Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Physician’s Problems

Permalink:

It Is Time To Listen To Physicians

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Physicians are getting tired of being blamed for the
rising healthcare costs. There are starting to realize that they have to take
action to preserve their professional integrity. In fact, six out of ten
physicians said they would quit medicine in a recent study by the Physicians
Foundation.

I believe physicians will have a hard time quitting
because they love practicing medicine. I do believe physicians in their early
60’s are contemplating quitting. Many physicians are looking for viable exit
strategies to avoid quitting.

The Physicians Foundation commissioned an extensive survey of nearly 13,575 physicians.
Meritt Hawkins, the physician search and consulting firm, conducted the survey.

 “The survey found that 60% of physicians would retire today, if given the
opportunity—an increase from 45% in 2008. And it's not just disgruntled and
tired Baby Boomers who want to abandon their healing work. At least 47% of
physicians under 40 also said they would retire today, if given the
opportunity.”

The survey pointed out many major problem areas.

Two specific issues consistently agreed
to were malpractice concerns and the need for tort reform as well as the lack
of cohesive leadership among all physician groups to represent the vested
interests of physicians and their patients.

This is an excellent and detailed
survey that has heightened the awareness of physicians’ practice problems.

The Massachusetts Medical Society
survey pointed out the scope of defensive medicine
. I extrapolated findings of
the society’s survey to the nation.

My conclusion was that $500 billion to $700
billion dollars a year is spent on defensive medicine testing in the nation.  Tort reform would serve to decrease this
defensive testing.

President Obama and his advisors have
ignored tort reform and defensive medicine as an insignificant cost. Ezekiel Emanuel
M.D. one of President Obama’s advisors thinks defensive medicine only raises
the cost of the healthcare system between $26 billion dollars a year.
Dr. Emanuel feel this is an insignificant number to deal with in a 2.7 trillion dolloar healthcare system. His metrics are wrong. This
is a misguided bias.

The Physician Foundation survey notes
that many policy makers, academics, and others identify fee-for-service
reimbursement as a key driver of health care costs. Physicians believe that "defensive medicine is a far more
important cost driver."

 
40.3% of the physicians surveyed said "liability/defensive
medicine pressures" was the least satisfying aspect of medical practice.

The survey also reveals that doctors
see as a major cost driver of healthcare liability/defensive medicine.

69.1% of physicians said defensive
medicine is the "number one ranked factor" driving up healthcare
costs. The survey described the ordering of tests, prescribing of drugs, and
conducting of procedures done "partly or solely to drive a wedge against
potential malpractice lawsuits."  

"Medical malpractice lawsuits are common,
adding an additional layer of paperwork, expense, and stress in virtually every
physician's work day," the report adds
.


The government ought to be listening to physicians practicing medicine every
day rather than ivory tower professors who have never practice a day in their
lives.

"Physicians understand to some degree
that's the cost of doing business, but the defensive medicine goes deeper than
that, in the ordering of extra tests, doing the extra procedures, and extra
scans to protect [oneself] against a malpractice suit.”

Medical malpractice is at the heart of
overspending in American healthcare. President Obama and Obamacare have ignored
it. Some states have addressed it and the cost of care has been decreasing
slowly. I believe it will take time in those states.  If anyone was sincere about bending the
healthcare cost curve they have to take defensive medicine seriously. 

According to the survey physicians felt that there is a lack of a
forceful cohesive voice representing them.

"There is a systematic, endemic series
of problems," Walter Ray M.D. vice president of the Physicians Foundation
, says. "Everywhere their defensive medicine,
regulation issues, reimbursement issues. We are all in the same boat. But
physician representation is balkaniz
ed. There is not a national organization
that represents a majority of physicians."

When the survey asked which best describes
their feelings about the current state of the medical profession, only 3.9
percent of physicians used the words “very positive,” while 23.4 percent of
physicians indicated their feelings are “very negative.”

The majority of physicians – 68.2 percent —
described their feelings as either somewhat negative” or “very negative,” while
only 31.8 percent of physicians described their feelings as “somewhat positive”
or “very positive”.

A "least satisfying" aspect of
practicing medicine included dealing with Medicare/Medicaid/government
regulations (27.4%) and reimbursement issues (27.3%).

 

The American Medical Association (AMA) represents only
15% of physicians, according to the Physician Foundation report. One of the
reasons for the low enrollment is that physicians feel the AMA does not
represent their vested interests.

 Sermo is another
physician organization. It is an Internet social network. In less than 2 years
Sermo had as many members as the AMA.

Sermo originally concentrated on
socioeconomic issues. It also discussed difficult clinical cases.  

The socioeconomic activity has recently
faded. Sermo’s power was using the social network to do instant surveys
expressing physician’s opinions on healthcare policy and patient care hassles.

These surveys were quickly disseminated to
the public as media stories of physicians’ opinions. It was done through public
service announcements and daily press releases.

Physicians were able to let the public know
how they felt about an issue instantly. It was very attractive. Somehow the
initial vigor stalled. Physicians are now left without a vehicle or
organization to express to express their feelings.

Government, the healthcare insurance industry
and the hospital systems have little desire to listen to the concerns of
practicing physicians. It is more important to tell physicians what to do. It
will not work long term.

The Physicians Foundation Biennial Survey is
valid and accurate
. However it is not dynamic or evolving. Neither has it gotten
much attention. It is a must read along with the Massachusetts Medical Society survey
for those interested in physician concerns and behavior.

Patients’ problem with the healthcare system
gets less attention. The government and insurance companies tell patients what
they can and cannot do

Repair of the healthcare system will only
happen when the American healthcare system evolves to a consumer driven
healthcare system with individual responsibility and individual control by the
patients of their healthcare dollars.

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

 

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

Permalink:

The PSA Fiasco

Stanley Feld MD.FACP,MACE

It is common knowledge that prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer. It is also believed that something happens and suddenly this slow growing cancer becomes aggressive and then metastatic.  

As the cancer increases in size, the Prostatic Specific Antigen (PSA) value increases. It is obvious that a baseline PSA should be obtained. The PSA’s value should be followed yearly to see if it is increases over time. 

The United State Preventative Task Force’s (USPTF’s) conclusions are incorrect. There are problems with the studies reviewed leading to its conclusions.

The media sensationalism of the USPTF’s conclusions was an indictment of PSA testing and urologists’ judgment.

"The USPSTF concludes that there is moderate certainty that the benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer do not outweigh the harm," the report stated.

“The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said in a report that the PSA test is too inaccurate, creates needless anxiety for patients, and can lead to costly and potentially harmful follow-up procedures”.

Clinical judgment by physicians is ignored by the USPTF. The PSA increases as prostate cancer progresses. How are you going to know if the PSA is increasing, if you do not have a baseline PSA?

The nation's leading urology associations are fuming over a USPTF report  that discredits the widely used prostate-specific antigen-screening test for prostate cancer.

 "It's an absurd recommendation. It is ill-researched and ill-conceived," Sanford J. Siegel, MD, a board member with the Large Urology Group Practice Association, told HealthLeaders Media. "This will only do damage to all the great work that has been done for prostate cancer awareness and to control the deaths from prostate cancer."

The USPTF should have at least had an urologist on its task force to evaluate the literature of PSA testing.

The USPTF is a “non-government agency” that will be used by the administration to ration medical care.

How can the government say it advocates preventing cancer when it’s setting us up to restrict access to care (prevention)?

American Urological Association President Sushil S. Lacy, MD, said in prepared remarks that he was "outraged" by the report. "It is inappropriate and irresponsible to issue a blanket statement against PSA testing, particularly for at-risk populations such as African-American men," Lacy said. "Men who are in good health and have more than 10-15 years life expectancy should have the choice to be tested and not discouraged from doing so."

 The American Association of Clinical Urologists issued a similar statement  week,

The AACU called the USPSTF recommendations "misleading and harmful."

The major urological associations say the USPSTF ignored new studies supporting the value of PSA tests, and that the panel refused to address concerns they raised about the conclusions during the comment period. In addition, the urologists complain that there were no urologists or oncologists on the panel.  

The major urological groups said,

 "It is just a screening test, one of several things we look at when we decide whether a man needs a biopsy or not," he says.

"Yes, it is true that many men can live with this disease their whole life. That is why active surveillance has become a treatment option," he says. "If we knew in advance who would and who wouldn't advance in the cancer, that'd be great!"

"There is no question that men get prostate biopsies that obviously in hindsight shouldn't happen.  But we are looking at improving PSA testing and other testing to help us find out which men will progress with more advanced prostate cancer."

The problem is that no one has yet come up with an alternative to determine which patients will develop advanced prostate cancer

There is case of a famous Texan who yearly had normal PSAs. His physicians told him it was not necessary to get further PSA test since he had been normal all these years. He was now past 80.   

At 86 he presented with severe bone pain.  Laboratory studies and a bone scans revealed a sky-high PSA (over 100) and widely metastatic prostate cancer.

If his PSAs were monitored the rising PSA would have been detected perhaps early enough to cure him. Prior to the bone pain this man felt perfectly well.

Urologists have many of these same stories.

The USPTF conclusion might aid clinical judgment. However, it should not trump clinical judgment.

Obamacare is getting set to make committee judgments about healthcare policy and clinical care while ignoring physicians’ clinical judgment.

 About 250,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year. The diagnosis is made by physical examination and PSA measurement. The final diagnosis and decision for surgery or radiation is made after a fine needle biopsy of the lesion.

A prospective double blind study does not exist to predict the grade of cancer that will be cured by surgery, radiation or no treatment.

Nor is there a study for the USPTF to grade about quality of life post op compared to the quality of life during progression of disease. Until then the USPTF conclusions on the basis of the studies they did review are relatively meaningless.

The incidence of 250,000 new cases of prostate cancer a year has been stabile over the last 30 years. 

With early detection the number of males dying per year from metastatic prostate cancer has dramatically fallen from 48,000 per year to 28,000.

 The USPTF statement does not seem correct,

“It could find no evidence to support claims that PSA tests are responsible for "reduction in all-cause mortality."

"Many more men in a screened population will experience the harms of screening and treatment of screen-detected disease than will experience the benefit."

The USPTF report ignores the dramatic decrease in deaths from prostate cancer over the last several decades.

Dr. Marc Siegel, a practicing urologist for 30 years, said,

 When I started training, 40% of African-American men at that time presented with metastatic disease. Now that number is miniscule," Siegel says. "Tell me how that happens without early screening? How do death rates go down from 48,000 when I trained to 28,000 now? How do you explain that without screening? You can't! It's impossible!"

I believe the defect in the USPTF conclusions have to do with the specificity of the PSA and not its clinical value. A more accurate PSA test needs to be developed.

The USPTF’s conclusions will save President Obama a little money in the short run.

However, the cost of care for prostate cancer along with the morbidity and mortality will cost Americans greatly in the long term. 

 The USPTF has to re-examine its premises and methodology.

 

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:

Medicare Coding Is Becoming More Complicated Under Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Physicians make coding errors. These errors result in decreased reimbursement.   The denied claims might not be noticed for months by the physicians’ office.

In a busy practice the details of all the changes in coding rules are sometimes impossible to understand.

An entire coding industry with coding professionals taking certification examinations has developed with a great increase in the cost to the healthcare system.  

President Obama’s healthcare reform act is trying to institute a completely new electronic claims system. It is called 5010. It will replace claims system 4010.

As far as I can tell the goal is to obtain more data on physicians’ practice patterns. The goal of the new system is to determine the “quality” of physicians care. If the quality is poor, reimbursement will be reduced. Claims will be denied. Its execution looks confusing and expensive.

5010 was suppose to be in place and required for all to use by January 1, 2012. Apparently, it was not fully installed or tested by enough healthcare organizations to be validated. The date of full implementation was moved to March 31, 2012. Last week full implementation was moved to June 30, 2012.

The other complicated “innovation” of Obamacare is ICD 10 coding system.  This new coding system replaces ICD-9. It has increased the number of codes from 18,000 to 68,000 for coding in-patient and out-patient care. Effective implementation of these codes will be very difficult.

The implementation of these two “innovations” will add billions of dollars to the cost of healthcare.

 It will increase physicians’ paperwork. It will result in more mistakes. It is questionable whether the new systems will increase the quality of care.

It is adding more complexity to an already dysfunctional system.

It is impossible for physicians to keep up with all the new regulations the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is about to impose on them.

Most physicians do not have the time to study the new regulations and their implications. They hope their professional organizations will pick up the important ones and point out the problems in plain English.

Many times one regulation contradicts another regulation. The administrative service providers (healthcare insurance industry) for CMS interpret the regulations the way they want. There is often a lack of consistency from state to state.

The Texas Medical Association recently informed us of an error related to submission of measure No.235, Hypertension: Plan of Care for the 2012 Physician Quality Reporting System.

 The Texas Medical Association sent the following message to all Texas physicians. I challenge anyone to understand this message.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has identified an error related to the submission of measure No. 235, Hypertension: Plan of Care, for the 2012 Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). Hypertension: Plan of Care is a claims/registry measure with G-codes that are inactive due to an error. Consequently, Medicare carrier TrailBlazer has rejected or denied claims containing the G-codes associated with the measure.

The following is a note I received from a physician.

“I thought I went to medical school to learn how to take care of sick patients?”

“I did not go to medical school to deal with complicated and impossible rules and regulations daily. These regulations interfere with my ability to help sick patients”

Physicians are faced with these confusing rules daily. I do not believe that these rules promote quality care for patients. These rules serve to irritate physicians. The rule changes result in a non-user friendly Medicare system.  I predict it will ultimately result in non-cooperation by physicians.

The TMA goes on to tell us what CMS is going to do and what we can do to obtain reimbursement for treatment given using CMS’ rules.

 CMS will reactivate the codes G8675, G8676, G8677, G8678, G8679, G8680, and 4050F with its next update of the HCPCS code data in April 2012. For 2012 claims-based reporting, PQRS requires at least three measures be reported at a 50-percent reporting rate.

In the interim, if you had intended to report this measure via claims for the 2012 PQRS, consider doing the following:

  • Report additional measures to substitute for measure No. 235, Hypertension: Plan of Care.
  • Hypertension: Plan of Care is a per-visit measure, which requires reporting for 50 percent of eligible patient visits. Therefore, you could report the measure on more than 50 percent of eligible visits from April through December 2012 to increase the likelihood for successful reporting of the measure.

As an alternative to reporting PQRS quality measures via claims, physicians can report using a qualified registry (PDF). TMA endorses two such vendors. Or, practices can submit measures using a qualified electronic health record (PDF).

Published March 16, 2012

Is it any wonder the Medicare and Medicaid System have tremendous bureaucratic cost overruns?

There has to be a better way?

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

  • Brandon

    Interesting… thank you for the blog. In regards to the medical coding, you said they added some 50,000 new codes. Was the purpose to dilute the system, or to just make sure there is a code for every imaginable situation? Is there like a database or something that you just search keywords and you find the correct code? I have to be honest, I find this fascinating, I had no idea this was how medical billing worked.. or didn’t work I should say.

  • does textyourexback work

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog? My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks!

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

Permalink:

Where Is The Healthcare Money Going?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

In reviewing Ezekiel Emanuel’s New York Times article I thought of an interesting question. In Dr. Emanuel’s view it is not worth having tort reform or healthcare care insurance reform. He claims these reforms are an insignificant burden to the cost of the healthcare system.

I have demonstrated that the evidence for tort reform and reform of the healthcare insurance industry proves him wrong.

The question then is where is the $2.5 trillion dollars the U.S. healthcare system spends going?

President Obama and Dr. Emanuel think it is going to physicians. President Obama’s idea to control healthcare costs is to reduce physician reimbursement.

Physicians have the weakest expression of its vested interests among all the stakeholders because of lack of effective leadership. 

Simple arithmetic reveals that reducing physician reimbursement will yield an insignificant reduction in healthcare costs.

Never the less on January 1st Medicare is going to decrease physicians’ reimbursement by 27%. This decrease is the result of the application of the government’s Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR).

The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) is a complicated and defective formula intended to contain the overall growth of Medicare spending for physicians’ services.  The intent was to keep physicians’ reimbursement in line with the nation’s ability to pay for that medical care.  The SGR formula uses the gross domestic product per capita in a complicated and inaccurate way. 

In 2008 the Bureau of Labor statistics published a report that there were 661,400 physicians in the United States.

 The report’s findings are summarized in the table below.

 

Projections data from the National Employment Matrix

 

Occupational Title

SOC Code

Employment, 2008

Projected 
Employment, 2018

Change,
2008-18

Detailed Statistics

 

Number

Percent

 

Physicians and surgeons

29-1060

661,400

805,500

144,100

22

[PDF]

[XLS]

 

    NOTE: Data in this table are rounded. See the discussion of the employment projections table in the Handbook introductory chapter onOccupational Information Included in the Handbook.

 

Let us assume that 161,400 of the 661,400 physicians in the U.S. work in private medical related industries such as the healthcare insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the physician executive industry and government services.  These physicians are not involved in direct patient care and do not generate direct patient costs to the healthcare system.

 The number of non direct patient care physicians is probably higher (185,192 in other non practice positions and 476,208 in direct patient care). My assumption uses 500,000 physicians involved in direct patient care for all types of insurance to inflate physicians’ reimbursement. 

The Bureau of Labor report states,

 Physicians and surgeons held about 661,400 jobs in 2008; approximately 12 percent were self-employed. About 53 percent of wage–and-salary physicians and surgeons worked in offices of physicians, and 19 percent were employed by hospitals.  .

 

Let us also assume that physicians’ overhead is 50% of total collections. Therefore physicians’ take home salary is 50% of collections. Fifty percent is a fairly accurate assessment whether the physicians are self employed or hospital system employed.  

 “According to the Medical Group Management Association's Physician Compensation and Production Survey, median total compensation for physicians varied by their type of practice. In 2008, physicians practicing primary care had total median annual compensation of $186,044, and physicians practicing in specialties earned total median annual compensation of $339,738.”

 If we round off the salaries to $190,000 for Primary Care Physicians and $340,000 for Specialists and round off the number of Primary Care Physicians to 300,000 (actually 375,000) and 200,000 in Specialties (actually 125,000) and do the math, physicians’ salary comprise only 5% of the total $2.5 trillion dollars spent in the healthcare system.

The Math:

 $190,000 per year per primary care physician x 300,000 physicians= $57,000,000,000 ($57 billion dollars for primary care physicians).

 340,000 per year per specialists x 200,000 specialists= $68,000,000,000 ( $68 billions dollars a year for specialists).

 $57 billion + $68 billion= $125 billion per year for the costs of physicians salary for direct patient care.

 $125 billion (125,000,000,000)/ $2.5 ($2,500,000,000,000) trillion per year = 5%

 If you double the physicians’ collections to include physicians’ overhead costs ,  physicians receive 10% of total dollars spent on healthcare system.

Improvements can be achieved in decreasing physicians’ overhead by having more integrated healthcare systems. Presently, most communities do a fair job.

Integrated electronic medical records could achieve a further decrease in the 5% of the total healthcare cost spend by physicians for overhead.

The government is spending billions of dollars on building bureaucracies, creating regulations, developing a IRS physicians fraud squad and creating committees trying to reduce 5% of the healthcare costs.

President Obama is approaching the problem of escalating healthcare system costs using the wrong premises. It will result in increasing healthcare system costs. Obamacare already has increased the costs of the healthcare system even though it is not fully implemented.

 "IF REALITY DOESN'T match your expectations, perhaps it's time to re-examine your premises."

 

Where is the other 90% of the healthcare system costs going?

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • physical therapist salary

    By some weird arithmetic, the more life stuffs itself into the valley, the more spaces it creates for further life.

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

Permalink:

Getting Closer To The Ideal Electronic Medical Record

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Over 70 % of physicians use smartphones. Physicians are not resistant to learning how to use an iPhone or one of the Android smartphones. The network speed is the irritation. Networks are confusing the public with 3G and 4 G network speed. They should just do it!

We are rapidly approaching the time when a smartphone will be an appliance. The best applications will survive. Medical applications will become fully functional.

Most individual physicians and group practices have had at least one electronic medical record (EMR). None has fulfilled its promises. None has been fully functional. The price paid for the EMR was high in the era of decreasing reimbursement.

Most practices need a fully functioning EMR. The practices are hesitant to endure the pain of conversion once more.

President Obama’s multi-billion dollar subsidy program is bogus. The amount of the subsidy is well below the cost of the EMR and its continuing service and upgrades. I believe the program will have little impact on adoption of EMRs.

If President Obama provided the ideal electronic medical record along with upgrades and service to physicians for a monthly fee, physicians could afford to sign up. They would not worry about an unaffordable capital expense. Physicians would be charged by the click just as MasterCard charges by the usage.

Instantaneously, the system proposed, would result in America’s physicians converting to a government certified fully functional EMR at minimal cost or risk.

Patients’ data could be kept on a hard drive in the physicians’ office to maintain patient privacy. Physicians would have to agree to release certain data to be used for educational purposes without compromising patients’ privacy.

Instead, President Obama’s new agencies are going to use inaccurate claims data to judge physicians’ care and impose penalties on physicians.

With the increasing development of cloud computing, President Obama could provide the software in the cloud with servicing and upgrading. It would cost the government less and the government would have created an income generating business.

Electronic medical records software producer ClearPractice has developed a SAAS (software-as-a-service application) for the Apple iPad to help doctors manage their workflow, from scheduling to prescribing to billing.

A fully functioning EMR can be developed with physicians using the functionality of an iPad and upcoming Android tablets.

I have not had the opportunity to study ClearPractice’s product. ClearPractice has the right idea. Its Nimble EMR cloud product is the first comprehensive EMR application designed to run on the iPad.

I think its distribution and storage model needs refining. It also should build iPad applications to interface seamlessly with an Android system Pad.

The software can be accessed from the cloud. Patient data files can be accessed from the physicians server using a Pogoplug. This would permit physicians to be in control of their patients’ data.

“In designing Nimble, ClearPractice tackled the slow implementation of EMR software, which costs physicians time and money and disrupts their workflow. "Traditional EMR systems slow down busy doctors."

A tablet can easily keep physicians connected to their patients’ data in their office, in the hospital and at night in their home.

ClearPractice claims its software-as-a-service application has scheduling, tracking in-patient rounds, prescribing, lab review/ordering and messaging applications. It also connects to the physicians’ billing system to automatically capture and submit charges for payment.

Nimble does not sound fully functional. The software must have the ability to connect financial outcomes with clinical outcomes to be appealing to physicians. Physicians must be able to use the data they generate to augment their value to the patient. They are hesitant to submit data to a third party that will use it to devalue their worth.

ClearPractice’s fee schedule is vague. Nonetheless, ClearPractice is on the right track. President Obama could save his subsidy money if he would start listening to physicians. He is going to ahead and will waste the money from the stimulus package. He will not make progress toward the goal of developing universal use of fully functioning electronic medical records.

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

Permalink:

Patients Own Their Disease.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

It is important to listen to what physicians are saying. An article appeared in SERMO, a physicians’ social network, which expressed a physician’s frustration.

It is appropriate to publish some of that physician’s thoughts.

“I first heard this statement over twenty years ago, when I was an intern in general surgery, struggling to find my professional self.”

“My chief resident said; “The patient owns the disease,” “You’re not trying to make them suffer, you’re trying to help. They’re sick, you’re not.”

“The human body is unpredictable.  Disease complications happen.”

The author thought his chief resident was heartless and callous. In a way, he was but he was getting at the heart of the matter. What is the patient’s responsibility in the evolution of disease?

This physician took everything that happened to his patients personally.

The patient owns his disease. The physician does not own the patient’s disease. Lifestyle plays a large role in the cost of the healthcare system.

President Obama’s healthcare reform law ignores the central role patients play in the therapeutic equation.

Day after day in the Emergency Department, people who take no responsibility for their health confront me.  They smoke, they drink, they do drugs, they don’t take their medicines, they drive impaired and crash, and yet they expect me to make them well.

They visit at their convenience, complain about the wait, want their medicines for free, and then don’t pay their bills.

The concepts of health insurance, family doctors, and preventive care have been completely lost.  Everybody except the patient owns the disease.

There was a time that patients knew they owned their disease. They knew they were partners with physicians in the treatment of their disease. Patients had to do the best they could under their physicians’ guidance.

“Somewhere, somehow, things got turned around.  The patients no longer own their diseases.  They’ve given them to us – physicians and society at large.

We are held responsible for everything that happens to a person, regardless of how they conduct their lives or follow our instructions.

  The weight on our shoulders is crushingly real, and forcing many good physicians to walk away from the thing they love most – taking care of others.”

He goes on to say;

I’m still shocked when a patient says, “You have to ….”  It’s endless – “refill my blood pressure and diabetes medicines, even though I don’t know their names or the dose. Patients demand I order an MRI for their two years of knee pain.”

“Say no, explain why, try to educate, offer alternatives, and the reply is  “If you don’t do it and something bad happens, it’s your fault.”

“You can’t tell someone that his or her symptoms are due to obesity, smoking or drinking – that’s judgmental.”

The author’s examples are endless. One last example sums up the dilemma facing healthcare in America.

“I once believed that every time I gave in to a patient’s pressure for an antibiotic for a viral illness, I was contributing to the emergence of super-resistant organisms.

“I believed that I could control the run-away cost of health care by judiciously ordering advanced studies only when absolutely necessary.  I tried to convince people that they owned the disease, that they had responsibilities to meet, that they couldn’t just demand everything be given to them.  And now I’m labeled a “disruptive physician”, because I generate too many complaints.

The increasing prevalence of obesity is a concrete example of the need for patients accepting responsibility for their disease.

Obesity is the cause of many disease processes. Obesity is not a random occurrence. It is linked to eating more than you burn. Potential patients are responsible for their obesity.

When obesity leads to the onset of Diabetes Mellitus, patients are responsible for controlling their blood sugar so they do not develop the complication of Diabetes Mellitus. The complications are heart attacks, hypertension, strokes, blindness, or kidney failure.

The government must provide and promote public education about obesity. Somehow, the appeal of overeating must be squashed and the virtues of exercise promoted.

Physicians and their healthcare teams are responsible for teaching patients how to control their blood sugar.

Eighty percent of the healthcare costs are the result of the complications of chronic diseases. Physicians must be encouraged, not forced, to set up systems of care to help patients become responsible for their chronic disease.

Where is the motivation for physicians in President Obama’s healthcare reform law? Where is the motivation for patients to become serious about intensively controlling their blood sugars in President Obama’s healthcare reform bill? New agencies are being set up to penalize physicians for not using resources to set up systems of care, resources which are uncompensated.

President Obama’s healthcare reform law does not promote patients taking responsibility for their diseases. The law contains nothing that measures patients’ performance. The law contains a lot of proposals that will falsely measure physicians’ performance

The law uses the term preventive care. It is meaningless without providing details. Prevention is immediately defined as providing vaccinations. Vaccinations do not define preventive chronic disease management.

If we are going to decrease the acute and chronic complications of chronic diseases, patients must comply with their physician’s recommendations.

Systems of care for chronic disease management have to be taught to patients and physicians. Medical schools have taught physicians how to treat diseases after its onset. President Obama should focus on setting up systems of public education before the onset of chronic disease.

President Obama’s healthcare reform act puts the burden of successful outcomes on physicians. Physicians do not own their patients diseases.

He should focusing on where money is wasted not building an infrastructure that will waste more money.

“Somewhere between the past paternalistic model of the physician-patient relationship and today’s give-them-what-they-want system, there has to exist a better paradigm.

As doctors, we need to resist the external pressures to make every one happy.  We must legitimize our expectations and have the backing of hospital administration when appropriate.

We should be empowered to refuse unnecessary, expensive, and often harmful demands. We cannot continue to abdicate the responsibility of our education and profession to political correctness.”

The Sermo physician’s statement demands physician leadership for constructive change. He says just say no.

It is difficult for most physicians to say no when they will be penalized by their hospital administrator or get sued under present malpractice laws.

Patients must own their disease!

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

  • Kamagra Oral Jelly

    Physicians and their healthcare teams are responsible for teaching patients how to control their blood sugar.But still i feel that some were it is patient duty to understand the physicians and co-operate with them

  • Zenegra 100mg online

    Patient understands their own disease and their capacity to work closely with doctors and health care team.

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

Permalink:

The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Stimulus Fiasco: Part 3

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

President Obama’s goal for healthcare reform is to increase the quality of medical care, increase efficiency of medical care and decrease the cost of care. The goal is admirable. The route he is taking is wrong. In the process he might destroy the medical workforce.

The route the electronic medical record (EMR) stimulus package should take should be flexible and educational for patients and physicians. It should use modern software technology instead of subsidizing old inflexible technology that is set up to be punitive to physicians and patients to the advantage of the government and the healthcare insurance industry.

The term "quality medical care’ is used loosely. It has not been appropriately defined. The practice of evidence based medicine has been used to define quality medical care. The problem is evidence based medicine is changing daily.

A better definition should be the best clinical outcome with the most efficient financial outcome. It is assumed that practicing evidence based medicine will lead to the best clinical outcome at the most efficient cost.

Clinical guidelines are defined by “experts” interpreting evidence based medicine. I am/was one of those experts and appreciate its short comings.

Some guidelines are essential and should be inflexible. Others are ever changing and must be flexible. In bureaurocratic systems it is difficult to create flexible rules. Also, all patients are different. Clinical judgment plays an important role in treatment.

Physicians should not be penalized for using clinical judgment. Nonetheless, physicians are penalized in a pay for performance evaluation for deviating from inflexible clinical guidelines. Since some clinical guidelines are always changing the weakness of the approach is obvious.

An example of an inflexible clinical guideline is the need for rules to have a sterile operating room with sterile gowns and tools to avoid surgical infection.

An example of a need for a flexible clinical guideline should be a physician’s approach to a patient with hypertension. The goal should be to normalize the blood pressure. The goal for lowering the blood pressure to normal is to avoid heart attacks and stroke. However, if the patient’s blood pressure was elevated for a long period of time and was severe enough to compromise the renal (kidney)) blood flow, lowering the blood pressure too quickly could result in the patient having a stroke from a relatively low blood pressure. This is an example of the value of clinical judgment.

Physician performance should not be evaluated on static measurements. It must be evaluated on physicians’ medical judgment. Clinical judgment is a function of a physician’s ability to relate to his or her patients. (patient physician relationship)

On the other hand, if a patient felt poorly as a physician tried to lower the blood pressure to normal the patient might stop his medication without telling the physician. The physician’s workup might have been perfect and his choice of medication may have been excellent. This physician might get an excellent mark on his performance but the patient had a stroke because the patient did not comply with treatment. The patient might not have complied because he was not taught to be a professor of his disease. Healthcare is a team sport. The patient physician relationship failed but was not measured. .

The poor performance was missed by the static digital healthcare evaluation imposed by an inflexible EMR. The importance of the patient physician relationship and not including patient responsibility in the clinical outcome should be part of any performance measurement. A performance measurement should be a measurement of both the patients’ and physicians’ performance.

Now that the federal government plans to spend $50 billion to spur the use of computerized patient records, the challenge of adopting the technology widely and wisely is becoming increasingly apparent.

There is no question we should have universal electronic medical records. It should be a teaching tool for patients and physicians. The EMR should be inexpensive and flexible. It should not a tool to judge and penalize clinical performance. President Obama is being ill advised. His EMR stimulus program is going to result in a waste of $50 billion dollars.

“In a “perspective,” Dr. Kenneth D. Mandl and Dr. Isaac S. Kohane portray the current health record suppliers as offering pre-Internet era software — costly and wedded to proprietary technology standards that make it difficult for customers to switch vendors and for outside programmers to make upgrades and improvements.”

The software the government is going to spend $50 billion dollars on is going to be too expensive, inflexible and not widely distributed.

“Instead of stimulating use of such software, they say, the government should be a rule-setting referee to encourage the development of an open software platform on which innovators could write electronic health record applications”.

EMR software platforms in the cloud should be developed. This link by Christopher Barnatt  is an excellent utube explanation of cloud computing. I suggest all watch it.Amazon uses the cloud to sell books. www.Salesforce.com’s business model tracks sales force activity at a minimal cost to the company. It is flexible and maintenance free.

“Such an approach, they say, would open the door to competition, flexibility and lower costs — and thus, better health care in the long run. “If the government’s money goes to cement the current technology in place,” Dr. Mandl said in an interview, “we will have a very hard time innovating in health care reform.”

The rules can be immediately changed. The cost to a medical practice could be minimal. Its effectiveness is maximal. The cost to the government using modern software technology could be between 1-10 % of what the stimulus is proposing to spend. If it is fashioned as an educational tool to patients and physicians the payback will be maximal, quality of care will improve and the cost of care will decrease.

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

  • electronic medical records

    Thanks for such a great article to share with.I think computerized medical records will save us all:save time,reduce errors,it helps us avoid redundant tests, gather huge amounts of data for research and etc.As medical billing software said” it is also for the betterment and advancement of health care”.

  • Medical Practice Management Software

    Excellent stuff. Many thanks for sharing this informative resource. In my opinion there are lots of benefits in using Medical Practice Software. It helps in improving patient care and saves time as well as money.

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

Permalink:

President Obama; If You Really Want To Reduce Healthcare Costs, Effectively Reform The Medical Malpractice Tort System: Part 3

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama, the details of the Massachusetts Medical Society Defensive Medicine survey have profound importance in explaining trends in the delivery of medical care. Unfortunately, only meaningless sound bites have been given by the media. The survey’s significance has not had the impact on policy it should.

The authors state that the dollar estimates do not include the diagnostic procedures, hospital admissions, specialty referrals and consultations or unnecessary prescription by physicians in specialties not included in the study.

The eight specialties surveyed represent only 46% of the physicians in the Massachusetts. The real costs to the healthcare system from the practice defensive medicine in the state of Massachusetts are much higher. The authors estimate the real costs could be twice the $1.4 billion dollars per year they estimated.

I believe the costs of defensive medicine in many other states are much higher because the cost of litigation in many states is lower and the malpractice awards are higher encouraging litigation.

“This survey clearly shows that the fear of medical liability is a serious burden on health care,” said Dr. Sethi. “The fear of being sued is driving physicians to defensive medicine and dramatically increasing health care costs. This poses a critical issue, as soaring costs are the biggest threat to the success of Massachusetts health reform efforts.”

Defensive medicine is definitely a threat to the success of the Massachusetts healthcare reform efforts. President Obama, defensive medicine is a big burden nationally to the healthcare system. Its costs will undermine any attempt at healthcare reform unless you take medical malpractice liability reform seriously. There has to be a fundamental change in the structure of adjudication.

The survey’s findings must be studied carefully. The physicians surveyed estimated their percentages for defensive medicine testing to avoid law suit. I think their estimates are low. The real percentages must be studied objectively using data mining techniques. Nonetheless the current estimates reveal unsustainable waste in our dysfunctional healthcare system.

Radiological imaging is one tool overused by physicians defensively to avoid litigation. Physicians feel they must test everything even if the probability of a positive result is insignificant.

“Plain Film X-Rays: An average of 22% of X-rays were ordered for defensive reasons.”

“CT Scans: An average of 28% of CT scans were motivated by liability concerns, with major differences among specialties.”

About 33% of scans ordered by obstetricians/ gynecologists, emergency physicians, and family practitioners were done for defensive reasons.

The total number of unnecessary CT scans needs to be calculated along with its costs in order to understand the significance of the percentage presented. The health policy solution should not be to lower the reimbursement for CT scans. The solution is to fix the medical malpractice liability system.

MRI Studies: An average of 27% of MRIs were ordered for defensive reasons, with significant differences by specialty.

The highest rates were reported by obstetricians/ gynecologists, general surgeons, and family practitioners, with the lowest rates by neurosurgeons and emergency physicians.

Ultrasound Studies: An average of 24% of Ultrasounds were ordered for defensive reasons. Orthopedic surgeons (33%) and obstetricians/gynecologists (28%) reported the highest rates, with neurosurgeons (6%) and anesthesiologists (9%) the lowest.

I believe neurosurgeons are underestimating their use of radiologic procedures in order to look good. Neurosurgery is one of the specialties with the highest malpractice rates. Please note that obstetricians/gynecologists take no chances and order the most procedures for defensive purposes.

Laboratory Testing:

An average of 18% of laboratory tests were ordered for defensive reasons, with emergency physicians (25%) reporting the highest rates and neurosurgeons (7%) the lowest.

Specialty referrals, consultations and hospitalizations are overused the most for defensive reasons. No one wants to take a chance and send the patient home even if the indication for hospitalization is small. Hospitalization is also the most costly overused element in defensive medicine.

Specialty Referrals and Consultations:

“An average of 28% of specialty referrals and consultations were motivated by liability concerns, with significant differences by specialty. Obstetricians/gynecologists reported that 40% of their referrals and consultations were done for defensive reasons, and anesthesiologists and family practitioners said that 33% of their referrals and consultations were done for the same reasons.”

Hospital Admissions:

An average of 13% of hospital admissions were motivated by liability concerns, with surgical specialties reporting lower rates than the other specialties.

The percentages of defensive procedures are admitted by practicing physicians. The cost of defensive medicine is high and wasteful. President Obama, defensive medicine is not the minor problem that the malpractice attorneys want you to believe it is. It is time for definitive action now.

 

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

  • Medical Negligence 

    The doctor’s actions have caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s personal injury, his actions may not be deemed negligent if it can be shown that they were the ‘reasonable’ actions of a medical professional given the information the doctor had and the specific circumstances.

  • Tyler grey

    I just stumbled upon your informative blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. I will be your frequent visitor.

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