Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Politicians,Healthcare and Vested Interests

Permalink:

Incentives and Mechanism Design

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Why are Obamacare’s initiatives failing? There are several reasons.

1. Government is inefficient. It outsources all of its administrative services.  

The contractors, in turn, subcontract out most of the work. The overhead for each function increases non-transparent costs. The execution of tasks decreases.

2. President Obama’s healthcare policy advisors are academics. They have little clinical experience. It is clear they have little experience in the trenches.

The healthcare policy advisors have no idea how to create incentives for physicians and hospitals.

They have no idea how destructive to clinical practice the lack of tort reform is.

3. Without clinical experience the policy advisors do not know how to create effective incentives for patients.

I have emphasized that patients must be responsible for themselves and their diseases. They must become professors of their diseases. They have to be provided with adequate incentives to become professors of their diseases.

Physicians must be provided with incentives to teach patients to be professors of their diseases.

4. The government outsources the administrative services to adjudicated Medicare and Obamacare billings. The government has little idea of the actual profits built into the fees the insurance companies charge the government. At intervals insurance companies are required to enter another bidding process. The government probably picks the lowest bidder.

It is not an efficient way to pick an insurance company. This is especially true when the government guarantees the insurance company‘s profit. The government does not know what the insurance company’s profit actually is. The profit is about 40% of the healthcare dollars.

President Obama’s ideological goal leads to these errors. His only concern is for the government to control the healthcare system.

Government control of a healthcare system has not been successful. The V.A. healthcare system is on example. Medicaid and Medicare’s increasing deficits has been another example.

None of the countries in the developed world have a financially viable universal healthcare system except Switzerland.

A few years ago I learned about “Mechanism Design.”  My first reaction was “what is that?”

Leoid Hurwicz, Roger Meyerson and Eric Maskin received a Nobel Prize was  for this economic theory in 2007.

Mechanism Design is a brilliant economic theory. If the theory was applied to the healthcare system it could solve much the system’s dysfunction.

When I wrote about Mechanism Design I felt that few people understood it.  

What is it?  Mechanism Design is the art and science of designing rules of a game to achieve a specific outcome, even though each participant may have a separate vested self-interest.

The design of the game is to align all the stakeholders’ vested self-interests.  

 Each stakeholder has an incentive to behave as the game designer intends. The game can then implement the desired outcome.

 The strength of such a result depends on the solution concept used in the game.  

None of the stakeholders’ vested interests are aligned in Obamacare except the vested self-interest of President Obama and his ideology.

The healthcare insurance industry thinks it has President Obama over a barrel.

Some of the hospital systems have figured out that they will be at the mercy of Obamacare.

 Physicians already feel they are at the mercy of President Obama’s ideology.

Medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies have figured out they are dead already. It is only a matter of time until they cannot move. They are working around the system to come back from the dead.  

None of the stakeholder’s vested interests are are aligned. This non-alignment will lead to destruction of the healthcare system.

Mechanism designers commonly try to achieve the following basic outcomes for stakeholders: truthfulness, individual rationality, budget balance, and social welfare.

 With those four outcomes for stakeholders in the healthcare system one could get close to aligning stakeholders incentives.

Lodi Hurwicz’ point is the way to get as close to the most efficient economic outcomes is to design mechanisms in which everyone does best for themselves.

He says this can be achieved by sharing information truthfully (Price Transparency). It is easy to understand that some people can do better than others by not sharing information or lying in the short term. It will not serve all the stakeholders’ vested self-interest in the long term.

If everyone’s incentives are aligned you have a much more efficient economic system.

The example given in the military is defense contracting. If you agree to pay on a cost plus basis you have created incentives for the contractor to be inefficient.  

If you do not you have incentives aligned and truthful information you create the incentive to be overcharged. Most people can do better by not sharing truthful information.

Many have observed that Obamacare has not been transparent or truthful.

If the rules of the game require truthful information you can get close to an efficient market driven solution.

The concept of Pareto efficiency means no one can be made better off without someone becoming worse off.  

Hurwicz observed, as had others, that the dispersion of information was at the heart of the failure of a planned economy.

He observed that the free market economy can get us closer than central planning to incentive compatibility because in the end the consumer can drive the discovery of truthful information

A free market economy is by no means immune to the Pareto efficiency concept.

However, the free market mechanism was far less afflicted than central planning bureaucracy. A consumer driven system serves to force truthfulness.

Empowering consumers is the key to an efficient system. Customers determine success of an enterprise by creating demand. In a transparent environment they can get closer to incentive efficiency. They create the rules of the game for compatible incentive.

How does Mechanism Design relate to the Repairing The Healthcare System?

The rules of the games can align all the stakeholders’ incentives without one stakeholder taking advantage of another.

In our healthcare system everyone is pursuing his vested interest in a game that has rules that do not lead to “incentive compatibility.”

Some politicians think central planning will straighten out the rules. Historically, central planning has not worked. These Nobel Prize winners in economics have proven this fact.

A  consumer driven healthcare system using the ideal medical saving account. Will be a good start in achieving alignment of all the stakeholders.

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:

Government Is The Problem Not The Solution

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

The government has been attempting to take over the healthcare system since 1935 at the time of the Roosevelt administration.

The government took over the healthcare system 30 years later during the Lyndon Johnson administration. LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid. It turned out that financial projections were faulty and the business model was defective.

Medicare and Medicaid provided medical care for the elderly and the poor at an affordable price at that time. Everyone loved it. At the time it was also affordable for the government.

I do not think anyone contemplated the healthcare inflation that occurred as a result of the government’s business model.

Inflationary pressure increased rapidly.

Finally, President Reagan said the government could not afford the increasing prices any more. He said enough is enough. He decreased provider (hospital, doctors, pharmaceutical company, and insurance company) reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid services.

The reduction in reimbursement for services resulted in price shifting increases in reimbursement in the private sector.

Both the private sector and the public sector experienced increased inflationary pressure as a result of this maneuver.

It was clear by 1984 that Medicare and Medicaid were unsustainable long term.  

America did not have a free market healthcare system before Obamacare. It was a hybrid system.

The country already had 90 million Americans in a single-payer system. Ninety million Americans get coverage from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration systems.

The problem is these government controlled single-payer systems did not work efficiently. They were financially unsustainable.

Obamacare expands the single party payer system to eventually cover all Americans. Obamacare simply adds on to an existing unsustainable healthcare.   Raising taxes is not going to make it more sustainable.

The expanded bureaucracy will only make the system more inefficient and more prone to fraud and abuse.

President Obama is already modifying the law without congressional approval. He is trying to hide elements of this unsustainability from the American public.

The federal government’s Obamacare enrollment system www.Healthcare.gov alone has already cost taxpayers about $2.1 billion dollars according to a Bloomberg government analysis of contracts related to the project.”

The website is still not working perfectly at the backend after spending $2.1 billion dollars.

Americans will experience more of the www.healthcare.gov dysfunction after the mid term elections.  

Navigator companies hired to help people enroll cost $48 a session. These companies are increasing their prices for the 2015 enrollees.

 

These same companies have had their fraud and abuse exposed. Nevertheless they have been rehired at the increased price by the Obama administration.

President Obama announced to Democrats last spring that Obamacare would not be an issue at the time of the midterms.

This week the administration also announced that the cost of healthcare insurance through the health insurance exchanges is decreasing next year.

It was also announced that there is an increase in the choice of insurance carriers in most states resulting in competitive premium pricing and lower premiums.

President Obama announced that Obamacare is working. He said Obamacare is a non issue in the 2014 mid term elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If our elected officials cannot see President Obama’s trick play how can the public expect to understand the deception?

This is another of the manipulations of Obamacare designed to hide its impending failure from the public.  

The Obama administration set up a reinsurance company funded by taxpayers that eliminates any insurance risk the healthcare insurance companies might incur in insuring enrollees.

Healthcare insurance companies are signing up and competing for market share to gain profit from this no risk insurance. They can easily afford to lower the premiums because the government will cover their supposed loses.

None of this has anything to do with patient care or the quality of patient care.

It has little to do with providing low cost insurance. The cost of insurance keeps increasing. The government pays the difference between the cost of insurance and what patients who receive subsidies pay for their premiums.

Obamacare misses the main problems in the healthcare system. Obamacare creates more dysfunction in the healthcare system.

 Obamacare will result in greater unfunded future liabilities.

White House spin pretends otherwise, but the unfunded liabilities may exceed $100 trillion.”

 The Congressional Budget Office said,

 “Looking indefinitely into the future, the unfunded liability, with optimistic assumptions, is $43 trillion—almost three times the size of today's economy.”

Based on more plausible assumptions, such as those reflected in the "alternative" scenario for Medicare produced by the Congressional Budget Office in June 2012, the long-term shortfall is more than $100 trillion.

It is the responsibility of our elected officials control America’s expenditures.

Unfortunately, for American’s, this is not how a government controlled system works.

Voters must decide how long they are going to tolerate this abuse of power.

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



Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578555461959256572

 

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

Permalink:

Obamacare: Its Failure Increases

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

C-Span has provided the public with important lessons on how our government is really run by televising various congressional committee meetings.

The traditional mainstream media provides us with little of the important information that comes out of these committee meetings.

C-Span’s coverage has revealed how inefficient, political and bureaucratic our government is.

Americans should elect representatives to be our spokesmen. Our representatives should do what is right for us and not for the vested interests of various special interest groups.

The latest information about Obamacare has not been reported in the media but came out in committee.

The Obama administration had announced publicly to a subcommittee in April 2014 that its "risk corridor" plan would be revenue neutral.

In English, it means that there would be no extra taxpayer dollars available to cover the losses of the healthcare insurance companies. Those healthcare insurance companies insure enrollees through the government’s healthcare insurance exchanges.

Chet Burrell, head of Maryland insurer CareFirst told Valarie Jarrett this plan would result in premium increases of 20% or more later this year as Obamacare policies come up for renewal. 

He warned it would be "an unwelcome surprise" to the Democratic Party and Democrats running for reelection in November.

The Obama administration was very concerned about a 20% premium increase for enrollees in Obamacare. After a while, Ms. Jarrett assured Mr. Burrell the insurance industry would get 80% of the subsidy (bailout) they sought.

The 80% was granted by executive order without congressional approval. A few weeks later the healthcare insurance industry bailout was changed to almost 100% of the request with little notice from anyone.

The government guarantee affects all of the enrollees in Obamacare. It also permits the increase in private insurance plans.

There are 50 million people on Medicare, 65 million people on Medicaid, 9 million in the VA system, 7.3 million in Obamacare and an additional 149 million for employer-provided healthcare insurance.

It turns out that Obamacare is just another government subsidy program with the government throwing more money at the health care insurance industry while the healthcare insurance industry raises the premiums.

President Obama, by executive order, has created an unlimited Obamacare reinsurance program covering the healthcare insurance industry’s supposed losses.

According to some, the total subsidy to the healthcare insurance industry is $1.3 trillion dollars.

It’s no surprise that many more healthcare insurance companies are planning to participate in President Obama’s health insurance exchanges.

If a healthcare insurance company sells insurance without risk it is a great deal. Taxpayers are assuming the risk for the insurance companies. Some insurance companies are decreasing their rate to capture a larger market share. They will  cash in on the Obamacare subsidy.

This subsidy is a mistake. It adds little value in improving the nation’s health. President Obama does not seem to care about how much money he is wasting.

It is all about politics. 

The subsidy adds much political value to Obamacare because it postpones the 20% premium increase at this midterm election.

Bob Laszewski, a policy wonk and former insurance executive said,

 “The administration has succeeded in temporarily suppressing incipient Obamacare price hikes, contributing to an illusion of Obamacare sustainability.”

However, the healthcare insurance industry is finding it necessary to increase premiums an additional twenty percent despite the tremendous subsidies. This is the result of the enrollees who acquired insurance but did not pay the premiums and used the services and the terrible demographic distribution of enrollees who paid their premium.  Eighty-five percent of the people who paid premiums were high risk patients with pre-existing illnesses. 

The rules of Obamacare have turned out to be totally improvised. The Obama administration changes the contents of the law in order to keep it afloat without the approval of congress.

The plot thickens. A challenge is in the courts right now on whether the government health insurance exchanges are allowed to provide subsidies to enrollees.

The law specifically states that tax credits are only available through the state health insurance exchanges and not the federal health exchange.

Funny things are going on in the courts. One panel said yes, the subsidies may be provided by the federal health insurance exchanges. The D.C. panel of three judges said no.

Attorney General Holder appealed to the D.C. court of appeals. He wanted the judgment determined by the entire panel of 9 judges not a subpanel of 3 judges.  The 3 judges’ decision was overruled by the 9 judge panel.

I still do not understand how tax credits are given to people who do not earn enough to apply a tax credit to their income tax. Why do they receive a subsidy? They pay no federal income tax.

I hope Americans wake up soon to the fact that Obamacare is deeply flawed and cannot work. The only thing that will overturn it will be an overwhelming taxpayer protest.

This midterm election cycle is a good place for voters to start. A Republican majority of the senate might be able to stop Obamacare in its tracks.   

  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:

Keeping Obamacare’s Failures Out Of The News

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

The Obama administration has tried its best to keep Obamacare’s failures away from the people. However, it has been almost as difficult as putting toothpaste back in the tube. The reasons are clear to me.

People are paying attention now because most are personally affected by the failures of Obamacare.

These failures along with President Obama’s other policy failures such as the IRS scandal, Benghazi scandal, Fast and Furious, border control failures, immigration failures, foreign policy failures, NSA privacy intrusions and his lying about those intrusions, attempts at Internet takeover, and unconstitutional unilateral changing of laws through executive orders have lead the American people to lose confidence and trust in whatever President Obama and the Obama administration say.

The traditional mass media has tried mightily to protect President Obama. They have tried to help him keep Obamacare’s failures out of the news.

They have been unsuccessful. If our only source for news was the traditional news media we could be fooled.

Americans must work to stay informed in order to maintain our freedoms.

I will list some of Obamacare’s failures of the last few months.

These failures have had little coverage in the traditional media.  Obamacare has continued to move forward to hobble and then destroy the medical care system in America.

President Obama’s goal is to prove that a free market healthcare system does not work. He has disregarded the fact that the healthcare system is not a free market system.

In a recent blog I presented the reasons for physicians’ discontent with Obamacare.

Survey of Physicians And Their Discontent

In July 2014 the “Physicians Foundation” published a survey sent to 660,000 physicians. Twenty thousand physicians completed the survey.

“Forty-six percent of doctors give President Obama's healthcare law a "D" or an "F," according to a new survey from the Physicians Foundation. In contrast, just 25 percent of those surveyed gave the law an "A" or a "B."

A large number of physicians complained about the vast new bureaucracy that has been added to the medical profession.

A physician comment read, "I'm a Canadian physician practicing in the United States. The politicians and policy makers need to understand that government involvement in healthcare never works."

The only newspaper that reported the survey to my knowledge was the Washington Examiner.

Enrollment Failures

President Obama and his administration are playing a numbers game with the enrollment figures. His March 31,2014 figures were inaccurate. The figures were grossly inflated.

President Obama said on March 31st, "this thing is working” successfully. President Obama claimed that 8 million enrolled in Obamacare.

“At a hearing Thursday September 18, 2014 at House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Marilyn Tavenner, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, finally confessed that 7.3 million were enrolled in ObamaCare plans as of mid-August.”

The 7.3 million figure is also fiction. At least 115,000 additional enrollees have not validated their citizenship or legal status.  The validation must be completed by September 30,2014.

An additional 360,000 could lose their Obamacare subsidies because of discrepancies over their income. Eighty-five percent of the enrollees are receiving government subsides for healthcare coverage.

Most do not pay taxes because they make less than forty thousand dollars a year. They will not be able to afford the overpriced premiums.  

How many of the 8 million have not continued to pay the premiums? No one knows or is telling. Enrollees have a three-month grace period.

California reported in late August that an additional 100,000 of those who enrolled through its state-run exchange were at risk of losing their coverage over citizenship issues.

By my calculations less than three million of the forty-eight (48) million people who were uninsured pre Obamacare became insured. An additional 7 million people lost their healthcare insurance in the individual market.

President Obama provided the American public with a grossly overestimated enrollment figure.

Ms. Tavenner had to put a positive spin on this latest revelation of the fictional enrollment numbers by saying,

 "We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums."

No one is buying this explanation.

She didn't provide answers to important details for these latest enrollment figures.

  • How many who dropped out were young and healthy?
  • How many have signed up through the so-called special enrollment process?
  • How many are keeping up with premiums?
  • How sturdy are the back-office computer programs in order to detect enrollment misinformation?
  • How will the government collect the money due to it from these non-paying enrollees?
  • Is the November 15th open enrollment period going to go smoothly?

 

Next Open Enrollment Disaster

It is easy to see that President Obama has delayed the open enrollment time from October 15th to November 15th for political reasons. He wants the potential disaster to occur after the mid-term elections.

 Kevin Counihan, the former chief executive of Access Health CT, Connecticut’s online marketplace, was just named head of the insurance marketplaces for the federal government.

 He said, “Part of me thinks that this year is going to make last year look like the good old days.”

 The front end of the web site looks like it will run smoothly. The back end of the web site still needs work. The government is still trying to see if the links to the IRS, the healthcare insurance industry and social security are functioning properly.

There were not enough healthy young subscribers to keep the insurance rates low. The premiums were too high for many young and healthy uninsured people.

This year the healthcare insurance premiums will be up at least 20%. Healthcare insurers fear it could be even more difficult to sign up young healthy people than it was last year.

Adding to the problem is that the sign up period for choosing a new policy this year will be shorter than last. It will be 3 months instead of six months.

President Obama will probably break the law again and extend the signup period an additional 3 months.

This year it should be more difficult to receive subsidies than last year.

People will drop out of the pool because of the increase in insurance rates. The renewal procedure has not been worked out yet.

Andrew Slavitt, principal deputy administrator for Medicare said they are working hard to make the process as easy as possible.

“We’re putting in place the simplest path for consumers this year to renew their coverage.” 

 This is another Obamacare smokescreen.

I predict it will be a price disaster.

Obamacare And Zeke Emanuel Setting Us Up For Rationing

One of the most bizarre articles imaginable was Zeke Emanuel’s article in the Atlantic Monthly  “Why I Hope to Die at 75”

Dr. Emanuel, one of Obamacare’s authors, gives all the reasons why he doesn’t want to live past 75 years old.

His argument is why should you live longer since you probably are not useful to society.

You have contributed all you are going to contribute. After 75 years old affliction will accumulate and disabilities will make life less pleasant.

It is apparent to me that he is setting us up for government rationing of healthcare for seniors.

The government controls Medicare. It is cheaper for the government not to pay for procedures such as hip replacements, knee replacements, for coronary artery surgery or cardiac pacemakers. All these procedures will extend the life of seniors over 75 years old who need them.

We have also heard rumors that this bureaucratic thinking is already in progress.

Don’t we live in a free country?

Isn’t it up to individuals to make their own life decisions? 

Should we leave these decisions up to the government and bureaucrats?

Should they decide our choose of treatment for us?

 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:

I Am Not The Only One

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Readers ask if I think practicing medicine is becoming more difficult because of Obamacare.

 My answer has been it is becoming impossible to practice medicine. The overwhelming bureaucratic rules and regulations are becoming too difficult to understand and even harder to execute.

Patients will suffer the most because of the disappearance of a physician-patient relationship. Patients are being converted from patients to commodities.

Why don’t more physicians protest? Why don’t they describe their problems in the age of Obamacare?”

There are complex reasons that there has not been an organized physician outcry.

Organized medicine (AMA) and other organizations representing specialties in medicine and surgery are afraid to lead an outcry. Their main goal is to not lose their seat at the table.

This is strange goal. Politicians and their health policy advisers have ignored organized medicine for the last 50 years. Many smart physicians in or out of these organizations have tried to have their voice heard but have failed.

Since Medicare was passed (the last 50 years) there have been many outrageous changes proposed by non-physicians The healthcare policy changes were proposed to decrease the increasing cost of healthcare. Instead these changes have increased the cost of care.

Slide2

 

The politicians and healthcare policy advisers are always changing the wrong policies. They are always putting more power into the government bureaucrats and healthcare industry’s hands rather that putting power into the patients’ hands.

Physicians who have seen these policy changes work out for their benefit are hesitant to participate in an Obamacare protest. These physicians assume Obamacare will also work out well for them

However, physicians do not realize that their intellectual property and surgical skills have been devalued with each of the present changes in healthcare policy.

In a 2006 blog I described how to cook a frog without the frog jumping out of the pot water. Everyone knows that you increase the temperature of the water one degree at a time. When the frog realizes what is going on he is too weak to jump out.

Obamacare has increased the temperature of the water to an intolerable level. At present few frogs have the energy to jump out of the water.

Most of the changes in Obamacare are going hurt patients by decreasing access to care and rationing of care. The physician/patient relationship has also been destroyed.

Dr. Mark Sklar, a Clinical Endocrinologist in Washington D.C., had enough energy to jump out of the hot water. He launched his protest in an excellent article and got the attention of the editors of the WJS.

My hope is Dr. Sklar’s article will launch a consumer protest demanding that a change be made from Obamacare to a healthcare system that will empower consumers.

The new healthcare system should be a consumer driven healthcare system that puts consumers in control of their health and healthcare dollars. The control of the healthcare system should not be in the government’s or the healthcare insurance industry’s hands.

A consumer driven healthcare system should provide incentives to consumers to remain healthy, and provide financial reward if they do. It should also make shopper of consumers.

A consumer driven healthcare system will drive the other stakeholders into a competitive mode to vie for the business of the consumer.

The financial reward should be for consumers, not to the healthcare insurance industry, government, hospital systems or physicians.

I want to echo Dr. Sklar’s protest. I will try to help Dr. Sklar  make his article  a wake up call for consumers.

Consumers are the only stakeholders that can turn the destruction of the medical system around.

Consumers elect politicians. Politicians like the advantages and perks they receive from their elected positions. Politicians are afraid of the consumers that vote to reelect politicians. They will comply with their voters demands.

Below is Dr. Sklar’s article listing most of the issues that are making the delivery of healthcare very difficult.

"Doctoring in the Age of ObamaCare"

"Endlessly entering data or calling for permission to prescribe or trying to avoid Medicare penalties—when should I see patients?

MARK SKLAR M.D., FACE

Sept. 11, 2014 7:35 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/articles/mark-sklar-doctoring-in-the-age-of-obamacare-1410478521

‘It has been four years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, so I thought it may be useful to provide the perspective of a physician providing daily medical care. I am an endocrinologist in Washington, D.C., and have been in solo private practice for 17 years after seven years at an academic institution. Since 1990, the practice of medicine has changed significantly, seldom for the better.

In the 1990s insurance companies developed managed-care plans that greatly increased their profits at the expense of the physician. With the Affordable Care Act, we are seeing new groups profiting from changes to the health-care system. Entrepreneurs and hospital executives are capitalizing on organizing physicians into groups called Accountable Care Organizations from which they will take a very substantial percentage of collected income. Now that physicians are being required to use electronic medical records, the companies that develop them are harvesting money from physicians' practices and from hospitals.

The push to use electronic medical records has had more than financial costs. Although it is convenient to have patient records accessible on the Internet, the data processing involved has been extremely time consuming—a sentiment echoed by most of my colleagues. To save time, I was advised by a consultant to enter data into the electronic record during the office visit. When I tried this I found that typing in the data was disruptive to the patient visit. My eyes were focused on the keyboard and the lack of direct contact kept patients from opening up and discussing their medical and personal problems. I soon returned to my old method of dictating notes and pasting a print-out of the dictation into the electronic record.

Barrier between patient and physician
 David Klein

Barrier between Patient and Physician

Yet to avoid future financial penalties from Medicare, I must demonstrate "meaningful use" of the electronic record. This involves documenting that I covered a checklist of items during the office visit, so I spend 90 minutes each day entering mostly meaningless data. This is time better spent calling patients to answer questions or keeping updated with the medical literature.

If electronic records ever allow physicians to obtain data from previous laboratory and imaging testing, it will improve costs and patient care. So far, however, the data in electronic records—like paper charts—can't be shared unless physicians work in the same health-care system.

My practice quickly adopted the new Medicare requirements for electronically prescribing medications. Yet patients often do not want their prescription sent electronically. They want a physical copy—either because they don't trust the Internet or because they don't need to fill the prescription immediately. If I don't electronically prescribe for a certain number of Medicare patients, I am penalized with a decrease in reimbursement that can rise to a maximum of 5%. Patients should have a choice in how their prescriptions are delivered, and physicians shouldn't be penalized for how the patients choose.

To prevent physicians from prescribing more costly medications and tests on patients, insurers are increasingly requiring physicians to obtain pre-authorizations. This involves calling a telephone number, often being rerouted several times and then waiting on hold for a representative. The process is demeaning and can take 30-45 minutes. Rather than having physicians pre-authorize expensive medications, the outrageous costs of many non-generic medications must be addressed. I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make profits to cover investments in drug development. However, they should have some compassion for their customers.

To avoid Medicare penalties, I also must participate in the Physician Quality Reporting System program. Initially, this involved choosing three codes during the patient visit to reflect quality of care, such as blood pressure or blood-sugar control, and reporting them to Medicare. In 2015, the requirement will increase to nine codes.

Coming down the pike, but thankfully postponed from the October 2014 deadline, is something called ICD-10. This is a newer system that will contain about 70,000 medical diagnostic codes used for billing insurance. The present ICD-9 system has about 15,000 codes. The Physician Quality Reporting System and ICD-10 requirements are intended to benefit population research, but the effect is to turn physicians into adjuncts of the Census Bureau who spend time searching for codes—and to further decrease the amount of direct contact with patients.

The practice of medicine in the current environment is unsustainable. The multiple bureaucratic distractions in my day consume so much time that I have to give up what little personal time I have in the morning, evening and on weekends if I want to continue to provide excellent care during office hours.

If high-quality medical care is the goal, the bureaucracies need to be tamed. Our government and insurance companies understandably want to measure outcomes of health-care dollars spent. However, if the health-care system rewards data entry, that is what it will get—the quality of care seems an afterthought.

The patient should be the arbiter of the physician's quality of care. Contrary to what our government may believe, the average American has the intellectual capacity to judge. To give people more control of their medical choices, we should move away from third-party payment. It may be more prudent to offer the public a high-deductible insurance plan with a tax-deductible medical savings account that people could use until the insurance deductible is reached. Members of the public thus would be spending their own health-care dollars and have an incentive to shop around for better value. This would encourage competition among providers and ultimately lower health-care costs.

By contrast, the Affordable Care Act's plans for establishing "medical homes"—a team-based health-care delivery model—and accountability-care organizations will only add more bureaucracy and enrich the consultants and companies organizing these entities.

To improve quality, we need to unchain health-care providers from the bureaucracies that are strangling them fiscally and temporally. We can better control medical costs if we strengthen physicians' relationships with their patients rather than with their computers.”

“Dr. Sklar is an assistant professor of medicine at the Georgetown University Medical Center and at the George Washington University Medical Center.”

I hope all the consumers of healthcare can feel the pain physicians are experiencing in delivering care on their patients behalf because of Obamacare.

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:

When Will We Ever Learn

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

When will President Obama ever learn?

His ideology blinds him to the facts. I vividly remember him telling John Kerry and Barney Frank not to worry about not having a Public Option.

Barney Frank said we need a Public Option for the Affordable Care Act to work. The only way Obamacare could work is by ending up with a single-payer system.

 

 

President Obama had a clandestine “Public Option” built into Obamacare.  

Progressives believe deeply in their ideology. They do not consider past history, present reality or facts. 

All progressives have to do is look at what is happening to socialized medicine all over the developed western world.

It is failing even as some people believe it is succeeding.

 The Commonwealth Fund (a private progressive foundation) with a focus on healthcare is certain that a single party payer system is the only viable healthcare system.

The report ranked healthcare systems throughout the developed western world.  In its published ranking the National Health Service of Great Britain was considered the best medical system among the 11 of the world's mostadvanced nations, including Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden.

 The United States came in last.

 Few have the time or patience to read the complete report or pick out the defects in the study.

Most people reads the summary. The summary in this study is not close to the evidence presented.

 

The Commonwealth Fund’s rankings of countries are contradicted by objective data about access and medical-care quality in these countries in peer-reviewed academic journals.

The Commonwealth Fund’s methodology is defective. Its conclusions relied heavily on subjective surveys about "perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians."

Kenneth Thorpe made an important point by examining differences in disease prevalence and treatment rates for ten of the most costly diseases between the United States and the ten European countries with a single payer system.

He used surveys of the non-institutionalized population age fifty and older. Disease prevalence and rates of medication and treatment are much higher in the United States than in these European countries.

Why would that be?

There are many reasons for this finding. The main one is the availability of care in the United States compared to the ten socialized western countries.

Another is lifestyle and incidence of obesity in the United States. Both lead to the onset of chronic disease and increased treatment.

 “Efforts to reduce the U.S. prevalence of chronic illness should remain a key policy goal.”

“Americans are diagnosed with and treated for several chronic illnesses more often than their European counterparts are.”

Americans diagnosed with heart disease receive treatment with medications and procedures more frequently than patients in Western Europe.

In the past local peer review was all that was needed along with confidence in the treating physician’s judgment. This confidence in physicians’ judgment has been destroyed by excessive media sensationalism. The real percentage of abuse is small and easily discoverable by peers and the use of the new social media.

Cancer treatment survival rates in America are far greater than the survival rates in Britain, and countries in western Europe.

The reasons for the higher cure rates are the availability of early detection and treatment.

Cancer treatment costs are high. The government should look into the reasons for this high cost and try to lower the cost.

The Commonwealth Fund’s report does not consider any of these factors.

The NHS has a waiting list of 3.2 million people for admission to the hospital. In London alone over 500,000 patients are on a waiting list for diagnosis and treatment.

A large percentage of patients triaged as urgent after being diagnosed with suspected cancer have a 62-day wait time to receive therapy.

The British Health and Social Care Act 2012 authorized the use of the small private sector of healthcare to help the NHS with its problems.

The share of NHS-funded hip and knee replacementsby private doctors increased to 19% in 2011-12, from a negligible amount in 2003-04. Each year there is an increase in NHS funded care by the private sector.

It sounds like the VA Healthcare System’s solution to its problems.

Englishmen who can afford private care and private healthcare insurance to avoid the NHS are switching to private insurance even though they have to pay $3,500 for each man, woman and child in a family into the NHS.

The single party payer system (NHS) is struggling with unsustainable costs even though we hear from progressives how great socialized medicine is in England.

The key ingredient missing in all these systems is patient responsibility for their health and their healthcare dollars. Both are powerful motivators to healthy living and detecting disease early.

There are big problems in Canada that have been undisclosed in the United States.

There were two articles in American newspapers in 2011 that applaud the Canadian system.

 Article 1. Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post                                                                                                                         

Article 2. Everything you ever wanted to know about Canadian health care in one post. Washington Post

Both articles are opinion articles and lack concrete evidence. The articles contain both misinformation and disinformation.  

The Fraser Institute is a well-respected Canadian think tank. Its research is considered accurate with a libertarian slant.

Its 2011 report contradicts the statistics in these articles on the Canadian government healthcare costs.

 Article 1. “Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's.”

Article 2.  “In 2009, Canada spent 11.4 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, which puts it on the slightly higher end of OECD countries.”

This is not true according to the Fraser report. Six of ten Canadian provinces are on track to spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the Frazer Institute. To be specific, in 2011, health care spending consumed 50% GDP in Canada’s two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

“Total federal, provincial and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1 percent annually, while the national GDP in Canada rose by only 6.7 percent during the same period.”

 The provincial governments have raised taxes and rationed care, while increasing patient wait times.  

“Provincial drug plans have also more often refused to pay for most of the drugs that are certified as “safe and effective” by Health Canada.”

“Unsustainable rates of growth in health care spending crowd out the resources available for other purposes including education, public safety, and economic growth-enhancing tax relief,”

One has only to think about the Obama administration’s initial propaganda and the stunning reality we are facing presently.

The VA is now asking for additional funding to clear up the disaster.

The problem is entitlements are too expensive for a government.  Entitlements do not work because governments cannot legislate behavior by directives. Individuals must be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

The other problem is government entitlement programs generate a large bureaucracy. The bureaucracy stimulates the development of inefficiencies and corruption. The new bureaucracy practically guarantees failure of the entitlement.

The Government can help people be responsible for their health with incentive programs.

 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:

Three Very Big Deals

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Three very big deals occurred with to Obamacare the last few months that have received very little traditional media coverage. There has been sparse traditional media coverage of the significance of these three issues to the future of Obamacare.

It looks like the Obama administration is losing its ability to freeze, marginalize  and scandalize its opposition to gain public approval of President Obama’s agenda.

Obamacare and all of its lawless modifications are negatively affecting all the stakeholders who thought they would be better off with Obamacare.

This includes the indigent, middle class workers, the upper class and all the businesses involved in healthcare.

The three issues are: 

1. The D.C. appeals court overturns subsidies given by federal health insurance exchanges.

2. Obamacare application data is wrong for 2 million applicants receiving subsidies.

3. The Obama Administration adds major exemptions to the Obamacare individual mandate.

I will cover each issue in separate blogs. What is common to the three issues is that the Obama administration changes the law passed by congress at its whim  without the consent of congress.

The D.C. Appeals Court Overturns Subsidies From Federal Health Insurance Exchange.

A three judge panel of the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ruled that subsidies may not be offered in the federal health insurance exchanges. The Department of Justice immediately announced it will challenge an appeals court ruling that strikes Obamacare subsidies for millions of americans using HealthCare.gov, the federal health insurance exchange.

The subsidies are critical to the success of Obamacare. Otherwise, Obamacare premiums are unaffordable to people making less than $50,000 per year. There is some debate as to whether the premiums are affordable to people making more than $50,000 per year. 

Obamacare was written to encourage states to set up health insurance exchanges. Many states refused to set up health insurance exchanges. The state governors and congress realized the economic and bureaucratic burden was going to be overwhelming even if the government covers 90% of the costs.

Additionally, states that opted out fear the federal government would have too much control over the states’ rights.

As soon as the Obama administration saw this coming in 2010 after the law was passed, it had the IRS issue a ruling that contradicted the law’s intent.

The IRS rule allows the federal health insurance exchanges to provide subsidies to people buying insurance through the federal health insurance exchanges.

The intent of the law passed bywas that only states could provide tax credits. I have not yet been able to figure out how tax credits can mean tax subsidies.

“ ACA Section 1401 provides that eligible taxpayers may receive income tax credits for the purchase of insurance “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.”

"Section 1311 calls upon states to establish health insurance exchanges. It does not provide for the federal government to create health care exchanges."

"Rather, a separate provision of the act, Section 1321, provides that if a state does not “elect” to create an exchange that meets federal requirements, the federal government shall then “establish and operate” an exchange."

"Thus, under a plain reading of the text, the ACA only provides for tax credits for state-run exchanges, and if states fail to create exchanges, there are no tax credits for insurance bought on a federally run exchange.”

The IRS’s ruling provides that eligible taxpayers may receive tax credits for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans established by states under Section 1311 or by the federal government under Section 1321. The only problem is that this is not consistent with the actual text of the statute passed by congress or the intent of the law.

"Section 1311 expressly requires that an authorized Exchange must be “established by a State.” Section 1304(d) also expressly defines “state” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Later amendments to the PPACA also provide that Exchanges created by territories are to be treated as the equivalent of state-run Exchanges, but there is no such language concerning federally run health insurance exchanges.

There are all sorts of legal arguments on both sides of the issue. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

However, Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and Obamacare architect has repeat over and over again that“states that set up their own health care exchanges would make their residents eligible for subsidies.’” 

Jon Gruber spent a couple of years barnstorming the country warning states that they had to set up their own exchanges, and that failure to do so would cut their residents out of the subsidy pool. This was the intent of Obamacare as stated by the architect of the law.

In a speech Jon Gruber gave in 2012, he delivered both a promise and a threat

"In the law, it says if the states don't provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.”

“ I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.”

“But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”

“ I hope that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they'll do it.”

  

http://youtu.be/LbMmWhfZyEI

Government supplied subsidies are vital to the survival of Obamacare and its accompanying bureaucratic waste.

It should be pretty clear what the intent of the law is. President Obama has been  brazen in changing and enforcing laws to fit his agenda.

It is obvious he is trying to do the same in this case with the IRS ruling that many believe is illegally modifying the intention of the law without the consent of congress.

 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:

It is About Time For Some Common Sense

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Last week I received an email from Paul Teirsten M.D., Chief of Cardiology Scripps Clinic through the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

“APS News (American Physicians and Surgeons News) From: "Teirstein, Paul S. MD" “<Teirstein.Paul@scrippshealth.org>
Date: July 25, 2014 at 1:58:07 PM CDT
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
Subject: MOC Boycott. Send a message to ABIM

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for signing our anti-MOC (maintenance of certification) petition earlier this year. As you know, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has recently added significant time and expense to board certification.

We now have over 17,000 signatures and many compelling comments on the petition.

We are making progress.

ABIM is now under fire with many physician organizations (i.e. ACC, ACP, AACE, AAPS) calling for MOC change.

BUT, since there has still been no meaningful change, many physicians are now boycotting the MOC program. Even if you previously enrolled in MOC, you can pledge to boycott future enrollment.

TO VIEW, AND IF IN AGREEMENT, JOIN A "PLEDGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE," CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nomocvow

 To more easily spread the word, we created: www.nomoc.org

 To consider signing the petition and pledge, go to:

                                   nomoc.org

If you support this cause, please send it to your colleagues and medical staff offices for wider distribution

Physicians for Certification Change (PCC) Paul Teirstein, M.D Chief of Cardiology Scripps Clinic

858 554 9905

  Can MOC be Stopped? Yes It Can!”

 Bravo!! To The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) under the leadership of Jane Orient M.D.

It is about time some medical organizations are fighting back for their practicing physicians and those physicians’ patients from the abuse of the ABIM.

What are the main issues? There are two.

  1. Control Physicians by recertifying physicians in order to maintain quality of care through formal testing every two years.
  2. It is all about economics. It is all about The American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Pediatrics and all the other certifying boards increasing revenue from the fees to be recertified every two years.

The entire medical profession is for improving the quality of care. A problem is the definition of quality care is artificial and poor defined. Most medical care cannot be commoditized. There is no data that proves that recertification improves quality of care.

The present maintenance of certification tests use “memory-based curriculum,” where doctors need to recall endless amount of facts on board exams. This out of date testing method does not test quality of care delivered or physician judgment.

If there is a recertification test it should be open book.

 “With the advent of mobile apps, UptoDate and IBM’s Watson, more medical information than ever is available on demand. Relying on memory, as board exams do, reinforces an antiquated model of care.”

It seems to me the AIBM’s only reason to increase this burden on physicians at this time is to increase its revenue and control physicians’ freedoms.  In studying of IRS form 990 as of 2009 for 24 specialty board examine organizations it is revealed that all the testing board have total assets of $465 million and annual gross receipts total more than $350 million (http://changeboardrecert.com).

The ABIM collected $42.3 million dollars in 2009. It had expenses of $22.8 million dollars in salaries and expenses and another $24 million dollars in other expenses.

The ABIM reported a loss of $4.5 million dollars in 2009.

 The ABIM claims to pay nothing to the physicians who write the test questions.

I think the ABIM needs to be recertified.

The recertification controversy has been going on since 2010. The American Medical Association has gotten an ear full of dissent from its members according to the AMA News. The AMA’s politically correct solution is to study the problem over the last four years.

Nationwide, physicians from a variety of specialties organizations have voiced their views on the pitfalls and merits of Board Recertification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC).  In a recent New England Journal of Medicine physicians had a very negative response to the MOC changes.

Change Boards Recertification survey included all physicians even those physicians who are grandfathered.

As you can see, our polling results are even more telling than those obtained by the New England Journal of Medicine. As our polling includes MOC for all physicians – not only those who are grandfathered – it further supports the need for change.”

“After one year of voting, it's very clear that the vast majority of practicing physicians oppose the current MOC process.

 After thousands of votes, only 1.6% wish to maintain the current system, while 4.7% supported reform and 93.7% voted to abolish the requirements altogether.

 Had this been a political poll, it would be a landslide victory against the current MOC process.

Yet Board leadership continues to ignore the collective voice of the nation's practicing physician.”

How do we fix this problem?

Recertification exams need to be changed to fit current practice paradigms. They must not be punitive. They must be fashioned to encourage continuing medical education and the joy of learning.

The present MOC is punitive. The boards think they are doing a good thing. They are next planning to use recertification for maintenance of licensure therefore making recertification a mandate.

This action in turn will connect to physician reimbursement by Medicare and the Healthcare Insurance Industry. It will also become a requirement for hospital privileges.

There have been special exemptions given to large clinics to let their physicians avoid MOC. Mayo clinic’s physicians and other large clinic are receiving waivers from maintenance of certification. 

This is wrong.

The AIBM and other boards need to recognize the continuing stratification of internal medicine practices.

Hospitalist and ICU specialists are now taking care of hospitalized patients. It cannot be expected that internists in outpatient practices should be facile in the care of an ICU patient.

The increasing bureaucratic demands on internists are increasing with pre-authorizations for drugs, testing and treatments.

They are also faced with buying electronic medical records that have not increased practice efficiency  or met data collection requirements for pay for performance reimbursement.

These mandates consume lots of time. They cost lots of money in an environment in which reimbursement is decreasing. 

Adding preparation time in studying to take a Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination is a burden an additional overhead to physician in private practice.

It is no wonder physicians object to MOC even though that are dedicated to life long learning. 

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) did two things. It sued the American Board of Medical specialties (ABMS) in April 2013.

The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) has filed suit April 23, 2013 in federal court against the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) for restraining trade and causing a reduction in access by patients to their physicians. The ABMS has entered into agreements with 24 other corporations to impose enormous “recertification” burdens on physicians, which are not justified by any significant improvements in patient care.”

The ABMS has been wiggling around technicalities in the lawsuit for over a year as it continues to pursue limiting physicians’ freedoms for ABMS’s own profit.

This is crazy to me as the country is experiencing a physician shortage and many physicians have quit practice because of these burdens.

The Boards are ignoring its constituents’ needs and wishes.

The second thing AAPS is doing is heightening awareness of the tremendous impractical burden the medical specialty boards are imposing on the medical profession.  

The AAPS is asking physicians to sign  “A PLEDGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ABIM’S MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION (MOC)” in the hope of precipitating sensible and common sense change in the MOC.

1. The American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program is onerous and provides little value.

2. There is no data that MOC improves patient outcomes.

3. The MOC modules are irrelevant busywork that reduce physician time for patient care.

4.  MOC is costly for physicians and has become a money-making enterprise for ABIM

5. There is no public demand for MOC.

6. The existing Continuing Medical Education requirements are a preferred approach to life-long learning.

7. To date, despite numerous calls for change, ABIM has not made meaningful changes to the MOC program

Therefore, I pledge not to participate in MOC unless significant changes are made to the program. If I have previously enrolled in MOC, I will boycott future participation unless significant changes are made to the program.

 If you support this pledge, please send it to your colleagues and your hospital medical staff office for distribution.

 Note: We are aware that many who want to sign this pledge are unable because contracts with their hospitals, third party payers etc require MOC. 

 Supported by Physicians for Certification Change 

 To the physicians reading this blog even if you want to support this pledge but are not able to please make your colleagues who can sign the pledge to aware of it and give them the opportunity to support it. 

 Contact: Physicians for Certification Change (PCC) Paul Teirstein, M.D Chief of Cardiology Scripps Clinic

858 554 9905

  Can MOC be Stopped? Yes!

Or sign petition:

 http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nomocvow

 “The way to win a war is not to show up." “Art of War”

All that is needed is a little common sense to Repair the Healthcare System.

Where did common sense go?

 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:

Physicians’ Problems With The Healthcare System

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I must start this article with a disclaimer. I am a retired Clinical Endocrinologist that practiced Clinical Endocrinology for 30 years. I became involved in medical politics because I wanted to help make Clinical Endocrinology a household word. We succeeded at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists to make Endocrinology a household word.

 At that time I saw that the medical profession was slowly being destroyed. I wanted to make whatever contribution I could to save the medical profession in order to preserve the care patients were given and help promote the progress in medical research.

Today I see the delivery of medical care diminishing and the infrastructure of medical care being destroyed by the Obama administration’s ideology coupled by government bureaucrats as well entrepreneurs that see profit in business opportunities that do not add value to medical care.

I do not have a horse in this arena anymore. The only vested interest I have in the healthcare system is that an effective medical care will exist when I need it.

How do we create systems of care that promote high performance? I do not believe it is by a series of top-down highly specific mandates. I believe it is by creating general guidelines for physicians and providing tools to help physicians advance medical therapy using advanced technology.

It boils down to policy makers’ view of physicians.

Are physicians knights to be empowered in their service of patients?

Are physicians knaves not to be trusted?  

Are physicians pawns in a healthcare system to be manipulated by the powers that be?

At present, healthcare policy makers view physicians as knaves and pawns. This view has to change in order to have a functional healthcare system because people behave has you project them to behave.

If the policy makers approached physicians more as knights, physicians would once more behave as knights and not as bitter misanthropes. The result would result in a desire to provide the best possible care for their patients.

The environment is conducive to the destruction of the healthcare system. Barriers that inhibit effective medical care and increase the cost of medical care can easily be overcome if the Obama administration wanted to fix them.

The public and future administrations have to understand the barriers to effective medical care in order for the healthcare system to arrive at a future state that is not on the way to self-destruction.

America’s healthcare system needs a new vision of physicians and patients. The change in vision would result in a new business plan built around a new system of care.

The healthcare systems needs input from physicians and patients. They are the two most important stakeholders in the healthcare system. Without physicians or patients there would not be a need for a healthcare system.

The promotion of a vibrant patient/physician relationship is the keystone to a viable future state of the healthcare system.

I will first list the barriers and then explain them and their solutions in my next blog. Some of the barriers have been covered in previous blogs.  

The barriers to effective and efficient medical care are causing physicians to adjusted in a distorted and destructive way. These barriers are not increasing the quality of medical care they are serving to decrease the quality of medical care.

            Lack Of Malpractice Reform

            Problems Trying to Increase Reimbursement

  • Stripped of Negotiating Clout
  • Turned Into Captives of the Insurance Industry
  • Pressured to Sell Healthcare as a Commodity
  • Pushed to Abandon Clinical Judgment
  • Under Hospitals' Thumb
  • Shunted Aside by Policymakers
  • Shunted Aside by Entrepreneurial Management companies
  • No One Is Advocating for Physicians

The VA Healthcare System is the perfect example of a top down Platonic approach to a healthcare system.  Government bureaucracies have proven over and over again that it does not work.

The American healthcare system needs a bottom up system that is based on empowering physicians to act professionally in the best interest of patients.

The bureaucrats for a top down system should enable a higher level expectation of care from physicians and provide education about the higher level of expectations for patients.

The driver of the healthcare system must be the consumer. The government and physicians must emphasize the consumers’ responsibility in their health, healthcare and medical care.

 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.