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: Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: people who require medical diagnosis
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill focuses on improving diagnostic safety and quality in health care, which is a fundamental process in medical care that affects everyone who uses health care services.
- Accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective treatment, reducing unnecessary procedures, and improving patient outcomes, thereby impacting a vast segment of the population.
- Disparities in diagnostic safety and quality mean that certain groups might be more adversely affected, and improvements could significantly enhance equity in healthcare.
- The bill involves the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, indicating a focus not just on improving standards but also on regulation and quality control across the board, affecting all patients under these services.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on enhancing diagnostic accuracy and safety, which is a critical aspect of healthcare affecting most individuals interacting with the system.
- The policy not only strives to improve diagnostic practices but also addresses disparities, positively impacting underrepresented groups who might face diagnostic inaccuracies.
- The widespread aim to improve diagnostic quality and safety means the policy could generally enhance public health outcomes, leading to better illness management and prevention, reducing overall healthcare burdens and costs.
- The budget constraints suggest the policy may initially target major areas where improvements could make the most impact without overstretching the resources, focusing on high-value interventions first.
Simulated Interviews
Primary Care Physician (New York City, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in diagnostic accuracy could greatly benefit my patients, especially those from lower-income backgrounds who might not have access to second opinions.
- I am hopeful that this policy will also provide resources for physician education and reduce liability concerns related to diagnostic errors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this initiative reduces the number of misdiagnoses I've personally experienced.
- If this improves the speed and accuracy of getting a correct diagnosis, it will save me time and money.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Early diagnosis significantly affects outcomes in autoimmune diseases. This policy might prevent others from prolonged suffering due to misdiagnosis like I went through.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the importance of getting accurate diagnoses, particularly in serious conditions like heart disease. This sounds like it could improve treatment pathways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this bill brings telemedicine or mobile diagnostic resources to rural areas, it could be a game-changer for people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accurate diagnoses can reduce unnecessary tests and visits. I am curious if this will streamline my healthcare experiences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Undergraduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this affecting me much now, but potentially in the future, having a reliable diagnostic process in place is comforting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Startup Founder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having an accurate and efficient diagnostic process is vital for someone with my workload. Misdiagnoses can be costly and time-consuming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved diagnostics could immensely help with receiving the right treatments for my parents, reducing hospital stays and readmissions.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Portland, OR)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy changes the way healthcare providers approach diagnostics, preventing the kind of medical errors I've experienced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $110000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $130000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $130000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $130000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $130000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the expert panels and council's recommendations is crucial to realizing cost savings and quality improvements.
- AHRQ's ability to effectively implement a widespread quality improvement program will be a determining factor in the policy's success.
- Coordination among diverse healthcare entities will require substantial effort and could present logistical challenges.
- Potential disparities in diagnostic quality improvements need careful monitoring to ensure uniform benefits across all population groups.