Bill Overview
Title: Improving Diagnosis in Medicine Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires various activities to improve diagnostic safety and quality in health care. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must convene an expert panel to make recommendations about the data needed to accelerate diagnostic safety and quality research. In convening the panel, HHS must coordinate with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and other HHS components. HHS must also establish an interagency council to develop a strategic plan and recommendations to improve diagnosis in health care. In addition, AHRQ must (1) establish a quality improvement program related to diagnostic errors that includes dissemination of evidence-based strategies to improve diagnostic quality, safety, and health-care value; and (2) seek to contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study disparities in diagnostic safety and quality. The bill also allows specified grants provided by AHRQ and by the National Institutes of Health to be used for diagnostic safety and quality research.
Sponsors: Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who utilize healthcare systems and require medical diagnostic services
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Improving diagnostic safety and quality in healthcare potentially affects everyone who uses healthcare systems globally, as proper diagnosis is a fundamental part of effective treatment.
- According to the World Health Organization, the global population is approximately 8 billion people in 2023, all of whom may require medical diagnosis during their lifetime.
- Interventions in diagnostic processes aim to reduce diagnostic errors, which affect a large proportion of medical cases globally.
- Inadequate diagnostic procedures can result in wrong treatment, increased healthcare costs, and reduced patient outcomes, so improvements will benefit a broad swath of the global population.
- Nearly all individuals, regardless of location, will at some point need accurate medical diagnosis whether for acute conditions, chronic management, or preventative health measures.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to enhance diagnostic safety and quality, benefiting all who interact with the healthcare system, roughly encompassing the entire U.S. population.
- Although this affects the entire population, some groups will feel the impact more directly than others: healthcare providers, patients with chronic conditions, people in rural areas with limited access to quality diagnostics, and populations that experience healthcare disparities.
- Budgetary constraints suggest the policy's implementation will proceed gradually, prioritized by areas of greatest need or potential impact, starting with research and recommendations before full-scale operational changes.
- Given the emphasis on research and recommendations in early stages, direct impacts on individuals will vary initially but can expand significantly over time.
Simulated Interviews
General Practitioner (North Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will finally address some of the systemic issues causing diagnostic errors in rural healthcare.
- The allocation of resources to study disparities is crucial, we see it every day in my clinic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Healthcare Administrator (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring our diagnostic practices are safe and accurate is at the core of patient care.
- This policy will enable us to justify further investments and improve overall patient satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Research Scientist (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is timely. Our research can finally reach broader acceptance and funding.
- It’s reassuring to see the government prioritize evidence-based strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Patient Advocate (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing diagnostic procedures will prevent many of the cases I deal with on a daily basis.
- The strategic plan needs to include more voices from affected communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Illinois)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could position the U.S. as a leader in diagnostic safety.
- I’m eager to see how this influences future healthcare management practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Chronic Patient (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The promise of improved diagnostics is important for patients like me who rely on accurate test results.
- It might take some years to feel the real impacts, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Emergency Room Nurse (Pennsylvania)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've needed a deeper investment in diagnostic accuracy for years.
- I see this policy as a major win for reducing patient safety risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
IT Specialist in Healthcare (Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integration of diagnostic technologies are pivotal in healthcare's future.
- This bill could encourage more innovative partnerships in tech and medicine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Homemaker (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living remotely means I depend on telehealth. Accurate diagnoses are more challenging.
- I hope this policy supports remote diagnostics and telemedicine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seniors like me often face misdiagnosis due to complex medical histories.
- I’d appreciate the enhanced reliability in diagnoses this policy promises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Key Considerations
- The act targets diagnostic errors, a significant source of medical risk and cost.
- Costs associated with initial setup and research are relatively modest compared to potential long-term healthcare savings.
- Improving diagnosis is likely to have a broadly beneficial impact on public health and economic productivity.