The Wrong View Of The Right Problem
Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE
Most of the stakeholders in the healthcare industry are not stupid. Most understand the issues very well.
The problem is they all look at the same problem from the prism of their own vested interest. Each government action causes these stakeholders to react in their vested interest.
Each reaction causes a compensatory reaction from the other stakeholders, which in turn causes another chain of reactions.
The healthcare system becomes further twisted into a tighter non-functioning hairball that is more expensive than previously.
Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini was the keynote speaker at HIMSS14. His analysis was correct He said,
“Antiquated systems and out-of-control healthcare costs in the United States are not sustainable.”
He went on to say the healthcare system is plagued by inefficiency and waste.
“ We can’t afford it. It’s unsustainable.”
Employees are now paying 41 percent of their healthcare dollars to the healthcare insurance industry. It includes premium costs, deductibles, and copays.
These costs consume much of employees’ disposable income. Mark Bertolini predicts that employees will be paying 50% in 5 years as insurance premiums increase.
Mark Bertolini is really saying consumers will stop buying insurance soon. The result will be a decrease in Aetna’s profit.
All the stakeholders are at fault. Consumers are at fault for not taking care of themselves. The incidence of the onset of all chronic diseases increases with the incidence of obesity.
When there is an increase in chronic disease there is an increase in the complications of chronic diseases.
Eighty percent of the money spent on treating that chronic disease is spent on treating the complications of that chronic disease.
Patients must manage their chronic diseases under their physicians’ direction. The patient lives with that disease 24/7.
Patients must be taught to be the “Professor of Their Disease” so that they do not get a complication of that disease.
Patients must also be given financial incentives to become the manager of their disease. This incentive can be developed in many ways.
Reimbursement for education is not routine. There is little financial incentive for physicians to set up educational systems.
Hospitals at one time set up educational systems for chronic disease. They found them a financial burden and discontinued them. The educational systems did not distinguish one hospital from another.
The educational systems were not set up correctly. They should have been set up as an extension of the patient’s physician’s care.
I believe the healthcare insurance industry really wants to lower costs while retaining the profit margins enjoyed in the pre and post Obamacare era.
Aetna’s Bertolini got it right. “We can’t afford it.”
“If we really want to take care of people, we should align incentives around keeping them healthy.”
He is right. His problem is he thinks he controls patients and patient care.
The government thinks it controls patients.
Physicians know they do not control their patients’ behavior.
Neither the healthcare industry and government nor physicians controls patients.
Patients control themselves.
Bertolini said. "Recent data compiled by Aetna found that the top 5 percent of Medicare patients consumed 43 percent of Medicare dollars. They spent on average $108,000 a year per person."
The demographics of these patients disease including past and present lifestyle are not discussed in the data mining survey. This information would be helpful to know the true meaning of this data.
He then concludes, “Let’s not keep sending these people around with 25 different prescription and all these different doctors and hospitals.”
Who is the stakeholder sending patients to all the different hospitals and giving all the different prescriptions.
Physicians, of course!
Therefore, let us penalize physicians for spending all this money on our patients.
This is the wrong way to look at the problem.
If there were meaningful incentives for patients to be responsible for themselves people would stay healthy.
People should also be rewarded if they stay healthy just as the auto insurance industry rewards drivers who do not have an accident.
If the government made a meaningful effort to change our eating habits through meaningful education much illness and medical costs would be reduced.
The center of the new healthcare system should be the patients. It should be a consumer driven system.
As soon as all the secondary stakeholders focus on that fact and start helping instead of penalizing patients and their physicians, the cost of the healthcare system will come down.
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone
Please have a friend subscribe
Stan
I agree with your assertion that the greed of the insurance and drug industry leaders are wrong and that Obama and Congress accepted feeding that greed to get the ACA passed. It is time to correct that but, on the whole, I support the ACA. Here is my recently submitted letter to the Editor of the NC Med Journal about this:
To the Editor — The November/December NCMJ’s letter to the Editor, ‘Health Care Costs Must Come Down’ by Ron Howrigen, president of Fulcrum Strategies, Raleigh, NC, demands a response. This is mine.
I heartily agree with the author that Health care costs must come down. This is inarguable and, in spite of the author’s pessimism, I note that the rate of rise of health care costs has already moderated since the Affordable Care Act ( ACA) was passed, even though it will cause a rise (estimated at 6%) as the millions of uninsured (at least double the 6%) are extended coverage by the ACA as it is fully implemented. However, the author totally avoided discussion of the ethical and moral issues the ACA sought to address, particularly the American public’s right to access and coverage of good health care. It has been our obligation, as fellow members of a wealthy nation, to provide that coverage after having failed to address it for over fifty years. Notably, the author, a consultant to physicians, is certainly not a disinterested party in the health care system and therefore his denial of any conflict of interest is hardly forthright. He actually admits his conflict in his statement of his ‘biggest concern,’ i.e. that the ACA will try to control costs by drastically reducing reimbursement to physicians. He and we must realize that our health care system is rapidly evolving to become not nearly as dependent on the physician as it has been in the past.
When the ACA was being considered by the Congress, those whose corporate bottom lines might be significantly impacted by it and the lobbyists who represent those interests read and studied the ACA carefully. I too read it, all of it. Yet few physicians or patients to whom I spoke had actually read even a small portion of the ACA. As I discussed it with others, I shared my excitement about the significant amount of the ACA which was directed to research ways to assess and improve medical care and coverage. I believe these aspects of the ACA had been included with the expectation that, someday, the findings of the research funded by the ACA could and would be used to improve health care and save money through the implementation of evidence-based practices and payment policies identified by that research. I am not unaware of the considerable compromises and gifts our elected officials in Washington, including our President, had to accept to get the ACA through Congress. I hoped that, over time, the positive effects and benefits of the ACA, such as the coverage of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance and the removal of the pre-existing condition clauses, would be appreciated by most Americans. While I was disappointed especially in the failure of our President to be successful in his quest to avoid many of those concessions in the final ACA, I hoped those gifts to some corporate interests, including hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical businesses, could be ameliorated or even reversed with time.
While I am dismayed by the unrelenting efforts in Congress to undo or limit funds for the ACA, the deficiencies of which are remediable, I remain excited about the good things which have already come and will be coming from this act, one of the most courageous, morally right steps our nation has ever taken.
Richard A Dickey, MD, FACP, FACE
Retired endocrinologist
51 Players Ridge Road
Hickory, North Carolina 28601-8839
radmd51@gmail.com
(828) 495-1230