assignment instructions. These tactics proved apt, but little did I know that my most effective communication would involve neither instruction nor planning.