Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Consumer Driven Health Care

Permalink:

Romneycare 2012 vs. Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

Recently President Obama said his Healthcare Reform Act at its core is the same as Romneycare.

Romneycare is different. Romneycare gives a tax credit to people who purchase insurance. Obamacare penalizes those who do not purchase insurance.

Governor Romney wanted to incentivize people to be responsible and buy insurance while President Obama wants to expand an entitlement and increase public dependency on government.

When Romneycare (Massachusetts) was passed I predicted it would result in cost overruns, restrictions of access to care and rationing of care.

Mitt Romney admits the bill was not ideal. There were things he wanted in the bill but the Democrat controlled Massachusetts legislature refused to let him put them in.

This You Tube represents a recent defense of his bill. He has pledged to repeal Obamacare if elected President.

  

http://youtu.be/6d4raK3QJmQ

I predicted that cost overruns would get to a point where the state of Massachusetts would have to force physicians to participate in Romneycare as a condition for state licensure.

“The New Romneycare” is going to penalize the good hospitals that keep people alive and reward hospitals where those people would die. The good hospitals’ readmission rates would be higher than the hospitals where patients died. If a patient died in the hospital the overall readmission rate would fall.

This example illustrates one problem with the interpretation of remote claims data.

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act (Obamacare) will end in failure just as Romneycare has only on a grander scale with greater deficits and less access to medical care.

 Both Romneycare and Obamacare have the same defects. Neither gets to the core of the problems in the healthcare system.

A core problem is the unnecessary testing resulting from defensive medicine and the need for effective tort reform.

Another core problem with the healthcare system is the financial abuse of healthcare insurance. Both the state of Massachusetts and Obamacare are dependent on the healthcare industry to provide administrative services for government run plans.

The insurance companies take 40% of the healthcare dollar and blame physicians and hospitals for the rising costs. The 40% is disguised under direct patient care in its financial statements.

An important factor in rising costs is the increasing administrative paperwork for hospitals and physicians for government information gathering. It leaves less time for patient care.

Policy wonks make up rules resulting in the increased documentation in the name of increased quality care. No one has defined quality care precisely.

In 2009 President Obama bailed out Romneycare to the tune of 8 billion dollars.

The mainstream media constantly reports that over ninety plus percent of the population is insured. Reportedly the patients are happy.

No one reports the appointment and emergency waiting times.

There is very little negativity in our press about the Canadian healthcare system. This You Tube presents a former Canadian physician’s experience.

 

http://youtu.be/At9q6uFR3gU

Governor Romney must stop defending RomneyCare. It is a hollow defense.

  

http://youtu.be/4DW6IKG9d_8

 I could not find any negative press in the Boston Globe about the Massachusetts plan in a long while.  The August 3, 2012 Wall Street Journal has a devastating article about the Massachusetts Plan.

The headline was, With costs rising fast, Massachusetts moves to dictate medical care.” 

My inevitable postscript for Romneycare is cost containment with price controls and the increased bureaucratic dictating how medicine should be practiced.

Rather than Democratic Governor Deval Patrick trying to patch the law and make things worse he should repeal the law and deal with the underlying problems.  

 “The claim then, as with the Affordable Care Act, was that health care would be less expensive if everyone had insurance.”

The claim seems naïve to me if there is no cure for the healthcare insurance industry taking 40-60% off the top and defensive medicine is not reduced through tort reform.

Unless the healthcare industry is consumer driven “bending the cost curve” will not happen.

So what in happening in Massachusetts?                                          

    1. 79% of the newly insured are on public programs.

   2. Health costs—Medicaid, Romneycare's subsidies, public-employee compensation—will consume some       54% of the state budget in 2012 up from about 24% in 2001.

  3. Health spending in real terms has jumped by 59%.

  4. Spending for education has fallen 15%, police and firemen by 11% and roads and bridges by 23%.

  5. Massachusetts spends more per capita on health care than any other state.

   6. Costs are 27% higher than the U.S. average.

Healthcare premiums and taxes are rising and the physicians are the target instead of the health-care insurance industry.

    1. Under the plan, all Massachusetts doctors, hospitals and other providers must register with a new state bureaucracy as a condition of licensure—that is, permission to practice.

    2. They'll be required to track and report their financial performance, price and cost trends, state-sanctioned quality measures, market share and other metrics.

    3. An 11-member board known as the Health Policy Commission will use the data to set and enforce rules to ensure that total Massachusetts health spending, public and private, grows no more than projected gross state product through 2017, and 0.5 percentage points lower thereafter.

    4. The data collected will be claims data and it will stink. If past results are a predictor of future results price control do not work.

    5. No registered provider is allowed to make "any material change to its operations or governance structure," the bill says, without the commission's approval.

    6. The commission can also rewrite the terms of provider contracts with insurers and payment levels and methods if they are "deemed to be excessive."

    7. The commission can decide to supervise the behavior of any provider that exceeds some to-be-specified individual benchmark.

    8. These delinquents must submit a "performance improvement plan" that the commission must endorse.

    9.The commission is empowered to control the practice and organization of medicine.

   10. Some complain this government control is too weak because the delinquents can only be fined $500,000 for disobeying the commission's dictates.

What ever happened to individual freedom of choice and other freedoms?

It is obvious that Romneycare is a bust and getting worse.

However in my view Romneycare is a pretty tame failure compared to what is going to happen down the road with Obamacare. 

Everyone agrees that the healthcare system needs to deliver medicine more efficiently and be more accountable.

But.

Accountable to whom?  

The healthcare system must become more accountable to consumers. The only system that will work is a consumer driven healthcare system with the consumers responsible for their healthcare dollars.

I believe is important for our elected officials to do well.

However it is more important to do well doing the right things.

Our government is not doing the right thing for the people with Obamacare.

It is only going to make things worse as government tries to exercise more control.

 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

A Genius Wrote

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Todd Siler is a famous artist and scientist. He is much more that. He is a genius. He has written many books about visualizing and solving problems. The most famous is “Thinks Like A Genius”.

For many years he created “Truizms” for the Rocky Mountain News. These Truizms deserve a publication of their own. His Truizms’ are insightful and inspiring. Todd sent me some Truizms to help me illustrate the points I am trying to make.

It is an honor to have Todd become a great friend. He is extremely perceptive and a phenomenal teacher, in addition to being a wonderful human being.

Todd wrote a great response to my last blog “Lets (Not) Do Physicals.”    

Stanley, the frustrating situation you've accurately described here invokes Joseph Heller's classic novel Catch-22:

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)…."Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." 

Quoting my blog , Todd wrote,

“It is not enough for the Obama administration to say it is interested in prevention of disease when it restricts access to prevention measures.

It is not right to restrict access to steps needed to prevent the debilitating or deadly complications of hip fracture.   

“The USPSTF concludes that, for men, evidence of the benefits of screening for osteoporosis is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.” 

To me the trend to reduce physical examinations and lab screening is a ridiculous trend. The present spending on physicals probably should be modified some but not discontinued.” 

I agree!

Todd

One of Todd’s insightful Truisms’’ follws

Finger pointing

Our bureaucratic society with its multiple and conflicting rules does not permit us to honestly do the right thing for Americans, especially when money is involved.

President Obama says the right things, but he does not do the right things.

The Healthcare System’s policies should let consumers decide on what is logical for them after listening to the advice of their physicians.

Consumers should control their healthcare dollars with financial incentives  provided for them to stay healthy, become educated about their diseases,  and control their chronic diseases.  

The evidence medicine debate should be between the medical community and the USPTF without creating a media circus.

Healthcare insurance should be a high deductible first dollar coverage plan that would cover everyone.

I covered how this would work in my blog “The Ideal Medical Saving Account is Democratic.

America’s healthcare system is at the home in a “Catch 22”.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Please have a friend subscribe

 

  • EndlessImprovement Blog

    Hey! I was pleased as soon as I loaded this web page of your blog. What was the biggest reason the moment when you to create your future website?

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

It Not About Ideology: It’s About What Could Work

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Jonathan Hiadt has become a very popular author during these difficult times of “class warfare.” In “Righteous Minds” he posits that both the Right and the Left think they are correct about political, social and economic issues. Since the opinions of each are usually opposite disputes occur.

His point is that the Right and the Left need to understand reasons for each groups’ thinking. It might result in tolerance and respect by each side for each other.

I sense a definite leaning toward the Left in his presentation with his condescending attitude toward the Right.

In this political season I have a problem with siding with either the Right or the Left in their political arguments. My impression is both sides are wrong with the Left being more wrong than the Right.

Both sides are trying to condition our minds to side with them. This should indicate how powerful the people really are.

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan are dirty words to most of the Left.

The Left has demonized George W. Bush and Ronal Reagan because their thinking is not compatible with the thinking of the Left.

The Right loves Ronald Reagan and seems to be a little embarrassed by the mention of George W. Bush.

No one should be embarrassed about George W. He claimed to be a Compassionate Conservative. This phrase drove the Left crazy. George W. co-opted the Left’s claim to fame with the word compassionate.

The Left leaning media was frenzied about it for 8 years.  George W’s problem was he let some vested interests get too strong to the detriment of all Americans.

What is President Obama doing? He promised to “Transform America.” He is driving the Right leaning media crazy. Many Americans sense President Obama’s transformation. Americans do not like President Obama’s interpretation of transformation.

President Obama is increasing government control and decreasing our freedoms. Americans sense that our living standards are worse, our way of life is becoming difficult, the way we think about ourselves as a nation has become unpleasant and economy has gotten worse.

President Obama is also bending the rules to serve his ideological thinking. There is a growing mistrust of him because of his methodology and his ideology. The traditional media appears to be on the President’s side. The traditional media is terrified. They are losing their audience and in turn their ability to make a profit.

To me is all about media manipulation. The media’s agenda is to reach as large an audience as possible. Once this is achieved it can sell advertising space and make as much profit as possible.

The media wants to make a horserace out of every piece of “news” and a scandal out of every piece of non-news. The media on both the Right and the Left omit “news” that doesn’t fit its ideological agenda.

Think about it. This is the reason all political campaign are so expensive. If there were significant campaign finance reform the media would go bankrupt.

Politicians have to become media actors to win the hearts and souls of Americans. This was never more noticeable between and extremely articulate Barack Obama and a relatively inarticulate John McCain and a politically unschooled Sarah Palin.  Politicians have to appear to know something and stay on script.

Folks, we nave been brain washed. 

The most important asset we have as humans is our health. Systems have developed over the past 60 years in medicine that have improved our health and longevity. 

These same systems have launched vast industries and sub-industries that suck the money out of the system.

Where does the money go? Only 10% of the healthcare dollars spent go to physicians. The rest of the healthcare dollars goes to the secondary stakeholders (the middlemen) that add little value to the treatment of disease.

It is up to the people to become engaged in the political system and say we want a healthcare system that works and does not waste money.

We want a consumer driven healthcare system between consumers and physicians.

We want public service announcements that teach us how to drive the system and achieve the advantage of scale.

We do not want the government to make decisions for us.

We want to have the ability to make our own decisions.

We want to have control over our own destiny.

We want to have control over our healthcare dollar.

We want to have economic incentives to make our own medical choices.

We want to have pride in our nation,

We wanted to have trust in our government.

Todd Siler’s three guiding principles says it all:

Todd siler png

Consumers must take responsibility for their medical care and their healthcare dollars. My Medical Savings Account will go a long way to bring this about.

Consumers are the only ones that can make elected officials run our government in a way that supports these guiding principles.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

An Excellent Reader Comment On P4P (Pay for Performance)

 

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

The costs of healthcare system have become unsustainable. There are many ways to reduce the costs in a sensible way. Pay for performance is not one of them.

President Obama and others have concluded that the way to reduce the costs is to change the way physicians are reimbursed.

President Obama is ignoring the fact that physicians receive only 10 to 15% of the healthcare dollars spent.

Who is the rest of the money going to?

Pay for Performance (P4P) is stupid idea to me. It sounds good to some.

P4P failed to produce cost savings during the major pilot program by undefined criteria. President Obama is rolling out the program to the rest of the country because he and his healthcare staff believe in it.

In my opinion P4P will only increase the cost of healthcare.

I offer President Obama a piece of advice. He should listen to retired physicians who practiced medicine for many years and understands patients’ wants and needs.

It is entirely possible that President Obama wants to collapse the healthcare system and have the government become the payer of last resort. Then he can create his beloved “single party payer” healthcare system.

 

Medicare is a “single party payer” in its present form is unsustainable and will disappear in 2016 or 2021. The addition of another 30 million people to its roles will make it less sustainable.

The problem with a single party payer system is that it will not work in America. It is turning out that it does not work in England and many other countries.

A retired radiation oncologist sent me this comment about the Pay For Performance (P4P) concept.

 

P4P?

Now there's an excellent example of a term that sounds good but, absent a definition of the second "P", has no meaning at all.

I haven't heard anybody address that issue in a way that could be understood and accepted by all of the parties at interest.  Patients, physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies might be considered in the same light as the proverbial blind men describing the elephant of performance.

Perhaps, instead of "evidence-based medicine" we could look at developing the concept of "goals based medicine". 

Yogi Berra is credited with the thought, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there". 

If the second "P" stands for performance, the question is begged, "Whose performance?" The assumption is made that the party doing the performing is the physician, I suppose. 

If that is the case, how is performance to be measured? 

Patient satisfaction? (pretty subjective).

Compliance with some set of guidelines? (If so, whose guidelines?)

Restoration of health of the patient?  (Now there's an interesting idea, that sounds pretty good, but must take into account the state of health being experienced by the patient before the current illness began.) 

 Quality of life? (Who defines that?) 

 Relief of symptoms?  (Pretty easy to assess, but different patients will define the severity of symptoms differently, and nobody else's definition really matters to each one of them.  People "suffer" differently, and some of their suffering is culturally derived.)

 Extension of some number of life-years?  (Quality adjusted, or just more years?  Who can tell?) 

Almost never, in the initial transaction between a physician and a patient and family is there any conversation about the goals or expectations to be accomplished in the experience the "system participants" are entering into and sharing. 

I would suggest that such an interaction might be the place to begin to define "performance".  Were the expectations met?  If they were, we have done our job.  If they were not met, there is either more work to be done in the current relationship between physician and patient, or there is a need for the formation of a new relationship between the patient and a new physician. 

Left unsaid is that such a discussion of goals and expectations, if held as early as possible in the relationship, may be the time for the physician to share with the patient what is capable of being accomplished, in contrast to what is expected to be accomplished.

Only when these terms are understood by all of the parties, can "performance" be adequately measured,

If "P4P" becomes the way services are valued, it is the only rational process through which the transaction can result in fair compensation. 

Bureaucrats sitting in offices far away cannot do this, only those directly involved in any clinical situation can. 

And, to makes matters more difficult, every clinical situation will differ from every other clinical situation in one way or another.

 

This physicians comment is an excellent argument for a Consumer Driven Healthcare System. Consumers must have the right to pursue their own destiny and be responsible for their own choices.

Consumers must own their healthcare dollars even it those dollars are given to them by the government. Consumers must have a financial incentive to be responsible for their own health and healthcare needs.

My Ideal Medical Savings Account accomplishes this. It can provide first dollar coverage to all at a lower cost to the healthcare system presently and motivate Americans to have a healthier life style further reducing the cost.

Mandates do not work!

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone. 

 If you like this blog please send it to a friend

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

The Relationship Between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus And Statin Therapy

Stanley Feld M.D. FACP, MACE

Readers have continuously reminded me that consumers are not smart enough to purchase the right kind of healthcare.

"Hello Dr. Feld,

What is your solution for patients who simply aren’t educated enough to make these decisions on their own? In “Redefining Healthcare” Michael Porter advocates a role for insurers to help in this regard and I’m wondering what your thoughts are given that the fastest growing demographic in America is poor, uneducated, and potentially (as a result) unhealthy folks."

I refuse to believe that consumers are too stupid to be educated if properly motivated.

I welcome insurance companies trying to educate consumers but they are doing it for their benefit and not the patients’ benefit. The education offered is not an extension of the physician’s care and will therefore be ineffective.

I respect the intelligence of all consumers. They will want to become educated consumers as soon as there is a financial benefit.

Any educational system built will have no effect on about 10% of the population. These people will be a burden to society.

The government and the healthcare insurance companies had their day trying to fix the healthcare system.

It is now the consumers’ turn to use their consumer power to fix the healthcare system. Consumers are starting to realize they need to be responsible for their care. They are also realizing they must control their healthcare dollars.

In order to be a wise healthcare consumer, they must understand their chronic disease.

The recent FDA statement about statins causing Type 2 Diabetes has been confusing to patients. Statins can be expensive. Patients will not spend the money for the statin nor adhere to a treatment plan if they think they will be harmed by the medication.

An understanding of the pathophysiology of Type 2 Diabetes and hypercholesterolemia will make it clear that there is no relationship between statin therapy and its causing diabetes.

At least 20% of the population has genetic insulin resistance. There is a slight difference between ethnic groups with the incidence being 30% in Hispanics and Native Americans.

This genetic defect results in a rising insulin level as the patient becomes obese, older and/or stressed.

The increase in childhood obesity in genetic insulin resistance children is causing an increase in childhood Type 2 Diabetes.

The underlying genetic defect can express itself before the blood sugar rises out of the “normal range.”

Insulin Resistance Syndrome has had several names over the past 30 years. One name was the Deadly Quartet. The quartet consists of obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.

Insulin Resistance Syndrome’s new name is Metabolic Syndrome. Each disease can present independently at different times. Hypertension, hyperlipidemia and diabetes are usually precipitated by obesity, stress or steroid therapy.

If patients understood the pathophysiology of metabolic syndrome they would try hard to lose weight and adhere to medication prescribed.

Patients must be taught to become the professor of their disease.

It is insufficient to say “doc, my cholesterol is high, fix me”. The only people who can “fix” patients with chronic diseases are patients themselves.

What do we know about Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and insulin resistance?

1. The incidence of Clinical Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus is high in patients who are obese.

2. Clinical Type 2 Diabetes (high blood sugar) can disappear with weight loss and exercise in early onset diabetes. These patients still have insulin resistance but the resistance is decreased and the blood sugars become normal.

3. Obesity must be decreased in order to eliminate overt diabetes. If not, the medical cost of treating diabetes and its complications will continue to rise.

4. High LDL cholesterol is a frequent complication of Type 2 Diabetes.

5. High LDL levels cause coronary artery plaques. The result can be myocardial infarction (heart attack).

6. Diabetes Mellitus is frequently first discovered at the time of a myocardial infarction (heart attack). Mildly elevated blood sugars could remain asymptomatic for an average 8 years and discovered after a complication of diabetes (heart attack) occurs.

7. Treating high LDL cholesterol with statins in Type 2 Diabetics decreases the incidence of myocardial infarction.

8. Statins decrease the production of LDL in the liver by inhibiting an enzyme that produces LDL.

9. High blood sugar and high insulin levels also decrease nitric oxide levels in the lining of blood vessels (endothelium). The result is a narrowing of the coronary arteries.

10. Statins stimulate an increased endothelial nitric oxide production. Statins dilate the coronary arteries.

11. The dilatation of the coronary arteries along with the decrease in LDL production decreases plaque formation and the risk of a myocardial infarction.

12. High insulin levels in early Metabolic Syndrome inhibits LDL receptors ability in the liver to attach to circulating LDL. This inability to attach to the liver cells decreases the liver’s ability to sense there is enough cholesterol in the blood stream. The liver then increases the production of LDL.

13. Statins inhibit the liver from producing more LDL. Lowering the LDL produced decreases LDL in the blood stream.

14. Logically, by lowering LDL cholesterol production with a statin the effect of insulin resistance to increase cholesterol production is neutralized. The use of statins in Insulin Resistance Syndrome does not cause diabetes.

15. Therefore data for the FDA’s black box warning is wrong.

Education is the key to chronic disease management.

Physicians must teach patients in terms they can understand. Education will only be effective if patients are motivated to learn.

Physicians must be motivated by consumers to teach. Consumers controlling their healthcare dollars could motivate physicians to teach them at their level. Physicians could use their own social networks to provide customized instruction.

Obesity is the core-precipitating problem in Metabolic Syndrome. My ideal Medical Saving Account with its financial incentive could help change the obesity problem in America.

The ideal MSA might even compel the experts to not throw misinformation around lightly and frighten the public.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Please send the blog to a friend

 

  • Pietr

    Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.”
    ― William Blake
    >It is insufficient to say “doc, my cholesterol is high, fix me”. The only people who can “fix” patients with chronic diseases are patients themselves.
    Dr. Feld, this statement is a copout. You throw the responsibility back at the patient and your hands in the air. Since you recognize that obesity is an refractory to treatment, it is easier to blame the patient to sloth and gluttony and absolve yourself.
    The treatment of obesity was available 20 years ago with the combined agonists fenfluramine and phentermine. Unfortunately, these drugs were off patent and Dr. Weintraub and his colleagues didn’t see the danger. When the cardiac and pulmonary problems occurred, FEN/PHEN had no advocate and its promise disappeared.
    Treatments for OCD and addiction using dopamine and serotonin agonists/precursor have been described. The current protocol uses the immediate precursors levodopa and serotonin. Another duo taken together increases cerebral acetylcholine and crushes nicotine craving. Lecithin and pantothenate (vit B5) are dirt cheap and have absolutely no risk.
    These simple treatments do not make money for PHARMA, in fact they are a threat to its very existence. PHARMA would be foolish not to fight against their use. In my case, they destroyed my career, reputation and life.
    Tell your alcoholics, cocaine addicts and fatties that the system has failed them rather than blaming them.
    I hope you enjoy the Blake quotation.
    We seem to differ not only on the price of nude tennis balls (Spaldeens) in 1950 but also the solution for medical management. I hope we can converse civilly in the future for I respect the quality of your writing and the degree of intellect and trust in your motivations.
    Pietr Hitzig
    http://sites.google.com/site/pietrhitzig/

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

New Statin Therapy Warnings and Its Science

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I have said repeatedly that patients have to become the Professors of Their Disease. A reader recently wrote, “ The average consumers are not smart enough to evaluat complicated clinical data.”

My answer is that it is the responsibility for their physicians to teach them how to evaluate the data used to decide on their cause of therapy.

Physicians’ goals are to their treat patients with the best possible evidence based medicine. It is the patient’s responsibility to understand the reasons for the treatment and be responsible for adhering to the treatment.

In my opinion, during the last decade, arriving at the best evidence based medical care has become very difficult. The design of clinical research studies has become sloppy. The statistical results of the studies have frequently been misrepresented. Statistical trends have been interpreted as being statistical truths.

However, once a statistical trend has been reported and accepted as evidence the non- statically significant data have resulted in producing defective healthcare policy and decreasing the quality of medical treatment.

One prime example has been my opinion of the effect of the Women’s Health Initiative on women’s health. Another is the conclusion of the FDA to put a black box treatment warning in the labeling of statins.

The conclusions drawn from the clinical data for the recent black box warning are wrong. The studies are wrong because the clinical studies were designed poorly or the conclusions were not statistically significant.

There are a few simple statistical rules that must be followed for a study to prove that the conclusions are correct and a medication has a certain statistically significant effect.

The p value must be less than .05, the confidence interval must not cross 1 and the hazard ratio must be 2 or greater. It must also be a well designed study to be able to show a valid effect.

  The women’s health initiative was poorly designed. In my opinion the study design alone disqualifies the study results. 

  1.  TNT (Treating to New Targets) trial,[4] 351 of 3798 patients randomized to 80 mg of atorvastatin and 308 of 3797 randomized to 10 mg developed new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (9.24% vs 8.11%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.10, less than 2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.29, crosses 1 P = .226). Not significant.
  2.  In the IDEAL (Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering) trial,[5] 239 of 3737 patients randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day and 208 of 3724 patients randomized to simvastatin 20 mg/day developed new-onset T2DM (6.40% vs 5.59%, adjusted HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.98-1.43, P = .072). Not Significant.
  3. Across the 3 trials, there was no difference in the major cardiovascular events, which were 11.3% in patients with and 10.8% in patients without new-onset T2DM (adjusted HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.77-1.35, P = .69) including the SPARCL trial were not significant.  
  4. In a meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials with 91,140 participants showed no significant difference. It is my opinion that meta-analysis is worthless because of variation in each study’s design.  

I understand that the first reaction of a reader would be that it is impossible for the average person to understand the significance of this science.

There is no reason this information could not be explained to people in various formats from very advanced to cartoon simple. The explanations could be available on an Internet social network 24/7 chosen by their physicians.

I believe patients could understand the information once they were motivated to be responsible for their medical care.

I am astonished that “experts” would propagate this disinformation on topics as important as the health and well being of the population.

Hopefully a consumer driven healthcare system would compel everyone to be more careful in examining data from clinical research studies. 

 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

Please send the blog to a friend

 

 

  • warhammer tau

    Thanks for this post,Good to know that there are still interesting information which you can learn browsing the net and it really helps you a lot.

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Chronic Disease Management And Education As An Extension of Physicians’ Care.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

All the Spokes in my Future State healthcare business model should be attended to simultaneously to be effective.  

My vision ignores the barriers of the journey to implementing the changes in this discussion. There will be many barriers.  Legacy vested interests find it difficult to see a better way when those interests are struggling to survive in the present system.

The healthcare system must be consumer driven. Consumers must be put in control of their healthcare dollars. The other stakeholders will then be forced to cater to the consumer.

When this happens all the stakeholders’ vested interests will become aligned. It will result in a decrease in healthcare costs and an increase in stakeholders’ satisfaction.

Patients will accept responsibility for the management of their health. Physicians will become more efficient in their delivery of care..

The music industry fought Apple after ITunes dis-intermediated its legacy business model only to find its profit increased.

Consumers must have a way to obtain adequate chronic disease management education.  They must have transparent healthcare costs and understand treatment choices. Physicians must be actively involved in their patients’ education.

Chronic disease management education must be an extension of the physicians’ care. It is part of patients’ medical care. Physicians must be motivated to provide this care.

 

Slide22

 

 

 

Slide21

 

Effective chronic disease management is dependent on patients managing their chronic disease. Patients will take control only after appropriate incentives and educational methods are in place.

The goal is to decrease the onset of complications of a chronic disease. Patients can control their disease and decrease the occurrence of chronic complications. Eighty percent of the cost of medical care is spent on treating these complications.

Physicians must teach patients to become the professor of their chronic disease. The educational vehicle must be available 24/7 for patients to be able to review concepts they did not understand completely.

Physicians must have knowledge of current evidence based medical care to teach patients properly.

Much of the infrastructure is in place. It tends to be provided by secondary stakeholder and undermines the patient physician relationship. The infrastructure is not utilized properly.

Patients need to be responsible for controlling their disease. Chronic disease management is not an entitlement. It is a patient responsibility.

Patients are dependent of the government or the healthcare insurance industry to pay their bills. They have first dollar healthcare coverage

My ideal medical saving account would solve this issue. It would probably cost the government and the healthcare insurance industry less if they provided patients with $7,500 in a trust fund, provided the incentives for keeping money not spent and provided first dollar coverage after the patient spends $7,500 dollars.

Patients will then be converted to Prosumers (Productive consumers) and become intelligent consumers of healthcare.

Consumers would then encourage or force their physicians to provide appropriate chronic disease management education.

The formation of social networking on multiple levels could enable physicians to provide this education inexpensively and effectively.

For example, all of a physician’s diabetics patients can be members of his social network for diabetics. The information to learn about diabetes can be provided by his social network. Testing of patients’ understanding of core principles of diabetes can be done with direct feedback to the physician. This would provide the physician with insight to emphasize topics the patient did not understand.

The core information could also default to a more detailed explanation of the topics misunderstood.

It could be done for many chronic diseases such as asthma, COPD, heart disease, GI diseases, and joint diseases.

This education would promote the physician patient relationship. It would demonstrate than their physicians care about their care.

If there is a contradiction in the education between the physician’s thinking and the core information, a separate social network connected to the core information for physicians only can serve as a platform for debate between physicians. Continuing medical education could even be provided to give physician incentive to participate.

There are many innovative mechanisms to use to promote the patient-physician relationship, educate patients to be professors of their disease, and to be responsible for their own disease management.

The utilization of information technology through social networking will repair the healthcare system. It will enable access to education and affordable care.

 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

Please send the blog to a friend

 

 

 

  • 避孕藥牌子

    Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you simply can do with some percent to power the message house a little bit, but other than that, this is great blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

  • arvixe hosting

    Very nicely explored the stuffs. chronic disease management is not simple as it looks. thanks for exploring in informative ways.

  • •••
  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Healthcare Insurance Industry’s’ New Business Model Is Wrong.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

One percent of the people spend 25% of the healthcare dollars. Twenty percent of the people spend 80% of the healthcare dollars.

It would be important to know why this is true. Then figure out what could be done about it Stakeholders need to agree on a course of action.

It would be a good idea to understand what physicians think should be done. 

“One percent of patients account for more than 25 percent of health care spending among the privately insured, according to a new study. Their medical bills average nearly $100,000 a year for multiple hospital stays, doctors’ visits, trips to emergency rooms and prescription drugs.”

The 1% and the 20% are suffering from complications of a chronic disease.

The incidence of chronic diseases is on the rise in the United States. A major precipitating factor for this is obesity.

The incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus is increasing in both adults and young children, as the incidence of obesity is increasing.

The incidence of complications of Diabetes Mellitus will increase in the future. The result will be an increase in the cost of medical care.

President Obama’s healthcare reform act will expand healthcare coverage to 32 million uninsured in 2014. Obamacare is forcing the healthcare insurance industry to change its business model in order in order to remain profitable.

Premiums are out of the reach of most businesses and individuals. Premium increases are not an option.

High-risk individuals are denied healthcare insurance coverage. High-risk patients automatically get coverage in corporate healthcare plans. The healthcare insurance industry simply raises premiums on corporate groups in order to maintain its profits.

Something must be done to decrease the increase in chronic disease and its complications. 

The government cannot afford to insure its present patient obligations much less the 32 million uninsured.

“As the new federal health care law aims to expand care and control costs, the people in the medical 1 percent are getting more attention from the nation’s health insurers.”

Twenty percent of the population not 1% should be getting the attention of the healthcare insurance industry.

“Studies have already shown that Medicare spending is concentrated on a small group of individuals who are seriously ill.

An analysis by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the research arm of IMS Health, a health information company in Danbury, Conn., provides a rare glimpse into the medical problems of people with private health insurance that are under 65.

About three-quarters of them suffer from at least one chronic condition that could spiral out of control without proper care.”

Most of these people were obese.

The healthcare insurance industry cannot avoid these patients after 2014.

“Insurance companies will be required to enroll millions of new customers without the ability to turn them away or charge them higher premiums if they are sick. They will prosper only if they are able to coordinate care and prevent patients from reaching that top 1 percent.”

The healthcare insurance industry realizes it must fundamentally change its business model.

The healthcare insurance industry has a problem developing a new business model that would work. The industry does not want to lose control over patients, their physicians and the monies paid into the healthcare system.

The healthcare industry does not have a clue about how to actually repair the healthcare system. It is focused on its own bottom line rather than looking at business models that will be beneficial to everyone and align all the stakeholders’ incentives.

The healthcare insurance industry is planning on instituting programs that will tinker with the edges. It will not fix the problems.

The new business models will increase the percentage of money the insurance industry receives for direct patient care maintaining a Medical-Loss ratio of 15%. There is no interest in providing patients with financial incentives and a choice.

The net result will be higher costs and system failure. The weird thing is most of the healthcare insurance industry executives know it.

“The reality is if we don’t figure out how to get to the patients, we’re not going to get where they need to be,” said Dr. Lonny Reisman, the chief medical officer for Aetna.

The reality is that the system must be consumer driven with consumers in charge of their healthcare and their healthcare dollars.

At the moment patients have no incentive to decrease the cost of care. Hundreds of patients have told me that they go to the doctor to fix their illness. Medicare or their insurance pays. The patients have no idea of the costs they incur nor do they care. They have no interest in controlling their disease.

My ideal medical saving accounts would give the patients incentive to learn about their disease. They would be interested in self-managing their disease with the physician and his medical care team being the coach.

“The next challenge, say insurers, is to figure out how best to work with a person’s doctor. Because many of these patients seem to be seeing many doctors and taking many medications, there may be no one who is accountable for the patients’ overall health.” 

Physicians have figured out what services get paid by the healthcare insurance industry. They do not get paid for educating patients about their disease.

The healthcare insurance industry and the government have developed a punitive bureaucracy.   

An attempt is being made to penalize or reward physicians for medical outcomes. Pay for Performance (P4P) is a punitive payment system. It will fail. 

Patients are responsible in large part for the onset of their medical problems and in controlling their medical outcomes. Physicians cannot be responsible for patients’ outcomes. It is the responsibility of the patient.

“Insurers are also still grappling with their understanding of human nature — why some people simply don’t take care of themselves or take their medicine or go to the doctor, even when it is clear that they should.”

Patient outcomes have nothing to do with human nature. It has everything to do with financial incentive and effective education.

Spokes 5 and 6 of my future state business model has everything to do with patients’ responsibility for caring for their disease and the physicians’ responsibility to the patients. It has nothing to do with physicians’ and patients’ responsibility to the healthcare insurance industry or government.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

Please send the blog to a friend

 

  • online loans no credit check

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!

  • 鑽石能量水

    Hurrah! After all I got a webpage from where I be able to really obtain helpful information concerning my study and knowledge.

  • •••
  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

How Could A Social Networking Company Make Money In Healthcare?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

My last blog about individual healthcare insurance policies generated a lot of comments from young people starting up a business and individuals operating their own business at home. I also received several from entrepreneurs looking to start a business.

One person wrote,

"Dear Dr. Feld

So we have now learned that high deductible plans are what people should be purchasing. We also learned that they should be self insuring for $10,000 which is the highest deductible insurance at the lowest price.

 Over $10,000 is where are at the greatest financial risk. True insurance should cover our greatest risk.

I would like to know where is the business opportunity is for an Internet company that runs social networks?

 

 

 Sincerely

Z"

I said the world belongs to young people 20-50 years old. They also understand the power and mechanics of social networking.

If there was a social network dedicated to describing the advantages and disadvantages of the healthcare insurance options available to the unemployed, self- employed and under insured there would be many members. If those members had the ability to have input it would grow even larger with appropriate marketing.

I have not figured out how social networking sites make money except through advertising. I imagine many companies would like to get the attention of these consumers who are seeking healthcare insurance advice.

It has been reported that people change their job up to 8 times during their career. More and more people are in start-up businesses and need healthcare insurance for their employees. Many people are becoming consultants and are self-employed. They all need healthcare insurance for their family.

President Obama’s answer to the problem is the government will provide the healthcare insurance for you. Healthcare insurance is a right as an American.

There are several problems with this statement. The government cannot afford to provide adequate healthcare insurance for the entire population.

Britain has proved it. They are reverting back to a pay for service system. The socialist democrats in Europe have proved that. Each country is going bankrupt.

The business opportunity would be to teach the people who are self-insured or uninsured about the rip off of the healthcare insurance industry and to teach them how to save money.

How many start up companies do you guess are uninsured or under insured or not insured for catastrophic illness because they cannot afford the healthcare insurance premiums?

The chances are many start up employees will not get sick. True healthcare insurance should be a hedge against catastrophic illness.

If someone gets sick in a company, the company could pay the employee for the amount he spent before they reached the full deduction.

The high deductible individual policy is not tax deductible. If it were made tax deductible by citizen demand to congress through social networking the voice of the individual could be heard. Congress might be forced to act.

Start up companies and other companies would save money. These companies would be placed on the same playing field as companies who pay for employee insurance with pre tax dollars. The social network could even form an association of self-employed companies and enjoy the tax benefits and purchasing power of large corporations.

This would represent a threat to the healthcare insurance industry. They would do everything to stop. So would the government.

If you do the math for the government, the government would be saving much more money than it would collecting taxes. 

An appropriate social network could stop the healthcare insurance industry's grotesque business model in its tracks.

It could save billions of dollars. It could create incentive for people to take better care of themselves. 

Many large and small companies are self-insured. The law lets these companies deduct their healthcare insurance with pre tax dollars. These companies could offer my ideal medical saving account with a $7,500 trust account. They could then reinsure employees for over $7,500 with a reinsurance company. 

Employees would obtain first dollar coverage after the deductible is reached.

In the worst case the company would save $6,000 per employee. In the best case it would save $13,000 per employee.

http://www.lijit.com/search?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lijit.com%2Fusers%2Fstanleyfeld&start_time=&p=g&blog_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com%2F&blog_platform=&view_id=&link_id=7386&flavor=&q=ideal+medical+savings+accounts&x=0&y=0 

I suspect even the traditional insurance companies would provide the re-insurance.  These healthcare companies have already negotiated fees with physicians, hospitals and drug companies. 

If the healthcare insurance industry did not provide re-insurance its negotiated fees could be obtained easily.

A bank or a mutual fund could adjudicate the claims instantly.

The large corporations, who are self-insured, all have HR officers. The HR officers I have met either do not seem to have the bandwidth to investigate the possibility of the ideal medical saving account structure or they are trapped into outsourcing the details of the corporation’s self-insured healthcare plans to middlemen. I have a feeling the commitments of some with middlemen are long term.  

If all this could happen it would be an important first step in the development of social networking in healthcare and medical care.

Consumers need education for the care of their chronic disease such as diabetes, asthma, chronic lung disease, heart disease and chronic gastrointestinal diseases. Many of these diseases are a result of obesity.

If social networking could discourage the ever-increasing incidence of obesity, society would decrease healthcare costs dramatically. 

If patients learned how to manage their own disease the cost of medical care would decrease precipitously.  

Why?

Because 80% of the healthcare dollars spent on direct patient care are spent on the complications of chronic diseases that are not well managed by patients.

Many drug companies and medical device companies would advertise on these social networking sites.  

Consumers must drive the healthcare system in order for the healthcare system to be repaired. Not government or the healthcare insurance industry.

Consumers feel powerless at present. Empowering consumers through social networking will disrupt the entire healthcare systems supply chain for the better.

Consumers are up against a government that wants to tell them what they have to do. They are up against healthcare insurance companies that charge obscene premiums. They are up against hospitals, physicians and emergency rooms that have exorbitant charges.

Consumers are up against diseases such as obesity which precipitates many chronic diseases.

Consumers are frustrated and need leadership and guidance.

The phenomenal growth in social networking can give consumers the tool they need to control their health and drive the healthcare system.

Social networking is the only way to start a consumer driven healthcare movement. It has to happen before the medical care system is destroyed.

The young people expert (20-50 years old) in social networking have to become engaged. 

Those young people have to understand physician mentality and the importance of the patient physician relationship.

I will be happy to help in any way I can.

 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

Please send the blog to a friend

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.