top of page

Mainstream Copy Group

Public·111 members
Siegfried Kiselev
Siegfried Kiselev

Thresholds Of The Mind REPACK

The theme of consciousness and psycholinguistics, how we explore and understand the world around us on a physical, psychological and cultural level, brings into question the nature of perception, the overlap between the science of mind and the psychology of self.In this project there is an ambiguity of the documentary image: the test subject can appear less human, more robotic, despite the fact that the scientific enquiry is aimed at discovering what makes us human.

Thresholds of the Mind

Download File:

The 2003 revision of the UK GMS contract rewards general practices for performance against clinical quality indicators. Practices can exempt patients from treatment, and can receive maximum payment for less than full coverage of eligible patients. This paper aims to estimate the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care (the pay-performance gap), and to estimate how much of the gap is attributable respectively to thresholds and to exception reporting.

The mean pay-performance gap for the 65 aggregated clinical indicators was 13.3% (range 2.9% to 48%). 52% of this gap (6.9% of eligible patients) is attributable to thresholds being set at less than 100%, and 48% to patients being exception reported. The gap was greater than 25% in 9 indicators: beta blockers and cholesterol control in heart disease; cholesterol control in stroke; influenza immunization in asthma; blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol control in diabetes; seizures in epilepsy and treatment of hypertension.

Threshold targets and exception reporting introduce an incentive ceiling, which substantially reduces the percentage of eligible patients that UK practices need to treat in order to receive maximum incentive payments for delivering that care. There are good clinical reasons for exception reporting, but after unsuitable patients have been exempted from treatment, there is no reason why all maximum thresholds should not be 100%, whilst retaining the current lower thresholds to provide incentives for lower performing practices.

The second mechanism which reduces the percentage of eligible patients that practices need to treat in order to receive maximum incentive payment is the presence of target thresholds set at less than 100%. For each clinical indicator there is a graduated scale of payments from a minimum to maximum threshold. A practice achieves maximum points payments at thresholds lower than 100% coverage of patients eligible for all interventions, with the lowest threshold for maximum payment being 50% (indicator CHD 10) and the highest threshold being 90% in 37 indicators (Table 2). These thresholds were described as the "maximum practically achievable level to deliver clinical effectiveness" [1]. No definition of 'practically achievable' was given, and it was not intended to be the same as 'clinically desirable'. Importantly, once the maximum threshold is reached there is no financial incentive to treat more eligible patients. Of course doctors perform for other than financial reasons, and many (though not all) practices exceed the maximum target thresholds despite there being no additional payment for doing so.

An example of the way in which this payment scheme operates is indicator LVD 3, the percentage of patients with a diagnosis of CHD and left ventricular dysfunction who are currently treated with ACE inhibitors, where the minimum threshold that triggers payment is 25%. There is a sliding scale of increasing payment up to a maximum of 10 points achieved at 70% uptake of the target population. The combination of exception reporting and low targets reduce the potential health gain from an indicator, as a practice always achieves maximum incentive points in a particular indicator before all eligible patients have received treatment. This is because all maximum target thresholds are set below 100% population coverage and this target is applied after exception reported patients have been excluded.

The pay-performance gap for each indicator, and the amount of this gap attributable to exception reporting and target thresholds respectively are given in Table 4. At the indicator level, the mean pay:performance gap for the 65 indicators was 13.3% (s.d. 9.8). The pay:performance gap was greater than 25% in nine indicators, which included indicators with interventions with significant health gain. These pay:performance gaps were respectively; 48% for beta blockers in heart disease, 43% for glucose control in diabetes, 35% for cholesterol control after a stroke, 34% for influenza immunization in asthma, 30% for blood pressure control in diabetes, 29% in seizure control in epilepsy, 29% in cholesterol control in diabetes, 29% in cholesterol control in heart disease and 26% in blood pressure control in hypertension.

Thresholds below 100% account for 52% of the pay:performance gap, and exception reporting accounts for the remaining 48% of the pay:performance gap. Figure 1 shows the top 15 indicators with the largest pay:performance gap and the separate contribution made by exception reporting and thresholds.

The implication of these findings is that maximum target thresholds set at less than 100% may be contributing to reducing health gain for patients. Maximum target thresholds account for 52% and exception reporting accounts for 48% of the pay-performance gap respectively. It seems unlikely that such a large gap can be attributed to patients who are clinically unsuitable or unwilling to accept care for their condition as these patients should be accounted for by exception reporting. The combination of exception reporting and threshold targets set below 100%, while perhaps thought to be overambitious before implementation, appears now to be in danger of producing an incentive ceiling effect, where maximum payment is received for less than maximum coverage of the eligible population. This could reduce the health gain from the new GMS contract as we have observed both high exception reporting rates and low target thresholds in some indicators with significant intermediate health gain outcomes.

Exception reporting is patient specific and has the advantage of being sensitive to patients needs when it is used appropriately. The agreed criteria for exception reporting are wide ranging and will cover most circumstances where patients are not suitable for a particular indicator. Since primary care has achieved maximum points in many areas, there may be no rationale for maximum target thresholds to be set below 100% as there are comprehensive reasons for exception reporting any patient who would not theoretically benefit from the indicated care. In the 2006/7 revision to the GMS contract several of the maximum thresholds have been increased to 90%, though lower maximum thresholds still persist for several clinical indicators [11].

This work adds significant new information to previous published work on exception reporting and UK primary care. One study based in 1024 Scottish general practices found that when exception reporting is taken into account there was lower delivered quality of care in less affluent practices in 4 clinical indicators [12]. A further study based in one English primary care trust found higher exception reporting rates in diabetic populations with higher deprivation [13]. These 2 studies differ from ours in that we studied the effect of target thresholds on the percentage of patients receiving indicated care, as well as exception reporting. We used actual rather than estimated exception reporting data. We included a significantly larger number of practices (8407), and included all 65 clinical indicators for which exception reporting occurs, where as McClean et al included 33 indicators and Sigfrid et al included 15 indicators.

The combination of both exception reporting and target thresholds set at less than 100% lead to a misalignment of incentives in the GMS contract for UK primary care, where maximum incentive payment is reached before all eligible patients have received appropriate treatment or health care intervention. There is a high exception reporting rate in several indicators with significant intermediate health outcomes which also have low maximum target thresholds. The policy implication is that all maximum target thresholds should be set at 100%, whilst retaining the current lower thresholds to provide incentives for lower performing practices. Appropriate exception reporting is likely to be unavoidable and necessary, and should be retained for patients unsuitable for a particular indicator. Incentive payments would then be provided for 100% of eligible patients in the population.

On January 21, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its annual adjustments to the filing thresholds under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The new, higher, thresholds will apply to all transactions that close on or after February 25, 2016.

The HSR thresholds are only one part of the analysis to determine whether an HSR filing will be required. Even though they meet the thresholds, certain types of transactions may be exempt from the HSR notification requirements. Exemptions must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, but some common categories include:

Problem statement: The definition of "symbolic species" used by Terrence W. Deaconmeans more complete the process of monitoring the encounter between semiotics and cognitivesciences neurosemiotics better defined. Approach: The mechanism of the symbolic threshold meansthat it is put in place an approach to reality no longer seen as a representative of simple association, butunder a restructuring or a recombination, at least relatively stable, a number of different elements in ahierarchical plan. Possible will be a channel for research that is based on the theoretical model called"symbolic" and use the model interactive / cognitive develop through which different forms oflanguage, communication and supports the expression and actions of each of us. From theneurobiological point of view, with regard to neuronal function, several theories are based on brainfunction as a binder with extreme plasticity, consistent with fragments of information to higher levelsof the brain are organized and interact in order to acquire meaning. These transactions are donethrough organizing maps consist of groups of neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters, continuousregeneration to form categories of objects and events to recognize. Results: The most effective inbuilding a map of the difference of a traditional information technology, borrowed from the languagesuggested by our mind, are much more spontaneous and direct .The study showed the effectiveness ofthis tool as the construction of knowledge of the inexhaustible capacity of the mind during laboratorywork at the Degree of Education, University of Salerno (Italy), compared to affected users mainlyadopt systems, strategies and possible interventions for teaching in kindergartens and adolescence.Conclusion: Applicability of the questionnaires were administered in teaching and scientific mindmap. The consequences of the administration of the questionnaire has far exceeded expectations andled the students, the motivation to carry out projects to promote knowledge of the fundamentals ofexperience in various fields and disciplines, through a system that is considered usable, functional,from early childhood, particularly for people with disabilities. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page