MedPage Today talks with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

MedPage Today News Editor Joyce Frieden and Washington Correspondent Emily Walker sat down with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to talk about fixing the sustainable growth rate, implementing the Affordable Care Act, rebooting the electronic health record initiative, and — of course — they talked about money.

The video is embedded below:

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Steven Reznick MD

    Secretary Sebelius makes it clear in this interview that healthcare is a very personal issue. Would love to ask her how she envisions her future preventive checkup. Will she be seen at a patient centered medical home? Will her clinician be a doctor or nurse? Will the practice be part of a large health system ACO owned by a large hospital chain which has purchased all of the local physician practices or a privately run venture? If she becomes ill and requires inpatient hospital admission , will she be cared for by her doctor or care team or will her care be assumed by a separate hospitalist staff?

  • John Ryan

    I fail to see why a two year delay in SGR is any better than what we have gotten so far. No one is going to commit long term to any multi-thousand dollar practice expansion or investment with a government that can’t pay for its present obligations.
    Fraud and abuse savings to fund new Medicare benefits? What changed? If you can’t stop alleged fraud now, and haven’t for decades, why should we believe HHS has found the way?
    The HHS (& her personal) track record on making EHRs provide any advantage for physician efficiency or quality is not supported by any data. More “gov-speak” by the Secretary.

  • Joe

    Totally scarey, and some believe that the Secy of HHS is our saviour from continuing to mount healthcare and insurance costs.

    I mean really, encouraging electronic medical records but putting the accumulated penalties into the budget? Isnt that simply a conflict of interest that says HHS can not legitimately judge EMRs as good bad or indifferent?

Most Popular